Justification

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, plase join in any time. Our wives do sound alike. We went to a Catholic servise last April that was quite interesting. We have friends that were not Christians, that we had shared Christ with for years, who started their two children in Sunday School at a Catholic church and ended up taking a Catholic instruction class themselves. They ended up becoming members and asked us to come to the service (night before Easter, I think. maybe it was the week before, it was a Saturday night anyway.) My friend and his wife were welcomed into the church and they were annointed with oil. We had candles in our hands for much of the service. It was a lot of reading and chanting and some singing. It was very "religious". I don't meam that badly I just could not think of a different word. Anyway, it must have lasted 2 to 3 hours by the time it was done. We enjoyed parts and thought some of it was strange. We could see the deep tradition that was held. I don't recall anything unBiblical but there was obviously many things happening that are not discussed in the Bible. It was the first Catholic service my wife had been at. I had been at weddings and a funeral before. It was a learning experience to say the least. Just for the record, I am not a Baptist. We attend a non-denominational church. I am just a plain old Christian, and an independent thinker. I guess that is why my views don't always hold to the common Baptist line. I will try to look at a couple verses Cure used above a little later. Take care and God Bless,
Brian

[DojoGrant]

Brian,

That was the Easter Vigil Mass! Glad you got to attend one. It's SUCH a beautiful Mass in honor of Christ's resurrection!

[Briguy]

Grant, that does sound like what it was called. As I said it ws very interesting, to say the least. When my friend got annointed with oil, he was the first one in the line and the priest didn't realize how fast the oil would come out and so got oil in my friends eye which turned his eye red. We got kind of a laugh out of it. Anyway, what is the significance of the march around the church, while names of saints, includuing the names ot those who were just made members, are read out loud??

Cure, I agree that we are to please God. You admit that we aren't perfect and so will fall short of always pleasing God. You put yourself in a strange position here. How much not pleasing is too much not pleasing. In other words, at what point does a "child of God" not please God enough to warrant purgatory, instead of instant Heaven? at what level of not pleasing God does a Child lose purgatory and go to Hell instead. These levels are not discussed in scripture. It seems in the Bible that Heaven is obtained by "saints" and Hell is reserved for unrepentent sinners, kind of black and white. My point by example is this: My children dis-please (is that a word?) me quite often, usually by the way they treat eachother. When I must I discipline them (including punishment if needed). The desired outcome is that they learn from the mistake and that they become better in the end. God chastises (sp?) those he loves, His children. The Bible is clear on that. He wants us to grow and learn from our mistakes too. We will be more pleasing to him in the end if He disciplines us now. The point is that I never would consider disowning any of my children, no matter what degree of unpleasing things are done. They can walk away from me but they would still be my child. I would love themand draw them back to me, not disown them. I believe God treats us the same way. Once a Child, always a child. A child must be born, and that is why a true child of God is "born again". Once born to the earth and once born from above. Having levels of being un-pleasing just does not seem Biblical. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

Anyway, I am all goofed up on what I was supposed to answer. I believe I owe you some verses on my belief about Baptism being a sign and a symbol. Maybe you wanted some writings from early Christians after the Bible was written? I think I will just try to get you Bible verses instead.

In Christ who saves,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brian,

It is not so much a point, or counting system..."When do we do enough good works to get into heaven, when have we done too many bad things not to go to heaven."

Rather it is much more specific than that, which I believe the Bible talks about. Paul tells us about sinning unto death (removing ourselves from the grace of God) but not removing ourselves as a child of God. This is impossible. You are right that we can walk away, but God cannot. The Church Fathers described that sin which decisively cuts us off from grace in such a way:

1. It must be grave sin. So grave in fact that this sin is a clear and out right rejection of Jesus Christ as our Savior. We reject belief in Him in that we reject to obey Him. (Romans 1:5) But look especially at 1st John:

1 John 2:3-6
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5] But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. [6] He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

2. Full Knowledge - you must have the full knowledge that it is a grave sin such as described in number 1.

3. Full Consent - you must have the full consent of will to commit the sin. So basically you understand you are rejecting Christ through this sin, it is a grave enough sin, and you commit the sin due to this cause. Literally you are saying "God I don't care, I'm doing it anyway."

And our sin leaves a stain on the soul, mortal or veniel. When we sin, it internally changes us. That is why some people have a stronger relationship with God than other people. And when we die, we cannot enter heaven "covered in Jesus" yet internally filthy. God requires perfect santification. And thus we are cleansed of any stain left of that sin before we enter heaven. It is not some "torture chamber" but a process we go through before the beautific vision of God and prepared for the glorious victory feast of the lamb. Why do you think Catholics call though in heaven members of the "Church Triumphant". What a glorious day awaits us after such a long and weary battle!

Thus any sin, venial or mortal "warrents" purification. Not as a punishment, but as a cleansing. Some of us are cleansed by martyrdom, some before we enter heaven after death, and some through incredible holiness and closeness to our Lord here on earth.

Also I wanted to touch on "saints". Every one in heaven is a saint. Period all true believers are indeed saints. However, the Church, through miracles of intercessory prayer, realize that some people are indeed in heaven, as the Church is not the judger of the hearts of men. We know without a doubt that the Apostle Paul is in heaven. To recieve the declaration of saint in the Church takes incredible trials. The word "Devils advocate" has its origin in the process of canonizing a saint. Someone from the Church tries to prove why they aren't a saint while others prove the case for sainthood. It is a matter that the Church doesn't look to lightly. If you notice very few popes even in the past 800 years have been canonized.

Hope I have been some help.

Have a blessed weekend and Lord's Day.

Bro. Adam

[Cure of Ars]

Hello Briguy,

Lets get to work

[quote]When the angel talks to Abraham and tells him not to hurt Isaac it does not say "saith the Lord" (v.12)[/quote]

This is an argument from silence, which does not hold.

[quote] Also, there is a third person thing going on there, where the angel says God as a third person[/quote]

Ok, I did a little research and I found this in regards to Moses talking to himself in the third person when writing Exodus. The commentary makes this comment;


[quote]Some have observed that it would be unlikely for an author to use the third person ("he" or "Moses") rather than the first person ("I") in a narrative in which the author was so intimately involved. Yet in ancient cultures, the use of the third person for the narrator was customary. [/quote]

[url="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:a9xrCwP6oqUJ:newkingjamesversion.com/books/exodus_1.html+%22Gen+22:12%22++%22third+person%22+God&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:a9xrC...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]

I do not know how trustworthy the site is that I got the information. But if this is true, then the use of God in the third person would fit in with God making the statement. It could also have something to do with the Trinity. And I think I also found some other places were God refers to himself in the third person in Genesis but I would have to look into this further.

[quote]and then says me (small m) in the first person.[/quote]

I do not think this holds because from what I understand the original Hebrew does not have capitalization or punctuation. The words didn’t even have spaces. So this aspect of the text is not infallible.

I think my main argument is that God is the one testing Abraham and when it says “me” the only reasonable explanation is that God was talking through the angel. Too bad we did not know Hebrew to see if there were more arguments that could be made. After a while I kind of forgot why this point mattered in the first place.

Ok, I got another question for you on this topic. Why in the Bible, when it talks about the last judgment does it always talk about works being the thing that is judged and sends you to heaven or hell and not looking into the heart to find faith alone? (Examples Matthew 25:31-46; Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 16:24-27; John 5:28-29; Romans 2:6-10; 1 Cor 3:10-17; Rev. 2:19-23; Rev. 20:12-13, Rev. 22:11-14)


[quote]You mentioned 1 Peter 1: 7-9 above and the quote you used, when read from my perspective, seems to better represent what I have been saying, even in your version. I see it as saying that true faith produces a goal, the goal being salvation, which will be attained.[/quote]

If faith instantaneously produces salvation then how can salvation be a goal? You got me confused with this statement.


[quote]It doesn't reall say the goal will only be attained if you do good in the trials, it says that the trials refine the faith and cause usto praise, etc... There is not language here to say that we won't attain the goal, once we have faith.[/quote]

This is an argument from silence and I was not using this passage as an argument that showed that we could loose our salvation but instead I used the passage to show that God does test and looks for proof by what we do and not only by what is in our hearts. Some passages from Peter’s epistles that I would use against the once saved always saved doctrine would be the following;

[quote]For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the gospel of God? "And if the righteous one is barely saved, where will the godless and the sinner appear?" As a result, those who suffer in accord with God's will hand their souls over to a faithful creator as they do good. (1 Peter 4:17-19)[/quote]

[quote]They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him.  For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them. (2 Peter 19-22)[/quote]



Side note:

It’s cool that you went to an Easter Vigil Mass. I just wanted to show you something. At the Easter Vigil they go through most of the story of salvation history so there is a lot of bible readings. On a normal Sunday there is also a lot from the bible. There is one OT reading, a psalm, a reading from a NT epistle/book Revelation and then a reading from the Gospel. Along with this the prayers that are said are almost totally from the Bible. Check it out:

[url="http://www.catholicsites.com/beggarking/Mass.html"]http://www.catholicsites.com/beggarking/Mass.html[/url]



Your brother in Christ

Edited October 16, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

[quote] Cure, I agree that we are to please God. You admit that we aren't perfect and so will fall short of always pleasing God. You put yourself in a strange position here. How much not pleasing is too much not pleasing. In other words, at what point does a "child of God" not please God enough to warrant purgatory, instead of instant Heaven? at what level of not pleasing God does a Child lose purgatory and go to Hell instead.[/quote]


I have a couple of things I would like to add to Adam’s response to this statement.

From my understanding you put yourself in this same type of position except it is with faith. Like James says “So also faith itself, if it does not have works is dead.” (James 2:17) Even the demons have faith (James 2:19) and Paul himself says that if one has faith to move mountains but has not love he has nothing (1 Cor 12:2) My understanding of the Protestant interpretation of this would be it is not the work but the quality of faith (containing love, hope, obedience, and trust) that produces the works that makes it save. (which I do not necessarily disagree with because they inevitable include works, it’s a distinction without a difference really) but then the question is how much quality of faith must one have to make it saving faith?

Second off the question comes from the perspective of debt not the system of Grace. If I love a father who has an inheritance it would be sick to ask the question how much do I have to do to please him so I can get the inheritance. If you love the father you will love him even without the inheritance. And like the prodigal son it is not a matter of how much you have done but that you have a living relationship with God the father in the family, the inheritance is a gift.

The third thing is that we have all been given different amount of talents (Matt 25:14-30) and gifts in our lives. God is like a father who knows his child’s abilities and he is pleased even when the work is not perfect. The Bible says “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”( Luke 12:48) So the question you ask really depends on who you are talking about and really only God knows.


[quote]My children dis-please (is that a word?) me quite often, usually by the way they treat eachother. When I must I discipline them (including punishment if needed). The desired outcome is that they learn from the mistake and that they become better in the end. God chastises (sp?) those he loves, His children. The Bible is clear on that. He wants us to grow and learn from our mistakes too. We will be more pleasing to him in the end if He disciplines us now. The point is that I never would consider disowning any of my children, no matter what degree of unpleasing things are done. They can walk away from me but they would still be my child. I would love themand draw them back to me, not disown them. I believe God treats us the same way. Once a Child, always a child. A child must be born, and that is why a true child of God is "born again". Once born to the earth and once born from above. Having levels of being un-pleasing just does not seem Biblical. Correct me if I am wrong on that.[/quote]


I am a social worker and I have seen many situations where one has to exclude a child from the family. There has to be limits in a family that one cannot pass without being excluding from the family. I agree with you that your children will always be your children and this is the same with God. But we cannot force our children to love us and to want to be a part of the family. It is possible to commit grave sin that would make it inappropriate for a child to be in the family if they do not repent of the sin. For example if you have a child that uses drugs and says to you straight out that they will not stop using drugs. Do you just ignore the drug use or do you tell your child to get out of your house and when he decides to stop using drugs and wants help that then he can come back and be a part of the family? The just thing to do would be to kick the child out of your home until he is willing to try to give up drugs. We cannot force our children to be a part of the family and God does not force us to be a part of the family of God as well.

Ok I know you and Adam already talked about the prodigal son already but I want to point something the father says in regards to the prodigal son. The father said,

[quote]But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother [b]was dead and has come to life again[/b]; he was lost and has been found. (Luke 16:32) [/quote]

The son’s relationship with the father was “dead” but when the son repented and went back to the father he came ‘back to life again”. This is very significant.

[quote]Having levels of being un-pleasing just does not seem Biblical. Correct me if I am wrong on that. [/quote]

So in a way it is black and white. You ether have God's grace in your heart as part of the family of God or you don't. But on the same hand there is also a deeper relationship with the father in love that we can go deeper and this will make God the father pleased when we try to develop our relationship with him deeper.


I admit that I have skirted around the purgatory parts of your question. The reason being that it will inevitable change the subject and there is still a lot to be said. I promise that I will explain this in the near future.

God bless

Edited October 16, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Briguy]

Hi Cure and Adam, thanks for the good posts. Lots of stuff in both. I will pluck away a little at a time.

(oh, btw, Cure, I am a social worker too! I knew there was something about you I liked)

Adam, I think the key here is verse 3.
[3] And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

Verse 3 is one of self reflection. We can be assured, and rest easier, knowing we are bound for Heaven, knowing that we have victory over sin. John says hey, its easy for you to know you are Christians, are you following what Christ said? This is not the ten commandments but is referring to those things that Christ told us to do, namely serving and loving others. If you are doing those things in Faith, John says you are saved. the whole 1 John carries this theme. I think people doubt their faith often, especially after sinning. John says in 1 John 1 that if you do sin that Jesus will be the intercesser of the sin. The point is that we do sin, in the flesh, and to keep our relationship right with God (not in terms of salvation, but fellowship) we confess that sin. We "ought" to do our best for Jesus, that is the goal. When we fall, it is Jesus who picks us up and tells the Father, "I got it covered".

More to come, be patient as I do have a lot I would like to share.

In Christ,
Brian

Edited October 18, 2004 by Briguy

[Briguy]

Hi cure, On a couple verses. The ones from Mathew. One is a parable and one is clearly speaking of false Phrophets who are known by evil fruit. The parable is a lesson on the Christian life. It is a challange by Christ, hold that thought for a second.

The Romans verse and a couple more:
[5] But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
[6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
[7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
[8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
This is speaking of two types of people, ones who are bound for eternal life and one for God's wrath. God shows the characteristics of both but....

back to the top verses; the theme is who are the works for. The works are not a proof to God or to show God anything. You see as people we can't see the heart and so must have a concrete way to grasp what God already knows. God uses the theme of works for us to see Christ in eachother or not see Christ in eachother. It is the way WE test eachother and prove to eachother whom we belong. Works are also the ONLY way to forward the kingdom. God makes this forefront because it means everything in terms of spreading God's word, the gospel to others. I will try to say that more clear when I post again but I just ran out of time.

In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Briguy,

I'll wait on ya', but I believe your putting something into the text that isn't there. With your theology the text HAS to read "fellowship" not "salvation", but the text itself, especially along side the rest of the Bible gives us no reason to think it has anything to do with fellowship. I agree that it is not speaking so much of the 10 commandments, but the law of Christ that he set down for us in the New Testament. New Covenant = New Law. A law of grace, not of works.

[Briguy]

1 Corinthians
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to (1) spiritual men, but as to (2) men of flesh, as to (3) infants in Christ.
2 I gave you (4) milk to drink, not solid food; for you (5) were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is (6) jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking (7) like mere men?

1 Corinthians 5

3 For I, on my part, though (5) absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
4 (6) In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, (7) with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5 I have decided to (8) deliver such a one to (9) Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in (10) the day of the Lord [1] Jesus.

Romans 2
28 For (44) he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But (45) he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and (46) circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the (47) Spirit, not by the letter; (48) and his praise is not from men, but from God.


Adam, I really believe you have it backwards. You want to have the flesh cleansed but the “inner man” dirty and in need of purgatory or if really dirty, Hell. I do not believe that is what scripture says. Read the verses above. There is a “flesh” theme here. The flesh being the cause of us sinning. We sin because we wear a body of flesh. A believer has an inner body of light, cleansed once for all by the blood of Jesus. You see perfect blood HAS to be able to cleanse perfectly. It defies logic (I seem to live in Bible logic theses days) to think that a perfect cleansing from perfect blood could result in a failed cleansing in the end. No, logic would say that part of us MUST be cleansed perfectly when we first repent and are washed by the Blood of the Lamb. What is cleansed is the inner man, who becomes a bright shinning light, but clothed with a sinning flesh that remains until we lay our body down. Our desire and goal is to let the inner light shine as much as possible. When the Heart is “circumcised” a person has a relationship with God. Being clean in the flesh (how you look on the outside) has no bearing to God. That is what Romans 2: 28 and 29 so beautifully points out. The flesh can look clean (i.e. we can do things to try to earn favor with God) but those things are as filthy rags to God unless the heart is cleansed. Picture if you will the movie Cocoon. The aliens could peel away their flesh and reveal a beautiful “being” of light. That is how I picture us, Adam . We have that wonderful brightness that comes from being washed clean, but it is in the inner self, covered by a mortal body of flesh. In the second set of scriptures we see an odd, but cool verse that shows how Paul was willing that someone, who was struggling btw, be turned over to Satan (i.e. allowed to do what he was doing wrong) because Paul new that the flesh would be destroyed, yet the soul, the inner self saved. That is extreme but Paul did say it. In the first set of verses I am showing how Paul refers to the wrong they were doing as fleshly and being in the flesh, even though they were “Clean” as far as their inner self was concerned.

More to come,

In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brain,

I'm going to try to spend some extra time tonight answering your post as I have so many things in my non-internet life stressing me out. Need to escape for a while.

First, I'd like to talk about logic for a moment. Logically someone proposed that the Trinity is like a three leaf clover, the three persons of the Trinity are like the leaves on a clover, all coming together as one God indistingushable. Of course, this is heresy, but it seems "logical". A true explanation of the Trinity goes much deeper than that. If you've never read Aquinas on the nature of God, it is at the same time simplistic and profound. I highly suggest it.

Butting getting back to logic, we can't always depend on our own logic leading us to truth in scripture. Seventh-Day Adventists try to use their own logic to prove we are to worship on Saturday, not Sunday, but both of us could agree this is an incorrect use of logic.

And this is where I put my typing fingers on. As I've learned the hard way many times, Protestants often will say something like "John 3:16 proves my theology!" and then we Catholics spend 10 pages explaining how John 3:16 is a beautiful verse, but may not prove their point. Hopefully I can show how the Church agrees with you on many of your points, some I think you are misunderstanding our position, and some maybe we can offer a different angle on familiar passages.

[quote]You want to have the flesh cleansed but the “inner man” dirty and in need of purgatory or if really dirty, Hell[/quote]

This isn't correct, but I understand how you could have mistaken what I tried to present for this. Our human nature will always be that - human nature. We will always have a tendancy to sin while we are still here on this earth, whether we have undergone an experience of regeneration or not. Catholics, Baptists, and all Christians alike have proven this theory to be true. Hell is for those who commit sin onto death. It is not about being "really dirty". It's not about works. It's not about some kind of meritorious point system. It is about are we in the grace of God or are we not. If we choose to delibrately cut ourselves off from the covenantal grace we recieved, we incure the fruits of that decision.

[quote]We sin because we wear a body of flesh.[/quote]

We sin because we have a sinful nature. It is not our "mass of fleshy water" (as an alien in Star Trek once described humans), but our nature which causes us to sin.

[quote]A believer has an inner body of light, cleansed once for all by the blood of Jesus[/quote]

I'm not sure if I fully understand. If you are rejecting imparted righteousness that we are only "covered with Christ" for infused righteousness, that we are intimately united in a very real way with Christ when we are born-again, then I totally agree and reaching and understanding of the covenantal nature of baptism should be a realitively short jump from here.

[quote]You see perfect blood HAS to be able to cleanse perfectly[/quote]

Christ made the perfect atonement for our sins. When we are born again, we are cleansed of all sin. However, as logic would have it, we still struggle with sin after a sin nature. I'm sure you would agree with me if we sin after our initial salvation we can't say "well God I know now I don't have to ask for forgiveness". Sin still has a temporal effect on the soul. We don't get to wear a "Christ-suit" on the outside and every consequence of sin bounces off of us. If that happened, we would be perfectly holy creatures and would indeed not sin.

That temporal effect of sin is only that, temporal. But we cannot enter into heaven with any unholiness. We will not be heavenly creatures with a tendancy to sin. This is what the process of purification is all about.

And keep in mind it is not so much an action of sin in mortal sin that cuts us off from the grace of God, but the [u]outright rejection of God's saving grace [/u]through sin that does so.

[quote]Our desire and goal is to let the inner light shine as much as possible[/quote]

Our desire should always be to do so. We are to be a lamp on a nightstand and a city on a hill. I love the hymn that goes "So take your candle and run into the darkness for all to see." I believe Chris Rice sings it.

[quote]The flesh can look clean (i.e. we can do things to try to earn favor with God) but those things are as filthy rags to God unless the heart is cleansed. Picture if you will the movie Cocoon. The aliens could peel away their flesh and reveal a beautiful “being” of light. That is how I picture us, Adam .[/quote]

Oh boy Brian. That movie brings back memories of wearing my PJ's on Friday night after homework was done and eating all the popcorn I could before my little brother got it! I believe though this sets you apart from many Fundamentalists who believe that we simply wear Christ on the outside and are filthy underneath,but that God does not see that filthiness. Through the sacrament of baptism, an outward sign of an inward change, we are indeed cleansed of all unrighteousness. It is here where original sin is dealt with.

[quote]Romans 2
28 For (44) he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But (45) he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and (46) circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the (47) Spirit, not by the letter; (48) and his praise is not from men, but from God. [/quote]

Romans 2 is a beatiful set of passages on the nature of man and our salvation. Circumcision is the covenant sign of the covenant God made with Abram. Men were circumcised and through this sign their whole family was brought into this covenant. But they had the option of leaving the covenant. They would always be Jewish and members of a Tribe, but could leave behind the covenant promises if they so choose.

Anyone likewise can be brought into the new covenant through baptism, but choose later to leave the promises found in the new covenant behind.

Look at the amazing typology the Bible leaves us:

Covenant Mediator: Adam
Covenant Role: Husband
Covenant Form: Marriage
Covenant Sign: Sabbath

Is the Covenant through family bond? Yes
Is it possible for man to leave the Covenant? Yes

Covenant Mediator: Noah
Covenant Role: Father
Covenant Form: Household
Covenant Sign: Rainbow

Is the Covenant through family bond? Yes
Is it possible for man to leave the Covenant? Yes

Covenant Mediator: Abram
Covenant Role: Chieftain
Covenant Form: Tribe
Covenant Sign: Circumcision

Is the Covenant through family bond? Yes
Is it possible for man to leave the Covenant? Yes

Covenant Mediator: Moses
Covenant Role: Judge
Covenant Form: Nation
Covenant Sign: Passover

Is the Covenant through family bond? Yes
Is it possible for man to leave the Covenant? Yes

Covenant Mediator: David
Covenant Role: King
Covenant Form: National Kingdom
Covenant Sign: Throne

Is the Covenant through family bond? Yes
Is it possible for man to leave the Covenant? Yes

Covenant Mediator: Jesus
Covenant Role: Royal High Priest
Covenant Form: Church
Covenant Sign: Eucharist

Is the Covenant through family bond? Yes
Is it possible for man to leave the Covenant? Yes

The typology of the Old Testament Covenants sets us up for the New Covenant through the sacraficial lamb that is Jesus Christ. It is through his sacrifice that we can become adopted children of God. [u]Actual family members of God's family[/u]. And it is not through works of the law that we are saved, it is not through anything that we can ever do that we earn heaven, but through the grace of God alone, heaven has been merited for us through Christ's perfect sacrafice. How great a salvation for those who believe! And that Christ calls us to be participants in the last passover (John 6).

[quote]In the first set of verses I am showing how Paul refers to the wrong they were doing as fleshly and being in the flesh, even though they were “Clean” as far as their inner self was concerned. [/quote]

Your verse notes that these men are both in Christ, and yet have not grown in Christ, they are still infants in the faith, often walking in the flesh. It however does not say that sin does not affect the inner man. It does make the distinction that there is a difference between our human nature and tendancies and our soul.

I'll stop there for tonight. I look foreward to your next post.

God Bless,
Bro. Adam

[Brother Adam]

I wanted to add sources I took from: Scott Hahn, A Father who Keeps his Promises; Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Catechism of the Catholic Church. All of these books bear eccesiastical approval, though my interpretation of them may not be without error.

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, As we discuss this I do see some commonality in what we are saying though we are using different terms. We do however part pretty sharply when we get to the NEW COVENANT. I believe that the new covenant is totally new, you believe it is a continuation of former covenants. I say that because you believe that the older covenants and the new one must follow the same rules. I think it is clear in scripture that the new cov. is totally different. The reasons in a nutshell are because of the actual sacrifice of God's Son, and the entrance of the Holy Spirit in a never before experienced way. In older covenants, God was always seperated from the people by the "vail". Sinful man needed the blood of animals to be forgiven of their sins (or have their sins covered). Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies and be in the true presence of God, and only once a year, if I remember right. Anyway when God's Son gave His blood the vail tore in half and that represented something 100% different then before. All men had potential access to God and sacrifices were done. Obedience to the Law and the rules of God were replaced by a whole new system and God's Holy Spirit was released on the earth to gather God's children together. That is the scene of the new cov. I said this once before and will say it again, Christ is the Head of "God's people" on earth. We are "the body" with Christ being the head. I see this new covenant as being unbreakable/unshakeable because God is on both sides of the covenant for the first time. Whether you say the NC is with individuals or "the church" God is on both sides. For individuals the Holy Spirit indwells us, becomes one with us, when we are saved, and the Holy Spirit is God. For "the church" Christ himself is the head. So you have to ask yourself, Is this covenant really a continuation of the older ones? and How can a covenant, that has God on both sides be broken? I hope that makes at least some sense. Thanks for your last post and I will try to answer other things later. You have been very patient with me, Thank you!!

Your brother in Christ,
Brian

Cure, what kind of SW do you do??

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brian,

I did not say that the covenant is a continuation of the older ones, but it is indeed within the same typology. Every covenant follows many of the same aspects. You are absolutely correct that the New Covenant changes things dramatically. In the old covenants our salvation is based on works of the law. We have to merit our salvation. In the new covenant salvation has been merited for us through Christ.

One of the differences between Catholic and Protestant thought is that we do not believe our salvation is based on contracted principles. We believe it is based on covenantal principals. This is why I refer to the typology of old covenants. A contract binds to people together, but they remain who they are. Example: Contractor and Customer. A Covenant changes relationships: You are no longer who you used to be. Example: Miss to Mrs.

Therefore our salvation must still be understood through covenant principals, not contract principals. Instead of an individual salvation based on a one time event where "I hand God my trust, I am given something in return". We are giving God our whole lives and being made adopted sons of God in return. We are entering into the family of God. Literally. The family of God is to be bonded and united not only in a local congregation of faithful believers, but as a whole. Christ did not pray for us to indivudually go figure out what truth was and join a local church that teaches some of the same things. He intended for all of God's people to be united together.

Jesus left us the Holy Spirit when he ascended into heaven. He did not leave us a canonized Bible. He left men in authority to guide the Church. These men did not established individual churches and leave them alone to figure out truth on their own. They were given authority to make pronouncements that bound all churches together. The Apostles were not each a pastor of a Church, but were leaders of all the Churches. Truth was not handed down by the Bible, but by oral Tradition. The scriptures were there as a guide in teaching, preaching, disciplining, exhorting, and so many other things. The scriptures used were of course the Old Testament.

Christ is the head of this body, this Pillar and Foundation of Truth as the Bible calls it. But he is the head of one united body enduring all trails and suffering. He is not the head of a body which continuly breaks and splits off and is guided by peoples own personal interpretations. This is what makes the Catholic Church unique. It is not guided by the writings of Protestant Reformers and modern scholars. It is guided by the will of Chirst, and has had one unchanging message for 2000 years! For 2000 years the mass has been the same mass! Priests are accussed of dressing differently, yet this was how they dressed so many years ago! Their dress just hasn't changed in 1700 years!

And yes, God is on both sides of the covenant. Amen. If this were not so, the covenant would still just be another OT covenant. But that does NOT negate our role in our salvation. We are still called to faith, obedience, and trust. We still hold the earthly right each day to choose to obey God or to disobey God. We still have the right to remove ourselves from the graces of the covenant. That is the nature of a covenant. God can never forsake himself. But we are not God.

God Bless,
Bro. Adam

Edited October 20, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Svjatyj_Boze]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 20 2004, 05:16 PM'] In the old covenants our salvation is based on works of the law. We have to merit our salvation. [/quote]
St. Paul is very clear that people have always been justified the same way. Works of the law have never saved anyone, whether before or after the Incarnation. "The just shall live by faith" has always been the narrow path.