Is Calvinism Wrong?

[glorydaz]

Spoiler

Sanctification and justification are not separable concepts; you don't find the saints justified without sanctification, and you don't find the saints sanctified without justification.

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

How is it that you read that "justified by his blood" (Romans 5:9) as if that was some sort of contradiction against "sanctified by his blood?" (Hebrews 10:29?) Most normal people would recognize that the blood of Christ (a metaphor for Christ Himself) both justifies and sanctifies.

Or do you maintain that the blood of Christ is a magical potion that has a different effect from one person to the next? It is written "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself... " (Col 1:20) and in another place "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7)

Besides this, you cannot seize hold of one tiny phrase and insist that it is a "work of art." There is a multitude of phrases and metaphors used to describe how we are sanctified. I can never tell which books you will toss out as "inapplicable" so I included one from each from a variety including Acts, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, and Jude.

Spoiler

Acts 20:32 KJV
(32) And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Romans 15:16 KJV
(16) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 5:25-26 KJV
(25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

1 Thessalonians 4:1-3 KJV
(1) Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
(2) For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
(3) For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV
(23) And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV
(13) But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2 Timothy 2:19-21 KJV
(19) Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
(20) But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
(21) If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Hebrews 10:9-10 KJV
(9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
(10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

1 Peter 1:2 KJV
(2) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Jude 1:1 KJV
(1) Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

All of his saints are justified and sanctified by Him, but the scriptures do not limit themselves to one fixed term from one epistle to the next. It is a matter of variety of speech, not two (or seven) different gospels and alchemical formulae for Salvation. For example, we are told that we are sanctified by:

1. By the Holy Ghost (Romans)
2. By Jesus Christ with the washing of water by the word (Ephesians)
3. By the commandments of Lord Jesus (1 Thessalonians)
4. Of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians)
5. By departing from iniquity (2 Timothy)
6. By the offering of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews)
7. By God the Father (Jude)

And given that range of description for sanctification do you really want to argue that you we are sanctified by something other than His blood? Just because that particular description comes from the book of Hebrews? Will you also be consistent and maintain that you are not sanctified by God the Father because that was written in Jude?

1 Thessalonians 4:1-3 KJV
(1) Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
(2) For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
(3) For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

While we were at it, I thought I'd point out that the Thessalonian Christians were sanctified by the commandments by Lord Jesus. You seemed to object to the word "commandments" before, saying that you didn't need to follow the commandments of Jesus because they were only for Jews. Remind me please, is Thessalonians considered a Jewish epistle or a Gentile epistle? I can never tell which ones we are supposed to ignore.

There is no sense addressing the above until you can figure out whether the verse is talking about "set apart" or "made holy". What you've given is a mixed up blur without any cohesion at all.

Forgiving others to be forgiven of sin was never part of the law. Read the law, Glory. Search it until you get tired of looking, it's not there.

Try looking a little harder. Broaden your search. Try words like restitution. What you will find is something was always required in order to receive forgiveness of sins. Leviticus 4:20KJV

Which is why Jesus says, If you forgive others, your sins are forgiven. That is law. Matt. 6:14-15 Blessings and cursings. That is Law given to Israel through Moses.


"If-Then" goes all the way back to Exodus 19:5KJV, and is foundation throughout Mosaic Law. If the people of Israel obeyed God's covenant, God would bless them...if they didn't, He would curse them. Which is why they had restitution, forgiveness of debt, and sacrifices when they failed. Read Deut. 28KJV.

In Paul's grace gospel, forgiveness is freely given when we believe. There are no works of any kind required of us. There is no IF-Then with Grace.

Spoiler

Is your argument become that Jewish believers in Christ are not justified? "The just shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4, Galatians 3:11).

Galatians 3:11 KJV
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

I can just hear the chorus now, "Paul, you don't know how to rightly divide the word of truth!"" What is Paul doing taking an Old Testament scripture written to Jews and applying this to all men in a epistle to the Gentiles? But Paul is very clear here. No man is justified by the law, for it is evident, "The just shall live by faith."

If none are justified by works of the law, but the just shall live by faith, that would include Jewish Christians.



James does not say we are justified by works of the law. James speaks in the context of faith, and says that Abraham was justified by the works of his faith. James addresses a dead faith, a fake faith, against an interpretation of belief that is as hollow as the same belief that the devils also possess. Read the passage again, does it say "works of the law?" Or does it say that a true faith has works?

And does he not also say that Abraham was justified by works? Abraham was before the law, this is not possibly "works of the law." And how does he summarize his meaning? He says "the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness..." (James 2:23)

If you've been reading that as "justified by works of the law" you've been reading it all wrong and against the context. Besides this, your interpretation would necessarily create a contradiction where Paul quotes the Old Testament to prove that no man is justified by the law. Abraham was justified by the works of his faith which were plainly seen when he offered Isaac on the altar, without works of the law.



You already have Paul contradicting your interpretation of James. Read James as written and there is no contradiction. "Works" is used throughout scripture and it is always "works" of something, whether it is the works of our hands, works of the law, works of the Lord God, or works of faith.

Romans 3:27-28 KJV
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

James 2:17-18 KJV
(17) Even sofaith,if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
(18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

You don't show faith by works of the law but rather you show faith by works of faith. So even as Paul speaks of the law of faith, and James speaks against those who deceived themselves through a dead faith without belief. There is no contradiction here, no justification to impose an artificial lens with which to tear scripture asunder. No man is justified through the law is a solid rule without exception.

Glory, I suspect that the perceived mandate for "Mid Acts Dispensationalism" stands or falls on the claim of "justification by works of the law" which isn't taught by scripture for any person or any peoples. James doesn't say that, that's what other people say about James. Besides, Paul dispels that notion flat out, using plain language that excludes anyone and everyone, and "the scripture cannot be broken."

Regardless... this is hardly bad news. Doesn't it make far more sense that God is consistent with everyone? If MAD dictates that some are justified by works of the law and Paul says that no one is justified by the works of the law, I'd go with Paul. Any day.

Your above argument concerns your inability to .....yes, I'll say it....rightly divide the word of God. You're fighting way too hard to prove yourself right, but you're only showing your desperation. Try to be succinct with your posts. This one is a mess...jumping from pilar to post.

 

[Clete]

Boiling this down to the core issue for brevity...


First of all, taking a day off because you feel the need for a day of rest and recovery is one thing. Doing so because you think God has commanded you to do so is a resurrection of your flesh and a rescue of the Law from the cross and will cripple Christ's ability to live His life in and through you. It is the opposite of living by grace alone through faith alone.

What you call the natural law, I see more. There is the conscience on which the moral law (Ten) were written.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,​

Man's conscience has always been an important aspect of the concept of natural law and so your point here doesn't further your case. I can see (I think) that you're are using the Ten Commandments as a proxy for morality in general, what I don't understand is why you would want to do such a thing. You don't need the Ten Commandments, you've got something WAY better!

Also, why doesn't Paul ever once tell us that we are to follow the Ten Commandments? Romans 1 not only was Paul's golden opportunity to do so and not only did he choose not to but he discusses sins that very simply are not part of the Ten Commandments.

You can say that that all the things associated with man's conscience are included in the Ten Commandments if you want but, and you know what line is coming next...

Saying it doesn't make it so!


What biblical basis or even rational basis are you using to support the idea that the law written on men's hearts, or natural law, or whatever you want to call it, is the equivalent to the Ten Commandments?

What about the time before the Ten Commandments existed? It was immoral for Cain to kill Abel, right? Surely you don't think that was because of the Ten Commandments, do you?


Resting in Him,
Clete








I'll need to finish answering on a different post. I'm not good at long ones.[/QUOTE]

 

[glorydaz]

Boiling this down to the core issue for brevity...


First of all, taking a day off because you feel the need for a day of rest and recovery is one thing. Doing so because you think God has commanded you to do so is a resurrection of your flesh and a rescue of the Law from the cross and will cripple Christ's ability to live His life in and through you. It is the opposite of living by grace alone through faith alone.

I'm not doing so because I think God commanded me to do so. I'm doing so because after God finished His work of creation, He desired a rest for His creation as well, else why would He bless it and set it apart?

Gen. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

And why in the world would I refuse something that God made for man?

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
​

Man's conscience has always been an important aspect of the concept of natural law and so your point here doesn't further your case. I can see (I think) that you're are using the Ten Commandments as a proxy for morality in general, what I don't understand is why you would want to do such a thing. You don't need the Ten Commandments, you've got something WAY better!

I'm not using the Ten for anything. I'm trying to explain why I believe they are distinct from the Mosaic Law. When you say they aren't the same as the "natural law", I have to wonder what you mean by the natural law. The Ten correspond directly to the "moral law" that constitutes the conscience we are created with. It's basic right and wrong. What in the Ten is not basic right and wrong?

Also, why doesn't Paul ever once tell us that we are to follow the Ten Commandments?

Because Paul makes it quite clear that is not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is very narrow. Like our conscience, it cannot keep us from sinning. It can only convict us of right and wrong. There was never a problem with the law, itself. The problem comes when man attempts to use it for righteousness or justification or to earn life.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.​

Romans 1 not only was Paul's golden opportunity to do so and not only did he choose not to but he discusses sins that very simply are not part of the Ten Commandments.

You can say that that all the things associated with man's conscience are included in the Ten Commandments if you want but, and you know what line is coming next...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Yep, and saying it doesn't, doesn't make it so, either.

What biblical basis or even rational basis are you using to support the idea that the law written on men's hearts, or natural law, or whatever you want to call it, is the equivalent to the Ten Commandments?

What about the time before the Ten Commandments existed? It was immoral for Cain to kill Abel, right? Surely you don't think that was because of the Ten Commandments, do you?


Resting in Him,
Clete

I believe the Ten have always existed....long before they were written on tablets of stone. The example of Cain and Abel is a good one. Cain didn't need the law to be written down. He knew he was coveting the praise his brother was given. He knew he shouldn't kill his brother. His conscience (which he was created with) accused him.

I get my ideas from Paul, himself. I take him seriously....

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )​

 

[Rosenritter]

One can, in fact, be sanctified (set apart) without being justified.

Israel was sanctified, set apart from the world, but they were far from being justified. That's what the mosaic law was for.

However, the Body of Christ is both sanctified AND justified, because we are in the world but not of the world, set apart, and because Christ's blood has paid for our sins, made righteous, justified.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I thought for a moment you were denying Jews from the Body of Christ. But you'd never say such a thing, would you?

1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV
(13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Rosenritter]

True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.

OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warnings in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.

I actually do see a difference between your approach "Perseverance of the Saints" and Glory's approach "Once Saved Always Saved?" You said the warnings are to be taken seriously, she says that they only applied to Jews and are non-applicable to a Gentile.

 

[Rosenritter]

Right.

The book of James was one of the first books written. James did not yet understand the Gospel and justification by faith apart from the works of the law. I am sure that he came into a full knowledge of the Gospel at a later date. It must have been very difficult for the Jews to give up living by law and to begin living by faith.

So you are implying the book of James was lacking understanding, and likewise the Holy Spirit which inspired the scripture was in error? That doesn't sound like a very good explanation.

 

[Rosenritter]

There is no sense addressing the above until you can figure out whether the verse is talking about "set apart" or "made holy". What you've given is a mixed up blur without any cohesion at all.

Try looking a little harder. Broaden your search. Try words like restitution. What you will find is something was always required in order to receive forgiveness of sins. Leviticus 4:20KJV

Which is why Jesus says, If you forgive others, your sins are forgiven. That is law. Matt. 6:14-15 Blessings and cursings. That is Law given to Israel through Moses.

Leviticus 4:20 KJV
(20) And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Leviticus 4:20 says nothing about the man needing to forgive another in order to receive forgiveness. It is the offering of an animal for a sin offering (which we are told never took away sin regardless, Hebrews 10:4.) Bad form Glory, the man himself forgave no one.

Was there someplace else you meant instead?

Your above argument concerns your inability to .....yes, I'll say it....rightly divide the word of God. You're fighting way too hard to prove yourself right, but you're only showing your desperation. Try to be succinct with your posts. This one is a mess...jumping from pilar to post.

Again, failure. You declared that Israel was justified by the law. Paul quotes the Old Testament to prove that no one is justified by the law.

Galatians 3:11 KJV
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Strike again, Glory. The witty quip "You aren't righting dividing the word of truth" does not make your contradiction go away. You've mired yourself.

 

[glorydaz]

I actually do see a difference between your approach "Perseverance of the Saints" and Glory's approach "Once Saved Always Saved?" You said the warnings are to be taken seriously, she says that they only applied to Jews and are non-applicable to a Gentile.

You need to offer proof of these allegations. I'll be waiting.

 

[glorydaz]

Tell me.....where do you find the word justified in Hebrews?

And in James you'll see justified by works. We are justified by faith in His blood.


You have to start by seeing what is written to the Jews and what is written to the Gentiles. Hebrews was not written to the Gentiles. There are too many contradictions otherwise.

Leviticus 4:20 KJV
(20) And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Leviticus 4:20 says nothing about the man needing to forgive another in order to receive forgiveness. It is the offering of an animal for a sin offering (which we are told never took away sin regardless, Hebrews 10:4.) Bad form Glory, the man himself forgave no one.

Was there someplace else you meant instead?

You don't see how something is required before forgiveness is given? Odd.

Again, failure. You declared that Israel was justified by the law. Paul quotes the Old Testament to prove that no one is justified by the law.

Galatians 3:11 KJV
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Strike again, Glory. The witty quip "You aren't righting dividing the word of truth" does not make your contradiction go away. You've mired yourself.

Obviously you have a reading problem. I did not say Israel was justified by the law.

See my quote above. And then see why we say James is not speaking to the Gentiles about the Gospel of Grace.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?​

STOP claiming I've said something I haven't. You do this all the time. Stop it.

The reason you keep doing this is because you can't tell the difference between what was written to the Jews and what was written to the Gentiles. How many times have you been told about James, and you just presented proof it is different from what James says. All because you wanted to prove me wrong (by altering what I said). Shame on you. You can do better, can't you?

 

[glorydaz]

So you are implying the book of James was lacking understanding, and likewise the Holy Spirit which inspired the scripture was in error? That doesn't sound like a very good explanation.

Was the Holy Spirit in error, or is there a difference between James and Paul.
Do you see a difference? Look close. :sherlock:

James says justified by works, not by faith only.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.​

Paul says IF Abraham were justified by works, he could glory....but NOT before God. His reward for his work was but his DEBT. Not of Grace.

Worketh NOT but believeth is what justifies.

Romans 4:2-5 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 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.​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sanctification and justification are not separable concepts; you don't find the saints justified without sanctification, and you don't find the saints sanctified without justification.

One can, in fact, be sanctified (set apart) without being justified.

Israel was sanctified, set apart from the world, but they were far from being justified. That's what the mosaic law was for.

However, the Body of Christ is both sanctified AND justified, because we are in the world but not of the world, set apart, and because Christ's blood has paid for our sins, made righteous, justified.

I thought for a moment you were denying Jews from the Body of Christ. But you'd never say such a thing, would you?

1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV
(13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Once again, you fail to rightly divide, and it caused you to misunderstand what I said.

Israel is not the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not Israel.

The Body of Christ is both sanctified and justified.

Israel was sanctified, but NOT justified.

Ergo, the two concepts ARE separable. Or, rather, they can be divided, if done rightly.

 

[Clete]

No time for editing this one. There will be typos! Sorry.

But Paul is not saying the Law is at fault. The commandment in the garden wasn't the fault, either. It was sin that was at fault. Notice here where Paul is explaining that it isn't the Law that produces the fear of death. It is sin which produces death and the fear of death. That seems closer to the Tree in the garden.

1 Corinthians 15:56
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.​

The context makes is impossible to think that Paul is saying anything other than that the law was nailed to the cross.

Further, youe argument cannot be valid anyway because...

Romans 4:13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And Paul says explicitly...

@ Corinthians 3:4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?

Also, Paul in Romans 7 is saying the same. It is sin working death "by that which is good"...

Romans 7:9-13
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.​

I don't understand your point. I have not suggested that the Law is evil. I have not suggested that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was evil either. I am merely pointing out that they both of a ministry of death. Just as sin killed Adam "by that which was good" so are we so killed by that which is good.

By the tree came the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:9)
By the law the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20) (Deuteronomy 1:39)

The tree minister death (Gen. 2:17)
The law, including the Ten Commandments has the same ministry of death (Romans 7:9) (2 Cor. 3:7)

Adam was cursed because he partook of the Tree. (Gen. 3:17)
Christ became a curse by hanging on a tree. (Gal. 3:13)

Etc., etc., etc...

It is undeniable. The parallels are simply too numerous to ignore.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:​

This is where I'm not being convinced. Those who hang on a tree have been charged and condemned to death. That speaks specifically of the curse being the crime, not the law, itself. Why are we being told to not "partake" of the law at all. The law is not something we can partake of. But, sin is, and the condemnation that comes from the law for sin. The curse that's been undone then is the sting of death caused by sin....not the law at all. So, what is nailed to the cross would be the [condemnation) charges of sin against us that the law merely point out.

Except that it doesn't say that a list of charges were nailed to the cross. It neither says that nor fits with the context of the passage of Collossians 2 nor of Paul's entire ministry for that matter.

Look at the passage again...

3 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?


Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),​

Agreed

Indeed! We agree on like 99.99% of everything! God bless you!

What do you mean by apply? If you mean we are not under the law for righteousness, I would agree. But if you mean the law is no longer written in our consciences because it's been nailed to the cross, I can't agree.

Well this is the 0.01% then because if the law isn't written on Christ's heart then it isn't written on mine. I do NOT need the law nor any manifestation of it. I need God and God alone - period. My righteousness has nothing at all to do with ANY law. My righteousness is imputed to me because of faith in Him Who is my righteousness and Who was righteous eons before there was any law written anywhere.
I do not live this life based on the flesh, which is all the law is about! The reason circumcision is used as a symbol of the law is because it is a physical cutting off of the flesh just as the law is a cutting off of fleshly desires. But we no longer need to cut off the flesh because we have been crucified in Christ and the life I know live in the flesh I do NOT live by the law by by faith in Him who gave Himself for me. To live my some law - any law -, whether it is written on stone or otherwise, is to resurrect your flesh and for the rotten, undead zombie of your flesh to attempt to accomplish that which only Christ can do. More than that, to attempt to live by some law is to reach and stretch for that which you already possess.

Now, I'm just convinced that you agree with all of that. It is beginning to feel very much like this "disagreement" is a semantic one rather than one of substance. (Not that it's unimportant, words are powerful things.) I just cannot figure out how you are making adherence to the Ten Commandments fit with the idea that we are in Christ and all the identification truths that come with it.

If Christ is living through us will we steal our neighbor's goods or desire his wife or murder him? No, of course not! But that's not because of the Ten Commandments, which had/has a ministry of death, it's because of Christ, Who is our life.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Robert Pate]

No time for editing this one. There will be typos! Sorry.



The context makes is impossible to think that Paul is saying anything other than that the law was nailed to the cross.

Further, youe argument cannot be valid anyway because...

Romans 4:13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And Paul says explicitly...

@ Corinthians 3:4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?



I don't understand your point. I have not suggested that the Law is evil. I have not suggested that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was evil either. I am merely pointing out that they both of a ministry of death. Just as sin killed Adam "by that which was good" so are we so killed by that which is good.

By the tree came the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:9)
By the law the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20) (Deuteronomy 1:39)

The tree minister death (Gen. 2:17)
The law, including the Ten Commandments has the same ministry of death (Romans 7:9) (2 Cor. 3:7)

Adam was cursed because he partook of the Tree. (Gen. 3:17)
Christ became a curse by hanging on a tree. (Gal. 3:13)

Etc., etc., etc...

It is undeniable. The parallels are simply too numerous to ignore.


Except that it doesn't say that a list of charges were nailed to the cross. It neither says that nor fits with the context of the passage of Collossians 2 nor of Paul's entire ministry for that matter.

Look at the passage again...

3 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?


Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),​

Indeed! We agree on like 99.99% of everything! God bless you!


Well this is the 0.01% then because if the law isn't written on Christ's heart then it isn't written on mine. I do NOT need the law nor any manifestation of it. I need God and God alone - period. My righteousness has nothing at all to do with ANY law. My righteousness is imputed to me because of faith in Him Who is my righteousness and Who was righteous eons before there was any law written anywhere.
I do not live this life based on the flesh, which is all the law is about! The reason circumcision is used as a symbol of the law is because it is a physical cutting off of the flesh just as the law is a cutting off of fleshly desires. But we no longer need to cut off the flesh because we have been crucified in Christ and the life I know live in the flesh I do NOT live by the law by by faith in Him who gave Himself for me. To live my some law - any law -, whether it is written on stone or otherwise, is to resurrect your flesh and for the rotten, undead zombie of your flesh to attempt to accomplish that which only Christ can do. More than that, to attempt to live by some law is to reach and stretch for that which you already possess.

Now, I'm just convinced that you agree with all of that. It is beginning to feel very much like this "disagreement" is a semantic one rather than one of substance. (Not that it's unimportant, words are powerful things.) I just cannot figure out how you are making adherence to the Ten Commandments fit with the idea that we are in Christ and all the identification truths that come with it.

If Christ is living through us will we steal our neighbor's goods or desire his wife or murder him? No, of course not! But that's not because of the Ten Commandments, which had/has a ministry of death, it's because of Christ, Who is our life.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The New Testament emphasis is Christ in heaven at the right hand of God as our mediator and advocate. Christ is present in the Holy Spirit, but he is not doing another work in the life of the believer. It is not good theology to attribute to the Son that which is done by the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not confuse the work of the trinity, nor should we.

The Father remains in heaven.
Jesus comes into the world as the savior.
The Holy Spirit glorifies the work of the Son and works in the life of the believer.

 

[Rosenritter]

True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.

OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warnings in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.

I actually do see a difference between your approach "Perseverance of the Saints" and Glory's approach "Once Saved Always Saved?" You said the warnings are to be taken seriously, she says that they only applied to Jews and are non-applicable to a Gentile.

You need to offer proof of these allegations. I'll be waiting.

@glorydaz @Ask Mr. Religion

I don't want to dig back through tons of posts, but I would be willing to accept your word on the matter if you would speak today. Would you be able to answer these questions?

Matthew 18:32-35 KJV
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
(33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
(34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
(35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Question one: In Matthew 18:35, to whom is this warning applicable? Will God revoke grace and mercy that has been freely extended to you (Glory) if you do not also forgive your brother his trespasses? Is this warning applicable to the Gentile who has received forgiveness to day? Or do you claim exception from this warning?

a) to whom is this warning applicable?
b) will God revoke grace and mercy if you do not also forgive?
c) is this warning applicable to the Gentile?
d) do you claim exception to this warning?

Hebrews 10:26-30 KJV
(26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
(28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
(29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
(30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Question two: In Hebrews 10:26-30, to whom is this warning applicable? Will God destroy you as an adversary if you willfully sin after receiving knowledge of the truth and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing? Is this warning applicable to the Gentile who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ? Do you take this warning as applicable to yourself, or do you claim exception to this warning?

a) to whom is this warning applicable?
b) will God revoke grace and mercy if you count His blood as unholy and willfully sin against the Spirit of grace?
c) is this warning applicable to the Gentile?
d) do you claim exception to this warning?

Those are simple questions and I assigned them little letters to make them easy to identify.

 

[Rosenritter]

You don't see how something is required before forgiveness is given? Odd.

And you are now Universalist?

Even most Universalists would admit that something is required before forgiveness is given... but it would take a pure Universalist to argue otherwise.

 

[Rosenritter]

Obviously you have a reading problem. I did not say Israel was justified by the law.

Have you come around to admitting that Israel was never justified by law, but always by faith?

See my quote above.

And then see why we say James is not speaking to the Gentiles about the Gospel of Grace.

There is no different "Gospel of Grace" Glory. The gospel has always been grace and has never been apart from grace.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?​

​

Works of what?

STOP claiming I've said something I haven't. You do this all the time. Stop it.

If you answer "works of the law" or some similar answer then you have proved that my assessment was accurate: that you were claiming that Israel was justified by law. I think we both know what you meant before (or else you would have no argument) but if you wish to change your answer that is also acceptable.

Was Abraham justified by "the works of the law" or "the works of his faith?"

 

[MennoSota]

Calvin's observation of scripture regarding salvation is correct. He was not wrong.
Pelagius observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was a heretic.
Arminius observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was wrong.
Joe Smith's observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was a heretic.
Charles Taze Russell's observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was a heretic.
Joel Osteen's observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He is a heretic.

 

[Rosenritter]

Calvin's observation of scripture regarding salvation is correct. He was not wrong.
Pelagius observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was a heretic.
Arminius observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was wrong.
Joe Smith's observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was a heretic.
Charles Taze Russell's observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He was a heretic.
Joel Osteen's observation of scripture regarding salvation is incorrect. He is a heretic.

Is this from the same person who once objected to being called "Calvinist?"

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Right Divider]

And, your interpretation of scripture is incorrect.

They were close. They got all but one right. :french: