“The alternative to law is not grace; it’s lawlessness.”

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well, the word "lawlessness" is a bit of a biblical anomaly.

Not even found in the KJV, and appears three times in the NIV. Two of them in Second Thessalonians chapter two in reference to the antichrist, "the man of lawlessness", and "the secret power of lawlessness". (the spirit of antichrist - 1 John 4:3)

Therefore, this topic is attempting to build a case based on one odd verse.

And theologically seems to follow a Sabbatarian reverence to the law. Think SDA.
Yet Catholics, to my knowledge, do not observe the seventh day Sabbath as commanded. (Exodus 20:10-11)
IMO it's pretty simple. The moral law tells us what sin is, what is right to do and what is wrong to do in basic ways. So why wouldn't sin be lawlessness? The law is simply the rules God made for mankind. The fact that we don't necessarily read and heed those laws written on our hearts does not negate the fact that they're right. Man, by his conscience, simply knows already that certain acts are right while other are wrong and thelogians have identifIed that internal knowledge as the "natural law".

And there's no reason to use that verse to build a case anyway. Sin is sin and the law simply identifes it as such which is why it can be said that man wasn't accountable for sin until the arrival of the law-because then he woud definitively know what sin was-no more excuses. And that's also why Rom 3, 4, and 7 can teach that the law reveals and convicts man of sin. I don't know why anyone would argue against that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
34,909
24,675
Pacific Northwest
✟648,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I think there is some irony in that legalism is itself just a kind of antinomianism; and antinomianism is itself just a kind of legalism. The difference between them is nearly illusory. The person who seeks to be righteous by keeping the commandments shall be condemned by them; and the one who casts them aside and becomes a law unto himself shall be likewise condemned by those same commandments. No one can escape the condemnation of the Law, except that one stands in the one and only righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is through faith alone.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think there is some irony in that legalism is itself just a kind of antinomianism; and antinomianism is itself just a kind of legalism. The difference between them is nearly illusory. The person who seeks to be righteous by keeping the commandments shall be condemned by them; and the one who casts them aside and becomes a law unto himself shall be likewise condemned by those same commandments. No one can escape the condemnation of the Law, except that one stands in the one and only righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is through faith alone.

-CryptoLutheran
Well, yes, whatever that means and whatever good that does. But if one is still a sinner, nothing changed, then what's been accomplished? God makes sinners, blames them for sinning, then proves that at least He can be sinless? But I'd think you believe that God also changes/makes us righteous at justifcation in some manner or another.

There's a perfection and purpose, created by God for man, proper to man's nature, and that perfection involves being like God and does not inlcude the slightest degree of sin. And God's been working in us towards that end, towards the love that precludes sin/evil/injustice in His creation, since Eden. And it begins now, with faith, as we're then forgiven, cleansed, and given new hearts.

The love that obeys God and His law by its nature is anything but legalistic, and yet obey it does, and obey we must, under the new covenant. Love we must, to put it exactly. Because love is our salvation, properly understood. But God won't force that love because love cannot be forced, or it isn't love at all. Love is both a gift of His and a choice of ours, a daily choice. So the CC can rightly teach:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

That's the purpose of faith in God, resulting and flowing from the union with Him that faith establishes. He draws us, He doesn't force us, into greater and greater justice/righteousness, beginning with the seed of His own life, the gift of righteousness given at justification.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
17,936
11,063
Minneapolis, MN
✟889,838.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
IMO it's pretty simple. The moral law tells us what sin is, what is right to do and what is wrong to do in basic ways. So why wouldn't sin be lawlessness? The law is simply the rules God made for mankind. The fact that we don't necessarily read and heed those laws written on our hearts does not negate the fact that they're right. Man, by his conscience, simply knows already that certain acts are right while other are wrong and thelogians have identifIed that internal knowledge as the "natural law".
I guess you need define what you mean by 'law" before we can understand what you mean by "lawlessness". Now your talking about the "natural law" and the "moral law".

And if you mean the "moral law", maybe you should keep the fourth, seventh day Sabbath.

The letter of the law kills, the Spirit gives life. Take your pick.

And there's no reason to use that verse to build a case anyway. Sin is sin and the law simply identifes it as such which is why it can be said that man wasn't accountable for sin until the arrival of the law-because then he woud definitively know what sin was-no more excuses. And that's also why Rom 3, 4, and 7 can teach that the law reveals and convicts man of sin. I don't know why anyone would argue against that.
Again, we need define"the law" before we can define "lawlessness". What is it EXACTLY that the lawless person is without?
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I guess you need define what you mean by 'law" before we can understand what you mean by "lawlessness". Now your talking about the "natural law" and the "moral law".

And if you mean the "moral law", maybe you should keep the fourth, seventh day Sabbath.

The letter of the law kills, the Spirit gives life. Take your pick.
You're not understanding. I'm not speaking of following the law by the letter or by being "under the law". I'm speaking of realizing true obedience/righteousness by the Spirit, the righteousness that the law can only attest to (Rom 3:21), but not deliver. And unless we believe that murder, theft, adultery, bearing false witness, etc are alright, then we agree with the law anyway, whether we know the law or not. We agree that righteousness is still necesary IOW. Which law? The law that Paul tells us is holy, righteous, and good in Rom 7, and that is fulfilled by love in Rom 13, and that Jesus says we must obey in order to enter life in Matt 19. They were referring specifically to the ten commandments.

And this is the very reason why you're as aware of those commandments as you are. Because the church, from the beginning, understood the importance of them and so they've been carried down through the centuries within the Christian world and taught and posted all over our churches, Protestant and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike, including even our government buildings in the west. Because most understand that the law still plays its role in reminding us believers that we're still prone to sin-so we might return to the Spirit when we fail. The law's not our enemy-we are. But the law cannot, of itself, resolve that issue. It can only point out the problem.

And if you want to deny the necessity of refraining from the sin that the ten commandments reflect by asking about Sabbath-keeping, the Christian world, also from the beginning, considered the sabbath obligation to be fulfilled by observance on the Lord's Day. There's much history packed into this teaching of the church:

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:
"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death."
Ignatius of Antioch, circa 100 AD

Paul upheld the moral law while understanding that works of the law do not justify us. Sometimes he sounds almost shizophrenic on this but the reason becomes clear if we understand the gospel- and the role of faith and grace. He understands that mere external obedience of the law means absolutely nothing, making us no more than white-washed tombs at best as Jesus relates in Matt 23. Neither do ceremonial laws or dietary laws or the obsevrance of days or the removal of a little peice of flesh contribute to making us holy in the eyes of God. But holy we must be, meaning that Paul knew that we must refrain from the sin that will keep us from heaven. And believers are now equipped to do that very thing.

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Read Romans and Galatians and Ephesians carefully for yourself, not through the lens of any preconceptions or theologies that can manage to skew the meaning of the gospel. The gospel is simple: God becomes our God again as we turn to Him, the true God as revealed by His Son, in faith. From within that relationship, to the extent that we remain true to it, to Him, He gives us the grace to live as He created us to live.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
17,936
11,063
Minneapolis, MN
✟889,838.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're not understanding. I'm not speaking of following the law by the letter or by being "under the law". I'm speaking of realizing true obedience/righteousness by the Spirit, the righteousness that the law can only attest to (Rom 3:21), but not deliver. And unless we believe that murder, theft, adultery, bearing false witness, etc are alright, we agree with the law anyway, whether we know the law or not. We agree that righteousness is still necesary IOW. Which law? The law that Paul tells us is holy, righteous, and good in Rom 7, and that is fulfilled by love in Rom 13, and that Jesus says we must obey in order to enter life in Matt 19. They were referring specifically to the ten commandments.
They were referring specifically to the ten commandments? What do you make of this? (scripture below)
Three "laws"; the law, God's law and Christ's law. All different in some way; all the same in some way.

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 NIV
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
They were referring specifically to the ten commandments? What do you make of this? (scripture below)
Three "laws"; the law, God's law and Christ's law. All different in some way; all the same in some way.

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 NIV
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
Heres the bottom line. We have to ask ourselves whether or not one needs to be personally righteous and live accordingly, or not, under the new covenant. Does sin no longer matter? Will it still earn us death? The whole point of the new covenant IMO is that, yes, man must still be righteous but…
“…not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” Phil 3:9

This righteousness is real, but not obtained by being “under the law” but by being “under grace”. And all law spoken about here is from God BTW, so perhaps you might want to explain Paul’s meaning in 1 Cor 9. But historically the church has referred to the “old law” vs the “new law”, relating to the old and new covenants.

Anyway, on this thread we have at least three views of how grace operates in and saves the believing, justified person:
1) grace means that we’re free from the penalty of sin or unrighteousness as long as we have faith. Christ’s righteousness “stands in” for our unrighteousness. Salvation is absolutely assured.
2) grace means that God will ensure that we realize the righteousness required of us; He will sanctify us, resulting in eternal life. Salvation is absolutely assured.
3) grace means that we’re now equipped, through the power of God, by the Spirit, to overcome unrighteousness, to work out our salvation, put to death the deeds of the flesh, wash our robes, etc. Salvation is known in the absolute sense only at the end when He gives His just judgement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
17,936
11,063
Minneapolis, MN
✟889,838.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
perhaps you might want to explain Paul’s meaning in 1 Cor. 9.
Yes, let's explore that, thanks. (scripture below)

This scripture presents a bit of a puzzle. But I believe it is a solvable puzzle.
We can't make heads or tales of it without defining the terms. IMHO

Vs 20: He became like one under the law, so as to win those under the law.
Even though he is not under the law. He respected the ways of those under the law,
but he himself was not under the law.

Vs 21: He became like one not having the law, so as to win those not having the law.
To clarify, he is not free from God's law, but is under Christ's law.

Three "laws"; the law, God's law and Christ's law. All different in some way; all the same in some way.

From my perspective:
- What he is labeling as "the law" is the law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses.
- He is differentiating "the law" from "God's law", and so should we. The Apostle is not
free from God's law while he ministers to those not having "the law".
- And he further differentiates "God's law" from "Christ's law". Say what?
- In summary: Paul is not under "the law", while not being free from "God's law",
but rather being under "Christ's law". Enough to make your head swim, right?

I see a progression here, and you might likely agree. Or at least this should clarify my position on this.

I see "God's law" as the law that existed before God gave "the law" to the Israelites through Moses. (Romans 5:13-14)
I would characterize "God's law" as the law of human conscience that everyone has, whether Jew or gentile. (Romans 2:14-16) which was from the beginning and still exists.

"Christ's law" are the commands of Christ in the Gospel accounts. "Christ's law" replaces "the law", but works in harmony with "God's law". (Matthew 5:20)

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 NIV
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, let's explore that, thanks. (scripture below)

This scripture presents a bit of a puzzle. But I believe it is a solvable puzzle.
We can't make heads or tales of it without defining the terms. IMHO

Vs 20: He became like one under the law, so as to win those under the law.
Even though he is not under the law. He respected the ways of those under the law,
but he himself was not under the law.

Vs 21: He became like one not having the law, so as to win those not having the law.
To clarify, he is not free from God's law, but is under Christ's law.

Three "laws"; the law, God's law and Christ's law. All different in some way; all the same in some way.

From my perspective:
- What he is labeling as "the law" is the law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses.
- He is differentiating "the law" from "God's law", and so should we. The Apostle is not
free from God's law while he ministers to those not having "the law".
- And he further differentiates "God's law" from "Christ's law". Say what?
- In summary: Paul is not under "the law", while not being free from "God's law",
but rather being under "Christ's law". Enough to make your head swim, right?

I see a progression here, and you might likely agree. Or at least this should clarify my position on this.

I see "God's law" as the law that existed before God gave "the law" to the Israelites through Moses. (Romans 5:13-14)
I would characterize "God's law" as the law of human conscience that everyone has, whether Jew or gentile. (Romans 2:14-16) which was from the beginning and still exists.

"Christ's law" are the commands of Christ in the Gospel accounts. "Christ's law" replaces "the law", but works in harmony with "God's law". (Matthew 5:20)

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 NIV
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
I tend to think that probably sums it up well. A related quote, by Augustine that I may’ve already brought up,
“God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart.”

But God wants His law written clearly in our hearts. And that's what the law of Christ is about. A teaching I'm familiar with that applies as I see it:

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity [love]: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's a 95% improvement over their position at the time of Martin Luther, but there is just one more thing to go.
Boy…that statement reveals a lot-of ignorance about Catholic teachings. That “improvement” is based solidly on previous teachings that were laid down at council at the time of Luther, to address the variety of different theologies that were already popping up with the advent and application of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Controversy is often the cause of such councils as was the case with another council, held some 1000 years before the Reformation that also provided crucial sources of foundational teachings which were then reflected and further explained 500 years ago, and currently in the latest catechism. A great deal of thought and experience and struggle and guidance over centuries have gone into these teachings, beginning when the church first received the faith at the beginning, resulting in an increasingly better understanding of them. I can demonstrate this consistency in teachings if truth is of interest in this matter.
In the NT, righteousness of justification and righteousness of sanctification are presented as different and separate operations of God, the former by faith, apart from obedience (Romans 3:28),
and the latter by the obedience of faith (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) in the Christian life.
Biblically, the Greek word dikaiosis; i.e. justification, is simply
a sentence of acquittal from guilt by God as Judge,
a declaration, pronouncement of the sinner as righteous by faith,
a righteousness imputed (reckoned, credited, accounted) to him as it was to Abraham (Romans 4:1-11),
but the person at this point has no righteousness of sanctification which is imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).
This needs to be fleshed out a bit better IMO. Justification certainly includes the forgiveness and remission of sin, which is basically what your position describes. But it’s more than that. Because forgiveness and cancelation of debt by one party without change in the other does neither any good. So, along with a declaration of innocence is also innocence restored, not just a cleansing, but a new heart, a resolution to that rift which separates man from God: to the sin that earns man death IOW. And the reason that God declares or reckons man to be just when he comes to believe is because of what faith means: faith is to make God our God again, to end the alienation from Him that began with Adam. Faith is the first right step for man, it pleases God immensely because it places man into a state of justice, into his rightful place of relationship with God. Adam’s act of disobedience was an act of injustice. Abraham’s act of faith was an act of justice-and any work or deed that would’ve followed was part and parcel of that justice. Adam disbelieved God and didn’t heed Him; Abraham believed God and heeded Him.

So the church knew that justification and sanctification must be part of the same process, of making man right so that he may begin to satisfy those requirements, the right way finally, that God has for man in terms of obedience.
EDIT: And speaking of improvement, there is that purgatory thing.
Just as works added to faith means that God's salvation alone is insufficient, so also, purgatory added to the cleansing, purifying blood of Jesus Christ means that Christ's blood alone is insufficient.
Not to mention purgatory is not presented in the NT.
Well, Sola Scriptura advocates often disagree with each other over that which is more fully stated in the bible. And the bible, which itself acknowledges that there were many teachings that were not recorded, was never intended to serve as some kind of catechism to begin with!-even as many seem to wish or presume that to be the case. As it is the disciples had received and taught the message before a single word of the new testament was written, and the earliest churches taught some kind of afterlife final purification where all distractions away from God, i.e. sin, is finally fully removed-so that we can “see” God. Prayers for the dead were offered from the beginning, as they had already been offered by the Jews earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
3,549
1,311
42
San jacinto
✟75,505.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think there is some irony in that legalism is itself just a kind of antinomianism; and antinomianism is itself just a kind of legalism. The difference between them is nearly illusory. The person who seeks to be righteous by keeping the commandments shall be condemned by them; and the one who casts them aside and becomes a law unto himself shall be likewise condemned by those same commandments. No one can escape the condemnation of the Law, except that one stands in the one and only righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is through faith alone.

-CryptoLutheran
I think a lot of the issue comes down to some deficiency in how "faith" is often defined as it is not simply an assertion of truth but a deep abiding trust. When Jesus said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments..." it's not a declaration of winning favor through following the law but a truism that keeping Christ's commandments flows out of that trust. The debate between faith and works is perpetuated on the false notion that faith can exist without works, but by its very nature faith fulfills the law.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
17,936
11,063
Minneapolis, MN
✟889,838.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
... the earliest churches taught some kind of afterlife final purification where all distractions away from God, i.e. sin, is finally fully removed-so that we can “see” God.
That's interesting. Tell us more, thanks.

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
20,622
4,358
North Carolina
✟152,293.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Boy…that statement reveals a lot-of ignorance about Catholic teachings.
That “improvement” is based solidly on previous teachings
"Based solidly on" is in the eye of the beholder.

There was no change at the "customer level," for nothing of the sort was offered to the faithful until within the last 50-75 years.
If the improvement were based solidly on previous teachings, why was "salvation through faith, not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9) not promulgated to the faithful much sooner?
that were laid down at council at the time of Luther, to address the variety of different theologies that were already popping up with the advent and application of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Controversy is often the cause of such councils as was the case with another council, held some 1000 years before the Reformation that also provided crucial sources of foundational teachings which were then reflected and further explained 500 years ago, and currently in the latest catechism. A great deal of thought and experience and struggle and guidance over centuries have gone into these teachings, beginning when the church first received the faith at the beginning, resulting in an increasingly better understanding of them. I can demonstrate this consistency in teachings if truth is of interest in this matter.

This needs to be fleshed out a bit better IMO.
Justification certainly includes the forgiveness and remission of sin,
Actually that is salvation.
Justification because of faith is simply a declaration by the Judge of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal of guilt, and an imputed righteousness (Romans 4:1-11), just as it was with Abraham.
which is basically what your position describes. But it’s more than that. Because forgiveness and cancelation of debt by one party without change in the other does neither any good. So, along with a declaration of innocence is also innocence restored, not just a cleansing, but a new heart, a resolution to that rift which separates man from God: to the sin that earns man death IOW.
And the reason that God declares or reckons man to be just when he comes to believe is because of what faith means: faith is to make God our God again, to end the alienation from Him that began with Adam. Faith is the first right step for man, it pleases God immensely because it places man into a state of justice,
Yes, faith justifies (declares "not guilty"), but faith and justification are two different things.
Faith in the blood of Christ (Romans 3:25) is about salvation from God's wrath (Romans 5:9), while
justification is about imputed (reckoned) righteousness (Romans 4:1-11) by faith, apart from works (Romans 3:28), as it was with Abraham, not about actual righteousness of sanctification.
into his rightful place of relationship with God. Adam’s act of disobedience was an act of injustice. Abraham’s act of faith was an act of justice-and any work or deed that would’ve followed was part and parcel of that justice. Adam disbelieved God and didn’t heed Him; Abraham believed God and heeded Him.
So the church knew that justification and sanctification must be part of the same process, of making man right so that he may begin to satisfy those requirements, the right way finally, that God has for man in terms of obedience.
Yes, Scripture clearly presents justification and sanctification as part of the process of redemption.
But the imputed righteousness of justification by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-11) is not the actual (imparted) righteousness of sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).
It is most important to the gospel of grace that the righteousness of justification be apart from works (Romans 3:28),
just as salvation is not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Well, Sola Scriptura advocates often disagree with each other over that which is more fully stated in the bible. And the bible, which itself acknowledges that there were many teachings that were not recorded,
The Bible acknowledges there were many other things Jesus did, not many other teachings, that were not recorded.
Likewise, most of our NT doctrine is not from the gospels, but from the epistles, where there is no such claim regarding doctrine not being recorded.
And does not purgatory, nowhere presented in the NT, negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:7)?
Just as adding works to salvation negates salvation being by the Lord--him and him alone, so that there could not be even the possibility of anyone boasting (Romans 3:27, Romans 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Ephesians 2:9)?
was never intended to serve as some kind of catechism to begin with!-even as many seem to wish or presume that to be the case. As it is the disciples had received and taught the message before a single word of the new testament was written,
Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Because any such teaching must be in agreement with what was written, for God does not contradict himself.

So we are all left with Sola Scriptura for our authority and judge of what is God's truth, as in "salvation is through faith, not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
26,650
5,506
EST
✟814,037.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Saint Steve said:
That's interesting. Tell us more, thanks.
Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire
Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.
No matter how many times you post these verses they will never support UR. What does salted mean? Salt does not save and it does not cure.
Leviticus 2:13
(13) And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
All meat offerings were required to be salted. But only clean and acceptable meat could be offered. Salt did not make the unclean, clean or the unacceptable, acceptable.
Mal 3:2 is not a message for all mankind, it was only for the nation Israel

Malachi 3:1-5
(1) Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
(2) But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
(3) And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
(4) Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
(5) And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
20,622
4,358
North Carolina
✟152,293.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No matter how many times you post these verses they will never support UR. What does salted mean? Salt does not save and it does not cure.
Leviticus 2:13
(13) And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
All meat offerings were required to be salted. But only clean and acceptable meat could be offered. Salt did not make the unclean, clean or the unacceptable, acceptable.
Mal 3:2 is not a message for all mankind, it was only for the nation Israel

Malachi 3:1-5
(1) Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
(2) But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
(3) And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
(4) Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
(5) And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

Salting is for the purpose of avoiding the fire by the process of trial and sanctification in the born again,
salting is the not being subjected to the fire of the condemned.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
26,650
5,506
EST
✟814,037.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
* * * Salted is the process of sanctification in the born again before their death, not of the unregenerate after death.
Scripture please? I know of no scripture which supports this.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
20,622
4,358
North Carolina
✟152,293.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scripture please? I know of no scripture which supports this.
Well, adding salt to the sacrifice would be figurative of grace:
salt penetrates - grace penetrates, to the level of our heart and motives, changing them;
salt retards - grace transforms our corruption;
salt aids healing - grace heals our sin (1 Peter 2:24; see 2 Kings 2:20-22); and
salt makes untasty things acceptable - we are unacceptable to God without his grace.

Scriptures?
Colossians 4:6 - "Let your conversation be always full of grace (no corruption), seasoned with salt (which retards corruption)."

Matthew 5:13 - "You are the salt of the earth (and the decaying earth needs salt). But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

If the professing church (salt) loses its saltiness (holiness), it will no longer be good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled on by the world.

Mark 9:50 - ". . .Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."

Grace retards our corruption (the source of our conflicts, James 4:1) and makes us peaceable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
26,650
5,506
EST
✟814,037.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, salting the sacrifice would be figurative of grace:
salt penetrates - grace penetrates, to the level of our heart and motives, changing them;
salt retards - grace transforms our corruption;
salt aids healing - grace heals our sin (1 Peter 2:24; see 2 Kings 2:20-22); and
salt makes untasty things tasty - we are unacceptable to God without his grace.
Scriptures?
Colossians 4:6 - "Let your conversation be always full of grace (no corruption), seasoned with salt (which retards corruption)."
Matthew 5:13 - "You are the salt of the earth (and the decaying earth needs salt). But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

If the professing church (salt) loses its saltiness (holiness), it will no longer be good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled on by the world.

Mark 9:50 - ". . .Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."

Grace retards our corruption (the source of our conflicts, James 4:1) and makes us peaceable.
These are all arguments and conclusions not definitive scripture. How does salt lose it saltiness? It was adulterated. Salt was like gold. Additives were added to it to make the volume of salt larger so less salt could be sold for more gold, silver etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
12,432
3,113
✟259,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think a lot of the issue comes down to some deficiency in how "faith" is often defined as it is not simply an assertion of truth but a deep abiding trust. When Jesus said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments..." it's not a declaration of winning favor through following the law but a truism that keeping Christ's commandments flows out of that trust. The debate between faith and works is perpetuated on the false notion that faith can exist without works, but by its very nature faith fulfills the law.
I have to say it, yes, there's more to it than believing a truth, and it's love that fulfills the law. And that love is available only from its Source. And the reason for faith is to realize the reconciliation with God within ourselves that Jesus came to accomplish for man-so that union may take place, a union that man was created for. Jesus reveals the true God so that we'll know Him, and by knowing we'll believe in Him- that God really exists fisrt of all-then that we'll hope/trust in Him and finally and ultimately that we'll love Him. Jesus gives us a God worth believing in. And as we do He becomes our God again. From that union and that love flow righteousness; that realtionship is the very essence of righteousness or justice for man; we're dead apart from Him.

The point is that unless God gives man righteousnss at justification then nothing is changed; we won't bother obeying Him until we begin to love as He does.
 
Upvote 0