Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?

[Ernest T. Bass]

Romans 7 is about Paul’s early struggles with the sin he discovered in his flesh and he is showing us we all have the same issue and that we all overcome the lustful desires of sin in our physical body by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6,7,8 are dealing with this subject of the believer and the sinful cravings of the physical body that every born again Christian must learn to deal with, by the Spirit; by the power of the Holy Spirit.



JLB

At this time in the early history of the church, many Jews converted to Christianity. Unfortunately many would backslide into Judaism again while others would cling to that OT law trying to mix OT law with NT law. Paul's point in Rom 7 to these Jews was as Christians they were removed from the OT law, it no longer was in effect nor binding upon them.

Paul already said in Rom 3 no flesh could be justified by the law for again it required perfect law keeping. He shows in Rom 5:20 ff the OT law was meant to be temporary and it caused sin to 'abound'. And in Rom 6 Paul shows that the Christian in not under the OT law but under grace (grace referring to the NT system of grace).

Paul repeats this information again in Rom 7:
Paul begins Rom 7:1 ff by showing how a Christian who is married to Christ and His NT law cannot also keep the law of Moses and be married to both laws thereby committing spiritual adultery. Such would be analogous to an adulteress woman keeping two husbands at the same time.

Paul then shows how the OT law and its required flawless law keeping caused sin to abound., Rom 7:6 ff.

Therefore no flesh could be justified by that OT law Rom 7:14 ff

Rom 7:13 "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."

How can Paul call the OT law "good" when all it brought about was condemnation, death? The fault was not with the law but with men in choosing to sin and break the law.

Rom 7:14 "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." "that law" - Paul here is referring to that OT law.
Paul begins talking about himself as a Jew back when he was living under the OT law. So Paul is NOT saying his current state is carnal and sold under sin for in Rom 6:1-2 Paul currently as Christians was dead to sin. And in the next few verses, Paul speaks about that struggle the Jew had under the OT law and keeping it flawless as that OT required to be justified.
"sold under sin" - the flawless perfection the OT law required was to much for Paul with that required perfection putting him in bondage to sin,

Rom 7:17 "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

Again , the OT law was not the problem, for Paul already said that law was good. Paul said he loved the law, agreed with that OT law so what was Saul's (Paul) problem under the OT law? Paul chose to allow himself to commit sins against the law. Again, in verse 16 Paul speaks of the things "I do". He is not blaming his sin on some nature he was born with but taking responsibility for what he freely choose to do. So the sin that dwelleth in Paul was due to his own choice to sin.


Rom 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Paul is contrasting the struggle of flawless law keeping that brought condemnation THEN under the OT law to how it is NOW as a Christian in Christ where there is no condemnation.

 

[Walpole]

...The Apostolic Fathers believed baptism was necessary for salvation.
This did not include infants...

I stopped reading at this falsity. As with our previous discussion (which I provided a link to), you appear to dismiss facts in order to perpetuate your false assertion.

In the first century, we have the example from Scripture, where entire households were baptized. (cf. Acts 16:16, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16)

Then, in subsequent centuries, we have more examples...

2nd Century
“For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4)


3rd Century
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16)

“In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3)

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

“Moreover, belief in the divine Scriptures declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.” (St. Cyprian, Epistle 58 to Fidus on the the baptism of infants)

(Notice these ECFs all predate St. Augustine.)

I could go on and on with examples in each subsequent century. Let me know if you would like me to post them.


The reason Christians baptize children because man is born with a deprivation: the lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. Baptism gives man "newness of life." (Romans 6:4) Thus he must be born again.

 

[JLB]

At this time in the early history of the church, many Jews converted to Christianity. Unfortunately many would backslide into Judaism again while others would cling to that OT law trying to mix OT law with NT law.

I totally agree.

You are one of the few people that understand their is a difference between Judaism and the law of Moses... if I understand you correctly

 

[JLB]

Paul already said in Rom 3 no flesh could be justified by the law for again it required perfect law keeping. He shows in Rom 5:20 ff the OT law was meant to be temporary and it caused sin to 'abound'. And in Rom 6 Paul shows that the Christian in not under the OT law but under grace (grace referring to the NT system of grace).

I agree

 

[JLB]

Paul's point in Rom 7 to these Jews was as Christians they were removed from the OT law, it no longer was in effect nor binding upon them.

Paul is using himself as an example of struggling with the sin that dwelt in his flesh though he desired to obey God inwardly.


JLB

 

[Tradidi]

The Apostolic Fathers believed baptism was necessary for salvation.
This did not include infants.

Later on, about 150 AD or so, infants began to be baptized for the reasons I had posted previously. NOT BECAUSE it was believed they would go to hell if they died.

I gave you the link to refute this idea. Here is one of those quotes of the Early Church Fathers, Origen in 248 AD:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). — Infant Baptism

You can find more quotes at the link I gave.

What Augustine later believed is irrelevant, since he speaks as a private theologian, and since the Early Church Fathers already agreed on the necessity of baptism, even for infants, as did St. Augustine.

I have seen many things being claimed about the Catholic Church that are simply nonsense (worshipping Mary, praying to statues, buying forgiveness, etc..) and I'm in the habit of not believing any of these accusations unless they can be proven. I consider the claim that the Catholic Church has changed it's official teaching as one of those fables that I have never seen proven.

What has changed, and still can change today, is that some things which have not yet been defined are being discussed by theologians, with different opinions being allowed. When at some point a controversy arises the Church steps in and clarifies and defines the matter in question. Then the discussion is closed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official teaching of the CC.

I disagree with this statement as well, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Tradidi]

You seem knowledgeable about the Catholic Church and their traditions. Were you at one time a Catholic?

I am Catholic now, and with the help of God's grace I will always remain a Catholic.

Could you tells us what it means to have “converted to the Catholic Church”. It seems to mean that a person was Christian then after reading the Early Church Fathers, they converted to the Catholic Church.

This may not be what you mean. Could you clarify?

I have seen and read many conversion stories, conversions to the Catholic Church, and one thing that always strikes me is that practically always the person converted after they studied one topic in great depth. As Our Lord said, "search and you will find." Some study the Eucharist, some study the issue of authority, some study Mary, some study the Early Church Fathers, but always they study into the greatest depth.

When one studies the Early Church Fathers, one notices that all those things that non-Catholic Christians today reject as "traditions of men" were already believed by the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. In other words, they were Catholic. Purgatory, confession, praying to Mary, the Eucharist being the true Flesh and Blood of Our Lord, the necessity of belonging to the Church, the primacy of Peter and his successors, etc.. were all things the first Christians believed and practised.

As soon as one realises this, there are only two options left: become a Catholic or become dishonest.

 

[JLB]

When one studies the Early Church Fathers, one notices that all those things that non-Catholic Christians today reject as "traditions of men" were already believed by the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. In other words, they were Catholic. Purgatory, confession, praying to Mary, the Eucharist being the true Flesh and Blood of Our Lord, the necessity of belonging to the Church, the primacy of Peter and his successors, etc.. were all things the first Christians believed and practised.

Do you believe the writings of the Early Church Fathers carry more weight than the scriptures?


JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I stopped reading at this falsity. As with our previous discussion (which I provided a link to), you appear to dismiss facts in order to perpetuate your false assertion.

In the first century, we have the example from Scripture, where entire households were baptized. (cf. Acts 16:16, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16)

Then, in subsequent centuries, we have more examples...

2nd Century
“For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4)


3rd Century
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16)

“In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3)

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

“Moreover, belief in the divine Scriptures declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.” (St. Cyprian, Epistle 58 to Fidus on the the baptism of infants)

(Notice these ECFs all predate St. Augustine.)

I could go on and on with examples in each subsequent century. Let me know if you would like me to post them.


The reason Christians baptize children because man is born with a deprivation: the lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. Baptism gives man "newness of life." (Romans 6:4) Thus he must be born again.

The above takes place after the Apostolic Fathers and enters into the era of the Early Church Fathers.

St. Cyprian,,,just to take ONE example,,,was born in 200AD.

Here is what AUGUSTINE taught in about 400AD....please study some more history.

Page 371 will interest you since Augustine taught that infants are not baptized for any other reason than that they are born lost and will go to hell if they die unbaptized. You may want to read more than just page 371.

St. Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin

This paper is an exposition of St. Augustine’s account of original sin, which I argue is composed of five somewhat independent doctrines. In brief, his view is that all human beings participated in Adam and Eve’s primal sin, and thus inherit a common

www.academia.edu

 

[JLB]

I have seen and read many conversion stories, conversions to the Catholic Church, and one thing that always strikes me is that practically always the person converted after they studied one topic in great depth. As Our Lord said, "search and you will find." Some study the Eucharist, some study the issue of authority, some study Mary, some study the Early Church Fathers, but always they study into the greatest depth.

I have encountered those who when they read and study the scriptures they got away from Catholicism and became born again.

I find it difficult to believe that a person who has studied the scriptures would pray to Mary.


And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Luke 11:27-28

• More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!

If you want to be blessed more than Mary, then hear the word of God and do it.




JLB

 

[Tradidi]

Do you believe the writings of the Early Church Fathers carry more weight than the scriptures?

No, but I do believe that the unanimous writings of the Early Church Fathers carry more weight than the smorgasbord of private interpretations of today's Christians.

Some of these Early Church Fathers talked and lived with the Apostles, which is why they are called Apostolic Fathers. It would take an enormous stupidity and pride to simply dismiss their writings and instead to follow the ramblings of a man like Luther, who claimed to have received his inspiration and approval from the devil himself.

 

[Tradidi]

I have encountered those who when they read and study the scriptures they got away from Catholicism and became born again.

I have no doubt that this is true. And it should come as no surprise that private interpretation will lead one away from the truth into the Wild West of opinions and errors. St. Peter warned us about that in his second letter (1:20, 2:1, 3:16).

 

[JLB]

No, but I do believe that the unanimous writings of the Early Church Fathers carry more weight than the smorgasbord of private interpretations of today's Christians.

If you want to read the writings of men such as the ECF, or the catechism’s or the creeds, that is your choice.


I really don’t know what all the “private interpretations” of today’s Christian are.


I do know what I have read on some of the Christian Forum’s.


From what I have seen, the teachings of Catholicism are not all together biblical.


I would encourage you to focus on what the scriptures say.


Just my two cents.



JLB

 

[JLB]

And it should come as no surprise that private interpretation will lead one away from the truth into the Wild West of opinions and errors.

I agree.

I wonder how Catholics came up with some of the things they teach?


JLB

 

[Tradidi]

I find it difficult to believe that a person who has studied the scriptures would pray to Mary.

If by study you mean private interpretation then I can see your point. It's easy to overlook or dismiss the Scriptural evidence, especially if you approach Scripture with a Protestant bias, and especially if you first allow Luther to rip out a few books from your Bible. But that doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. And when combined with the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the findings from Archaeology the evidence becomes overwhelming. For example, here's a prayer from papyrus P470 that is dated to originate from 250 AD (translated from the Greek):

Under thy compassion
we take refuge, O Mother of God (Theotokos).
Do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,
but from dangers ransom us,
Singularly Holy, Singularly Blessed

I'd be more than happy to discuss this further with anyone who's interested.

 

[JLB]

I have no doubt that this is true. And it should come as no surprise that private interpretation will lead one away from the truth into the Wild West of opinions and errors. St. Peter warned us about that in his second letter (1:20, 2:1, 3:16).

I‘ll leave you with this scripture to consider.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9




JLB

 

[JLB]

If by study you mean private interpretation then I can see your point. It's easy to overlook or dismiss the Scriptural evidence, especially if you approach Scripture with a Protestant bias, and especially if you first allow Luther to rip out a few books from your Bible.

I really don’t know what a “Protestant bias” is.

Since I‘m not a Protestant I don’t really care to know.

I’m a Christian.

I‘m a son of God, through faith in Christ.


JLB

 

[JLB]

If by study you mean private interpretation then I can see your point. It's easy to overlook or dismiss the Scriptural evidence,

Could you share the Scriptures that teaches us to pray to Mary?



JLB

 

[Tradidi]

From what I have seen, the teachings of Catholicism are not all together biblical.

The pertinent part is in the first five words: "from what you have seen". That doesn't mean it isn't there, you just haven't been shown yet, like the Ethiopian Eunuch. Search and you will find, ask and it shall be given.

 

[JLB]

I'd be more than happy to discuss this further with anyone who's interested.

It would be better to discuss it in the Topical Studies area, which is an area to discuss things that are not to be discussed in the General Forum Area.


I would need to give you access, if you like.



JLB