Some of the serious NT warnings to the churches

[Jethro Bodine]

But again I say that the written code cannot judge the spirit. It is the spirit that justifies and makes known the purpose and truth of the the written code.

How do we judge those in the church then? It judges behavior--the outer man. What it can't judge is your legal right standing with God.

So one could not go in a big circle of how the written code was fulfilled in the spirit and therefore we must look to the written code.

You are not understanding. We do not look to the code for justification. But the commandments remain as that which gets fulfilled in the new way of the Spirit. Not for justification. But that is what you are continually 'hearing', but which is NOT being said or even implied.

No we look to Christ alone...

For justification. But the commandments are how we can tell who has been justified in Christ. Those who are in the process of sanctification are the ones who have been justified in Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

What was the penalty of breaking the Law that He removed?

Which COMMAND of the law was removed?

Thou shall not commit adultery?
Thou shall not steal?
Thou shall honor thy parents?

Which of these, or others, have been removed for Christians?

ASPECTS of the Law have changed due to Christ's work. For example, the penalty due lawbreakers has been paid by Christ. But what did precepts of the law have been removed?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I will answer that, YEP. If it was not permitted by God we would have never even heard of it right?

That's not what I mean by "permitted". As a grammarian, you should know better. We aren't talking about free will and what is absolutely possible. To remain a faithful Christian, we are permitted to sin and commit murder and adultery??? There are no consequences to commit murder because God doesn't mind anymore???

This is what we mean when we attack OSAS as 'cheap grace'.

Paul disagrees:

To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:7-10

Paul warns of such behaviour in Ephesians, Romans and Galatians. It is not "permitted/allowed", if one expects to enter the Kingdom. Sure, we could DO these things, but we will NOT enter the Kingdom. Salvation is indeed conditional.

BUT~~One who is truly born again should know that that is not the inclination of a truly born again person.

So if you do these things, that means you weren't born again. That is not eternal security, is it...

We lie to ourselves if we think that we are not CAPABLE of doing all those things.

Again, you are totally out of context with what Mitspa and i were discussing. We are not talking about our ability as beings with free will, but about whether God turns a blind eye to such sin because we are saved and "covered" by Christ. He claims that the law is abrogated. NO LONGER IN EFFECT. Thou shall not commit adultery is apparently abrogated?? God is no longer concerned with adultery?? We are PERMITTED to do such things??

Naturally, the answer is NO. We are not permitted to sin. God is STILL concerned with adultery among His people. The Law REMAINS in force, because it is the Law that tells God's People not to commit adultery. We as Christians shall not commit adultery. Not only not commit adultery, not even have thoughts of lust...

Regards

 

[Deborah13]

Which COMMAND of the law was removed?

Thou shall not commit adultery?
Thou shall not steal?
Thou shall honor thy parents?

Which of these, or others, have been removed for Christians?

ASPECTS of the Law have changed due to Christ's work. For example, the penalty due lawbreakers has been paid by Christ. But what did precepts of the law have been removed?

Regards

I'm confused, why are you asking me this question? Haven't you read...
The Law is black and white, there are no shades of grey, it does not bend, twist, or sway.
Hm..I see this little description needs another line, something that clearly points out that THE LAW DOES NOT CHANGE, NEVER HAS, NEVER WILL.

I am not yelling at you, but I want all readers to see what I am saying. Not because I am so right but because I want them to recognize what I believe and not assume to know what I believe.

 

[francisdesales]

This is another amazing thing to me? Those who go about to correct others and bring the judgment of the law upon others.
Seem so offended when they feel others are judging them? So they are free to correct and bring charges against others, to warn others, but seem to get really upset when the righteous judge them. Like I have said on this thread before, judge not lest ye be judged. Get the log out of your own eye before you go about to correct others.

Heb 7:12-19
for in that the priesthood has changed, there is made also a necessity a removing of the law.
16 Who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of a endless life.
18 FOR THERE IS INDEED A DISANNULLING OF THE COMMANMANTS going forward, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 FOR THE LAW MADE NOTHING PERFECT, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw near to God.

You stiil refuse to answer a simple "yes" or "no" question.

It seems obvious that you are not answering the question because you are more concerned with being seen as right, winning an argument, playing games RATHER THAN following the truth, no matter where it takes you.

As such, you are in no position to talk about judging or correcting anyone on this thread. NOR are you in a position to speak about hypocrisy and citing scriptures about logs.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm confused, why are you asking me this question? Haven't you read...
The Law is black and white, there are no shades of grey, it does not bend, twist, or sway.
Hm..I see this little description needs another line, something that clearly points out that THE LAW DOES NOT CHANGE, NEVER HAS, NEVER WILL.

I am not yelling at you, but I want all readers to see what I am saying. Not because I am so right but because I want them to recognize what I believe and not assume to know what I believe.

I apologize if i misunderstood you, I was responding to this:

What was the penalty of breaking the Law that He removed?

I was asking you about the "law that He removed". Which parts of the Law are no longer in force because He removed them?

Now, perhaps to rescue you, maybe you meant the Mosaic cultic laws. Dietary laws. Yes, those do not apply to Gentiles, never have and never will. Judaizers not withstanding, we don't have to follow jewish cultic practices to be saved. Such "works of the Law" are inconsequential to salvation. Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the body that makes one unclean, but what comes out from the heart.

But the Decalogue remains, the Law written by the "finger of God", an eternal law, as you rightly note. Jesus expands on the meaning of this law, and He sums up the "Law and the Prophets" with "Love God" and "Love Neighbor". Paul agrees that Love fulfills the Law in Romans 13. Fulfills as to completes the meaning of the command. If the Christ "fulfilled the Law" meaning "abrogate", it would seem strange that Paul says we are "abrogating" the Law ALSO when we love!

Regards

 

[Deborah13]

I apologize if i misunderstood you, I was responding to this:

What was the penalty of breaking the Law that He removed?

I was asking you about the "law that He removed". Which parts of the Law are no longer in force because He removed them?

Now, perhaps to rescue you, maybe you meant the Mosaic cultic laws. Dietary laws. Yes, those do not apply to Gentiles, never have and never will. Judaizers not withstanding, we don't have to follow jewish cultic practices to be saved. Such "works of the Law" are inconsequential to salvation. Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the body that makes one unclean, but what comes out from the heart.

But the Decalogue remains, the Law written by the "finger of God", an eternal law, as you rightly note. Jesus expands on the meaning of this law, and He sums up the "Law and the Prophets" with "Love God" and "Love Neighbor". Paul agrees that Love fulfills the Law in Romans 13. Fulfills as to completes the meaning of the command. If the Christ "fulfilled the Law" meaning "abrogate", it would seem strange that Paul says we are "abrogating" the Law ALSO when we love!

Regards

My question was in response to your post #996 but now as I read it I can see that it was poorly written, LOL Ryan understood me.

Yike, do you not hear me, I was not talking about removing any law but the penalty of the law. Read your post 996.

Jesus paid the penalty once and for all. According to Scripture it will not be done again. Jesus said He came to fufill the law, which He did. Paul can say what he does because Jesus continues to fulfill the law through us when we walk in the Spirit for it is by His Spirit that we are able to love God and love others. We are not our own, we were bought with a price, Jesus lives in us and through us. It is Him who continues to fulfill the Law through us. We of coarse could rebel but that's just plain stupid.

 

[Deborah13]

Now, perhaps to rescue you, maybe you meant the Mosaic cultic laws. Dietary laws. Yes, those do not apply to Gentiles, never have and never will. Judaizers not withstanding, we don't have to follow jewish cultic practices to be saved. Such "works of the Law" are inconsequential to salvation. Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the body that makes one unclean, but what comes out from the heart. Regards

You have said yourself that the blood of bulls and goats never made the OT saints righteous, this is correct. Those that came to understand the grace of God were protected from the eternal damnation that should have been their punishment under the law and in some cases from physical death on earth, such as David. GOD gave the commandments to do the sacrifices that you call cultic, I not sure what you mean by that, I find the wording to be offensive. If you do not understand that the shedding of blood is part of the atonement then you cannot understand the shedding of Jesus blood on the cross and the victory over sin and death it brought about.

 

[Mitspa]

Does one have to call themselves a Christian to be saved? Can I not be a believer in Jesus and not resort myself to labelling myself with man made terms?

That is not the issue or the point. The fact is that you are saying you are not a "christain" now you seem to be saying you are? You go about to put others under the yoke of law, but when I point out that you are breaking a commandment, you attempt to use the cover of grace for yourself. The law is clear that if one bears false witness, they are breaking the law. You claim to be under law and to keep the law. So I assume you desire to be judged by its exact standard? If not then why are you claiming that others are under a standard that you do not keep yourself? To come on a "christian" forum and try to present yourself as a "christain" when it suits your purpose and then claim you are not when that suits your purpose, is not acceptable under ANY biblical standard at anytime in any way.

This is "false witness"

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Does one have to call themselves a Christian to be saved? Can I not be a believer in Jesus and not resort myself to labelling myself with man made terms?

Contrary to what some say, 'Christian' does not mean the church that quickly departed the truth after the time of the Apostles:

"15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. " (1 Peter NIV)

An original Apostle is exhorting us to bear that name, not be ashamed of it. If it's okay for Peter, it should be okay for us, not matter how stained it has become by godless, faithless, spiritless people who have polluted the church.

 

[Mitspa]

How do we judge those in the church then? It judges behavior--the outer man. What it can't judge is your legal right standing with God.



You are not understanding. We do not look to the code for justification. But the commandments remain as that which gets fulfilled in the new way of the Spirit. Not for justification. But that is what you are continually 'hearing', but which is NOT being said or even implied.



For justification. But the commandments are how we can tell who has been justified in Christ. Those who are in the process of sanctification are the ones who have been justified in Christ.

First this goes to my main point on this thread? That those who are looking to the letter are yet carnal, and have biblical position to judge others. The standard is to walk in the Spirit, all correction is to bring the believer unto this standard. Those who are spiritual are to correct those in error, not those who are carnal.

Again NO the written code does not judge who is justified by faith. They are justified and the law stands only as a witness to Christ. He is our law and His commandment is to love.

The simplicty of Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Mitspa, is James putting the church under the yoke of law when he says that the faith that saves is the faith that keeps the royal law of scripture (meaning the law), 'love your neighbor as yourself'? He uses four Mosaic laws to illustrate how the faith that saves--the faith that obeys the law--keeps the law.

Our obedience to the requirements of the law, summed up in 'love your neighbor as yourself', does in fact 'justify' us, as James clearly says (okay, now you've done it, Jethro!). He doesn't mean that the way Paul uses that word, for 'justify' has more than one definition. The outer man SHOWS himself to have the righteousness of Christ applied to his inner man by whether he obeys God or not.

The inner man is justified, (as in MADE righteous and perfect before God) through believing in the blood of Christ to remove the guilt of sin, and thus the penalty of the law and it's authority to condemn him, and hold him fast in that condemnation. The outer man is justified (as in SHOWN to have that righteousness) when the righteousness he secured by faith, all by itself, visibly and outwardly upholds the requirements of the law.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First this goes to my main point on this thread? That those who are looking to the letter are yet carnal, and have biblical position to judge others. The standard is to walk in the Spirit, all correction is to bring the believer unto this standard. Those who are spiritual are to correct those in error, not those who are carnal.

What standard do we use to correct others?

Again NO the written code does not judge who is justified by faith. They are justified and the law stands only as a witness to Christ. He is our law and His commandment is to love.

The simplicty of Christ.

The law judges the outer man, but not to condemn him and put him out of Christ--unless the person is purposely choosing to leave Christ (assuming it's possible to do). The law can't judge the inner man who is abiding in Christ by the same faith in the blood that justified him.

 

[Deborah13]

Mitspa, is James putting the church under the yoke of law when he says that the faith that saves is the faith that keeps the royal law of scripture (meaning the law), 'love your neighbor as yourself'? He uses four Mosaic laws to illustrate how the faith that saves--the faith that obeys the law--keeps the law.

Our obedience to the requirements of the law, summed up in 'love your neighbor as yourself', does in fact 'justify' us, as James clearly says (okay, now you've done it, Jethro!). He doesn't mean that the way Paul uses that word, for 'justify' has more than one definition. The outer man SHOWS himself to have the righteousness of Christ applied to his inner man by whether he obeys God or not.

The inner man is justified, (as in MADE righteous and perfect before God) through believing in the blood of Christ to remove the guilt of sin, and thus the penalty of the law and it's authority to condemn him, and hold him fast in that condemnation. The outer man is justified (as in SHOWN to have that righteousness) when the righteousness he secured by faith, all by itself, visibly and outwardly upholds the requirements of the law.

Jethro if this is all you were to say about justification unto salvation I could agree with you whole heartedly because I agree with what I hear you saying in this post!

 

[francisdesales]

My question was in response to your post #996 but now as I read it I can see that it was poorly written, LOL Ryan understood me.

Yike, do you not hear me, I was not talking about removing any law but the penalty of the law. Read your post 996.

OK, we agree, sorry for the misunderstanding, I read that part of the law was removed...

Jesus paid the penalty once and for all. According to Scripture it will not be done again. Jesus said He came to fufill the law, which He did.

Yes. He has paid the penalty by His death.

Paul can say what he does because Jesus continues to fulfill the law through us when we walk in the Spirit for it is by His Spirit that we are able to love God and love others. We are not our own, we were bought with a price, Jesus lives in us and through us. It is Him who continues to fulfill the Law through us. We of coarse could rebel but that's just plain stupid.

Yes, but WE TOO are fulfilling the law. WE are being perfected. WE are sharing in the divine life. One of the most important themes in Pauline literature is "syn Christo", IN Christ. WE are going to be judged based upon what WE do (whether it is in Christ or without Him). Jesus will not be judged!

If we enter into the Kingdom of God, it will because God sent His Spirit to us and He moved our will to do His will. For only those who obey the Will of the Father shall enter the Kingdom. Since man is being judged (NOT whether God gave us enough grace - all is sufficient), man also is rewarded. The reward is based on something that was done, even if moved by God.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

You have said yourself that the blood of bulls and goats never made the OT saints righteous, this is correct. Those that came to understand the grace of God were protected from the eternal damnation that should have been their punishment under the law and in some cases from physical death on earth, such as David. GOD gave the commandments to do the sacrifices that you call cultic, I not sure what you mean by that, I find the wording to be offensive. If you do not understand that the shedding of blood is part of the atonement then you cannot understand the shedding of Jesus blood on the cross and the victory over sin and death it brought about.

Cultic means the rites used to worship. The details of public worship. Ordinarily, the sacrificial system. "Cult" is not a perjorative term - unless one is talking about the Moonies or something.

Jewish cultic acts only provided a temporarily solution, until the "fullness of time", when Christ replaced the cultic high priest AND that sacrificial animal in Himself.

Christ suffered the penalty of death, but not the punishment of eternal separation from God, which is the ultimate punishment for sin. He suffered the penalty prescribed by the Law. Otherwise, there would be no hell, since Christ died for ALL men.

Yes, the shedding of blood is part of the atonement, but not out of necessity. God did not have to send His Son to death. God does not desire blood. God desires the inner heart conversion... Naturally, His Son was COMPLETELY following the Will of the Father - and that is what He desires (from us, to the degree that is possible).

Regards

 

[Deborah13]

Cultic means the rites used to worship. The details of public worship. Ordinarily, the sacrificial system. "Cult" is not a perjorative term - unless one is talking about the Moonies or something.

Jewish cultic acts only provided a temporarily solution, until the "fullness of time", when Christ replaced the cultic high priest AND that sacrificial animal in Himself.

Christ suffered the penalty of death, but not the punishment of eternal separation from God, which is the ultimate punishment for sin. He suffered the penalty prescribed by the Law. Otherwise, there would be no hell, since Christ died for ALL men.

Yes, the shedding of blood is part of the atonement, but not out of necessity. God did not have to send His Son to death. God does not desire blood. God desires the inner heart conversion... Naturally, His Son was COMPLETELY following the Will of the Father - and that is what He desires (from us, to the degree that is possible).

Regards

I do believe Christ died for ALL men. So He paid the price for ALL sin. But in order for His sacrifice to have any effect in one's life or towards their ultimate salvation and eternal life, they must be born again (spiritual rebirth) not head knowledge, heart knowledge that can only be given by the Holy Spirit to that person.

 

[Ryan]

That is not the issue or the point. The fact is that you are saying you are not a "christain" now you seem to be saying you are? You go about to put others under the yoke of law, but when I point out that you are breaking a commandment, you attempt to use the cover of grace for yourself. The law is clear that if one bears false witness, they are breaking the law. You claim to be under law and to keep the law. So I assume you desire to be judged by its exact standard? If not then why are you claiming that others are under a standard that you do not keep yourself? To come on a "christian" forum and try to present yourself as a "christain" when it suits your purpose and then claim you are not when that suits your purpose, is not acceptable under ANY biblical standard at anytime in any way.

This is "false witness"

Contrary to what some say, 'Christian' does not mean the church that quickly departed the truth after the time of the Apostles:

"15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. " (1 Peter NIV)

An original Apostle is exhorting us to bear that name, not be ashamed of it. If it's okay for Peter, it should be okay for us, not matter how stained it has become by godless, faithless, spiritless people who have polluted the church.

I don't know why I am explaining myself, but truth be told if you want to call me a Christian to represent being a Christ follower, I have no problem with that. Being a Christ follower though to me means one who follows minimally the 10 commandments, and observes the Torah to the best way possible given our own individual circumstances. Minus of course the instructions specific to the Temple, Sanhedrin, Kings, etc. Acts 15 was a minimum set of standards newcomers into the faith were to abide by, while being able to learn the rest as "Moses is taught" every Shabbat. The Sabbath is the 7th day which is a weekly appointment to be with the Lord that he has made, not us. Other divine appointments are the Feast days of which Passover is coming up next week, which as well is another Sabbath. This is a life long endeavor that takes time to learn, but is truly a blessing to live it out. It's not the yoke of bondage that some claim it to be, but a blessing because God said it would be for those who follow and obey his instructions. Jesus did not nullify or change any commandments. Nor did Paul, in the greatest paradox ever, was the Bible's staunchest upholder of maintaining and continued observance of the Law. Our Messiah, lead the most perfect Torah observant lifestyle, hence the sinless life. We are called to follow in Jesus's footsteps. So if you want to call me a Christian for doing my best to lead a Torah observant life in the same manner the Israelites did 3000 years ago, as did Jesus walked out 2000 years ago, I'm all for that. If that's not being a Christian then, what am I?

 

[Codger]

Do you have any scripture to support your belief that once a person is born again they can become "unborn"?

What about scritpure saying the Holy Spirit leaves a person he indwells in?

What about scripture saying the Holy Spirit "unsealed" someone it has sealed?

I only read the first page of this thread as I don't have the time to read the other 68 pages. Surely John or someone else has brought this up before. I only need one verse to establish my thinking on OSAS and it is...

Revelation 3:1-3 (NIV2011)
1 “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.
2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God.
3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.
5 The one who is victorious will, like them, (the unsoiled of Sardis) be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.

The Church was not practicing the teachings that they were given; and their deeds were unfinished. So if they did not start doing so He (Jesus) was going to BLOT their names out of the book of life. how much more plainly can this be stated?

 

[Mitspa]

Mitspa, is James putting the church under the yoke of law when he says that the faith that saves is the faith that keeps the royal law of scripture (meaning the law), 'love your neighbor as yourself'? He uses four Mosaic laws to illustrate how the faith that saves--the faith that obeys the law--keeps the law.

Our obedience to the requirements of the law, summed up in 'love your neighbor as yourself', does in fact 'justify' us, as James clearly says (okay, now you've done it, Jethro!). He doesn't mean that the way Paul uses that word, for 'justify' has more than one definition. The outer man SHOWS himself to have the righteousness of Christ applied to his inner man by whether he obeys God or not.

The inner man is justified, (as in MADE righteous and perfect before God) through believing in the blood of Christ to remove the guilt of sin, and thus the penalty of the law and it's authority to condemn him, and hold him fast in that condemnation. The outer man is justified (as in SHOWN to have that righteousness) when the righteousness he secured by faith, all by itself, visibly and outwardly upholds the requirements of the law.

I reject that you have the understanding of James, we have been around this circle also, and I remind you that you lost this debate in a very clear way. James is not saying in any way that we are justified by the law of moses. James and Paul are in perfect agreement. If you see a conflict between these two, I assure you the conflict is in your own understanding.
Jethro, your just wrong, and you should stop trying to teach and be humble enough to allow yourself to learn from those God has called to teach.