Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

[Buzzard3]

It makes no sense, and if, again, you had done MINIMAL legitimate research you would have found out your statement is a lie.

Why waste time doing legitimate research when you can watch anti-Catholic garbage spewed forth on YouTube?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Buzzard3

You wrote book length replies. This thread is not about Catholicism, and I am not looking to derail my own thread. My time is also limited and I am not here to endlessly debate against Catholicism (Although I could easily demolish the RCC in a debate if I took a couple of long months to a year to prep against your common rebuttals and arguments). My current knowledge is sufficient to show the unbiased observer that Catholicism is unbiblical. But I like to go the extra mile to erase any doubts. In any event, I am busy with a write up, so I am moving on. I pop in here to give replies that I can give quickly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Why waste time doing legitimate research when you can watch anti-Catholic garbage spewed forth on YouTube?

I do like to be fair in arguments and I do like to reconsider certain things that the even my side may discolor or overplay. I am learning that more on a write up I am doing. So while I may put forth certain things, I am also open to a single point on being wrong. Keep in mind that does not mean my overall position or stand on the unbiblical nature of the Catholic Church is not true. However, this is not the place nor the time in my life to debate the RCC.

 

[Valletta]

So even when it is by another Catholic, they don’t know what they are talking about. Okay.
But there is also this:

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, Catholic men and women are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are required to find out how the bishops of the Church interpret a passage and they are to accept what the bishops teach as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. They are not allowed to use their own judgment or follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it. (Catechism 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, 2050)

In other words, no personal study and revelation is really allowed. One has to submit to the interpretation of the Bishops.

Side Note:

As for Justin Martyr:

He helped to develop the existence of Purgatory. While there may have been early disjointed practices that would resemble certain Catholic practices, I don’t believe the Catholic Church did not really start to form until the early 300s with Constantine. I know you have your own version of history and so I know you will not accept this narrative.

Source used:

MARY WORSHIP? A Study of Catholic Practice and Doctrine

As I said, please quit misinforming people about Catholic teaching. You seem to have plenty of time to take information from anti-Catholic websites, again, the Catholic Catechism is readily available and post an actual quotation from the Catholic Catechism instead of misrepresenting a Catholic teaching.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As I said, please quit misinforming people about Catholic teaching. You seem to have plenty of time to take information from anti-Catholic websites, again, the Catholic Catechism is readily available and post an actual quotation from the Catholic Catechism instead of misrepresenting a Catholic teaching.

Repeating yourself is not going to change anything. Granted, you are entitled to your opinion. So am I. I do not believe I am misrepresenting the Catholic Church, but repeating yourself to say so otherwise will just turn things into a mindless “great taste, less filling” type argument. My belief (not yours) is that anyone (without a Catholic bias or hooked into its system) can read the Bible and see all the extra biblical things in the RCC goes against many parts of Scripture. But again, this is not the place or time to debate such a thing.

So lets move on.
The thread topic is not Catholicism.

May God’s love shine upon you today.

 

[The Righterzpen]

If so, how did Jesus "fulfill" the Mosaic law, "Thou shalt not steal", for example?

How do you know what is "moral"?

What are you not understanding? I explained this to you already in Post #244

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What are you not understanding? I explained this to you already in Post #244

Please start another thread for this discussion. I am trying to get this thread back on topic. This topic is about discussing the two aspects of salvation as taught in the Bible. Meaning, do you see it as biblical or unbiblical? What support in Scripture do you have to support your position?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

I believe it is important to understand there are two aspects of salvation as taught in the Bible. Not only is it the truth, but we have two different groups favoring one aspect of salvation at the expense of ignoring the other. One giant group of Christians believe in only the first aspect of salvation (God’s grace through faith), and yet they do not truly believe Sanctification is also a part of God’s plan of salvation (in the fact that holy conduct also cleanses us by the blood of Jesus - 1 John 1:7). Yet, in another group, we have Christians ignoring that we are saved by God’s grace initially by faith (without works), and then they make salvation all about Works Alone with no grace or rest ever (Titus 3:5, Luke 18:9-14).

Many Christians are simply following the crowd and they are not rightly dividing the Bible by studying it properly themselves in prayer. They are not willing to accept the plain reading of Scripture in every place. They prefer their church or its belief over what the Bible says. Giant sections of Scripture need to either be ignored or twisted in order to defend their belief. But this is not surprising. We are living in the last days where the falling away has already begun. We are living in the Laodician lukewarm age. People would prefer the friendship or fellowship of their church rather than simply stand up for God and the truth of His Word (Which can be a lonely road in some cases for some). But are we here in this life to please ourselves or the LORD? Are we truly believing and acting in harmony with the Bible?

Most will simply not see what I am talking here even when such truth is revealed by Scripture.
The fact that folks will not explain one set of verses is the test that they are failing.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If anyone preaches another gospel they are accursed (Galatians 1:8). So we have to make sure we are giving folks the gospel as taught in Scripture (Which is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Then there is the warning to continue in his goodness, otherwise we can be cut off just like the Jews were caught off (See: Romans 11:22). Without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). So both aspects of salvation are equally important and should not be neglected.

But many today believe they can sin and still be saved on some level. So to give up sin is a hard thing. Sin is pleasurable to people. Sin is a large part why they cannot see what the Scriptures actually say on this matter. Of course, many today think God did not keep His words and or that sin is normal. So they have two major things working against them already. But God can break the chains and set them free to see the truth and be set free.

 

[Buzzard3]

morality remains a product of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the believer because God is moral.

Please describe the morality that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has produced.

Please list the sins that this indwelling morality has defined.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please describe the morality that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has produced.

Please list the sins that this indwelling morality has defined.

Is this Sanctification? Is it dealing with salvation? If not, it is not the topic of the thread, my friend.
The topic of the thread is discussing the two aspects of salvation in the Bible, which is…

#1. God’s grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9), and
#2. Sanctification (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

I am trying to get the thread back on topic.
It has been derailed with other topics.
You can always start a thread with a link to that thread if you like.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except one indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't going to be prone to committing that sin

This is one of those unfalsfiable claims. If a believer commits a "deadly" sin, you would claim that he wasn't "indwelt by the Holy Spirit".

I wish I had a dollar for every believer who thought he was "indwelt by the Holy Spirit" but then went on to commit a "deadly" sin!

If you're correct and a believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't going to be prone to committing that sin, then no believer can say that they're "indwelt by the Holy Spirit", because no one can see into the future - no one can know that they'll never commit a "deadly" sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is one of those unfalsfiable claims. If a believer commits a "deadly" sin, you would claim that he wasn't "indwelt by the Holy Spirit".

I wish I had a dollar for every believer who thought he was "indwelt by the Holy Spirit" but then went on to commit a "deadly" sin!

If you're correct and a believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't going to be prone to committing that sin, then no believer can say that they're "indwelt by the Holy Spirit", because no one can see into the future - no one can know that they'll never commit a "deadly" sin.

They claim that they can and will sin and yet there are still saved. There are different degrees of their justifying sin of course. Some will say no true believer will murder, and yet others say you can do so and be saved. This is the scary thing about this wrong understanding on the Bible. Then again, there are other Christians who commit sin and they don’t think it is sin. One example is that there are Christians who do not think porn is a sin. There are other sins that other denominations who have problems in recognizing what other sins are, as well.

 

[Buzzard3]

Is this Sanctification? Is it dealing with salvation?

Of course it"s dealing with salvation:

"a man is justified [saved] by works [sanctification] and not by faith alone ...

faith without works [sanctification] is dead" (James 2:24-26).

 

[Valletta]

Repeating yourself is not going to change anything. Granted, you are entitled to your opinion. So am I. I do not believe I am misrepresenting the Catholic Church, but repeating yourself to say so otherwise will just turn things into a mindless “great taste, less filling” type argument. My belief (not yours) is that anyone (without a Catholic bias or hooked into its system) can read the Bible and see all the extra biblical things in the RCC goes against many parts of Scripture. But again, this is not the place or time to debate such a thing.

So lets move on.
The thread topic is not Catholicism.

May God’s love shine upon you today.

Just trying to straighten out the more outrageous of your claims, such as that Catholics could not study the Bible for themselves until World War II. Studying the Church fathers and actual history gains a much better understanding of Catholicism then does frequenting anti-Catholic websites.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”​

― Fulton J. Sheen

 

[The Righterzpen]

Please describe the morality that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has produced.

Please list the sins that this indwelling morality has defined.

Why do you assume this would be different than what's written in the law; further added onto by what Jesus explained himself?

This is one of those unfalsfiable claims. If a believer commits a "deadly" sin, you would claim that he wasn't "indwelt by the Holy Spirit".

I wish I had a dollar for every believer who thought he was "indwelt by the Holy Spirit" but then went on to commit a "deadly" sin!

If you're correct and a believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't going to be prone to committing that sin, then no believer can say that they're "indwelt by the Holy Spirit", because no one can see into the future - no one can know that they'll never commit a "deadly" sin.

Interesting objection. Although it's kind of like the hypothetical question of Jesus sinning. For Hebrews 4:15 says he was tempted in all points as we are; yet did not sin. So what does that say in regards to his potential to sin? Your objection can only be valid from the vantage point of one who has not the omniscience of God. You can't see the future and the individual may not know either; but He who indwells the individual certainly knows.

Than of course there's the question of whether or not "deadly sins" are unpardonable; should one commit them post redemption. Personally, yes, I think it's unlikely a genuine believer would do something like murder someone. (Keeping in mind that murder and homicide are legally two different definitions. Thus doesn't mean a believer would not kill someone else. But also, I can see where the possibility exists of a genuine believer committing suicide. Suicide I don't see as something that comes under the same motivation as murdering someone else.

But, if you want to discuss this further; than message me. @Bible Highlighter is getting upset that his thread has "gotten off track".

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just trying to straighten out the more outrageous of your claims, such as that Catholics could not study the Bible for themselves until World War II. Studying the Church fathers and actual history gains a much better understanding of Catholicism then does frequenting anti-Catholic websites.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”​

― Fulton J. Sheen

Not the topic of this thread. Start another thread if you like. This is not the topic.

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the Mosaic law ...

Now what your saying about Jews as opposed to gentiles; you're going to have to explain a little more because I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to by laws Jews were still expected to keep.

It seems clear from the NT that the Jewish Christians didn't think Jesus had fulfilled the entire law of Moses - for example, they kept the laws relating to diet and circumcision and expected all Jewish converts to do likewise.
Before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) they (or at least some of them) believed Gentile converts must also keep those Mosaic laws.


In Acts 21, James - speaking on behalf of Jewish Christians who "are all zealous for the law" - is concerned by the rumour that Paul is teaching "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs".

In Galatians 2, Peter didn't want to be seen eating with the Gentile Christians because he feared "the circumcision party" - Jewish Christians visiting from Jerusalem who were under James, who would have come down heavily on Peter if they saw him eating "unclean" Gentile food.
Paul accused Peter, Barnabas (a Jewish Christian) and the visiting Jews of acting "insincerely" because they evidently began insisting that the Antioch Gentile Christians "live like Jews” (Gal 2:14).

Paul, who vehemently opposed circumcision for Christians, had Timothy - a Christian - circumcised "because of the Jews". Timothy's mother was Jewish, so the Jews would have considered him Jewish by law. (Acts 16:1-3)

 

[Buzzard3]

But, if you want to discuss this further; than message me. @Bible Highlighter is getting upset that his thread has "gotten off track".

The OP mentions sanctification, so discussing sin and morality is hardly getting "off track", I should think.

 

[Valletta]

It seems clear from the NT that the Jewish Christians didn't think Jesus had fulfilled the entire law of Moses - for example, they kept the laws relating to diet and circumcision and expected all Jewish converts to do likewise.
Before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) they (or at least some of them) believed Gentile converts must also keep those Mosaic laws.


In Acts 21, James - speaking on behalf of Jewish Christians who "are all zealous for the law" - is concerned by the rumour that Paul is teaching "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs".

In Galatians 2, Peter didn't want to be seen eating with the Gentile Christians because he feared "the circumcision party" - Jewish Christians visiting from Jerusalem who were under James, who would have come down heavily on Peter if they saw him eating "unclean" Gentile food.
Paul accused Peter, Barnabas (a Jewish Christian) and the visiting Jews of acting "insincerely" because they evidently began insisting that the Antioch Gentile Christians "live like Jews” (Gal 2:14).

Paul, who vehemently opposed circumcision for Christians, had Timothy - a Christian - circumcised "because of the Jews". Timothy's mother was Jewish, so the Jews would have considered him Jewish by law. (Acts 16:1-3)

Jesus left such things up His Church.