Grace vs Legalism

[CharismaticLady]

So that's a yes?

I can't remember the question.

COFFEE!!!!

Be back later.

 

[marks]

amadeus, I hope you didn't misunderstand @marks. But, I do believe he has misunderstood the heresies Behold is teaching, because marks says they are on the "same page." Yikes!

I don't think that you understand either his or my views, and I wish you'd just let me speak for myself.

 

[BarneyFife]

I love old movies! They knew how to speak in those days!

Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre) from "The Maltese Falcon"

Victorian era was even better. Best modern speakers and writers for Christ. Moody, Spurgeon. E.M. Bounds, etc.

 

[marks]

I guess I'd need a quote where He says love yourself.

No one has to be told to love themself. We all do. The unnatural part is to love others, and love God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

You're speaking of something resembling forensic justification, and if you look into it, you'll find it's fairly mystical and not spiritually viable. Justification is purely substitutional. The entire scope of atonement, on the other hand, is a different story.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I see justification as being our death in Christ, which removes is from the corrupt man of flesh, and our resurrection in Him, which is our rebirth as a child of God. I don't see these in a technical sense, rather, an actual, practical sense. In Paul's words, the one who has died as been justified away from sin (Rom 6).

We've been forgiven of all our sins, and we've been recreated righteous and holy.

Much love!

 

[marks]

For me the bottom line on salvation as a relationship is are we saved robots or not? And if we are, then why did God give us freedom of choice to begin with? He could have saved us and Himself an awful lot of heartache by making us will-less creatures, to begin with. The psychological ramifications of complete free will can be addressed in other and better ways than the rigid doctrine of eternal security. This is my interpretation of the entire testimony of Scripture on the subject as I perceive it, nothing more. I believe it to be correct, but, as with any other doctrine, I wouldn't recommend that anyone accept it without much intense, personal study of their own.

I think the new man always seeks God, and the old man always defies God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I can't remember the question.

COFFEE!!!!

Be back later.

In the past, you've said that you don't commit what you call "willful sin", but might commit what you call "unintentional sins". It sounds to my ear now that you are expressing that you commit no sin at all, so I'm asking for confirmation of that, or if I'm misunderstanding.

Much love!

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don't think that you understand either his or my views, and I wish you'd just let me speak for myself.

I speak for you, because you are confused when it comes to thinking yourself on the same page as Behold. You are NOT.

 

[marks]

I speak for you, because you are confused when it comes to thinking yourself on the same page as Behold. You are NOT.

You speak for me, because I'm not capable to speak for myself?

What do you think of me? What do you think of yourself? You set yourself over me as the judge of my mind?

What is it that Behold teaches? I can put his central theme into a couple of sentences, accurately. Can you? Can you do that with my view? I've asked this for some time, now, it seems to be ignored.

I really think it's important to understand someone's view if you want to discuss it intelligently.

As it stands, you don't even think I know my own mind, and you do?

Much love!

 

[CharismaticLady]

In the past, you've said that you don't commit what you call "willful sin", but might commit what you call "unintentional sins". It sounds to my ear now that you are expressing that you commit no sin at all, so I'm asking for confirmation of that, or if I'm misunderstanding.

Much love!

Only God knows the TRUTH about me, but I don't have anything on my conscience. I have very few friends alive who live here so I don't go out. So no arguments. And my knowledge is such that I am mature. marks when you really understand and apply 2 Peter 1:2-11, you will never stumble.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You speak for me, because I'm not capable to speak for myself?

What do you think of me? What do you think of yourself? You set yourself over me as the judge of my mind?

What is it that Behold teaches? I can put his central theme into a couple of sentences, accurately. Can you? Can you do that with my view? I've asked this for some time, now, it seems to be ignored.

I really think it's important to understand someone's view if you want to discuss it intelligently.

As it stands, you don't even think I know my own mind, and you do?

Much love!

I didn't say that. Some days you don't write during the day, so I assume you work.

 

[marks]

Only God knows the TRUTH about me, but I don't have anything on my conscience.

I completely agree, that only God knows for sure. I also happen to think that our conscience will not be always accurate, which of course must be true if only God knows for sure.

And for these reasons, I think that the entire discussion of whether the Christian sins or not to be academic. Because at the end of the day, none us can say with any real certainty, today I did not sin.

I see this as part of the Way Things Are. We do not know completely, so therefore, if we are to make the argument that no one knows for sure whether they've committed sin or not, that means that no one could know whether they are a child of God or not.

And that's the error of legalism. Because over and over the Bible shows that we can have certainty.

If you go by faith and grace, we are His. If you go by what you perceive or think of yours or others behavior, you will never know, at best. Your confidence in Christ will only be as good as your confidence in your own sinlessness.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I didn't say that. Some days you don't write during the day, so I assume you work.

CharismaticLady said: ↑

I speak for you, because you are confused when it comes to thinking yourself on the same page as Behold. You are NOT.

So then . . . is it because I wasn't posting at the time, or because I'm confused?

 

[farouk]

By the way, young children most certainly do need to memorize the Bible.

It's an excellent thing to commit Scripture to memory; it can thus be blessed in the years and decades ahead....

 

[CharismaticLady]

I completely agree, that only God knows for sure. I also happen to think that our conscience will not be always accurate, which of course must be true if only God knows for sure.

And for these reasons, I think that the entire discussion of whether the Christian sins or not to be academic. Because at the end of the day, none us can say with any real certainty, today I did not sin.

I see this as part of the Way Things Are. We do not know completely, so therefore, if we are to make the argument that no one knows for sure whether they've committed sin or not, that means that no one could know whether they are a child of God or not.

And that's the error of legalism. Because over and over the Bible shows that we can have certainty.

If you go by faith and grace, we are His. If you go by what you perceive or think of yours or others behavior, you will never know, at best. Your confidence in Christ will only be as good as your confidence in your own sinlessness.

Much love!

You throw "legalism" at me thinking it will stick. Left to my old nature I would have to work in my old strength (not!) to be holy. But I've been literally born again, and filled with His power, and even felt it happen, so my assurance is sure according to 1 John 3:18-24.

According to my new nature I do what comes naturally. Going against your old nature is legalism. Can you honestly not see the difference?

 

[farouk]

Legalism can be variously defined I guess; good to stick to Scripture, I reckon...

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I see justification as being our death in Christ, which removes is from the corrupt man of flesh, and our resurrection in Him, which is our rebirth as a child of God. I don't see these in a technical sense, rather, an actual, practical sense. In Paul's words, the one who has died as been justified away from sin (Rom 6).

Justification is the erasing of our sin(s) replaced with Christ's constant righteousness (righteous acts or works) throughout his eathly sojourn, nothing more, nothing less. It is a zero-sum transaction, if you will. We agree to trade our bad stuff for His good stuff. Period.

We've been forgiven of all our sins, and we've been recreated righteous and holy.

And for every eight people who make this statement, you'll get nine different explanations.

People base their doctrines almost entirely on the writings of Paul. Just do a scan of the board some time and you'll see what I mean (if you haven't already). Much of what he writes is very straightforward. But much of it isn't. The folks he wrote to were in the midst of a philosophical renaissance unlike the world has ever seen. So even the lower classes of the Northern and Eastern Mediterranean possessed very sophisticated (confused/over-complicated) knowledge and thought processes. Paul was an extremely intelligent and very highly-educated person. He was especially qualified to deal with their sophistry. Peter warns in his 2nd epistle that Paul writes some things that are hard to understand. Yet we of the modern and post-modern era largely believe ourselves to be above this pitfall. He even goes so far as to say that untaught and unstable folks twist his writings to cause their own destruction. That's pretty heavy talk. Most people think that untaught and unstable means stupid and crazy. I don't think so. I think it means inexperienced and not well-established in the faith. And if other parts of Scripture are to be believed, we could probably all of us put ourselves into at least 1 of those 2 categories if we're being humble enough. My attitude is that over the years I've learned just enough to realize that I don't know much of anything compared to what is yet available for me to learn from the bible. So I tread very lightly where there are arguments over what Paul is saying in a given passage. Just my two cents' worth. :)

 

[farouk]

Justification is the erasing of our sin(s) replaced with Christ's constant righteousness (righteous acts or works) throughout his eathly sojourn, nothing more, nothing less. It is a zero-sum transaction, if you will. We agree to trade our bad stuff for His good stuff. Period.

And for every eight people who make this statement, you'll get nine different explanations.

People base their doctrines almost entirely on the writings of Paul. Just do a scan of the board some time and you'll see what I mean (if you haven't already). Much of what he writes is very straightforward. But much of it isn't. The folks he wrote to were in the midst of a philosophical renaissance unlike the world has ever seen. So even the lower classes of the Northern and Eastern Mediterranean possessed very sophisticated (confused/over-complicated) knowledge and thought processes. Paul was an extremely intelligent and very highly-educated person. He was especially qualified to deal with their sophistry. Peter warns in his 2nd epistle that Paul writes some things that are hard to understand. Yet we of the modern and post-modern era largely believe ourselves to be above this pitfall. He even goes so far as to say that untaught and unstable folks twist his writings to cause their own destruction. That's pretty heavy talk. Most people think that untaught and unstable means stupid and crazy. I don't think so. I think it means inexperienced and not well-established in the faith. And if other parts of Scripture are to be believed, we could probably all of us put ourselves into at least 1 of those 2 categories if we're being humble enough. My attitude is that over the years I've learned just enough to realize that I don't know much of anything compared to what is yet available for me to learn from the bible. So I tread very lightly where there are arguments over what Paul is saying in a given passage. Just my two cents' worth. :)

Justification by faith is also seen in the Old Testament.

 

[CharismaticLady]

CharismaticLady said: ↑

I speak for you, because you are confused when it comes to thinking yourself on the same page as Behold. You are NOT.

So then . . . is it because I wasn't posting at the time, or because I'm confused?

You are only confused about Behold. His posts are frothy but there is one doctrine of his that makes grace a license to sin. I don't believe you believe like that. You agree with him that a Christian doesn't sin. But what you don't see is that he believes the actions of the flesh that a Christian may commit (that used to be SIN) are not sin anymore, because Jesus has all your sins. (while you are committing them). Except Behold doesn't call those actions sins.

 

[BarneyFife]

I think the new man always seeks God, and the old man always defies God.

Much love!

Along as we don't cross over into Hellenistic (Greek) Dualism, I'm fine.