The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[BRB]

Apparently faith is not a “effort?”

God Bless,
Michael

Good point …

The ‘hardest work’ I’ve ever done in my life was conquering my pride & fighting off satan long enough to make my covenant to the Lord.

And, w/o God’s help in the matter … I would never of won that battle, and been utterly defeated.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

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:

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.

Oh no! It would seem that you’ve found something indicating that I’ve changed my position!

Take me out and stone me!

If you look further back in that thread you’ll find me stating with respect to Jn15, and I paraphrase as I haven’t looked for it, that there are verses of such strength and magnitude that they must be favored over those that are obscure. If memory serves me right, those verses are found in Jn 10, Rom 8.

Go look that up.

My basic position remains the same, as I stated in the post that compelled you on your quest to prove that I possess the ability to change my mind.

The elect, those God justifies, will never perish.

Forgive me the apparent inconsistency, however, I think that publishing my “Retractiones,” in light of Augustine already using that title, would not be in keeping with my opinion of my own worth.

(Besides, all I have to do is back you into a corner on another topic, and to get the light off yourself, you’ll do the work of my retractions for me).

 

[sandusky]

Apparently faith is not a “effort?”

Why do you jump to that conclusion?

Faith is hard work; however, it’s not hard enough to save, only Christ could do that work.

And He did.

 

[Philthy]

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?

 

[BRB]

Its been a rough inning for the Protestants. Having picked up on their signals — Catholics now up by 2 runs, with a man on 2nd.

:tiphat:

 

[Philthy]

Robertson’s conclusion is that one’s understanding of baptism—whether they believe it remits sins or not—will determine their interpretation of the passage. I agree with him.

Fair enough. His longwinded claim is that Scripture alone is ambiguously inadequate - correct? He does not claim that God’s inspired word here - in and of itself - clarifies the issue. And he admits that the only reason he reaches the interpretation he does is because he already had formed an opinion regarding what baptism accomplishes. You find that helpful?

The pattern is Repent, Believe in the name of Jesus, be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (and all that name entails).

You continue to dodge the basic issue of WHY baptism is relevant. You remain lost in linguistic ambiguites which your big gun admits results in a tie. Please give us one good reason why baptism matters. Christ never bound his Apostles to anything irrelevant. Baptism as I understand you to mean it seems irrelevant to me. But perhaps you have thought of something I have not. And please dont insult us with speculations entirely unsupported by Scripture such as a “public display of faith” - we all know that the Eunich said to Philip “Look, here’s some water - whynot get baptized?” Philip didnt stop and say, “Because there is no public to profess to” Anyhow, have you any reasonable idea why Christ would “order” us to be baptized if it actually does nothing?

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

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

That is indeed what the tenses indicate, and indeed what the sheep and the Shepherd will do: continuous action.

Thank you for your support of my position, CD.

Defense of efficacious grace…Also, it is effective because God cannot fail. In the sequence involving those whom God calls in Romans 8:29-30, none are lost. The same ones God foreknows He also predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies. God loses none in the process. The text is clear in emphasizing, “whom He called, these He also justified.” The very ones God called by His grace were also justified, indicating that the efficacious grace was effective in every person whom God called…

Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989;
p 337

(* underline mine).

Perseverance. Those whom God has saved can neither totally nor finally fall away from grace but shall persevere to the end and be eternally saved.

Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989;
p 478

And I give unto them eternal life (kagw didwmi autoiß zwhn aiwnion). This is the gift of Jesus now to his sheep as stated in Jn 6:27, 40 (cf. 1 John 2:25; 1 John 5:11). And they shall never perish (kai ou mh apolwntai). Emphatic double negative with second aorist middle (intransitive) subjunctive of apollumi, to destroy. The sheep may feel secure (John 3:16; John 6:39; John 17:12; John 18:9). And no one shall snatch them out of my hand (kai ouc arpasei tiß auta ek thß ceiroß mou). Jesus had promised this security in Galilee (John 6:37,39). No wolf, no thief, no bandit, no hireling, no demon, not even the devil can pluck the sheep out of my hand. Cf. Colossians 3:3 (Your life is hid together with Christ in God).

Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson; Vol V, p 186.

 

[guanophore]

Why would I have said what I said if I meant something else?

I couldn’t think of anything, but clearly at the end we came out with opposite understandings. The passed thru the sea, were delivered from death via the water, but you say it has nothing to do with water.

You’re taking Peter’s statements out of context, guanophore—that’s very Catholic of you!

No, Peter is talking about water baptism.

The context is those in Noah’s Ark; they were not immersed into water, but were very dry and warm inside the ark.

Yes, but the water was the source of death, just as it is in baptism.

Again, you stray from Peter’s context to something else

No, Peter is talking about water baptism. Peter does not separate it from the work of the Holy Spirit.

Peter is not talking about water baptism, but is using baptism in a different sense, and you say, ”Catholics recognize the many uses of the word baptism,” so recognize that in the context of Peter’s statements, he is not talking about water baptism.

If that is the case, why does he keep mentioning water?

Repentance precedes baptism guanophore—that’s the consistent record of Acts—Repent, believe, be baptized.

Well, we read it differently.

Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-47), as did Paul (Acts 9:17-19).

God used Cornelius to show Peter that, what God had called clean, he should accept. If that is the case with Paul, then why did the prophet tell him “rise, be baptized, washing away your sins” ?

The Holy Spirit does not regenerate through baptism, He regenerates prior to baptism.

I understand this is Reformed Teaching, but it is not consistent with what the Apostles taught, as we see in the above passage about Paul’s baptism.

That’s what baptism signifies, that’s not what it does.

The water does not cleanse the conscience. the HS does.

Paul states that the sign of baptism is the new covenant counterpart to the OT sign of circumcision; neither sign saves anyone. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward reality (cf Acts 9:17-19; 10:44-47).

Well, if you study the history of circumcision, it is clear that the uncircumcised are not considered members of the covenant.

That’s an ordinance as opposed to a sacrament.

I still don’t understand. I asked you if there was a difference between an ordinance and a commandment.

The difference is God gave Israel ordinances, most notably the Passover (Ex 12:14ff); its NT counterpart, the Lord’s Supper, is also, by typology an ordinance, as Paul identifies Christ as “our Passover” (1 Cor 5:70), and not a sacrament. Sacraments are an invention of the Catholic Church.

Well, invention of Jesus actually, but Catholics have preserved them. It is a physical sign through which grace flows.

 

[Philthy]

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, …

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.

“If you dont forgive others their trespasses neither will your Heavenly father forgive you” Matt 6:14

Is forgiving others (which is a for prerequisite for having your own sins forgiven by God) faith? Y, sometimes, N - please choose one.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That is indeed what the tenses indicate, and indeed what the sheep and the Shepherd will do: continuous action.

The point it is it is not a complete action, in other words that act can cease.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

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…

God doesn’t cause you to sin. You do so freely; that’s why you’re responsible for the sins the commit—you commit them freely, and willfully.

Philthy:

Fair enough. His longwinded claim is that Scripture alone is ambiguously inadequate - correct?

Post a quote from my post were Robertson said that, and you’ll have made a point.

Philthy:

He does not claim that God’s inspired word here - in and of itself - clarifies the issue. And he admits that the only reason he reaches the interpretation he does is because he already had formed an opinion regarding what baptism accomplishes. You find that helpful?

He states that, with respect to Acts 2:38, the presupposition of each one reading the Greek (and/or, I would add, the native tongue of each as well), will be the final determiner in his interpretation. (I find that both helpful, and above all, honest).

There’s no shame in saying that a certain passage is difficult in its wording. One has the whole of Scripture to aid in coming to an understanding of a particularly difficult verse.

Bear in mind, Robertson has done this exegetical work on each book of the NT. All of that persuades him to take the position that he does on Acts 2:38.

Philthy:

You continue to dodge the basic issue of WHY baptism is relevant.

Philthy:

Please give us one good reason why baptism matters.

One good reason: Christ said to “make disciples baptizing them.”

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

The point it is it is not a complete action, in other words that act can cease.

You miss Moody’s point. Being a good preacher, Moody preached warnings right alongside grace. Only good preachers do that.

Some quotes from Moody on assurance of salvation."There is no, knowledge like that of a man who knows he is saved, who can look up and see his “title clear to mansions in the skies.”

“But,” a man said to me, “no one has come back, and we don’t know what is in the future. It is all dark, and how can we be sure?” Thank God! Christ came down from heaven, and I would rather have Him, coming as he does right from the bosom of the Father, than any one else. We can rely on what Christ says, and He says, “He that believeth on Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not that we are going to have it when we die, but right here to-day.”

“It is our privilege to know that we are saved.”

“The trouble is, people do not know that Christ is a Deliverer. They forget that the Son of God came to keep them from sin as as well as to forgive it.”( Missed the point, and ignored the statements from the MH of T that pointed that out. Hopefully, you won’t ignore the quotes above).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You miss Moody’s point. Being a good preacher, Moody preached warnings right alongside grace. Only good preachers do that.

Some quotes from Moody on assurance of salvation."There is no, knowledge like that of a man who knows he is saved, who can look up and see his “title clear to mansions in the skies.”

“But,” a man said to me, “no one has come back, and we don’t know what is in the future. It is all dark, and how can we be sure?” Thank God! Christ came down from heaven, and I would rather have Him, coming as he does right from the bosom of the Father, than any one else. We can rely on what Christ says, and He says, “He that believeth on Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not that we are going to have it when we die, but right here to-day.”

“It is our privilege to know that we are saved.”

“The trouble is, people do not know that Christ is a Deliverer. They forget that the Son of God came to keep them from sin as as well as to forgive it.”( Missed the point, and ignored the statements from the MH of T that pointed that out. Hopefully, you won’t ignore the quotes above).

I havn’t read Moody, so I don’t know his views, but that Moody quote says there is no such thing as Eternal Security. And none of these quotes indicate OSAS.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

I havn’t read Moody, so I don’t know his views, but that Moody quote says there is no such thing as Eternal Security. And none of these quotes indicate OSAS.

.

**"There is no, knowledge like that of a man who knows he is saved, who can look up and see his “title clear to mansions in the skies.”

“But,” a man said to me, “no one has come back, and we don’t know what is in the future. It is all dark, and how can we be sure?” Thank God! Christ came down from heaven, and I would rather have Him, coming as he does right from the bosom of the Father, than any one else. We can rely on what Christ says, and He says, “He that believeth on Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not that we are going to have it when we die, but right here to-day.”

“It is our privilege to know that we are saved.”

“The trouble is, people do not know that Christ is a Deliverer. They forget that the Son of God came to keep them from sin as as well as to forgive it.”**

That’s right, you don’t his views, even when they’re boldly put before you.

 

[guanophore]

God’s giving of His grace is predicated upon what you do.

No, God’s giving of His grace is predicated upon nothing but his love. Our reception of it is predicated upon our participation. When Jesus tells Peter, “unless I wash you, you have no part in me”, His ability and willingness to wash are not hindered by Peter. Only Peter’s benefit of His washing are hindered, if he chooses not to participate.

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

Right. The basis does not change, whether Peter elects to be washed or not. The basis is still God’s grace.

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

No. :dts:

The giving of God’s grace is predicated only upon Himself. God is love, and in Him there is no darkness. He desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. Our participation in his plan of salvation is predicated upon our choice.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That’s right, you don’t his views, even when they’re boldly put before you.

I personally don’t care what Moody does or does not believe and I’m not in a hurry to find out. My only point of bringing him up was because a Catholic Apologist quoted him to point out Jn 10:28 was not referring to a past tense completed event but rather a present-tense continuing event, which indicates perseverance is required.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky;:

God doesn’t cause you to sin. You do so freely; that’s why you’re responsible for the sins the commit—you commit them freely, and willfully.

I agree, but I cant quite reconcile your above stance with this one from a few pages ago

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).

Did we recieve our sin nature from God?

Sandy:

Post a quote from my post were Robertson said that, and you’ll have made a point.

I thought I already had - here lets try again…

Robertson:

“One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.”

Translation: It will not and cannot be decided by what it says, alone. Instead, one’s understanding will be decided by what one already believes it can or cant mean.

robertson:

“My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So…”

Translation: I have the preconcieved notion that baptism is non-essential, therefore (ie “So”) my interpretation of the verse is a function of that preconceived notion.

robertson:

“So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.”

Translation: And the reason I can justify adopting the stance which I held prior to analyzing this verse is that the actual words recorded do not preclude the contradictory interpretations mentioned previously; that baptism would accomplish the forgiveness of sins vs. that baptism followed the forgiveness of sins. One cannot - simply by direct translation - determine the intended meaning.

If you still dont see it, dont worry about it - you know, God’s will and all…

robertson:

He states that, with respect to Acts 2:38, the presupposition of each one reading the Greek (and/or, I would add, the native tongue of each as well), will be the final determiner in his interpretation. (I find that both helpful, and above all, honest).

Very honest - I agree.

Sandusky:

There’s no shame in saying that a certain passage is difficult in its wording. One has the whole of Scripture to aid in coming to an understanding of a particularly difficult verse.

I thought everything was a gift of God - are you saying God wills different people to different understandings of Scripture? Time to back off on your “its all God” generality before it crushes you.
Dont ever forget - God became human to accomplish salvation.

Bear in mind, Robertson has done this exegetical work on each book of the NT. All of that persuades him to take the position that he does on Acts 2:38.

That might be significant if we knew whether he held the same position prior to beginning his work. If he did, we cant trust any of his work anymore than this verse as being influenced by an unjustified preconcieved notion.

One good reason: Christ said to “make disciples baptizing them.”

The great Sandusky is reduced to this?! Peter did it because Christ said to, but why Christ said to is…what?.. a mystery??? Sorry - you need to do much better than that. Christ never “ordered” anyone to do anything that did not relate to salvation. I can only conclude that baptism has salvific significance. Call it an act of faith if you must, but dont pretend that Peter and all the Apostles did it without the slightest idea why Christ commanded it. And if you dont know - follow Robertson and be honest.

 

[Pax]

You have no assurance at all, Pax. You have no idea if you’ll “be saved” at the end of your life because according to your theology you’re “being saved” daily based on the quality of your “love” for God as demonstrated by your works.

For you Catholics (and BRB), Jesus did His part, now you must do yours. But you can have no assurance that you’re doing, or have done, your part, Pax. You don’t even know if you’re deceiving yourself.

You don’t know in the end if you’ve “covered all the bases.” Not even those whom you’ve set up as your “umpires” (Popes, Priest & Prelates) can help you there. They have no assurance themselves (they’re being judged by the same performance law - only stricter).

Yours is the “hope so” World Series. You’ve yet to find out who wins and can only hope it’s you. It’s all based on your performance, and you’re not done playing the game.

Now you see…you’ve done it again. You’ve distorted what I and others have said.

Shall we give you high fives for that and concede and convert to your belief? Hardly.

Now I will ask you a simple and straight forward question.

Why do you find it necessary to deliberately distort our views?

 

[Pax]

My works are imperfect because I’m imperfect.

Then your faith is also imperfect. Does that imperfect faith affect your salvation? If imperfect faith is tied to salvation then there is no reason to suggest that imperfect works are not also tied to salvation. We receive grace for both our imperfect faith and our imperfect works. That grace is what perfects us in both.

 

[Pax]

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.

Well, opinions are like elbows…everybody got some. You are certainly entitled to yours, but not all opinions are created equal. Last night I began looking at the ECF’s and thus far Augustine, Tertullian, and Origen all disagree with your view of baptism. I wasn’t able to check beyond them, but I dare say that your opinion gets spanked by the ECFs.