ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Bout time for it to close too..lol
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
- Status
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
I know I’m not Matt, but I felt led to respond to this…
“Double talk”…” Speaking with forked tongue”…” Flip flopping”…(yada, yada, yada)…
Well, Mike, based on your “definition” (or, shall I say, “caricature”) of what qualifies for those colorful epithets, let’s look at few more “double talkers” and “flip floppers”…
First, the APOSTLE PAUL:
“Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, but you stand [present tense] 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 11:20-22)
“And you who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and irreproachable in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel…” (Colossians 1:21-23)
“Moreover brethren I declare unto the gospel which I preached to you, which also you receive and in which you stand [present tense], by which you are also saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2)
So you see, the Apostle Paul is clearly stating that we must indeed do “our part”—that is, we must “continue in His goodness”, “continue in the faith”, and “hold fast to the gospel” in which we are currently “standing” if we don’t want to be “cut off” (from Christ), but rather be presented holy and blameless in His sight, not having “believed in vain”. But since Paul is stating that our remaining in the faith-and, indeed, in Christ—is contingent on something we must do, namely “to continue” and “hold fast”, he must be a “double-talker” or “flip-flopper” by your ‘definition’.
(Cont'd....)
D28guy said:
D28guy said:
“Double talk”…” Speaking with forked tongue”…” Flip flopping”…(yada, yada, yada)…
Well, Mike, based on your “definition” (or, shall I say, “caricature”) of what qualifies for those colorful epithets, let’s look at few more “double talkers” and “flip floppers”…
First, the APOSTLE PAUL:
“Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, but you stand [present tense] 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 11:20-22)
“And you who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and irreproachable in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel…” (Colossians 1:21-23)
“Moreover brethren I declare unto the gospel which I preached to you, which also you receive and in which you stand [present tense], by which you are also saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2)
So you see, the Apostle Paul is clearly stating that we must indeed do “our part”—that is, we must “continue in His goodness”, “continue in the faith”, and “hold fast to the gospel” in which we are currently “standing” if we don’t want to be “cut off” (from Christ), but rather be presented holy and blameless in His sight, not having “believed in vain”. But since Paul is stating that our remaining in the faith-and, indeed, in Christ—is contingent on something we must do, namely “to continue” and “hold fast”, he must be a “double-talker” or “flip-flopper” by your ‘definition’.
(Cont'd....)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Conintuing on...)
And lest you suppose that our active “continuing” and “holding” does not involve any “good works” or “obedience”, heed well Paul’s statement to the Romans:
"[God] who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'; eternal life to do those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 2:6-10)
So Paul clearly states that God will render to folks according to their deeds (works), including eternal life to those who actually patiently continue to do good works. And lest one think that these good works just come passively and necessarily and automatically from a one-time profession of faith or “born again experience”, Paul states…
“…those who believe in God must be careful to maintain good works” (Titus 3:8)
So basically, it looks like Paul subscribes to what you (Mike) describe as the "all of this is yours as long as you do your part and maintain good works and obedience" error, since he clearly states that the believer “must be careful to maintain good works”—the same “good works” that he stated must be present for God to render that one eternal life, since God “will render to each one according to his deeds”. Further evidence of this active role one must take in his own salvation is given in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, in which the Apostle urges the believers to:
“work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13)
In other words, as God works in us to will and to do for His good pleasure, we are responsible to work out this salvation. If this “working out” occurred automatically and passively, this exhortation would be superfluous. To state it another way: the “working in us to will and do His good pleasure” is “God’s part”; the “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” is “our part.” So while God indeed works in us (or else we couldn’t do anything), the “working out” is something we must do—God doesn’t “work out” our salvation for us.WE are the ones that are exhorted to “continue”, to “hold fast”, to “maintain good works” and “work out” our salvation. GOD enables us (works in us) to do all of the above as long as we actively submit to Him and remain in Him. This is synergy (from the Greek “working together”) which is eminently Biblical (as we will see more examples below) and can be summed up not only in Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 2:12-13 but also in his statement to the Corinthians in which he writes “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Corinthians 3:9) and “workers together with Him” (2 Corinthians 6:1, another verse incidentally where Paul warns the believers “not to receive the grace of God in vain”.)
Yet, by teaching that Christians must “do their part”—to work out their own salvation and to continue in the faith, etc—Paul, the “apostle of grace”, is found guilty of “double talking” and “flip flopping” and “speaking with a forked tongue” according to Mike's particular doctrinal criterion listed above.
(cont'd)
And lest you suppose that our active “continuing” and “holding” does not involve any “good works” or “obedience”, heed well Paul’s statement to the Romans:
"[God] who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'; eternal life to do those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 2:6-10)
So Paul clearly states that God will render to folks according to their deeds (works), including eternal life to those who actually patiently continue to do good works. And lest one think that these good works just come passively and necessarily and automatically from a one-time profession of faith or “born again experience”, Paul states…
“…those who believe in God must be careful to maintain good works” (Titus 3:8)
So basically, it looks like Paul subscribes to what you (Mike) describe as the "all of this is yours as long as you do your part and maintain good works and obedience" error, since he clearly states that the believer “must be careful to maintain good works”—the same “good works” that he stated must be present for God to render that one eternal life, since God “will render to each one according to his deeds”. Further evidence of this active role one must take in his own salvation is given in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, in which the Apostle urges the believers to:
“work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13)
In other words, as God works in us to will and to do for His good pleasure, we are responsible to work out this salvation. If this “working out” occurred automatically and passively, this exhortation would be superfluous. To state it another way: the “working in us to will and do His good pleasure” is “God’s part”; the “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” is “our part.” So while God indeed works in us (or else we couldn’t do anything), the “working out” is something we must do—God doesn’t “work out” our salvation for us.WE are the ones that are exhorted to “continue”, to “hold fast”, to “maintain good works” and “work out” our salvation. GOD enables us (works in us) to do all of the above as long as we actively submit to Him and remain in Him. This is synergy (from the Greek “working together”) which is eminently Biblical (as we will see more examples below) and can be summed up not only in Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 2:12-13 but also in his statement to the Corinthians in which he writes “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Corinthians 3:9) and “workers together with Him” (2 Corinthians 6:1, another verse incidentally where Paul warns the believers “not to receive the grace of God in vain”.)
Yet, by teaching that Christians must “do their part”—to work out their own salvation and to continue in the faith, etc—Paul, the “apostle of grace”, is found guilty of “double talking” and “flip flopping” and “speaking with a forked tongue” according to Mike's particular doctrinal criterion listed above.
(cont'd)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Continuing on...)
Next, let’s consider the WRITER OF HEBREWS (if indeed he was someone other than Paul):
“Beware, brethren [ie fellow Christians], lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God”. (Hebrews 3:12)
--So the Christian’s “part” is to bewareof a heart of unbelief which would result in his departing from God.
“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.” (Hebrews 3:14) (see also verse 6)
--The Christian’s “part” is to hold the beginning of his confidence steadfast to the end.”
“He became the author of eternal life to all who obey Him.” (Heb 5:9)
--The Christian’s “part” is to obey. (God is not said to be the “author of eternal life” to those who ultimately do not obey Him)
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation that will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)
--The Christian’s “part” is not to “sin willfully” and thereby “trample the Son of God underfoot” and “insult the Spirit of grace” or else he’d be worthy of a worse punishment than those who rejected Moses in the OT. (It’s the Christians who are “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant”)
Examples can be multiplied from the Epistle to the Hebrews with it’s warnings and exhortations, but the ones listed above should suffice to demonstrate that the writer of this Epistle expected the Christians to do their “part”, and thus qualifies as a “flip-flopper” and “double-talker” according to the (cough, ahem) ‘definition’ given above.
(Cont'd...)
Next, let’s consider the WRITER OF HEBREWS (if indeed he was someone other than Paul):
“Beware, brethren [ie fellow Christians], lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God”. (Hebrews 3:12)
--So the Christian’s “part” is to bewareof a heart of unbelief which would result in his departing from God.
“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.” (Hebrews 3:14) (see also verse 6)
--The Christian’s “part” is to hold the beginning of his confidence steadfast to the end.”
“He became the author of eternal life to all who obey Him.” (Heb 5:9)
--The Christian’s “part” is to obey. (God is not said to be the “author of eternal life” to those who ultimately do not obey Him)
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation that will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)
--The Christian’s “part” is not to “sin willfully” and thereby “trample the Son of God underfoot” and “insult the Spirit of grace” or else he’d be worthy of a worse punishment than those who rejected Moses in the OT. (It’s the Christians who are “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant”)
Examples can be multiplied from the Epistle to the Hebrews with it’s warnings and exhortations, but the ones listed above should suffice to demonstrate that the writer of this Epistle expected the Christians to do their “part”, and thus qualifies as a “flip-flopper” and “double-talker” according to the (cough, ahem) ‘definition’ given above.
(Cont'd...)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Continuing on...)
Moving on to the APOSTLE PETER:
“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 Peter tells the believers that they must actually add certain “things” to their faith in order to: (1) avoid being “barren or unfruitful” in the knowledge; (2) “make (their) calling and election sure”; (3) avoid stumbling; and (4) have an “entrance supplied” into Christ’s “everlasting kingdom”. Not only that but he stresses that they must “give all diligence” and “be even more diligent” in doing so! In other words, it doesn’t sound like Peter is teaching that these things are going to be added passively and automatically to one’s faith (or else the exhortation would of course be unnecessary).
Now, granted Peter also teaches that’s it’s only by God’ gift that one can have these “things” (ie believers can’t conjure these things up on their own):
“…as His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3)
Yet we must do “our part” in diligently adding these things to our faith. So once again we are presented with the “synergy”—God supplying the gifts (“all things”) in Christ with the believers being responsible for diligently adding these gifts to their faith so that they don’t become “unfruitful” but rather have an “entrance supplied” into the “everlasting kingdom”. And since Peter teaches that there is indeed a “part” we must play in “making our calling and election sure”, he joins his fellow apostle Paul as a “double-talking, flip-flopper”.
Next is BROTHER JUDE:
While acknowledging that God is able to keep us from stumbling (verse 24), Jude also commands the believers to “keep yourselves in the love of God” (verse 21).
Since Jude simultaneously affirms that God is able to keep us from stumbling AND we have to keep ourselves in His love, he is obviously “speaking with a forked tongue”—just like just like those two other “double-talking”, “flip-flopping” synergists, Peter and Paul!
(Cont'd...)
Moving on to the APOSTLE PETER:
“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 Peter tells the believers that they must actually add certain “things” to their faith in order to: (1) avoid being “barren or unfruitful” in the knowledge; (2) “make (their) calling and election sure”; (3) avoid stumbling; and (4) have an “entrance supplied” into Christ’s “everlasting kingdom”. Not only that but he stresses that they must “give all diligence” and “be even more diligent” in doing so! In other words, it doesn’t sound like Peter is teaching that these things are going to be added passively and automatically to one’s faith (or else the exhortation would of course be unnecessary).
Now, granted Peter also teaches that’s it’s only by God’ gift that one can have these “things” (ie believers can’t conjure these things up on their own):
“…as His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3)
Yet we must do “our part” in diligently adding these things to our faith. So once again we are presented with the “synergy”—God supplying the gifts (“all things”) in Christ with the believers being responsible for diligently adding these gifts to their faith so that they don’t become “unfruitful” but rather have an “entrance supplied” into the “everlasting kingdom”. And since Peter teaches that there is indeed a “part” we must play in “making our calling and election sure”, he joins his fellow apostle Paul as a “double-talking, flip-flopper”.
Next is BROTHER JUDE:
While acknowledging that God is able to keep us from stumbling (verse 24), Jude also commands the believers to “keep yourselves in the love of God” (verse 21).
Since Jude simultaneously affirms that God is able to keep us from stumbling AND we have to keep ourselves in His love, he is obviously “speaking with a forked tongue”—just like just like those two other “double-talking”, “flip-flopping” synergists, Peter and Paul!
(Cont'd...)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Continuing on...)
Then, of course, moving on to BROTHER JAMES:
(I know I run the risk of being called “childish” by our esteemed moderator for making reference to this verse again, but here goes…)
“You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. (2:24)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this is the only verse in the Bible that has “justification”, “works”, and “faith alone” all together, and it specifically states that one is not justified by faith alone. And lest there be any misunderstanding about whether or not SALVATION is in view here, James begins his discussion about faith and works by asking rhetorically:
“What does it profit, my brethren [ie CHRISTIANS], if someone says he has faith and does not have works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?” (2:14)
The answer James suggests is “No, it cannot”. That is because…
“Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (2:17)
Notice James didn’t state that “faith by itself” is “imaginary” or “non-existent”, or is even “false”. It’s just “dead”, and we know that a dead faith ultimately ain’t gonna save no one—which of course agrees with Paul who wrote to the Galatians that what actually “avails for anything” is a “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6)
The “faith” James describes—intellectual assent to the truths of the Gospel--is not bad. In fact James states that those who have such intellectual belief “do well”. However, that “faith” (intellectual assent) though generally necessary is not sufficient—it ultimately needs “works” (of love, not “works of the Torah”) to complete it in order for one to be ultimately justified. In this way James is very similar to Peter: both seem to be using “faith” in the sense of “intellectual assent” and both are instructing believers to add to that “faith” certain “things” or “works” to “complete it” and to have an “entrance supplied into the heavenly kingdom”. Both James and Peter then would agree with Paul who teaches that at the Judgment God “will render to each one according to his deeds”—including eternal life to those who patiently continue to work what is good. Therefore, we must reach the verdict that the Lord’s brother James, according to the criteria offered by D28Guy (Mike), is another one of them “flip-flopping”, “double-talking”, “forked tongue speakers”. (May God have mercy!)
Now, we can’t forget about the BELOVED DISCIPLE and APOSTLE JOHN:
“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)
So here John states that if we walk in the light [present tense] then the blood of Jesus cleanses [present tense] us from all sin. There is an ongoing “part” we must play—“to walk in the light”—in order to be cleansed from our sin. (Uh oh—things aren’t looking too good so far for John!)
“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says I know Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth of God is not in him.” (1 John 2:3-4)
Whoa! John is stating we can know [present tense] that we know Him [present tense] if we keep [present] His commandments! He is teaching that we have such a knowledge based on our present-tense doing our part—keeping His commandments—not simply based on a one-time decision to “accept Christ”.
“Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him and He in him.” (1 John 3:24)
(Do you mean to tell us, John, that we have to keep His commandment—actually do something—to be abiding in Him?)…
“And now little children [ie Christians] abide in Him” (2:28)
(I guess John is telling us that: here he is commanding Christians to abide in Him; he’s not expecting that “abiding” to be an automatic, passive occurrence based on a one-time acceptance of Christ. The Christian’s “part” is to abide in Him)
“now he who has been born of God, keeps himself” (5:18)
So, again, God does His “part” (make us born again), and the Christian does his “part” (“keeps himself”).
Where does John (along with the other Apostles) get this (allegedly) flip-flopping, double-talking idea that we actually have to keep ourselves or to abide in Christ?
(Cont'd...)
Then, of course, moving on to BROTHER JAMES:
(I know I run the risk of being called “childish” by our esteemed moderator for making reference to this verse again, but here goes…)
“You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. (2:24)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this is the only verse in the Bible that has “justification”, “works”, and “faith alone” all together, and it specifically states that one is not justified by faith alone. And lest there be any misunderstanding about whether or not SALVATION is in view here, James begins his discussion about faith and works by asking rhetorically:
“What does it profit, my brethren [ie CHRISTIANS], if someone says he has faith and does not have works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?” (2:14)
The answer James suggests is “No, it cannot”. That is because…
“Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (2:17)
Notice James didn’t state that “faith by itself” is “imaginary” or “non-existent”, or is even “false”. It’s just “dead”, and we know that a dead faith ultimately ain’t gonna save no one—which of course agrees with Paul who wrote to the Galatians that what actually “avails for anything” is a “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6)
The “faith” James describes—intellectual assent to the truths of the Gospel--is not bad. In fact James states that those who have such intellectual belief “do well”. However, that “faith” (intellectual assent) though generally necessary is not sufficient—it ultimately needs “works” (of love, not “works of the Torah”) to complete it in order for one to be ultimately justified. In this way James is very similar to Peter: both seem to be using “faith” in the sense of “intellectual assent” and both are instructing believers to add to that “faith” certain “things” or “works” to “complete it” and to have an “entrance supplied into the heavenly kingdom”. Both James and Peter then would agree with Paul who teaches that at the Judgment God “will render to each one according to his deeds”—including eternal life to those who patiently continue to work what is good. Therefore, we must reach the verdict that the Lord’s brother James, according to the criteria offered by D28Guy (Mike), is another one of them “flip-flopping”, “double-talking”, “forked tongue speakers”. (May God have mercy!)
Now, we can’t forget about the BELOVED DISCIPLE and APOSTLE JOHN:
“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)
So here John states that if we walk in the light [present tense] then the blood of Jesus cleanses [present tense] us from all sin. There is an ongoing “part” we must play—“to walk in the light”—in order to be cleansed from our sin. (Uh oh—things aren’t looking too good so far for John!)
“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says I know Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth of God is not in him.” (1 John 2:3-4)
Whoa! John is stating we can know [present tense] that we know Him [present tense] if we keep [present] His commandments! He is teaching that we have such a knowledge based on our present-tense doing our part—keeping His commandments—not simply based on a one-time decision to “accept Christ”.
“Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him and He in him.” (1 John 3:24)
(Do you mean to tell us, John, that we have to keep His commandment—actually do something—to be abiding in Him?)…
“And now little children [ie Christians] abide in Him” (2:28)
(I guess John is telling us that: here he is commanding Christians to abide in Him; he’s not expecting that “abiding” to be an automatic, passive occurrence based on a one-time acceptance of Christ. The Christian’s “part” is to abide in Him)
“now he who has been born of God, keeps himself” (5:18)
So, again, God does His “part” (make us born again), and the Christian does his “part” (“keeps himself”).
Where does John (along with the other Apostles) get this (allegedly) flip-flopping, double-talking idea that we actually have to keep ourselves or to abide in Christ?
(Cont'd...)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Continuing on...)
This is where we finally come to the words of our LORD JESUS, as recorded by John:
“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)
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And He who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him”. (John 14:21)
(Whoa….)
“I am the vine and you are the branches, He who abides in Me, and I in Him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch.” (John 15:5-6)
Jesus is stating the negative consequence for the one who doesn’t abide in Him—that one is cast out as branch. (And notice one can’t be cast out as a branch if he was never a branch to begin with!). This is similar to Paul’s warning in Romans 11 (mentioned above).
And we are commanded by our Lord to abide in Him: “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me” (15:4)
So again this “abiding” is not a passive, automatic process for the one (the branch) that is in Christ (the Vine)—hence the need for the command and warning for what happens if one doesn’t abide. It is to the “branches” in Him that He gives this warning:
“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away” (15:2)
Putting it together, then, the “part” of the “branches” (Christians) is to (actively) abide in Christ so that we bear fruit. And just as in the case of Paul, Jesus teaches our final judgment will be in accordance with the fruit we bear and the works we do:
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:28-29)
Now that we come to it, we have to reject the verdict that Paul, Peter, Jude, James, and John are “double-talking flip-floppers” because it appears the criterion offered by Mike ("all of this is yours as long as you do your part and maintain good works and obedience" error) actually fail in making such a verdict. The criterion fails because it contradicts the One who is Truth Himself—the One who said we must do our “part” by abiding in Him to bear fruit (or if not we’ll be cut off as branches) and who said that it is to those who have done good who will be given the resurrection of life (and those who have done evil, the resurrection of condemnation).
I therefore respectfully urge Mike and others who believe like he does to prayerfully consider what is actually “biblical” and what constitutes “double-talking” and “flip-flopping”. The Biblical verdict is that we are not justified by faith (assent to the truths of the Gospel) alone but by faith working through love, and for our faith to be working through love we must actively abide in the Vine to bear such fruit--for without Him we can do nothing--if we want to partake of the resurrection of life in His everlasting kingdom.
Peace
This is where we finally come to the words of our LORD JESUS, as recorded by John:
“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)
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And He who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him”. (John 14:21)
(Whoa….)
“I am the vine and you are the branches, He who abides in Me, and I in Him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch.” (John 15:5-6)
Jesus is stating the negative consequence for the one who doesn’t abide in Him—that one is cast out as branch. (And notice one can’t be cast out as a branch if he was never a branch to begin with!). This is similar to Paul’s warning in Romans 11 (mentioned above).
And we are commanded by our Lord to abide in Him: “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me” (15:4)
So again this “abiding” is not a passive, automatic process for the one (the branch) that is in Christ (the Vine)—hence the need for the command and warning for what happens if one doesn’t abide. It is to the “branches” in Him that He gives this warning:
“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away” (15:2)
Putting it together, then, the “part” of the “branches” (Christians) is to (actively) abide in Christ so that we bear fruit. And just as in the case of Paul, Jesus teaches our final judgment will be in accordance with the fruit we bear and the works we do:
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:28-29)
Now that we come to it, we have to reject the verdict that Paul, Peter, Jude, James, and John are “double-talking flip-floppers” because it appears the criterion offered by Mike ("all of this is yours as long as you do your part and maintain good works and obedience" error) actually fail in making such a verdict. The criterion fails because it contradicts the One who is Truth Himself—the One who said we must do our “part” by abiding in Him to bear fruit (or if not we’ll be cut off as branches) and who said that it is to those who have done good who will be given the resurrection of life (and those who have done evil, the resurrection of condemnation).
I therefore respectfully urge Mike and others who believe like he does to prayerfully consider what is actually “biblical” and what constitutes “double-talking” and “flip-flopping”. The Biblical verdict is that we are not justified by faith (assent to the truths of the Gospel) alone but by faith working through love, and for our faith to be working through love we must actively abide in the Vine to bear such fruit--for without Him we can do nothing--if we want to partake of the resurrection of life in His everlasting kingdom.
Peace
This one point I would like to make because it has been harped on by you and other pro-Catholic apologists ad nauseum. It is not true. It is a lie. It is a historical error, a blatant lie, a false accusation, an untruth, etc. Whatever you want to label, by any other name it is wrong to promote this ugly lie. Before you promote such things learn the history.Matt Black said:
The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was done approximately 250 B.C.!! The Apocrypha range in dates between between 130 B.C. to 30 or even 50 A.D. Now, pray tell me how a book written after the death of Christ could just happen to get into a book written 300 years before that time?? Does that make any sense to you at all? These false statements, lies, must stop.
The original Septuagint NEVER contained the Apocrypha. Because of the antiquity of the book, it was impossible for it to contain book of such recent origin, written so close to the time of Christ. There are many other reasons why the Apocrypha could never have entered into the canon of the OT, one of which was the Jews would never accept any book written after 400 B.C. That just happened to be one of their tests of canonicity. It had to be extant at that period of time. That way out dates the Apocrypha by any scholar's admission.
It is true that some of the editions of the Septuagint did included the Apocrypha at the time of Christ. But they were not copies of the Septuagint that was originally done by the 72 men commissioned to do the work. The very name LXX are roman numerals for 70, a term rounded off for the 72 that did the translational work on the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus the LXX did not contain the Apocrypha but other perverted copies did.
In a modern day comparison, a TR advocate might say that the translations that come from the received text contain all the those texts that others call controversial, whereas almost all modern versions omit many key passages that seem to deal with the deity of Christ. Is this a coicidence. Many would say no, for there were many false prophets in that day that tampered with the Greek manuscripts in as much as they tampered with the Septuagint.
There is no need to promote a lie. The original LXX never contained the Apocrypha. Indeed it was physically impossible for it do so.
Doubting Thomas said:
DT,
We must distinguish the Apostles mentioned in the Bible and the so-called Apostles claimed by RCC and other Catholics.
The teachings of Apostles are already included in the Bible and therefore we follow the instructions according to the Bible Scriptures.
Then why do the Catholics claim for the Apostles if the Apostles are included in the Scriptures? They are actually claiming the teachings of the ECF's such as Augustine, and the problem is that they often differ from the Bible teachings. In such case which should follow between the Bible and ECF's?
The Apostles never taught us the followings:
- They never praised Mary as Mother of God
- They never taught us to pray to the dead, pray thru the dead
- They never asked us to follow the Pope, the human holy father
- They never taught the Purgatory
- They never taught Mary ascended to heaven even though John must have outlived her
- They never taught Mary is the Mother of the Church while they said Sarah is the mother of the women believers ( 1 Pet 3:6, Gal 4:23-31)
- They never taught the Infant Baptism, Unbelievers Baptism.
Which Apostles are you talking about?
The teachings of the True Apostles were already included in the Bible.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
By the way, DHK....
Last week (one week ago today, in fact) you issued me a challenge to refute your assertion that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches "justification by faith alone" after calling me "childish" for continuing to point out that: (1) James 2:24 specifically says we are not "justified by faith alone"; and (2) that no verse says we are "justified by faith alone" The relevent parts of your post to which I responded, I'll quote again:
I responded to this with a lengthy post that same day (I'll post it again if you want), refuting your assertions that:
1. You "proved" Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches "Justification by faith alone"
2. I was quoting James out of context.
I showed an appropriate exegesis of Eph 2:8-9 that didn't contradict other clear Pauline statements--such as found in Romans 2 and Romans 11, among others--and which didn't contradict James' clear statement that one is "justified by works and not by faith alone".
So I was wondering, were you actually planning on responding to my post?
(Still waiting...)
Last week (one week ago today, in fact) you issued me a challenge to refute your assertion that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches "justification by faith alone" after calling me "childish" for continuing to point out that: (1) James 2:24 specifically says we are not "justified by faith alone"; and (2) that no verse says we are "justified by faith alone" The relevent parts of your post to which I responded, I'll quote again:
DHK said:
I responded to this with a lengthy post that same day (I'll post it again if you want), refuting your assertions that:
1. You "proved" Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches "Justification by faith alone"
2. I was quoting James out of context.
I showed an appropriate exegesis of Eph 2:8-9 that didn't contradict other clear Pauline statements--such as found in Romans 2 and Romans 11, among others--and which didn't contradict James' clear statement that one is "justified by works and not by faith alone".
So I was wondering, were you actually planning on responding to my post?
(Still waiting...)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Um...the same one's Paul and John were referring to when they penned those verses mentioned above (in Ephesians and Revelation respectively).Eliyahu said:
Matt Black said:
There are many " self-claiming" Christians on this earth who actually do not have the Faith of Jesus Christ as you can read Mt 7:20-23
Matt said:
1. You admit that the Bible existed before the church then, at least first.
So, the catchphrase by Agnus is wrong.
2. You misunderstand that Apostles used LXX, as many RCC misunderstand. Apostles didn't use LXX. Apostles may have used another Hebrew MT which is called Vorlage or quoted the contents of the scriptures by meaning instead of Word-to-Word translation.
3. What was the Bible canon during 100-325 AD( around the time of Pope Sylvester and Nicean Council)? Did the Believers live without Bible canon in chaos? There were always the correct Bible canon at each time and the True churches used it, and Catholic church was not the genuine church, instead the true churches were the pure followers of the Apostles and Donatists and Novatians were among them
So, do you mean the Idol worshippers can decide which is the correct Bible?Matt said:
Matt said:
LXX was not used. Read Greek NT and compare it with LXX for each verses. The most famous verses claimed by LXX supporters are Luke 4:17- and Hebrews 10:5-, and many more verses are different from LXX. How come each verse of LXX is different from Greek NT? You just revealed your ignorance in Greek NT. How can we trust any oral tradition as we cannot distinguish which one is the genuine voice of anyone. Have you got any recorded voice of the Apostles? You can fabricate any antique voice of theirs.
No, RCC theories are heresies and they are rightly prohibited on this board.
Matt said:
No, he is bringing the heresy in the name of Christ, which is one of the tactics by Satan, which Apostle Paul said this way:
"To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour " ( Gal 2:5)
Last edited:
Doubting Thomas said:
Then they didn't talk about Purgatory, Theotokos, Mary's Assumption, Papacy, Making Statue for Mary, Prayer to the Dead, No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, Mary is the Mother of the Church or Church is our Mother, Obligatory Celibacy, Limbo, Extreme Unction, Weekly Sacrifice ( Mass), Only Priest can perform the sacraments, Salvation by Sacraments, Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, etc.....
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Eliyahu said:
Wow, you sure lumped a lot of stuff together there in your assertion. (Of course I'd strongly disagree with you regarding some of what you claimed as not being taught by the Apostles, but I'm sure that would take several threads to adequately discuss--no wait, that's been done already!
)Let's say some of the points, you disagree, then don't you agree to most of them? Then how come they can claim that those were taught by the Apostles? There must be something wrong in the practice of saying in the name of Apostles other than what was tauhgt in the Bible.Doubting Thomas said:Wow, you sure lumped a lot of stuff together there in your assertion. (Of course I'd strongly disagree with you regarding some of what you claimed as not being taught by the Apostles, but I'm sure that would take several threads to adequately discuss--no wait, that's been done already!
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Re-read my post then rephrase your question.Eliyahu said:
DT,
Roman Catholic is nothing but the extension of the Roman Empire decorated with the Christianity since the empire failed to exterminate the Believers. For that process, they needed to distract the people from reading the Bible, and they used the tactics of leaning on the fabricated HUman Tradition borrowing the name of Apostlic Tradition.
See the similarity between RE and RC
Roman Empire ---------------- Roman Catholic
Emperor------------- -----------Pope
Senate ---------------------College of Cardinals
Generals/Governor ----------------Archbishops
Officers --------------------------Bishop
Priests ---------------------------Soldiers
People --------------------------Lay people
Police like
Geshtapo ---------------------------Jesuits
Pontiff was originated from this Pontifex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus
Pontiff existed before the Christians entered Rome, and the Pontiff was the high priest for the pagan idol worship and goddess worship.
Roman Catholic has been established by the Satan, in order to continue to persecute the Christian believers. RCC is nothing more than that.
Other Catholics such as COE, Orthodox, Episcopal, Assyrian Catholic, are the step children or step brothers of RCC.
So, the Roman Empire continues to persecute the Christian believers even today.
Roman Catholic is nothing but the extension of the Roman Empire decorated with the Christianity since the empire failed to exterminate the Believers. For that process, they needed to distract the people from reading the Bible, and they used the tactics of leaning on the fabricated HUman Tradition borrowing the name of Apostlic Tradition.
See the similarity between RE and RC
Roman Empire ---------------- Roman Catholic
Emperor------------- -----------Pope
Senate ---------------------College of Cardinals
Generals/Governor ----------------Archbishops
Officers --------------------------Bishop
Priests ---------------------------Soldiers
People --------------------------Lay people
Police like
Geshtapo ---------------------------Jesuits
Pontiff was originated from this Pontifex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus
Pontiff existed before the Christians entered Rome, and the Pontiff was the high priest for the pagan idol worship and goddess worship.
Roman Catholic has been established by the Satan, in order to continue to persecute the Christian believers. RCC is nothing more than that.
Other Catholics such as COE, Orthodox, Episcopal, Assyrian Catholic, are the step children or step brothers of RCC.
So, the Roman Empire continues to persecute the Christian believers even today.
Last edited:
Since this whole translation debate, which is still a debate within Protestant circles today, has never been an issue with me, even as a Baptist, so I really never studied it. I always thought at the time that there were more pressing issues facing the Church than which Greek text. But anyway…
In order for me to objectively research this I have to ask a few questions so I can better understand.
You’re saying that “perverted” version of the Septuagint existed and this perverted version contained the Apocrypha? If this is correct, it looks like the perverted version of the Septuagint was in great use, more so than the pure version. Why didn’t the Jewish authorities nip this error early? Why wait until the Messiah comes, is crucified and thus resurrected and the Church established and gaining Jewish converts, did the Jewish authorities decide at the Council of Jamnia to reject the perverted version of the Septuagint?
Also, is it true that the early versions of the Bible in the sixteenth century contained the Apocrypha; like Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Geneva Bible and all KJV’s published before 1640?
I’m not going to debate the answers, b/c I don’t like debating something that I don’t have a clear picture of.
ICXC NIKA
-
In order for me to objectively research this I have to ask a few questions so I can better understand.
When you say “done” you mean that the whole Old Testament canon was settled and confirmed in approximately 250 B.C.?DHK said:
Ok, here are a few questions. Since Hebrew was no longer the language of the time of the disciples, it’s safe to say that the disciples in Christ’s day used the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint.DHK said:
You’re saying that “perverted” version of the Septuagint existed and this perverted version contained the Apocrypha? If this is correct, it looks like the perverted version of the Septuagint was in great use, more so than the pure version. Why didn’t the Jewish authorities nip this error early? Why wait until the Messiah comes, is crucified and thus resurrected and the Church established and gaining Jewish converts, did the Jewish authorities decide at the Council of Jamnia to reject the perverted version of the Septuagint?
DHK said:
Also, is it true that the early versions of the Bible in the sixteenth century contained the Apocrypha; like Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Geneva Bible and all KJV’s published before 1640?
I’m not going to debate the answers, b/c I don’t like debating something that I don’t have a clear picture of.
ICXC NIKA
-
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Eliyahu said:
Ah...say no more.
Eliyahu
"LXX was not used."
GE
Jesus read from the scroll in the synagogue. Was it from the LXX? To Jews? Definitely not!
So did the apostles. According to Acts 15, "Moses was read in the Church every Sabbath." Was it the LXX? I have serious doubts!
So, Eliyahu, I vote for you this time!
Then Irenaues is the first person we know of who took decisions of which books should be the Canon - early 2nd century. So we should get a trustworthy indication the Apocrypha were not accepted then - as it would not have been accepted for long by then!
I think there exists no honest reason not to accept the Scriptures as we have them today - without the Apocrypha and with the Canonic NT Books. It is pure rebelliousness against the pure milk of the Word of God that make people so worldly wise. I won't waste my time on it if I could help.
"LXX was not used."
GE
Jesus read from the scroll in the synagogue. Was it from the LXX? To Jews? Definitely not!
So did the apostles. According to Acts 15, "Moses was read in the Church every Sabbath." Was it the LXX? I have serious doubts!
So, Eliyahu, I vote for you this time!
Then Irenaues is the first person we know of who took decisions of which books should be the Canon - early 2nd century. So we should get a trustworthy indication the Apocrypha were not accepted then - as it would not have been accepted for long by then!
I think there exists no honest reason not to accept the Scriptures as we have them today - without the Apocrypha and with the Canonic NT Books. It is pure rebelliousness against the pure milk of the Word of God that make people so worldly wise. I won't waste my time on it if I could help.
- Status