I know what you are saying, you are saying a person, must be have faith + good works in order to be saved, this is the joke, that should make you laugh.

Petro, in all fairness, I went out of my way to make sure that that is not what people would think I said. If you can please show me where you think I said that faith + good works save then I will edit my post to clarify it. since that is not what I believe.

Here is what I believe.

Works don't save! Never have, never will!

Works are an evidence, not a determing factor.

We know a tree by it's fruit.

So when I quote scripture that speaks of works, I"m not saying one can lose or gain salvation by works, I'm simply saying that if you claim to be saved and the evidence shows otherwise, it's time to be concerned. This is how Jesus can say" If you love Me, keep my commandments." He is saying that this will be an evidence of a true salvation. He is not saying we gain or lose salvation by keeping the commandments. And by works I'm also speaking in terms of obedience. Do we sin? Sure we do. but we strive not to. We strive to be Christ like, even though we know we will fall short. We do this because we love Him, and choose to be obedient. Even when we are not feeling the Holy Ghost goose bumps we still choose to be obedient out of duty. This is what love is. Hasn't there ever been a time when you wanted to sleep in and not go to church? Why do you get up and go anyways? Duty, we do it because that's what love does. This is what James was speaking of. "show me your faith without works". Which is not in cotrast to Paul. The jews who felt that since they were now justified by faith, they no longer needed to observe the law (Gods Law). This is a classic form of people who think they have a license to sin. James took care of that.
On the other side we have the Jews who felt justified by obeying the law. Paul took care of that. Paul and James were not contradicting eachother, but were standing back to back defending two different attacks on there faith.

If you take this post to mean something other than what was clearly said. Than there's nothing I can do about it. I've been as clear as I know how to be. If it wasn't you Petro, I'd assume someone was trolling.

God bless

Quote from Petro

Re:there never was a law that could save
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2004, 08:04:31 PM »    

While we all agree, Christians should obey Gods commandments, they are not obeyed in order to be saved, but as a witness and a testimony to the unsaved and because Christians desire to be obedient to God in living a Holy Life, we all fail everyday.

Is this not what I have been saying?

Petro, you're killing me. lol

[(Macarthur study bible)]

Hopefuly, I'll have time to finish this.

You are not sure?

It is because you just use certain isolated verses, to try and prove your viewpoint, no offense but, clearly you need to consider all verse that shed light on the matter, this passage answers the obvious question which would be asked by the use of Phil 1:29, where we are told Faith to believe is Jesus in given to us, and also to suffer for His sake.

If were persecuted for our faith this would not be an issue.  

Can you please show me how 1 Cor. 12 teaches that obedience produces faith.

Well, you and wopik, brought it up, I am sharing what Gods Word clearly teaches, but you all insist, one must keep the commandments to continue being saved, so that in effect you turn salvation from Grace through Faith, to Faioth and keeping the law (commandments), because in extending your theory, you would claim, if Christians do not keep the commandments, they will lose their salvation; while we state plainly that not keeping the commandments Jesus gave His people, this is proof one may not be saved at all, although one says he is, good works are not evidence of salvation, obeying Gods Word is, He commands all men everywhere to Repent, (Acts 17:30) and to believe in Him whom He has sent(Ex 18:15-19).

Jesus, said If you love me keep my commandments, Christians today ignore His commandments, yet desire to keep the 10 commandments, yet, they call themselves Chritians and reject Jesus own words, especially when contending on this subject,

the doctrine of eternal security is founded on Jesus own words, yet those who say they are believers reject His own words.  One cannot take one passage of scripture and create
a whole teaching contrary to the Lords own promises, it is better to say, I don't understand why he said this, rather then go down the road of deception.

In light of the fact that obedience is an fruit of a true faith, and that it is not a determining factor in ones salvation, Remember the saying "You can have works without faith but you cant have faith without works"? Is this not James whole point. I think you'll see that everything I posted is in line with the Word of God. Remember, I said faith produces obedience, you said obedience produces faith, is that not a works based salvation? The very thing you claim to stand against. My theology is in harmony with eternal security.

"I think the writer meant", see this is what I mean about adding something to scripture and then calling it inspired.

This one is my fault, I should have been more clear. lets follow it through.

My quote of Macarthur

3:31 Knowing He would be accused of antinomianism (being against the law) for argueing that a man was justified apart from keeping the law, Paul introduced here a defense he later developed in chapters 6,7. through faith....we establish the law. Salvation by grace through faith does not denigrate the law but underscores its true importance:1) by providing a payment for the penelty of death, which the law requires for failing to keep it;2)by fulfilling the law's original purpose, which is to serve as a tutor to show mankind's utter inability to obey God's righteous demands and to drive people to Christ (Gal. 3:24); and 3) by giving believers the capacity to to obey it (8:3-4). (Macarthur study bible)

Then you stated in reply;

Quote:
3:31 Knowing He would be accused of antinomianism....
 
From Petro
I doubt Paul even considered this at all, or even cared what others would accuse him of, it is clear from his writings he sought to please God and not men.

I think you have added to Gods Word here, to shore up your doctrine...which lacks biblical a foundation .

Since it was not my words, but Macarthur's, of which I am in agreement with, I said;  (here meaning Macarthur)added for clarity.

Actually, I think the writer (here meaning Macarthur) meant he (paul) feared not for his own sake, but truths sake. as this thread is a perfect example of how we must be very clear on what we say lest it be misunderstood and lead people astray.

Of which you replied;

"I think the writer meant", see this is what I mean about adding something to scripture and then calling it inspired.

I hope that clears things up on the matter.

You said

You confuse everything here,  the commandments is what we have been discussing, keeping the sabbath is a commandment, we Christians do not observe the sabbath, because we see clearly, the keeping of the sabbath is a shadow of the real sabbath day of rest revealed in the New Covenant, Jesus is our rest, He is Lord of the Sabbath, we are his priests and  able ministers of His Gospel in the present tense (not will be, at some future time), we do the Lords work daily, as God enables us, the commandments were clearly delineated by Jesus himself for us, when He said;

No, you confuse everything here.Your looking at the small picture and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're only looking at the sabbath as it pertained to the Jews. Are we now allowed to comit adultry because it no longer is punishable by death. There are certain aspects of the law that were unique to the Jews, but the law still stands.Also keep in mind that sometimes in scripture we are speeking about the traditions of man and sometimes the aspects of the law that were unique to the Jews. We see an exellent example of this in (I believe) Mark 2:27-28 where Jesus rebukes them not for their observance of the sabbath but there abuse of it. see Duet. 23:25

God Bless

Petro, I'll answer your post later when I have more time.

I have to ask, what are you obedient to?  

You can't be obedient unless you have a standard, otherwise it isn't obedience, it's simply your will.

You keep acusing me of of not being true to Gods Word. But clearly my theology accounts for all scripture and not just some of it. You have yet to answer the abundance of scripture given by myself and others here. You keep argueing justification. Ill say it again, I agree. But the law still stands.
Why would God sew something into our hearts that not only is a sin, as you say, but was abolished, as you say. As of this time, you have brought nothing to the table to defend your beliefs, other than false acusations.

God bless

[I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,]

Petro, Up until you quoted me the second time in your last post, I agree with everything you said and the scripture you gave. I am very familiar with 1 cor. 12, I wish more people today would understand it. I'm not sure how it applies to the debate at hand, but it is nontheless truth. I know it is difficult to talk about the law and not discuss justification, but it seems, to me, very difficult to seperate law and justification in the minds of the people I'm talking too. In other words, We end up debateing something we are in agreement in. Maybe this comes from years of debating against Arminianism.

Quote:
3:31 Knowing He would be accused of antinomianism....
 

I doubt Paul even considered this at all, or even cared what others would accuse him of, it is clear from his writings he sought to please God and not men.

I think you have added to Gods Word here, to shore up your doctrine...which lacks biblical a foundation .

Actually, I think the writer meant he (paul) feared not for his own sake, but truths sake. as this thread is a perfect example of how we must be very clear on what we say lest it be misunderstood and lead people astray.

So, what did you mean??

Quote:
Yes, also see Matthew 9:13. In a nutshell, it was a rebuke. Jesus cites Hos. 6:6 (cf. 1 Sam.15:22:Mic.6:6-8).
Which emphasizes absolute priority of the laws moral standards over the ceremonial requirments.

God bless  
 

I gave Matt. 9:13 because it was a better example. I believe it explains it better, that is, to "know what this means".

Matt. 12 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

The pharisees cared mostly about the outer man, the cerimonies and so on. But is this more important than to Love our nieghbor as ourself? When the two clashed the moral Law overrided the cerimonial requirements of the law of that time.

God bless

[for by the law is the knowledge of sin.]

Hey Petro,

Although a lack of obediedce may prevent a growth in faith (if that's what you mean, I agree), obedience does not produce faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.

Let's look at the verse you gave

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

17:31 Because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

We see the same thing in Romans 3:25, but lets look at the context and see what it tells us.

3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
 
3:21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
 
3:22Even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

3:23For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Here is the parrellel to Acts 17:30

3:25Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

3:26To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Speeking of justification

3:27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
 
3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
 
3:29Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
 
3:30Since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Here is the key verse
 
3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

3:31 Knowing He would be accused of antinomianism (being against the law) for argueing that a man was justified apart from keeping the law, Paul introduced here a defense he later developed in chapters 6,7. through faith....we establish the law. Salvation by grace through faith does not denigrate the law but underscores its true importance:1) by providing a payment for the penelty of death, which the law requires for failing to keep it;2)by fulfilling the law's original purpose, which is to serve as a tutor to show mankind's utter inability to obey God's righteous demands and to drive people to Christ (Gal. 3:24); and 3) by giving believers the capacity to to obey it (8:3-4). (Macarthur study bible)

Wrong, not even close...........the priests performed worked on the sabbath, keeping the sabbath Holy was a commandment, not a moral law, the breaking of the keeping of the Sabbath is offense against God Himself.

LOL, come on, that's not what I said.

iron sharpens iron

God Bless

Obedience produces Faith, Faith is a gift of the Spirit by the Grace of God.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Since your statement contradicts itself, and I know you better than that, I'll assume the first part is a type-o and you meant to say Faith produces Obedience. Which was my point about the fruit of salvation and I would agree 100%. If I'm wrong about the type-o, then I disagree with the first part.

And everything that is not of FAITH, is sin.

Keeping commandments is not of Faith....one must due them.

Romans7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

The moral standards set by the law are a reflection of God's character.

Did you ever read where Jesus said; even the priests did not keep the sabbath, and were found guiltless??

Mat 12
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.


Do you know what this means??

Yes, also see Matthew 9:13. In a nutshell, it was a rebuke. Jesus cites Hos. 6:6 (cf. 1 Sam.15:22:Mic.6:6-8).
Which emphasizes absolute priority of the laws moral standards over the ceremonial requirments.

God bless

I'm out of time tonight Petro, I'll try to get back tomorrow morning. God bless.

Obebience, out of Love or duty? Both, I'm sure you agree about love, so heres duty.

Luke 17:17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Obedience of love.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Both our love for the Lord and our sense of duty to Him should motivate our obedience.

Our obedience does not merit salvation, of course. But genuine conversion to Christ inevitably produces obedience. Therefore, while obedience is never a condition for salvation, it is nontheless always salvations fruit. That is why scripture speaks of obedience as an essential evidence of true Christianity: "He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1Jn. 2:4). "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devel: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God" (3:10). "He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God" (3Jn. 11).


What does "under the Law" really mean?

In what sense are we freed from the Law under grace?

We are not under the ceremonial law.

We are not under the law for justification.

How is Christian Obedience different from legalism?

God bless

The shorter Catechism ... Westminister Devines...

Question 1 What is the chief end of man?

Question 2 what rule has God Given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?

Question 3  What do scriptures principally teach?

Question 39 What is the duty which God requires of man?

Question 40 What did God at first reveal to man for a rule of his obedience?

Question 41 where is the moral law summarily comprehended?

The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.

You'll notice each question answers the previous one

I hope we are on the same page and this is just a misunderstanding. If not, please reconsider you position. When it comes down to an all or nothing debate concerning the Law, in other words The Law must justify or you can't have it. Then the debate is flawed from the beginning. Not to long ago I believed that the Law had no place for today. After further study, I believe it does, but not to justify us.

God Bless, Your brother in Christ.
4JC

A4C, I agree with everything you just posted. We are justified in Christ and his work on the Cross. Nothing else. But if we disregard the Law completely, then what.

Maybe your misunderstanding my last post, I didn't have time earlier to complete it, so here goes

Martin Luther again..

There are three ways in which the Law may be abused. First, by the self-righteous hypocrites who fancy that they can be justified by the Law. Secondly, by those who claim that Christian liberty exempts a Christian from the obsrevance of the Law. "These," says Peter, "use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and bring the name of the Gospel into ill repute. Thirdly, the Law is meant to drive us to Christ. When the Law is properly used it's value cannot be too highly appraised. It will take me to Christ every time.

Since you're probably a Calvinist, as am I.

Calvin said...

The third principal use, which pertains more more closely to the proper purpose of the law, finds its place among believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns. For even though they have the law written and engravedupon their hearts by the finger of God [ Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 10:16], that is, have been so moved and quickened through the directing of the Spirit that they long to obey God, they still profit by the law. (institutes, 2.7.12)

We cannot disregard all the scriture that points to the cross for justification, but we also can't ignore all of the scripture that speaks about the Law.

Jesus said.."If you love me, you will obey what I commanded" (John 14:15) Now, is He speeking of justification, NO. If anyone believes that obeying the Law justifies them, then I would say what dirty rag will you put before the Lord to justify yourself. If anyone thinks they are justified by Christ and works, I would say you have just disparaged the cross and are double minded, you cannot both glory in the Cross and dispairage it at the same time. We are justified in Christ alone. But because of this, does this mean the Law has no further use? I believe scripture teaches that it still does have a use.

I'm going to post this before I lose it, I have more.

Romans 3:19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.


I Romans 2:14-15... 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Martin Luther understood.... I fear that after our time the right handling of the Law will become a lost are. Even now, although we continually explain the seperate functions of the Law and the Gospel,we have those among us who do not understand how the Law should be used. What will it be like when we are dead and gone?

his explained elswhere..


As long as a person is not a murderer, adulterer, thief, he would swear that he is righteous. How is God going to humble such a person except by Law. The Law is the hammer of death, the thunder of hell and the thunder of God's wrath to bring downthe proud and shameless hypocrites. When the Law was instituted on Mount Sinai it was accompanied by lightning, by storms, by the sound of trumpets, to tear to pieces that monster called self righteousness. As long as a person thinks he is right he is going to be incomprehensibly proud and presumptuous. He is going to hate God, despise His grace and mercy, and ignore the promises in Christ. The Gospel of free forgiveness of sins through Christ will never appeal to the self-righteous. This monster of self-righteousness, this stiff necked beast, needs a big axe. And that is what the Law is, a big axe. Accordingly the proper use and function of the Law is to threaten until the conscience is scared stiff

You don't hear preaching like that in the Christianity light churches of today.

A puritan author Samuel Bolton said it best...

The Law sends us to the Gospel, that we may be justified, and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty in being justified.

God bless.

Crusader    

God bless
4JC

Crusader
Anything good that comes from us for the Church is an undeserved "gift" from God. When anything good is done from us for the church, God gets the glory. Right?

To everyone

14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the LORD.

14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Note: Paul did not say for a sign and edifying and a personal prayer language when he told us the purpose of tongues.
Tongues are for a sign.
This is the purpose for tongues, period. The gift of interpretation was given so the believers could be edified while the sign was being given to unbelievers. Othewise there would have been confusion, things happening within the church that some would not understand or receive any edification from. God is not the author of confusion. Since the sign is no longer needed, the secondary use went with it.
 



 

seeking,

You said you've been a hard drinker for seven years. You also said your friends concluded that since you don't have a physical addiction it is only defiance.
That's a common misunderstanding about alcoholism. The physical addiction comes later down the road. Most alcoholics have an emotional addiction long before that. You don't need to drink every day or have a physical addiction to be an alcoholic. It's more about the reason why you drink in the first place. Most people can lose the physical addiction very quickly, but losing the emotional attachment is a much longer process. Think of it this way, alcohol abuse is not the problem by itself, but a symptom of a greater problem. You mentioned that you embarrassed yourself in public. So I'm assuming when you do drink, you can't/won't stop until you are very drunk. This is not a good sign. I would suggest that you try to find a Christian AA. One that does not say a "higher power", but instead one that acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. You've got nothing to lose from this. Maybe you could go to that rehab center and ask them to refer you to one, or at least get literature about alcohol abuse (symptoms etc.).
The hardest part about quitting for good is admitting you have a problem. I've seen people take their denial to the grave with them. You have come far, now you need to take it the rest of the way. You are not blazing new trails, my friend, you are going down an old beaten path. There is hope. This post is written by someone who could of written your post 15 years ago. If you do nothing I promise you it will get worse. I don't mean to scare you, but this is the truth. If you just quit and don't deal with the deeper issues, than you're just setting yourself up for a fall. If you have anymore questions just ask. I would be happy to answer if I can.

You're in my prayers
God bless
4JC-Dave