Search results

Here, he preaches to the Jewish Christians for the lions share of the epistle. Paul also includes the concept of the Day of Judgment in his "Gospel" (Ro 2:16). It's not a one-note thing "God raised Christ from the dead." It includes other aspects than that--and when it says "God's righteousness...

The works you say we should do, which I agree with, are performed by God in us, and we walk in them. I'm not talking about "imputation" in the sense "there, it's yours--it's been imputed, now live like the devil if you want because it's imputed"--obviously, I'm saying God's righteousness apart...

You deny the obvious verbatim statement that the one who sins is condemned. There is nothing I can do about that. You have it your way--and I have it my way.

1a. It wasn't a Covenant of "obedience"--as if it would be appropriate to contrast it against the New Covenant, making the New Covenant one of disobedience. Both Covenants are Covenants including aspects of "service to God", only having two different means (one is Law that relies on flesh Ro...

Oh, OK. For the reasons I outlined, and others, I can't agree.

Paul says that the words were written FOR OUR (CHRISTIANS') SAKE : your complaint was that I was going to OT realities to understand Christianity, yet Paul says it was written precisely FOR US, and he uses OT realities to understand Christianity, and to teach about Christianity. Your complaint...

In context, the "doubt" refers to breaking the Law of Faith "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5). My point was that Paul's argument in Romans was that men are not justified by their own righteousness by "works" but by God's righteousness by His "grace" through...

Yes, as you say, "[God] is faithful and righteous" (1 John 1:9)--He keeps His Word--but this is not the only import of the phrase "the righteousness of God" : Philippians 3 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in...

The occasion for the writing of the Epistle to the Romans was this : the Roman Government had ousted the Jews (as governments have been wont to do to the Jews throughout history) from Rome, but, now that they were returning to Rome, they were finding it full of Gentile believers. In the Torah...

I didn't think I was presenting a "conflict". Sometimes our conceptions don't allow for plain statements in Scripture (eg, Ro 14:23), but, for me, when that happens, I have to rethink my assumptions... but wasn't it you who said... ? I don't understand how you object to me saying (in other...

If I misunderstood you, please clarify. Your complaint was about me using the OT passage about God forgetting righteousness... but, here, you accepted Paul's use of OT passages because they didn't concern soteriology.

Nope, God "destroyed the world of sinners" with a Flood, yet God will still "destroy the world of sinners" with Fire. He still judges. That principle remains. Yes, you most certainly are being a "picky eater". I've already answered each specific claim and rebuttal and complaint. I already...

So, you're fine with OT passages as long as they don't t discuss soteriology. Arbitrary. Nope, the next verse explains what he is talking about--they sinned and God swore in His wrath they would never enter His rest, and they didn't inherit the promise. If you think otherwise, you're saying...

... yet you don't see it as being in "error" to accept that God still forgets sins, even though it was "in the covenant of obedience God made with Israel at Mt. Horeb"? Seems arbitrary. You get to pick and choose--"My God does THIS thing He used to do... but He doesn't do THIS thing He used to...

God forgets righteousness just like He forgets sin. We see this about God in Ezekiel. That's all I'm saying--forgive me for reading and believing Scripture. I see this aspect of God at work in Mt 18.

It's just a Biblical truth I hold to. Where does God forgetting righteousness factor in to your theology?

1 Corinthians 9 7Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not [g]consume some of the milk of the flock? 8I am not just asserting these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does the Law not say...

Suffice to say, we disagree, because I am just reading and believing the plain text--"the one who eats with doubts is condemned, because whatever is not of faith is sin". I don't see how you are disagreeing with the plain statement. Nevertheless, "Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease."...

This isn't "the man who has theological doubts is condemned", it's "if you are not fully convinced that what you are doing is correct, you are sinning and are therefore condemned". If you have that doubt, you are not to do it--you are to remain at peace, not disturb your peace, with what you are...

The rule is v5 "each man must be fully convinced that what they are doing is correct"--because "Gods righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", as Abraham had "steps of faith" (Ro 4)--that is why the one who does what he doubts is condemned, because it isn't God's righteousness from faith...