I have a question and I’m confused

Paul warns the church saying this in Acts 20

Acts 20: 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Christ's warning is stated this way

Mark 7:7-13
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Valletta said:

2 Thess 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

Click to expand...

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul, were SO"

The spoken word was being tested "sola scriptura" , even the nonChristians in Acts 17 were doing it successfully.

If nonChristians can master the skill of reading scripture and seeing if a teaching is in harmony with scripture, well then Christians should be even that much more comfortable with it.

In any case I am ok with some folks not liking my search criteria, #158 where the Acts 17:11 principle for determining accuracy in doctrine (just as we see in 2 Tim 3:16) is the focus.

The Jews of Christ day in Mark 7:7-13 clearly were not using the method I am favoring in that AI question

BobRyan said:

Paul warns the church saying this in Acts 20

Acts 20: 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Christ's warning is stated this way

Mark 7:7-13
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”



Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul, were SO"

The spoken word was being tested "sola scriptura" , even the nonChristians in Acts 17 were doing it successfully.

If nonChristians can master the skill of reading scripture and seeing if a teaching is in harmony with scripture, well then Christians should be even that much more comfortable with it.

In any case I am ok with some folks not liking my search criteria, #158 where the Acts 17:11 principle for determining accuracy in doctrine (just as we see in 2 Tim 3:16) is the focus.

The Jews of Christ day in Mark 7:7-13 clearly were not using the method I am favoring in that AI question

Click to expand...

Most of us feel the same way about your traditions. 100%

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Most of us feel the same way about your traditions. 100%

Click to expand...

start by naming one

Communion? Lord's Supper?
Baptism?
Marriage?

BobRyan said:

start by naming one

Communion? Lord's Supper?
Baptism?
Marriage?

Click to expand...

Yes, because in your tradition all of this is about what you do or don't do; they require personal cooperation.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Yes, because in your tradition all of this is about what you do or don't do;

Click to expand...

Choose scripture instead of preference and tradition

Rom 2:
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

1 Cor 6:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God

Rom 8:4-11
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

they require personal cooperation.

Click to expand...

Matt 7 Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them... not every one who SAYS to Me , Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom but rather he who DOES The will of My Father". See the wise man who built his house on the Rock in Matt 7.

BobRyan said:

Choose scripture instead of preference and tradition

Click to expand...

1. @MarkRohfrietsch is a Lutheran and thus his church chose to prioritize Scripture over Western errors over five centuries ago.
2. In so doing, they did not discard Apostolic Tradition, which St. Paul expressly commends in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the rejection of which he rejects in 2 Thessalonians 2:37; also in Galatians 1:8-9.
3. From an Orthodox perspective, which I think Lutherans would not be entirely uncomfortable with, separating Scripture from Apostolic Tradition is a false dichotomy, since the Bible lacks a table of contents - thus the question as to what should be in it, particularly the New Testament, came down to Apostolic Tradition; Lutherans famously have an open canon regarding the exact contents of the Old Testament as adiaphora (interestingly both Martin Luther and St. Athanasius were uncomfortable with Esther as protocanon, but whereas the New Testament canon of St. Athanasius was universally adopted, his proposed Old Testament canon, which conversely included Baruch (which John Calvin also regarded as protocanon) was not, so the Lutheran idea of regarding the composition of the Old Testament as adiaphora seems appropriate, certainly much more so than entrusting the matter to someone like Josephus, who as far as we know was not a Christian but was among those Jews who rejected our Lord (as a percentage of Jews, they were less numerous than one might think; for example, nearly all Ethiopian Jews converted to Christianity, and also since the Ethioipian Jews had a different canon than Josephus, as did other Jewish groups in antiquity, well, as I see it the Anglicans were right to keep reading the “apocrypha” as they called it even in a diminished role of edification only and not as a source of doctrine, (which I would disagree with, since Wisdom for example directly speaks of the persecution of Christ and of the salvation of the faithful).
4. For this reason, Lutheran worship looks a lot like high church Anglican worship and Western Rite Orthodox worship, and doctrinally, they agree with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox on most issues, for example, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the veneration of saints, the use of iconography and the rejection of Nestorianism - indeed Martin Luther liked to pray an Eastern Orthodox prayer known as the Angelic Salutation, which venerates the Theotokos but does not ask for her intercession (that said, one minor difference is that we, and many High Church Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics, will ask for the intercession of the saints; Lutherans usually won’t, but the fact is the specific prayer Martin Luther used was an Orthodox prayer similar to the Hail Mary but lacking an intercession, which frequently appears in our liturgy).
5. The Interpretations of Scripture which you advocate are in many cases non-obvious or eisegetical, and it is not the case, contra Adventist assertions, that to reject these interpretations is to reject Scripture itself. As an example, the non-Eucharistic interpretation of John 6 clashes with the prevalent interpretation held by Martin Luther, an interpretation which is exegetically sound because it agrees with the Institution Narratives in the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians 11. For which reason Martin Luther carved “HOC EST CORPVS MEVM” into the table while debating Ulrich Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy 496 years ago.
6. This underscores the importance of careful exegesis - that is to say, the harmonious interpretation of all of Scripture, using logic, which will always produce similar results - we know this from the work of Reformed systematic theologians such as Karl Barth, who, without reference to the history of the early church or tradition, carefully worked his way through the Bible, the result being theology broadly consistent with mainstream Protestantism.
7. Had Barth referred to the history of the early church and to Apostolic Tradition, the result would have looked more like Lutheranism or Anglicanism or indeed the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches or the Church of the East, since Martin Luther and subsequent Lutheran systematic theologians and the Anglican reformers did expressly regard the history of the church and Apostolic tradition as of vital importance; indeed Sola Scriptura as taught by Martin Luther exceeds neither, merely implementing scripture as a test; the Anglicans in turn regarded it as a tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, which also appears to be the approach followed by many early Lutherans such as the Archbishop of Uppsala and those of the Church of Saxony, which led that church through the golden age of Lutheran Orthodoxy, before the Prussian church and a few other Lutheran jurisdictions were affected by Pietism.

The Liturgist said:

1. @MarkRohfrietsch is a Lutheran and thus his church chose to prioritize Scripture over Western errors over five centuries ago.
2. In so doing, they did not discard Apostolic Tradition, which St. Paul expressly commends in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the rejection of which he rejects in 2 Thessalonians 2:37; also in Galatians 1:8-9.
3. From an Orthodox perspective, which I think Lutherans would not be entirely uncomfortable with, separating Scripture from Apostolic Tradition is a false dichotomy, since the Bible lacks a table of contents - thus the question as to what should be in it, particularly the New Testament, came down to Apostolic Tradition; Lutherans famously have an open canon regarding the exact contents of the Old Testament as adiaphora (interestingly both Martin Luther and St. Athanasius were uncomfortable with Esther as protocanon, but whereas the New Testament canon of St. Athanasius was universally adopted, his proposed Old Testament canon, which conversely included Baruch (which John Calvin also regarded as protocanon) was not, so the Lutheran idea of regarding the composition of the Old Testament as adiaphora seems appropriate, certainly much more so than entrusting the matter to someone like Josephus, who as far as we know was not a Christian but was among those Jews who rejected our Lord (as a percentage of Jews, they were less numerous than one might think; for example, nearly all Ethiopian Jews converted to Christianity, and also since the Ethioipian Jews had a different canon than Josephus, as did other Jewish groups in antiquity, well, as I see it the Anglicans were right to keep reading the “apocrypha” as they called it even in a diminished role of edification only and not as a source of doctrine, (which I would disagree with, since Wisdom for example directly speaks of the persecution of Christ and of the salvation of the faithful).
4. For this reason, Lutheran worship looks a lot like high church Anglican worship and Western Rite Orthodox worship, and doctrinally, they agree with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox on most issues, for example, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the veneration of saints, the use of iconography and the rejection of Nestorianism - indeed Martin Luther liked to pray an Eastern Orthodox prayer known as the Angelic Salutation, which venerates the Theotokos but does not ask for her intercession (that said, one minor difference is that we, and many High Church Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics, will ask for the intercession of the saints; Lutherans usually won’t, but the fact is the specific prayer Martin Luther used was an Orthodox prayer similar to the Hail Mary but lacking an intercession, which frequently appears in our liturgy).
5. The Interpretations of Scripture which you advocate are in many cases non-obvious or eisegetical, and it is not the case, contra Adventist assertions, that to reject these interpretations is to reject Scripture itself. As an example, the non-Eucharistic interpretation of John 6 clashes with the prevalent interpretation held by Martin Luther, an interpretation which is exegetically sound because it agrees with the Institution Narratives in the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians 11. For which reason Martin Luther carved “HOC EST CORPVS MEVM” into the table while debating Ulrich Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy 496 years ago.
6. This underscores the importance of careful exegesis - that is to say, the harmonious interpretation of all of Scripture, using logic, which will always produce similar results - we know this from the work of Reformed systematic theologians such as Karl Barth, who, without reference to the history of the early church or tradition, carefully worked his way through the Bible, the result being theology broadly consistent with mainstream Protestantism.
7. Had Barth referred to the history of the early church and to Apostolic Tradition, the result would have looked more like Lutheranism or Anglicanism or indeed the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches or the Church of the East, since Martin Luther and subsequent Lutheran systematic theologians and the Anglican reformers did expressly regard the history of the church and Apostolic tradition as of vital importance; indeed Sola Scriptura as taught by Martin Luther exceeds neither, merely implementing scripture as a test; the Anglicans in turn regarded it as a tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, which also appears to be the approach followed by many early Lutherans such as the Archbishop of Uppsala and those of the Church of Saxony, which led that church through the golden age of Lutheran Orthodoxy, before the Prussian church and a few other Lutheran jurisdictions were affected by Pietism.

Click to expand...

Well stated, said better than I could. It goes without saying, but I will add that in our tradition, all doctrines are found in God's divine words, in the Bible. Other things that we call adiaphora (things of indifference, and pious opinion) are acceptable, but are not treated as mandatory articles of faith (one that comes to mind is the Assumption of Mary). Such is how I might view the SDA Sabbath, a thing of indifference; however when I hear things such as "Sunday worship is the mark of the beast", now it becomes an unsupported article of faith. Pietism and legalism come down to the same thing, one must cooperate in order to obtain grace and justification. This divides the merit owing to Christ, Jesus did it all, it is purely by grace that this gift is given, not earned. Whear as, like the anabaptists and many of the other radically reformed, it becomes about what one must do and how one must do it to qualify for God's grace. Define "grace": Undeserved love.

One can not earn it, one can not qualify for it, and certainly one can not live up to God's expectation. If one thinks that they can, they are as deluded as the Pharasees of 2000 years ago. Not much has changed.

Here endeth my rant.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Well stated, said better than I could. It goes without saying, but I will add that in our tradition, all doctrines are found in God's divine words, in the Bible. Other things that we call adiaphora (things of indifference, and pious opinion) are acceptable, but are not treated as mandatory articles of faith (one that comes to mind is the Assumption of Mary). Such is how I might view the SDA Sabbath, a thing of indifference; however when I hear things such as "Sunday worship is the mark of the beast", now it becomes an unsupported article of faith. Pietism and legalism come down to the same thing, one must cooperate in order to obtain grace and justification. This divides the merit owing to Christ, Jesus did it all, it is purely by grace that this gift is given, not earned. Whear as, like the anabaptists and many of the other radically reformed, it becomes about what one must do and how one must do it to qualify for God's grace. Define "grace": Undeserved love.

One can not earn it, one can not qualify for it, and certainly one can not live up to God's expectation. If one thinks that they can, they are as deluded as the Pharasees of 2000 years ago. Not much has changed.

Here endeth my rant.

Click to expand...

This is an elegant expression of Lutheran anti-Pelagianism. By the way, while Orthodoxy is not monergist as is well known, I would argue the Eastern synergism is extremely anti-legalistic and anti-Pelagian, to the extent that a Lutheran, examining our theology, might, if unaware of the fifth ecumenical council, assume we were monergist according to a Lutheran interpretation of the concept.

I believe what stops the nominal assertion of monergism on our end is a belief that God desires voluntary love, but I can’t even begin to explain how that relates to justification in our soteriology because Eastern theologians only use that word in dialogue with the West which in my view has yet to produce a satisfactory resolution.

Rather the essential Eastern perspective seems based upon the hope from the Gospels that our Lord will respond to the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy On Me, a Sinner.” (In Slavonic the prayer is even more emphatic, being translated as “the Sinner” which corresponds to the confiteor ante communionem in which we refer to ourselves as the chief of sinners, similar prayers exist among the Oriental Orthodox, for example in the West Syriac Rite).

BobRyan said:

Choose scripture instead of preference and tradition

Rom 2:
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

1 Cor 6:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God

Rom 8:4-11
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


Matt 7 Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them... not every one who SAYS to Me , Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom but rather he who DOES The will of My Father". See the wise man who built his house on the Rock in Matt 7.

Click to expand...

Wow Bob, your quotation of scriptures portray a very Catholic view of soteriology.
We are indeed saved by grace which is undeserved and cannot be earned.
However, those that have received grace will walk in good works, as Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments
Salvation is not earned by works, and neither is it earned in any way. It is received as a gift. That being true, we do not earn it by works, neither do we EARN it by faith, else that makes faith a work.
Faith is not some magic words that open heaven for us, and scripture tells us that faith alone is of no value. We see in 1Cor13, that is we have faith to move mountains but have not charity, we are nothing. James 2 tells us that faith without works is dead. In Isaiah, God laments that with their lips this people praise me, but their hearts are far from me.
You correctly point out in your scripture quote that those that are in the flesh cannot please God. Salvation is seen as foolishness to the natural man. Our nature is oriented to the love of self and our exaltation among men. The Gospel calls us to deny ourselves and take up our cross.
We cannot alter the Gospel and try to change it into something appealing to be what a natural man would choose. That is not truthful, and it is deceptive.
Those that are born against again, receive the gift of God’s grace at their birth, and their hearts are changed. We did not choose God, God chose us. How do we know if we have been born against again? Paul tells us to strive to make sour calling and election sure.
Evidence of rebirth is to see our nature changed as God prophesied in Ezekiel saying I will put my Spirit in them and cause them to walk in my statutes.
Those that are born again do not receive the gift of faith alone, rather we receive the three fold gift of heavenly virtue which is faith, hope, and charity as described in 1 Cor 13.
Faith to know God is and is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Hope to have confidence that God will complete the work He has begun in us, and Charity to love God with our whole heart, whole mind and whole soul, as well as loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Charity is marked by obedience. If we love God, we will strive to please Him. We put away the deeds of the flesh, and are empowered to walk in obedience of the spirit. These changes are not always apparent to others as they are changes of the heart. Changes in one’s behavior is a clue, but behavior can be changed without a change of heart, yet one’s heart cannot change without a change in behavior

It was a pleasure reading your scripture quotes, Bob. I pray that the love of God be shed abroad in your heart

BobRyan said:

Choose scripture instead of preference and tradition

Rom 2:
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

1 Cor 6:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Rom 8:4-11
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


Matt 7 Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them... not every one who SAYS to Me , Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom but rather he who DOES The will of My Father". See the wise man who built his house on the Rock in Matt 7.

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

Wow Bob, your quotation of scriptures portray a very Catholic view of soteriology.

Click to expand...

1. none of those scriptures were written by Caholics
2. I find that Catholics and traditionalists tend to quote tradition more than scripture
3. the group I am with certainly does find a lot of problems with Catholic teaching, but even so we can't use the rule "say 'no' any time the Catholic church says 'yes'" . We have to do better than that. We ask "what does the Bible say?"

boughtwithaprice said:

We are indeed saved by grace which is undeserved and cannot be earned.

Click to expand...

yep

boughtwithaprice said:

However, those that have received grace will walk in good works, as Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments

Click to expand...

agreed

boughtwithaprice said:

Salvation is not earned by works, and neither is it earned in any way. It is received as a gift.

Click to expand...

true. But if it leads you to reject the scriptures I just quoted then there is something amiss in your teaching
The mere quote of the text should not be sufficient cause to give rise to strong objection

boughtwithaprice said:

That being true, we do not earn it by works,

Click to expand...

no doubt

boughtwithaprice said:

You correctly point out in your scripture quote that those that are in the flesh cannot please God. Salvation is seen as foolishness to the natural man. Our nature is oriented to the love of self and our exaltation among men.

Click to expand...

yep

Still those scriptures are spot on. And represent truth that many people are more comfortable opposing rather than affirming

boughtwithaprice said:

The Gospel calls us to deny ourselves and take up our cross.

Click to expand...

true.

The Liturgist said:

1. @MarkRohfrietsch is a Lutheran and thus his church chose to prioritize Scripture over Western errors over five centuries ago.

Click to expand...

how nice for him. Glad to hear it.

BobRyan said:

1. none of those scriptures were written by Caholics
2. I find that Catholics and traditionalists tend to quote tradition more than scripture
3. the group I am with certainly does find a lot of problems with Catholic teaching, but even so we can't use the rule "say 'no' any time the Catholic church says 'yes'" . We have to do better than that. We ask "what does the Bible say?"


yep

agreed

true. But if it leads you to reject the scriptures I just quoted then there is something amiss in your teaching
The mere quote of the text should not be sufficient cause to give rise to strong objection

no doubt

yep

Still those scriptures are spot on. And represent truth that many people are more comfortable opposing rather than affirming

true.

Click to expand...

I agree with those scriptures and so does Catholic teaching. We affirm that souls are not saved by Catholic teaching alone. We are saved by the grace of God and the blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is the demonstration of that grace. Catholic teaching exist to strengthen and comfort the elect of God, it is not God Himself

When we read scripture, we see that we are not saved by the works of the law. We read in Galatians 5:3 that those that are circumcised are debtors to keep the whole law. This does not disparage the law, but merely shows that just because someone is circumcised does not mean that they are justified before God.
Circumcision has to have meaning of a change of heart to be effective. The Judahizers stated that believers had to be circumcised to be saved. Paul correctly rebuked them in that we are not saved by works of the flesh. Circumcision is performed in many secular hospitals with no religious significance. Does that circumcision save them? I think not. The mark of a Christian in the New Covenant has a circumcision of the heart as described in Colossians 2

11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences

Just as infants of Israelites were circumcised in the Old Covenant, the Catholic Church baptizes infants of believers. The new birth begins at baptism and it is effective by the grace of God and the faith of the parents and godparents. The physical act of baptism is ineffective without grace and faith. Just as in the Old Covnenant, Israelites did not circumcise the infants of gentiles to make them children of Israel. Baptism is for believers and the children of believers.
In that way, baptism is an instrumental means of grace. Why would Christ allow Himself to be Baptized to fulfill all righteousness? Water is a symbol of the new birth, as John tells us we must be born of water and the spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. Water was the first creation of God. It was created before light and before the Earth was formed. It represents the beginning of material Creation. It was the means of destruction of the wicked antedeluvian world, which marked the beginning of the new world under Noah. Israel passed through the Red Sea and the waters of the Jordan to enter the promised land. Christ Himself marked the sacrament as all righteous, would not one who is born again desire to be baptized and all his house?
This shows us that mere outward acts of the flesh do not save, but justification takes place in the heart. This then begs the question, what of the Sabbath. Is it the mere outward sign of a single day or is it something more in the heart?
We read even in the Old Covenant that the Sabbath was not limited to a single day. We read in Leviticus 23:39 that the first and eight day are observed as Sabbaths.
What took place? Was it merely the gathering of people on the seventh day that held it sacred?

Ezekiel tells us sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath in chapter 46

4 And the holocaust that the prince shall offer to the Lord on the sabbath day, shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish


Numbers says the sacrifices shall be perpetual

9 And on the sabbath day you shall offer two lambs of a year old without blemish, and two tenths of flour tempered with oil in sacrifice, and the libations, 10 Which regularly are poured out every sabbath for the perpetual holocaust


The Sabbath is not just a day for gathering. In the Old Covenant, the people were “covered” by the sacrifice of lambs and rams so that they could be prepared to be in the presence of God
We see that the Sabbath is not just the seventh day as an act of the flesh of men. Leviticus tells us that the Sabbath can be when ever God said it was. It can be on the first day, the eighth day
And according to Leviticus 23:32 it can even be the ninth day of the month

The Sabbath is not limited to a seventh day memorial of God, rather actual sacrifices in the Old Covenant were performed by the priests to prepare the people to rest from their work and be in the presence of God

What do we have in the New Covenant? Animal sacrifices have ended, just as circumcision is replaced by baptism, is there a New Covenant sacrifice to replace the animal sacrifices on the Sabbath? Jesus teaches us this sacrifice in the bread of life discourse in John 6. He tells us to do this in remembrance of Him at the last supper.
He reveals Himself in the breaking of bread to the two disciples on the road to Emaus. Paul ask us in Corinthians if Jesus is not present in the bread and wine offered by the Apostles?

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread


In the Old Covenant, the Sabbath could only be observed by going to Temple, and the sacrifices were offered by the Levitical priesthood.

According to God, it was not the specific day which was most important, rather the obedience and sacrifice to the word of God. The seventh day, first day, eighth day, even ninth day. Whenever God said it was.
We, as humans, can say we believe that the Sabbath must be on the seventh day, but that is not what God says. If all we do is gather on the seventh day, yet have no sacrifice to prepare us to be in the presence of God, are we really keeping Sabbath? The clear answer would be no, as it is not the acts of Our flesh which make the Sabbath holy, rather the perpetual sacrifice to prepare us to be in the presence of God
In the New Covenant God appointed apostles to minister the sacraments, on the Sabbath it is offering the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ which could only be done by the Apostles. Today we have those ordained by the laying on of hands that continues that apostolic authority in the New Covenant to this day. The spiritual purpose of the Sabbath was not merely the day, but must include the sacrifice which prepares the people to be in God’s presence, which is why it is called communion or common union, as Christ is One Bread, One Body, One Lord of All


Bob, I have learned so much from talking with you. You have challenged my faith and my understanding was proven wrong many times, and for that I am eternally grateful. You have forced me to study my faith more deeply and ask hard questions, seek answers to your challenges

I once heard a SDA preacher say that the mark of God’s people is the Sabbath. I originally believe that to be untrue. After study of scripture I see the truth of that statement; however, the power of the Sabbath lies not with the day, according to scripture. As Old Covenant Sabbath had priestly sacrifice, so too the New Covenant has the perpetual offering of the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ offered by His priests

Thank you Bob, for being a part in bringing me to this understanding. May God bless you and to love of Christ shed abroad in your heart