What required for going to Heaven?

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: To be honest, I think it is you who is deceived. On the other hand, you are accusing me of using childish deceptive tactics; not just deceived, but a deliberate deceiver. This is more than a mere disagreement with my understanding. You are addressing my motives and my agenda. Personal attack.
----------

Showing someone isn't telling the truth, isn't a personal attack; it's simply exposing a deliberate deception.

This is a deliberately false statement; premeditated deception.

williemac:If you will notice, the above scriptures plainly show that Jesus referred to the keeping of the commandments that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. In fact, He even rightly called it "the law".

In Luke 10, Jesus used the words, "the law" speaking to a lawyer about "the law".

This is a concocted false statement; ' He even rightly called it "the law" '.

Jesus was specifically asking about "the law"; the ten commandments were never mentioned by Jesus or the lawyer.


----------
williemac: However, I merely quoted a passage where Jesus asked the lawyer what the law says.
----------

False!

You took two words from that passage and applied them to another passage where Jesus was speaking about the commandments; and concocted a false statement.


----------
williemac: The Lawyer replied to love your God and your neighbor. Jesus validated his reply. You going to tell me that this is not from the ten commandments? Give your head a shake.
----------

It would be a lie to say they were from the ten commandments.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.


----------
williemac: As for what you call the Mosaic law, you are most certainly misinformed. Moses brought the ten commandments down from Mount Sinai. They were the basis of the law of Moses. When they were told to keep the law, they understood full well that this was the ten commandments. The description you give concerning what you call the Mosaic law, is all about what the priesthood was involved with.
----------

That's a false statement.

They understood they were to keep; the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.


----------
williemac: Here is your quote ... 'But the righteousness of the Law wasn't done away with.' Is that so? Well, I have a quote right back at ya. Rom.10:4...." For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" .
----------

... the end of the law for righteousness, NOT the end of God's righteousness which can't change.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. ... 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: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


----------
williemac: Your head is buried deeply in the sand of works/righteousness. I will continue to pray that your eyes will be opened, and that you will find the humility to accept life as a free gift rather than something you have to work for.
----------

If you're not lying, show me where I ever said we're made righteous by works.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Then we abide in the doctrine of Christ.

Doctrine of Christ: Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Christians are warned not to receive those teaching any other doctrine.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

.

 

[williemac]

williemac:If you will notice, the above scriptures plainly show that Jesus referred to the keeping of the commandments that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. In fact, He even rightly called it "the law".

In Luke 10, Jesus used the words, "the law" speaking to a lawyer about "the law".

This is a concocted false statement; ' He even rightly called it "the law" '.

Jesus was specifically asking about "the law"; the ten commandments were never mentioned by Jesus or the lawyer.


----------
williemac: However, I merely quoted a passage where Jesus asked the lawyer what the law says.
----------

False!

You took two words from that passage and applied them to another passage where Jesus was speaking about the commandments; and concocted a false statement.

I think you are delusional, my friend. We can all go to the text in question and read it for ourselves.
Here is the progression:
1: The lawyer approached Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life.
2. Jesus replied by asking him what is written in the law.
3. The lawyer replied to love the lord with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
4. Jesus told him he answered rightly and, do this and you will live.

We don't need to apply this to another passage where Jesus speaks of commandments to know that this is a direct reference to one of the ten commandments. But that is not as relevant as the fact that when asked what to do to inherit life, Jesus asked him what the law says. Jesus referred to the law in that passage in regards to gaining eternal life. You are in a heap of denial my friend, by your diversion from this obvious fact. Deflect it all you want. The passage says it all. Jesus confirmed that his reply concerning the law was the correct answer in gaining eternal life. The fact that this was a lawyer does not divert the attention from the obvious, that Jesus told a man to keep the law to gain eternal life. Where did this law come from? We all know the answer to that. There was a point in showing this passage. That point is to put the ministry of Jesus in its proper context. You and others have been insisting that everything Jesus taught was new covenant. Are you now going to deny you are taking that position?

But to reply to your demand to show where you said that we are to become righteous by works, I will not say that, because you have never said that in those exact terms. There, satisfied? However, what you do say is that we are to walk in righteousness in order to maintain our salvation, in so many words.

Let's get one thing straight. I have never denied that we should walk in righteousness. I am on your side concerning our mandate to bear the fruit of the life that is in us. I am simply saying that our motive and reason for doing so has nothing to do with earning life after it has already been given.
You are saying differently. While you confirm that we don't initially get righteousness through works, you insist that we keep it through works. This is where we part company. It is kept the same way it arrived: by faith.

Let me ask you, how is sin identified? Paul said by the law, Do you say differently? By the law is the knowledge of sin. Therefore if sin can cause a believer to lose his salvation, then the believer is still under the enforcement of the law. Yes or no?

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: We can all go to the text in question and read it for ourselves.
----------

Indeed, and when we do; we see you took two words from one passage, and applied it to a completely different passage to concoct a completely false statement; "He even rightly called it "the law".

A deliberate attempt at deception.

williemac:If you will notice, the above scriptures plainly show that Jesus referred to the keeping of the commandments that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. In fact, He even rightly called it "the law".


----------
williemac: We don't need to apply this to another passage where Jesus speaks of commandments to know that this is a direct reference to one of the ten commandments.
----------

Another completely false statement.

What is written in the law? how readest thou?

The referenced scriptures are NOT from the ten commandments.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

As we see, time and time again, what you teach is based on intentional deception.


----------
williemac: But that is not as relevant as the fact that when asked what to do to inherit life, Jesus asked him what the law says. Jesus referred to the law in that passage in regards to gaining eternal life. You are in a heap of denial my friend, by your diversion from this obvious fact. Deflect it all you want. The passage says it all. Jesus confirmed that his reply concerning the law was the correct answer in gaining eternal life. The fact that this was a lawyer does not divert the attention from the obvious, that Jesus told a man to keep the law to gain eternal life.
----------

Another deliberately contrived false statement.

Jesus said this do, and thou shalt live; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

A rather childish attempt at deception, but fully expected.

Jesus does say; "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

If we truly love the Lord, then this scripture won't be an offence to us; "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."


----------
williemac: That point is to put the ministry of Jesus in its proper context. You and others have been insisting that everything Jesus taught was new covenant. Are you now going to deny you are taking that position?
----------

We are commanded to observe ALL that Jesus taught.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: ...


----------
williemac: But to reply to your demand to show where you said that we are to become righteous by works, I will not say that, because you have never said that in those exact terms. There, satisfied? However, what you do say is that we are to walk in righteousness in order to maintain our salvation, in so many words.
----------

We're saved by faith, then we do what Jesus said to do.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


----------
williemac: I am simply saying that our motive and reason for doing so has nothing to do with earning life after it has already been given.
----------

God doesn't grant you the right to use your motive and reason for doing so, He commands you what to do.

our motive and reason = walking in the flesh.

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

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

For whosoever will save his life ( our motive and reason ) shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life ( do whatsoever I command you ) for my sake shall find it.


----------
williemac: You are saying differently. While you confirm that we don't initially get righteousness through works, you insist that we keep it through works.
----------

Absolutely false statement!

We enter the covenant by grace; For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

If the covenantee deliberately breaks the terms of the covenant, observe all things whatsoever I have commanded, the the covenantor is no longer obliged to deliver the promise of the covenant; blot out his name out of the book of life.

Salvation is free, but obedience is demanded by the covenantor.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. (deliberately broken the covenant)


----------
williemac: Let me ask you, how is sin identified? Paul said by the law, Do you say differently? By the law is the knowledge of sin. Therefore if sin can cause a believer to lose his salvation, then the believer is still under the enforcement of the law. Yes or no?
----------

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

.
.

 

[williemac]

My apology. The passage in question is not from the ten commandments. My mistake is that, as you also confirm, all the law and prophets hang on the command to love God and love your neighbor. Point well taken. However, the fact is, the summary of the ten commandments is just that; Love God and love your neighbor. This is why it is considered part of the law. But I am not invalidating the law, as you might think. And neither am I invalidating the ten commandments, as you might think.

What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments. These are gifts, given by faith. You yourself have agreed to this.
In blue, this is your quote and your error: "Salvation is free, but obedience is demanded by the covenantor."

I have not argued that obedience is demanded. But I would not use the word "demand" I would use "command". Be that as it may, Our call to obedience is not meant as a requirement to remain in covenant. It is simply that which our Lord is commanding of His own. We can only remain in covenant the way we entered into covenant: By faith. It does not change its face to works once entered into. It begins with faith and is sustained by faith.

Your mistake is to hang salvation on our obedience. You said it was free. Then you took an about turn and said it isn't free, because it requires obedience. Make up your mind. Is it free or is it earned through obedience? You said both in the same sentence. Sorry, but one cannot walk down two pathways simultaneously. But this is what you are proposing.

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: My apology. The passage in question is not from the ten commandments. My mistake is that, as you also confirm, all the law and prophets hang on the command to love God and love your neighbor. Point well taken. However, the fact is, the summary of the ten commandments is just that; Love God and love your neighbor. This is why it is considered part of the law.
----------

You admit you were confused about two scriptures being in the ten commandments.

There's only ten ... don't see how that can get confusing.

The you demonstrate profound confusion thinking the ten commandments are part of the law.

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.


----------
williemac: But I am not invalidating the law, as you might think. And neither am I invalidating the ten commandments, as you might think.
----------

You just tried to invalidate the ten commandments by proclaiming it's considered part of the law.

It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.


----------
williemac: What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments.
----------

You're trying to invalidate Christ's doctrine.

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Christians are warned not to receive those teaching anti-Christ's doctrine.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.


----------
williemac: I have not argued that obedience is demanded.
----------

No, you constantly contradict Jesus on obedience.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


----------
williemac: Our call to obedience is not meant as a requirement to remain in covenant.
----------

Where are the scriptures? ... You just make things up.

Here are the scriptures to show that your statement is anti-Christ's doctrine.

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Not surprising, but contrary to what you say, God demands obedience.

The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him ...


----------
williemac: It is simply that which our Lord is commanding of His own.
----------

Do you have a dysfunctional understanding of the word, "command"?


----------
williemac: We can only remain in covenant the way we entered into covenant: By faith. It does not change its face to works once entered into. It begins with faith and is sustained by faith.
----------

You defiantly try to nullify God's definition of His covenant.

Do you ever show any scriptures to support what you say? This is fairy doctrine (fiction)?

Jesus says His words are the rules of the covenant.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


----------
williemac: It does not change its face to works once entered into. It begins with faith and is sustained by faith.
----------

Is this fairy doctrine? Fictitious? Where are the scripture to support what you say?

God demands participation.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of myFather which is in heaven.


----------
williemac: Your mistake is to hang salvation on our obedience.
----------

Ignoring obedience is fairy doctrine (fictitious).

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.


----------
williemac: Then you took an about turn and said it isn't free, because it requires obedience.
----------

You'd have to be real stupid to think that something given can't come with requirements.


----------
williemac: Sorry, but one cannot walk down two pathways simultaneously. But this is what you are proposing.
----------

Another truth challenged statement.

It's stupid to think you can ignore God.

.

 

[williemac]

----------
williemac: My apology. The passage in question is not from the ten commandments. My mistake is that, as you also confirm, all the law and prophets hang on the command to love God and love your neighbor. Point well taken. However, the fact is, the summary of the ten commandments is just that; Love God and love your neighbor. This is why it is considered part of the law.
----------

You admit you were confused about two scriptures being in the ten commandments.

There's only ten ... don't see how that can get confusing.

The you demonstrate profound confusion thinking the ten commandments are part of the law.

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Rom.7:7.." What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would have not known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law said.."you shall not covet".." (the tenth commandment). Who is the one who is confused?
Rom.2:22, 23..." You who say "do not commit adultery", do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?. (23) You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?" Who is confused? Sin is transgression of law. Is murder not a sin? Is theft not a sin? Are they not transgressions of two of the ten? Are you going to recant, or continue to insist that the ten commandments are not part of the law?

-
----------
williemac: Then you took an about turn and said it isn't free, because it requires obedience.
----------

You'd have to be real stupid to think that something given can't come with requirements.

Again, personal put downs are forgiven. However, I have never said that the free gift does not have a requirement. I have quoted time and again that God gives grace to the humble. The obedience in receiving a free gift is to humbly accept it by faith. However, If my boss were to try to tell me that my paycheck is a free gift, I would roll my eyes at the suggestion. Bottom line is that if one is working for something, it cannot be considered a gift. There's nothing stupid about that fact. The requirement for receiving a free gift is to accept it as such. That is called faith. God makes a promise, and the recipient believes Him. Abraham did not do that at first, as he tried to help God by producing a son from the slave woman. Paul compared this to the covenant that came down from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage (Gal.4:22-24). You lack understanding. I am trying to enlighten you but all you seem to do in return is to insult me and misquote me. I forgive you.

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: Who is the one who is confused?
----------

Anyone who thinks they can ignore Jesus!

Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

The ten commandments are law, God's law, but they are separate from the Mosaic Law.

Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Moses is NOT the mediator of the ten commandments.

The ten commandments were given before the Mosaic Law was written.

The ten commandments weren't given by Moses, they were given directly to the children to Israel from God, God speaking directly to them.

The Mosaic Law was written down by Moses.

The ten commandments were written by God.

These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

Moses makes the distinction clear.

And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

The "statutes and judgments" are the Mosaic Law, the ten commandments are not.

God displays the distinction.

Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.

("they will observe to do")
1. all that I have commanded them (ten commandments)
2. all the law that my servant Moses commanded them (Mosaic Law)

God makes it absolutely clear that Christians are subject to every word of Jesus.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Jesus makes it absolutely clear that Christians are subject to His every word.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shalljudge him in the last day.

Jesus makes it absolutely clear we must keep the commandments.

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

You teach anti-Christ's doctrine; "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

Stated goal: williemac:"What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

Your stated goal is to turn grace into lasciviousness; "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

.

 

[williemac]

You poor confused soul. The ten commandments were written by God alright. But where do you think Moses got all the other commands? Did he make them up? No. They are all from God. Don't try to pin any of them on Moses. He was merely the mediator between God and the people. This is why it is called the law of Moses. Not because he invented any of it. But because he was God's mediator.

In fact, if you care to recall, Moses had to wear a veil to cover the glory on his countenance after meeting with God on Mount Sinai when God gave him the tablets of stone. It was Moses who broke the first two tablets in anger when he found the people in idolatry. And it was Moses who got two new tablets of stone from God after that. The written ten commandments were given to Moses, my friend. He brought them to the people. Or do you imagine that they all simultaneously heard the voice of God? But that is what you are implying in your erroneous attempt to leave Moses out of the picture in the giving of the ten.

So, God's statutes and judgments include the ten commandments. How do we know this? I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my reference to Rom.7:7, and 2:22,23, in your reply. I think Paul is a more reliable source of this information than you. If you don't care to submit to his authority and expertise in this matter, it is no wonder you don't acknowledge the context and time frame between the two covenants.

To help further, here is an excerpt from Gal.4.
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

So tell me, o teacher. Why the reference to Mount Sinai? And why is it in context of Paul's mention of the law? And why did he connect it with bondage? You desire to be under what? That which came from Mount Sinai. Paul called it the law. You are sitting in a very isolated minority, who think that the law of Moses doesn't include the ten commandments.

And have you never considered the meaning of this passage from 2Cor. ch.3?

3clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

4And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

When we read through your replies, what do we see....the ministry of life...or the ministry of death and condemnation?

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: Again, personal put downs are forgiven.
----------

That wasn't a put-down.

That was a bewildered reaction to your statement implying a gift can't have requirements; "You said it was free. Then you took an about turn and said it isn't free, because it requires obedience. Make up your mind."


----------
williemac: However, If my boss were to try to tell me that my paycheck is a free gift, I would roll my eyes at the suggestion. Bottom line is that if one is working for something, it cannot be considered a gift. There's nothing stupid about that fact.
----------

It would be analphabetic to think that represents a covenant.

Covenant: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action

God's covenant does require the performance of some action.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you


.
----------
williemac: Or do you imagine that they all simultaneously heard the voice of God? But that is what you are implying in your erroneous attempt to leave Moses out of the picture in the giving of the ten.
----------

You've made it fully clear you have zero understanding of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law.

Yes (have you ever actually read the scriptures?), they all heard the voice of God.

Deuteronomy 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,

Deuteronomy 5:6-21 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Deuteronomy 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.


.

 

[williemac]

----------
williemac: Again, personal put downs are forgiven.
----------

That wasn't a put-down.

That was a bewildered reaction to your statement implying a gift can't have requirements; "You said it was free. Then you took an about turn and said it isn't free, because it requires obedience. Make up your mind."


----------
williemac: However, If my boss were to try to tell me that my paycheck is a free gift, I would roll my eyes at the suggestion. Bottom line is that if one is working for something, it cannot be considered a gift. There's nothing stupid about that fact.
----------

It would be analphabetic to think that represents a covenant.

Covenant: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action

God's covenant does require the performance of some action.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Greetings. For once, can you please read this thoughtfully and carefully before jumping all over your keyboard?

Calling someone stupid is a little more than just a bewildered response. And you are assuming things about the covenant. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. You can quote the dictionary all day long, but the final say about what is required of us to remain in covenant is not the dictionary. It is the word of God. If Jesus intended to imply that keeping commands was our requirement in order to remain in covenant, He would have said that. You are mixing two concepts.
When it comes to our covenant with God, the only requirement given to us is to believe the promise that He made. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. The law came about after that. It was added for a time, until the seed would come, and until faith would be revealed.

Luke 24:26: "ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" (27) "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures concerning Himself".. How long do you think that took? Ten minutes? An hour? Likely a lot longer. And if all that was required to know was revealed by Jesus before that time, then why did He need to do this at this time? The things that were kept hidden while He was on earth, those things were revealed to others afterward, and especially Paul. Why do you refuse to see this fact?


Rom.4:20.." He (Abraham) did not waiver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God. (21) and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform (who does the performing?) (22) And therefore it was accounted to him as righteousness"

(23) Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, (24) but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. (25) who was delivered up because of our offenses,and was raised because of our justification" .

Looking back to Rom.4:16..." Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all".

The performance of our obedience to commands is for the benefit of those who receive the works of love from us, and for the future consideration of our rewards handed out on the judgment seat of Christ. As for the covenant, it is based on the promise from God that He would perform it, and our part is to believe the promise. And this is what Rom.ch.5 reveals...that it is by the righteousness and the obedience of ONE MAN that we stand righteous and alive in God's family. He performed it. Believe it or not. O, yes, and please continue to ignore the passages from Paul's letters that I am sharing with you. This will continue to prove your willful ignorance in this matter.

And by the way....Deut. 5:22......good point. I assumed otherwise. But not convinced that this changes the fact that the ten commandments became the basis of the law...in light of the other passages I have shared.

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: Greetings. For once, can you please read this thoughtfully (???) and carefully before jumping all over your keyboard?
----------

Why?

Your stated goal is; "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

williemac: What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments.

Why should anyone give any thought to someone who's trying to invalidate the words of Jesus? ... If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Breaking God's commandments is the definition of sin.

So, you're actually trying to validate sinning.

He that committeth sin is of the devil ...

By removing keeping God's commandments, you're trying to validate serving Satan.

Jesus; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

What you teach is anti-Christ's doctrine.

Jesus makes it clear that if you don't keep His word, you don't love Him; "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings".

Why do you defiantly try to nullify The Word of God?

Jesus: "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"

williemac: "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

Why should we give any thought to anyone trying to invalidate Jesus?


----------
williemac: Calling someone stupid is a little more than just a bewildered response.
----------

Quit whining.

I didn't call you stupid.

I said, "You'd have to be real stupid to think that something given can't come with requirements"; and that's true.


----------
williemac: If Jesus intended to imply that keeping commands was our requirement in order to remain in covenant, He would have said that.
----------

And that's what Jesus says; "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

Jesus didn't "imply"; it's absolutely clear what He says; "keep the commandments"

What you teach is just the opposite; "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

What you teach is anti-Christ doctrine.

Satan taught invalidating keeping commandments; "Ye shall not surely die", but it was a false doctrine because they did die.


----------
williemac: When it comes to our covenant with God, the only requirement given to us is to believe the promise that He made.
----------

That's anti-Christ's doctrine.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" ...


----------
williemac: Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. The law came about after that.
----------

Abraham taught obedience.

For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

And we see that obedience was a requirement for the fulfillment of the promise; "that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."

Abraham was obedient.

Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.


----------
williemac: Luke 24:26: "ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" (27) "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures concerning Himself".. How long do you think that took? Ten minutes? An hour? Likely a lot longer. And if all that was required to know was revealed by Jesus before that time, then why did He need to do this at this time? The things that were kept hidden while He was on earth, those things were revealed to others afterward, and especially Paul. Why do you refuse to see this fact?
----------

I didn't see any intelligent input to agree/disagree with.

But we do know that Jesus spoke to John.

John warns us not to receive those teaching anti-Christ's doctrine.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.


----------
williemac: The performance of our obedience to commands is for the benefit of those who receive the works of love from us, and for the future consideration of our rewards handed out on the judgment seat of Christ.
----------

That's anti-Christ's doctrine.

Jesus says we must keep the commandments for eternal life.

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


----------
williemac: As for the covenant, it is based on the promise from God that He would perform it, and our part is to believe the promise.
----------

That's anti-Christ's doctrine.

Our part, as decreed by God; "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.


----------
williemac: O, yes, and please continue to ignore the passages from Paul's letters that I am sharing with you. This will continue to prove your willful ignorance in this matter.
----------

Paul makes it absolutely clear that breaking His commandments is breaking the covenant.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins (broken the covenant: "hath trodden under foot the Son of God", "hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing", "done despite unto the Spirit of grace"), But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Romans 5:1 ]Therefore being justified (past sins forgiven) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

But after being justified by faith, you're demanding a right to keep on sinning; "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

Jesus says you don't love Him if you don't keep His commandments, "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings"

For rebellion ( "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments." ) is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.


----------
williemac: And by the way....Deut. 5:22......good point. I assumed otherwise. But not convinced that this changes the fact that the ten commandments became the basis of the law...in light of the other passages I have shared.
----------

The only thing you've shared so far; you don't have the most basic understanding of the Ten Commandments.

It doesn't matter what you share because this is what Jesus shares; ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

The Ten Commandments are commandments given before the Mosaic Law.

The Mosaic Law offered justification by works (sacrifices) for breaking God's commandments.

Justification, for breaking God's commandments, by works of the Mosaic Law is done away.

Now we can be justified by faith ... For doing what? ... Breaking God's commandments.

Changing the justification doesn't change God's commandments.

What? ... We're forgiven for breaking God's commandments so that we can break God's commandments? ... Haven't heard "The Nutcracker Suite" in a long time.

Jesus is a ruler ... for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings ... End of Story.

What is this thing you teach? ... "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

.

 

[williemac]

I just googled the question...Are the ten commandments included in the law of Moses?.. Here is one of many results, most of which say the same. In fact, one of them replied that it is the cults that say they are not included. Enjoy!

Matthew 22:37-40 says, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the FIRST and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." The first of the 10 Commandments is found in Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That is the point of Matthew 22:37, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the FIRST and great COMMANDMENT." So, the Ten Commandments are included in the Law which God gave to Moses.

You can quote other passages from Paul all you want, including your misinterpretation of Heb.10:26, which by the way may or may not be from Paul. But you are still ignoring the ones that I have shared, which say in no uncertain terms that we are not justified by the keeping of moral law. The references I gave include commandments found in the ten. Are you willfully passing these over, my friend? The ten commandments are the moral law. Paul says that there is/was no law given that can give life. So, either he is in contradiction with Jesus, or he is doing what I also do, which is to recognize that Jesus taught the law to those under the law, likely for the reason that the law was given; to tutor them of their sin. The same author of Hebrews stated that the new testament (covenant) did not take effect until after the death of Jesus. Everything that was said before that time must be compared with the gospel to determine if it belongs in the new covenant. The gospel is the power of God to salvation, which is taught in detail in Romans and is summarized in Rom.10:9,10.

Our call to moral obedience does not justify us for eternal life. If it did, we would have cause for boasting....Another principle you seem to not take seriously.

And to reply to some of your other comments.....Rom.3:8...." And why not say, 'let us do evil that good may come?'-as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just."

Taking my comments and assuming that I am condoning sin is just what people did to Paul as well. Preach it that way he did and this will inevitably follow as it did in his case; Accusation of giving license to sin. Predictable response, sadly! Supported by partial quotes and misrepresentation of my thoughts. Pathetic. It proves nothing.

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: So, the Ten Commandments are included in the Law which God gave to Moses.
----------

The Ten Commandments were before the Mosaic Law.

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

If you keep the righteousness of the law, then you will have kept the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

You can't keep this commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.", without keeping God's commandments.

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

If you don't keep God's commandments, then you're breaking this commandment; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

God has decreed that if you don't keep His commandments, then you don't love Him. Nobody on Google has the power to change God's words.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

You teach anti-Christ's doctrine; "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

williemac: What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments.

Your trying to turn "grace" into "lasciviousness" by denying The Word of God, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love".

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus says, "keep my commandments"; but you say, "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

You are trying to validate breaking the commandments; which is the definition of sin.

So, your stated goal is to validate sinning.


----------
williemac: But you are still ignoring the ones that I have shared, which say in no uncertain terms that we are not justified by the keeping of moral law.
----------

You are not telling the truth. I've never said commandments forgive sins.

That doesn't even make sense.

"Commandment" is a noun ... nouns don't do anything ... nouns can't forgive sins ... commandments can't forgive sins.

God says it's a sin to break His commandments.


----------
williemac: Are you willfully passing these over, my friend?
----------

LOL ... You didn't even know the scriptures until I posted them for you.

Then you imply I'm passing over the scriptures I posted for you

williemac:"My apology. The passage in question is not from the ten commandments."


----------
williemac: Paul says that there is/was no law given that can give life. So, either he is in contradiction with Jesus, or he is doing what I also do, which is to recognize that Jesus taught the law to those under the law, likely for the reason that the law was given; to tutor them of their sin.
----------

No. Paul wasn't stupid and understood that Christians are saved by faith and then do what God's says to do.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Paul taught the opposite of what you teach.

But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

What you teach, "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments.", Paul warns will result in "indignation and wrath".


----------
williemac: Everything that was said before that time must be compared with the gospel to determine if it belongs in the new covenant.
----------

That's anti-Christ's doctrine.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.


----------
williemac: Our call to moral obedience does not justify us for eternal life. If it did, we would have cause for boasting....Another principle you seem to not take seriously.
----------

We're justified (past sins forgiven) by faith.

Christ's doctrine: "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love"

Anti-Christ's doctrine: "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.


----------
williemac: Taking my comments and assuming that I am condoning sin is just what people did to Paul as well.
----------

You boast about it: "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

.
.

 

[williemac]

You boast about it: "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."

.

Your whole reply is full of this kind of lying. This is a misquote. But God is reading this, too. Not just you and I and others. I am invalidating the keeping of commandments for the purpose of earning eternal life. Do you think you are being clever by leaving out part of a quote? I have consistently validated the keeping of commandments for other reasons. I have never validated sin. If what I am saying is errant and amounts to the contrary, then point that out. But don't accuse me of deliberately doing what I am not doing. Being wrong is not the same as being evil. You are equating the two as the same and accusing me of deliberate licentiousness. I can scarcely believe you think you are righteous in this tactic.

Here is one of your quotes: "God says it's a sin to break His commandments." Here is what the bible says. " Sin is transgression of law". But you deny that the commandments are part of the law. I say otherwise. And I have given scripture to prove it. Your head continues to be buried in the sand of denial. I have humbly admitted being wrong in a few places. What do you do? Throw it in my face. You on the other hand have apparently never been wrong about anything. Must be nice.

You could address the scriptural objections to your conclusions, if your conclusions were without contradiction. But you show the weakness of your position by merely attacking the messenger. It is not about me. You can't hurt me or stop me from posting. Address the passages I am sharing if your position is so correct.

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: Your whole reply is full of this kind of lying. This is a misquote.
----------

That's a false accusation and a false statement.

Don't blame me for what you say!

misquote: to quote (a text, speech, etc) inaccurately

I included a partial quote, and a full quote.

Full quote (as quoted above): williemac: What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments.

Emphasized partial quote: "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."


----------
williemac: I am invalidating the keeping of commandments for the purpose of earning eternal life.
----------

You accused me of misquoting you, which was false; but now you're misquoting yourself.

williemac: "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

You're trying to invalidate the very words of Jesus Christ.

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

We have to do more than keep the commandments; we live by ALL that Jesus said.

Jesus's "doctrine of salvation and life" absolutely demands "keeping commandments"; "keep the commandments".

"What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


----------
williemac: I have consistently validated the keeping of commandments for other reasons.
----------

But you're invalidating doing it for the reason Jesus gives, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Blatant anti-Christ's doctrine!


----------
williemac: I have never validated sin.
----------

You're not telling the truth. (which I guess is OK if you invalidate keeping the commandments)

That's exactly what you're doing.

williemac: "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

If you're invalidating keeping commandments, then you're validating breaking God's commandments.

Breaking God's commandments is sin.

You are validating sinning.


----------
williemac: If what I am saying is errant and amounts to the contrary, then point that out. But don't accuse me of deliberately doing what I am not doing.
----------

LOL ... Don't try to blame me for what you say.

Christ's doctrine: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."

Anti-Christ's doctrine: "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

You're trying to invalidate Jesus.


----------
williemac: Being wrong is not the same as being evil.
----------

The Bible says that teaching any other doctrine, but Christ's doctrine, is evil.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.


----------
williemac: You are equating the two as the same and accusing me of deliberate licentiousness.
----------

When your goal is to invalidate keeping God's commandments, there's no question about it; by definition you're turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.

That would also qualify for denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------
williemac: But you deny that the commandments are part of the law.
----------

The Ten Commandments are law; but they're not part of the Mosaic Law.


----------
williemac: I say otherwise.
----------

Of course, you've stated what your mission is:

williemac: "What I am invalidating is ... keeping commandments."


----------
williemac: I say otherwise. And I have given scripture to prove it.
----------

False.

Let's see the scriptures.


----------
williemac: I have humbly admitted being wrong in a few places. What do you do? Throw it in my face.
----------

LOL ... You accused me of ignoring the very scriptures I had to post for you.

You brought the subject up so stop whining.

.

 

[laid renard]

No across the board.

 

[IBeMe]

----------
williemac: You could address the scriptural objections to your conclusions, if your conclusions were without contradiction.
----------

Which, of course, I have.

I don't have conclusion, I post scriptures.


----------
williemac: But you show the weakness of your position by merely attacking the messenger.
----------

Playing the "victim card"???

List the post number and item where you were a victim?

I did say, "You'd have to be real stupid to think that something given can't come with requirements."

That's a true statement that doesn't necessarily apply to you.


----------
williemac: It is not about me. You can't hurt me or stop me from posting. Address the passages I am sharing if your position is so correct.
----------

I guess I'll have to add "victim card" to your list of tactics.

"timeframe", "context", "mindset", "victim card"
.

 

[williemac]

----------
williemac: You could address the scriptural objections to your conclusions, if your conclusions were without contradiction.
----------

Which, of course, I have.

O really? I showed several places where it can be seen clearly that the moral commandments were part of the law. You never addressed these, or even acknowledged them. You instead, played paper-covers-rock by simply thinking that quoting another passage is the equivalent of dealing with those ones.

When Paul expounded on the principles of the way of salvation, he compare law against grace. He demonstrated that the two are in opposite camps concerning justification, and that faith and works are also in opposite camps concerning justification.

So for your benefit, I will repeat a couple of references

Rom.7:7.." What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would have not known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law said.."you shall not covet".."
Rom.2:22, 23..." You who say "do not commit adultery", do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?. (23) You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?"

When Paul speaks of "the law" in Romans, he is speaking of the moral law. If he was going to differentiate between that and other law, he would have made it clear.
You have acknowledged that sin is transgression of moral commandments. Here is another reference about that.

Rom.3:19,20. " Now we know that whatever the law says it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin".

You preach that we are justified for life by the keeping of moral commandments. You are in contradiction with Paul. In fact, you pronounce guilt on those who break the commandments, confirming that guilt is determined by that which Paul called "the law". Paul puts the moral commandments in the same category as "the law". He even equates righteousness with the law, indicating that is about moral commandments.(references are available) . Keep avoiding these obvious facts. Go ahead and play paper covers rock. But it says what it says. You can't erase it by running away from it. In doing so, you seem unwilling to consider that in the subject of salvation and justification for life, Paul in these references contradicted some of the teachings of Jesus. (including Rom.10:9,10, etc.)

But I already know your reply to this. You simply add the two principles together and say they are both valid. You say that we are saved by both...faith, and then keeping commandments. Paul says that these two cannot be linked together that way. You violate this the same way the the Galatians did.

 

[IBeMe]

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

If we approach this as little children and just follow Jesus's instructions, knowing He won't lead us astray, then this whole thing is real simple and the kingdom of heaven is ours.

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

----------
williemac: O really?
----------

Why should we get sidetracked?

williemac: "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

Let's remove your fabricated justification to see the full impact of your stated goal.

williemac: "I am invalidating keeping commandments."

Breaking God's commandments is the definition of sin; "if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD"

So, your stated goal in all these endless scripture twisting post is to invalidate keeping God's commandments.

When you say, "What I am invalidating ... keeping commandments."; You're saying it's OK to sin ... it's OK to "commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done".

Full statement; "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

You throw some words in there to disguise what you're really doing, validating sinning.

Paul and Jesus say justification (forgiveness) by works (sacrifices) of the law has been done away with.

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Justification by works of the law ended when John's ministry began.

And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

So, this is the remission of their sins by faith and not by works of the law (sacrifices).

But, this has no relation to your stated goal, "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life by way of keeping commandments."

Your goal, "invalidating ... keeping commandments" has nothing to do with "justification" (forgiveness); you're trying to invalidate God's commandments, thus making it OK to sin.

If it's OK to sin, no commandments, then there's no need for justification (forgiveness).

Again, you throw some words in there to make it sound like it has something to do with salvation and justification (forgiveness).

If you "invalidating ... keeping commandments", you've eliminated God from the Bible; "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (made everything God says, meaningless)

If you invalidate God's commandments, your stated goal, then we can just ignore God and do anything we want.

"invalidating ... keeping commandments" for any pretentious reason is validating sinning and serving Satan; "No man can serve two masters"

williemac: "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life ( if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ) by way of keeping commandments."

You're trying to invalidate Jesus.

.

 

[williemac]

williemac: "What I am invalidating is the doctrine of salvation and life ( if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ) by way of keeping commandments."

You're trying to invalidate Jesus.

.

No more than Paul did. Paul says if we want to enter life, we believe and confess (Rom.10:9). There are three ways to life that we are discussing here. One of them is the works of the law. Another is faith in Jesus. You are presenting a third one, which is to keep commandments. The bible, (as I have proven) says that this is the same as #1, keeping the law. Jesus taught both. But Paul says it is one or the other, not both. You are claiming both are necessary for salvation. You contradict Paul. Did Paul invalidate Jesus? No, he taught what Jesus revealed to him, that the old and new covenants are not to be mixed together. This was not fully revealed until after Jesus died and rose again. Jesus deliberately kept the people under the law until the appropriate time that things were to change over to the new. Since you disagree, you find yourself mixing the two covenants together. My explanation is the only one that eliminates this contradiction and resulting leaven. And the bible confirms it, as I have shown over and over in many ways and references.

But I will give a variation on the tactic you are using here. If you were to tell us that in order to get to Canada.."Don't drive your car south. Drive it north". That would work in the case of those in the U.S. But I could quote you and say...IBEME says "don't drive your car". This is not inaccurate, but it does not represent what you really meant. It is a fragmented quote. You have been using this tactic against my replies dozens of times. By pointing that out, I am not playing the "victim card". I am rather exposing a cheap trick. Quoting me as invalidating the commandments is a fragmented quote and amounts to trickery and deception. You and I both know it, admit it or not. You're not fooling anyone.