Man Conceived Religions

[Free]

In case anyone is confused about the term "antinomianism":

"Antinomianism comes from the Greek meaning lawless. In Christian theology it is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves "antinomian," hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group.


Antinomianism may be viewed as the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. In this sense, both antinomianism and legalism are considered errant extremes."

https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism


"Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey. Antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion.
...
A second reason that antinomianism is unbiblical is that there is a moral law God expects us to obey. First John 5:3 tells us, “This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome.” What is this law God expects us to obey? It is the law of Christ – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). No, we are not under the Old Testament Law. Yes, we are under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is not an extensive list of legal codes. It is a law of love. If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, we will do nothing to displease Him. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, we will do nothing to harm them. Obeying the law of Christ is not a requirement to earn or maintain salvation. The law of Christ is what God expects of a Christian."

https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html

 

[jaybo]

In case anyone is confused about the term "antinomianism":

"Antinomianism comes from the Greek meaning lawless. In Christian theology it is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves "antinomian," hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group.


Antinomianism may be viewed as the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. In this sense, both antinomianism and legalism are considered errant extremes."

https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism


"Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey. Antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion.
...
A second reason that antinomianism is unbiblical is that there is a moral law God expects us to obey. First John 5:3 tells us, “This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome.” What is this law God expects us to obey? It is the law of Christ – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). No, we are not under the Old Testament Law. Yes, we are under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is not an extensive list of legal codes. It is a law of love. If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, we will do nothing to displease Him. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, we will do nothing to harm them. Obeying the law of Christ is not a requirement to earn or maintain salvation. The law of Christ is what God expects of a Christian."

https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html

It is always interesting to me that when people cite Scripture to support legalism, they invariably choose quotes from the Gospels, when Jesus, before the Holy Spirit was sent, was speaking to Jews, who were under the OT law. Once the Holy Spirit has been given, there is no need to be told not to murder, not to steal, not to worship idols, not to commit adultery, etc. There is inner guidance not to do these things, as they are incompatible with loving your neighbor.

So we agree.

 

[Hopeful]

It is always interesting to me that when people cite Scripture to support legalism, they invariably choose quotes from the Gospels, when Jesus, before the Holy Spirit was sent, was speaking to Jews, who were under the OT law. Once the Holy Spirit has been given, there is no need to be told not to murder, not to steal, not to worship idols, not to commit adultery, etc. There is inner guidance not to do these things, as they are incompatible with loving your neighbor.

So we agree.

Is telling the truth instead of lying "legalism"?
Is buying things instead of stealing them "legalism"?
Is not carrying anything heavy on Sunday "legalism"?

 

[Robert Pate]

In case anyone is confused about the term "antinomianism":

"Antinomianism comes from the Greek meaning lawless. In Christian theology it is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves "antinomian," hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group.


Antinomianism may be viewed as the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. In this sense, both antinomianism and legalism are considered errant extremes."

https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism


"Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey. Antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion.
...
A second reason that antinomianism is unbiblical is that there is a moral law God expects us to obey. First John 5:3 tells us, “This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome.” What is this law God expects us to obey? It is the law of Christ – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). No, we are not under the Old Testament Law. Yes, we are under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is not an extensive list of legal codes. It is a law of love. If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, we will do nothing to displease Him. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, we will do nothing to harm them. Obeying the law of Christ is not a requirement to earn or maintain salvation. The law of Christ is what God expects of a Christian."

https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html

In case anyone is confused about the term "antinomianism":

"Antinomianism comes from the Greek meaning lawless. In Christian theology it is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves "antinomian," hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group.


Antinomianism may be viewed as the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. In this sense, both antinomianism and legalism are considered errant extremes."

https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism


"Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey. Antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion.
...
A second reason that antinomianism is unbiblical is that there is a moral law God expects us to obey. First John 5:3 tells us, “This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome.” What is this law God expects us to obey? It is the law of Christ – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). No, we are not under the Old Testament Law. Yes, we are under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is not an extensive list of legal codes. It is a law of love. If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, we will do nothing to displease Him. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, we will do nothing to harm them. Obeying the law of Christ is not a requirement to earn or maintain salvation. The law of Christ is what God expects of a Christian."

https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html

There are no laws or rules for Christians. "The law of Christ" means all that Jesus is. Jesus is the epitome of God's law. He is the righteousness of God. The word "Law" means a rule of conduct. It means that it is something that we must do or obey. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, not by laws and not by "The law of Christ" as you have said. Christians do good works out of a heart full of love and gratitude for what Jesus has done for them. The only thing that God expects of us is to have faith in his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Free]

It is always interesting to me that when people cite Scripture to support legalism, they invariably choose quotes from the Gospels, when Jesus, before the Holy Spirit was sent, was speaking to Jews, who were under the OT law. Once the Holy Spirit has been given, there is no need to be told not to murder, not to steal, not to worship idols, not to commit adultery, etc. There is inner guidance not to do these things, as they are incompatible with loving your neighbor.

So we agree.

We agree that the law doesn't justify us, but we certainly disagree that there are written rules and commands for believers to follow, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Free]

There are no laws or rules for Christians. "The law of Christ" means all that Jesus is. Jesus is the epitome of God's law. He is the righteousness of God. The word "Law" means a rule of conduct. It means that it is something that we must do or obey. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, not by laws and not by "The law of Christ" as you have said. Christians do good works out of a heart full of love and gratitude for what Jesus has done for them.

There are numerous rules and commands for believers to follow. I have given many in this thread, and could give many more, but you have completely ignored those posts altogether. You seem to forget that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, including all the rules and commands in the NT for believers to follow.

The only thing that God expects of us is to have faith in his Son Jesus Christ.

Not even close.

 

[jaybo]

We agree that the law doesn't justify us, but we certainly disagree that there are written rules and commands for believers to follow, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Basically we agree on this, although there is a lot more to living as a Christian than following written rules and commands.

Let's look at a famous parable that Jesus told [with my emphases added] ...

Luke 10:29-37, "But wanting to vindicate himself, he [an expert in the law] asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and took off, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest [who knew the law!] was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, [who knew the law!] when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan [who probably did not know the Jewish law] while traveling came upon him, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, treating them with oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him, and when I come back I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy." [the "lawless" Samaritan] Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Why did Jesus cite the (lawless) non-Jew as the example of innate righteousness? Why did He so often oppose the Pharisees, who had the written law, but lacked the character that God desired then and now?

Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people. There are many people who have the written laws but don't follow them. Why? Because the laws themselves cannot affect a person's character, which is why all people need a Savior.

 

[Robert Pate]

There are numerous rules and commands for believers to follow. I have given many in this thread, and could give many more, but you have completely ignored those posts altogether. You seem to forget that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, including all the rules and commands in the NT for believers to follow.


Not even close.

The reason that God gave the law was to restrain the Jews that had gone berserk out in the wilderness. The reason that Jesus taught the commandments was to reveal the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Jesus was the only one qualified to teach the law, all others that teach the law are hypocrites. This is why Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites seven times in the 23rd chapter of Matthew.

 

[Free]

The reason that God gave the law was to restrain the Jews that had gone berserk out in the wilderness. The reason that Jesus taught the commandments was to reveal the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Jesus was the only one qualified to teach the law, all others that teach the law are hypocrites. This is why Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites seven times in the 23rd chapter of Matthew.

As I have had to repeat myself ad nauseam, I'm not talking about the Law of Moses. The NT is replete with rules and commands for believers, including several that Jesus fully expects his followers to obey.

 

[Free]

Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people.

That is one rule or command for believers out of several that Jesus gave his followers, and one out of many more throughout the NT that follow from those.

There are many people who have the written laws but don't follow them. Why? Because the laws themselves cannot affect a person's character, which is why all people need a Savior.

But you have just stated that there is at least one law or rule for believers to follow--"Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people." If there is one, there is likely more. And there certainly is.

 

[jaybo]

That is one rule or command for believers out of several that Jesus gave his followers, and one out of many more throughout the NT that follow from those.


But you have just stated that there is at least one law or rule for believers to follow--"Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people." If there is one, there is likely more. And there certainly is.

I never stated any such thing. This is what I wrote: There are many people who have the written laws but don't follow them. Why? Because the laws themselves cannot affect a person's character, which is why all people need a Savior.

Where do you see any mention of a law? Saying that all people need a Savior is a simple statement of fact.

 

[Free]

I never stated any such thing.

You gave the parable of the good Samaritan and then stated: "Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people."

That is to admit that there is at least one law/command/rule for believers.

This is what I wrote: There are many people who have the written laws but don't follow them. Why? Because the laws themselves cannot affect a person's character, which is why all people need a Savior.

That was part of what you wrote.

Where do you see any mention of a law?

In the part I quoted, twice.

Saying that all people need a Savior is a simple statement of fact.

Of course. I never addressed that statement in your post.

 

[jaybo]

You gave the parable of the good Samaritan and then stated: "Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people."

That is to admit that there is at least one law/command/rule for believers.


That was part of what you wrote.


In the part I quoted, twice.


Of course. I never addressed that statement in your post.

"Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people" is not a law/command/rule for believers. An expectation is just that; it is not a law/command/rule. If I say that I expect it will rain today, does that mean that it will rain today? If I expect that we will have chicken for dinner, is that a command/rule? (Not according to my wife! LOL) You must shed the concept of authoritarianism vis-a-vis the freedom that we have in Christ.

Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

1 Corinthians 10:29b, "For why should my freedom be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience?"

2 Corinthians 3:17, "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

Galatians 2:4-5, "But because of false brothers and sisters secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you."

1 Peter 2:16, "As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."

 

[Free]

"Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people" is not a law/command/rule for believers. An expectation is just that; it is not a law/command/rule. If I say that I expect it will rain today, does that mean that it will rain today? If I expect that we will have chicken for dinner, is that a command/rule? (Not according to my wife! LOL) You must shed the concept of authoritarianism vis-a-vis the freedom that we have in Christ.

You are equivocating on the meaning of "expected." According to Mirriam-Webster:

1 a : to consider probable or certain
b : to consider reasonable, due, or necessary
c : to consider bound in duty or obligated

To "say that I expect it will rain today," is meaning 1a, so, no, it does not "mean that it will rain today." If you "expect that we will have chicken for dinner," is also meaning 1a, so, no, that clearly is not "a command/rule."

However, if one is employed, and the boss says that they expect employees to be at work by 8 am, that clearly is meaning 1c or the last in 1b. If you eat out and on the bill you are charged to much, you fully expect the bill to be adjusted. That is meaning 1b or 1c.

Similarly, to say that "Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people," is clearly not meaning 1a, but is rather 1c, or the last in 1b. Remember, Jesus said, "Go and do likewise." That is definitely meaning "necessary" or our "duty" or "obligation." That is what Jesus fully expects us to follow; it isn't just a suggestion.

Other rules and commands from Jesus include:

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (ESV)

Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. (ESV)

Galatians 5:1, "For freedomChrist has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

In context, Paul is speaking about submitting to the yolk of circumcision, of putting oneself back under the law, but that has no bearing on this discussion.

1 Corinthians 10:29b, "For why should my freedom be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience?"

This has no bearing on the discussion.

2 Corinthians 3:17, "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

In context, Paul is speaking of freedom from bondage.

Galatians 2:4-5, "But because of false brothers and sisters secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you."

In context, Paul is clearly referring to the freedom from the Mosaic Law, which is not what we're discussing.

1 Peter 2:16, "As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."

A command to "not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."

Also:

1Pe 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,
1Pe 2:14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
1Pe 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
1Pe 2:16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. (ESV)

Several more rules and commands for believers just in those few verses.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Free ... hmmm, I see you're giving Job a run for his money.:yes

 

[Robert Pate]

Free ... hmmm, I see you're giving Job a run for his money.:yes

Not really, Jaybo has the truth of the Gospel. Free has the law and religion, which has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15. "Christ is the end of the law (religion) for righteousness for those that believe" Romans 10:4.

 

[jaybo]

You are equivocating on the meaning of "expected." According to Mirriam-Webster:

1 a : to consider probable or certain
b : to consider reasonable, due, or necessary
c : to consider bound in duty or obligated

To "say that I expect it will rain today," is meaning 1a, so, no, it does not "mean that it will rain today." If you "expect that we will have chicken for dinner," is also meaning 1a, so, no, that clearly is not "a command/rule."

However, if one is employed, and the boss says that they expect employees to be at work by 8 am, that clearly is meaning 1c or the last in 1b. If you eat out and on the bill you are charged to much, you fully expect the bill to be adjusted. That is meaning 1b or 1c.

Similarly, to say that "Christians are expected to live our lives as merciful people," is clearly not meaning 1a, but is rather 1c, or the last in 1b. Remember, Jesus said, "Go and do likewise." That is definitely meaning "necessary" or our "duty" or "obligation." That is what Jesus fully expects us to follow; it isn't just a suggestion.

Other rules and commands from Jesus include:

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (ESV)

Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. (ESV)


In context, Paul is speaking about submitting to the yolk of circumcision, of putting oneself back under the law, but that has no bearing on this discussion.


This has no bearing on the discussion.


In context, Paul is speaking of freedom from bondage.


In context, Paul is clearly referring to the freedom from the Mosaic Law, which is not what we're discussing.


A command to "not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."

Also:

1Pe 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,
1Pe 2:14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
1Pe 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
1Pe 2:16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. (ESV)

Several more rules and commands for believers just in those few verses.

You have your interpretation, I have mine. I'm leaving it at that.

 

[Free]

Not really, Jaybo has the truth of the Gospel. Free has the law and religion, which has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15. "Christ is the end of the law (religion) for righteousness for those that believe" Romans 10:4.

Again with the fallacious false dichotomy. You, too, have completely ignored all the verses I have given in support, as well as left the majority of my arguments unaddressed, and relied much on erroneous reasoning. Why is that? I have the truth of the gospel, it's just that I believe the entirety of what the NT states, including the words of Jesus himself.

 

[Highway54]

God is not evil. Where did you get that idea? God is holy, just and righteous in all that he does. God loves us and sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to save us, John 3:16. Salvation has been provided for everyone, Hebrews 2:9. But it must be received, or it is not yours. John 1:12.

I agree Bob, were you following the conversation sir?

 

[Highway54]

I have a good idea of what hell is.


What have I said that God is going to do? As my post shows, it is both justice and love. For God to annihilate people would undermine the idea that we have intrinsic value as beings created in his image. That would be unloving and, depending on how you answer my questions, unjust for a lot of people.


Sheol: 67
Hades: 10


Depends on the version. In the ESV, Sheol is most often left as "Sheol" (65 times) but translated as "grave" once as "pit" once. Hades stays as is 9 times and translated as "hell" once (Matt 16:18). In the NASB, both Sheol and Hades stay as it throughout.


Yes.


Is this not the same as question 2?


The abode of departed souls, as I have stated already.

Hell is just an English word used for final destination of the unrighteous, which isn't Hades. I would appreciate it if you answered the two questions I asked:

One problem with annihilationism, which it seems you believe, is that it is unjust. Those very same people that you say committed minor offenses suffer the same punishment as people like Hitler and Stalin. In order for it to be just, there must be punishment that fits the offense, don't you agree? When does that happen?

What have I said that God is going to do? As my post shows, it is both justice and love. For God to annihilate people would undermine the idea that we have intrinsic value as beings created in his image. That would be unloving and, depending on how you answer my questions, unjust for a lot of people.

I want to thank you very much for the effort and sincerity you put in answering my questions Free, truly. Most people do not care enough to do so. May I ask what you believe God is going to do to those who are judged as goats?

Sheol: 67
Hades: 10

We are very close on our stats sir

Depends on the version. In the ESV, Sheol is most often left as "Sheol" (65 times) but translated as "grave" once as "pit" once. Hades stays as is 9 times and translated as "hell" once (Matt 16:18). In the NASB, both Sheol and Hades stay as it throughout.

Thanks for that, yes sir you pretty much covered it, English versions when translating Sheol use hell, grave,, and pit, and render hades as hell in it's 10 occurrences.

Yes.

Fantastic! Ps 16:10; Acts 2:31

Is this not the same as question 2?

No sir, they are defined as the abode of the dead

The abode of departed souls, as I have stated already.

Hell is just an English word used for final destination of the unrighteous, which isn't Hades. I would appreciate it if you answered the two questions I asked:

One problem with annihilationism, which it seems you believe, is that it is unjust. Those very same people that you say committed minor offenses suffer the same punishment as people like Hitler and Stalin. In order for it to be just, there must be punishment that fits the offense, don't you agree? When does that happen?

Being the abode of the dead, all persons go there. It has nothing to do with righteousness or unrighteousness, as you are aware Jesus also went there when he died, and was resurrected out of it. All persons in it will be resurrected and hell will be emptied, and no longer necessary will be cast into the lake of fire, ceasing to exist.