Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bob Enyart Live forum

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nimrod – Here’s my two cents worth. Even Jonah knew of God’s reputation for relenting from doing what He previously said He would do.
    Jon 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, "Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.
    What difference would it make by what venue that these people hoped in God’s righteous character in that He might repent from doing what He said/thought He would do? I’d say that since God’s character is consistent and righteous and trustworthy, any accurate source reflecting this would have sufficed nicely.
    Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

    Comment


    • Nimrod,
      I agree with 1Way's response.

      And it doesn't matter whether Jonah or Jeremiah was written first. (The Ninevites probably weren't familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures anyway.) The point is that in Jeremiah God revealed a general principle about how He operates. He didn't say "From now on, the instant I speak concerning a nation..."


      Further, if Jonah were a false prophet, why did Jesus say this:
      • Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."
        But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. Matthew 12:38-41 (also Luke 11:29-30, 32; Matthew 16:4)
      Last edited by Turbo; March 19th, 2004, 05:46 AM.
      BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

      Comment


      • Hello 1Way. God Bless

        As I was reading your post, I do now have a better understanding of your position. Woohoo! But I can't figure what part of a dispensationalist you are. Ultra? Hyper? Well you can tell me later. Also if you have any questions for me, put them where I can’t miss them. Thanks

        About Number 15:30. Here is what Albert Barnes said about Exodus 31. And the word “cut off”
        Exodus 31:14. See Numbers 15:32-36. The distinction between
        the meaning of the two expressions, “to be cut off from the people”, and
        “to be put to death”, is here indicated. He who was cut off from the people
        had, by his offence, put himself out of the terms of the covenant, and was
        an outlaw. On such, and on such alone, when the offence was one which
        affected the well-being of the nation, as it was in this case, death could be
        inflicted by the public authority.
        Just because you are not a Jew during the OT, doesn’t mean you couldn’t be saved. There are other believers that were not Jews and were saved. So this man who picked up sticks became an outlaw(“cut off from his people”), was brought outside the camp and was stoned(put to death). It has nothing to do with his salvation.

        Now you go on about being cut off “from God” but I do not see the words “from God” in this passage.

        Now to the posts: Here are my questions and your answers.

        Qb1)Which verse are you referring to?(about the "lesser and greater"). You answered them fine.

        Qb2) You said
        God had mercy for those who could not help break one commandment in order to keep the other
        The question was
        Qb2)Could you please provide examples for this statement?
        Answer:
        I thought you already did, Jesus broke it.
        Then you go on about being born on a Thursday and if you did a circumcision on a Saturday you will be breaking the Sabbath.

        Again I disagree on two points. 1.) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or a Sunday? I don’t think you can. 2.) Circumcision is not considered work, therefore doing the circumcision on the Sabbath is acceptable.

        Qc1)Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or Sunday. I don’t think you can.

        You said
        you do not live a life of faith by keeping the law of God
        My faith has nothing to do with keeping the law, it is separate from it. My faith is a personal relationship with Christ, I do the commandments because I love Him and I want to please Him, not because I have to. I am not condemned to observing the Law and doing my best to follow them.
        Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

        You said
        . If you place yourself under that system of faith, then you risk falling from grace and making what Christ did for you of no gain.
        Well that raises a question. Can I lose my salvation either under grace or under the law? Simple Yes or No would suffice.
        Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?

        You said
        All those words and commands of God you just broke by suggesting that you should be a law keeper instead of obeying the superceding teachings and commandments given to Paul for this dispensation.
        No you miss the boat again and again. I listen to the NT teachings also, but I also don’t forget about the OT teaching because it was under another dispensation. I have not thrown out Paul teachings, and I have not thrown out the OT teachings(except for the sacrificial laws).
        Paul is an excellent example of following the Sabbath. HE did time and time again. This is what Paul did.

        "went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down" (Acts 13:14)
        "the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached unto them the next Sabbath . . . And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God" (v.43-44).
        "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made" (Acts 16:13)
        "Paul, as his manner was, when in unto them [the Jewish people] and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scripture" (Acts 17:2)
        "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks" (Acts 18:4)

        Notice that observing the Sabbath was Paul's regular "customary practice." It was customary for him to observe the Sabbath, and to preach the true gospel of the Messiah at the synagogues on the Sabbath day! In four different places in the book of Acts, we discover the apostle Paul -- the apostle who was sent to the Gentiles -- observing God’s holy Sabbath day! This was his regular custom.
        After seeing Paul demonstrates to us that he followed the Sabbath. He said
        "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (I Cor.11:1).
        Yes Paul I will follow.
        You said
        you do not have the right to pick and choose which laws to keep, you either have to be a full blown law keeper, sans the sacrificial system which has been fulfilled by Jesus, or you are not under the law at all.
        You are correct we are to follow both OT and NT laws except the ones in the OT that the NT said we no longer do. i.e. sacrificial laws. It is you who chooses not to follow the OT laws.
        If I fail on the Law, it does not condemn me to hell. My sins were paid for by Christ. But I do my best to keep the Law because I love God and He wants me to.
        Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. No Paul I do not make the law void. I do my best to keep it.
        Yes there are two group, the wheat and the tares, or the saved and unsaved, or those in Christ and those outside of Christ. I am I Christ and I love to keep the commandments, not because I think I can merit something from him, like salvation, but I do it because He wants me to, and I love Him. Have you figured out why I like keeping the commandments yet? It has nothing to do with salvation.
        Next Question:
        Qb3) When did God command the Sabbath to be on Saturday and Sunday?
        Answer
        Qb3) What are you talking about? I asked you a question and you asked me a strange question that I don’t hardly understand. Do you keep the Sabbath when God says it must be kept? Yes or no. i.e. Saturday not Sunday
        So you really didn't answer that question. I'll ask it again. My answer to you is this, my Sabbath just happens to be a Sunday. Even though it doesn't have to be a Sunday. I pick Sunday because I am a normal 40hr work week person. Sunday fits best for me.

        You said
        we are not under the law, i.e. we are not under the Sabbath commandment. If you put yourself under those laws for faith in God, then you are breaking this dispensation’s commandments/word from God saying not to do that.
        You have it all wrong. I do not do theses laws for my faith. My faith is separate from the Law. I have faith by God’s grace. I was saved from being condemned by the Law by putting my trust in Jesus. After I was born again I wanted to please God, and there is no better way to do it than to keep His commandments both Old and New Testament teachings, ad preach the gospel.
        Romans 3 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

        I interpret Scripture by context. In doing so, most of the time it is literal. I do not take a system say “literal unless absurd” and read the Scriptures to fit that thinking. I let the Scriptures tell me how to interpret by context.

        Here is a verse that I interpret Literally.
        "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and FROM ONE SABBATH TO ANOTHER, shall ALL FLESH come and worship before me, saith the LORD" (Isa.66:22-23).

        Qc3) How do you interpret this verse literally? What does “one Sabbath to another” mean?
        Qc4) Will we have a Sabbath in the future? Will all people observe the Sabbath in the future.

        Qc5) What is this dispensations commandments from God? OR what are the “in force” commandments?

        Qb2) Does the Scriptures say that Abraham was saved by faith? Yes
        Qb3) Does the Scriptures say that Abraham was saved by faith+works?
        you’re answered Yes to both
        Qb4)Not talking about salvation, of the ten commandments, which one(s) can we break as believers in Christ, saved by Grace, and will not be considered a sin?
        Answer
        Your question contradicts what I believe to be God’s word, so I can not answer according to your presuppositions as previously stated.
        I do have a better understanding of your logic. If I understand correctly this is what you believe.
        There are two groups today. Those under Law and those under grace. I ask which of the ten we no longer have to keep. You say for those under Law they have to keep them all, for those under grace you don’t. So those under grace no longer need to follow the law. But those under Grace need to follow this dispensation commands, especially from Paul. These commands supercede the Law of the OT. If I was to ask which of the ten no longer are forced for those saved by grace, you would say all of them, the ten is for today’s unbelievers and the OT saints, not for us under grace. So believers in grace can break any of the ten commandments and not be considered sin. IF today’s believers break one of today’s dispensation commands then they are sinning. So the unbelievers today have more places where they could sin, as for the people under grace we have less places where we can sin. Let me put it another way. God draws a line on what is a sin. Picture in your mind a big circle, anytime an unbeliever today goes into that big circle it is considered a sin. Now draw another circle, smaller, and put it inside the big one. Anyone under grace will only be sinning if he is in the smaller circle. If he is in the bigger circle and not the smaller, he is not sinning. In conclusion, there are sins that an unbeliever today can commit, yet if a believer does the exact same thing it would not be considered a sin. I am trying to find out what those are.

        I would ask what are the actions the believers can commit and not be a sin, and the unbelievers if they do the same action, are sinning, but you won’t answer that.

        Qb5) Which commandment(s) of the ten, does the new superceding commandments of Christ voids?
        Answer
        Since we are not under any of them, and Christ does not void any of them, but keeps them active for all who are under them, i.e. the dying world, none.
        Yes I understand you better now, Christ doesn't void any of those under the Law. But what I am asking is those who are under grace, which ones under grace does Jesus voids?

        Thank you 1Way, God Bless.

        -Questions--
        Qc1) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or Sunday. I don’t think you can.
        Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
        Qc3) how do you interpret this verse literally? What does “one Sabbath to another” mean?
        Qc4) Will we have a Sabbath in the future? Will all people observe the Sabbath in the future?

        Qc5) what is this dispensations commandments from God?

        Comment


        • Hello 1Way, as I look at your previous posts, I am searching for answers to questions you have raised and I havn't answered.

          Here is one
          Originally posted by 1Way
          Also, you forgot to deal with Jesus’ teaching, as well as Paul’s, that if you are under the law i.e. a “law keeper”, then you are bound to keep the whole law, you do not have the standing to decide which laws you prefer to keep.
          I agree, you must keep all of the law, but no one can perfectly except Jesus. If you understand that point then you know that you need a savior. Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. "


          Here are your Scripture quotes

          Mt 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good but One, [that is], God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

          We know the man was looking for eternal life in a "what must I do". Jesus told him to keep the commandments, but we know Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ". It is impossible to keep the commandments. Paul says this earlier in Romans 3:19 "it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
          Those under the law who are to keep the commandments for eternal life fall short and they will be found guilty, you may be the most knowledgable theologian but you are still dead to your sins and incapable of keeping the commandments. The rich man went away sad because he had many possessions, in other words, he loved his possessions more than God(he did not keep the commandments). When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
          Only through God can we be saved for eternal life, not by keeping the commandments(because no one can, except Jesus).

          Now you say, what about Paul in Romans 2:23 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. We know that no one can keep them perfectly, but again in Gal 3:11 Paul also states But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
          It is incorrect to think that people can be saved by keeping the law. Those who try to keep the law are under a curse. Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

          From "THe New Internaltional Commentary on the New Testament"
          In verse 7-9, Paul demostrates that while faith is the way to blessing, the law, as a principle diametrically opposed to faith and not based on faith, can never bring justification. The law can only bring its own curse (vv 10-12). The impossibility of being justified by legal works is in v. 10 based, by implication, on the fact that no one keeps the law perfectly, while in v 11 the basis is of a more dogmatic nature: "the law could not justify(= give life, Gal 3:21) in any case, since it rests on works, and only faith gives life.
          OK so we know we can "keep the law" perfectly, so should we get rid of it. God forbid! Shall we make it of no use to us. God forbid. Jesus said in John 14:15If ye love me, keep my commandments Jesus said keep His commanments if you love Him, even though I can not keep them perfectly, I still try. With these two great commandments He said On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. . Did you get that, His two great commandments hang ALL the law(including the Sabbath).

          Maybe you or Turbo can clear this up for me.
          Qe1) IN John 14:15 it says "If ye love me, keep my commandments" and right after describing these commandments Jesus said in Matt 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". How do you interpret that verse? "hand all the law" does that include the sabbath?

          Thank you ,
          God Bless and have a nice weekend

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nimrod

            Maybe you or Turbo can clear this up for me.
            Qe1) IN John 14:15 it says "If ye love me, keep my commandments" and right after describing these commandments Jesus said in Matt 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". How do you interpret that verse? "hang all the law" does that include the sabbath?
            Yes, keeping the sabbath is part of keeping the Law. And Jesus meant exactly what he said.
            BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

            Comment


            • Nimrod – From post 108, you and Mr Barns both missed my point, ,,, AGAIN.

              Ok, you will not deal with what I have presented on that issue which was plainly reading what God plainly says and you have not once responded to it, “being completely cut off” “with your sin upon you” is spiritual damnation, you don’t want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole, that is your way of dealing, not mine, I call that fear or aversion or ignorance.

              Then, on the same issue you said
              Just because you are not a Jew during the OT, doesn’t mean you couldn’t be saved. There are other believers that were not Jews and were saved. So this man who picked up sticks became an outlaw(“cut off from his people”), was brought outside the camp and was stoned(put to death). It has nothing to do with his salvation.

              Now you go on about being cut off “from God” but I do not see the words “from God” in this passage.
              Oh, boy, and wasn’t it YOU how said that you don’t make up certain literal rules, you go by the context in order to derive the appropriate meaning? You missed the boat on this one. God does not have to say the specific words, “you are cut off from me” in order for that reality to be His teaching. Being “completely cut off” is sufficient for including being cut off from God, but God does not stop there, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING (did you hear that?) He says that 1) you are completely cut off, 2) no longer part of God’s people, 3) God condemns you to death for your sin, 4) which is despising His word (Jesus=you are of the devil) 5) and your sin remains upon you being un-forgiven for your sin! So only every single feature of this teaching spells out spiritual eternal damnation. But somehow through your growth and understanding, all that has escaped your notice.

              And, I have no problem with exceptions to the rule, remember, God forgave David from capitol offenses BUT THAT DID NOT put an end to capitol offense commands. The rule was that to be saved, be a Jew or adopt their form of faith, however with very little examples, but Nineveh may be a large exception, people were saved yet may not have become proselyte Jews. My understanding is that back in the OT, not many people got saved, not even many from the nation of Israel got saved.

              Similar issue within this dispensation of mystery, you are saved by the gospel which highlights Jesus and faith in His death burial and resurrection, but it includes people who don’t even formally or particularly know the gospel message at all! So when I speak about the gospel unto salvation prior to this dispensation, do not infer by that, that God can not make limited but righteous exceptions.

              Qb1 – No, it is not fine. I suggest that it should correct you, that would be fine. You do not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments to keep and alter.

              Qb2 – I gave you your own example as part of my answer! If you disagree with my answer than you are one contrary person because the first aspect of my answer was me agreeing with you!

              You said
              Again I disagree on two points. 1.) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or a Sunday? I don’t think you can. 2.) Circumcision is not considered work, therefore doing the circumcision on the Sabbath is acceptable.
              1) You have not previously challenged me on this issue, so no “again” implied as though I have not already answered you. You are the evasive one, although that is not fair, you are only evasive in vary narrow sense, generally you are very forthright and I appreciate that. I think your fear of the issue of the sticks man is only clear. I’ll use part of your own argumentation to answer you. The Sabbath is a very old tradition with God going way back. He rested on the seventh day, and I believe that Sabbath is a word that either means seven, or is a derivative of the word for seven. It’s the last day of the week, and that day is Saturday. I have NEVER been challenged to prove that the Sabbath is on Saturday, it is common knowledge that it is then and not Sunday. Anyone can use Polyana wishful thinking in place of a critical denial of someone’s view, but in this case the burden clearly rests upon you to overturn evidently thousands of years of acceptance that the Sabbath is on Saturday. Try if you will, but I do not think you will be able to do it.

              You said
              My faith has nothing to do with keeping the law, it is separate from it.
              You are very confusing. First you said that you keep the law by observing i.e. keep the Sabbath, but later admitted that you probably brake it in more ways than you are probably aware of. Then you said that you are under the law every time the issue of sin is in your life, you even equated sin with breaking the law (Mosaic commandments) not the commands and teachings of God expressly given for this dispensation, you referred to the old covenant laws by referencing the 10 commandments. Now, if your faith in God does not somehow include not sinning, then I suggest to you that you reconsider your statement, because as a mach law keeper that you have barely been arguing that you do, keeping the law is as you pointed out, vital to being right with God. So your faith as being a neo law keeper especially on the grounds of keeping the law to please God by not sinning, that is purely connected to your faith in God, it can be no other way.

              Here I find you extremely inconsistent, I hope you make up your mind which you are, under the law, or having been delivered from the law, with death separating you from it, being dead to the law, you are freed from it. Don’t fall from grace, obey God’s superceding commandments, not the Mosaic law for the previous dispensation.

              Your very next sentence says that you obey the law because you love and want to please God. So obviously your keeping the law has nothing to do with your faith in God. CAN YOU SAY CONTRADICTION?

              You quoted PAUL who teaches us that we are DEAD to the law, being delivered from, NOT TO, the law. It passed away (concerning us in Christ), and God does not impute sin upon us concerning salvation, and so on and so forth. You run back to the beggarly elements and risk falling from grace and making what Christ did for you of no avail.

              You said
              Well that raises a question. Can I lose my salvation either under grace or under the law? Simple Yes or No would suffice.
              Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
              Yes. Also I believe I’ve answered this before via other questions you’ve asked. I think you are getting careless.

              Qc2 – No, not the this dispensation. Also I believe I’ve answered this before via other questions you’ve asked. I think you are getting careless.

              You said
              (1) No you miss the boat again and again. I listen to the NT teachings also, but I also don’t forget about the OT teaching because it was under another dispensation. (2) I have not thrown out Paul teachings, and I have not thrown out the OT teachings(except for the sacrificial laws).
              Paul is an excellent example of following the Sabbath. HE did time and time again. This is what Paul did.
              (1) I missed nothing, the fact is that you have added absolutely nothing to my knowledge nor understanding of the bible. Not that you have to, but that for you to claim that I’m misunderstanding you, when I understand you perfectly is just nonsense. I used to be like you, the average Christian is like you. I agree that we should not forget about the other dispensational teachings.

              (2) Yes, I believe you have thrown out Paul’s teachings, you certainly do not live by them, i.e. the law is dead to us, God imputes no sin on us who are in Christ, we are not to return to the beggarly elements, being bound to the curse of the law, etc. You reject those teachings so that you can mix law and grace and try to make them synonyms instead of mutually exclusive in this dispensation.

              Ok, so now you’ve made a substantial amendment to being a law keeper. You keep the law except the sacrificial commands which you believe are no longer in affect. What about the dietary laws for example. I’d like to peg you on eating meat sacrificed to idols. And warning, when I do, it will be a pretty firm pegging. Paul taught against keeping the Sabbath for faith in this dispensation, but, because we should not let our liberty (freedom FROM THE LAW) make the weaker brother stumble. Paul writes about the differences between the circ and uncirc in much of his writings. He’s the one who said that in Christ there is no more Jew or Gentile, but then went about teaching the differences between the Jew and the Gentile on an almost constant basis, and I bet you have no reasonable reconciliation for that. Mine is simple, two different dispensations co-existed until they died out. So while the believers who were under the law were still living, Paul did not violate their gospel and way of life, instead he affirmed it because for them, and for those in the next dispensation, that was the way for salvation.

              Sorry, but this remark bares note, like Paul rightly said on a very similar confrontation between law and grace (i.e. they “added nothing to me” and he quickly dispatched them instead of them me), you have not only not (biblically) corrected me, you have given me nothing that I have not heard before, except the very strange notion that the Sabbath is not for the last day of the week, i.e. Saturday, but may be instead for the first day of the week. Conversely, you should stand corrected on perhaps several things and you are certainly learning new things that I believe even though you may not agree with much of it.

              For example, you should be able to see the 4 or 5 spiritual damnation teachings in that picking up sticks issue, also that Jesus commanded to keep every bit of the law, the greater and the lesser, you can not pick and choose, but you just keep ignoring the former like they aren’t even there, and the latter you just said, “oh”.

              You said
              So you really didn't answer that question. I'll ask it again. My answer to you is this, my Sabbath just happens to be a Sunday. Even though it doesn't have to be a Sunday. I pick Sunday because I am a normal 40hr work week person. Sunday fits best for me.
              I would repeat the warnings against adding to, or taking away from the word of God, but I feel rather dumb having to do that. The level of your audacity to think that you have the right to alter or correct God’s commandments that God demonstrates is a matter of life and death, and arguably salvation and damnation, is gross to say the least. Again, you do not have the standing to overturn Jesus.

              Qc4 – It’s not called the future, it’s called in the next dispensation, so far, we still have a future in this current dispensation. Why are you asking me such a basic question. Earlier you sounded to informed like a well read bible student, now you sound like a rookie. First question I purposefully deny answering. I’ll focus on more important issues and wait for you to make your questions for relevant.

              Qc5 – That again is a very hostile response. You already know my position that God gave the dispensation of grace to him to give to us. Read Paul and you will have the entire deal.

              You said
              Qb4)Not talking about salvation, of the ten commandments, which one(s) can we break as believers in Christ, saved by Grace, and will not be considered a sin?
              Answer
              Your question contradicts what I believe to be God’s word, so I can not answer according to your presuppositions as previously stated.
              I do have a better understanding of your logic. If I understand correctly this is what you believe.
              There are two groups today.
              Nope, take out “today” and then you’d be right. The previous group ended, we started, we will end, and they will pick back up again basically where they left off.

              You went on to say
              But those under Grace need to follow this dispensation commands, especially from Paul.
              No, only Paul gives us teachings for this dispensation. Others can teach to us nonspecific or cross-dispensational teachings, but only Jesus through Paul teaches us about the dispensation of mystery. But you got the next part very good, so maybe you just chose your words not as carefully here. You go on to say
              Let me put it another way. God draws a line on what is a sin. Picture in your mind a big circle, anytime an unbeliever today goes into that big circle it is considered a sin. Now draw another circle, smaller, and put it inside the big one. Anyone under grace will only be sinning if he is in the smaller circle. If he is in the bigger circle and not the smaller, he is not sinning. In conclusion, there are sins that an unbeliever today can commit, yet if a believer does the exact same thing it would not be considered a sin. I am trying to find out what those are.
              Nope. Only one circle. But there are two different groups of people (not to be confused with the two different saved groups of people, the law and grace, circ and uncirc), saved people, and unsaved people. For each group there is just one circle when we discuss sin. God does not have multiple standards of righteousness, a sin is a sin is a sin. The issue is not about sin, it’s about our relationship to the law. We who are saved are NOT under the law. God teaches without ambiguity that we can not sin because we are not under the law, we are freed from it and so on. But if we who are saved do the same sinful things that we did before we were saved, does that make it right? NO, not in the least, sin is sin, but our sin is not held against us for the sake of salvation, our sin is only held against us in terms of reducing our rewards in heave and pleasing God. I hope this helps and I do not mind at all the lack of understanding we may have on this issue, the grace gospel message is foreign to most Christians, and we have only barely covered this issue. And don’t charge me with not establishing stuff yet, I know I have only alluded to some teachings, allow me (and me to you too) the brevity to wait for more in-depth treatment until the 30 other issues have subsided.

              You said
              I would ask what are the actions the believers can commit and not be a sin, and the unbelievers if they do the same action, are sinning, but you won’t answer that.
              No, I have, but you are not yet understanding the paradigm shift. God, not me friend, God says that we are not under the law, all things are lawful, the law is dead to us having been nailed to the cross, and just like the woman who can marry after the death of her husband, so also are we to the law! That is a fact, God teaches that, I am just relating that to you. Also, the fact is that we still sin even though God does not impute sin to us. Those are both facts and they each have dramatically different implications and associations, you can not combine them like you would like to, and like you do law and grace.

              You said
              Yes I understand you better now, Christ doesn't void any of those under the Law. But what I am asking is those who are under grace, which ones under grace does Jesus voids?
              None, void is a bad word, the law is not in the least void, it is active, and remains that way, but we are not under it, Jesus has put us under His superceding teachings for faith as explained in the dispensation of grace through Paul. It’s an either or thing, and it matters a world of difference if you are referring to salvation or not. You want to mix them up, and I want to keep separate what God does not mix up.

              You said
              Questions--
              Qc1) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or Sunday. I don’t think you can.
              Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
              Qc3) how do you interpret this verse literally? What does “one Sabbath to another” mean?
              Qc4) Will we have a Sabbath in the future? Will all people observe the Sabbath in the future?

              Qc5) what is this dispensations commandments from God?
              Qc2 If you are truly saved under the dispensation of Grace teachings, you can not loose your salvation.

              Qc3 It means what it literally says. I may be missing the significance of your question; you have been a bit sketchy on some of your questions.

              Qc4 I think so.

              Looking back, I want to let our current and somewhat large discussion boil down, but I will hammer you on the dietary laws when you are ready. I have not studied the Sabbath that much, it is so obvious that it is not for us today so why bother, but I have studied several verses about the dietary laws and how they most certainly will be in force in the next dispensation after this dispensation of mystery, i.e. not prophecy.

              Blessings
              Last edited by 1Way; March 22nd, 2004, 02:31 AM.
              Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

              Comment


              • Nimrod – Concerning post 109

                I am reading your last post to me, and I am bothered with you for reverting over covered ground. I already pointed out the futility of thinking that God set up His people to do something that is impossible to do. I REPEAT, GOD NEVER SAID THAT YOU MUST OBEY THE ENTIRE LAW YOUR ENTIRE LIFE AND DO SO PERFECTLY, think about it for a millisecond, IF YOU COULD DO THAT, and you were thus sinless, then you would not need a savior, so this is nothing more than the fact that all men fail and all men need a savior! It does not make God’s law ridiculous. Nimrod, I command you to fly over to my place right now, just go outside and, well, first put on really warm cloths because where I am it is really cold, plus as you go higher up in the air I think it gets colder also. Anyway, then go outside and jump and just fly like superman does and land at my place and we’ll talk, it will be so much easier that way.

                What? You don’t have warm enough cloths? Get realistic, God did not command the impossible, that is just plain stupid, sorry for the insult, but that is carrying and mild. If you will address this issue again, please don’t just tell me your thoughts, I’ve already heard them AND I’ve already responded in a very direct "point counterpoint" way, so please respond to that. Maybe you missed it somewhere. And turbo well answered the rest.
                Blessings.
                Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                Comment


                • Nimrod – I probably have more time than you have, so here is my previous treatment from post 94, here’s the link
                  http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...345#post484345
                  Oh, and to include where you may stand corrected is your previous understanding of what it takes to be considered a false prophet as per my correction to you on my post 104 very first issue, a very tight case I might add. Also, I corrected you on a non bible teaching, about literal interpretation unless it is absurd, see "literal unless absurd" on this post for more.
                  Nimrod – 2 of 2
                  ...
                  ...

                  (Keeping the law is “impossible”)

                  You said
                  What Jew did not break a commandment? Again, keeping the commandment, which none of us can do, is for santification NOT justification.
                  I’m thinking again. Your saying that God, who is wise and reasonable, commanded man to do what man can not do.
                  God gave the law so that they may live (forever with God) and be in a righteous relationship with God (=salvation). The commandments of God were serious life and death, salvation and damnation issues, they were not optional or insincere.

                  God never said, you either have to keep all of my laws perfectly without breaking any of them, or you will go to hell. That is pure fictional nonsense. God commanded that you keep his law with all your strength and mind and soul. And in God’s word, there are examples of godly men doing just that. It is not an impossible task to obey what God commands us to obey.

                  Also, God provided a way for forgiveness if (and often when) they sinned. So keeping the law had correction for human error built in.

                  And what about all the problems of inter-conflicting laws, doesn’t that also demonstrate that God never really meant for man to keep them all? No, God expected man to use his brain and trust in the goodness and righteousness of God and that when some commands came into conflict and contradiction, you were not held responsible for that problem. God created that problem, not man. And all of human history and God’s word demonstrates that under such conflicting circumstances, the law keeper was just fine. The rule of thumb seems to be that which ever was a positive command generally outweighed a negative one, and which ever command was more important or weightier should supercede a less one, but never to do away with any laws as optional.

                  You have a point about the various aspects of the law making it such that man could not always and perfectly keep the law, but you can not take that grace any further than God allows. I mean, how can you repeat a command of God that ends in,

                  if you don’t do this, you shall surely be put to death,

                  and then think that you could willingly break that command and remain in good standing with God.

                  Please directly answer what I have brought before you for consideration, especially the man picking up sticks. A positive teaching usurps an implied one. We know that man was in eternal jeopardy, all indications are that he went to hell. If you can not somehow undo that teaching, then it stands and you are found at odds with God’s word. Also, you forgot to deal with Jesus’ teaching, as well as Paul’s, that if you are under the law i.e. a “law keeper”, then you are bound to keep the whole law, you do not have the standing to decide which laws you prefer to keep.

                  That was funny, why wasn't Jonah put to death... Because he obeyed God and was not a false prophet,,, ??? What broke your thinking on that one?
                  Oh, man, there’s more where I was specific and you have not responded, here it is.


                  Nimrod – ...

                  (Man picking up sticks = damnation)

                  You missed it again Magoo . And I already understand that you disagree with my take on Nu 15. Ok, I’ll isolate the part that has been beyond your consideration yet I have highlighted it numerous times for your thoughtful consideration, but your right, I did not explain it as much as allude to it, but I’m right for maintaining nothing beyond that all along.

                  ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’"

                  Now, I’ll combine this part with it’s surrounding parts.
                  • v30 – You are no longer part of God’s people (sounds like a salvation issue to me)
                  • v31 – being “completely cut off” (“from God”, not from your subscription to time magazine ) with your “guilt remaining” (completely cut off from God, you are not forgiven, a solid concise description of damnation)
                  • vv32-36 – The man died by God’s righteous condemnation for despising the word of the Lord (Jesus says you are “of the devil” because you have no room for His word, generally damning), sinning presumptuously by Braking the Sabbath which was a capitol offense, and his sin remained upon him (this is damnation for his soul, not just his body), he was unforgiven, he lost his life because of sin... (another idea of spiritual damnation)
                  The entire context
                  Every single idea in that entire passage (just mentioned) denotes eternal not just temporal damnation to one degree or another! The only exception, and I already granted this, is that on an individual basis, God can forgive someone if He wants to, but in this case, the bible clearly indicates that God had no mercy, no compassion, no forgiveness upon him, he was “completely cut off” (from God), his guilt remained, and he is not part of God’s people.

                  Just physical death?
                  or clear spiritual condemnation!
                  My main point for continuation is v.31, and what it means to be completely cut off with your guilt remaining, and how that idea coupled with him not being one of God’s people, and being executed for his sin is a tremendous picture of spiritual condemnation, not just a physical death was involved.

                  Thanks for your time on this issue, looking forward to your response, and I agree, other things are at hand, some of which are also very interesting. I could do far better at demonstrating how the those who were under the law in the previous dispensation generally known as the Law, but that is not my specialty. However, “Keep my commandments/word and you shall live”, is hardly just about physical life(!), those were the words of eternal life and salvation prior to the NT Pauline expressions. So I think I am right for suggesting that keeping the law was God’s unambiguous requirement for salvation prior to this dispensation.

                  ...
                  ...

                  You said
                  Picking up sticks on the Sabbath is a sin. I believe God is stating that we are not to WORK on the sabbath. During that time picking up sticks was considered working. Moses asked God what he should do. And you agreeed that God gets to choose when to be merciful and He wasn't on this issue. God was not merciful to this man, so I say don't work on the sabbath.
                  Oh, I see. Same with David, God decided to forgive him BUT DID NOT overturn the death penalty for capitol offenses. Same with this man, it is theoretically possible that God decided to save this man, but, God’s word indicates no such thing, and even if He did save this man, that does NOT overturn the teaching that dying in your sin is damnation.




                  You said
                  But you are correct that I do break the commandments of God.
                  1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Even though I am saved (OSAS). I still sin, it is impossible for me to live a sinless life here during this lifetime. So yes I do break the Sabbath and in doing so I commit a sin.
                  Now you just broke another commandment, do not alter God’s word. God says that as a saved person, you are not under the law, the law has died to you, you do not live a life of faith by keeping the law of God, the commandments for the previous dispensation. If you place yourself under that system of faith, then you risk falling from grace and making what Christ did for you of no gain. All those words and commands of God you just broke by suggesting that you should be a law keeper instead of obeying the superceding teachings and commandments given to Paul for this dispensation.

                  You said
                  Keeping the Law or doing the best you can is for Santification, not Justification. No one is righteous for keeping the Law.
                  Pure and false conjecture on your part. Again, by your own admission, you do not have the right to pick and choose which laws to keep, you either have to be a full blown law keeper, sans the sacrificial system which has been fulfilled by Jesus, or you are not under the law at all. Make up your mind which one you are so that I can figure out what you are besides mixed up. :chuckles: God says there are two groups, you seem to want to belong to both as though there are only one group walking on both sides of the fence, ouch!

                  ...
                  ...

                  (Literal unless absurd)

                  As to
                  am glad to hear that from you 1Way, all too often I hear dispensationalist say that they "interpret scripture LITERALLY except when absurb". We are making progress!!!
                  Don’t over exaggerate, it’s not polite nor necessary. The rule for accepting the literal meaning first is the case for all language, it is not just for bible study. Imagine trying to reverse this tendency and you may know for certain that the literal must be the overriding haulmark of communication. If figures was the first rule, the most common form of communication and the exception was the literal, then no one would know what anyone was saying, and figures would stack on top of and within and under other non-literal speech, and it would all be meaninglessness.

                  Secondly, the exception to when a passage should be taken figuratively instead of literally is when the literal does not fit, or it does not conform to the meaning of the wider context.

                  And frankly, it IS absurd to suggest a literal meaning that does not fit the wider contextual use. So you contradict reason and logic by disagreeing that a literal absurdity is a good cause to seek a non-literal meaning. I am VERY interested in your response on this issue. The Christian faith is anything but excepting of absurdities, it is a fully rational faith and as such falls perfectly in line with these rational beliefs. Not that you promote absurdity on purpose, but your opposition to understandings that oppose absurdities is bizarre to say the least.

                  As to your observation about my different approaches to the man picking up sticks. An exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. The fact that I do not have absolute knowledge of that man’s eternal abode does not invalidate my claim that the rule for damnation for not keeping God’s law was still in effect.

                  You said
                  TO me this statment says, Abraham can lose his salvation if he does no "work"(circumcision). So Abraham, to you, was saved by faith+works yet the Word of God said it was by His faith, then your reply is that God made an exception for Abraham therefore making His salvation by faith alone.
                  No, God made an exception for Abraham therefore making him exempt from the faith only and the works plus faith for salvation groups. He is not in just one or the other, He is the father of both. God saved people in both groups, so it is certain that God can save one person who is not clearly in only one or the other group.

                  This is an added note. This is a great example though. God said that he is the father of BOTH groups, but your view is that Abraham is the father of one group, you effectively mix both groups into one, which is wrong.

                  ...
                  ...
                  Blessings according to God’s riches
                  Last edited by 1Way; March 23rd, 2004, 08:39 PM.
                  Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 1Way

                    Ok, you will not deal with what I have presented on that issue which was plainly reading what God plainly says and you have not once responded to it, “being completely cut off” “with your sin upon you” is spiritual damnation, you don’t want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole, that is your way of dealing, not mine, I call that fear or aversion or ignorance.
                    See http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...5&pagenumber=7

                    Oh brother. Maybe we should stay to this issue until we get this settled. Here I go again.
                    Numbers 15:31 "that soul shall utterly be cut off". Which means put to death.
                    Numbers 15:31 "his iniquity shall be upon him" Which means suffer the consequences of his guilt.
                    Numbers 15:30 "and that soul shall be cut off from among his people". It does not say you will be cut off from God, but of his own people. You are outside the camp. It is not a salvation issue. BTW Number 15 is not sufficient evidence that God held obedience for salvation.

                    Ok 1Way, you said I have not responed once to this.

                    Really easy question this time.
                    Qf1) Did I respond to your question?

                    Comment


                    • I want to go back to your previous posts.

                      IN the Scriptures 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Your reply to this was
                      1Way said: John is arguing against the idea that man does not need a savior, some may say that they have no sin to be saved from.
                      If you take the literal approach, like me, you can see John was also referring to himself in this verse by using the word "we". Please re-read 1 John 1.

                      Now to the QA section
                      ----------------------------------------
                      Qc1) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or Sunday. I don’t think you can.
                      :Answer
                      The Sabbath is a very old tradition...and I believe that Sabbath is a word that either means seven, or is a derivative of the word for seven...Saturday, it is common knowledge that it is then...but in this case the burden clearly rests upon you to overturn evidently thousands of years of acceptance that the Sabbath is on Saturday.
                      No the burden is on you to show me from Scriptures. Which you have not done.
                      OK, then you admit it is not found in Scriptures, so it is by tradition of men.
                      2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness Since you were unable to prove to me in Scripture, your opinion or what "you believe" is irrevelant!

                      Now the word "sabbath". Etmology. Seven in Hebrew is 'seba', Sabbath in Hebrew is 'sabbat'. 'seb' and 'sab' are completely different. THe word sabbath comes from is 'sabat' which mean to cease. To cease? Yep, to cease from work.

                      And what did Jesus say about circumcision on the Sabbath?
                      John 7:23 "If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? "
                      There you have it. Jesus said it was not breaking the sabbath by having circumcision done on the Sabbath. (I didn't hear 1Way say "my fault" or "i was wrong", instead I hear nothing but pride).

                      Qg1) When did Jesus break the Sabbath?
                      My view is that he never did, he only broke the Pharisee rules and regulations on the Sabbath which is made up from man. And BTW, traveling a long distance on the Sabbath was another made up rule or tradition.


                      Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
                      :Answer
                      No
                      1Way, I am trying my hardest to understand your view, you on the other hand have not tried to get mine. My beliefs are orthodox, it has been taught for centuries, your view is new to this century, so I need ask questions to get a better understanding.

                      Ironside(a classic dispensationalist) prior to 1938 said
                      "Let one point be absolutely clear: No one was ever saved in any dispensation on any other ground than the finished work of Christ. In all the ages before the cross, God justified men by faith; in all the years since, men have been justified in exactly the same way. "
                      . Early Dispensationalist believed that God dealt with man differently in different dispensations, God did not change the way people were saved. Your belief is something new.

                      Qc3) how do you interpret this verse literally? What does “one Sabbath to another” mean?
                      :Answer
                      It means what it literally says
                      Qc4) Will we have a Sabbath in the future? Will all people observe the Sabbath in the future?
                      :Answer
                      It’s not called the future, it’s called in the next dispensation
                      Qc5) what is this dispensations commandments from God?
                      :Answer
                      You already know my position that God gave the dispensation of grace to him to give to us.
                      Ok, so you don't have a list, it is in Paul's writings. What a convient way to say 'I don't know all of them'.

                      This discussion started with the Sabbath, you can take a look back for yourself and see. There are over 100 places in the Scriptures where the Sabbath occurs. No need to travel down rabbit trails yet.

                      Just one question this time
                      -------------------------------
                      Qg1) When/How did Jesus break the Sabbath? Please show me from Scriptures.

                      Comment


                      • 1Way how do you interpret this verse?
                        Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law

                        Did Paul keep the sabbath? What about the Gentiles he preached to?

                        Comment


                        • what? no not what, why!

                          Nimrod – As to post #114 and claims verses support argumentation. “What” one believes verses “why” one believes it, along with substantiating it in the light of critical review are very different issues. I did not mean to infer that you have not stated “WHAT” you believe, I keep saying that you have expressed that each and every time. No, I am saying that in our discussion of point counter point where concept upon concept builds on top of the previous response thus advancing the discussion. You quoted my general claim but you did NOT respond to my specific reasoning why I believe the way I do, leaving me to believe that you have no retort against my corrective counterpoints. Apparently I’m in the right and you remain evasive.

                          Here is the text in question

                          Quote
                          • unintentional sin is forgivable
                            Nu 15:25 ‘So the priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional; they shall bring their offering, an offering made by fire to the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their unintended sin. 26 ‘It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people did it unintentionally. 27 ‘And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 ‘So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 ‘You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.

                            intentional sin is not forgivable
                            30 ‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 (1) ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, (2) that person shall be completely cut off; (3) his guilt shall be upon him.’"

                            with application to breaking the Sabbath
                            32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.
                          End quote

                          (1) Again, Jesus expressly condemned this as a sign of being of the devil, not of being of God. (you are of your father the devil because you have no room for My word...) The devil is ungodly and hell bound RIGHT? Jesus and His word is godly and heavenly RIGHT?

                          (2) It’s being completely cut off from God, not anything else, so your idea that being completely cut off simply means from physical life is absent from probably all capitol offense references, and what about intentional offenses that are not capitol!!! Doesn’t your position force you to say that if someone brakes any law of God, capitol or not, they should be put to death? My view is that one may brake the law and be cut off from God by sinning intentionally, that is, you are not always put to death for such a sin but you are condemned/not forgiven thus damned by God.

                          Couldn’t vrs 32-36 be an example of them simply not knowing for sure if his sin was intentional or not? After all man can not read the heart of man like God can. So perhaps the reason they sought the Lord’s input was because of a lack of clarity on that issue, not otherwise.

                          (3) God says that such a person is not forgiven. While it is not clear if it is only this one sin or all his sins, but remember, God does not accept you with any sins remaining, you must be forgiven by God in order to be saved, and this man is NOT forgiven, thus it is only logical that he is not saved.

                          Here is what I said and I am left thinking I am right and wondering what you would say in response. Some edits apply.

                          Quote
                          • God does not have to say the specific words, “you are cut off from me” in order for that reality to be His teaching. Being “completely cut off” is sufficient for including being cut off from God, but God does not stop there, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING (did you hear that?) He says that

                            1) you are completely cut off, (synonymous with damnation)
                            2) no longer part of God’s people, (synonymous with damnation)
                            3) God condemns you to death for your sin, (synonymous with damnation)
                            4) which is despising His word (Jesus=you are of the devil, synonymous with damnation)
                            5) and your sin remains upon you, and you die in your sin! (=’s damnation)

                            So only every single feature of this teaching spells out spiritual eternal damnation. But somehow through your growth and understanding, all that has escaped your notice.
                          End quote

                          I am looking forward to your “counterpoint” response to this my “counterpoint” response for our ongoing, not stagnant, conversation. And if you say you just disagree one more time, I’m gonna ,,, rrrr,,, ugh, ,,, not appreciate it. Also, if you do not know why you disagree with my corrective counterpoint reasoning over this issue, then under the circumstances, I’ll understand and graciously accept your admission of defeat.
                          Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                          Comment


                          • started out ok, getting worse

                            Nimrod – Concerning your post #115 1 of 2

                            You said
                            If you take the literal approach, like me, you can see John was also referring to himself in this verse by using the word "we". Please re-read 1 John 1.
                            Ya, I know, John needed to be saved to. Also, I imagine that John was not perfected yet and still sinned from time to time, same with us, we all need to be saved, that is a universal truth, and even though we are saved, that does not preclude us from commiting sin again, another universal truth. This does not mitigate against God’s teaching that if you are saved under the dispensation of mystery, then God does not impute sin on us. How many times must I reference God’s word until you will accept it instead of arguing against it? If you have no reasonable harmony of these various teachings, then your lack of providing one will soon enough be counted against you despite your apparent unwillingness to admit this deficiency.

                            You said
                            No the burden is on you to show me from Scriptures. Which you have not done.
                            OK, then you admit it is not found in Scriptures, so it is by tradition of men.
                            No, the burden is on you to overturn the teachings from scripture that the Sabbath is not in reference to the last day of the week, Saturday. I site all of history that validates my understanding, and God’s word in many places, I will not pretend that you are not so ignorant as to be aware of all this, nor you towards me and the thousands of years of acknowledging this fact.

                            And if I would adopt your thinking that since I have not provided specific bible references for my view, then you would be wrong because you do not demonstrate your much more unrealistic view from scripture. I repeat, 1) the Sabbath is the last day of the week, and 2) that day is Saturday, the bible NEVER deviates from that formula.

                            If you will not accept this, then you are admitting extreme bible ignorance over those two bible facts and once you do that, I will be glad to direct your search through scripture to find what you need to learn about the Sabbath. Until then, since you claim to know better, prove it or stand corrected, and do NOT contradict yourself with hypocritically claiming that a view that is not specifically provided with scripture references must be irrelevant, I have given you several biblical teachings plus the fact that thousands of years supports my view on this matter. Note, tradition has a God given favorable role in faith but is “never” the higher authority, thus I do not throw out tradition, I just properly raise scripture above it whereas many Christians have a longstanding tradition of not doing that. In fact, that is probably the most longstanding tradition there is, bucking God’s ways for mans. Sorry if this disappoints you “oh man”, but I’m sticking with the few who honor God above all else.

                            Tradition is the number one hot bed for false doctrine, but God’s word is true. The reformers had the new tradition against the Catholics, and they rightly said no, it’s a matter of Biblical authority. So stop your constant appeal to tradition, or realize your hypocrisy when you affirm what the reformation did for helping Christianity in tremendous ways.

                            Sabbath as “cease” not “seven”
                            Ok, your right, I was wrong, I did not even look it up, and I believe I said that I assumed this was the case but did not say for sure it was. Thanks for the correction, but that does not alter what the Sabbath commandments mean. It is a command from God to keep it holy “on the seventh day”, which is Saturday. That command along with the many associated commands are not ambiguous nor up for personal adjustment to suit personal or cultural preferences. If you disagree with this, please explain your source, authority and reasoning.

                            You said
                            And what did Jesus say about circumcision on the Sabbath?
                            John 7:23 "If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? "
                            There you have it. Jesus said it was not breaking the sabbath by having circumcision done on the Sabbath. (I didn't hear 1Way say "my fault" or "i was wrong", instead I hear nothing but pride).
                            I do see some pride, and a willingness to sidestep the truth in order to protect your sense of self righteousness. Here is the passage as it is in tact and “not ripped out of context”.
                            Joh 7:21 Jesus answered and said to them, "I did one work, and you all marvel. 22 "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 "If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
                            Jesus compared himself WITH them, not AGAINST them, for both of them doing a work on the Sabbath. If only Jesus did the work on the Sabbath and they did not, then you would render the meaning of this verse into meaninglessness. Jesus showed how it was right in so doing in each case. So, yes, it was not wrong to violate one aspect of the law if you did so in order to keep another aspect of the law. Presumably “circumcision” and “moral commands” superceded lesser laws and amoral commands.

                            You sought to find sin and error according to false imaginations against me. I hope you are glad to be mistaken. As to my sense of pride not admitting where I am wrong, I honestly admitted I was wrong without issue about the “seven” “cease” thing prior to reading your phony charges. You should be sincerely ashamed. Continued next post
                            Last edited by 1Way; March 23rd, 2004, 11:50 PM.
                            Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                            Comment


                            • God is the authority, not otherwise

                              Nimrod – Concerning your post #115 part 2 of 2

                              You said
                              Qg1) When did Jesus break the Sabbath?
                              My view is that he never did, he only broke the Pharisee rules and regulations on the Sabbath which is made up from man. And BTW, traveling a long distance on the Sabbath was another made up rule or tradition.
                              Oh, I see, so your moving this discussion from slander to baloney. 1) Jesus tacitly admitted to braking the Sabbath in God’s word saying why do you ALSO break... in Matt. and I think your John passage does a similar thing though not as clearly. Lastly, you keep making negative charges against the bible. I will not tolerate this. 2) God clearly commanded tight restrictions for the Sabbath AND YOU AGREED HE DID, even saying that He gave many commandments and that you probably break many of them! Now you act as though that was all wrong and He did not even restrict how far one may travel on the Sabbath. Bizarre.

                              The following is more than bizarre, it is troubling. You said
                              Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
                              :Answer
                              No
                              1Way, I am trying my hardest to understand your view, you on the other hand have not tried to get mine. My beliefs are orthodox, it has been taught for centuries, your view is new to this century, so I need ask questions to get a better understanding.

                              Ironside(a classic dispensationalist) prior to 1938 said
                              Nimrod. The bible says that God is the authority, not man’s traditional teachings. Traditional teachings hated and killed Jesus instead of worship Him. And having a “biblical” not “manmade” faith is NOT new to this century; it is bible wide and was for the most part rejected through longstanding tradition. So SPARE us the tripe about my faith not conforming to manmade tradition, it is in accordance to God’s word and we are all ultimately held responsible to that authority as opposed to any other.

                              Secondly, you ignored my response yet presented it as though it was a direct response. Trying to start a bad habit are you? Not good.

                              You went on to quote manmade tradition saying
                              "Let one point be absolutely clear: No one was ever saved in any dispensation on any other ground than the finished work of Christ. In all the ages before the cross, God justified men by faith; in all the years since, men have been justified in exactly the same way. "
                              Right, so what? This does not alter anything. I am not saying that “faith plus works” is outside the category of what God required “as faith” from man in order to be saved. To obey God in saving faith, you had to 1) believe and 2) keep the law, I call that “faith plus works” although you could call that “belief plus works”, but that does not contrast as sharply against “faith alone and NO works”. So I say “faith plus works” as opposed to “faith alone with NO works”. Both of those types of “faith” (remember, one father for TWO groups of faith, not ONE group with TWO fathers) were what God required for salvation in each separate dispensation. God did not count their works as meritorious (work) but as faith and righteousness IF you keep His commandments, keeping the law was a requirement, it was not optional. Today “keeping the law” is forbidden, it’s faith alone and NO works for salvation. When it comes to what actually “merits” or “earns” salvation, it is always God and His work at the cross, what has changed is not how we are saved, but what God requires of us in order to obey Him unto salvation. God has the right to change the gospel requirement of faith for salvation, and He did as aforementioned. Keep my commandments and live was a gospel message it was not God’s exception to killing everyone, it was His requirement for eternal life.

                              Again, you say this is something new, I will NEVER care about what tradition says if it does NOT line up with scripture. You may bow to the concerns of tradition, but I bow to the concerns of scripture and then whatever tradition conforms to that authority is a valid but subservient point.

                              You said
                              Qc5) what is this dispensations commandments from God?
                              :Answer
                              You already know my position that God gave the dispensation of grace to him to give to us.
                              Ok, so you don't have a list, it is in Paul's writings. What a convient way to say 'I don't know all of them'.

                              This discussion started with the Sabbath, you can take a look back for yourself and see. There are over 100 places in the Scriptures where the Sabbath occurs. No need to travel down rabbit trails yet.
                              Again, you did not respond to what I said. You are being evasive, and you know my answer yet you act like I am being evasive.

                              Secondly, you did not ask nor imply if I knew every superceding command, nor do you know the ones you say you keep(!!!)(can you say hypocrite), so you are wrong on so many levels. And I was NOT traveling down a rabbit trail I WAS PLAINLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY ANSWERED AND YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID and misrepresent. Here you willfully pervert and contradict your own humble admission that you do not know all of the commandments you lamely claim to be a keeper of them. If you have no specific response to what I have actually said, how convenient of you to shift blame on me instead of dealing with what I have said.

                              You said
                              Qg1) When/How did Jesus break the Sabbath? Please show me from Scriptures.
                              “Why do you ALSO break ...” in Matt and our example in John.


                              As to your post #116, you said
                              1Way how do you interpret this verse?
                              Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law

                              Did Paul keep the Sabbath? What about the Gentiles he preached to?
                              The law did not die in all respects, it is still alive and well, I have told you this before. The law is not for us who are saved but for those who are not, and for all those who are or will be “under the law”, like as in the previous or next dispensation. That is why during the brief overlapping and co-existence of these two different dispensations, Paul honored and did not violate their gospel and dispensational ways because of the sake of those who were still “under the law”! Paul respected that God given fact because it was right to do so. So God taught Paul to not violate them with our new freedom “in Christ” which is characterized by our NOT being under the law. God through Paul established the righteous or legal use of the law, to use it against the unsaved and ungodly, and in the case of those who were “law keepers”, the law was accepted as their very different form of faith in God.

                              I hope you will become more biblical and not traditional minded. I will not continue down that path as you well know.
                              Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                              Comment


                              • Hello 1Way

                                You claim that I did NOT respond to your specific reasoning why you believe the way you do. SO here I do it again. So let’s go point to point. Here is the scripture in question:

                                Numbers 15:31 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance: 26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance. 27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. 28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. 30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.


                                Point 1, 1Way says “intentional sin is not forgivable” and he quotes Numbers:30-31 (1) ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, (2) that person shall be completely cut off; (3) his guilt shall be upon him.’"
                                My reply: Point 1) Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment.
                                What entails someone to “despised the word of the LORD”. If you are an unsaved unbeliever, I can see why you despise the word of the Lord, but we can’t be talking about this person because he never had salvation so he can’t lose what he doesn’t have. What about a believer? Lets take a close look at King David. 2 Sam “Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.”
                                David despised the commandment of the LORD, here we can see King David committing the same crime as Number 15:31, it was intentional. This breaks 1Way’s point 1 statement that “intentional sin is not forgiveable”, unless of course he feels David went to hell.
                                Psalms 37:28 “For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: ” God never forsake David or any OT saint, nor me.
                                We know David was saved by what Paul said on how one is saved in the OT. Giving examples of Abraham and David, for in these two people the Jews held in high regard. In Romans 4:4-8 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Paul gives an example from the life of David as further proof that one is justified by faith and should be grateful that he is not judged upon his deeds (4:6-8). David was a man after God’s own heart (1Sa 13:14, Acts 13:22). In this verse Paul quotes from Psalm 32:1-2. This passage makes it clear that the “reckoning” of righteousness to David was not part of “what was owed” (v4). David pronounces blessing on the man to whom righteousness is imparted apart from works. Psalms 32 was written after David’s sin with Bathsheba. David had already committed the sin. There was nothing he could do except ask for forgiveness. Therefore, just because someone commits an intentional sin against the word of God, it is NOT an unforgivable sin, and it does not condemn you. So 1Ways statement “intentional sin is not forgivable” if false by the account of King David.


                                1Way says Point 2) that person shall be completely cut off
                                In Numbers 15:31 we read “that soul shall utterly be cut off” KJV.
                                We both agree that it doesn’t say that this person will be cut off from God, but from his people. We can define “people” as Israel.

                                A male who is not circumcised will be cut off from his people. that soul shall be cut off from his people (Gen. 17:14) Anyone who eats yeast during the days of unleavened bread or chooses not to observe Passover must be cut off from Israel. Ex. 12:15 that soul shall be cut off from Israel and Num. 9:13 soul shall be cut off from among his people Anyone who does any work on the Sabbath must be cut off from his people. (Ex. 31:14) soul shall be cut off from among his people Anyone who does not afflict his soul on the Day of Atonement shall be cut off from his people. (Lev. 23:28-29 shall be cut off from among his people) Anyone who eats blood or the fat of any animal which can be offered to the Lord shall be cut off from his people. (Lev. 7:25-27 soul shall be cut off from his people)
                                Some of these offenses were the cause of God's destruction of the tribes of Canaan. These included sexual immorality, child sacrifice, and occult practices. (Lev. 18 & 20)
                                Some of these offenses are related to the Temple and the sacrifices and offerings presented there. Anyone who makes the anointing oil or incense used in the Temple and uses it for any other purpose shall be cut off from his people. (Ex. 30:33, 37 shall even be cut off from his people) Anyone who is unclean and enters the Temple or eats of the sacrifices must be cut off from Israel. (Num. 19:13,20; Lev. 7:20-21 soul shall be cut off from among the congregation) The same punishment comes upon anyone who presents a sacrifice in an improper way. (Lev. 17:3-9; 19:5-8)
                                Because God looks on our hearts, there is a general warning against all arrogant rejection of the Lord and His Law. "But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people." (Num. 15:30).
                                Does this mean that you will lose your salvation? 1Way says yes I say no.
                                First lets go to the NT. For we all believe that we cannot lose our salvation, what does Paul say.In Romans 11:22 we read “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off
                                Was Paul talking about a believer that can be cut off? A true believer can not lose his salvation, so what does it mean. It means God will discipline you hoping that you will repent. Here is more evidence that God uses the word “cut off” to mean discipline. Jeremiah 44:11 “Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah.” God punished Israel for their sins, he never left Israel as being their God, He was still with them in Egypt. Noticed he cut off ALL Judah. It just means he was punishing a nation for their sins, hoping they will repent. He wanted them to stop in their sins, He sent them prophets, but like a father who loves his children, discipline was the only answer.

                                There are other instances in the Bible where “cut off” means to put to death or remove
                                Hosea 10:15 “So shall Bethel do unto you because of your great wickedness: in a morning shall the king of Israel utterly be cut off.”This is the only other verse in Scriptures that have “”utterly cut off”, and from the context it stating that Israel’s King will die. “cut off” means to die, he was removed from office, he was no more.
                                Daniel l 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off


                                In conclusion, “cut off” from his people/congregation/Israel is the way of saying discipline them. Ike today in the NT Church, if someone continues in his sins, kick him out of the Church until he repents. The person never lost his salvation, but he was sinful/wicked in his ways, and God cuts people off for that.

                                1Way says: Point 3) his guilt shall be upon him
                                This means the unbeliever will pay the consequence for his sins and he is guilty of the crime. Death penality. Same is true today, if we sin, out guilt is upon us. Lev 5:17 “And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.” From this verse it states anyone which does things that are forbidden in the commandments, whether he knew of it or not, he is guilty.
                                It is as simple as, you commit a sin, your guilty.

                                Conclusion. Point 1 is shown false by King David, point 2 only means death or discipline not cut from salvation, point 3 just shows when 1Way commits a sin, he is guilty(see Lev 5:17). And finally Romans 4 puts to rest on how the OT saints were saved. By faith.

                                Now to the Sabbath. We read Number 15:32-36 32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

                                1Way now makes 3 points.
                                1Way says Point 1) “Jesus expressly condemned this as a sign of being of the devil, not of being of God. (you are of your father the devil because you have no room for My word...)”.
                                My reply: I love the way 1Way responds with Scripture quotes to back up his claim. I have to go find it! As I search the Scriptures, I think 1Way is speaking of John 8:24 ” Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”. I’m not too sure if 1Way is using this verse. From reason, 1Way could not be talking about the Sabbath but about Number 15:30-31. In Number 15:31 we read “Because he hath despised the word of the LORD”. Yes and we know King David is not of the Devil and King David committed the same crime. So your Point 1 is moot. See above this has been answered. As for being the children of the devil, it is simply that these people were never true believers from the start, they put their salvation in being a descendant of the Abraham. Are you making a point that the man in Numbers 15:30-31 was always an unbeliever? It could be true, we don’t have enough info to be dogmatic.

                                Point 2) 1Way says “It’s being completely cut off from God, not anything else, so your idea that being completely cut off simply means from physical life is absent from probably all capitol offense references, and what about intentional offenses that are not capitol!!! Doesn’t your position force you to say that if someone brakes any law of God, capitol or not, they should be put to death? My view is that one may brake the law and be cut off from God by sinning intentionally, that is, you are not always put to death for such a sin but you are condemned/not forgiven thus damned by God.”
                                My reply: Thanks for the Scripture proof of your statement “and what about intentional offenses that are not capitol!!!” Do you have any? Just one would be nice. What is your point? No I do not believe every sin deservers death. My view God can forgive any sin. No matter what was the crime, it can be forgiven. There are no sins that are unforgivable. Let me clarify a point, the NT said that the sin against the HS is unforgivable, yet Jesus can forgive all sins. I take the position that God can forgive all sins.


                                Now back to the Sabbath
                                1Way said ”Couldn’t vrs 32-36 be an example of them simply not knowing for sure if his sin was intentional or not? After all man can not read the heart of man like God can. So perhaps the reason they sought the Lord’s input was because of a lack of clarity on that issue, not otherwise.”
                                My reply: My position is that there isn’t enough information for us to say for sure that the man did it intentionally/unintentionally. So in this point I agree, that is why they asked God. What should we do or what does the law require? Another point is that the man who was never saved could have repented before being stoned to death, and in turn got saved. Just like the thief on the cross.

                                Point 3)
                                1Way said “(3) God says that such a person is not forgiven. While it is not clear if it is only this one sin or all his sins, but remember, God does not accept you with any sins remaining, you must be forgiven by God in order to be saved, and this man is NOT forgiven, thus it is only logical that he is not saved.”
                                My reply: 1Way said “God does not accept you with any sins remaining” If you need each and every sin forgiven before you die to go to heaven is an impossible task. That’s logic! There are some sins you commit that you don’t even know about. See Lev 5:17. How are the OT saints sins forgiven for those? Ever think about that? What happens if OT saints die instantly, and haven’t asked forgiven from God yet? This is just silly and impossible. Sin is deceitful, it makes you think you have done no wrong when you have.
                                I really don’t know what verse you are speaking of, honestly. 1Way said” you must be forgiven by God in order to be saved, and this man is NOT forgiven, thus it is only logical that he is not saved” Well that is true for today, everyone needs to be forgiven to be saved, if that man, as you say, was not, then yes he would go to hell. But our debate has nothing to do if the lost died and went to hell(we both know that is true), but if a saved person can lose his salvation. Your position that this man went to hell because of the sin he committed, he lost the salvation he had. If he was never saved from the start, then yes he died not because of this sin, but because he never repented and put his trust in God. If he was saved, then no this sin does not qualify him to lose salvation. It does qualify to lose his life.



                                Now we go to 1Ways final response.

                                1 Way said “
                                God does not have to say the specific words, “you are cut off from me” in order for that reality to be His teaching. Being “completely cut off” is sufficient for including being cut off from God, but God does not stop there, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING (did you hear that?1) you are completely cut off, (synonymous with damnation)
                                2) no longer part of God’s people, (synonymous with damnation)
                                3) God condemns you to death for your sin, (synonymous with damnation)
                                4) which is despising His word (Jesus=you are of the devil, synonymous with damnation)
                                5) and your sin remains upon you, and you die in your sin! (=’s damnation)


                                My reply: I disagree, I disagree, I disagree.
                                1) “cut off” See Romans 11, Jeremiah 44. In a similar manner in Jeremiah 3:8 we read “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” God divorced Israel. This is similar to being cut off from being his people, here God’s own people are no longer His wife. God does these things to get people to stop committing sins and repent. From the Scriptures we know he did not damn them to hell.
                                2) The verse you are reffering to is Numbers 15:31 “soul shall be cut off from among his people” Cut off from “his people” meaning Israel, it does not mean you are cut from God book of life and damned for hell. You will die and be no part anymore of God’s people on earth, but you can be in heaven. Job was not an Israelite, so was Abraham, and other OT saints, yet they are not Israelites. You did not have to be an Israelite to be saved. Israel was God’s chosen people but you did not have to belong to the tribe Israel to be saved. What about Rehab, she wasn’t but she had the faith we find in Hebrews 11. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Isaac, Sara. In Hebrew 11:15 “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” Just because you are out of the “his people”, doesn’t mean you are not saved.

                                3) You commit a sin, you are guilty. See above.
                                4) King David despised God’s commandments see above.
                                5) See 3.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X