Have I gone MAD???

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Lying about me again.... thanks "brother".

I am not lying, "brother." But since you cannot understand what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews who lived under the law then I can only conclude that you remain a natural man unable to understand the things of the spirit:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Since you cannot understand what the Lord Jesus said in those passages you accuse me of lying in the hope that no one will notice that you run and hide from His words, words which have no place in your heart.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I am not lying, "brother." But since you cannot understand what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews who lived under the law then I can only conclude that you remain a natural man unable to understand the things of the spirit:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Since you cannot understand what the Lord Jesus said in those passages you accuse me of lying in the hope that no one will notice that you run and hide from His words, words which have no place in your heart.

Double-down and LIE again: Jerry the great "Christian" liar.

Please QUOTE me saying that salvation came by keeping the law.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Double-down and LIE again: Jerry the great "Christian" liar.

Please QUOTE me saying that salvation came by keeping the law.

You are a sad case, Right Divider. Here are your own words:

Jesus said "Keep My commandments." That means keeping the law was a requirement.

The truth is not in you because you deny the Lord Jesus' words over and over:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Here is what the Lord Jesus said about those who deny Him:

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Mt.10:33).​
 

Right Divider

Body part
You are a sad case, Right Divider. Here are your own words:
Please notice what is MISSING from what you quoted.... I did NOT mention keeping the law for eternal life. But here Jesus does mention eternal life when asked:

Mat 19:16-17 KJV And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Why do you reject the words of the Savior Himself?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Not to spend too much time on this, but it does afford me an opportunity to attempt an address from a Mid Acts perspective:

Sure, more or less.
Augustine was a bishop in communion with the pope, he never believed that the authentic, Apostolic pastorates were somehow usurped by a non-bishop interpreting the Scripture for and by themselves.
:nono: It's blatantly 'appeal to authority.' Such will never, can never fly with evident truths. Scripture is very clear and it is very clear 'authority' has it often wrong. I certainly am one of many who dispute papal infallibility (another thread but we need to at least show both where there is agreement (your offering in thread) and where these differ, offered here.

The abuses of indulgences were abuses, it is granted. And indulgences are the forgiveness of temporal punishments and penalties for our sins. Whereas eternal salvation can be thought of, although it's never taught this way, as an eternal plenary indulgence.
Probably, in a roundabout way, this does show Mid Acts contrast: Sins are completely forgiven at the cross, both past and future sins. What didn't the Lord Jesus Christ die for? (none, His work covers all of them). Then which do I need to 'ask' for forgiveness for?

Most Christian positions have 'grace' divied out 'as you keep coming for forgiveness' rather than 'all at once.' Mid Acts believes 'all at once' thus there is no such thing as a priest. Bishops were 'caretakers' of truth rather than 'dispensers' of, according to Protestants and Mid Acts.


There isn't confusion. Sins are divided by "weight", the serious sins are grave matter and the lighter sins are forgiven /venial automatically. (In addition but off topic, licitly receiving Communion cleanses us of the temporal penalties of our venial sins.) Committing grave sins breaks communion with the Church, and requires confession and absolution to be reconciled before receiving Communion again, which protects the Eucharist and the Church against being sullied, and protects the sinner against the warnings given by e.g. Paul, who wrote about being in a unworthy state and about examining ourselves before eating the bread and drinking the cup.

There is confusion, or at least disagreement. There are no 'lesser' sins. The Catholic church confuses sins against man vs. sins against God. While a good many Protestants do agree to varying extents with Catholics, Mid Acts, as far as I'm aware, see sin as completely taken care of, for all time. All who call on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be (are atf) saved.

Offenses against people is different than sins against God (though the latter is of concern to God, we being His). Even the 10 commandments make clear there is offense to God (the first 5) and to man (the second 5).

Thus, the church could never offer absolution for sins, but offenses that affected fellowship. The problem is and was, the continued confusion between 'God and man' in the RC.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Please notice what is MISSING from what you quoted.... I did NOT mention keeping the law for eternal life.

You wrote:

When Jesus was asked "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?", these are the words of the Savior Himself:

Mat 19:16-17 KJV And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

So when you said the following you were saying that keeping the commandments was a requirement to receive ETERNAL LIFE:

Jesus said "Keep My commandments." That means keeping the law was a requirement.

Now it's time to call yourself a liar!
 

Right Divider

Body part
Requirement for what?
Mat 19:17 KJV And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
What does the Savior Himself mean there?

I've always wondered why Christians mostly all say "nobody but the Lord can keep the commandments" when there are verses like this in the Bible.

Luk 1:6 KJV And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Sure seems to look like Zacharias and Elisabeth where doing it.

There is a huge difference between "keeping the commandments" and "never sinning". The law had actions to perform when the law was broken. That was part of "keeping the commandments".

Do these things also give you heartburn? Have I transgressed the doctrines of Jerry again?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
What does the Savior Himself mean there?

I've always wondered why Christians mostly all say "nobody but the Lord can keep the commandments" when there are verses like this in the Bible.

Sure seems to look like Zacharias and Elisabeth where doing it.

There is a huge difference between "keeping the commandments" and "never sinning". The law had actions to perform when the law was broken. That was part of "keeping the commandments".

Do these things also give you heartburn? Have I transgressed the doctrines of Jerry again?

So are you teaching that in some way keeping the commandments served to justify those who lived under the law?

Are you saying that in some way keeping the commandments served to result in eternal life for those who lived under the law?

Now let us look at what you said earlier:

Jesus said "Keep My commandments." That means keeping the law was a requirement.

Requirement for what?
 

Right Divider

Body part
So are you teaching that in some way keeping the commandments served to justify those who lived under the law?

Are you saying that in some way keeping the commandments served to result in eternal life for those who lived under the law?
Don't try to answer a question with a question.... What did the Lord mean with His answer?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Don't try to answer a question with a question.... What did the Lord mean with His answer?

He said if a Jew would keep the law then he would inherit eternal life. And since the Bible contains progressive revelation Paul sheds more light on keeping the commandments here:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).​


If you are right and the salvation of the Jews who lived under the law depended on keeping the law then NONE of them would be saved--"no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident."

You have been shown this more than once and you continue to pretend that I haven't answered your ridiculous assertions. Instead of actually addressing my response you run and hide from the truth about keeping the commandments revealed so plainly by Paul.

Now that I have answered you about this for the third or forth time it is your turn to respond to what you said here:

Jesus said "Keep My commandments." That means keeping the law was a requirement.

Requirement for what? You wrote it so you obviously have an answer to what you meant. Are you going to be honest and answer the question or are you going to act in a dishonest manner and refuse to answer?
 

Lon

Well-known member
What does the Savior Himself mean there?

I've always wondered why Christians mostly all say "nobody but the Lord can keep the commandments" when there are verses like this in the Bible.



Sure seems to look like Zacharias and Elisabeth where doing it.

There is a huge difference between "keeping the commandments" and "never sinning". The law had actions to perform when the law was broken. That was part of "keeping the commandments".

Do these things also give you heartburn? Have I transgressed the doctrines of Jerry again?

So are you teaching that in some way keeping the commandments served to justify those who lived under the law?

Are you saying that in some way keeping the commandments served to result in eternal life for those who lived under the law?

Now let us look at what you said earlier:



Requirement for what?
Very much appreciate you both here. It isn't just a Mid Acts question so the answers given here are very important and need heavy discussion.

For however much work, thank you both for putting in the effort. In Christ -Lon
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Very much appreciate you both here. It isn't just a Mid Acts question so the answers given here are very important and need heavy discussion.

For however much work, thank you both for putting in the effort. In Christ -Lon

Thanks, Lon!
 

Right Divider

Body part
He said if a Jew would keep the law then he would inherit eternal life.
So if they did not keep the law, they would not inherit eternal life?

And since the Bible contains progressive revelation Paul sheds more light on keeping the commandments here:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).​

If you are right and the salvation of the Jews who lived under the law depended on keeping the law then NONE of them would be saved--"no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident."
Please show the post where I said they were justified by keeping the law.

You can't; because I didn't.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
So if they did not keep the law, they would not inherit eternal life?

If a Jew who lived under the law broke one commandment then he was " guility of all" (Jas.2:10).

Of course being guilty of all does not in anyway lead to anyone inheriting eternal life.


Please show the post where I said they were justified by keeping the law.

You can't; because I didn't.

Why do you refuse to answer my question in regard to what you said here?:

Jesus said "Keep My commandments." That means keeping the law was a requirement.

If keeping the commandments was not a requirement for being justified then what is it a requirement for?

How many times are you going to refuse to answer?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
To be a faithful Jew. James 2:26

Why are you being so dishonest about what you wrote here:

Jesus said "Keep My commandments." That means keeping the law was a requirement.

You were obviously talking about the Jews who lived under the law having to keep the commandments as a requirement for salvation. And that is why you quoted Stam saying the same thing:

Now in the cases of Abraham and David, works were required for salvation, whereas in our case works for salvation are distinctly forbidden; yet it is clear from the passages above that Abraham, David and we were all saved essentially by grace through faith and that works as such have never had any saving value.

Stam, Cornelius. Things That Differ (Kindle Locations 366-368). Berean Bible Society. Kindle Edition.

You got caught teaching something that is not true and you don't have the decency to admit that you were wrong. And you continue to run and hide from the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the law which makes it plain that they were saved by faith alone apart from the works of the law:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​


All you prove is that you put more faith in what some people say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Savior Himself said.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Not to spend too much time on this, but it does afford me an opportunity to attempt an address from a Mid Acts perspective:

:nono: It's blatantly 'appeal to authority.' Such will never, can never fly with evident truths. Scripture is very clear and it is very clear 'authority' has it often wrong.
But there isn't any biblical example of the office of bishop falling. When the New Testament ends the institution is in full swing. When the Apostles were all dead, beginning with the era immediately following the Apostolic era, the bishops and their office, instituted by the Apostles, was the authorized pastorate of the One Church /Body of Christ. For it to fall as a whole would i m o constitute the gates of hell prevailing against the Lord's own Church that He built.
I certainly am one of many who dispute papal infallibility (another thread but we need to at least show both where there is agreement (your offering in thread) and where these differ, offered here.

Probably, in a roundabout way, this does show Mid Acts contrast: Sins are completely forgiven at the cross, both past and future sins. What didn't the Lord Jesus Christ die for? (none, His work covers all of them). Then which do I need to 'ask' for forgiveness for?

Most Christian positions have 'grace' divied out 'as you keep coming for forgiveness' rather than 'all at once.' Mid Acts believes 'all at once' thus there is no such thing as a priest. Bishops were 'caretakers' of truth rather than 'dispensers' of, according to Protestants and Mid Acts.
The key idea is the type of consequences, punishments, penalties, or "harvests" (where "we reap [a harvest] what we sow"). There are eternal and temporal. The temporal penalties are self-evident, you touch a hot stove you burn your finger. You reap what you sow. You defraud a man, then he gets angry with you. You bear false witness against a man, and his family tries to burn your house down. You lust, your heart becomes corrupt.

Believing in Christ abolishes the eternal punishments of all our sins, past future and present, it is agreed, we agree, Catholicism agrees.

But temporal penalties and punishments are self-evidently, not always remitted or forgiven. In fact in 1st Corinthians chapter 11, Paul warns the Church that receiving Communion unworthily can be hazardous for your health, and that is another temporal consequence of our sins.
There are no 'lesser' sins.
That's your idea, and Catholicism disagrees with you, and only one of these Christian ideologies /theologies asserts plainly without any further explanation that murder, rape, adultery, bearing false witness under oath, are more serious /weighty /grave, than sins like petty theft, white lies, and getting buzzed on wine, and it's Catholicism and not yours and not MAD's ideas. Both of you need to elaborate to justify your idea because prima facie it strikes everyone but a nihilist as extreme and wrong.
The Catholic church confuses sins against man vs. sins against God.
Perhaps, but Catholicism definitely does not confuse the gravity of mass murder with that of taking a child's milk money.
While a good many Protestants do agree to varying extents with Catholics, Mid Acts, as far as I'm aware, see sin as completely taken care of, for all time. All who call on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be (are atf) saved.

Offenses against people is different than sins against God (though the latter is of concern to God, we being His). Even the 10 commandments make clear there is offense to God (the first 5) and to man (the second 5).
And all I was saying is that if we pray the Our Father /"Lord's Prayer", we pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," which is forgiving others the temporal penalties, punishments, or consequences that their sins have deservedly earned them from us. MAD teaches against praying this prayer, wrongly. Do you agree with them, that you, that the Body of Christ ought not pray the Our Father? I don't think you do, but I don't think you understand how important it is to MAD that the Church Not pray the Our Father, because it's not for us, it was only for the lost sheep of Israel to pray, that's who the Lord was speaking to /teaching. Not the Church. (Again according to MAD.)
Thus, the church could never offer absolution for sins, but offenses that affected fellowship. The problem is and was, the continued confusion between 'God and man' in the RC.
It's as I said, it protects the purity of the Eucharist, the center of the Mass, and it protects parishioners, from partaking of the bread and the cup unworthily. Breaking communion is objective (when you objectively commit an objectively grave sin) and so your reconciliation to the Body is also objective (it's a sacrament).
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Believing in Christ abolishes the eternal punishments of all our sins, past future and present, it is agreed, we agree, Catholicism agrees..

Since believing in Christ abolishes the eternal punishment for all future sins then does the church at Rome teach that all believers enjoy eternal security the moment a person believes?

What does Rome teach in regard to what happens to a believer if they commit what they call a mortal sin?

Thanks!
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Since believing in Christ abolishes the eternal punishment for all future sins then does the church at Rome teach that all believers enjoy eternal security the moment a person believes?
They teach the Scripture, so in that regard yes they do. However they also don't teach that exclusively, and the shortest answer for why that is, is because neither did the Apostles, including Paul, who regularly counsels and warns and chastises the Church regarding sin, even though we do enjoy eternal security, as does everybody in Purgatory.
What does Rome teach in regard to what happens to a believer if they commit what they call a mortal sin?

Thanks!
IF is the key word there, it's a conditional teaching, IF we were to ever commit an authentic mortal sin, then our love dies in our heart. We must be reconverted IF that were to ever occur.

The Church never specifically says whether or not it is possible for a man who believes in Christ to commit a mortal sin. She does teach a lot about the conditions required in order for a grave or serious sin (grave or serious sins are the only candidates for mortal sin) to be a mortal sin, and in sum it must be a grave or serious sin committed with full knowledge and with deliberate consent, i o w with complete freedom and voluntarily.

That's it, that's the post.
 
Top