The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[mikeledes]

I’ve affirmed that in the post you cite, Mike, and again reaffirm the point of my post to which this post responds: One’s presuppositions are determinative in one’s interpretation of Acts 2:38.

Everyone has presuppositions, even you. Move on.

And you do as well. As for me, I prefer to hold to the understanding that actual Greek speakers (early Church fathers) unanimously held and clearly reflected in respectable translations in English, Spanish, French, and Italian. Since we’re not going to agree, then it is best that we move on.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

For the sake of keeping you from scoring a run I hope you don’t mind if I comment.

Thanks for your post, Ryan, we very obviously have different views concerning baptism; as a reminder, the point of my post to which your post responds is simple: 1 Pet 3:21 does not refer to water baptism.

With respect to the typology you present, IMO, Catholic typology is wildly out of control.

Where the apostles give clear statements to typology, such as Christ and the Passover, circumcision and baptism, Adam and Christ, and so on, I’m in whole-hearted agreement. However, when those without authority to do so, posit typology with abandon, I take it with
a pound of salt, rather than a grain.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

From the CCC:1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: EFFORT at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."I’m not caricaturing anything, CD.

And we don’t believe the same thing—I believe the means for obtaining the forgiveness of sins is faith, and not those efforts listed in the CCC above.

Even if what is listed above is directly from Scripture??
(cf Lk 3:8-14; Lk 11:41; 1 Pt 4:8)

That “effort” is just as much driven by the grace of God as any good work you propose is driven by grace.

 

[sandusky]

Even if what is listed above is directly from Scripture??
(cf Lk 3:8-14; Lk 11:41; 1 Pt 4:8)

Yes, when reading my now dog-earred catechism, I always read the scriptures offered in support of the catechism’s statements. I and don’t find those verses supporting the catechism’s position.

 

[mikeledes]

Even if what is listed above is directly from Scripture??
(cf Lk 3:8-14; Lk 11:41; 1 Pt 4:8)

That “effort” is just as much driven by the grace of God as any good work you propose is driven by grace.

Apparently faith is not a “effort?”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This is seen most clearly in the conversion of Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:44ff), and in Paul’s conversion (Acts 9).

Speaking of Cornelius:
Acts 10 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!” 4Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

22The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.
Cornelius was already justified and a believer when Peter approached him and gave him a more full revelation to accept. Thus, like Abraham, Cornelius was justified multiple times. I would not include this as the same situation as St Paul.

 

[sandusky]

That “effort” is just as much driven by the grace of God as any good work you propose is driven by grace.

I have never denied that the RC gives a “nod” to grace; however, ISTM that putting works under the umbrella of grace and then claiming that it’s grace that saves by works is trickery.

Again: If it’s grace, it’s no longer on the basis of what you do (in any way), otherwise, grace is no longer grace (cf Rom 11:6).

 

[runandsew]

Obedience to all that the Gospel entails.

I am not too bright, could you be a little bit more specific.
What do you mean obedience to all that the Gospel entails?

 

[mikeledes]

Matthew 7:21, 24

21"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Luke 6:46-47

46"Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
47"Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:

Galatians 6:7-9

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. **

John 5:28-29

**28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. **

Romans 2:6-7

**6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; **

There’s that darn “trickery” again.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

runandsew:

I am not too bright, could you be a little bit more specific.

What do you mean obedience to all that the Gospel entails?

Believing in Christ, taking up your cross and following him daily, persevering in faith to the end—all that the Gospel entails.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

There’s that darn “trickery” again.

I’m not referring to the Scriptures as trickery, as there is no trickery in them.

Here is the basis for my opinion:

From the CCC:1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: EFFORT at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity “which covers a multitude of sins.”.

Once more: If it’s grace, it’s no longer on the basis of what you do (in any way), otherwise, grace is no longer grace (cf Rom 11:6).

 

[mikeledes]

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.)

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.”

Just a clarification. Are you now saying that the “branches” are not genuine Christians?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Just a clarification. Are you now saying that the “branches” are not genuine Christians?

I have always maintained that they’re not genuine branches.

In addition, I’ve offered other possibilities, but my basic position is that the elect, in this case, “real branches,” cannot lose their salvation (Jn 10:28ff; Rom 8:28ff, and so on, and so on).

 

[mikeledes]

I’m not referring to the Scriptures as trickery, as there is no trickery in them.

Here is the basis for my opinion:

From the CCC:1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: EFFORT at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity “which covers a multitude of sins.”.

Once more: If it’s grace, it’s no longer on the basis of what you do (in any way), otherwise, grace is no longer grace (cf Rom 11:6).

It clearly states that these things express conversion, the inetrior penance/repentance of the Christian.

Regarding predestination, which is what the passage you refer to is talking about, the Catholic Church teaches the following:

**1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

There it is again: the giving of God’s grace is predicated on your actions.

YES … our faithful actions of pleading for forgiveness. We must go on our knees before the Father, and claim Christ as our only hope of avoiding death sentence for our sins. We tell the Lord we are totally unworthy, we have no possible work that can merit salvation. We are totally at mercy of the Lord.

Now, when we receive God’s grace and salvation … did we EARN it ? NO… its a free gift to us. And we know we did nothing to deserve Eternity and H.S. … except our pleading for mercy and submission to will of Christ.

John the Baptist told those coming out to witness his message and Baptism … that w/o them demonstrating signs/evidence of true repentance, he would not Baptize them. So, wasn’t his baptism ‘predicated’ upon evidence of true repentance ?

Didn’t Christ honor [inspire] the message/works of John ?

Voila, my friend … put 2 & 2 together. It does add up to something we must do to obtain God’s grace. Not fullfilling 10 commandment type law … but, contrition of heart — as evidenced by our words, intentions, beating of breast, sackcloth & ashes if you will.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, when reading my now dog-earred catechism, I always read the scriptures offered in support of the catechism’s statements. I and don’t find those verses supporting the catechism’s position.

Even if it quotes 1 Pt 4:8 verbatim?

Apparently faith is not a “effort?”

God Bless,
Michael

The only alternative is that faith, works, everything are purely passive. They go by right in front of the believer’s face while he (passively) watches there in awe. What they don’t realize is they have severed any connection between human operation and God’s operation, thus they can never say they believed because their own operation has no bearing on God’s operation. If their own operation had any role whatsoever it would destroy the idea that God does literally everything.
For example, any genuine believer should get baptized, yet getting baptized (an outward act) does not mean you are a genuine believer (hidden passive act). So when a Calvinist goes to get baptized the fact is he doesn’t know if it is God leading or his unregenerate person deceiving him.

So, looking at the Protestant understanding of “God Alone,” logically they have no objective grounds to say they ever believed, nor can they know if they are deceived or not. Their own logic comes back to bite them.

The Catholic system does not have this problem because of the belief of objective truth and good and the reality of free will. If you get Baptized that is a objectively good act, in God’s eyes it is always good, and thus someone can point to Baptism as a objective grounds to measure your spiritual growth.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Then why are the wages of sin death? Why does God cause us to sin and then condemn it as if were were responsible for it? Once again, it doesnt quite fit together…

 

[mikeledes]

I have always maintained that they’re not genuine branches.

In addition, I’ve offered other possibilities, but my basic position is that the elect, in this case, “real branches,” cannot lose their salvation (Jn 10:28ff; Rom 8:28ff, and so on, and so on).

You’ve always maintained that the branches were not genuine branches? That’s funny, because in a previous discussion we had on this you said:

**Originally Posted by sandusky **

I doubt that I can prove anything to you, Odell; however, I can explain to you that, while I believe that Jn 15 is talking about the saved Christian life, the “in Me” and “cut off” and “cast away into the fire” is not talking about a loss of salvation.

**Originally Posted by sandusky

The passage is allegorical, and the Lord is not speaking about salvation, at all, but of the relationship His people must have with him to be spiritually fruitful. V 2 may refer to loss of physical life, due to divine chastisement (1 Cor 11:30-32; Pro 15:10; Heb 12:9). V 6 may concern the believer’s works being appraised by the Lord and the unacceptable ones being burned, or rejected **(1 Cor 3:15; cf Jn 15:16).

Distancing oneself from Christ will result in barrenness, and perhaps a final cutting off as chastisement; :

As I stated a few posts back, failure to “abide in Christ” will result in barrenness, and obviously, a lack of bearing fruit, and that, for a time, I would add; however, it never results in complete rejection.

With respect to v6, it is a “man,” singular who is thrown away, “as a branch” and then the number of the pronouns change; IOW, the man is thrown away as a branch, and “they gather them, and cast them into the fire.” Those are the works of the man/branch that are gathered and thrown away, not the man/branch itself, IMO (cf 1 Cor 3:15).

You essentially held to the same view held by moondweller, namely, that the fruitless branches and those that did not abide were genuine Christians and that the fire was not a reference to hell, which is a fundamentally different interpretation proposed by Matthew Henry (that the “fruitless branches” are not genuine Christians and that the fire is a reference to hell.) While it is true that in both cases you believe that it is not about loss of salvation, it would be inaccurate to say that you always believed that they were not genuine branches.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have never denied that the RC gives a “nod” to grace; however, ISTM that putting works under the umbrella of grace and then claiming that it’s grace that saves by works is trickery.

Again: If it’s grace, it’s no longer on the basis of what you do (in any way), otherwise, grace is no longer grace (cf Rom 11:6).

That passage is talking about election, we never deserved to be given a chance, but that passage in no way precludes personal acts following your election (as the ‘breaking off of branches’ proves later in the chapter).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have always maintained that they’re not genuine branches.

In addition, I’ve offered other possibilities, but my basic position is that the elect, in this case, “real branches,” cannot lose their salvation (Jn 10:28ff; Rom 8:28ff, and so on, and so on).

Speaking on John 10:28, I will quote Jimmy Akin:
** John 10:27-28 (Snatch them out)

** Finally, in John 10:27-28, Jesus did say: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”

I would like to quote the great Baptist theologian Dale Moody on this verse. In his systematic theology, The Word of Truth, he states:
“John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28 . . . hardly needs explanation . . . ‘My sheep keep on hearing my voice, and I keep on knowing them, and they keep on following me: and I “keep on giving” them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.’ Some read the passage as if it says: ‘My sheep “heard” my voice, and I “knew” them, and they “followed” me, and I “gave” to them eternal life.’ [But] The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.” (Moody, 357)
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/LOSS.htm