It is mandatory for BACs to participate in their salvation

[IBeMe]

FHII
No, the verses doesn't stand on it's own and I'm looking at verse 26 with the entire chapter in mind. The verse beings, "FOR IF WE sin..." This clearly indicates that there is a former idea in mind. Verse 26 expounds on verse 25 which we know is true because it starts with "for if..." That's how paragraphs work.

That's not grammatically correct.

23, 24, and 25; are one sentence.
26 and 27 are the next sentence.

24 additionally adds to verse 23, starts with "And".

24 ends with a colon, by grammar rules; 25 is a subset of 24.

The subject of 24 is provoking one another to good works.

25 offers more exhortation on the subject of 24; provoking one another to good works.

But, the main subject of the sentence is in verse 23; " Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering ."

If we put the main subjects of the two sentences together, this is what we have.

" Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering "
" For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth "
... rest of sentance ...
" there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. "

And, guess what happens when we read it correctly?

It's saying the exact same thing as Jesus!

" Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. "

FHII
The chapter also tells us that Jesus' sacrifice is different and forgives ALL sins (past, present and future).

Lookout! ... Trying to turn grace into lasciviousness?

See, you're saying just the opposite of Jesus; " sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. "

I'm going to recommend that folks listen to Jesus and Paul instead of you.

You can't twist Paul's scriptures to come up with this lascivious doctrine; he specifically says; " ... to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past ..."

" He that committeth sin is of the devil ..."

What? ... Are you trying to tell us that Jesus came and died so that we can serve Satan?
............

williemac: I already showed you ...

You've already showed me where your, 'turn grace into lasciviousness', doctrine leads.

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

You have declared that these commandments were done away in Galatians.

Jesus; "... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

You did so much scripture twisting that now you're saying that if we do what Jesus says, to " enter into life ", we will be falling back to Satan.

You are accusing Jesus of leading folks to Satan.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

.

 

[williemac]

" Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering "
" For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth "
... rest of sentance ...
" there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. "

And, guess what happens when we read it correctly?

It's saying the exact same thing as Jesus!

" Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. "



Lookout! ... Trying to turn grace into lasciviousness?

See, you're saying just the opposite of Jesus; " sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. "

I'm going to recommend that folks listen to Jesus and Paul instead of you.

You can't twist Paul's scriptures to come up with this lascivious doctrine; he specifically says; " ... to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past ..."

" He that committeth sin is of the devil ..."

What? ... Are you trying to tell us that Jesus came and died so that we can serve Satan?

This is getting tiring. While we were yet sinners, (of the devil) Christ died for the ungodly. The word "of" can mean several things, but it doesn't mean he who sins is serving the devil. That is not what John is saying. In fact, why quote him in one place and totally ignore 1John 2:1..?..where he states that if we sin we have an advocate with the Father. In doing so, you misrepresent John. He who sins (of the devil) is he who God loved and sent His Son to die for.

But he who sins willfully outside the blood of Jesus has no more sacrifice. Here is why your brain is in neutral. Before, when the old sacrifices were in place, willful sin was covered by the blood of bulls and goats. The author is NOT saying there NEVER WAS a sacrifice for willful sin...he is saying NO LONGER a sacrifice.

The author just got through elevating the superiority of the One sacrifice of Jesus over that of the blood of bulls and goats. But now, your version is that His sacrifice does not cover willful sin. How is that better than the ones that did?

But this is qualified in vs.39, where he states that we are not of those who draw back to perdition but of those who ..behave....no sorry...BELIEVE to the saving of the soul.

My friend, you think you are so smart, and maybe you are, but if you don't know how to understand a passage within its context, your intelligence can't help you.

The context is that the author is speaking to Jews about the better sacrifice and the better covenant, and warning them about the consequences of rejecting them. No more sacrifice for them for sin.

You are preaching a worse sacrifice and a worse covenant.

But to go back to what you said about Paul in Rom.7....
Here are your words:
.Paul struggling with sin? ... No way.
" And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. "
In Romans 7; Paul was speaking about the perplexity of man, after the law but before Salvation.
This chapter is about the Mosaic Law, and its relationship to Salvation, not Paul's struggles with sin.

Again, your brain in neutral. Paul was saying that because of his mindset, that he agreed with the law..."therefore it is no longer I who sin, but sin in me".. Perplexity? Before salvation? If what he was saying was true before salvation, why would he need it? It was no longer he who was sinning. He was proclaiming that he was not guilty of his sin by not being associated with it. (This is how one's conscience is clear. It was purged by the blood of the Lamb.) How is it even remotely logical that this is the state BEFORE salvation of any man?

Paul was presenting a scenario that was an advantage, not a disadvantage. He was saying in so many words..'though I have sin, it is not held against me'.. Yes, he may well have been exaggerating his struggle with sin, but the point he was making was concerning the advantage of agreement with the law. THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CONDITION BEFORE SALVATION.

I feel sorry that those who quote Paul and others in their proper context have to suffer your accusation that they are promoting lasciviousness. Well, Mr. pointy finger...sorry but the real accuser of the brethren has been cast down to earth. He must have gotten into someone's head. Your teachers, maybe. You will do well to refrain from accusing those who belong to our Lord. O, but then I forgot. You, being righteous, have no more need for grace, no more need for an advocate, no more need for faith, no more need for the sacrifice. We only needed them to get started. Now the rest is up to us. This is your message. Am I exaggerating? You tell me.

 

[FHII]

That's not grammatically correct.

23, 24, and 25; are one sentence.
26 and 27 are the next sentence.

24 additionally adds to verse 23, starts with "And".

24 ends with a colon, by grammar rules; 25 is a subset of 24.

The subject of 24 is provoking one another to good works.

25 offers more exhortation on the subject of 24; provoking one another to good works.

But, the main subject of the sentence is in verse 23; " Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering ."

If we put the main subjects of the two sentences together, this is what we have.

" Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering "
" For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth "
... rest of sentance ...
" there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. "

And, guess what happens when we read it correctly?

It's saying the exact same thing as Jesus!

" Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. "



Lookout! ... Trying to turn grace into lasciviousness?

See, you're saying just the opposite of Jesus; " sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. "

I'm going to recommend that folks listen to Jesus and Paul instead of you.

You can't twist Paul's scriptures to come up with this lascivious doctrine; he specifically says; " ... to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past ..."

" He that committeth sin is of the devil ..."

What? ... Are you trying to tell us that Jesus came and died so that we can serve Satan?
............


You've already showed me where your, 'turn grace into lasciviousness', doctrine leads.

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

You have declared that these commandments were done away in Galatians.

Jesus; "... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

You did so much scripture twisting that now you're saying that if we do what Jesus says, to " enter into life ", we will be falling back to Satan.

You are accusing Jesus of leading folks to Satan.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

.

Dude, as much as you want to, you are not going to be able to punctuate verse 25 out of the Bible. I can discuss the whole chapter with you if you like, but verse 26 will still come after verse 25. 26 DOES NOT stand on it's own, and the "sin willfully" is forsaking the assembly. Verse 26 doesn't come after verse 23. Sorry, it doesn't.

Do you see the words "For if"? They mean the same as "because if..." Because if we sin willfully after we have come to the knowledge..." Immediately, a smart person would say, "because of what?" Thus the need for the preceding verse.

As much as you would like verse 26 to come after Exodus 20:17 and as much as you'd like verse 25 to come after Mark 7:39 (which is exactly where most people want it to be) it ain't so.

FURTHERMORE, why don't you read the whole chapter? Read all of chapter 10 because the first 18 verses of that chapter totally debunk your doctrine of works plus faith and your other doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice only forgiving past sins.

If Jesus' sacrifice only forgives past sins, how is it different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?

 

[IBeMe]

FHII: Dude, as much as you want to, you are not going to be able to punctuate verse 25 out of the Bible.

And, of course, that's not true.

FHII: ... but verse 26 will still come after verse 25. 26 DOES NOT stand on it's own, and the "sin willfully" is forsaking the assembly.

That's scripturally and grammatically incorrect.

Google "colon" to get a better understanding of verse 25.

This scripture means what it says, and wise men will heed it.

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"

"But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

And, the scripture agrees with Jesus; "... sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."

FHII: FURTHERMORE, why don't you read the whole chapter? Read all of chapter 10 because the first 18 verses of that chapter totally debunk your doctrine of works plus faith and your other doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice only forgiving past sins.

You're just making stuff up.

Let's see what Paul actually says.

" Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God "

FHII: If Jesus' sacrifice only forgives past sins, how is it different from the sacrifice of bulls and goats?

Romans 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.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Born of the Spirit sons of God have the POWER to keep the righteousness of the law by walking in the Spirit.

Verse 1 guarantees " no condemnation " if we follow the instructions.
1. Don't walk after the flesh.
2. Do walk after the Spirit.

.

..........

williemac: This is getting tiring ...

Again, I'm asking!

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

You have declared that these commandments were done away in Galatians.

Jesus; "... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

You did so much scripture twisting that now you're saying that if we do what Jesus says, to " enter into life ", we will be falling back to Satan.

You are accusing Jesus of leading folks to Satan.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

 

[FHII]

IBEme , I think you better google what a colon is, because it doesn't mean to ignore verses... Which is what you are doing.

Your arguements are foolish.... I am not going to waste my time.

 

[williemac]

Let's see what Paul actually says.

" Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God "


Again, I'm asking!

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

You have declared that these commandments were done away in Galatians.

Jesus; "... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

You did so much scripture twisting that now you're saying that if we do what Jesus says, to " enter into life ", we will be falling back to Satan.

You are accusing Jesus of leading folks to Satan.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

You are obviously unskilled in scripture interpretation. I don't know who told you or taught you that it is valid to pull out one sentence from a chapter and use it all by itself to obviously invent your own idea of what the writer was communicating. But you seem to think you can just do it over and over and assume you are making a point from it.
I will give you the entire thought from my translation. : (NKJ) Rom.3:24..."..being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"..vs.25 "..who God has set forth as a propitiation by His blood,through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, "..vs.26 " to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"

There are other translations that one can use to compare with. There are commentaries one can draw from to verify what the passage means. What it means is that God through His forbearance passed over the sins that were committed previous to the cross, so that now (at this present time) He could justify those who have faith in His Son. And here is verse 28..." Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law"

Here is the conclusion. We are justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Now for your reply to my use of Galatians. My friend, I did not write that letter. Paul wrote it. But I will assure you of something that you are obviously unwilling to accept. I HAVE NEVER ONCE, NOT ONE TIME...EVER...SAID THAT WE SHOULD NOT OBEY THE MORAL LAW. What I have said, and am saying, is that our obedience to moral law will not justify us for life. Salvation is neither attained nor is it retained through the deeds of the law.
I don't know how many times or how many ways I can say it and prove it in scripture for you to just figure out what it is I am telling you. I am very suspicious that you are purposely twisting my thoughts and words.

Go ahead and obey the commandments. Go ahead and exhort your fellow man and fellow believers to obey the commandments. This is not what the problem is. The problem is that you are telling people to obey the commandments in order to avoid condemnation. That is not the right reason. What do you think justification is anyway?

What you fail to understand is that Jesus ministered to the people who were under the law. It was necessary and righteous that He told them the way things were under the old covenant. But after His death and resurrection, the new covenant came into effect. And the new plan for justification came into effect. Jesus revealed the details to His church, and the main vessel He used to understand and teach the details of the new covenant was Paul.

Again...the people of Jesus' day were under the law. We are not under the law. There has been a change in the covenant. It was governed by the commandments before the cross. It is governed by grace after the cross. Access to this covenant of grace is made through faith in His blood sacrifice at Calvary. You are guilty of putting us back under the DEEDS OF THE LAW for justification to life.

Do I deny the words of Jesus? My friend, He inspired the entire bible. But while on earth, He spoke of the future way to salvation. Please find it in John 3:16 and John 6:50,51. Jesus was not double minded. He spoke of keeping the commandments for life. But he also spoke of attaining life through faith in Him. The first one was at that time. The second one was after the cross. I am praying that you actually read this for once and understand what I am saying. You can feel free to dispute it. But t least show the appropriate respect and decency to dispute what I am actually saying and not some invented and twisted version of what I am saying.

 

[IBeMe]

williemac: You are obviously unskilled in scripture interpretation. I don't know who told you or taught you that it is valid to pull out one sentence from a chapter and use it all by itself to obviously invent your own idea of what the writer was communicating. But you seem to think you can just do it over and over and assume you are making a point from it.


Belittlement aside ... Let's get back to the question.


See ... You've twisted so many scriptures, and made so much stuff up, in your desperation to try and turn grace into lasciviousness ...

You've spun yourself into a cocoon ... and can't spin your way out of it.


You're now accusing Jesus of leading folks to Satan.

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

You have declared that these commandments were done away in Galatians.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

You did so much scripture twisting that now you're saying that if we do what Jesus says, to " enter into life ", we will be falling back to Satan.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

 

[williemac]

williemac: You are obviously unskilled in scripture interpretation. I don't know who told you or taught you that it is valid to pull out one sentence from a chapter and use it all by itself to obviously invent your own idea of what the writer was communicating. But you seem to think you can just do it over and over and assume you are making a point from it.


Belittlement aside ... Let's get back to the question.


See ... You've twisted so many scriptures, and made so much stuff up, in your desperation to try and turn grace into lasciviousness ...

You've spun yourself into a cocoon ... and can't spin your way out of it.


You're now accusing Jesus of leading folks to Satan.

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

You have declared that these commandments were done away in Galatians.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

You did so much scripture twisting that now you're saying that if we do what Jesus says, to " enter into life ", we will be falling back to Satan.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

Now you are just repeating yourself. Obviously you did not even bother to read my last reply. This is a debate and discussion site. Try doing one of those sometime. In the meantime, when are you going to admit that you are promoting self righteousness?

Jesus also said that those who eat of His flesh will not die but live forever. He proclaimed that everlasting life comes by faith in Him, in His sacrifice for sin.

There are many things in scripture concerning everlasting life that contradict one another. The only way to reconcile the differences is to recognize that they are contained in two separate covenants. The one you are in, is the old one. Knock yourself out. But keep your poison to yourself. The old one is finished. It died with Jesus.

 

[IBeMe]

williemac: Now you are just repeating yourself ... There are many things in scripture concerning everlasting life that contradict one another ...

There's no contradiction in the scriptures.

You just aren't able to twist the scriptures to support your 'turn grace into lasciviousness' doctrine.

Yes, I'm repeating the question.

You can't answer because it exposes the vacuity of what you're spewing.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?


.

 

[williemac]

There's no contradiction in the scriptures.

You just aren't able to twist the scriptures to support your 'turn grace into lasciviousness' doctrine.

Yes, I'm repeating the question.

You can't answer because it exposes the vacuity of what you're spewing.


A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?


.

Christians who turn back to the law for justification are estranged from Christ and fallen from grace. (Gal.5:4). Read it for yourself. Since that is the case, then it is no stretch that Satan would want this to happen.

I have never said that keeping the commandments by itself is the equivalent to turning back to Satan. You make yourself like a bold faced liar by suggesting it. I have said the opposite, over and over and over in my replies, that we ought to obey the moral law. I am in agreement with the law. You again are twisting my words deliberately as your tactic to avoid the real issue that I am addressing.

The real issue is not what we do, but why we do it. So I will ask you the same question you are asking me. Are you willing to admit you are teaching people to go back under works of law to be justified? O wait, I don't have to ask. You are openly doing just that. You are the one here that is under false doctrine. Nothing personal. Just trying to pull you away from the edge of the fire. You obviously have been blinded to the event that took place at Calvary. It triggered the change from the old covenant to the new one.

I could wish that your doctrine were either black or white...either of the old covenant or the new one. But because you are mixing them together with your doctrine, you are in confusion and have neutralized the effectiveness of the new. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. No contradictions in scripture? If that were the case, then there would be no such thing as leaven. The old covenant contradicts the new one. In the old one, man is required to justify himself. In the new one it is God who justifies through a man's faith in His Son. There is no mixture of these two. The one replaced the other. Why are you trying to mix together what God has separated?

 

[IBeMe]

williemac: I have never said that keeping the commandments by itself is the equivalent to turning back to Satan. You make yourself like a bold faced liar by suggesting it.

Diversion tactics aside, let's get back to the facts.

In your scripture twisting tizzy, trying to turn Grace into lasciviousness, you say that if we keep the commandments Jesus quoted, to be right before God, we're falling back to Satan.

You accuse Jesus of leading us to Satan.

Here is where you twist Galatians to declare a Christian's requirement, by God, to keep the commandments is done away by Paul.

Of course, this is a perversion of scriptures pertaining to the Mosaic Law.

williemac; " ANY ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS ANY OTHER WAY THAN BY TRUSTING AND BELIEVING, IS THE SAME AS REVERTING BACK TO THE FLESH. IT IS A SHOW OF UNBELIEF. E-7 is worthy of the same question that Paul asked the Galatians..."who has bewitched you" "

Here is where you declare those doing such are falling back to Satan.

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

Here is where Jesus says we have to keep the commandments to be worthy of eternal life.

Jesus; " ... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. "

But, you say Jesus is leading us to Satan!



So again, I ask you the question.

A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

.

 

[williemac]

Diversion tactics aside, let's get back to the facts.

In your scripture twisting tizzy, trying to turn Grace into lasciviousness, you say that if we keep the commandments Jesus quoted, to be right before God, we're falling back to Satan.

You accuse Jesus of leading us to Satan.

Here is where you twist Galatians to declare a Christian's requirement, by God, to keep the commandments is done away by Paul.

Of course, this is a perversion of scriptures pertaining to the Mosaic Law.

williemac; " ANY ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS ANY OTHER WAY THAN BY TRUSTING AND BELIEVING, IS THE SAME AS REVERTING BACK TO THE FLESH. IT IS A SHOW OF UNBELIEF. E-7 is worthy of the same question that Paul asked the Galatians..."who has bewitched you" "

Here is where you declare those doing such are falling back to Satan.

williemac; "Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan."

Here is where Jesus says we have to keep the commandments to be worthy of eternal life.

Jesus; " ... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. "

But, you say Jesus is leading us to Satan!



So again, I ask you the question.

A: Are you standing by your doctrine that Christians who do what Jesus says, keep God's commandments, are turning back to Satan?

B: Are you willing to admit that you're teaching a false doctrine?

Which is it?

.

Who are you trying to impress? You are accusing me of drawing people back to Satan through lasciviousness. But there is nothing anywhere in any of my replies that could give anyone such a suggestion. It is a conclusion you have arrived at because of my promotion of justification through faith and by grace alone. Therefore I countered that by suggesting that those who are teaching the keeping of law for justification are more appropriately under the category of falling back to Satan. But I gave that opinion with all the necessary scriptural backup. This is where you and I differ. I am following scripture.

I will admit that Jesus told those under the law that they should keep the commandments for everlasting life. But How is it that you are not reading all of what Jesus said while on earth? He also told some people that faith in Him was the way to life. John 3:16..."whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life".. John 11:25," whoever believes in Me shall never die" John 6:47.." Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" John 6:48-51..."I am the bread of Life, whoever eats of this bread shall not die but shall live forever"

This 'faith in Jesus for life' is a direct contradiction with keeping commandments for life. Only one of them can be true for us. As I am revealing to you, there are two covenants involved in this discussion. This was revealed to Paul and very eloquently laid out in his letters, not the least of which is Galatians. I cannot help you if you refuse to listen to the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of our covenant with God.

I mean, who told you to ask over and over and demand over and over that I admit I am teaching false doctrine? What is that supposed to accomplish? The only thing that comes out of it is the accusation that I am deliberately leading people astray. You can hide behind the internet all you want, but if I were you I would never talk to someone like that in person. You might want to keep your distance with some people. Someone else may not be so gracious as I. Slander is not taken kindly to. In fact, it is sin, my friend. False accusation is anything but keeping the commandment to "not bear false witness". You only discredit your own side by doing it. We can have this discussion with or without it. Your choice.

 

[Dodo_David]

Everyone, please keep in mind this site's rules, among which is the following:

No insults allowed. This rule will be strictly enforced. This community has a core set of beliefs that we clearly state at multiple locations on this website. However, we recognize that unity in Christ is the ultimate aim and this can be achieved even when there is disagreement on doctrinal issues. A good way to avoid this issue is to focus on the doctrine and not the person. This, of course, includes any kind of insults based on race or beliefs.

Accusing each other of teaching false doctrine is a form of a personal attack, an insult. It needs to stop.

 

[williemac]

Everyone, please keep in mind this site's rules, among which is the following:


Accusing each other of teaching false doctrine is a form of a personal attack, an insult. It needs to stop.

Thank you for inserting this. One question. I sincerely do not want to accuse anyone of deliberately teaching anything they know is false. But my observation is that since there is so much debate and discussion and disagreement on these sites, it almost goes without saying that there is false doctrine weaving its way around. Is there any room for suggesting to a person that his doctrine is false without making it personal? Or do we just rather leave that opinion out of our conversation altogether? If the latter, then I must apologize. I have attacked certain doctrinal stances on this subject. I haven't seen that as an issue as long as I can manage to keep it respectful and disassociated with the character of those to whom I am speaking. But correction is welcome. ^_^ cheers, Howie

 

[Dodo_David]

Thank you for inserting this. One question. I sincerely do not want to accuse anyone of deliberately teaching anything they know is false. But my observation is that since there is so much debate and discussion and disagreement on these sites, it almost goes without saying that there is false doctrine weaving its way around. Is there any room for suggesting to a person that his doctrine is false without making it personal? Or do we just rather leave that opinion out of our conversation altogether? If the latter, then I must apologize. I have attacked certain doctrinal stances on this subject. I haven't seen that as an issue as long as I can manage to keep it respectful and disassociated with the character of those to whom I am speaking. But correction is welcome. ^_^ cheers, Howie

Howie, thank you for your reply.

Regarding the above-posted site rule (Post # 73 of this thread) . . .

Violations of the above-posted rule can be avoided by using tact and diplomacy when disagreeing with another person’s expressed beliefs.

For example, one can say, “I do not believe ____. Instead, I believe ____ because _____” or, “I cannot reconcile the claim of ___ to what I read in the Bible.”

If you believe that another forum participant is contradicting this site’s Statement of Faith regarding close-handed issues, then privately contact HammerStone (site administrator) or Angelina (site super-moderator).

As I see it, it is not a personal attack to simply say that you believe a certain Bible interpretation to be incorrect. The trouble comes whenever you figuratively "point a finger" at another participant and proclaim, "You are a false teacher." One can disagree with a message without being unnecessarily abrasive toward the messenger.

This site's Statement of Faith begins with the following:

"Christianity Board (CyB) acknowledges that the nature of a forum community dictates that its members will hold a diverse range of beliefs within the Christian faith. In addition to this, we recognize that all Christians are a work in progress (Ephesians 4:13), and therefore we each are at different locations in our walk with Jesus at any given time."

When we believe that another person has erred in Bible interpretation, we should initially use a gentle approach when explaining why we disagree with the interpretation. As Proverbs 15:1 states, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (ESV)

 

[justaname]

Romans 6:14
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Paul saw clearly that law and grace do not go together. If one is “under” the one, he is not “under” the other. In view of the place Paul’s Jewish contemporaries ascribed to the law we must be clear that the apostle saw it as in opposition to the way of grace and thus an impossible way of salvation for the Christian. Paul held that the law was given, not as the way of deliverance, but in order that every mouth might be stopped and all people be held accountable to God (3:19); it gives knowledge of sin (3:20); it makes the offence abound (5:20); it works wrath (4:15); no one will be justified by law (3:20); sin brought about all kinds of lust through the commandment, indeed sin is dead apart from law (7:8); it was “through the commandment” that sin deceived and slew Paul (7:11); people’s sinful passions work through the law (7:5); the law is weak through the flesh (8:3). Outside this epistle Paul carries on with much the same teaching. The law never justifies people (Gal. 2:16; 3:11); the law is sin’s strength (1 Cor. 15:56); it is there only to lead people to Christ (Gal. 3:24); those under the law were in need of redemption, and Christ came to be under the law in order to redeem those under the law (Gal. 4:5). We should be clear as to the radical novelty and the great importance of Paul’s attitude to law. Were Christians “under law” their inability perfectly to keep the law would have left them still subject to sin. “It would be pointless to say to a man who is struggling along under the domination of legalism, ‘You will eventually be completely free.’ He will always be bound” (Cragg). But Christians are not bound. Their salvation is God’s free gift. They are not dependent on their own ability to keep the law. They are free from the tyranny of sin and of law. As Kertelge puts it, “The new rule of grace claims man completely and tolerates no compromise with sin.”

Morris, L. (1988). The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

Romans 10:3-4
3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

If it is you seek to establish your righteousness before God, you seek to justify yourself. You thereby reject the free gift, which is Christ's sacrifice for sin, the only righteousness that is acceptable to God in this dispensation of grace. If you think you can add to Christ's righteousness you are mistaken.

I disagree with the OP. I state, "It is given that the BAC participates in sanctification. God is the only one involved in our salvation. Salvation is based on God's sovereign purpose. Those who are saved, were going to be saved before they even knew it, and can never lose their salvation. Those who are not saved never had salvation to lose. God knowing the beginning from the end, knows all of His children by name and will not lose one, ever."

1John 1:6-10

The passage speaks of walking in the light, which I perceive to mean moral uprightness and truth. Most importantly we are shown that it is Jesus that is the atonement for sin not our actions that maintain our righteousness. Nonetheless, we are called to humbly admit we are inept in our morality, confessing our sins, yet still strive for moral uprightness. These acts strengthen our fellowship with the Father and Son and show the truth of that claim of fellowship.

Most important verses:
1John 1:6-7
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

[SIZE=12pt]This passage gives us a command to obey, which is to walk in the light. To apply the command is to maintain a striving for moral uprightness and an attitude of humility. By living in this manner we are able to be in true fellowship with God. As it is on our own we are sinful creatures. We must acknowledge our sinfulness and seek to both ask for forgiveness and to avoid sin in our lives. In this we must remember that it is Jesus that cleanses us from all sin, we are only cooperating in the sanctification process. When looking to the Lord’s prayer, which could be viewed as a daily prayer, Jesus says, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.” Given that this is a direct instruction on how to pray, every aspect of that prayer is valid and should be noted in our prayer life and daily walk.[/SIZE]

 

[IBeMe]

justaname: Most importantly we are shown that it is Jesus that is the atonement for sin not our actions that maintain our righteousness.

Jesus says the absolute opposite of what you're saying.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

"He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,"

"Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

justaname: Paul saw clearly that law and grace do not go together.

Absolutely!!!

But, let's look at what Paul was talking about.

Mosaic Law: " And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. "

Now, let's look at what Jesus says.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Heap big difference, eh?

Do you realize, nobody could keep the Mosaic Law if the wanted to; no temple and we don't know who Aaron's sons are.

Jesus plainly tells us that we have to keep God's commandments if we want to enter into life".

Should we just ignore Him?

Yes, we aren't under the Mosaic Law, but God didn't change His righteousness; it's impossible for God to change.

The commandments define His righteousness; what's right and what's evil.

The Mosaic Law was given to the children of Israel, men trapped in a carnal brain, to teach them to keep the commandments of God.

Jesus didn't come and die so that we could do evil.

Jesus came and died so that we could have the POWER to keep the righteousness of the law, God's eternal commandments; and worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

" That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. "

Grace is the POWER to walk in the Spirit and keep the commandments of God.
knowledge of
Paul, " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the the truth ... hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Willful sinning isn't covered under Grace.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... "

So, what must we do if we want eternal life?

.

 

[Dodo_David]

Acts 16:25-31:

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose. 27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!”

29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

1 John 3:23: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."

 

[IBeMe]

williemac: Apparently you either did not read the instructions in replies 73, and 75, or you do not care to follow them. Hopefully, the former of the two. I would advise that you do so right away.

You seem oblivious of the consequence of scripture twisting.

You're actually saying that Jesus is commanding Christians to fall back to Satan.

williemac; "However, if one obeys His commandments in order to keep his salvation, (equal to salvation by works) then yes, he is following after a doctrine contrived in the old covenant and brought into our covenant through the craftiness of Satan...in my humble opinion."

williemac; " Therefore, as we can see from Galatians, a believer who falls back into works of law for justification is in fact falling back to Satan. "

Jesus; "... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. "

Let's take this real slow.

williemac; "... in order to keep his salvation ..."

Why does Jesus tell us to keep the commandments?

Jesus; "... but if thou wilt enter into life ... "

You're saying the exact thing Jesus is saying.

"in order to keep his salvation" = "if thou wilt enter into life "

You are directly accusing Jesus of leading people to Satan.

Now, I'm not attacking you.

I'm trying, over and over again, to wake you up to the reality of what you're saying.

Please reexamine what your saying.

Again, I ask.

A: Do you stand by your teaching which ultimately declares that Jesus is leading Christians to Satan?

B: Have you realized you've fallen into extreme error in understanding of the scriptures?

Which is it?

Again, this isn't a personal attack against you.

When a person is teaching that doing what Jesus says to do will lead to Satan ... it must be pointed out for the benefit of all.

.

Dodo_David: 1 John 3:23: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."

Let's not overlook the, "IF".

"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."

Do we love one another, if we're walking in sin?

Do we love Jesus, if we're walking in sin?

How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: ...

Why not just do what Jesus says?

Do we have a choice?

... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


.

 

[justaname]

Jesus says the absolute opposite of what you're saying.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

"He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,"

"Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."


Absolutely!!!

But, let's look at what Paul was talking about.

Mosaic Law: " And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. "

Now, let's look at what Jesus says.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Heap big difference, eh?

Do you realize, nobody could keep the Mosaic Law if the wanted to; no temple and we don't know who Aaron's sons are.

Jesus plainly tells us that we have to keep God's commandments if we want to enter into life".

Should we just ignore Him?

Yes, we aren't under the Mosaic Law, but God didn't change His righteousness; it's impossible for God to change.

The commandments define His righteousness; what's right and what's evil.

The Mosaic Law was given to the children of Israel, men trapped in a carnal brain, to teach them to keep the commandments of God.

Jesus didn't come and die so that we could do evil.

Jesus came and died so that we could have the POWER to keep the righteousness of the law, God's eternal commandments; and worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

" That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. "

Grace is the POWER to walk in the Spirit and keep the commandments of God.
knowledge of
Paul, " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the the truth ... hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Willful sinning isn't covered under Grace.

"... but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... "

So, what must we do if we want eternal life?

.

First off I am not saying the opposite of Jesus, your understanding of us both is incorrect. Scripture does not contradict itself, only the interpretation can contradict. What you confuse is the difference between salvation and sanctification, grace and law, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

We are under grace, not under law. This does not mean we are under both, it means we are under grace. What you teach is we are under both, which is untrue, or a false teaching. This does not mean we are lawless, for we are held to the Law of Christ or the Royal Law. Still this is the standard for living not the rule for salvation.

Do not be fooled in what I am saying here or attempt to twist it, the one who practices righteousness is righteous (1John 2:29, 3:7), yet again it is Jesus' righteousness that saves not our own. (Matthew 19:26, Romans 3:10)

Lets look to the scripture you rip from it's context as to what it is actually teaching... I will bold the points I will comment on.
The Rich Young Ruler
16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Notice the emphasis Jesus puts on the word good. It is explained to the young ruler there is only one who is good, that is God. Then Jesus furthers the His
answer listing some of the commandments. Notice here also not all of the ten commandments are listed, let alone the first commandment that you shall have
no other God. Basically Jesus is saying, You know the Law, You are under the Mosaic covenant, keep the Law.

20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”

This here is the attitude of most of the Jews of Jesus' day. They feel they are fulfilling the Law, yet Jesus directs differently. Not only are they not keeping the
Law, they pervert it by attempting to follow the set of rules and not live in the spirit of the law. In other words, they would outwardly act one way, all the while
on the inside their thoughts and attitudes reflected the true evil that existed in and through them.

21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

This now is the rest of the story so to speak, exactly the point you are missing altogether. You can see this pointed the disciples to the knowledge that they knew; they did not keep the Law perfectly. They came to the understanding they needed a Savior. God is that Savior, Jesus is that Savior. Jesus' words are, "With people it is impossible..."

Jesus wanted this young ruler to realize he needed to be saved because even though the ruler felt he kept the Law, he was still lacking. Jesus is the only way to salvation, and is the redeemer to all those under the Law. (Galatians 4:5)

Christians are not under the Law, and never were under the Law.

What now you are calling the commandments are part of the Law, this is the Law handed down from Moses or the Mosaic covenant. The commandments are not separate from the Law it is one cohesive unit. The Law is not split or divided. Those who teach differently are mistaken and give a false teaching. If you believe different go to a modern day Orthodox Jew and ask him what part of the Law must you keep.

Keeping the Law does not save you and never did. If keeping the Law were possible there would be no need for the New Covenant. This is expressed in the book of Hebrews. God is the only One who saves, Jesus is the only One who saves.