TRUE HOLINESS

[Elijah674]

The real George Muller saw what the written code said not to do and obeyed it. How is it you did not know he was a legalist? I think that's kind of funny since you chose to use his name as your screen name, you who are so opposed to legalism.

Well I doubt you have studied his work, as I have? Many seem to be unable to understand that "good works" are a product of grace not law. The scriptures are very clear on this issue and cannot be challenged. So I guess since you cannot challenge my points in scripture you seek to challenge my doctrine through the use of this man and His life? I would welcome a debate and discussion about the motives of this Great Man of God. Start a thread on that topic and I will be glad to join that discussion. The reason I am so drawn to Muller is because his confidence was always in the grace of Christ, and his labors poured forth from Gods Mercy.

But he did what you've been saying for months makes a person a legalist. He 'looked to the law' and obeyed what he saw written in the law. You say only white-washed legalists do that. I think it's time to humble yourself and admit your doctrine has been wrong, or just stop defending this ridiculous doctrine.

Answer if you want. I'm pretty much done talking about your fringe doctrines about what true spiritualism is. You see I was once in the 'holy roller' church and I know about their misguided doctrines about being 'spiritual'. Your doctrine doesn't understand Paul's teaching about law and Spirit very well at all.

Hey young'in, I agree with you on this subject. It surely breaks all the Christian RULES of making a free choice to Love Christ! See Titus 3:9-11 with this FREE/Choice;)!

Titus 3
[9] But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and [[vain.]]
[10] A man that [[is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;]]

[11] Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

--Elijah

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=91415]Ryan[/MENTION] what translation are you quoting from? My bible does not say some of the things you quote. Use what ever translation you want but please Id. it. I don't care for so many different translations as there is no unity, when one says this and another that. Just please ID the translation you use ,The mouse over of a verse comes up in the KJV. God bless................

Sorry. I primarily quote the NASB, and I believe I quoted the NASB exclusively in this thread. I'll double check and edit if I didn't.

 

[George Muller]

The real George Muller saw what the written code said not to do and obeyed it. How is it you did not know he was a legalist? I think that's kind of funny since you chose to use his name as your screen name, you who are so opposed to legalism.

Well I doubt you have studied his work, as I have? Many seem to be unable to understand that "good works" are a product of grace not law. The scriptures are very clear on this issue and cannot be challenged. So I guess since you cannot challenge my points in scripture you seek to challenge my doctrine through the use of this man and His life? I would welcome a debate and discussion about the motives of this Great Man of God. Start a thread on that topic and I will be glad to join that discussion. The reason I am so drawn to Muller is because his confidence was always in the grace of Christ, and his labors poured forth from Gods Mercy.

But he did what you've been saying for months makes a person a legalist. He 'looked to the law' and obeyed what he saw written in the law. You say only white-washed legalists do that. I think it's time to humble yourself and admit your doctrine has been wrong, or just stop defending this ridiculous doctrine.

Answer if you want. I'm pretty much done talking about your fringe doctrines about what true spiritualism is. You see I was once in the 'holy roller' church and I know about their misguided doctrines about being 'spiritual'. Your doctrine doesn't understand Paul's teaching about law and Spirit very well at all.

Of course he did not, he was a man that was sure that he did not have the ability to keep the law, a man that was devoted and dependent upon the grace of Christ. He is well known to have considered himself the weakest of men as it relates to ability to work righteousness in own strength, he was ever in prayer and dependent upon the grace of the Lord. So if "you" find some legalism in his doctrine or manner of life, it is a perception of your own mind, not his. Often a legalist are so blinded by their legalism, that they cannot understand from what fountain holiness proceeds forth from a man of God, of course to the legalist they assume that the "letter" is the source, when in fact it is the spirit.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The real George Muller saw what the written code said not to do and obeyed it. How is it you did not know he was a legalist? I think that's kind of funny since you chose to use his name as your screen name, you who are so opposed to legalism.

Well I doubt you have studied his work, as I have? Many seem to be unable to understand that "good works" are a product of grace not law. The scriptures are very clear on this issue and cannot be challenged. So I guess since you cannot challenge my points in scripture you seek to challenge my doctrine through the use of this man and His life? I would welcome a debate and discussion about the motives of this Great Man of God. Start a thread on that topic and I will be glad to join that discussion. The reason I am so drawn to Muller is because his confidence was always in the grace of Christ, and his labors poured forth from Gods Mercy.

But he did what you've been saying for months makes a person a legalist. He 'looked to the law' and obeyed what he saw written in the law. You say only white-washed legalists do that. I think it's time to humble yourself and admit your doctrine has been wrong, or just stop defending this ridiculous doctrine.

Answer if you want. I'm pretty much done talking about your fringe doctrines about what true spiritualism is. You see I was once in the 'holy roller' church and I know about their misguided doctrines about being 'spiritual'. Your doctrine doesn't understand Paul's teaching about law and Spirit very well at all.

Of course he did not, he was a man that was sure that he did not have the ability to keep the law, a man that was devoted and dependent upon the grace of Christ. He is well known to have considered himself the weakest of men as it relates to ability to work righteousness in own strength, he was ever in prayer and dependent upon the grace of the Lord. So if "you" find some legalism in his doctrine or manner of life, it is a perception of your own mind, not his. Often a legalist are so blinded by their legalism, that they cannot understand from what fountain holiness proceeds forth from a man of God, of course to the legalist they assume that the "letter" is the source, when in fact it is the spirit.

But you have said repeatedly in this forum for months now that anyone who 'looks to the law' is, categorically and without exception, a Spirit-less legalist depending on his own righteousness. George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist? Your doctrine is what's in the hot seat here, so you explain how Mueller could 'look to the law' and do it, and not be condemned as a legalist, but the rest of us who do that are.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The real George Muller saw what the written code said not to do and obeyed it. How is it you did not know he was a legalist? I think that's kind of funny since you chose to use his name as your screen name, you who are so opposed to legalism.

Well I doubt you have studied his work, as I have? Many seem to be unable to understand that "good works" are a product of grace not law. The scriptures are very clear on this issue and cannot be challenged. So I guess since you cannot challenge my points in scripture you seek to challenge my doctrine through the use of this man and His life? I would welcome a debate and discussion about the motives of this Great Man of God. Start a thread on that topic and I will be glad to join that discussion. The reason I am so drawn to Muller is because his confidence was always in the grace of Christ, and his labors poured forth from Gods Mercy.

But he did what you've been saying for months makes a person a legalist. He 'looked to the law' and obeyed what he saw written in the law. You say only white-washed legalists do that. I think it's time to humble yourself and admit your doctrine has been wrong, or just stop defending this ridiculous doctrine.

Answer if you want. I'm pretty much done talking about your fringe doctrines about what true spiritualism is. You see I was once in the 'holy roller' church and I know about their misguided doctrines about being 'spiritual'. Your doctrine doesn't understand Paul's teaching about law and Spirit very well at all.

Hey young'in, I agree with you on this subject. It surely breaks all the Christian RULES of making a free choice to Love Christ! See Titus 3:9-11 with this FREE/Choice;)!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...they often use the torah and other like statements to convict one into repentance.

james McDonald of walk in the word has done this with forgiveness. I guess he is a legalist too since he takes the parables about forgiving and statements of Christ about it and teaches that we ought to forgive one another.

Blasted legalists! Rid the earth of them!

These white-washed tombs who look "intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it" (James 1:25 NIV). How dare they!

 

[George Muller]

But he did what you've been saying for months makes a person a legalist. He 'looked to the law' and obeyed what he saw written in the law. You say only white-washed legalists do that. I think it's time to humble yourself and admit your doctrine has been wrong, or just stop defending this ridiculous doctrine.

Answer if you want. I'm pretty much done talking about your fringe doctrines about what true spiritualism is. You see I was once in the 'holy roller' church and I know about their misguided doctrines about being 'spiritual'. Your doctrine doesn't understand Paul's teaching about law and Spirit very well at all.

Of course he did not, he was a man that was sure that he did not have the ability to keep the law, a man that was devoted and dependent upon the grace of Christ. He is well known to have considered himself the weakest of men as it relates to ability to work righteousness in own strength, he was ever in prayer and dependent upon the grace of the Lord. So if "you" find some legalism in his doctrine or manner of life, it is a perception of your own mind, not his. Often a legalist are so blinded by their legalism, that they cannot understand from what fountain holiness proceeds forth from a man of God, of course to the legalist they assume that the "letter" is the source, when in fact it is the spirit.

But you have said repeatedly in this forum for months now that anyone who 'looks to the law' is, categorically and without exception, a Spirit-less legalist depending on his own righteousness. George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist? Your doctrine is what's in the hot seat here, so you explain how Mueller could 'look to the law' and do it, and not be condemned as a legalist, but the rest of us who do that are.

Well I guess that is "your" opinion? You seem unable to have a honest discussion of the issue, and attempt to twist all things as to confuse the issue. I have made my positions well known and they cannot be challenged in the context I have made them, so your only hope to make a point is attempt to bring a false context to all things and pervert the intention and truth of the points being made. Bring forth any post I have made, and we can see the context of its truth?

 

[George Muller]

...they often use the torah and other like statements to convict one into repentance.

james McDonald of walk in the word has done this with forgiveness. I guess he is a legalist too since he takes the parables about forgiving and statements of Christ about it and teaches that we ought to forgive one another.

Blasted legalists! Rid the earth of them!

These white-washed tombs who look "intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it" (James 1:25 NIV). How dare they!

Amen, get rid of them all:toofunny

And thank God for the "gospel" THE WORD OF GRACE- the perfect law of liberty

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...he was a man that was sure that he did not have the ability to keep the law...

...in his natural self.

But this silly grace teaching in the church these days uses the truth that we can't keep the law' in our natural selves to excuse any real effort to keep the law by the grace of God. It's ridiculous.

Grace has turned into a license and an excuse for not challenging sin, instead of grace being the power of God to confront sin and overcome it! They think that any effort to do that would immediately make them someone trying to earn their own salvation. How silly!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Amen, get rid of them all:toofunny

And thank God for the "gospel" THE WORD OF GRACE- the perfect law of liberty

...which has become in the church today a license to sin, instead of the power of God to walk in holiness. How sad.

I WISH you were right and the church was busy with the way of the law, carefully trying to obey it's requirements, even if only in their natural selves. As I say, at least they'd be on their way to death by that effort and ready for the true grace of God in salvation. But as it is, this 'I can't keep the law anyway' keeps them locked in the belief that grace is their excuse not to challenge what they can't do in their natural selves. How misguided.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But he did what you've been saying for months makes a person a legalist. He 'looked to the law' and obeyed what he saw written in the law. You say only white-washed legalists do that. I think it's time to humble yourself and admit your doctrine has been wrong, or just stop defending this ridiculous doctrine.

Answer if you want. I'm pretty much done talking about your fringe doctrines about what true spiritualism is. You see I was once in the 'holy roller' church and I know about their misguided doctrines about being 'spiritual'. Your doctrine doesn't understand Paul's teaching about law and Spirit very well at all.

Of course he did not, he was a man that was sure that he did not have the ability to keep the law, a man that was devoted and dependent upon the grace of Christ. He is well known to have considered himself the weakest of men as it relates to ability to work righteousness in own strength, he was ever in prayer and dependent upon the grace of the Lord. So if "you" find some legalism in his doctrine or manner of life, it is a perception of your own mind, not his. Often a legalist are so blinded by their legalism, that they cannot understand from what fountain holiness proceeds forth from a man of God, of course to the legalist they assume that the "letter" is the source, when in fact it is the spirit.

But you have said repeatedly in this forum for months now that anyone who 'looks to the law' is, categorically and without exception, a Spirit-less legalist depending on his own righteousness. George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist? Your doctrine is what's in the hot seat here, so you explain how Mueller could 'look to the law' and do it, and not be condemned as a legalist, but the rest of us who do that are.

Well I guess that is "your" opinion? You seem unable to have a honest discussion of the issue, and attempt to twist all things as to confuse the issue. I have made my positions well known and they cannot be challenged in the context I have made them, so your only hope to make a point is attempt to bring a false context to all things and pervert the intention and truth of the points being made. Bring forth any post I have made, and we can see the context of its truth?

You have the mic now, so speak...

"George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist?"

Defend your doctrine. Answer the question. We're listening.

 

[George Muller]

But you have said repeatedly in this forum for months now that anyone who 'looks to the law' is, categorically and without exception, a Spirit-less legalist depending on his own righteousness. George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist? Your doctrine is what's in the hot seat here, so you explain how Mueller could 'look to the law' and do it, and not be condemned as a legalist, but the rest of us who do that are.

Well I guess that is "your" opinion? You seem unable to have a honest discussion of the issue, and attempt to twist all things as to confuse the issue. I have made my positions well known and they cannot be challenged in the context I have made them, so your only hope to make a point is attempt to bring a false context to all things and pervert the intention and truth of the points being made. Bring forth any post I have made, and we can see the context of its truth?

You have the mic now, so speak...

"George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist?"

Defend your doctrine. Answer the question. We're listening.

You always seem to think you are more than one person? And I have seen no evidence of his "legalism"? If you have it? Post it. And please post a reference to your source.

 

[George Muller]

...which has become in the church today a license to sin, instead of the power of God to walk in holiness. How sad.

Well not sure of your own church history? But it is always the legalistic groups that are "ungodly" just as the scriptures describe;


Tit 2:11 ¶ For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

The strength of sin, is the law

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But you have said repeatedly in this forum for months now that anyone who 'looks to the law' is, categorically and without exception, a Spirit-less legalist depending on his own righteousness. George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist? Your doctrine is what's in the hot seat here, so you explain how Mueller could 'look to the law' and do it, and not be condemned as a legalist, but the rest of us who do that are.

Well I guess that is "your" opinion? You seem unable to have a honest discussion of the issue, and attempt to twist all things as to confuse the issue. I have made my positions well known and they cannot be challenged in the context I have made them, so your only hope to make a point is attempt to bring a false context to all things and pervert the intention and truth of the points being made. Bring forth any post I have made, and we can see the context of its truth?

You have the mic now, so speak...

"George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist?"

Defend your doctrine. Answer the question. We're listening.

You always seem to think you are more than one person? And I have seen no evidence of his "legalism"? If you have it? Post it. And please post a reference to your source.

I see 14 users in this thread right now. I already produced the evidence of Mueller 'looking to the law and doing it' with reference. Now,please, stop stalling and and answer the question:

"George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist?"

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Your doctrine obviously does not know what this means. But we can talk about that later. Just answer the question I asked.

 

[Deborah13]

...they often use the torah and other like statements to convict one into repentance.

james McDonald of walk in the word has done this with forgiveness. I guess he is a legalist too since he takes the parables about forgiving and statements of Christ about it and teaches that we ought to forgive one another.

Blasted legalists! Rid the earth of them!

These white-washed tombs who look "intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it" (James 1:25 NIV). How dare they!

You are in fine form today.

 

[Deborah13]

But it is always the legalistic groups that are "ungodly" just as the scriptures describe;

ALWAYS ???? Huh no. That is an exaggeration. Is an exaggeration, in this context a lie? Or just a wives tail? Or an unsound argument?

 

[George Muller]

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Your doctrine obviously does not know what this means. But we can talk about that later. Just answer the question I asked.

Gee you legalist will attempt to condemn others with a most literal reading of scripture, and demand that all must accept its most legalistic understanding, but on the most clear and evident of scriptures that shows grace and its power, you pretend that words have no meaning? It means what is says and says what is means and is backed up throughout the New Testament. It cannot be challenged or explained away. Only those who are blinded by the law, can not accept its clear reading. Because satan has blinded them from seeing the truth.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[George Muller]

You have the mic now, so speak...

"George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist?"

Defend your doctrine. Answer the question. We're listening.

You always seem to think you are more than one person? And I have seen no evidence of his "legalism"? If you have it? Post it. And please post a reference to your source.

I see 14 users in this thread right now. I already produced the evidence of Mueller 'looking to the law and doing it' with reference. Now,please, stop stalling and and answer the question:

"George Muller did that...he 'looked to the law', found out what it required, and did it. Are you now saying it's possible to do that and not be a legalist?"

no you did not, you proved that he threw out the doctrines of some religious hypocrites, "legalist" are always those who do such things as that which Muller rejected. Give your source so the context of your point can be looked into? If you cannot do that? you are just trying to deceive others and twist the truth.

 

[George Muller]

But it is always the legalistic groups that are "ungodly" just as the scriptures describe;

ALWAYS ???? Huh no. That is an exaggeration. Is an exaggeration, in this context a lie? Or just a wives tail? Or an unsound argument?

well the strength of sin is the law, a legalist will always be full of sinful lust and desires, even thou they attempt to cover it in religious fig leaves, just as the Pharisees did. Only grace delivers from sin and sins power, NOTHING ELSE! Yes ALWAYS is the correct word!