Some of the serious NT warnings to the churches

[Jethro Bodine]

Now in as much as one uses the law to help affirm the Spirit, faith and love, I will agree with that.

Okay, good.

But a believer should know beyond doubt that the law has passed for them as it relates to being judged or justified. Love is the issue and the goal.

Glad to see we're on the same page here.

I warn you not to teach others the nonsense you have tried to pass off to me.

But...but....you just agreed with me. You're confusing me.

I warn you to learn and study and come into this discussion with honesty and God will show you the depths of His mercy and grace.

Then what? I can lie, cheat, and steal but feel good that I'm a spiritual person in Christ and can't be condemned as a law breaker? Is that what God's mercy and grace is all about? I thought God's mercy and grace was about being forgiven where I've failed and then being able to do right in those places where I was doing wrong before.

For if at any point a man will not be honest in the Word? He will fail.

Remember that as you reread James 1 & 2 in complete honesty.

Now I have tried to teach you, you have been given the true gospel. Do not be deceived, those who teach law are in rebellion against God and against His Christ.

Man! We were doing so good at the beginning of this post. Now I'm back to being in rebellion against God and teaching a false gospel of law.

Do not be deceived, God sees the sin in mans heart! We may fool ourselves or others into thinking we are keeping the standard of the written code, but God is not mocked.

When I walk according to the Spirit I uphold the written law. Don't you?

Knock, knock. Are you 'listening'?

Who is lawless but those who teach and preach a standard they do not keep?

Listen to your own words. Do you think you keep God's standard that you feel you can teach us?

It would be better for a man to never have been born than to have received the free gift of righteousness and abundant grace, and then reject that and turn to wallow in his own sin, by the law.

This is what I don't get about your argument. You're OSAS, right?

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for telling us about your humility and piety.

I figure I would give an opinion about myself and my thoughts on piety, rather than you speaking for me. Not only about what I was debating about, but about my apparent wickedness and desire to go back to Judaism... Sometimes the teacher needs to be schooled...

Let me know if you ever can answer the question I asked you.

 

[francisdesales]

Man! We were doing so good at the beginning of this post. Now I'm back to being in rebellion against God and teaching a false gospel of law.

I am wondering if the Moderators are watching this sort of behavior. It turns discourse into childish accusations when two disagree. Really? In "rebellion against God"??? It would be funnier looking from the outside than having to deal with it... :gah

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Francis,

I would guess that the statement in question was taken by you and I in pretty much the same way. I am Just saying that it was not drawn out in certain terms for us to jump to our own conclusions.

I jumped to conclusions? Perhaps; I was reading what I saw typed and I tried to explain my thinking when I read your words about receiving the Spirit in full measure. At any rate, it appears we understand each other better.

I believe that every believer has 100% of the Holy spirit residing in us, and we are Heirs to all that He has to offer.

Agree, God is not divisible, we receive the entire divinity - but it doesn't follow that we receive everything He has to offer during those visits. Not all of us are evangelists, apostles, teachers, etc... Those are gifts given for the sake of the Body - and the Lord grants them as He sees fit. I imagine you would agree with that?

BUT as I have said we grieve and Quench that Spirit to a degree that most of us have no Idea what we have at our finger tips, if we would truly WALK in the Spirit.

True. The parable of the talents comes to mind. What i find interesting about that parable is that the man with one talent did nothing evil. He did nothing. (maybe I'll bring that up in the faith alone discussions next time!)

I honestly wish you the best. And when things do not seem so convoluted I hope to strike some iron with you Brother.

It has been my pleasure discussing religion and Scriptures with you. Thanks for your input and your respect for another brother.

God bless

 

[Mitspa]

I figure I would give an opinion about myself and my thoughts on piety, rather than you speaking for me. Not only about what I was debating about, but about my apparent wickedness and desire to go back to Judaism... Sometimes the teacher needs to be schooled...

Let me know if you ever can answer the question I asked you.

What was the question again?

 

[Eugene]

It would be better for a man to never have been born than to have received the free gift of righteousness and abundant grace, and then reject that and turn to wallow in his own sin, by the law.

Hi Mitspa, does receiving the free gift of righteousness and not knowing all its benefits negate the benefit of their eternal salvation?

What of the one that continues to observe parts of the law?

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Romans 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

 

[Mitspa]

Let's trace out James' words and see if it's the law of Moses or not.

"...humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you." (James 1:21 NIV)

"22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says" (James 1:22 NIV)

"23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like." (James 1:23-24 NIV)

"25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do." (James 1:25 NIV)

"27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress..." ref. Deuteronomy 14:28-29 (James 1:27 NIV)

"3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" ref. Leviticus 19:15 (James 2:3-4 NIV)

"8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right." ref. Leviticus 19:18 (James 2:8 NIV)

"9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers." ref. Leviticus 19:15 (James 2:9 NIV)

"12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom... ref. see vs 25 above " (James 2:12 NIV)

"15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?" ref. Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (James 2:15-16 NIV)

24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." (James2:24 NIV)

It's very easy to see the the 'word', and the 'scripture' that we are commanded to 'keep' (yes, he said 'keep') so we will be blessed is in fact the very law of Moses. It's equally easy to see that the examples of the 'doing' of faith that shows a person to have the righteousness of Christ is very much the doing, the 'keeping' (gasp!) of the law of Moses. But you can see right from the context that he is not saying we are justified (MADE righteous) by this 'keeping' of the law of Moses. We are SHOWN to have the righteousness that comes by faith by the 'keeping' of the law of Moses summarized in the law (yes, the law) 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

"Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds." (James 2:18 NIV)

(Well, I goofed and edited my post from earlier instead of making a new one. In the process I deleted what I had put in that post, lol.)

Well just because you add parts of the law to context of these scriptures, means nothing. James has said nothing but what Paul taught. That the "law of liberty" is the law of the spirit.
That love is the fulfillment of all, and that one has the Spirit should walk in the Spirit.
NONE of these scriptures in any way place a believer back under the written code of the law, but use the law as a witness to that love we have in Christ and life in the Spirit.

So again I ask if you are not trying to put a believer back under the written code of the law? What point are you making? For you cry foul when one assumes that you are?

Again are you claiming that a believer is under the written code of the law? Are you claiming to keep this standard you are trying to lay upon others?

What are you trying to teach?

For it is written that there would be false teachers, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR TRYING TO AFFIRM.

you do not seem to understand what you are trying to teach!

 

[Mitspa]

Hi Mitspa, does receiving the free gift of righteousness and not knowing all its benefits negate the benefit of their eternal salvation?

What of the one that continues to observe parts of the law?

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Romans 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Well they are not permitted to lay their yoke of legalism upon others as the book of Gal. clearly describes.
You accept them where they are is the point! You not let them overcome the gospel but you teach them the gospel.
You do not allow them to bring in the " doubtful disputations"
You cannot take this scripture and ignore the rest to promote legalism. All the scriptures are to speak on this issue.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well just because you add parts of the law to context of these scriptures, means nothing. James has said nothing but what Paul taught. That the "law of liberty" is the law of the spirit.

So, 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18) is not of the law of Moses? Is that what you're saying?

NONE of these scriptures in any way place a believer back under the written code of the law...

I know you won't answer my question, but, "Why do you think I've been saying they do?"

...but use the law as a witness to that love we have in Christ and life in the Spirit.

Why is it that you can't acknowledge that this is what I've been saying all along?

So again I ask if you are not trying to put a believer back under the written code of the law? What point are you making?

Believers are to uphold, keep, satisfy, fulfill the law of Moses through the new way of faith in Christ. That is the faith that will save you on the Day of Wrath. The faith that can be seen in what it does.. But you have repeatedly attacked me as a false teacher and a hypocrite because you can only hear that argument as 'we are justified by works of the law', not giving me the dignity and respect of actually 'listening' to what I'm saying in plain words of explanation.

Again are you claiming that a believer is under the written code of the law?

For the 10,000th time...NO!

The faith that justifies, all by itself, is the faith that can (ultimately) be seen in the upholding of the law regarding personal relationships. The faith that does not do that is the faith that can not justify you and, thus, save you on the Day of Wrath.

Are you claiming to keep this standard you are trying to lay upon others?

You mean the standard of service to God through the new way of faith in Christ via the fruit of the Spirit? More and more, Mits. More and more, praise God.

 

[francisdesales]

What was the question again?

Thanks for proving my observations about you...

 

[Eugene]

Well they are not permitted to lay their yoke of legalism upon others as the book of Gal. clearly describes.
You accept them where they are is the point! You not let them overcome the gospel but you teach them the gospel.
You do not allow them to bring in the " doubtful disputations"
You cannot take this scripture and ignore the rest to promote legalism. All the scriptures are to speak on this issue.

Seemingly the very thing you ascribe to in teaching your possibly better way is the doubtful disputation. The conscience of one before God is most instrumental to them in their walk, and because I would have freedom to do otherwise, would I cause them to stumble? We're told in Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." I'll go no further with this other than pasting the scripture below unless I can be of help.

Romans 14:21 "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

1 Corinthians 8:7-10 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

Romans 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[Mitspa]

Seemingly the very thing you ascribe to in teaching your possibly better way is the doubtful disputation. The conscience of one before God is most instrumental to them in their walk, and because I would have freedom to do otherwise, would I cause them to stumble? We're told in Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." I'll go no further with this other than pasting the scripture below unless I can be of help.

Romans 14:21 "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

1 Corinthians 8:7-10 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

Romans 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

Well the issue is the eating of food offered to idols in Rom 14 and in 1 Cor.
Much different issue than bringing the bondage of legalism into the Church which is adressed in Gal. Where Paul withstood and rebuked Peter and James before all, for this very issue.
I disagree in absolute terms that the "doubtful disputation" is on the part of those who seek liberty, but on those who are always concerned with what people eat and etc... This is confronted in almost every epistle of Paul and its roots are always found in jewish tradition. So we accept those who have these limits of conscience, but we do not hinder liberty or allow their "doubtful disputations" to corrupt the truth of the gospel. We teach them liberty they do not teach us bondage to meats. This issue is confronted throughout the New Testament. To turn it all around and to say that the legalistic veiws of some, should hinder the truth of gospel, is not the intention of those scriptures at all.
Cast out the bondwoman, is Paul respone to this sort of legalism. To not be moved for a moment is his answer.
STANDFAST in the liberty of Christ is Pauls response to this issue.

 

[WIP]

I would like to suggest that the discussion refrain from the personal opinions toward and about each other. It is not fruitful.

 

[John Zain]

I am wondering if the Moderators are watching this sort of behavior.
It turns discourse into childish accusations when two disagree. Really?
In "rebellion against God"???
It would be funnier looking from the outside than having to deal with it... :gah

... I was insisting that God has to move first in order for
man to be ABLE to believe in Jesus and His "foolish" gospel,
i.e. I was touting election (the prevenient grace version of it, actually).

 

[childeye]

I am wondering if the Moderators are watching this sort of behavior.
It turns discourse into childish accusations when two disagree. Really?
In "rebellion against God"???
It would be funnier looking from the outside than having to deal with it... :gah

... I was insisting that God has to move first in order for
man to be ABLE to believe in Jesus and His "foolish" gospel,

i.e. I was touting election (the prevenient grace version of it, actually).

Do you believe this prevenient grace is resisitable or irresistable. Or rather that some people are unable to resist and others must\will resist?

 

[John Zain]

Do you believe this prevenient grace is resisitable or irresistable.
Or rather that some people are unable to resist and others must\will resist?

I believe prevenient grace means resistable grace ... people choose to
accept or reject God's revelation of truth re: Jesus and His gospel message.

Irresistable grace is heavy-duty Calvinistic.

Then, born-again Christians get to choose to accept or reject
to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in His efforts to sanctify them.

 

[childeye]

Do you believe this prevenient grace is resisitable or irresistable.
Or rather that some people are unable to resist and others must\will resist?

I believe prevenient grace means resistable grace ... people choose to
accept or reject God's revelation of truth re: Jesus and His gospel message.

Irresistable grace is heavy-duty Calvinistic.

Then, born-again Christians get to choose to accept or reject
to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in His efforts to sanctify them.

I don't believe the honest man can resist prevenient grace, but only a dishonest man does. The truth is, that I cannot choose to not admit the Truth when I see it, without admitting the Truth when I see it.

 

[John Zain]

I believe prevenient grace means resistable grace ... people choose to
accept or reject God's revelation of truth re: Jesus and His gospel message.

Irresistable grace is heavy-duty Calvinistic.

Then, born-again Christians get to choose to accept or reject
to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in His efforts to sanctify them.

I don't believe the honest man can resist prevenient grace, but only a dishonest man does.
The truth is, that I cannot choose to not admit the Truth when I see it,
without admitting the Truth when I see it.

Yes, and here's an example of the problem ...

In the Creation ministry, we saw "believers" in the Theory of Evolution
who refused to really look at the creationists powerful evidence ...
because to believe it would force them to acknowledge that a Creator God exists,
and then, guess what, they would have to be accountable to such a God!
Bad news for one who refuses to humble himself, but who insists on doing his own thing.

 

[childeye]

I believe prevenient grace means resistable grace ... people choose to
accept or reject God's revelation of truth re: Jesus and His gospel message.

Irresistable grace is heavy-duty Calvinistic.

Then, born-again Christians get to choose to accept or reject
to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in His efforts to sanctify them.

I don't believe the honest man can resist prevenient grace, but only a dishonest man does.
The truth is, that I cannot choose to not admit the Truth when I see it,
without admitting the Truth when I see it.

Yes, and here's an example of the problem ...

In the Creation ministry, we saw "believers" in the Theory of Evolution
who refused to really look at the creationists powerful evidence ...
because to believe it would force them to acknowledge that a Creator God exists,
and then, guess what, they would have to be accountable to such a God!
Bad news for one who refuses to humble himself, but who insists on doing his own thing.

My approach to God has been a mostly moral endeavour of discovery (revelation through Christ). Subsequently, I would have asked these theorists why they or anyone else would not want to believe that Love is Eternal? By the way, your answer appears to agree with what I had described as some men find prevenient grace irressistable. I say this because it could be misunderstood if it is described as resistable. I don't count willful ignorance as an ability, but a disability if God is to be the absolute that defines our terms. Therefore, if I could say to a theorist that only a dishonest man can resist prevenient grace, out of his pride he might want to challenge my assertion. And when I prove why there must be a moral absolute (God\Love) for moral knowledge and ignorance to exist, he may be open to hear about the Christ.