Search results

I agree Romans 14 can encompass the issue in 1 Co 8, but Romans 14 is not 1 Co 8 (Ro 14 encompasses generalities(21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble."), 1 Co 8 is a specific example--and the condemnation (because he "sins against...

Again, empty claims. No substance.

Answered.

Without repentance, yes, walking contrary to your own thoughts, your own convictions, doing things you have doubts about, is sin, so it leads to a state of condemnation, not justification--and living that way, without repentance, without returning to walking with a clear conscience, will not...

You have claimed this, but have not substantiated the claim.

Right, the particular examples of actions people may or may not take are not, in and of themselves, sinful or righteous, but, rather, the man who does or does not do them must be in faith, fully persuaded in his own mind. Therefore, the general concept is that the individual who does any deed...

How is my quoting of the verse "out of context"?

Yeah, we are justified by God's righteousness by faith, but faith is not only to be held, but also walked in, so walking in faith is not "works" of our own righteousness, walking in faith is God's righteousness that justifies us.

I wouldn't put it in those words, only because there is no indication the man who does what he doubts is correct in Romans 14:23 is an unbeliever--therefore, since he is affirmed as a believer, but he sins by going against his beliefs, I cannot say that faith automatically comes with good works...

LOL Our entire discussion has apparently flown out the window! Yes, "in Christ", but not all remain in Christ, and this is obvious in that the person who does what he does not believe in is "condemned" (Ro 14:23), whereas the person who is "in Christ" has "no condemnation" (Ro 8:1), and this is...

I agree we're justified by faith, but isn't it obvious, in that the person who doesn't walk in faith is condemned (Ro 14:23), that God is continually assessing whether the man has faith (ie, whether he is walking in faith), thus is continually pronouncing either the man's justification or...

Technically, we are justified by having God's righteousness, and this is by faith, but if we don't walk in faith, we don't have God's righteousness, and we are condemned (Ro 14:23), so, no, justification is not "faith alone", it's also walking in that faith, because justification isn't "one and...

Please clarify your objection, because I don't see the objection to what I said.

It seems so obvious--don't know why (other than they flounder around saying "justification by faith alone! nothing that I do!", not understanding He wants us also to WALK IN FAITH) people misunderstand!

See, I believe we're not going to be slaves of sin (which he defines as "going against the Law of my mind", and is later iterated as "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind"), because we're "not under Law but under Grace"--this means that the Law gets written on our hearts, that God...

In other words, "The only way to make the Bible make sense is to arbitrarily not take Christ seriously when He says this thing over here, but to arbitrarily decide to take Christ seriously over here! I call my theology cherry pie: I cherry-pick through the Bible parts I like and discard parts I...

Actually, that's exactly what I am doing when I say the guy had faith because he was forgiven based on Romans 4:6-8... so, again, another empty claim.

LOL Infracting the Law of my mind would be if I was saying something I didn't believe in! You haven't understood anything I've said have you? First you say I said we were both "under Grace" and "under Law", now you're revealing you don't understand what I mean by my argument from Romans 14. I...

If you cannot substantiate your claims, stop falsely accusing me.

Yeah, thus the guy had faith--and when the forgiveness is rescinded, he doesn't have faith. Duh!