1 Corinthians; The calling and the cross

guitarplayer

DISRAELI
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

Yes indeed.
Not so much "easy grace" as a recognition that we don't stand much chance without it.

Years ago I read a parody on the Sermon on the Mount by Keith Green and the subject of greasy grace it was quite good.

The folly of "easy grace", here is example. Many Protestants profess by accepting Jesus Christ ONE time as their personal Lord and Savior and they are saved! More error on top of error. The awful "imputation" heresy of Jesus did it all on the Cross, Our Lord "imputes" His perfection and perfect sacrifice onto you and you are saved. No way...

Jesus said take up your Cross and follow me. Justification is life long.

colbe
Justification is life long.

I think you are confusing justification with sanctification.
Justification is the new relationship with God made possble by what Christ did.
It is sanctification which is the life-long process.

The distinction is clear in Romans.
On the one hand, "Since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"- Romans ch5 v1
On the other hand, "Let not sin therefore reign over your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your bodies to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life"- Romans ch6 vv12-13. That is the life-long process, which we call our sanctification.

In one sense, in Paul's usage, we have already been sanctified as well as justified;
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"- 1 Corinthians ch6 v11
But he is using "sanctified" as in the opening verses of the first chapter, in the sense of "being set apart for God", like the vessels of the Temple.
His urgent advice to the Corinthians amounts to telling them that they should live up to the sanctification which they've already got.
(This will be the subject of a later thread, on "The saint and his holiness", when I get to that part of the letter).
When someone is behaving childishly, they are told to "act your age" ("act your age and not your shoe size", in extreme cases).
The life-long process is the process of "acting out" our sanctifcation.

I hope you agree, anyway, that the event of the Cross was the MINIMUM necessary for either justification or sanctification.
That is the point.
If Christ had not died on the cross, we could not have been saved or justified.

The cross and the atonement

One of the most difficult tasks of modern evangelism and apologetics is trying to explain why it was necessary that Christ should die.
There's enough evidence for this difficulty in the queries raised in threads in this very forum.
What exactly is the connection between the Cross and the Atonement?
It isn't easy, as we all discover, to give an explanation which will satisfy the modern mind, since the modern mind is not at ease with concepts of substitutionary sacrifice.

It also occurs to me that trying to put forward an explanation of the "mechanics" of the Atonement might be misplaced energy.
Are we not, in effect, trying to make the Cross accessible to human wisdom?
Isn't this precisely what Paul says cannot be done?
I wonder if we are not obliged to fall back on the New Testament statements that we are reconciled to God through the death of Christ, without attempting to offer any rationalisation of the way the connection works.
Especially since human wisdom always understands these rationalisations as "folly".
Perhaps Faith demands trust without full understanding.

DISRAELI
The cross and the atonement

One of the most difficult tasks of modern evangelism and apologetics is trying to explain why it was necessary that Christ should die.
There's enough evidence for this difficulty in the queries raised in threads in this very forum.
What exactly is the connection between the Cross and the Atonement?
It isn't easy, as we all discover, to give an explanation which will satisfy the modern mind, since the modern mind is not at ease with concepts of substitutionary sacrifice.

It also occurs to me that trying to put forward an explanation of the "mechanics" of the Atonement might be misplaced energy.
Are we not, in effect, trying to make the Cross accessible to human wisdom?
Isn't this precisely what Paul says cannot be done?
I wonder if we are not obliged to fall back on the New Testament statements that we are reconciled to God through the death of Christ, without attempting to offer any rationalisation of the way the connection works.
Especially since human wisdom always understands these rationalisations as "folly".
Perhaps Faith demands trust without full understanding.

I have to look up the meaning of atonement and imputation. And maybe another word "substitutionary."

There is an awful heresy, stems from the rotten Faith Alone heresy. It is called the "imputation" heresy.

You've heard it, a Protestant will past an image of the Corpus, Our Lord on the Cross NOT the Protestant
empty Cross and declare, Jesus did all, He took on all your sins, you are saved!

Since you are as Martin Luther FALSELY proclaimed "completely depraved", Jesus perfection and perfect sacrifice covers all your sins.


Nonsense.

DISRAELI

colbe
Justification is life long.

I think you are confusing justification with sanctification.Text Justification is the new relationship with God made possble by what Christ did.
It is sanctification which is the life-long process.

The distinction is clear in Romans.
On the one hand, "Since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"- Romans ch5 v1
On the other hand, "Let not sin therefore reign over your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your bodies to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life"- Romans ch6 vv12-13. That is the life-long process, which we call our sanctification.

In one sense, in Paul's usage, we have already been sanctified as well as justified;
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"- 1 Corinthians ch6 v11
But he is using "sanctified" as in the opening verses of the first chapter, in the sense of "being set apart for God", like the vessels of the Temple.
His urgent advice to the Corinthians amounts to telling them that they should live up to the sanctification which they've already got.
(This will be the subject of a later thread, on "The saint and his holiness", when I get to that part of the letter).
When someone is behaving childishly, they are told to "act your age" ("act your age and not your shoe size", in extreme cases).
The life-long process is the process of "acting out" our sanctifcation.

I hope you agree, anyway, that the event of the Cross was the MINIMUM necessary for either justification or sanctification.
That is the point. If Christ had not died on the cross, we could not have been saved or justified.

edit on 28-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Ding, ding, ding, ding! Run far away. Sounds of Jesus did it all on the Cross, you are justified, saved!

No you're not. Our Lord opened Heaven, He redeemed mankind. Salvation, one's "justification" is a life long process.

You are saved BUT the process of "sanctification" is life long? Why bother then and absolutely makes no sense.





Matthew 10:22
And you shall be hated by all men for my name' s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

Matthew 24:13
But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

DISRAELI, you are very dear, even though we disagree with each other. This explanation states clearly, our differences. The "awakening" in Revelation 6 will set things straight.


Re: Do Catholics believe in IMPUTED righteousness?

Catholics believe through justification(an ongoing process) the righteousness of God, through Christ, is infused by the Holy Spirit in us or through justification we are made righteous,Ro 5:19 Because of this infusion by the Holy Spirit justification is an ongoing process, it includes Sanctification, remission of sin, and renewal of the inner man.

Some Protestants believe through justification(a one time only event) the righteousness of Christ is imputed on them, or through justification they are declared righteous, Ro 4:3,5 They also believe they are made righteous or regenerated through sanctification only after their one time event of justification.They do NOT believe their justification is also a part of their sanctification.


forums.catholic.com...

reply to post by DISRAELI


The cross was and is so simple to understand to us that are in Christ . When I thought for a moment I considered Cain and Able's offering's .to look at in trying to see if there was a way of explaining it . Obviously they both knew the need to make the offerings .... Abel must have been going by what his dad had told him and believed it .Some how Cain did not, and did it his way . Its the first time in the bible that shows the two faiths in opposition and it might hold a answer ... Some might think that being born again and again and again is how it works but I see the one time rebirth and our sealing as being sure .I would hate to think that I wouldn't see the thief on the cross in Paradise .If he is there it surely is not by works ....peace

reply to post by DISRAELI


D ,could it be that Satan some how knew that it would require God Himself die to make the atonement ?

reply to post by the2ofusr1

But the necessary qualification is, of course, "to those of us who are in Christ".
The Old Testament is full of parallels for those who are willing to believe.
I have just been loking at one in the law of homicide, where the "accidental" killer is allowed to return to the scene of the crime only after the death of the High Priest. Until that moment, his own life would have been forfeit, but it seems the death of the High Priest will do instead.

But trying to explain the cross to sceptical non-believers is a completely different problem. As many threads in this forum will testify, the modern mind cannot see why God could not have forgiven without demanding the death of Jesus.
The challenge is made frequently.
Even the Old Testament parallels only show THAT substitution works in this way, without precisely telling us WHY it should be necessary.
This is where we come across that obstacle that the cross is not really accessible to human wisdom.

reply to post by DISRAELI

I guess the only rational thing I can come up with is similar to the wonderful world of Quantum and the different schools of discovery . It seems that they all share one thing in common and that is that they are surprised .When something defies what we think we can know with the human mind .Even that science we are told to just believe them despite what reality might suggest ....peace

colbe
You've heard it, a Protestant will past an image of the Corpus, Our Lord on the Cross NOT the Protestant
empty Cross and declare, Jesus did all, He took on all your sins, you are saved!...

Nonsense.

You are so eager to dismiss Protestant thinking as "nonsense" that you have tripped yourself- or do I mean "trapped yourself"?- into rejecting the teaching of your own church.

Amongst other statements, there is the constant refrain of the Stations of the Cross;

V. We adore Thee, O Christ, and we bless Thee; (Kneel)
R. Because by Thy holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world. (Rise)

The world is redeemed by the event of the Cross. That is the basis of what Paul has been saying, and the basis of what I am saying.
Surely you agree, at least, that if Christ had not died on the Cross any kind of salvation would have not have happened?
That is the fundamental starting point of the Christian faith and always has been, from the beginning.

In the passage covered by this thread, Paul explains that "human wisdom" is incapable of grasping the fact that God works through the event of the Cross.
In the post which you criticised, i was suggesting that "human wisdom" is also incapable of grasping how and why God works through the event of the Cross.

This passage and this thread are about the complete divergence between God's wisdom and the world's wisdom.

colbe
I have to look up the meaning of atonement and imputation. And maybe another word "substitutionary."

There is an awful heresy, stems from the rotten Faith Alone heresy. It is called the "imputation" heresy.

It is also simply untrue that the teaching of "substitutionary" atonement is an invention of the wicked Protestants.
It goes back to Anselm, for heaven's sake. It's all in Cur Deus Homo. Have you not read Cur Deus Homo?
It is endorsed by Aquinas and the Council of Trent.
I refer you to paragraph 615 of your own official Catholic catechism.

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

The problem seems to be that you have an ignorance even of your own church's doctrine, to the point that you're unable to recognise the extent of agreement between your fragment of the church and my fragment of the church on the fundamentals of Christian teaching.

I suggest that we need to focus on the points of agreement, and on that basis confront the unbelieving world in partnership, instead of having this knee-jerk obsession with points of difference.

DISRAELI

colbe
I have to look up the meaning of atonement and imputation. And maybe another word "substitutionary."

There is an awful heresy, stems from the rotten Faith Alone heresy. It is called the "imputation" heresy.

It is also simply untrue that the teaching of "substitutionary" atonement is an invention of the wicked Protestants.
It goes back to Anselm, for heaven's sake. It's all in Cur Deus Homo. Have you not read Cur Deus Homo?
It is endorsed by Aquinas and the Council of Trent.
I refer you to paragraph 615 of your own official Catholic catechism.

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

The problem seems to be that you have an ignorance even of your own church's doctrine, to the point that you're unable to recognise the extent of agreement between your fragment of the church and my fragment of the church on the fundamentals of Christian teaching.

I suggest that we need to focus on the points of agreement, and on that basis confront the unbelieving world in partnership, instead of having this knee-jerk obsession with points of difference.

You are a break away, your own pope. The reason for your lessons.

Yeah, Jesus makes a "sin offering", He doesn't take on our sins as the double "imputation" heresy tries
to sell.

Read the footnotes of 2 Cor 5:21.

[21] Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.

[21] Sin for us: That is, to be a sin offering, a victim for sin.

We are not JUSTIFIED by Jesus' death on the Cross. Someone has taken 2 Cor 5:21 and misinterpreted
it to fit the "imputation" heresy. All comes down to authority. God gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture not every person reading it.

+ + +

"The doctrine of Double Imputation teaches that there are two aspects to our Justification, a negative-imputation (not imputing our sins to us, but rather imputing them and their due punishment to Christ) and an positive-imputation (imputing Christ's perfect obedience to the Law to our account). They fondly call this Double Imputation "the Great exchange," where Christ takes our sin and we take His righteousness. In order to be justified, the Christian simply needs to believe that this Great exchange took place for them, and upon believing this, God now counts them as perfectly righteous and thus justified (i.e. declared legally righteous). ...

...The answer to that objection is surprisingly simple. Christ was indeed "made sin," but being a scholar of the Torah, Paul was using a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". Even the Church Fathers (e.g. St Augustine) recognized this and made it clear that Paul meant "sin offering". Of course, Protestants like Piper (PROTESTANT APOLOGIST) must rush to reject this, since it naturally throws a wrench into their whole argument. And Piper does just that on page 68 of his book (in footnote #13), where he brushes off translations (e.g. the Protestant NIV) which say this does mean "sin offering," and the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21. But who is being more unreasonable here? Piper, who suggests the word "made" means "impute" or those who have a good reason to say it means sin offering?"...


catholicnick.blogspot.com...

reply to post by colbe

Nevertheless, the important point is that salvation comes through the death of Christ- that is to say, through the Cross.
The whole of Chrsitianity agrees on that point, including the Catholic community, as I was demonstrating by quoting your own catechism and other teachings.

That is what Paul is talking about, and that is what "human wisdom" is incapable of understanding.
In other words, the conflcit in this chapter is between God and the world.
Can we focus on that conflict?
Those for God on one side- those against God on the other side.

The next thread in this series is;

The calling and the Spirit

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe

 

Nevertheless, the important point is that salvation comes through the death of Christ- that is to say, through the Cross.
The whole of Chrsitianity agrees on that point, including the Catholic community, as I was demonstrating by quoting your own catechism and other teachings.

That is what Paul is talking about, and that is what "human wisdom" is incapable of understanding.
In other words, the conflcit in this chapter is between God and the world.
Can we focus on that conflict?
Those for God on one side- those against God on the other side.

edit on 1-10-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I hope by the very good quoted definition of the double "imputation" heresy, you understand. As long
as you don't profess the falsehood of Jesus did it all on the Cross, your sins are forgiven. You're justified.

And the other lie of accepting Jesus one time as your personal Lord and Savior and you are saved! The 'altar call' maybe a moment of conversion but it does not save (justify) anyone.

Jesus made Himself the offering for OUR sins. One reason for the "imputation" heresy, Protestants reject the means Jesus established to have your mortal sins forgiven (John 20:23), Sacramental Confession restores God's grace in your soul after water Baptism. Protestants have come up with Jesus covers all your sins by His death on the Cross.

Non-Catholics must with true contrition confess their mortal sins to God directly. Confession and daily
prayer for the life of your soul.

It is hard to change people but I am praying on the lead up to the prophesied Great Warning, you will
recall and everyone who reads the religion forum at ATS too. Some think the Warning is going to happen in 2017, only God knows but it could be next year.


I am your friend,



colbe

Since your mind was not able to take in the point I was making earlier, I will repeat it.

The important point is that salvation comes through the death of Christ- that is to say, through the Cross.
The whole of Christianity agrees on that point, including the Catholic community, as I was demonstrating by quoting your own catechism and other teachings.

That is what Paul is talking about, and that is what "human wisdom" is incapable of understanding.
All Catholic/Protestant controversy is entirely beside the point, as far as this chapter is concerned.
The only controversy we are dealing with, and the only controversy which ultimately matters, is the controversy between God and the world.

guitarplayer
reply to post by colbe

 

The one faith one church is the body of Christ.

Jesus did not establish 30,000 plus Protestant sects as late as the 16th century and all disagreeing with one another. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:5).

Our Lord is not returning to okay you can believe whatever you wish, be your own authority so your own pope. This is the fruit of Protestantism.

He is going to ask you to become Roman Catholic. Remember His prayer to the Father, that we all
be one in belief. You are going to have to decide. He has a plan to convince you.

DISRAELI
Since your mind was not able to take in the point I was making earlier, I will repeat it.

The important point is that salvation comes through the death of Christ- that is to say, through the Cross.
The whole of Christianity agrees on that point, including the Catholic community, as I was demonstrating by quoting your own catechism and other teachings.

That is what Paul is talking about, and that is what "human wisdom" is incapable of understanding.
All Catholic/Protestant controversy is entirely beside the point, as far as this chapter is concerned.
The only controversy we are dealing with, and the only controversy which ultimately matters, is the controversy between God and the world.

As long as you do not sell the heresies. Justification involves more than what Christ did as you state below. We are NOT justified by "faith alone" and neither is Our Lord's perfection and sacrifice on the Cross "imputed" to you removing all Your sins, you're saved, justified. That is a lie. Our Lord redeemed mankind, He opened Heaven, we must follow Him and with the help of His grace by our free will actions, die in the state of grace.

Look where following the heresies gets you.

~ ~ ~
colbe:
Justification is life long.

DISRAELI:
"I think you are confusing justification with sanctification.
Justification is the new relationship with God made POSSIBLE by WHAT CHRIST DID.
It is sanctification which is the life-long process.

The distinction is clear in Romans.
On the one hand, "Since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"- Romans ch5 v1
On the other hand, "Let not sin therefore reign over your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your bodies to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life"- Romans ch6 vv12-13. That is the life-long process, which we call our sanctification.

In one sense, in Paul's usage, we have already been sanctified as well as justified;"...

~ ~ ~


See the two underlined, you say one thing and go on to say the exact opposite! Lamo Disraeli. Forget your
"lessons", you have no authority and neither do I. God gave the authority to interpret the written Word
to His Church, the same Church who gave you your Bible. Read the footnotes of the English translation
of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. Check the Douay-Rheims footnotes for the difficult verses. It is a start for understanding why the Church teaches what she does. www.drbo.org...

The teachings of the Church, Roman Catholicism are the teachings of Christ. Jesus is going to show you
soon in the prophesied Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17, 1 Cor 3:13).