Monday, December 03, 2007

Tim Staples keeps the commandments!



It's not easy listening to Matt Slick discuss with Tim Staples, but I got thru round three recently. I left a comment too, which led a (I believe) Roman Catholic fellow-listener to write me an email. I won't reproduce his email to me, but it had to do with his assertion that, no, really, good Christian people CAN keep 7 or so of the 10 Commandments, at least most of the time. And a few other related questions flowing out of the podcast. I reprint here the relevant parts of my response to him:


Let me share with you sthg I've noticed - where sin and man's sinfulness is downplayed, grace is by necessity downplayed as well.
One place that definitely occurs is in the RCC. You're not really all THAT bad, you haven't broken the _th commandment, or at least only a few times in your life, etc.
And your sin and resulting distance from God is not such that you can't get there by any of your own efforts. No, no, no, God's grace ENABLES us to DO some things to get there, to provide some atonement for our own sin whether by penance that we do or by Purgatorial sufferings. All that to say, we add to Christ's atonement in order to be saved.
It's terrifying! If I must rely on partly myself to get to Heaven, I'll never make it!

Tell you what, let's examine what you/Tim say about the 10 Commandments. You say that we should be able to keep the 1st 7 commandments w/o too much trouble.

From Ex 20:3-17 -

Commandment #1 - "You shall have no other gods before me.

-Have you ever put ANYthing before your devotion to God?
Of course you have. Every time you sin in ANY way you do so.

Broken? Check.

#2 - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am(D) a jealous God,(E) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

- Why does God say He's jealous in this cmdmt? It's b/c this is about putting material things before God Himself! Ever done that? Ever preferred a material thing over God? Ever lusted after a material woman?

Broken? Check.

#3 - "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

-Ever used God's or Jesus' name as a curse?
Ever proven yourself unworthy of bearing the name "follower of Christ" by your actions? (ie, ever sinned?)

Broken? Check.

#4 - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...

-Is your devotion and faith in Jesus Christ complete and full so that you NEVER trust in anything other than Him?
(This is the interpretation of the Sabbath from the book of Hebrews.)

Broken? Check.


#5 - "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

-Have you ALWAYS honored them? NEVER grumbled? NEVER disobeyed?

Broken? Check.

#6 - "You shall not murder.

-Ever been angry with someone? Ever called them a derogatory name? hated?
(See Jesus' interp of this in Matthew 5.)

Broken? Check.


#7 - "You shall not commit adultery.

-Ever looked at a woman with lust? (Matthew 5)

Broken? Check.



Etc.
Be honest - NO ONE can fulfill the law. Not even a little. Galatians 3 says that this is the whole point of the law - to demonstrate to us by our inability to keep it even a little the fact that we need to fall on God's grace IN TOTAL. Yes, we are THAT low. Yes, God's grace is THAT wonderful!
You say you haven't broken any of those 1st 7? That is self-righteousness and a lie. Please, repent before God. Tell Him that you are relying on Him and Him alone to bring you to heaven, to forgive your sin, that you can do NOTHING.

Finally, Tim was being incredibly inconsistent when he talked about "but when I do fall, there's forgiveness."
1) In RC dogma, you have to DO PENANCE to ACHIEVE that forgiveness. That's not by grace at all! "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Romans 11:6
2) God's standard is not "pretty good, not breaking 7 of the 10 most of the time"; it's PERFECTION. You can't EVER get there.
3) The whole point of the law, as I said, is to point out our inability. Not to try to make us think we can do it ourselves!

I hope you'll consider what I've said here. Please repent and ask God for forgiveness for your pride.

True Peace to you,

97 comments:

Saint and Sinner said...

"19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions...21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (Galatians 3)

Amen.

There are two ways to have life eternal. The covenant of law and keep it perfectly or the covenant of promise and receive the righteousness of God through faith. Paul makes it clear. This is an either/or dichotomy. Grace OR works. For the sinner, our only hope is to trust ONLY in Christ, our Righteousness.

Carrie said...

Let me share with you sthg I've noticed - where sin and man's sinfulness is downplayed, grace is by necessity downplayed as well.

Great point.

This leads not only to a reliance on self to fill the gap for the RC, but a universalist-like gospel where everyone else (Muslims come to mind) who "follows the light given" can make it to heaven.

EgoMakarios said...

"God's standard is not 'pretty good, not breaking 7 of the 10 most of the time'; it's PERFECTION. You can't EVER get there."

Or is his standard a life of repentance and seeking to be conformed to the image of his son? Martin Luther's very first thesis was "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, saying 'Repent ye' etc. willed that the whole life of the faithful should be repentance." Why would Jesus demand repentance if God's goal were an unreachable perfection? Or on the other hand, if God's standard was "give up, you can't do it" why again would he demand repentance? You are wrong. The Catholics are all. You're just all wrong, all of you.

Rhology said...

EgoMak,

You must've missed how the post dealt with the 10 Commandments, not the command to repent. Galatians 3 would not identify Jesus' "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" as "Law."

EgoMakarios said...

That's actually exactly my point.

Captain Kangaroo said...

"I hope you'll consider what I've said here. Please repent and ask God for forgiveness for your pride."

Fizzzzzzzzzzzzz—click! Bloop, bloop, buzz, beep, ch-ch-ch-ch-ch zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! (Lights begin flashing madly. Smoke pours out into the room in oily, black, acrid puffs.)
Chuuoooga! Cha-cha-hissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
[ [ [ [ [ [ KA-BOOM! ] ] ] ] ]




There goes another perfectly good Irony Meter.

EgoMakarios said...

But I also have a secondary point. Galatians 2:16 says "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,"

What are the works of the Law? Not the 10 commandments, but the animal sacrifices and ceremonies. The 10 commandments are the REST of the law, not the works.

Thou shalt have no other gods = rest from idolatry.

Thou shalt not use my name in vain = rest from false oaths.

Thou shalt not comit adultery = rest from adultery.

etc. etc.

It is the ceremonies that are work, while the 10 commandments are rest.

Sacrifice this. Offer that. Wash this. Tithe this. These are the works of the Law.

The 10 commandments are a call to repentance in 10 aspects of life, and they are not what Paul is refering to by works of the law. Works of the law are the ceremonies. Those ceremonies are opposed to faith in Christ, because a continuance of animal sacrifices is a denial of Christ's sacrifice. Whoever determines to justify himself by the works of the Law, i.e. the animal sacrifices, has denied Christ's once for all sacrifice.

Rhology said...

so honoring the sabbath, loving one's brother (ie, not murdering), staying pure (ie, not stealing or lusting), honoring one's parents, those aren't works. OK, makes sense.

EgoMakarios said...

They are a call to rest from the works of the flesh. Which is a work, "You will not kill" or "you will kill"?

Richard Froggatt said...

And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

Rhology said...

So Rich F, you keep the commandments?

Richard Froggatt said...

So Rich F, you keep the commandments?

Nope. But it's not because I can't; it's because I let sin have the rule over me instead of the Holy Spirit.

And, I'll have to listen to Slick/Staples; but I doubt very much that Tim Staples is arguing that we can keep the commandments perfectly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

What should we do with the verse that says "be holy for God is holy"? I know that Protestants quote this verse; how do Protestants practice it if not by the commandments?

Rhology said...

We *strive* to keep the commandments of course. But we hold no illusions unlike you apparently do that we can ever even get close to keeping the law.
The fulfillment of our being holy is Christ's alien righteousness imputed to our account. Given that your dogma excludes that, however, I don't blame you for trying to fool yourself that you ARE keeping the commandments.

If you're not keeping them, though, as you said, why
1) say you are
2) think that you can have anything to contribute to your justification?

Peace,
Rhology

Lvka said...

Rhology,

was Your anesthesiated during labor? Or do You know ANY woman anesthesiated during birth?

If the answer is "no", then re-read Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus afresh. OK?

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Rhology,

Your post offers a good example of what an "examination of conscience" ought to consist.

However, a few questions:

(1) Is it your view that you break each of the 10 commandments on a daily basis?

(2) Is it your view that each of your sins are identical in terms of deliberation and moral gravity?

(3) Is it your desire to commit fewer sins?

(4) If it is your desire, do you practice any spiritual disciplines to help you reach the goal of developing a habit of practicing virtue rather than committing vice?

(5) To the extent that you have mastered such a spiritual discipline, have you experienced any joy or pleasure in developing a habit of virtue instead of vice?

Saint and Sinner said...

"What should we do with the verse that says "be holy for God is holy"? I know that Protestants quote this verse; how do Protestants practice it if not by the commandments?"

Indeed, we are commanded to be holy. As the people in the wilderness said as they entered into the Law-covenant of Moses, "All this we shall do."

The problem, as it became apparent from Joshua to Ezra and further elaborated in the prophets, was that THEY COULD NOT KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.

God demands perfection. As it is made clear from the prophets and explained in the NT, the Law was given to convict man of his sin. The only way to be justified before God is for that righteousness that was demanded to be given freely instead.

Paul makes it clear that the law can only condemn and never justify. It was a suzerainty covenant in which blessing was conditional upon the obedience of the vassal.

However, Paul states that since we can not do this, God had to give it as a free gift. Thus, the covenant given to Abraham, the way in which we are justified (Romans 4), was a "royal grant" covenant, something given freely by a king with no strings attached.

If you read the account of Abraham's covenant, the only person who walks through the split animals (i.e. the only one upon whom the covenant depends) was God. Thus, our justification depends solely upon the One who obeyed the Law perfectly.

Roman Catholicism, EOxy, Cambelitism, and all the other groups are reductionistic in that they reduce the two covenants, Abraham's and Sinai, by combining them into one making the formula faith + works of obedience = staying in the covenant.

However, in Galatians 4 (I believe since I don't have my Bible with me), Paul puts the two in total contrast by using allegory calling Sinai "slavery" and calling Abraham's covnenant "freedom" and of the "heavenly Jerusalem."

BTW: I wrote this on "Works of the Law" a few years back. I'll need to write a new one to be more in depth.

http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/object_solely_faith_1.htm

I would call on you all to renounce your own righteousness and trust only in Christ's righteousness which is given through faith alone. Holiness is the fruit of regeneration, not the means of justification.

Rhology said...

Lvka,

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand what you mean.
Yes, I've known several friends who've been anesthetised during the birth of their children. My wife was not, but friends have been.

Rhology said...

Oh, you're Lucian, that explains why I don't have any idea what you're talking about...

Valentin Talos said...

C'mon ... don't act as if You don't know where I'm gettin' at ...

After the fall of our race from grace, the woman has been cursed to deliver babies in labor. Now, according to -let's say- 'Song of Songs' and the 'Apocalypse', the bride is the soul and God/Christ is the heavenly Bridegroom. The redemption is a new birth, whose result is the new creature in Christ Jesus. -- am I making myself clearer? Or do I need to spell it out?

Lvka said...

"Valentin Talos" was me ... sorry ... I've just checked into our college-year's GMail account a few minutes earlier, to find out about my school-situation. Sorry!

EgoMakarios said...

"Roman Catholicism, EOxy, Cambelitism, and all the other groups are reductionistic in that they reduce the two covenants, Abraham's and Sinai, by combining them into one making the formula faith + works of obedience = staying in the covenant." (S&S)

You fail to distinguish between works of faith (i.e. obedience) and works of the law. Abraham had to leave his country when God told him to--he was not justified by bare faith. Nobody is justified by bare faith. That's why the Holy Spirit through James saw the need to clarify Paul's statements on how the works OF THE LAW don't save. He made it quite clear that yes, although the works of the Law don't save, works of faith are necessary to salvation, even as Abraham had to offer Isaac to be/remain justified. Had Abraham said "forget you God! I aint offering my only-begotten Son to you as a burn offering!" then he would have lost his justification and anyone who denies this is insane. Yet, clearly as Paul says, Abraham didn't have to keep the works of Moses' law (circumcision, food laws, Sabbaths, and all the various animal sacrifices) to be justified, but only had to obey that which God specifically had him to obey. God does not enjoin the law of Moses on Christians and therefore the works of the law are not of any consequence to a Christian. A Christian must obey Jesus' teachings, repentance, confession, baptism, Jesus' teachings on divorce/remarriage, etc. not the works of the law. Paul Himself says that when among those who had the law he lived by the law and when among those without law he lived as without law that he might win the more to Christ, but that he was never without law to God for he was always under the law of Christ--note, not the law of Moses but the law of Christ. Christians have no business even ATTEMPTING to keep Moses' law, since most of the works of Moses' law are in fact now sins. To sacrifice an animal is not only worthless, but an abomination, for the overflowing of which abomination God destroyed the temple per Daniel 9:27. Is it not obvious that the works of the Law, (e.g. the sacrifices of the law) being abominable after the sacrifice of Christ have no power to save but only to damn? And yet, is it not more obvious that the commandments of Christ, to believer, repent, confess him before men, and be baptized for the remission of sins, have the power to save by and through his work on the cross and his resurrection which has had joined to them?

L P Cruz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
L P Cruz said...

I meant to say I like to chime in on Luther.

Yes Luther said that the life of a Christian is a life of repentance. The thing though is that his idea of repentance is not what you think it is. In fact his idea of repentance is that you are to repent in thinking that you can satisfy for yourself the commandments of God. You are to repent of yourself reliance in thinking you can do the Law( moral law or spiritual laws included etc ie any commands of God), for God requires them to be executed without fail 24 x 7.

LPC

Richard Froggatt said...

for God requires them to be executed without fail 24 x 7.

I didn't realize the bible mentions a 24 hour time period; 24/7 at that.

In fact his idea of repentance is that you are to repent in thinking that you can satisfy for yourself the commandments of God. You are to repent of yourself reliance in thinking you can do the Law( moral law or spiritual laws included etc ie any commands of God),

That's not only un-biblical, it's anti-biblical.

L P Cruz said...

Well that is the great blunder, you think God does not require you to do them perfectly without fail, with all of your heart, soul and strength.

The problem is that when you see God commanding you to do something that means he believes you have the capacity to do his commands. But are you doing it really? According to Jesus we sin in our thoughts, in our words and in our deeds.

If you can make it, what was Jesus doing at the Cross? Why not just go ahead and save yourself, goodness, he need not come down if you are well capable of doing it, his cross makes no sense.

The fact he dies is proof, your best is not good enough.

This is the reason that is why it is Sola Gratia via Sola Fide on account of Solus Christus. That is why salvation is a gift.

See Romans 3:23-26.

LPC

Lvka said...

If you can make it, what was Jesus doing at the Cross?

Matthew 16:24  ¶Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 8:34  And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:21  Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luke 9:23  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

-----

This, friend, is what Jesus was doing on the Cross.

L P Cruz said...

All the passages you quote had Jesus not hanging at the cross, let me give you some

Lk 23:34Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."[e]

That my friend Jesus was doing at the cross interceding for sinners who even crucified him, the enemies of God which means **you**.

God has answered that prayer and so now forgives you on account of Jesus work on your behalf.

I know it is too good to be true, but it is.

If you want commands from Jesus, his commands are a lot harder to do compared to those of Moses.

LPC

Rhology said...

PSB,

Sorry, couldn't get to this yestuhday.

1) Dang near. Probably, and probably multiple times.
2) No. I do deny that a sin I could commit could vary in its power from another sin to separate me from the justification imputed to me by Christ (of course, since no sin could do that).
3) Yes.
4) Yes.
5) Yes.

I don't see what #2-5 have to do with the post, and I'm not sure what you're getting at but I'll of course watch for any development you might make.

Peace,
Rhology

Lvka said...

His Cross seemingly demands, as well as enables us, to wear ours. And we're His friends only if we keep His commanments. And we're also the sons of the one whose deeds we do and whose thoughts we think. Whether easy or uneasy, that's the Gospel itself. And if we're only hearers, and not doers, we deceive ourselves. That You think otherwise is not MY problem.

EgoMakarios said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EgoMakarios said...

"Yes Luther said that the life of a Christian is a life of repentance. The thing though is that his idea of repentance is not what you think it is. In fact his idea of repentance is that you are to repent in thinking that you can satisfy for yourself the commandments of God. You are to repent of yourself reliance in thinking you can do the Law( moral law or spiritual laws included etc ie any commands of God), for God requires them to be executed without fail 24 x 7." (L P Cruz)

I think the very concept of repentance precludes the idea that anyone can live sinlessly, but not that a person can keep the law in the sense that when they break the law they ask God's forgiveness and try to do better in the future. You are trying to make repentance mean "give up, live in sin, don't care, don't try, sit back in your easy chair and say 'I believe'" and that is 100% the opposite of repentance. Yet repentance now doesn't mean to follow the law of Moses but the law of Christ.

Carrie said...

His Cross seemingly demands, as well as enables us, to wear ours.

Lucian's focus on Christ as an example of how to carry our own crosses is a weird emphasis. I say this b/c I have seen this attitude from RCs as well (Lucian is EO if I remember correctly).

I have yet to spend time trying to figure it out, but it seems to stem from the denial of Penal Substitution. I have heard individual RCs and EOs make comments that baffle me, but I haven't had the time to track down official teachings in this area.

Lucian, perhaps you could simply tell me (just a few, clear sentences, please) WHY Jesus came to earth and died on the Cross.

EgoMakarios said...

"I have yet to spend time trying to figure it out, but it seems to stem from the denial of Penal Substitution. I have heard individual RCs and EOs make comments that baffle me, but I haven't had the time to track down official teachings in this area." (Carrie)

Read the parable of Matthew 18:23-the end of the chapter, where the king forgives the debt (doesn't pay it). Then read Matthew 6:12 where Jesus teaches us to pray "forgive us our debts..." Compare Jesus' teaching (i.e. forgiveness of debt) with Calvinist teaching (i.e. payment of debt). Do you pray "forgive us our debts" for a debt that is paid? Jesus' death on the cross provides the basis on which God will forgive our debts, but it is not actual payment of our debts. That's why salvation ain't some automatic thing like Calvinists want it to be. Else, Jesus would not teach us to pray "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." Why ask that of a debt that's already paid in full, as your heresy says it is? And why must we pray "forgive us our debts" every single day right there along with "give us our daily bread"? Calvinism teaches that as soon as Jesus died, boom, automatica salvaiton, all my debt was paid once for all and now I'll never need forgiveness, cuz it was all paid in one lump sum. Yet, John says in 1 John 1:7-9 that we must continually repent, confess, and pray for forgiveness in order to have Jesus' blood continually cleanse us from sin. Why do I need continual cleansing if the cross was a one-time lump sum payment? Why do I pray for forgiveness if my debt is paid? The cross is not payment of debt. "Oh, but he bought the church" one might say or "he paid our ransom"--do not confuse metaphors. The bride price for the church is not payment of individual debt, nor indeed is the ransom price payment of debt. These are purchase prices. Can you not buy an indebted slave without paying his debt? If slave-A owes master-C 200 dollars, and slave-A is owned by master-B, cannot master-D buy slave-A from master-B without paying the 200 dollars to master-C? Of course! So ransom payment is not debt payment. Calvinism is just plain wrong.

Carrie said...

Ego,

I wasn't intending to start a discussion on the merits of penal substitution as it is off-topic. But Lucian's comment interested me so I was just asking for some clarification.

Perhaps I will address penal substitution in a future post.

EgoMakarios said...

Fine. BTW, Lucian's comment has nothing to do with penal substitution anyhow, and is neither affirming nor denying it. It is just a string of allusions to NT passages--allusions to passages which Calvislam hates.

1.) "His Cross seemingly demands, as well as enables us, to wear ours."

Matthew 16:24 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

2.) "And we're His friends only if we keep His commanments."

John 15:14 "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."

3.) "And we're also the sons of the one whose deeds we do and whose thoughts we think."

Matthew 5:44-45 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

John 8:39-44 "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

3.) "And if we're only hearers, and not doers, we deceive ourselves."

James 1:25-26 "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain."

EgoMakarios said...

obviously the 2nd 3 should be a 4.

Lvka said...

What I was hintin' at was the fact that the Man on the Cross Himself, far from understanding His last words ("It is fulfilled!") as denying us any shre in His Cross, actually wants us to join Him in that (see my Gospel-passages on "who wants to come after Me, let him deny himself, take his Cross and follow Me"). HIS Cross cries us for OUR little crosses to be uplifted. And the fact that He Himself came down from Heaven in order to do that, shows the prior inability of our human race to have done this. We receive the power to join Him in Death (to self, for others, for the Gospel) at our Baptisms. The same goes for our ability to partake of His glorious Resurrection: we receive that also at our Baptisms. ("for as many of you who have been baptised in Christ, have been dressed in Christ", so St. Paul tells us).

Romans 6:3
 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4
 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life
.
See the rest of this chapter also.

L P Cruz said...

Ivka

We do not have the same concept of sin. I do not confine sin to actuals actions only. Sin is what you are. It is a condition.
Also we do not have the same concept of the commands of God. When I hear God making commands, he is not saying - I believe you can do it, instead I hear him, this is my standard and you do not meet it, you are doomed.

That You think otherwise is not MY problem.

Ahh, but neither is it MY problem too the fact that YOU think otherwise.

Ego,

.but not that a person can keep the law in the sense that when they break the law they ask God's forgiveness and try to do better in the future.

If you can keep the Law, you need not repent, since if you did it yesterday, just do the Law again tomorrow for your continues improvement.

You are trying to make repentance mean "give up, live in sin, don't care, don't try, sit back in your easy chair and say 'I believe'" and that is 100% the opposite of repentance.

The Lutheran concept of repentance contains two components a.)contrition: the *sad* realization that you are a sinner, a law breaker worthy of damnation b.) faith : the turning away from all source of dependence but that you depend on Jesus' work as the only basis for being forgiven i.e. you long to be forgiven only for the sake of Jesus' sacrifice for sinners like you.



BTW, what your accusation is exactly the same accusation that they said to Paul

Rom 3: 8
And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "(N)Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.
Rom 6:
1(A)What shall we say then? Are we to (B)continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2(C)May it never be! How shall we who (D)died to sin still live in it?

3Or do you not know that all of us who have been (E)baptized into (F)Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?


The thing is you motivate people to do good works using the Law, St. Paul motivates people by the Gospel, by the new identity.

LPC

EgoMakarios said...

Oh no. You brought up Romans 6. Their brains will all turn off now.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (Reformed: Yes, of course!)

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Reformed: It's easy! Let me show you!)

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (Reformed: Baptism? Pbah! I spit on baptism!)

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Reformed: Baptism is a worthless sign of a grace already received. Baptism is not "so that" anything.)

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (Reformed: IF? There are no conditions to salvation! God does all the work while we float to heaven in a parade float! Baptism is a work of the law and we don't have to do it. We receive the likeness of his resurrection without it, yea, in spite of it!)

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Reformed: I'm once saved always saved, so I'll serve sin if I want. And what's this about being crucified with him when we never were alive anyway! How can you crucify a will that never existed to start with--there is no free will, nay no will at all, but all actions are predetermined by allah!)

EgoMakarios said...

"Sin is what you are." (I p Cruz)

1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." Sin is not what we are but what we do when we transgress the law.

"Transgression of the law is what you are." (what I p Cruz will say next)

Then did God transgress the law in creating me?????? I suppose so, if I AM a transgression of the law.

EgoMakarios said...

Isaiah 49:5 "And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..."

GASP! According to Manichean Augustinian definition, God formed a sin since men don't simply do sin but are sin. So much for the impeccability of Christ, if it is true that men are sin. But what doctrine could be more puerile, foolish, and pagan than the notion that men are sin?

Yea verily, how does my very existence transgress the law? how will you say I am sin (that is, transgression of the law). How will you, O Calvinslamic, say that God sinned in forming me in the womb for I am sin and he formed me?

Does my existence break the first commandments? the second? How am I sin? Which commandment am I the breaking of? Not which DO I break, but the breaking of which AM I?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt have no other gods before me?"

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain"?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not kill"?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not steal"?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not commit adultery"?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff"?

Am I the breaking of "remember the sabbath"?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not lie"?

Am I the breaking of "thou shalt not near false witness"?

Am I the breaking of "honor thy father and mother"?

These are things that men do not that they are. Such total pagan foolishness is Calvislam.

L P Cruz said...

Ego,

OK my friend, one more try, I have some spare time so here, I hope this helps (though I am not with out skepticism).

Sin is a condition, that is the bad news you do not like to hear. You can not hear it because you hope is in the the thought that you are saved by what you can do in relation to the Law. The thing is you won't let the Law condemn you, your self assessment is still positive but for St. Paul he assessed himself doomed. In actuality you still are banking you can do it and thereby merit God's nod of approval hence the Gospel fails to be sweet.

Rom 7:
7(M)What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? (N)May it never be! On the contrary, (O)I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "(P)YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

8But sin, (Q)taking opportunity (R)through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for (S)apart from the Law sin is dead.

9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

10and this commandment, which was (T)to result in life, proved to result in death for me;

11for sin, (U)taking an opportunity (V)through the commandment, (W)deceived me and through it killed me.

12(X)So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? (Y)May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.


The purpose of the Law is to reveal you are a sinner, not that you can do it because if that is the message of the Law that you can do it, you do not have to run to the Cross of Jesus and find shelter there.

LPC

L P Cruz said...

Ego,

I am not a Calvinist so I take it that your arguments do not touch on mine.

Pelagianism which you promote, makes Jesus' Cross of no value, this is why historically that view was rejected by all Christian traditions.

The EO does not like Augustine's Orginal Sin but yet, they quote him whenever it is convenient too and even at that I doubt if they like Pelagius.


LPC

EgoMakarios said...

"Sin is a condition, that is the bad news you do not like to hear. You can not hear it because you hope is in the the thought that you are saved by what you can do in relation to the Law." (LPC)

Quit being stupid. Nobody here has said that anyone can be saved by the Law of Moses. To keep the Law of Moses you would have to offer animal sacrifices, the doing of which would damn you, since God will not put up with you spitting in Christ's face by asserting that some sacrifice other than his is needed. The Law of Moses was nailed to the cross and anyone who seeks to be justified by it will be sorely disappointed.

Those who think they keep the Law of Moses and yet do not follow the animal sacrifices will be disappointed in that they will find on the day of judgment that you can't keep the Law of Moses without the sacrifices and thus they weren't really keeping the Law of Moses although they thought they were.

Those who do keep the animal sacrifices are not really keeping them since they would only be valid in the temple--what temple? There is no temple anymore. So clearly, nobody can keep the Law of Moses. But even if they did, the animal sacrifices would damn them since they are an abomination to God now that Jesus has been sacrificed.

Clearly then, in order to be saved one must forget about trying to keep the Law of Moses and must put their faith in Christ, repent, confess their belief in Christ, and be baptized into his death. Then they must live a life of constant repentance and obedience to Christ, not the Law of Moses, but to Christ Himself as Hebrews 5:9 says, Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him. How does one obey him? By believing in him and his sacrifice, by repenting of their sins, confessing him before men, being baptized in order to be planted into his death (Rom 6:5) and keeping his commandments (whatsoever he has commanded, end of Matt 28). And, yes, we cannot even perfectly obey his commandments without sinning, which is why we have 1 John 1:7-9, that so long as we walk in the light we have the CONTINUAL cleansing of Christ's blood, which walking in the light is defined there as repenting and confessing our sins in opposition to living in obstinate sin. Again in Hebrews 10:26+ we find that living in obstinate sin refusing to repent will damn a Christian, for Paul says there that obstinate and willfull persistance in sin is throwing away Christ's sacrifice (and there is none left after that) and trampling the Son of God underfoot, calling his blood unholy, and spitting on the Spirit of grace, and those who do this he says will receive a much worse punishment than those who despised Moses' Law who died without mercy under two or three witnesses. For these Christians who quit repenting and decide to live in obstinate and wilfull sin, he says, will be destroyed by fire which is reserved for the enemies of God! And he adds, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

And yes, to seek to justify oneself by Moses' Law is a willfull sin, and is obstinancy. For we know that Sabbaths and circumcision and animal sacrifices and the washing of pots and pans and whatever from Moses' law have no justifying power, whereas the cross of Christ and the means of grace he has chosen thereof do. Those, therefore, who seek to justify themselves by Moses' Law will have their spiritual blood mingled with their abominable animal sacrifices as the Galileans had their physical by Pilate.

L P Cruz said...

By believing in him and his sacrifice, by repenting of their sins, confessing him before men, being baptized in order to be planted into his death (Rom 6:5) and keeping his commandments (whatsoever he has commanded, end of Matt 28). And, yes, we cannot even perfectly obey his commandments without sinning, which is why we have 1 John 1:7-9, that so long as we walk in the light we have the CONTINUAL cleansing of Christ's blood, which walking in the light is defined there as repenting and confessing our sins in opposition to living in obstinate sin.

Likewise, stop being silly, no one here is promoting that we live in obstinate sin. You keep on introducing straw men.

You may have demolished the Law of Moses, but the way you are speaking, you are still saved by works - you just replaced the Law of Moses by your 'spiritual works' , such as faith, repentance, confession. You are saved by your faith, by your repenting, by your confessing and so you are saved by yourself - saved by something inside you.

Just see to it you have no un-confessed sin before you exit this world, OK? Be safe.

Cheers,

LPC

Dozie said...

"where sin and man's sinfulness is downplayed, grace is by necessity downplayed as well."


So then: sin must be promoted so that grace may abound.

While a certain Catholic is accused of claiming to keep the commandments, the Protestant writer BOASTS about breaking God's commandment and promotes the breaking of same. Crazy stuff.

Lvka said...

you just replaced the Law of Moses by your 'spiritual works' , such as faith

LP Cruz,

to what denomination do You belong?

Dozie said...

"You are saved by your faith, by your repenting, by your confessing and so you are saved by yourself - saved by something inside you."

Whose faith saves you? If the faith that saves you is not faith exercised by Christ on your behalf but only and simply the faith you exercise according to your understanding and maturity, you are still saved by you, following a logical conclusion of your Protestant theology.

Put another way: the faith that can save you, if it is not to be seen as work, must be the faith of another. Otherwise, why would faith be required of you?

Carrie said...

HIS Cross cries us for OUR little crosses to be uplifted. And the fact that He Himself came down from Heaven in order to do that, shows the prior inability of our human race to have done this.

Thanks for answering, Lucian, but I am still unclear.

What exactly was our "prior inability" or maybe, what do you mean by our "little crosses".

Perhaps you could explain to me in very simple terms why Jesus came to die on the cross. It may help if you explain it as if I were not a believer and unfamiliar with biblical terms/metaphors.

Thanks.

Carrie said...

So then: sin must be promoted so that grace may abound.

Could Dozie have been one of the slanders in Romans 3? Funny how history repeats itself.

EgoMakarios said...

"You may have demolished the Law of Moses, but the way you are speaking, you are still saved by works - you just replaced the Law of Moses by your 'spiritual works' , such as faith, repentance, confession. You are saved by your faith, by your repenting, by your confessing and so you are saved by yourself - saved by something inside you." (LPC)

You people have such an asinine way of looking at things. Why good is repentance without the cross? Worthless. What good is confessing Christ if he didn't actually die on the cross? Worthless. What good is being baptized into his death if he didn't die? Worthless. So, when a person does these things, do they save themself? Or does the cross and Jesus Himself who gave these things this power save them through these things? Jesus said "unless you repent you shall all likewise perish" -- yet you want to nullify repentance and saw "no, just faith without repentance is all that's needed." You have denied the Lord outright, for you call him a liar!

Lvka said...

Carrie,

this would be a very good link. (It's a BIT lengthy, ... but once You've read it, I don't think You'll have any more questions on the subject: it presents the traditional Western and Eastern views side by side, and it does a very good job at it, and, most importantly, it does this without any polemics involved...)

Carrie said...

this would be a very good link. (It's a BIT lengthy, ... but once You've read it, I don't think You'll have any more questions on the subject:

Thanks, I'll take a look.

Peter Sean Bradley said...

I’ve found the above-exchange to be very illuminating. I think L.P. Cruz has done an excellent job of laying out the Lutheran position. Honestly, that explanation seems to clarify a lot of the inconsistencies that I thought existed in the Lutheran position.

Nonetheless, I find the Lutheran position troubling. It seems to make evil an existing substance; if humans are sin – or their condition is sin – then that implies that a state exists which is evil as such. This is a problematic position from the point of Christian orthodoxy which has always affirmed that evil is a departure or deficiency from some state of due perfection (See Augustine, Aquinas), and seems to move in the direction of Manichaeism.

Also, it strikes me as unbiblical. To say that human beings are sin is to say that human beings are ontologically evil. This flies in the face of the fact that God created man – and everything good. See Genesis 1; Wisdom 1:12 – 14. The idea that man could by his own effort transform what God created good into something essentially evil, seems, again, to be Manichean.

EgoMakarios said...

Peter Sean Bradley, I say amen to your second paragraph. But this position not only moves in the direction of Manichaeism, but rather came from Manicheanism. I've been saying all along that the doctrine of inherited guilt is Manichean, whether we are talking about the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinists view of it. Augustine never totally left Manicheanism. He merely exchanged Manichee's doctrine of an evil god putting an evil spirit in children at conception to the lust of the parents cleaving to the soul of the child at conception and resulting in total depravity/inability. Same ole same ole.

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Rhology,

Thank you for your candid answers, which went as follows:

(1) Is it your view that you break each of the 10 commandments on a daily basis?

1) Dang near. Probably, and probably multiple times.

(2) Is it your view that each of your sins are identical in terms of deliberation and moral gravity?
2) No. I do deny that a sin I could commit could vary in its power from another sin to separate me from the justification imputed to me by Christ (of course, since no sin could do that).

(3) Is it your desire to commit fewer sins?
3) Yes

(4) If it is your desire, do you practice any spiritual disciplines to help you reach the goal of developing a habit of practicing virtue rather than committing vice?
4) Yes.

(5) To the extent that you have mastered such a spiritual discipline, have you experienced any joy or pleasure in developing a habit of virtue instead of vice?
4) Yes.


The importance of the final three questions is that they establish that you really do agree with the observations that I’m going to offer, perhaps because the natural law is written on the hearts of all and is accessible by reason.

Clearly the key question was #2. Your position is one that has been held at various times throughout history – e.g., the Stoics and the Cathars, according to Aquinas – and is apparently the preponderant position of various Protestant confessions.

I don’t think it is tenable, however, as a biblical position because the bible is filled with references to sins having different gravities and effects.

For example, notwithstanding your belief that there is no sin that could part you from Christ, I suspect that you would acknowledge that the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can do exactly that.

Similarly, Christ Himself points to degrees of sin when He says: “He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin" (John 9:11.) If Christ talks about greater and lesser sins, that is some indication that there are such things.

Likewise, there are sins that are “mortal” – or unto death - and those which are not. 1 John 5:16.

Finally, there are “sins” which do not separate a person from Christ, but which, nonetheless, detract from a person’s perfection and must be “purged” before that person can enter Heaven (1 Corinthians 3: 8 – 15) because, as you correctly point out, only the perfect can enter Heaven.

All of this suggests that “keeping” the 10 Commandments is not simply a “yes” or “no” affair. It seems that it is possible to keep the 10 Commandments more or less than perfectly and yet not “break” them in some a way that puts a person outside of the plan of salvation. In other words, the term “sin” is applied to two different things: one thing is what we truly mean by sin – a firm and deliberate turning away from God. The other involves something beyond the commandments but not necessarily contradictory to it.

Think for example of Christ’s response to the Pharisees when they complained about breaking the Sabbath. Mark 2:23. Christ’s response was to note that while there may have been a technical breach of Sabbath, the “sinful” conduct was motivated by a love of God or neighbor – the highest commandments of all. Contrawise, perfectly “lawful” conduct may be “sinful” if it fails to take into account charity to one’s neighbor. Romans 14:23.

“True” sins are those actions which are not built upon or connected to a love of
Christ. The other kind of sin – breaches of the commandments, if you would – may not truly be sin if they are built upon Christ or connected to a love of God or a love of neighbor.

This means that determining whether a person is “breaking,” or “keeping” the 10 Commandments more or less perfectly, requires an examination of more than that person’s external conduct. One needs to look at the circumstances of the person, the gravity of the conduct and the person’s state of mind with the goal of determining if that person’s conduct is connected to God by a love of God or neighbor. Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:8-15.) This is why people who do the things you’ve outlined may not be “breaking” the 10 Commandments, although they may be keeping the 10 Commandments less than perfectly. (Cf. Matthew 19:22.)

Of course, we should be concerned with keeping the 10 Commandments perfectly. Nothing may enter Heaven unless it is perfect and our – inevitable – failure to keep the commandments perfectly will be purged eventually. Further, habits develop into vice and then develop into a definite turning away from God, so we need to develop habits that always move toward a love of God and neighbor.

Based on your final answers, I think you see that. You essentially acknowledge that we ought to move toward perfection, that we can master our vices – with obviously greater and lesser difficulties – and that we are “wired” to take pleasure in our movement toward virtue. I would submit that God would not wire us with the capacity to delight and take joy in the good, unless He wanted us to exercise our human capacity to become good.

Of course, if you disagree, then I’m left with wondering how it is possible to to create a Christian ethical system, and, if that’s the case, the picture I get of God is that of an arbitrary and irrational Power, which does not fit my understanding of a God who is love. 1 John 4:16.

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Egomakarios,

That's an interesting perspective. I've read in some book on Augustine that Augustine's view on sex as the method by which original sin was transferred may be an unwitting legacy of Manichaeism.

I think that is an interesting historical insight.

On the other hand, Paul does talk about death entering the world through the sin of one man, which leaves the question of why the rest of us share in that legacy.

I'm interested in the Orthodox position on this. I assume that the Orthodox would agree that as a result of Adam, humanity lost the preternatural and supernatural graces that Adam enjoyed before the Fall.

If so, how does that differ essentially from the notion of original sin?

In any event, if we understand original sin as the loss of the preternatural and supernatural graces, we avoid the Manichaean problem because original sin is deprivation of a due, albeit supernatural, perfection.

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Also, did Augustine teach "total depravity"?

EgoMakarios said...

"I'm interested in the Orthodox position on this. I assume that the Orthodox would agree that as a result of Adam, humanity lost the preternatural and supernatural graces that Adam enjoyed before the Fall." (Peter Sean Bradley)

Athanasius in De Incarnatione Verbe Dei says that Adam was immortal before the fall not by his own proper nature, but by the superabiding grace of the Word, which he lost in the fall and which loss resulted in his mortality. But that does not answer the question as to why men are so bent towards sin. I would answer that it is not that our wills are disabled, nor that we inherit Adam's guilt, but that the knowledge of good and evil which Adam gained in eating the fruit was not meant for man. Why else would God prohibit man from eating of the tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil? Because such knowledge was not meant for man, when man gained it, he of necessity would misuse it. We inherit that knowledge from Adam, and we misuse it too. The corruption of man is not a new nature, nor is it a bondage of will, but rather the possession of a knowledge that he was not made to have, a knowledge which is not fully capable of dealing with. The devil promised Eve that in receiving such knowledge she would become like God, but such knowledge overloads the finite mind. Why else would ethics be such a daunting task for men? why else the constant struggle to comprehend the origin of evil? The knowledge of good and evil has preoccupied man with evil, making him contemplate where it comes from and what it is, and in too much contemplation of evil, man will become evil for you are changed into what you meditate on. This is why Calvislam is in error in meditating so much on the sinfulness of man, for they can of necessity be nothing more than sin-robots so long as all their view is on self-deprecation and magnifying sinfulness. So long as they refuse to accept that God has given them the ability to repent and not consigned all men in inability, they will be no more that what they think they are.

Rhology said...

Dozie,

What? I refer to a good understanding of how bad sin is (which would lead one normally to think how much worse it is to break the law) and you invert it. For shame.


PSB,

a biblical position because the bible is filled with references to sins having different gravities and effects...Christ Himself points to degrees of sin

Which I allowed for (look again), but the biblical text does not sustain the idea that one can lose one's justification as Rome teaches, which is what I was expressing.

I suspect that you would acknowledge that the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can do exactly that.

No, I would not acknowledge that.
I repeat - NOTHING will cause the justified, adopted child of God to perish. John 10:29 - "they will never perish." Rom 8:29-30 - "those whom He justified those He also glorified."
If someone commits the blasphemy of the HS, it's proof that *he never knew Christ in the 1st place.* Remember Jesus' words - "I never knew you."
I hold to the Perseverance of the Saints. Do you understand that doctrine?

there are sins that are “mortal” – or unto death - and those which are not. 1 John 5:16.

Given that the idea of losing one's justification is biblically untenable, this refers to sthg else: God putting a disobedient child to death, for example.

detract from a person’s perfection and must be “purged” before that person can enter Heaven (1 Corinthians 3: 8 – 15)

This is demonstrably false.
And the idea that Christ's righteousness which is imputed to me as per Romans 4:6-8 is imperfect in some way is an amazingly horrible thought.

It seems that it is possible to keep the 10 Commandments more or less than perfectly

You mean "less than perfectly," right? There is none who can even come close, as Gal 3 makes plain.

In other words, the term “sin” is applied to two different things: one thing is what we truly mean by sin – a firm and deliberate turning away from God. The other involves something beyond the commandments but not necessarily contradictory to it.

Biblically, how would you sustain that distinction?

perfectly “lawful” conduct may be “sinful” if it fails to take into account charity to one’s neighbor.

Which is a terrible, terrible sin: lack of love.
You seem to be doing what Dozie seems to be objecting to: lessening how bad sin is. That's the main problem here.

The other kind of sin – breaches of the commandments, if you would – may not truly be sin if they are built upon Christ or connected to a love of God or a love of neighbor.

1 John 3 says that sin is lawlessness. How can you justify this statement?

You essentially acknowledge that we ought to move toward perfection

Which is the whole point of the doctrine of sanctification, is Paul's point in Rom 6:1-2.
Of course, no Reformed person would disagree.

I would submit that God would not wire us with the capacity to delight and take joy in the good, unless He wanted us to exercise our human capacity to become good.

did you forget the Fall of Man, which led to the situation described in Romans 3?

wondering how it is possible to to create a Christian ethical system,

What is morally right and wrong to do? How about basing it on God's commandments?

which does not fit my understanding of a God who is love

Part of your problem is that the Bible reveals a God Who is different than your conception of Him, so you turn to an alternative that He has not revealed. It's difficult to witness.


Peace,
Rhology

L P Cruz said...

Lvka.

You asked what denomination am I? I do not think I am a denomination, I do have a confession, I am Lutheran

Ego,

You people have such an asinine way of looking at things

You probably like to get a rise from me, no? Stop being an ass and study first what we mean by justification by faith, before you call us stupid. Besides in calling us that, you just did what Jesus says you are not to do so violated his commandment,and you claim you are the one going to heaven and us to hell?

There is only one asinine; that is the one who speaks not knowing what he is speaking about. Look at the plank in your eyes.

When Lutherans say we are justified by faith, we do not mean to say that the basis of our justification is our faith. That is you, not me. For you --- you are saved by faith through grace. We deny this.

We deny that, instead we teach, believe and confess that we are saved by grace through faith on account of Christ. Yours is reverse. Look again.

The two are not the same.

When we say we are justified by faith we mean we are justified by grace. Faith contributes nothing and even that faith is a gift of God, that gift of God is created by God through the Gospel promise - the declaration ::: at the cross, God forgave you of your sins all of them - he took away the sins of the world. Jesus saved me at the Cross. It is finished.

You can only do two things on this - you can say I do not need saving thank you very much Lord go away, or you can say , no, ***I*** must do something to be acceptable to God, ie do something to merit it.

See 1 John 5:10-11
10Whoever believes in the Son of God(P) has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God(Q) has made him a liar,(R) because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us(S) eternal life, and(T) this life is in his Son.


Look at v.11, the liar is the one who says no, God has not given me yet eternal life in the Son, I must do something to get it, I must do these spiritual works like faith, I must repent, I must confess, I must do this.

Yes these do happen to us but they are not the basis of our justification or salvation, this is what we believe, teach and confess.


So, if you are banking on fulfilling the Laws of Christ (or whatever Law you see)like by your faith - see to it that you have the correct one and you are not just deluding yourself i.e. believing that you believe. So if you are repenting - see to it that you are sincere.

Like I said, based on your theology see to it that you do not exit this world with un-confessed sin.

I am so sorry I no longer have time.


LPC

L P Cruz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
L P Cruz said...

Peter Sean (PSB),

I wanted to say...I just noted you have a question for me.

My apologies, I have over stated my position and I stand corrected, I should have not said sin is what you are this is subject to misunderstanding and it is not the best way of saying what I meant. This is not precisely want I wanted to convey so I spoke improperly. This gives the impression that I am not distinguishing the difference of our human nature and its corruption.

This is why I clarified in the next exchange with Ego, sin is a condition. I should have followed Luther who spoke of the situation as nature-sin, or person-sin. The analogy is perhaps a man who has aids, he transmits the virus to his children by shear birth. The virus is not the man, but the man has the virus and it can not be excised by any human way, ie no human cure for it.


Again I have no time, may I please direct you to our confession on original sin to which I invite the interested to look

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#I.%20Original%20Sin.

Thanks for the opportunity to correct my over stating my case.

Our Doctrine of Original Sin says that we now due to the fall have a corrupted nature and the corruption works against us. This is sin.
But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man's body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings:

Through Adam's fall is all corrupt,




LPC

Lvka said...

LP Cruz,

could You please explain Your comment:

you just replaced the Law of Moses by your 'spiritual works' , such as faith

?

Thanks.

L P Cruz said...

Ivka,

It is unfortunate I do not have plenty of time. Here is the gist.

The blunder is to think that when the Bible speaks about Law it is confined to the ceremonial laws of Moses. Every command of God that requires you to do something is Law. For example, when Jesus says if you love me, you will do my commandments. When people read this, they think Jesus must have meant just do your best.

If God's attitude to you is "I know you are not perfect, so your best is good enough I understand", then what need for Jesus to come? Why can not he simply have said love your neighbor the best you can and that will be good enough. What need of the Cross of Jesus? The fact that Jesus came is a testimony that your best will not be good enough.

DId he come to give us an example? But the example of Jesus is the one that condemns you(me), for Jesus says love your enemies, do you(I)? I don't that is why I need his mercy, I offend him and him being God the Son also absorbs my sin against him at the Cross.

Here is an example of replacing the Law with another Law and thinks this new Law is something he can do at his own will...
A Christian must obey Jesus' teachings, repentance, confession, baptism, Jesus' teachings on divorce/remarriage, etc. not the works of the law

Hence, a new law is now do able, following Jesus' teachings, repenting, confessing, not divorcing etc.

Just remember if you come to God and say to him, God let me into your heaven because I followed Jesus' command to repent, you are presenting to God your own merit and it will damn. Anything we bring to God from our own doing will damn us.

Because it is simple, how do you know that you have repented, because you know that you know that you know? Have you ever lied? IF you lied to others, surely you can lie to your self right? Is it not possible that you lie to yourself?

Well the Bible says we are liars, we lie to ourselves all the time.

Here is another example And yet, is it not more obvious that the commandments of Christ, to believer, repent, confess him before men, and be baptized for the remission of sins, have the power to save by and through his work on the cross and his resurrection which has had joined to them?

Here it is the commandments of CHrist that does the saving, not Christ himself. The left hand takes what the right hand gives. So the suggestion is follow Christ and save yourself!


Finally it talks about faith in Christ, now we ask, what is it about Christ that we are to have faith in? That he is Lord ?The demons already are doing that. They believe and are afraid of the Lord, they even tremble.

The devil is happy for us to talk about lofty things about Christ and even promote him and his commandment, so long as in the end we do not trust his work on our behalf. He likes you to believe him King all you want so long as in the end, blind you from seeing that his death was FOR YOU, to fix your problem with God.

The problem is that many people believe God is not their problem, yet Jesus says fear him, do not fear the one that can destroy the body but no power to destroy the soul. God is our problem, and yet it is the same God who gives Jesus on our behalf to take the punishment meant for us.

The song is correct,

nothing to your thrown I bring, simply to His cross I cling

LPC

Rhology said...

LP Cruz,

When people read this, they think Jesus must have meant just do your best.

That's just brilliant. Well put.

Lvka said...

LP Cruz,

Your logic is CHRISTal clear, and it's nothing else than the logical end of all Protestantism: God punished Christ on the Cross in order to "get over" His hurt pride and revengeful justice, and by doing that He managed to calm Himself of His hetred towards us once and for all ("paid in FULL").

But Luther, and all the other Reformers that followed him, agreed that faith, however, does *NOT* fall into that category. You, however, do.

So, here's my dilemma: why call Yourself Lutheran, when You do not agree with their teaching?

SOLA FIDE was a *Lutheran* thing. (Sola Gratia came from Calvin, ... but SOLA FIDE was 100 % Lutheran).

Any thoughts? (But please *DON'T* just superficially answer: "SOLA FIDE is NOT an essential" -- it is: for Luther's followers, it is ... and since You pretend to be one of them ... I'm somehow EXTREMELY confused here, OK? ).

Carrie said...

LPC: The problem is that many people believe God is not their problem, yet Jesus says fear him, do not fear the one that can destroy the body but no power to destroy the soul.

lvka: His hurt pride and revengeful justice, and by doing that He managed to calm Himself of His hatred towards us once and for all

Bingo! You accurately described the missing link, LPC.

You can't have true faith in the Savior if you can't understand from what you are being saved.

It is just so clear and yet the blind can't see it. Amazing.

EgoMakarios said...

"For you --- you are saved by faith through grace. We deny this. We deny that, instead we teach, believe and confess that we are saved by grace through faith on account of Christ. Yours is reverse. Look again." (LPC)

This sounds an awful lot like which came first, the chicken or the egg. Which was it that came first, grace or faith? Everyone will confess that grace came first. After all, faith comes by hearing the word of God. What does the word of God proclaim other than the grace of God? And what is the very revealing of God's word to us if not grace? It is grace that he has even spoken to us at all, must moreso by His very only-begotten Son rather than merely through a mere human prophet of some sort. You are simply confused when you say that I beleive in salvation by faith through grace rather than by grace through faith. You clearly don't understand what grace is nor what faith is. You are stumbling around in the dark as a heathen man feeling after God, and indeed he is not far from any of us, although you will probably never find him.

Lvka said...

Makarios,

regarding which came first: the Father came first. As I've already said elsewhere, Grace, Faith and Works are the Trinitarian understanding of our salvation. (Galatians 5:6: 1 John 4:8, 16).

Rhology said...

Saying it, of course, is not the same as making it stick, Lucian.

Why are you going by a different handle now?

Lvka said...

Why are you going by a different handle now?

What do You mean?

EgoMakarios said...

"Makarios,

regarding which came first: the Father came first. As I've already said elsewhere, Grace, Faith and Works are the Trinitarian understanding of our salvation. (Galatians 5:6: 1 John 4:8, 16)."


That makes sense to me, Lucian! If I may be so bold as to say so, only someone obstinate against Christ would disagree with that.

L P Cruz said...

Ivka,

Like I said, I have not much time.

But Luther, and all the other Reformers that followed him, agreed that faith, however, does *NOT* fall into that category. You, however, do.

So, here's my dilemma: why call Yourself Lutheran, when You do not agree with their teaching?


What category, which category? Which teaching of the Lutherans do I buck at?

May be it is you who do not understand our slogan SOLA FIDE.

Where do you think I am not Lutheran? How can you tell I am not Lutheran, have you been Lutheran before?

Your problem is that when we say "SOLA FIDE" (correct me if I am wrong in assuming about you) you think we are saved by faith as if faith itself is the ground of my salvation.


When did Jesus pay for the sins of the world, was it not at the Cross 2000 years ago?

The answer is YES. Where you born 2000 years ago. Answer NO.

Therefore, Jesus died and paid for your sins before you were born. Correct? YES, and if you answer NO, you call God a liar.

Therefore Jesus died for your sins before you could repent, believe and do any good works, correct? You are an ass if you say NO.

Therefore I am not saved by my faith. Faith simply trusts that fact.

My confession is the Book of Concord which I believe is an accurate description of what the Scripture teaches about our salvation, and if there is something there that you think I am not in consonant with, please point me out.

Here is from the Apology of Augsburg, read carefully before you start accusing people of what you do not know about...

This faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only confidence in the promise, or 45] the mercy promised in Christ. This special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for Christ's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us. And because in repentance, i.e. in terrors, it comforts and encourages hearts, it regenerates us and brings the Holy Ghost that then we may be able to fulfil God's Law, namely, to love God, truly to fear God, truly to be confident that God hears prayer, and to obey God in all afflictions; it mortifies concupiscence etc. 46] Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed aside like a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the true knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law. And 47]


Again, it is Eph2:8-9. If you read this, it says that we are saved by grace through faith. Faith itself is a gift of God. Also, the salvation that God offers removes any possibility of boasting on your part, so if there is a hint or a clue or a possibility that you can boast of something in you , then that is salvation not from God but from your own making.

Hence, to say that one is saved by their faith, their repentance, their confession etc etc is to have the possibility of boasting at something they have done or something inside them.

Here is from the Apology of Augsburg
56] For faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy.

Therefore your faith merits nothing, besides what you have if you do have faith was also a gift of God to you.

We say there are only 2 kinds of religion in this world, the one YOU do, or the one DONE FOR YOU.


Only (Bibilical) Christianity is unique religion of the world. Yes, it has morals, but it is not about morals. When you turn Christianity to a religion YOU do, then Christianity has been corrupted. So we would humbly admonish, test yourself if you are in the faith.

I am happy to reply the best I can if you call me to the carpet on something I am not in consonant with my professed confession of faith - the BoC. If you have none on this subject please do not waste my time as my schedule is tight. Perhaps email me through my blog but please only on this subject, otherwise my best wishes.


LPC

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Rhology,

Your response was illuminating.

Yes, we do have different views of God, but my view is not the one that’s unbiblical. As I noted in my last post I accept the scriptural testimony that “God is love” (1 John 3:19.) Further, I accept the scriptural idea that love is patient, kind, not jealous, not brooding, doesn’t seek it’s own interest and rejoices with the truth. (1 Cor. 13:5.)

God, in other word, rejoices with his creatures when they discover the truth, which is nothing less than Himself, and He wills the good of his creation.

This biblical understanding of God means that God is not arbitrary or jealous about His undisputed glory. For example, God’s normal mode of operation is to work through others, such as angels or people, thereby sharing with others the “dignity of causation.”

Hence, the biblical view of God is that God is not arbitrary and irrational, but can be known through reason. Not surprisingly, this was the view that informed the Church from its inception.

Ironically, Islam also holds to the idea that God is arbitrary and ultimately unknowable and the Koran, to the best of my knowledge, contains no statement that “God is love.” (1 John 3:19.)

But, of course, you will hold to your own views, but I find it interesting how much you have to sacrifice to hold those views.

I provided numerous texts from New Testament – including Jesus’ statement about the sin of Judas being far greater than the sin of Pilate – which you simply dismiss based upon your “first principles.” Those texts, nonetheless, show that there are sins that do separate a man from God and those that don’t, and that the difference between the two is – not surprisingly – love of God versus love that rejects God.

Christ’s statement about Pilate’s “lesser sin” has to have some meaning, unless you want to affirm that Christ didn’t understand what He was talking about. Since I don’t agree with that, I have to look for the meaning of the statement.

Of course, logically, and as a matter of human experience, I can make sense of Christ saying that a person who betrays the Truth for greed is worse than one who betrays justice out of fear or ignorance. Since Christ was fully human, it is not unreasonable to imply that sense to that passage.

In other words, Pilate’s sin was less than that of Judas because of the extenuating circumstances that Pilate found in himself in. All this means that to understand what Our Lord meant requires that we exercise reason and judgment, and that God recognizes that there are reasons that makes one sin greater or less than another.

What else do we know? Well, we know that even those who build upon the foundation of Christ will be held accountable for their less than perfect actions. In that regard, your response to 1 Cor 3:1- 15 was perplexing. Whatever 1 Cor. 3:10-15 has to do with Purgatory, it definitely establishes that even the saved will be tested and those who have done acts that is less than that commanded by the 10 Commandments will suffer loss although they are still saved.

I agree that 1 Cor 3:15 is not about justification; it really is about sanctification. That was Father Stravinska’s point, and it does make a hash of the notion that Christ’s saving work on the Cross means that the Elect will suffer no loss whatsoever when they “sin.” (Also, 1 Cor. 3:110-15 suggests that there will be works which will not be burned up, which suggests that it is possible to abide by the commandments.)

Since 1 Cor. 3:15 is about sanctification that brings us back to my point about how God has made us capable of working toward our own sanctification.

My question here is do you believe that no part of your sanctification involves your human efforts and works?

If you answer that you do not think that your efforts can lead in the direction of sanctification, then you have tossed out any basis for a Christian ethics. Ethics involves moral human actions. Moral human actions can be possible only if a person can make a free, reasoned and effective choice; anything less and you have the mechanics of robots and not any kind of human morality.

Your response about deriving a Christian ethics from the Commandments is illogical based on your starting principles. If the Commandments are impossible to keep, then why (a) why bother? and (b) why distinguish between someone who wants to keep the Commandments and one who doesn’t? They both end up in the same place. Further, if all breaches of the Commandments are morally identical, then why should anyone distinguish between murder and the occasional swear-word in traffic?

Honestly, that concern has been my primary objection to the theology of the Reformation.

Perhaps you can provide further illumination.

Peter Sean Bradley said...

L.P. Cruz,

Thank you for your referal to the Book of Concord site.

It was interesting.

I see that the Lutherans want to distance themselves from some Manichean principles, but I'm not sure they were entirely succesful.
Hence, the Concord site identifies original sin as being something apart from human nature that somehow inheres in human nature.

Again, this seems to be affirming an actual existence to "sin" in the form of original sin, since only something that has existence can exist apart from human nature or can "inhere" to something else.

The Augustinian notion, of course, was that evil is the absence of a due good. Aquinas' notion of original sin was that original sin was a deprivation of the powers and capacities that humanity originally had. That kind of approach would not say that original sin exists apart from human nature, but that human nature is now defective because of a missing part.

Aquinas' classic example would be "blindness in they eye." We wouldn't say that blindness existed apart from the eye, rather blindness - an evil to the eye - is present because the existing eye lacks something it ought to have.

I understand that you are busy, but I thought I'd offer this idea.

L P Cruz said...

PSB.

Because your comment is related to the BoC On OrigSin, quickly Manicheanism identifies the nature of humans to sin i.e they are equal or reduced (from what I understand) to the same, this is denied and so I believe it achieves it.

I think OrigSin as we understand it is scriptural due to the following,
1 John 1:7-8, ἁμαρτία is singular noun in both verses and v.8 "have no sin", it does inhere and above all in Romans 7:5, it is in our members.

LPC

Lvka said...

Therefore I am not saved by my faith. Faith simply trusts that fact.

What fact? That everyone was saved at Calvary, and that that was that? --> That's not the Lutheran teaching. (That You're talking besides Yourself is, again, not MY little problem). Rather the Lutheran teaching is THUS:

This faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only confidence in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ. This special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for Christ's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us.

Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love. This faith is the true knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law
.

No faith in Your justification ==> no salvation. (Luther wasn't by far an Universalist).

The following comment of Yours is completely un-Lutheran, as well as Your rather unique and quite bizzare ideas of Luther's opinion on repentance; (and as for Your "by grace, through faith", You're being completely anachronistical, mixing the completely divergent teachings of two men into one big whole-meal soup -- which, BTW, is completely characteristically of Protestant historic revisionism and inclination towards syncretism -- but, again, not MY problem):

Hence, to say that one is saved by their faith, their repentance, their confession etc etc is to have the possibility of boasting at something they have done or something inside them
.

Now, what You say is pretty fine ... for a Presbie. OK? (In case You haven't already noticed, the crowd here is of quite a Calvinistic bent, -- although not necessarilly 5-points... but still)

Now, don't get me wrong here, OK? Luther and Calvin were best bossom buddies and all that ... but when they spoke Theology, they meant bussiness ... and not seldom did they paths twain.

My $.02 to You: begin with something simple, like, say, the "Big Man's" 95 little Theses (that would pretty much dispel any preconceived notion on Luther's understanding of repentance and belief in 'eternal security'), then *work your way* up [pun intended] to his Smaller, then Larger Catechism (actually, I'ld rather suggest that You'ld read them in parallel). --> May I also suggest as second literature some good, ol'-fashioned, German Lutheran historians?

-------
WHAT'S THE WORLD COMING TO ???

Carrie said...

As I noted in my last post I accept the scriptural testimony that “God is love” (1 John 3:19.)

PSB,

I see you are still keeping your god in a box. This seems to be a common occurence, especially in the Catholic crowd.

Yes, God is love, but he is also Holy and Just. You need to start working those characteristics into your views and accepting the whole of Scripture.

You almost remind me of Marcion. I wonder how you deal with OT stories like the flood. Why would a God who is only Love wipe out all humans except 8?

What do you do with verses like these?:

"14You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you— 15for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God— lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth." Deut 6

"The LORD is a jealous and avenging God;the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies." Nahum 1:2

"22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" Romans 9

You are going to have to do a little better if you want to claim to be the biblical one in this discussion.

Lvka said...

That again, ... the joke is on ME: for how can I even begin to convince one of the TRADITIONAL interpretation of Luther's words, when one's undieing slogan, coined by Spalatin himself, -save memory shall fail me- is "Ecclesia Semper Reformanda": this, ... and Protestantism's proverbial reaction towards "the traditions of men": one only reaps what one sows, then, I guess ... :-(

Lvka said...

Yes, God is love, but he is also Holy and Just.

Yes, Virginia, God *IS* just, ... but rumour has it that His justice's judgemnets are completely unlike ours, and His ways totally unlike those known-to and walked-in by us.

As for His mighty vengeance and fearful wrath, it barely reaches the fourth generation, whereas His insignifficant mercies and very short-lived long-suffering easily extends to 1,000 ...

As for the obviousness of Penal Substitution, I really don't think the Heavenly Father sacrificed the bull for his once-lost but home-returning Prodigal Son because he needed a boxing-sack on which to download his hurt honor's hot temper, and "let" the bull "have it". My hunch is that the bull's flesh was for strengthening the poor, weakened boy's body: John 6:48-58; (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20).

My hunch is, that the reading of John 3:16 as if saying "For God so hateth the world, that His wrathful justice demanded of Him to give His Only-Begotten Son so that he that believeth in him shan't die, but live forevermore" may possibly be un-correct.

Just my two cents, anyway ... :-|

Lvka said...

Yes, God is love, but he is also HOLY and Just.

If God is truly Holy and truly Just, how are we to take the words: "Be holy, EVEN AS your Father which is in Heven IS holy" ?

Or the word "JUSTification", for that matter: what could its meaning POSSIBLY be, in the light of the above?

Just askin' ... for it :-|

Lvka said...

As You Yourself hath already so beautifully said it: You need to start working those characteristics into your views and accepting the whole of Scripture.

L P Cruz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
L P Cruz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
L P Cruz said...

I had to delete a couple of comments because i can not help but laugh and it was getting in the way of my writing, sorry for the deletions.

What fact? That everyone was saved at Calvary, and that that was that? --> That's not the Lutheran teaching.


When I read such words I can not help but believe that Luther was correct in saying that there are some asses in this world.

Where did I promote universalism? I believe in universal atonement, not universalism --- perhaps you do not know the difference....

Universalism is not the same as Universal Atonement, Universalism says everyone eventually goes to heaven. I believe that Jesus died for all, but not everyone will be in heaven, because as stated in Hebrews, not all have faith, some will reject what Jesus has done and call God a liar ie saying it is not finished, we do not have eternal life given in Him.

Study the Lutheran concept of objective justification, you as a "Lutheran" do not seem to have a grasp at it.

You also said "No faith in your justification ==> no Salvation"? Off hand you are correct, but you seem to be sophistic too so I stop and ask what do you mean "faith in your justification"?

Do you believe Lutherans believe they are saved because they believe and the reason they are saved/justified is because they believe?

What do the Lutherans believe as their **ground** for justification, is it faith or Christ's work? Since you are better Lutheran than I perhaps you can care to answer between faith itself per se and Christ'work, where do the Lutheran's ground their justification?

At the moment, I fail to see why I should take you seriously as an inquirer. I think your knowledge of Lutherans and Luther and Calvin is hearsay or from gossips. I think your knowledge of Lutheran teaching is from Lutherans perhaps where you are and not itself from the BoC. Perhaps you can change my impression?

When you say Sola Gratia came from Calvin, ... but SOLA FIDE was 100 % Lutheran I can not help but laugh, as if Calvin was into Sola Gratia and Luther was into Sola Fide. That is a good one.

Again to paraphrase something you said , the fact that it is your problem does not make it mine.

LPC

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Carrie,

That is a most illuminating response.

I provide chapter and verse from the revelation of God in the form of Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us men and our salvation in a free choice of loving self-sacrifice, and you respond by quoting texts relating to Israel's relationship to God under the Old Covenant.

I refer you back to my observation about the Islamic depiction of God as arbitrary and the Koran's inability to identify their understanding of God as love.

Personally, I'll go with Jesus.

Also, you are once again attempting to split God into conflicting components, i.e., God's love versus God's justice. Obviously, however, God's love is God's justice is God's mercy, etc.

God's justice, love and mercy is to create man good, allow man free moral agency, provide a redeemer when man makes a disordered choice, and respect man's moral choice to accept or reject God's free offer of salvation.

In contrast, your version appears to be that God arbitrarily and randomly punishes some for sins they couldn't avoid committing.

That depiction of God is the opposite of love or justice. It is, however, a depiction that Islam might agree with, but Islam doesn't pretend that man's relationship to God is anything other than that of a slave to an arbitrary master.

Lvka said...

LP Cruz,

faith in Christ's once-and-for-all redemptive work for us on the Cross. There is no schism between the two. Ever. The fact that You repeatedly try to disassemble, deconstruct and take them apart shows Your poor understanding of their view.

I know what universal and subjective redemption mean (all Christians of all flavors know; but the way that each of their beliefs relates to each differs).

As for the three Solas of the Reformation, they never belonged togther. That later Protestants chose to put them side by side in order to construct a unified paradigm is not my problem. (And Luther wasn't Sola Scriptura in the way we understand it today either).

Lvka said...

I meant to write "objective and subjective redemption" above, sorry. And, quite frankly, it seems like it is You who tries to transform the first into an quasi-universal one, forgetting that in the Lutheran mind the second one is dead-necessary and it relies SOLELY on FAITH, of whom St. Paul, by far Luther's favorite writer, wrote in his little Epistle to the Romans, by far Luther's favorite writing:

Romans 3:27
 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28
 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
.

L P Cruz said...

Ivka,

There is no schism between the two.
Theology is the art of making distinctions, you should distinguish the object of faith from faith itself, so that one does not fall into the error of presenting and actuating faith as a form of works, that is what I was asserting in response to Ego's statements.

I do not think you understand objective justification, you seem to lump them together with subjective, what we preach is the universal redemption of Christ and not the subjective, because the objective precedes the subjective. The latter is taken cared of. This was what I was doing all along to keep my listeners focused on Christ outside them rather than inside them.

You should have picked that up and should have not confused my construction for universalism.

A seasoned confessing Lutheran would gladly answer my question but because you would not even answer my questions to clarify ourselves, I can only conclude you would not know how to answer them. Besides, since you are not Lutheran, try not to think you know what they believe better than a self professed one, why? Are you a Lutheran scholar, is that your specialty?

Also you seem to mix Luther and Lutherans. Lutherans do not subscribe to all of what Luther believed, that is why we have our confession. Luther is not our pope. We do not care about private pious opinions of other Lutherans we are not bound by them, we are bound by our confession.

The 3 solas are Lutheran in origin, Calvin himself signed a version of the Augsburg confession that is why I laugh when you insinuate that Calvin was for sola gratia as if he was not for sola fide, and Luther was sola fide as if he did not cry sola gratia.


that later Protestants chose to put them side by side in order to construct a unified paradigm is not my problem

Where and when did I say it was your problem?

LPC

L P Cruz said...

Objective /subjective redemption I am not aware of such a term, objective/subjective justification is what I know Lutherans use.

What is quasi in my formulation? I do suggest there is fuzziness in yours since you won't answer my questions.

Do you think we preach Jesus died on the cross for you all YOU have TO ***DO*** IS BELIEVE?

Nevertheless, what I confess based on God's word is the same 2 Cor 5:18-19, I suggest you pay particular attention to the verbs and the tenses of them.

LPC

Rhology said...

Hi PSB,

(this comment I also posted on PSB's blog since he posted his comment as a post there)

Whatever our disagreements, it's very fair of you to post the entirety of my comment before you comment on it. I appreciate that about you. Feel free simply to link to it if you want so as not to take up so much space; that should be sufficient I would think.

Now then, surely you would acknowledge that there's a big difference between these two statements:
1) The God of the Bible does not fit into my preconceived notions of how He should be.
2) The God of the Bible is arbitrary and irrational.

Anyway, you said:
I accept the scriptural testimony that “God is love” (1 John 3:19.)

As do I, of course.

God, in other word, rejoices with his creatures when they discover the truth

Of course.

God’s normal mode of operation is to work through others, such as angels or people, thereby sharing with others the “dignity of causation.”

Of course.

you will hold to your own views, but I find it interesting how much you have to sacrifice to hold those views.

Where have I disagreed with any of this?
Where did I say God was irrational or arbitrary? You're implying I did; I'd like to know where.

Christ’s statement about Pilate’s “lesser sin” has to have some meaning, unless you want to affirm that Christ didn’t understand what He was talking about.

I'm shaking my head here. I *explicitly* affirmed that I agreed with you that some sins are more serious than others, didn't I?
Does that affirmation somehow vanish when I deny at the same time that one kind of sin WON'T separate someone from God, when I affirm that ALL sins are mortal, and yet affirm that no sin can separate the child of God from God b/c He preserves them?

Whatever 1 Cor. 3:10-15 has to do with Purgatory, it definitely establishes that even the saved will be tested and those who have done acts that is less than that commanded by the 10 Commandments will suffer loss although they are still saved.

1) Which is a far cry from establishing Purgatory, which was your original claim.
2) Are you abandoning that original claim?
3) You were close, but no cigar. The *works* will be tested, not the person. Where does 1 Cor 3 say the MAN will be tested?

1 Cor. 3:110-15 suggests that there will be works which will not be burned up, which suggests that it is possible to abide by the commandments.

You've created a false dilemma - either one can abide by the commandments (which I can only take to mean that one can abide by them perfectly) or one can do no good works at all. Biblically, however, the justified man, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, PROVES his justification by engaging in good works, as Eph 2:8-10 says. The good works or lack thereof are the basis for his eternal reward or lack of it in heaven, as 1 Cor 3:10-15 says.

do you believe that no part of your sanctification involves your human efforts and works?

No I don't believe that.

If the Commandments are impossible to keep, then why (a) why bother?

B/c God commanded us to keep them. I love God and want to grieve Him by sin the least possible.
"But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins"... (1 John 2:1-2)

(b) why distinguish between someone who wants to keep the Commandments and one who doesn’t?

One who doesn't want to keep the commandments is an unsaved heathen, see Romans 3.
James 1 had something to say about that as well:

22But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.

And these two don't end up in the same place. Only the justified man, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, *wants* to keep the commandments (though he is unable to) (ie, though *I* am unable to), and the unjustified rebel sinner does not want to.

Peace,
Rhology

Carrie said...

Personally, I'll go with Jesus.

As if he isn’t part of the God of the OT?

I guess I am confused, are you professing to be a Catholic or a universalist?

Also, you are once again attempting to split God into conflicting components, i.e., God's love versus God's justice. Obviously, however, God's love is God's justice is God's mercy, etc.

No, you are trying to make a god that you feel comfortable with – look, you are even trying to downgrade his other attributes as subheadings under love. God is infinitely love, infinitely just, infinitely holy, etc. You don’t get to pick and choose the characteristics you like and ignore the ones that you don’t like.

God's justice, love and mercy is to create man good, allow man free moral agency, provide a redeemer when man makes a disordered choice, and respect man's moral choice to accept or reject God's free offer of salvation.

Can you provide scriptural support for those ideas b/c I would love to see them?

In contrast, your version appears to be that God arbitrarily and randomly punishes some for sins they couldn't avoid committing.

No, my version encompasses the whole of God has he has revealed himself throughout the Old and New Testament. Your big mistake is you seem to only want to bow your knee to a god that is only love – big mistake. You are in for a surprise.

That depiction of God is the opposite of love or justice.

My depiction is biblical. Deal with the verses – I can give you more. I am not denying that God is love and a great merciful God, but he is also Holy and Just and still has a wrath against sinners. You are making a big mistake by not accepting God fully as he has revealed himself.

Lvka said...

Keeping things distinct, not mixing them up and avoiding confusion is OK; separating them and taking them apart as in dismantling them is something entirely different. From where I'm standing, it seemend like You were doing something else here than what You were saying You were doing.

I don't want to end up like Protestants usually do, trying to "teach" me what I "actually" do or should believe, `cause that's what they think my religion is about ... so I'll just wrap this up right here, OK?

If it was all just a big missunderstanding: fine! The better! I hope I'm wrong.

Carrie said...

You are making a big mistake by not accepting God fully as he has revealed himself.


Did I mention you are making a big mistake?

Sorry, I didn't mean to say "big mistake" three times in about three sentences. Should have been able to come up with something better than that.

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Carrie,

I think you are trying to make God into something that you are comfortable with, and the form of God that you construct is very puzzling.

I don't understand why you find the proposition that God is love to be something that you should sneer at. That statement is - as I have pointed out time and again - actually contained in the New Testament.

Further, you seem to implicitly disagree with proposition that God has chosen to progressively reveal Himself to man over the course of history, so that although He doesn't change, our understanding of Him does.

That is just a bizarre, heretical and unorthodox position for someone who claims to be a Christian to hold. After all, a basic point of the Incarnation was to provide a revelation of God from God that would purify and complete all prior revelations.

Jeepers, you can read that point all over the New Testament, e.g., "I've come to complete the law" (I paraphrase) etc.

What that means is that we must understand the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, which is what I've done. What you've done is a kind of "Judaizing" where the new is subordinated to the old.

Apparently, there is some psychological satisfaction for you to know that you are saved and the non-elect are damned, damned, damned without every having a choice in the matter.

OK, but *gulp* I have never found much psychological satisfaction in the perspective that "it is not enough for me to win, but my enemies must be damned for all eternity."

I am not a "universalist." I think that people can merit damnation by their own choice to reject God directly or through their lack of charity for their fellow man. Matthews 25:37-46.

Finally, are you able to harmonize the passages that I've cited, which are part of the revelation of Christ in the Incarnation, with the passages that you seem to favor? I see a lot of attacks on my position from you, but very little in the way of constructive thought.

Carrie said...

I don't understand why you find the proposition that God is love to be something that you should sneer at.

I don't sneer at that and don't understand why you would state that since I affirmed God is love. I just tried to balance out your view of God by emphasizing his other characteristics.

Further, you seem to implicitly disagree with proposition that God has chosen to progressively reveal Himself to man over the course of history,

Huh? Where did I imply that?

What that means is that we must understand the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, which is what I've done. What you've done is a kind of "Judaizing" where the new is subordinated to the old.

No, I am trying to meld ALL of scripture together. The NT doesn't replace the OT - are you sure you aren't a Marcionite?

Apparently, there is some psychological satisfaction for you to know that you are saved and the non-elect are damned, damned, damned without every having a choice in the matter.

No, there is a satisfaction in understanding God as he has revealed himself THROUGHOUT scripture.

OK, but *gulp* I have never found much psychological satisfaction in the perspective that "it is not enough for me to win, but my enemies must be damned for all eternity."

And where did I say that I did?

Finally, are you able to harmonize the passages that I've cited, which are part of the revelation of Christ in the Incarnation, with the passages that you seem to favor? I see a lot of attacks on my position from you, but very little in the way of constructive thought.

I don't favor those passages, I was just emphasizing those passages that refer to God's other characteristics.

Since you have mentioned a few times that you are a lawyer, I am sure you must be familiar with the idea of "poisoning the well". I also would assume that you are fairly intelligent so I don't believe that you have so misunderstood what I have said (especially since you claim to have done some study on Reformed theology).

Why don't you try interacting with what I said honestly instead of resorting to this type of a tactic. Or did you think no one would notice?