The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Of course! Sacred Tradition is what produced the text, therefore, the best understanding of it is to read it from the point of view of those who wrote it!

That’s circular reasoning: It is Tradition which has produced Tradition.

guanophore:

Only in your mind, sandy. Scripture itself is very clear that “it is God who is at work in you to will and to do His good pleasure”. Whatever we do that is not in faith is sin.

Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I shall refer to those types of responses from you as "guanophorisms."

Indeed it does. And does so in the past tense. He is referring here to those who have completed the sequence. We know the identity of some of these because they are mentioned in Hebrews 11. They comprise the “cloud of witnesses” that surround us in faith.

IMO, that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement in response to ryanoneil’s post—a guanophorism.

guanophore:

Although Paul sees himself in this chain, he also says that a mature attitude is not to consider that one has already arrived. He also indicates that he, too, may be disqualified.

And another one.

guanophore:

Sandy, this is a shameless misrepresentation. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. Everything in it is Catholic, and nothing in it contradicts what is taught by the Catholic Church. Where it is written “you are saved by grace, through faith”, this is an expression of Catholic soteriology.

And yet, another one!

I’m not misrepresenting anything.

If a human believes that a human can lose a human’s salvation based upon a human’s negative works (and the Catholic Church does teach that), than that human believes that salvation is based upon human works—negative, or otherwise**.**

 

[Philthy]

What I’ve offered regarding predestination is what is clearly taught in Scripture, and that is that with respect to salvation, only one predestination is taught and that predestination is to Glory***.***

• Would you agree that not everyone who reads Scripture agrees with you on this point? Y or N
• For those that do not agree with you, do you believe that they have exercised their free will in arriving at their understanding of the verse? Y or N
• For those that do not agree with you, do you believe that their not believing as you do is God’s will? Y or N
• Lastly, how do you propose anyone will come to believe your understanding of the verse? By something they personally, freely do; by something God does to them; or both?

 

[guanophore]

That’s circular reasoning: It is Tradition which has produced Tradition.

No. Sacred Tradition was produced by the Teaching of Jesus, and has been handed down to us from the Apostles through the Succession.

IMO, that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement in response to ryanoneil’s post—a guanophorism.

And another one.

And yet, another one!

I’m not misrepresenting anything.

Well, that is one way to get out of responding to the evidence.

Yes, you are misrepresenting the Catholic faith. You persistently assert that it is a “works-based” salvation. Such a phrase is an oxymoron in itself! One cannot be saved by works, so there is no such thing as “works-based” salvation. Unless perhaps this term could be produced to productivity in the workplace that prevents separation from one’s job. It has no eternal meaning, However.

If a human believes that a human can lose a human’s salvation based upon a human’s negative works (and the Catholic Church does teach that), than that human believes that salvation is based upon human works—negative, or otherwise.

I agree about what you say on the point of “basis”, but this is not what the church teaches.

Salvation is based in grace, through faith. Sin is acting without faith, and devoid of grace. The basis for the loss is not the human action, but the separation from grace.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

This thread appears to have wandered irretrievably off topic.

I think that’s bound to happen when only a few remain to keep it alive and both sides have made their points and maybe have spent their arguments.

What do you think is meant by the phrase "communion of saints’ in the Apostles’ creed?

Of course we must first agree that the creed is not theopneustos. I believe it was stated in the realm of earthly reality and in the spirit of Heb. 10:23-25:"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging {one another;} and all the more as you see the day drawing near."It’s communion of the saints here on earth.

Ok. I agree that Jewish law does not require that a son “exalt” his mother. What would it mean for Jesus to “honor” His mother?

There’s no mystery to this, guanophore. We have a perfect of example of it when He was at the tender age of twelve:Luke 2:49-51 "And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s {house?}” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them;Even though neither His father or mother understood Him, He, nevertheless, subjected Himself to them. In so doing He honored them both according to the Law.

But adult offspring are not expected to subject themselves to their parents in such a way. That would not be normal but abnormal development.

Parent/child relationships are strictly earthly. There is no indication whatsoever that they carry over into the eternal estate. For this reason Jesus left Mary in the care of John saying to him, “Behold, your mother.” It’s also an indication that their mother/son relationship had come to an end, it was to be severed. His earthly ministry was finished and He was about to ascend back to His Father.

Scripture does not present the idea that God the Son came to this earth to acquire a mother to reign with Him and the Father in heaven as Queen. The Apostles were sent out with the gospel of Christ, not Mary. They did not include in their message the idea of an exalted mother in heaven. There is no such thing in Apostolic/Biblical Christianity.

 

[moondweller]

Pax:

I understand the concerns about spending money, but there is a lot more material presented by Tim Staples then you are familiar with. It is very rich in material.

How do you know what I’m familiar with? I think what you’re saying is that if I listen to him audibly I’ll be convinced emotionally. That doesn’t work with me, Pax. As I said, I’ve studied the Scriptures so as not to remain a child in my thinking.

I think you’re right though…your mind is already made up.

Only because I have yet to find anything presented that’s objective. My faith is not based on my emotions but on what God has revealed.

 

[guanophore]

 I believe it was stated in the realm of earthly reality and in the spirit of Heb. 10:23-25:"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging {one another;} and all the more as you see the day drawing near."It's communion of the saints here on earth.

How do you account for the fact that the persons that composed it, as well as the successors to the Apostles, believed that they were also in communion with those who had passed on from this life?

There’s no mystery to this, guanophore. We have a perfect of example of it when He was at the tender age of twelve:Luke 2:49-51 "And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s {house?}” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them;Even though neither His father or mother understood Him, He, nevertheless, subjected Himself to them. In so doing He honored them both according to the Law.

So, how is the disrespect you later attribute to Him “honoring” of his parents?

But adult offspring are not expected to subject themselves to their parents in such a way. That would not be normal but abnormal development.

Well, I agree, which is why it was such a great honor for Jesus to allow Mary to be the one to decide she was ready to relinquish Him to the world.

Parent/child relationships are strictly earthly.

This is an absurd assertion, even based upon the OT texts, not to mention the new.

There is no indication whatsoever that they carry over into the eternal estate.

Apparently no evidence that you will accept.

For this reason Jesus left Mary in the care of John saying to him, "*Behold, your mother*."  It's also an indication that their mother/son relationship had come to an end, it was to be severed.  His earthly ministry was finished and He was about to ascend back to His Father.

No. It was His way of giving His mother to the Church, represented by John, who was standing in for all of those who were loved by Jesus (notice he is not named).

Scripture does not present the idea that God the Son came to this earth to acquire a mother to reign with Him and the Father in heaven as Queen.

Well, we read it differently.

I agree that this was not the purpose of his coming, but neither was it separated from it. He is the Son of David, and she is His mother - the mother of a King, by default, the Queen mother.

The Apostles were sent out with the gospel of Christ, not Mary.  They did not include in their message the idea of an exalted mother in heaven.  There is no such thing in Apostolic/Biblical Christianity.

Mary is not separated from the gospel of Christ. Everywhere the Gospel is preached, Mary is included. Just as Mary was present when the very first worshippers knelt before Him, so she is present today.

" On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." Matt 2:11

She is still with Him, and thus, with all those who kneel and pay Him homage.

 

[mikeledes]

This sounds like Ryan’s “predestination to grace only.”

Where do you find that in Scripture?

Besides the relevant passages in Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and John 15, you also have:

Luke 12:41-46

41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

This also corresponds to a warning Jesus gives to His apostles:

Luke 21:34

**34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. **

In the above passage, the servant is clearly described as having started out faithful and wise, and that’s why his master puts him in charge of his household. Jesus says that if that if that servant perseveres in doing what he was assigned to do, He will be rewarded. However, if that servant turns away from his “duties” and begins to beat his fellow servants, getting drunk, etc., he will suffer eternal damnation. If he were not truly faithful to begin with, I tuly doubt he would have been described as such by Christ. It was precisely because of this faithfulness that he was put in charge of his master’s houselhold in the first place.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

How do you know what I’m familiar with? I think what you’re saying is that if I listen to him audibly I’ll be convinced emotionally. That doesn’t work with me, Pax. As I said, I’ve studied the Scriptures so as not to remain a child in my thinking.Only because I have yet to find anything presented that’s objective. My faith is not based on my emotions but on what God has revealed.

I base my view of your familiarity with scriptural data based upon what you have posted on this forum. Likewise, I compare that with what information I am familiar with on the subject. I then compare that with what Staples presented in his cd set. I happen to notice gaps in your understanding and familiarity with the data. Likewise, I was extremly impressed with the additional data from Staples that I lacked. It is, therefore, quite reasonable for me to believe that you could gain a great deal from Staple’s presentation.

Am I assuming something? Perhaps, but I am not making any assumptions based upon the data available to me. I am only using that data. Admittedly, there may be more known by you than I am unaware of. If that is the case, then obviously there may be little or nothing that you need. Nevertheless, you need to consider the possiblity that you could learn more from Staple’s than you already know.

I am not at all concerned about whether you or anyone else is convinced emotionally. This to me is an empty proposition. Feelings are fleeting and they often betray us. Love often has emotions attached to it, but ultimately love is still a choice. We can love our spouse and remain faithful throughout our lives regardless of how our feelings may wax and wane.

We must love the truth [2 Thess 2:9-12 is helpful in this regard]. Knowing the truth requires grace, humility, and an honest and objective search on our part. Good intentions in and of themselves are not enough. Emotions don’t have much of anything to do with it from my perspective. I can only lay out that which I can discern based upon my own limitations and the limitations of the data that I am working with.

No offense intended and I hope none is taken.

 

[Pax]

Besides the relevant passages in Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and John 15, you also have:

Luke 12:41-46

41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

This also corresponds to a warning Jesus gives to His apostles:

Luke 21:34

34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly.

In the above passage, the servant is clearly described as having started out faithful and wise, and that’s why his master puts him in charge of his household. Jesus says that if that if that servant perseveres in doing what he was assigned to do, He will be rewarded. However, if that servant turns away from his “duties” and begins to beat his fellow servants, getting drunk, etc., he will suffer eternal damnation. If he were not truly faithful to begin with, I tuly doubt he would have been described as such by Christ. It was precisely because of this faithfulness that he was put in charge of his master’s houselhold in the first place.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Ah. See? You learn something new every day! I am continually amazed with Reformed Theology.

Ok, so I will bring the same question forward that I have brought in the past, why does God offer a choice to people that are not able to make it?

" If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." Gen 4:7

Why does God imply that Cain can choose? Why does He imply that Cain can “master” sin?

With respect to your first question, ISTM that you do not understand that the ability to choose only to sin is a choice!

With respect to your second question, because Cain can choose, and what did Cain choose? Cain choose to ignore God, and chose sin instead.

guanophore:

I think if you look at the passage from which this is quoted you will easily see that it starts out “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”. Both of these passages are talking about unbelievers. How is it this principle is easily applied for you in other places, but not here?

It is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit to use OT verses in the NT in a context of His choosing. Clearly His point through the apostle is exactly what it says—there is none who seeks after God.

guanophore:

Clearly, God decides to save Noah and his family , so not “everyone” displeased him unto death.

It’s grace!

guanophore:

But Adam was made differently, and was able to exercise a choice that the rest of us cannot?

NO!—set before unregenerate man is the same choice set before Adam, Abel, and Cain. Unregenerate men choose sin according to the desires of their post-fall nature, in much the same way as a starving lion when presented with a bale of hay will reject the hay even though it would keep him alive should he eat it.

He rejects it because of his nature—he’s a carnivore—post-fall man is by nature a sinner!

guanophore:

Then, God continued to expect manknd to choose the good, even though we were incapable?

Incapable? NO!!!**John 6:44

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.**The Greek speaks to one’s ability to come to Christ—unregenerate man does not have the ability within himself to do so.

That’s why the Father must draw (literally in the Greek, “DRAG HIM”) to Christ.

All men are born unregenerate. ***Unregenerate men want nothing to do with Christ—***that is the clear teaching of Scripture.

The “un-ability” to choose rightly is not because God has not endowed man with sufficient reasoning abilities—He has.

God, through Christ, has also brought light to “every man” (Jn 1:9), and He has also made it ***evident to every man that He is God!*****Romans 1:18-20

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.**It is impossible to suppress a thing unless you first possess the thing (cf v18). All unregenerate men know that God exists, because He’s made it evident through His creation that, indeed, He does exist (cf Ps 19:1-6).

Therefore, man’s “inability” is a ”moral problem,” and not a ”lack of knowledge problem.” As v20 above states, God declares a man’s knowledge of Him, as understood through His creation, to be the sufficient cause of a man’s damnation of himself should he reject God.”

guanophore:

It is grace that saves, through faith, not human action. When that grace is lost, through unbelief, then one is separated from saving grace. Scripture calls this “fallen from grace”.

When the elect, fall, stumble and sin, they indeed fall from grace.

However, they do not fall, stumble and sin away saving grace. Saving grace is dubbed saving grace because IT SAVES.

guanophore:

Something is amiss in this soteriology. Otherwise, how is it that some are said to thwart God’s grace?

“But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.” Luke 7:29-30

There is nothing “amiss” in what I say.

When God calls all men to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel for the obtaining of eternal life, He means that they should do as He commands.

Men reject the grace of the Gospel call to their own shame.

And the responsibility of that rejection is not assigned to the fault of God.

However, that some respond in faith to the Gospel call is assigned to God’s Glory, as repentance, faith, perseverance, and all that is included in salvation is from God.

 

[sandusky]

Besides the relevant passages in Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and John 15, you also have:

Luke 12:41-46

41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

This also corresponds to a warning Jesus gives to His apostles:

Luke 21:34

34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly.

In the above passage, the servant is clearly described as having started out faithful and wise, and that’s why his master puts him in charge of his household. Jesus says that if that if that servant perseveres in doing what he was assigned to do, He will be rewarded. However, if that servant turns away from his “duties” and begins to beat his fellow servants, getting drunk, etc., he will suffer eternal damnation. If he were not truly faithful to begin with, I tuly doubt he would have been described as such by Christ. It was precisely because of this faithfulness that he was put in charge of his master’s houselhold in the first place.

God Bless,
Michael

Theology by allegory.

That’s very Catholic of you.

When Scripture speaks to predestination with respect to salvation, it speaks to it in one way only—to Glory!

No one has yet provided even one verse that describes predestination to grace only.

 

[mikeledes]

If a person knows that they have been justified, then they should also know that they are of the elect, since - according to Calvinism - only the elect will be justified. Hence they know that they will never perish and that no genuine Christian brother or sister can ever perish. If all of this is true, then Paul and the Christian communities he taught must have known and believed this. Hence, it is very strange that Paul would say the following:

1 Corinthians 8:9-13

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

The issue Paul is touching here is not food per se. What is being described here is a seriously sinful act, an act that Jesus Himself condemned:

Revelation 2:20

** Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.**

The act is not about food per se, but the sin of idolatry. Here Paul clearly warns Christians not to cause a weak fellow Christian to stumble through their behavior. The weak brother may be emboldened to eat the meat sacrificed to idols and hence sin. And what is the specifed fate of this weak brother whose conscience is defiled and stumbles (sins)? He perishes. The Greek word for perish is the same Greek word for perish in John 10 and is used in the New Testament as a reference to total destruction and eternal damnation. And note that:

1. The subject of the “perishing” is the person, not his conscience. Besides, I never heard of a conscience perishing. That is pretty strong word. The person’s conscience is defiled through sin and the result is the perishing.
2. The person is described as a weak brother, not a false brother or a so-called brother. In other words, Christ only has a true Christian in view, not a false professor. Secondly, Paul describes the brother as one for whom Christ died, which for a TULIP Calvinist means that this person must be a true Christian.

So if Paul believed that none of the justified will everperish and he clearly taught this to the Corinthians, then why on earth would he warn them not to cause a weak brother to stumble and perish, knowing that this was impossible and that the Corinthians knew that this was impossible? If you are justified, there is abosolutely no sin - according to the OSAS/Calvinist - that can cause you to perish. They believe that justification is extensive (past, present, and future sins are instantaneously forgiven the moment you are justified). If Paul believed in an extensive justification and that all Christians were absolutely assured salvation, then what he says above to the Corinthians completely undermines both of these teachings. He would never say that a sin could cause a weak brother to perish. Moreover, if a true brother cannot perish, then that means that Paul was telling a lie (that a true Christian can perish) in order to encourage Christians not to cause a weak brother to stumble. But if the Corinthians knew that no true Christian can perish, then
Paul’s purpose for telling them that is completely undermined.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Theology by allegory.

That’s very Catholic of you.

Shepherds and sheep is also allegory. Perhaps you can give us an alternative interpretation?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

If a person knows that they have been justified, then they should also know that they are of the elect, since - according to Calvinism - only the elect will be justified.

However, that is not a statement of Calvinism, but an inaccurate contrivance of your making on how you perceive Calvinism; therefore, since your thesis is contrived, I have concluded that your argument is also contrived, and have stopped reading it at this point.

Try again, if you must.

 

[Pax]

However, that is not a statement of Calvinism, but an inaccurate contrivance of your making on how you perceive Calvinism; therefore, since your thesis is contrived, I have concluded that your argument is also contrived, and have stopped reading it at this point.

Try again, if you must.

What…???

 

[sandusky]

What…???

What do mean, what…???

You guys better hurry…I’m about to pack up for the ice rink for some exercise, so you may have to wait until this evening for a response.

 

[mikeledes]

No one has yet provided even one verse that describes predestination to grace only.

Any verse that describes loss of salvation proves that there is a predestination to grace and not to glory. But since you insist, I think John 15 is a clear example of that. Previously, you believed that those branches that were taken away or failed to abide were true Christians and consistently defended that position in our last discussion on this subject. You obviously must have seen something in the text that made you believe at the time that they were genuine Christians and that “cast into the fire and burned” was not a reference to hell, even resorting to the Greek (i.e. “airo” meaning “lift up” instead of “taken away” etc.) to defend your position. I guess now that you’ve changed your position, your understanding of the Greek has also changed as well. Now you argue that they are not genuine Christians and that the fire is a reference to hell (after saying that the “they” and “them” referred to the persons’s works and not to the “person”). So you must now see something in John 15:6 that makes you believe that it is a reference to hell.

So now that you believe that the branches are not true Christians, let’s see how that actually fits with the passage. Indeed, the Vine and the Branches is an allegory. But that allegory corresponds to spiritual realities and Christ clearly defined His terms (vine, branches, vinedresseretc.) in the following verses:

John 15:1

1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

John 15:5

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches

So allegory is translated into reality. What does the Vine stand for? The Christian congregation? His “visible body?” No! He clearly states that the Vine stands for the person of Christ (I AM). Whenever Christ uses “I AM”, He is referring to Himself, not to an assembly or organized body. Moreover, he defines the “branches” as standing for true Christians (you are the branches). So the branches are those who are attached/ united to the person of Christ (the True Vine), not a Christian congregation. False professors can be members of a Christian assembly or congregation, but they can never be members of His body, spiritually attached to Christ the same way a branch is attached to a vine. Paul describes Christians as being members of the body of Christ and this spiritual reality corresponds to the imagery of the vine and the branches. Just as branches are integral members (appendages) of the vine’s “body,” true Christians - and only true Christians - are members of the body of Christ. Hence only true Christians can be described as “branches.” Also, Christ Himself describes the “location” of these branches:

John 15:2

2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away

Logically, a branch is a integral part of the vine. Jesus says branch in me - as in the True Vine - not branch in a congregation. You also must have seen this when you at one time - in the not so distant past - believed that they were genuine branches. Moreover, if “in me” refers to mere membership in a Christian congregation, then the passage would make no sense:

**1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in a Christian congregation that does not bear fruit He takes away;and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in a Christian congregation and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in a Christian congregation.
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in a Christian congregation, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in a Christian congregation, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. **

Whatever Christ meant be “in me” in verse 2 must also apply to the “in mes” throughout the passage. Otherwise, you end up with a completely arbitrary and highly subjective way of defining terms. If these branches are not true Christians, it completely destroyes the imagery Christ is trying to convey.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

What…???

Thanks!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

However, that is not a statement of Calvinism, but an inaccurate contrivance of your making on how you perceive Calvinism; therefore, since your thesis is contrived, I have concluded that your argument is also contrived, and have stopped reading it at this point.

Try again, if you must.

So you have no assurance that you’re justified? You have no assurance that you’re saved? And if you have assurance that you’re saved, how can you not have assurance that you are of the elect?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

If a person knows that they have been justified, then they should also know that they are of the elect, since - according to Calvinism - only the elect will be justified. Hence they know that they will never perish and that no genuine Christian brother or sister can ever perish. If all of this is true, then Paul and the Christian communities he taught must have known and believed this. Hence, it is very strange that Paul would say the following:

1 Corinthians 8:9-13

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

The issue Paul is touching here is not food per se. What is being described here is a seriously sinful act, an act that Jesus Himself condemned:

Revelation 2:20

** Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols**.

The act is not about food per se, but the sin of idolatry. Here Paul clearly warns Christians not to cause a weak fellow Christian to stumble through their behavior. The weak brother may be emboldened to eat the meat sacrificed to idols and hence sin. And what is the specifed fate of this weak brother whose conscience is defiled and stumbles (sins)? He perishes. The Greek word for perish is the same Greek word for perish in John 10 and is used in the New Testament as a reference to total destruction and eternal damnation. And note that:

1. The subject of the “perishing” is the person, not his conscience. Besides, I never heard of a conscience perishing. That is pretty strong word. The person’s conscience is defiled through sin and the result is the perishing.
2. The person is described as a weak brother, not a false brother or a so-called brother. In other words, Christ only has a true Christian in view, not a false professor. Secondly, Paul describes the brother as one for whom Christ died, which for a TULIP Calvinist means that this person must be a true Christian.

So if Paul believed that none of the justified will everperish and he clearly taught this to the Corinthians, then why on earth would he warn them not to cause a weak brother to stumble and perish, knowing that this was impossible and that the Corinthians knew that this was impossible? If you are justified, there is abosolutely no sin - according to the OSAS/Calvinist - that can cause you to perish. They believe that justification is extensive (past, present, and future sins are instantaneously forgiven the moment you are justified). If Paul believed in an extensive justification and that all Christians were absolutely assured salvation, then what he says above to the Corinthians completely undermines both of these teachings. He would never say that a sin could cause a weak brother to perish. Moreover, if a true brother cannot perish, then that means that Paul was telling a lie (that a true Christian can perish) in order to encourage Christians not to cause a weak brother to stumble. But if the Corinthians knew that no true Christian can perish, then
Paul’s purpose for telling them that is completely undermined.

God Bless,
Michael

OK, Mike. Pax’s incredulity has caused me to repent of my decision to dismiss your contrivance about Calvinism.

I’m leaving for the afternoon, and will answer this later this evening.

But I will say this, right off the bat…the verses you have cited are taken out of context, and are offered in view of your TRADITION.