The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Like Isaiah says "We all have gone astray", I say all the Church soon after the 'charismatic church' (Klaas Schilder for the Apostolic Church) 'followed after the beast'. There never was a fleckless herd somewhere hidden between the rocks of the alps or anywhere else. It's virtually like the Catholics who murdered out the tribes of the New Worlds because they cherished sins to the Catholics abominable! It's exactly the same as presuming after Adam all knowledge of the true God received mysterious protections against all corruptions; or after Noah untill Abraham there each time was saved somehow some good men. No! God every time had to brake in, had to invade, catastophically, overwhelmingly, like destroying to the ground the cities of man' supreme achievements. (Jericho etc.) Israel God had to awake from dead bones scattered on desert planes. JUST SO TODAY STILL! God shall do a New Thing - and that New Thing Today shall be Christ anew. God is not an evolutionist; He is a creationist. Watch the Church; soon before He comes you will see with your own eyes! Take your eyes from God's Church of Today, and you're gonna miss out completely.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by Doubting Thomas
I hate to break it to you but the Church was 'institutional' from the beginning. Christ appointed His apostles giving them the authority to bind and loose and saying that those who heard them, heard Him. They were the visible leaders and visible founders of visible fellowships. And the apostles commissioned certain men and not others with the authority to ordain elders to (gasp!) lead the visible churches.

EB
That alone is not "institutional" in the sense I'm referring to. As I've been referring; I'm talking about worldly POWER bases. Becoming a "microcosm of the [Roman] Empire", and then becoming WED to it! The offices becoming kingly "professions", often lavished.
(And Christ never said the power to bind and loose was to extend beyond those men He was speaking to. They may have appointed others after them, but we do not see them transferring all the same power. Only they were in direct contact with Christ. Again; even you admitted the other day that the successors were not "apostles" anymore).

GE

IMHO (I've nearly become American) you are both 100% right! - In these paragraphs! The Apostles and those they laid hands on - as Warfield has argued and made me happy with now for over half a century. The Apostolic age ends there, which was about the end of the first century. Authority since resided in the Scriptures only.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
in Romans 8 Paul states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the unconverted heart to submit in obedience to the Law of God.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].




Quote: Eric said - That's true



Bob said
Paul IS writing to Christians in Romans 2 and 3 and 7 and 8. His point is that IF they are putting to death the deads of the FLESH THEN and only THEN are they the children of God. Simply calling themselves Christians does not cut it.

Bob, you cut everything else out and missed the point. At what point does a person cross back into "the flesh"?

If you think that Paul is not able to make his point without ALSO saying "but if you commit sin B instead of just sin A then you are in trouble" you are not following the text of Romans 8 with focus. Paul is speaking of walking with the Spirit vs not -- and you want to get to "let me commit sin A as long as I don't commit sin B -- just tell me what sin B is" --

The point in Romans 8 is clear - simply sinning and ignoring the Holy Spirit has no "eternal security in it".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

So getting back to the original purpose of this thread (before it’s locked), here’s a response to Eric B’s post (which itself was response—I think--to a series of posts I made critiquing an article on Justification by Faith alone which D28guy had previously posted on this thread) from a while back….

Proof texts are being thrown back and forth here, but the contexts are not always being taken into account. We can't just snatch a verse that LOOKS like it supports our views and ignore what's being discussed around it.

Indeed. But sometimes folks are haphazard in the way they appeal to the context and in supposing how it allegedly effects the interpretation of a given passage, as I believe is the case with your “example” which follows…

The context of both Romans 2 and James 2 are people who JUDGE others (Rom.2:1; 2:2-4, 11). We read these apostles' instructions on works, and think that they are speaking to free-wheeling antinomian licentists, but these were Jews and perhaps also former gentile proselytes who actually boasted in the Law and tried to judge others with it; deeming themselves "religious". (Rom.2:17, 18-19, James 1:26).

So, it seems that you are implying one can just simply sweep aside the clear statements of these passages merely by pointing to some nearby references of certain people “judging others”. However, this contextual observation doesn’t change the main point of either passage in the least.

First, in Romans 2:1 Paul is pretty clear that those who judge (ie the Jews boasting in the law) are guilty of practicing the same things they condemn in others. Paul rhetorically asks those judging others yet practicing the same things if they actually think they’ll escape the same condemnation (v3). Paul implies they are despising the goodness and longsuffering of God which leads to repentance (v.4) and are actually treasuring up for themselves “wrath” in the day of Judgment due to their hardness and impenitence (v.5). Paul then jumps right end and points out that God “will render to each one according to his deeds” (v.6), including eternal life for those who patiently continue to do good. Paul makes it clear that there is no partiality with God (v11) and He will actually render eternal life to him that patiently works what is good—whether Jew or Greek—and will render “indignation, wrath, etc” on “every soul of man who works what is evil”—whether Jew or Greek. In other words, those judging (and boasting in the Law) will be judged in the same way as those they are condemning (Gentiles “without the Law”)—“according to their deeds”. So although the Jews here in question may not be “free wheeling antinomian licentists” they are certainly, as far as Paul is concerned, PRACTICING the same bad things that they are condemning in others, despite their boasting in the Law. THEREFORE, you pointing out that some folks are judging certain others in this passage doesn’t change the way I’ve been using it at all—that God actually renders eternal life to those who actually continue to patiently work what is good. My point still stands and is certainly not out of context.

Regarding James 2, I’m not sure if you read my treatment of this passage in my response above, but I did address this in detail already. Oh well—suffice it to say, the point I was making about justification, works, and faith in James 2:14-26 is not in the least changed by James condemning certain people for showing partiality in vs. 1-9 of the same chapter (nor, for that matter, is it effected by anything he writes about in verses 10-13).

James asks rhetorically in v14: “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but does not have works? Can FAITH SAVE HIM?”
So the gist of the passage is evident at that beginning with the asking of this question, and that is whether faith without works can profit for salvation for the one who lacks works? It’s pretty clear that the answer is “no”, and this answer is not obviated by pointing out the fact that James was rebuking folks for showing partiality a few verses earlier.
So although one is not saved by works, this passage is clear that one is not saved without works either, as a workless faith is “dead” and profitless for salvation. You may scoff at this distinction and attempt to rationalize it away, but that doesn’t change the fact that the distinction is indeed biblical and therefore obviously real.

Now that we’ve established that the context of James’ argument is faith and works in relation to salvation, notice that of Abraham, James said:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works his faith was made perfect?” (2:21-22)
Again, here we have a clear statement that Abraham was “justified by works” during a specific activity (offering Isaac), and that faith and works were not only “working together”, but also that works actually “made perfect” his faith. Of course, this brings us to:
“You see than that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)

So we have the explicit statement of James that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. There’s really no way to spin the “context” to negate this meaning. For further emphasis James ends his argument by declaring:
“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (2:26)
In other words, the body without the spirit is still a real body, but it’s just life-less. In the same way, faith without works is still really “faith”, but it’s “dead”—profitless for salvation. In contrast, as verses 21-24 indicate, when “faith” works together with one’s “works”, and is in fact “made perfect” by them, that one is justified—considered righteous on account of his works and not his faith only—just as Abraham was so accounted. The one who has faith and the works that complete his faith, is the one who will be saved.

What we see is that they omitted other parts of the Law, and thought they were still justified by their faith. That's similar to the view that if we sin and ask for forgiveness and try to do better, then and only then will "faith" save us!

Faith actually avails us when it works through love, according to Paul (Gal 5:6); faith actually saves when it is perfected by works, according to James (2:22)—your mischaracterizations of that truth notwithstanding.

(Continued….)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on…)

But as Paul says in Galatians, if you try to justify yourself by the Law, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law.

I don’t recall saying otherwise.

And people fail to realize that God demands perfection.

Who is failing to realize that? Christ said: “Therefore you should be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

The Apostle Peter wrote:
“But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy for I am holy’.” (1 Peter 1:15-16)

That’s what God demands and that’s what we are to strive for—holiness in all our conduct. Peter obviously expected that this was something that could be done. (He didn’t say, “Your supposed to be holy in all your conduct, but since none of y’all can really do this, don’t worry about it”.)
He further wrote:
“And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your sojourning here in fear.” (1 Peter 1:17).

In his Second Epistle, Peter writes:
But also for this reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was purged of his old sins. Therefore brethren be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11).

So here Peter states that one needs to be diligent in adding certain things to this faith and in doing so one could be fruitful in his knowledge of Christ; could make his election sure; could keep from stumbling; and have an entrance supplied into the everlasting kingdom. Peter expects that these things can indeed really be ours and “abound” if we’re “diligent” to “add” these things to our faith. (He doesn’t say, “Well since none of you are really capable of diligently adding these things to your faith, just don’t worry about those other things like ‘love’ and ‘patience’ and ‘brotherly kindness’ and ‘self-control’—your faith is all you need after all.”.) Two other things that can be pointed out from this passage: (1) we can add these things to our faith because of God’s divine power which has given us all things which pertain to life and godliness in Christ(v.3); and (2) this diligent adding of one thing to another, culminating in love, implies a process. In other words, this is not something that automatically takes place the instant we first trust Christ.

Similarly, that this is a process is implied when Paul tells the Philippians to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, yet encouraged that they can do this since God works in them to will and to do for His good pleasure (2:12-13). Later, in chapter 3 of the same epistle, Paul states that he has not “already attained” nor has “been perfected” (v12), but that he pressed on so he could lay hold of that for which Christ has laid hold of him, and that he kept reaching forward to those things ahead (v13). In fact, to the Corinthians he wrote that he kept disciplining his body lest after he preached to others he himself should be castaway, or disqualified (1 Cor 9:24).

(Continued…)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on…)

Does anyone really think he has repented and asked forgiveness for every single sin he has ever committed after conversion?

Whether “anyone really thinks” that or not, the Apostle John says:
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9).
John, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, writes that our forgiveness and cleansing is contingent on confession, your rhetorical objection notwithstanding.

Then we really do not know God's definition of sin! (Matt.5)

(“But, but, John, how can you be writing that if one confesses that God will forgive him and cleanse him? Do you really think that anyone has repented and asked for forgiveness for every single sin he has committed after conversion? Surely you don’t know what you’re talking about! Surely you don’t really know God’s definition of sin!”)

Seriously, I recall Jesus saying something like: “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done by God” (John 3:20-21). As we walk in the light and grow in grace, we become more aware of things we need to repent of and the areas of our lives which we need to submit to Christ’s Lordship. So, in a real sense, when one walks in the light and grows in grace, he becomes more aware of sin to confess and repent of. On the other hand, if we become complacent in abiding in Christ, and we stop pursuing holiness and confessing/repenting of our sins, and rather rely on some self-contrived minimal check list, then we start to wither and to become barren and fruitless—and we know what happens to fruitless branches. (John 15:2, 6)

Of course, then, we will fall back on "OK, God will forgive sins done in ingorance". Just like the "baptism of desire" argument, we deny a spiritual application of "grace" and insist on physical deeds imparting salvation, but when circumstances don't allow this, THEN we allow God to step in with grace IN SPITE OF our actual works!

I’m a little confused by this stream-of-consciousness statement here, but I’m certainly not saying that “we allow God to step in with grace IN SPITE OF our actual works”. In fact, it’s God’s grace that teaches us to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts” and to “live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12), and this grace is operative and necessary from start to finish. However, God’s grace can be resisted.

Also regarding grace, as I mentioned above we grow in grace (2 Peter 3:18), and the Scriptures even say that God gives more grace with God giving grace to the humble (James 4:6) while opposing the proud. In other words, our relationship with the grace of God is dynamic rather than a static thing. We must choose to be fillled with the Spirit, sow to the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, and walk in the Spirit. Conversely, God’s gracious Spirit can be quenched, grieved, and resisted by us if we're not careful.

THIS is precisely what Paul and James are condemning!

No, Paul is condemning those trying to justify themselves by the Mosaic Law, rather than God justifying those who have faith in Christ, a faith which avails by working through love. James is condemning those who think a dead workless faith can save.

Again, if you pledge to justify yourself by works, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law; none of this "God will excuse it in this circumstance if I'm at least trying my best and asking forgiveness".

This is a straw man mischaracterization of my position. First, God doesn’t “excuse” sin. He forgives us and cleanses us as we walk in the light, confessing and repenting of our sins, based on the Atonement of Christ. Furthermore, I’m not “pledging” to justify myself by my works”—it’s GOD who justifies, and He justifies us (reckons us righteous) in accordance with our works of love, and not by our faith only as seen in Romans 2, Galatians 5:6, James 2, and 1 Peter 1:17 (etc).

(continued….)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on….)

And DT, you keep saying all references to the Law are only about the OT Law, so it is some new NT "law" of "working in love" that now saves. But then what do you think all of these "works of love" are, but the LAW!

Let’s read what Paul said again:
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision or uncircumcision [ie markers of the Old Covenant, or the lack thereof] avails anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6)
So if you object to the notion that what avails is “faith working through love”, your problem is with Paul, not with me.

The good works discussed are mostly abstinence from the evil works condemned in both testaments. The only part of the Law that has passed is the ceremonial aspect. So to make this "OT does not justify, but NT Law IS what justifies instead" distinction; then it is only a matter of exchanging one set of ritual for another.

Um…how is loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength “a set of ritual”? How is loving your neighbor as yourself “a set of ritual”?

Otherwise, everything is completely the same as in the OT.

Sorry—Christ didn’t abrogate the requirement for one to love God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself when He fulfilled the Old Covenant. Nor did He reduce love from action to mere sentiment(more on this below).

No, love is the MOTIVATION for us keeping the commandments, rather than the self-centered motivation of fear—making it to Heaven and escaping Hell.

Sure, we are “motivated” by love, and we can in fact love because God first loved us. However, you present a false dichotomy between loving God and desiring ‘heaven’, particularly because ‘heaven’ is where God (especially) . Also, as I pointed out above, love is one of those “things” that we must “diligently add” to our faith so that an entrance will be supplied for us into the heavenly kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11).

And our love of God is not a static thing that we possess in all it’s fullness once for all when we first “accept Christ”. As we grow in grace, we grow in love, particularly when we realize that loving God means keeping His commandments:
“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love Him, and We will come to him and make our home with him.” (John 14:23)

Further, to abide in His love we need to keep His commandments: If you keep My commandments you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” (John 15:10)

As I said, this love is not static, for Christ Himself even said the love of many would grow cold (Matt 24:12). (And one’s love can’t grow cold if one never had love to begin with!)

We also are left with this instruction from Jude to keep ourselves in His love:
“keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21)

All of this is why Heb. 4 says that it is the person who does "NOT" work, but rather RESTS in Christ.

Yet the same author wrote earlier:
“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end. “ (Heb 3:14) (see also 3:6 where we must “hold fast…firm to the end”). “Holding steadfast” implies active work, rather than passivity. And just a few chapters later, the writer instructed the Hebrew Christians to imitate those who by faith and patience inherited the promises (6:12), and gave Abraham as an example of one who received the promise after he “patiently endured”. In fact, Chapter 11 is full of examples of those who by faith did things (ie worked). Again, no passivity here.

Also, Paul says to the Philippians: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:13). This obviously implies active work, not passivity.

As I’ve pointed out already, Peter wrote that we must be diligent to add things (virtue through love) to our faith and be even more diligent to make our calling and election sure for an entrance to be supplied into Christ’s kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11). This diligence and diligent adding implies action not passivity.

And of course, James says that faith must be completed by works, and that a dead, passive, workless faith is profitless for salvation.

(continued…)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on…)

It is not simply exchanging circumcision for baptism, and a bloody animal sacrifice for one that is made to look like bread and wine. For then we are left in the same bind: that our works were NOT perfect and therefore not good enough!

Baptism and the Eucharist are “perfect” and “good enough” for the purpose God intends them. For in Baptism we put on Christ (Gal3:27), are put into Christ (1 Cor 12:13) are buried and raised with Christ (Romans 6:4, Col 2:12), have our sins washed away (Acts 22:16), and are thus “saved” (1 Peter 3:21). In the Eucharist we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16), partaking of that New Testament sacrifice (cf. 1 Cor 10:18) and are spiritually nourished by His flesh and Blood and so abide in Him (John 6). However, neither Baptism nor Communion can be divorced from an ongoing life of faith and repentance, for if we aren’t careful we can possibly eat and drink condemnation to ourselves and ultimately be cut off from the Vine.

TRUE love CASTS OUT fear! He who FEARS is NOT made perfect in love! (1 John 4:18) This means that all those other verses telling people to fear are being misunderstood, or taken out of context.

But you can’t dismiss the other passages where Christ and the apostles instruct or advise us to fear—perhaps you are the one that is misunderstanding the point of 1 John 4:18 by taking that verse out of its context.

First, Paul writes to the Philippians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12); he warns the Gentile Christians in Rome not to be haughty, but fear (Rom 11:20) because they may be cut off if they don’t continue in His goodness standing by faith. And Peter writes in his first epistle that the Christians are to conduct themselves throughout our sojourning here in fear (1 Peter 1:17). CHRIST Himself says that, rather than fearing those (men) who can kill only the body, we are to fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell (Matthew 10:28). So who gives you the authority to simply dismiss these commands to fear?

Next, turning to the context of 1 John 4:8, let’s see what else John has to say about love and being made perfect.

“My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3: 18). So love is not something we say we have, or even something we “feel”, but is something we do.
“For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments” (1 John 5:3)

And it’s those who actually keep His commandments who are abiding in Christ:
“Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.” (1 John 3:24)

“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments [plural]. He who says ‘I know Him’, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth I is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.” (1 John 2:3-5)

Whoa…it’s those who keep His word that have the love of God perfected in them! And it’s those who actually love one another—in deed and truth, not in verbiage or sentiment—that have the love of God “perfected in them”:
“If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12)

And what have I already pointed out above about the Apostle Paul? In his letter to the Philippians, Paul—the same on who instructs Christians to work out their own salvation in fear—also acknowledges that he himself has not yet been perfected. Clearly, this is another indication that salvation (our being perfected by God), which involves our loving God with our whole being (demonstrated by keeping His commandments) and loving our neighbor as ourselves (which also involves deeds of love), is a process to be worked out. For, as mentioned already, it’s for those who loveGod (and keep His word) that the Father and the Son will abide with Him (John 14:23) and that will receive the crown of life (James 1:12).

Most of them are addressing people trusting in the Law, and ignoring the sins they still commit, as discussed above.

The point is they (and we) shouldn’t ignore their (our) sins, but to confess and repent of them!

Romans 11 is comparing the national groups of Gentiles vs. Jews. Now, if we reject the Augustinian misuse of chapter 9 to teach the individuals rather than nations being "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"; then why are we doing the same exact thing with chapter 11? If those Gentiles did the same things as the Jews— trust in their own works and ignore their sins, He could turn away from them just like He turned away from Israel.

Let’s look at this passage a little more closely:
“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but towards you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.” (Romans 11:19-22)

Who is it that has been broken off—all the Jews? Nope--only those unbelieving individual Jews were broken off.
Who is it that has been grafted in—all the Gentiles? Nope--only the individual Gentile believers, who were “standing by faith”, were the ones who had been “grafted in”.
Who is it that Paul states would be cut off—all the Gentile believers collectively? Nope—the ones (individuals) who don’t continue in God’s goodness standing in faith are the ones who will be cut off.

This passage is indeed warning individual Gentile Christians that they can be cut off if they don’t continue in God’s goodness standing by faith, so your attempt to dismiss this warning by bringing up the comparison of “national groups” does not succeed.

(Continued…)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on…)

Also, another common misunderstanding is that "walk in the spirit" means "doing good works", and "walk in the flesh" means "sinning".

But if you look at the rest of Paul's usage of "flesh"; it is talking about the national inheritance the Jews were trusting i
.

Umm…Paul says to “walk in the Spirit” so you don’t fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5:16), and he then proceeds to list the “works of the flesh”:
“adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like” (Gal 5:19-21). I don’t see a whole lot here about the “national inheritance of the Jews”.

Let's not forget that "walking in the Spirit" is something we must choose to do.

So then, we change it to "living in sin",

Well, Paul warns in that same Galatians passage that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21). Those who practice those things need to repent.

lie in sinning beyond an "allowable" it to be excused as ignorant or an honest mistake or whatever.

If one knows about a particular sin he is supposed to confess it and repent of it—not “excuse (it) as ignorant” or chalk it up to an “honest mistake”.

We don't even know where to draw the "line".

Where does this idea of “drawing the ‘line’” come from? That reflects a legalistic mentality—as if there’s a certain amount of sin we get to consistently “get away” with committing and still be “saved”. However, neither Christ nor the Apostles spelled out in the Scriptures that you can do “x” amount of sin and still be saved, and at “x + 1” you’re lost again. We’re commanded to pursue holiness in all our conduct. When we do sin we have an Advocate with the Father, and we need to confess and repent of that sin—not make excuses for it and become complacent. As we grow in grace, and receive more grace as we humble ourselves (James 4:6), we become more holy. It’s when we become prideful and/or complacent that we need to watch out lest we become barren and fruitless and ultimately cast out as branches.

, if you trust in the Law, it does not justify; but only exposes your sin. Man by nature is predisposed to commit those acts. A person rejecting Christ's righteousness, and trying to justify himself through the Law; though he might look righteous on the outside; still commits these acts (even though covered up, hidden, denied, excuses made, etc). This is why Paul says "the works of the flesh are these...", and then lists several sins.

And Paul says those who live in such a way or practice those thing won’t inherit the kingdom (Gal 5:21—see also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Ephesians 5:5)

Because as Paul even says in Rom.2:1, 21-22, the one judging someone else; thinking he is keeping it, is the one more likely who "does the same things".

I made this point above, that those (Jews) judging were in fact doing the same things they were condemning in others (Gentiles).

See also John 7:19 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law?"

In this same passage Jesus says, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge according to righteous judgment.” (John 7:24) on the heels of His comments about His healing on the Sabbath and the Pharisees circumcising on the Sabbath (v.22-23). The folks he was addressing were more concerned about observing the external aspects of the law such as circumcising even on the Sabbath rather than loving their neighbor as themselves—in this instance, criticizing Christ for healing a man on the Sabbath. So in their zeal to observe the external aspects of the law (circumcision, keeping the Sabbath) they were fundamentally violating the Law by not loving their neighbor (the man healed by Christ on the Sabbath, v23) as themselves, and as we know Christ states that all the law and prophets hang on loving God with one’s whole being and loving one’s neighbor as himself. Paul states the same thing when he writes that the one who loves his neighbor as himself has fulfilled the law (Romans 13:8-10, and Galatians 5:14).

(continued…)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on…)

This is basically what happens with all these groups including Catholicism, where all the people are taught to try to do "good enough" so (maybe!) they can "make it" to Heaven.

I perceive your argument is not with me but really with a straw man mischaracterization of my position, personified in your description of the externally practicing, but inwardly lukewarm (at best!), “Catholic”.

They see how hard it is, and then they become the ones to give up...

Well if “they” are “giving up” they are ignoring God’s commands to “hold fast”, “abide”, “stand firm”, “persevere”, “continue”, “diligently add to their faith”, “work out their salvation with fear and trembling”, etc.

…and live in all sort of sin,

Then they are ignoring God’s commands to confess and repent and to walk in the spirit so they don’t fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and they forget that those who practice those sins will not inherit the kingdom of God.

figuring God will excuse them, for the efforts they do make.

And they forget the fact that they are to grow in grace and be holy in all their conduct and to pursue holiness without which they will not see God (Heb 12:14).

They can't stay with one partner and be faithful for life, they can't love their neighbor as themselves

It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they won’t.

they lie, steal, cheat, kill, greed, hedonism, etc. they try to get the Church to change its teachings on abortion and homosexuality. Yet they still baptize their babies, take communion, cross their chests when passing a church, all that stuff Agnus mentioned regarding the prayers, and accept their church's belief in working for their salvation, and hopefully, God will "weigh" their good and bad at the judgement,

Then “they” are sadly mistaken.

and their "Faith through works" will get them in.

Yet if they are doing all the things you describe above and neglecting to love their neighbor, then there’s really no works to complete their faith, now is there?

Whichever type of Catholic church; whether it aims to teach some "currency" concept

The folks you describe aren’t confined to only “Catholic” churches, my friend.

that's what it always devolves into in practice.

Nice overgeneralization. This is patently not true for those who take all of the scriptural commands and admonitions seriously and who are working out their salvation with fear and trembling as God works in them to will and do His good pleasure.

THIS is what Paul, James and Jesus are condemning!

They are indeed condemning those who don’t have faith working in love, but who rather have a dead profitless faith, and who don’t actively abide in Christ by patiently continuing to do good in seeking for glory, honor, and immortality.

Great irony, isn't it?

What’s ironic is it the people you just described have a lot more in common with many of the OSAS folks than with my position. The folks you describe, though “giving up”, as you say, in the pursuit of holiness, are trying to hang their hats on some self-made minimalistic checklist; the OSAS folks who aren’t pursuing holiness are hanging their hats on a one time “salvation experience” or previous “decision to accept Christ”—in other words, a much shorter check list, but a check list just the same. (If my position has a checklist of sorts, it’s only a means of determining whether one is loving God with his whole being and loving his neighbor as Himself.) In both cases, these folks are relying on something other than an ongoing love relationship with Christ in the Spirit. However, it’s only those who actually continue to walk in the Spirit and abide in Christ (and who love God in deed and truth) that will bear real fruit as evidence of a real saving relationship with Christ.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

This thread is now closed.
​