Salvation by faith alone/only?

[jasoncran]

and what does jesus do after he does judge begin to reign on the earth righteously and also restores and heals man.

the vision of the tree of life could be just that. i dont know. the tree of life has some connotations of isreal in revalation. 12 fruits . and the leafs of it are for healing of the nations.

hmm that points to the church.

 

[childeye]

and what does jesus do after he does judge begin to reign on the earth righteously and also restores and heals man.

the vision of the tree of life could be just that. i dont know. the tree of life has some connotations of isreal in revalation. 12 fruits . and the leafs of it are for healing of the nations.

hmm that points to the church.

Great stuff Jasoncran. It goes right with what I believe. I believe Adam was unconfident in himself when faced with Satan's subterfuge in questioning God's integrity and that is why he turned and listened to the woman. Jesus however could not be bullied, for as the begotten of the Father he knew God intimately and would never stand for God to be slandered. I believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is on one side of the river of life and the tree of life is on the other side of the river. They grow as one tree joined together at the center over the river yet with two trunks.

 

[glorydaz]

Where does the Bible state this explicitly?

You do realize that sheep don't need to die to provide clothes, right?

It appears that this is a secondary focus of the text, since there is no mention of sacrifice there. It could be debated whether that would even be a sacrifice, since Adam or Eve didn't offer the animal, God provided it (presuming God killed the animal).

Are you still having vampire withdraws from Halloween? NOWHERE does the Bible state that Cain's offering was not accepted because it was not blood!!!

This is just idiotic...

Jesus blood has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law. The former phrase states that BLOOD ITSELF does not forgive sins. GOD HIMSELF does!!! Shedding blood does not forgive sins!!!! Is this sinking in???

The blood, in of itself, has no value to God. It is the relationship that offers that blood that makes it valuable to God.

People who have a relationship with God, rather than a legal "get out of hell free" card know this.

It is not a matter of squeemish, it is a matter of your false gospel that can't figure out a fundamental aspect about God and how He acts towards humans...

Scriptures, please. That Jesus WOULD SACRIFICE Himself has little to do with a "perfect lamb requirement" FROM GOD HIMSELF before He could act!!!!

Because you are wrong and such little "quibbles" force one into a complete misunderstanding of what God did, what God wants to do, and Who God is...

You know, little quibbles...

Can you please show me where God demands a sacrifice for sin before He forgives sins?

Of course. Who would be so daft to think that God HAD to have a sacrifice when Jesus spoke parable after parable that states that God DID NOT need satisfaction, perfection, sacrifices, etc., before He was ready to forgive...

Didn't Jesus make that clear over and over again?

Have you even READ the Gospels???

Regards

Repentance doesn't take away sin. If that were the case, man would only need to say I'm sorry and Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. You just can't jump that hurdle no matter how hard you try.

The word is SKIN, Joe. You don't skin a sheep to get wool. ;)

You really don't have to be a rocket-scientist to figure this out, but you can hold onto your denial if you wish. It's no SKIN off my back.
[quote="Gen. 4:3-5]And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. [/quote]

Yep, I've read the Gospels many a time, and Jesus did speak in parables, but they sure don't state what you claim.

God is definately love, but God is also Holy and Righteous. He's also a God of Wrath. If your name is not written in the LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE, don't complain to me that you didn't know that LIFE was in the BLOOD.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Repentance doesn't take away sin. If that were the case, man would only need to say I'm sorry and Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. You just can't jump that hurdle no matter how hard you try.

The word is SKIN, Joe. You don't skin a sheep to get wool. ;)

You really don't have to be a rocket-scientist to figure this out, but you can hold onto your denial if you wish. It's no SKIN off my back.


Yep, I've read the Gospels many a time, and Jesus did speak in parables, but they sure don't state what you claim.

God is definately love, but God is also Holy and Righteous. He's also a God of Wrath. If your name is not written in the LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE, don't complain to me that you didn't know that LIFE was in the BLOOD.

Unfortunately, Fran does not trust in the "simplicity" of the message and relies on making doctrines "exceptionally" difficult and in his attempt to convey truth as he sees it. He seems to be consumed within, by religious "fervor."

 

[jasoncran]

its a shame that we dont do what the jews then do and now do.

by age 9 a jew can recite by memory the torah and has to read that to the congretation at his mitzvah or her mitzvah.

its funny they view death as mitzvah going from life to the next. we teach it some wierd way. they say though the body is in the ground the the messiah will come and raise up all jews and bring us back to isreal.

yet we teach some mystical secret rapture when looking at that and then part where paul and peter and jesus talks about the ressurection. the jews seem to understand it better then we do. go figure

 

[francisdesales]

Repentance doesn't take away sin.

Let's start off with Scriptures...

Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.

2Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
3Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
5Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.
6The LORD executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.
7He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
8The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
9He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
10He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. 11For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. Psalm 103:1-11

Note carefully, from God's Word (rather than the keyboard of glorydaz...) what is being stated. God forgives ALL INEQUITIES.

Now, in case you have forgotten, this was written BEFORE Jesus Christ died on the cross. God has ALREADY forgotten sins, forgiven them, because the Jews begged God to do so.

There is no indication that God was holding sin in abeyance until 1000 years later.

True repentance is all that God has asked for from man. Jesus has clearly stated that, although you like to ignore that. Repentance is something inspired by God, of course, we cannot self-generate true repentance. But that is all God requires before He grants forgiveness. According to Scriptures.

REPENT AND BELIEVE...! Nothing about "AND OFFER GOD A PERFECT LAW FOLLOWER'S BLOOD..."

Now, God, in the Mosaic Law, utilized the requirement of blood upon the Jews so as to train them to have the right frame of mind. As you said, it was a teacher. But as you also note from Hebrews, blood itself does not forgive sins. It is God Who forgives sins, based upon the Priestly Prayer of Jesus Christ's work, beginning with day one of the Incarnation.

Did Jesus have to die on the cross? No, but it was inevitable and part of God's plan.

If that were the case, man would only need to say I'm sorry and Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. You just can't jump that hurdle no matter how hard you try.

There is no hurdle to jump, if you understand the difference between God and a rule. You don't.

Jesus didn't HAVE to die, because God had the option to forgive mankind and redeem Him in any way He choose. HE was the One offended. God doesn't have to answer to man's idea of perfect justice.

The word is SKIN, Joe. You don't skin a sheep to get wool. ;)

I stand corrected, I am thinking of shearing sheep. But that is not the point of Genesis 3 - an offering of a sacrifice. As I stated, Adam and Eve were not offering the animal to God, it was not a sacrifice.

Yep, I've read the Gospels many a time, and Jesus did speak in parables, but they sure don't state what you claim.

You apparently have not read my several posts on Jesus' statements regarding forgiveness. Would you like me to repost them for you? YOU can see, then, that Jesus never mentions satisfaction, perfection from a law follower, or any other such requirement. Just repentance...

God is definately love, but God is also Holy and Righteous.

It doesn't follow that God must meet YOUR demands for what is Just. That's the problem. You are thinking in human ways. It is MAN who requires a "perfect satisfaction", and "eye for an eye". Jesus never states that as "God's ways". He says something beyond that, over and over, things that befuddle people stuck in the ways of human thinking, like yourself.

If asked to go one mile, go two.
Turn the other cheek.
Forgive seventy times seven.
Pay the worker who shows up the last hour the same wages as the all-day worker.

I could go on and on. You claim to have read this. Maybe you should also meditate and pray on it. It will uplift your life out of the "law" that you are stuck in.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Unfortunately, Fran does not trust in the "simplicity" of the message and relies on making doctrines "exceptionally" difficult and in his attempt to convey truth as he sees it. He seems to be consumed within, by religious "fervor."

I would state that your idea of why Jesus had to die is FAR from "simplicity".

It leads one to have false ideas of Who God is. According to you, there is a massive disconnect. God wants the blood of His only Son. The God of the universe, the God of Love demands BLOOD - from God Himself!!! For what reason, it is left unsaid. What use does God have with blood? He has SAID THIS HIMSELF! Psalm 49. This is simply not "simple".

That's only part of the "simplicity" of your message. We are just supposed to accept that senseless notion...

THEN, more "simplicity". (or lunacy)

God is love. BUT THEN, God kills His Son (in the name of Love) because He HAS to, forced upon Him by (Cue evil "simplicity" music) the "MOSAIC LAW"...

Again, the "simplicity" that you state turns more into just simple plain "lack of thinking"... Who in their "right" mind would think that God is bound to the Mosaic Law, which requires blood FROM MAN. ... :eeeekkk

But somehow, this law binds GOD IN HEAVEN as well.

Yea, the "simple" gospel is looking pretty simpleton, to me...

Shall I go on? Or are you getting the message? Your "simple" gospel is simply wrong. Don't you see that it is not supported by Scriptures? Can you provide even ONE VERSE that states what you claim???

Jesus said have a childlike faith, not a childlike mind.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I would state that your idea of why Jesus had to die is FAR from "simplicity".

It leads one to have false ideas of Who God is. According to you, there is a massive disconnect. God wants the blood of His only Son. The God of the universe, the God of Love demands BLOOD - from God Himself!!! For what reason, it is left unsaid. What use does God have with blood? He has SAID THIS HIMSELF! Psalm 49. This is simply not "simple".

That's only part of the "simplicity" of your message. We are just supposed to accept that senseless notion...

THEN, more "simplicity". (or lunacy)

God is love. BUT THEN, God kills His Son (in the name of Love) because He HAS to, forced upon Him by (Cue evil "simplicity" music) the "MOSAIC LAW"...

Again, the "simplicity" that you state turns more into just simple plain "lack of thinking"... Who in their "right" mind would think that God is bound to the Mosaic Law, which requires blood FROM MAN. ... :eeeekkk

But somehow, this law binds GOD IN HEAVEN as well.

Yea, the "simple" gospel is looking pretty simpleton, to me...

Shall I go on? Or are you getting the message? Your "simple" gospel is simply wrong. Don't you see that it is not supported by Scriptures? Can you provide even ONE VERSE that states what you claim???

Jesus said have a childlike faith, not a childlike mind.

You totally missed the idea Sir...The "Simplicity" lies in the message... Can anyone deny that the "shedding" of blood was "necessary" for the salvation of those who would place their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior??? If Christ had not shed His blood you and I and everybody else would be headed for "eternal damnation" Some whom don't place their faith are still going there...

 

[glorydaz]

Unfortunately, Fran does not trust in the "simplicity" of the message and relies on making doctrines "exceptionally" difficult and in his attempt to convey truth as he sees it. He seems to be consumed within, by religious "fervor."

I can't disagree with you there. In fact.....

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I can't disagree with you there. In fact.....

AMEN!!!

 

[reba]

its a shame that we dont do what the jews then do and now do.

by age 9 a jew can recite by memory the torah and has to read that to the congretation at his mitzvah or her mitzvah.

its funny they view death as mitzvah going from life to the next. we teach it some wierd way. they say though the body is in the ground the the messiah will come and raise up all jews and bring us back to isreal.

yet we teach some mystical secret rapture when looking at that and then part where paul and peter and jesus talks about the ressurection. the jews seem to understand it better then we do. go figure

Ecc 7:1 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

 

[glorydaz]

Let's start off with Scriptures...

Note carefully, from God's Word (rather than the keyboard of glorydaz...) what is being stated. God forgives ALL INEQUITIES.

Now, in case you have forgotten, this was written BEFORE Jesus Christ died on the cross. God has ALREADY forgotten sins, forgiven them, because the Jews begged God to do so.

There is no indication that God was holding sin in abeyance until 1000 years later.

True repentance is all that God has asked for from man. Jesus has clearly stated that, although you like to ignore that. Repentance is something inspired by God, of course, we cannot self-generate true repentance. But that is all God requires before He grants forgiveness. According to Scriptures.

REPENT AND BELIEVE...! Nothing about "AND OFFER GOD A PERFECT LAW FOLLOWER'S BLOOD..."

Now, God, in the Mosaic Law, utilized the requirement of blood upon the Jews so as to train them to have the right frame of mind. As you said, it was a teacher. But as you also note from Hebrews, blood itself does not forgive sins. It is God Who forgives sins, based upon the Priestly Prayer of Jesus Christ's work, beginning with day one of the Incarnation.

Did Jesus have to die on the cross? No, but it was inevitable and part of God's plan.

There is no hurdle to jump, if you understand the difference between God and a rule. You don't.

Jesus didn't HAVE to die, because God had the option to forgive mankind and redeem Him in any way He choose. HE was the One offended. God doesn't have to answer to man's idea of perfect justice.

I stand corrected, I am thinking of shearing sheep. But that is not the point of Genesis 3 - an offering of a sacrifice. As I stated, Adam and Eve were not offering the animal to God, it was not a sacrifice.

You apparently have not read my several posts on Jesus' statements regarding forgiveness. Would you like me to repost them for you? YOU can see, then, that Jesus never mentions satisfaction, perfection from a law follower, or any other such requirement. Just repentance...

It doesn't follow that God must meet YOUR demands for what is Just. That's the problem. You are thinking in human ways. It is MAN who requires a "perfect satisfaction", and "eye for an eye". Jesus never states that as "God's ways". He says something beyond that, over and over, things that befuddle people stuck in the ways of human thinking, like yourself.

I could go on and on. You claim to have read this. Maybe you should also meditate and pray on it. It will uplift your life out of the "law" that you are stuck in.

Regards

God doesn't forgive all our iniquities without the cross. That's how it works.

I guess I am stuck on God's Law, for they are His Commands, His decrees, His Will.

I do understand that God's mercy is punishment withheld. The cross is what took care of man's sins. All of them from the beginning of time. Christ died for the sins of the world...before the cross and after the cross. Their sins are not taken away by man's repentance but by Jesus's shed blood.

You claim to know God's way and yet you discount all of the OT except a few select verses that you hope will support what you're saying. You say we should just do away with the word "require", and yet God did require a sin offering that was perfect and without blemish. That is God's plan...not yours or mine.

God never changes and He has many requirements. Here's one you may not like. Our death penalty comes from one of God's requirements.

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

He requires us to love and serve Him...if we don't, we experience God's wrath. Something else you don't like to address.

And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

If we make a vow to the Lord, He requires us to keep it or we sin. What will take care of our sin? The cross, not our being sorry we didn't keep it.

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

Christ's atonement for our sins is not the only blood God has required. So, let's not get all carried away with God's love and forget that HE is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, AND JUST.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

 

[reba]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[Gazelle]

The texts of scripture that really seem contradictory to me are Romans 4 and James 2. James says faith without works is dead, while Paul says faith without works saves...I actually had a public debate affirming that salvation is dependant (sic) upon works (not the law, but works of obedience). Looking back, I feel that I bested my opponent, but only by being more articulate and witty. After the debate, I realized that I could honestly see why my opponent believed in salvation by faith alone, because in certain passages, that seems to be the doctrine taught.

The "great" theologian / professor R. C. Sproul discusses this apparent confusion (from my notes of his lecture)

It would be nice to be able to say that they used two different Greek words, but no, they both used the same one.

How it would be nice to say that Paul wrote after James to clarify what James had said. But then we can't because others think that James wrote later to clarify Paul's letters.

Then it would be nice to say that each man wrote using a different example, but they both used Abraham. In Romans, Paul refers to Abraham of Genesis 15 Abraham was counted righteous before his works, justified.

James refers to Abraham from Genesis 22 where obedience to action of offering Isaac is depicted.

So are we to say that here was just two men having a discussion? No.

Here's the real resolution... what question is Paul answering, and is it the same question James is answering?

James 2:14.. What does it profit ...if
(If someone says he has faith but no works, can that faith save him? No. If it's a "naked" faith and not a saving faith. ) fides viva = live faith. This shows faith BY obedience but does not add to or give justification. This is a manifestation (showing) of faith... to whom? Not to God for surely God does not need to see my works to know my faith was genuine.
The evidence here is to others. What other way do I have of knowing your faith is genuine but by your works?

Paul uses "justify" at it's highest form before God: that of God imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer.

James is talking about man being justified by works not in the sight of God, but to man...not for salvation... but that a man's works give testimony of his justification by faith.

This is a good clarification that discounts any "contradiction" of the two. They are indeed answering two different questions before them.

 

[glorydaz]

You totally missed the idea Sir...The "Simplicity" lies in the message... Can anyone deny that the "shedding" of blood was "necessary" for the salvation of those who would place their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior??? If Christ had not shed His blood you and I and everybody else would be headed for "eternal damnation" Some whom don't place their faith are still going there...

Well stated, brother. The importance of the shed blood of Christ is vital to those who believe in Him. I'm not sure how anyone could actually read this portion of scripture and fail to see why we cannot deny the blood of Christ.

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

[glorydaz]

The "great" theologian / professor R. C. Sproul discusses this apparent confusion (from my notes of his lecture)

It would be nice to be able to say that they used two different Greek words, but no, they both used the same one.

How it would be nice to say that Paul wrote after James to clarify what James had said. But then we can't because others think that James wrote later to clarify Paul's letters.

Then it would be nice to say that each man wrote using a different example, but they both used Abraham. In Romans, Paul refers to Abraham of Genesis 15 Abraham was counted righteous before his works, justified.

James refers to Abraham from Genesis 22 where obedience to action of offering Isaac is depicted.

So are we to say that here was just two men having a discussion? No.

Here's the real resolution... what question is Paul answering, and is it the same question James is answering?

James 2:14.. What does it profit ...if
(If someone says he has faith but no works, can that faith save him? No. If it's a "naked" faith and not a saving faith. ) fides viva = live faith. This shows faith BY obedience but does not add to or give justification. This is a manifestation (showing) of faith... to whom? Not to God for surely God does not need to see my works to know my faith was genuine.
The evidence here is to others. What other way do I have of knowing your faith is genuine but by your works?

Paul uses "justify" at it's highest form before God: that of God imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer.

James is talking about man being justified by works not in the sight of God, but to man...not for salvation... but that a man's works give testimony of his justification by faith.

This is a good clarification that discounts any "contradiction" of the two. They are indeed answering two different questions before them.

Exactly, Romans shows how man is justified before God, and James shows how man is justified in the eyes of other men.

 

[Drew]

God never changes and He has many requirements. Here's one you may not like. Our death penalty comes from one of God's requirements.

It is not this simple.

I doubt that anyone is really denying that God changes. But how God works through history does indeed change. This is made clear by the clear teaching, put forth by both Jesus and Paul, that the written code of the Law of Moses comes to an end at the cross.

It is a category error to take the true assertion "God does not change" and use it to conclude that "the system" or "the rules" are the same throughout history.

The Bible clearly demonstrates otherwise: God works through history and what was true before the cross is not necessarily true after the cross.

I happen to believe that, now that the kingdom of God has been initiated (as of the cross), the death penalty no longer has a place for the people of God.

 

[glorydaz]

It is not this simple.

I doubt that anyone is really denying that God changes. But how God works through history does indeed change. This is made clear by the clear teaching, put forth by both Jesus and Paul, that the written code of the Law of Moses comes to an end at the cross.

It is a category error to take the true assertion "God does not change" and use it to conclude that "the system" or "the rules" are the same throughout history.

The Bible clearly demonstrates otherwise: God works through history and what was true before the cross is not necessarily true after the cross.

I happen to believe that, now that the kingdom of God has been initiated (as of the cross), the death penalty no longer has a place for the people of God.

I don't believe I ever stated the rules don't change. The purposes of the covenants were different. The first was a shadow of the New...they were to lead us to Christ. No matter how you look at it...the cross is in the center.

The ten commandments weren't done away with, they were clarified. Jesus is the "Sabbath" rest. Being angry is murder. Lust is adultery. All the ordinances were specifically for the Jews, but the Law of Moses was a shadow of the real thing. No longer do we have a physical Mercy Seat, now Jesus is the Mercy Seat. No longer do we have animal sacrifices, but Jesus was the sacrifice. The point is that God made it clear from the beginning that Christ had to die in order to reconcile man with God. That's pretty basic Christianity 101. It's by the shed blood of the Spotless Lamb, and no other way.

The death penalty was brought up to show things God has required. God required an atonement for man's sin. Repentance cannot remove sin. Godly sorrow worketh repentance, but sins were taken away by the shedding of blood. The prophets go beyond the Mosaic Law and it's ordinances, which were for Israel, not anyone else. the prophets speak clearly of the need for a Messiah. The way of the cross shouldn't be denied by any believer. Our repentance is worth nothing if Jesus hadn't laid down his life at Calvary.

 

[jasoncran]

drew what does the death penalty have to do with this?

and it does say that it pleased the lord to put him to death. he planned it.

 

[jasoncran]

2 joe pm i wish to talk in private on the things i am seeing on the sacrificial system and what the blood requirement is about.

to all. what does the words of paul that connonate us to be a living sacrifice allude to?

and where was the sacrifices done? and what did jesus say we are to do? he that followeth me must himself be crucified? what does that mean now when you take the pauline reference to the torah way of animal sacrifices?