Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VIII

[Turbo]

Battle Royale VIII - Jerry Shugart vs. *Acts9_12Out*
Were works ever required for salvation?


Discuss the battle here!

[Lucky]

So who's arguing which side? :box:

[brother Willi]

sounds interesting

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Lucky

So who's arguing which side? :box: Jerry Shugart says no. *Acts9_12Out* says yes.

[Knight]

Oh.... this is gonna be good!

:up:

[Zakath]

Looking forward to reading it. When do they begin?

[Turbo]

Jerry will make his first post within the next 48 hours.

[philosophizer]

Couldn't find anyone to do the foreknowledge/time/God thing?

[PureX]

Nothing was ever required for our salvation but to surrender ourselves to it.

Debate over. *smile*

[Turbo]

Thus saith Purex.

That sounds like a pretty authoritative statement from a guy who claims that no one can be sure of anything.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

Thus saith Purex.

That sounds like a pretty authoritative statement from a guy who claims that no one can be sure of anything. well, Turbo, what do you believe about this subject? Do you believe, at one point, works were necessary for salvation?

[Knight]

How many rounds is this battle going to be?

[Turbo]

5

[Knight]

Originally posted by Turbo

5 :thumb: Sweet!

[PureX]

Originally posted by Turbo That sounds like a pretty authoritative statement from a guy who claims that no one can be sure of anything. YOU can be sure that I'm always right. *smile*

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Turbo

Were works ever required for salvation?



Something that will be important for each of the participants will be to define "works." Otherwise they could argue around each other and never get into the issue.

Are works simple good deeds? Are works deeds done for a church? Is choosing to believe in Christ a work?

I think works are a flesh thing. They are demonstrative of the spirit. Good works show the spirit is leading the flesh, while bad works show the flesh is leading the spirit. So works are merely an observable symbol of an underlying truth.

Choosing to believe in Christ is not something done with the flesh. It is a pledge to direct your will to Him. Directing your will is a movement of the spirit, not a work of the flesh.

So defining the term "work" is important. I hope the debate participants do so early.

[LightSon]

I'll enjoy this debate. But whatever happened to the closed/OV debate?
You know. John Piper is my 2nd cousin. If I get him to debate the closed side, do I get a prize?

[Turbo]

That sounds great, LightSon. Piper is a Calvinist, right?

Do you think he'd be up for it?

[Freak]

Turbo, don't be afriad to answer....

well, Turbo, what do you believe about this subject? Do you believe, at one point, works were necessary for salvation?

[Turbo]

Yes.

Now's the part where you paste John 3:16.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Turbo

That sounds great, LightSon. Piper is a Calvinist, right?

Do you think he'd be up for it?


Piper is a Calvinist, like the pope is catholic.

As to whether he'd be up for a debate, I have no idea.

Of course, if I hadn't lied about being his cousin, I'd have standing to call him up and ask. :(

I was just dreaming. I am fond of Piper; got to hear him preach once, and we chatted after. Maybe I'm too easily impressed.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

Yes. On what Scriputral basis do you believe this? Since the only ones I know of who believe works were ever required for salvation are cultists.

Now's the part where you paste John 3:16. Only a pseudo-Christian would have a problem with God's Word being pasted. :rolleyes:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

On what Scriputral basis do you believe this? Since the only ones I know of who believe works were ever required for salvation are cultists.So Jeremy, Knight and I are cultists now, eh? :rolleyes:

Only a pseudo-Christian would have a problem with God's Word being pasted. :rolleyes: Of course I don't have a problem with pasting Scripture. I do it all the time.

But you've pasted John 3:16 in response to this issue two or three times already. I figured you'd do it again, because from what I've seen that's about the only thing you can do to support your position.

[Swordsman]

I have a question. Why is the topic of "Were works ever required for salvation" important to us today? Someone please enlighten me. And please, no sarcasm. Thanks.

[brother Willi]

can a person of faith NOT do works.

dont they kinda go hand in hand

how do we let our light show, if we do not do works

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

So Jeremy, Knight and I are cultists now, eh? Truth is not based on what these posters believe but rather what the Scriptural record reveals.

But you've pasted John 3:16 in response to this issue two or three times already. And you haven't responded to it. But let's move on to some others...


Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?

I figured you'd do it again, because from what I've seen that's about the only thing you can do to support your position. :kookoo: Try reading the words of the Lord Jesus above...and then get back with me...:chuckle:

[billwald]

Noah woulf have gone to Hell if the Ark had sunk? You gots to be kidding!

[billwald]

" God instructed Moses and His children to keep His 10 Commandments."

Wrong, again. All of God's Children except 2 died in the wilderness? Everyone who left Egypt with Moses went to Heaven?

God provided a social contract for the people with Moses. Had nothing to do with salvation.

[Freak]

....and we see that Jerry is truthsmacking Acts 5:40 with Scriptural truth.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Swordsman

I have a question. Why is the topic of "Were works ever required for salvation" important to us today? Someone please enlighten me. And please, no sarcasm. Thanks.

From Jeremy's first-round post, emphasis mine:
Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

To summarize, the uncircumcision gospel is rooted in “justification apart from works” (Genesis 15:6 & Abram) while the circumcision gospel is rooted in “justification by faith works” (Genesis 17, 22 & Abraham). Once an understanding is reached that God dealt with Israel under the law where “faith works were necessary” and God is dealing with us, the body of Christ apart from the law where “faith alone” is necessary, then the Bible is much easier to understand.

[billwald]

TOPIC IS IMPORTANT because popular Christianity has consistantly misinterpreted the OT and the NT. Because St Paul wasn't as smart as everyone thinks he is.

[Turbo]

Meanwhile, billwald throws most of the New Testament in the garbage, and calls Luke and Peter liars for endorsing Paul's ministry.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

Meanwhile, billwald throws most of the New Testament in the garbage, As Turbo does with the words of the Lord Jesus. :rolleyes:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

As Turbo does with the words of the Lord Jesus. :rolleyes: No I don't. :kookoo:






What's strange is... I seem to remember paraphrasing Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17 last summer, and in response you started a thread declaring that I teach "borderline heresy."

"Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, "I repent,' you shall forgive him." Luke 17:3-4

"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." Matthew 18:15-17

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

No I don't. Do you believe Jesus when He states:


Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?

If those under the Law believed in what Jesus declared would they attain eternal life apart from any kind of works?

What's strange is... I seem to remember paraphrasing Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17 last summer, and in response you started a thread declaring that I teach "borderline heresy." Your teaching is borderline heresy but Jesus embodies the very truth that you miliate against.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

Do you believe Jesus when He states:


Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?Of course!

If those under the Law believed in what Jesus declared would they attain eternal life apart from any kind of works?You said it yourself... they were "under the Law." One of the things "Jesus declared" was that they were to keep the commandments.

"If you love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." John 14:21

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." John 15:10

Your teaching is borderline heresy but Jesus embodies the very truth that you miliate against. I teach exactly what Jesus taught in Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17. You, on the other hand, teach that we should forgive everyone regardless of whether they repent.

If you see a discrepancy between what I teach and what Jesus taught in Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17, please explain that discrepancy.

(I predict that you cannot, but that you will quote a different verse out of context which you believe somehow "trumps" Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17.)

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

Of course!

Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

This is true, Turbo, for all people, regardless of their position in relation to the Law. If those under the Law believed in Christ received "eternal life." It wasn't due to works but rather belief.

You said it yourself... they were "under the Law." One of the things "Jesus declared" was that they were to keep the commandments.

"If you love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15 Keeping commandments brought eternal life, Turbo? Did it bring adoption into the family of God?

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." John 14:21 What was His commandments, Turbo? To love Him. This is the essence of salvation---to take upon His life. This wasn't a work. It was a trust matter---exchanging your life for His.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." John 15:10 What did Jesus tell those under the Law...

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

You, on the other hand, teach that we should forgive everyone regardless of whether they repent. Yes, we should forgive those who wrong us. We ought not to harbor anger, unforgiveness towards others....this in light of what Scripture teaches...

And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.

This passage doesn't teach we ought to wait until someone comes to us to forgive but that we should forgive regardless if they come to us in repentance.

Moving on...

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Clearly, our life is ought to be about forgiving one another regardless if one repents.

Then Jesus taught His Followers to forgive freely:

Give us each day our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.' "

(I predict that you cannot, but that you will quote a different verse out of context which you believe somehow "trumps" Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17.) That's what the Mormons tell me when they visit, "Jay, you can't trump our verses without of course quoting different verses out of context." Those is error usually resort to these kinds of arguments to rid themselves the responsibility of dealing with the clarity of God's Word.

[GodsfreeWill]

This Battle Royale thing is lame when people don't respond to stuff. What's the point? Maybe there should be a rule for that or something. Jeremy's entire positive case for a faith-works salvation was made with the book of James, and Jerry says, count it, ZERO words about that. How's Jeremy supposed to respond and keep this going?

[NoHell]

Originally posted by doogieduff

Jeremy's entire positive case for a faith-works salvation was made with the book of James, and Jerry says, count it, ZERO words about that. How's Jeremy supposed to respond and keep this going? Jerry is doing an most excellent job. :up:

[jjjg]

Maybe the other person realizes they don't have a case.

[OMEGA]

FIRST DEFINE WORKS.

YOU SHOULD DEFINE WORKS.

IS IT OLD TESTAMENT WORKS

OR NEW TESTAMENT WORKS

OR WORKS IN GENERAL ????????????????????????



Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
:think:

[1Way]

Doogieduff – I agree and I noticed the same thing. But don't forget that although Jeremy rested a more specific and in depth case from James, he also used numerous other scriptures in a well balanced fashion, including teachings from Noah, Moses, Abram/Abraham, Jesus, John, Paul, etc.

responsiveness
I would not worry about trying to make Jerry be more responsive, if an opponent becomes unresponsive, that non-verbal message usually spells out aversion and sometimes implies an unwillingness or inability to deal with the counterpoints and challenges presented. In short, it typically is the closest thing to an admission of defeat without it actually being said. :o And this is to be expected if your views are wrong in the first place. So perhaps this is simply an early indicator of things to come and about who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

a very long post
Also, to be fair, Jeremy’s first post was pretty extensive, so we owe Jerry some slack to respond to it all. But on that note, it seems to me that Jerry is on the defensive and Jeremy has handled Jerry’s points quite well.

I hope that Jerry will become more responsive. To be sure, if he doesn’t, it will be good for more observations. :thumb:

Jerry in a hurry
BTW, did you notice how quickly Jerry responded? I think that this is only a 5 round battle, and Jerry responded to Jeremy’s huge post within just 3 hours(!!!) even though he had two days to make a full and “sufficient” response. Concerning Jerry’s number of posts, this now comprises almost half of the entire debate! He only have three more posts to make, two more main debate posts and one final summery post.

Maybe Jerry is just too impatient? Maybe he’s just holding the wrong position. If he does not respond more directly, that will likely prove damaging to his position seeing how everyone will be able to look back and see how evasive he was. Only time will tell if he will improve.

practicality concerns from the nay sayers
BTW, I find it funny that folks don’t have an appreciation for how important this issue is. It helps us to understand several different and crucial things.
The nature of our salvation, is it conditional or eternally secure, is OSAS true or not (Once Saved Always Saved)

The nature of our Savior, in what ways did God change things and may again change things after this dispensation is over

The clarity between law verses grace, they are not synonyms as many Christians effectively treat them

The problem of legalism and false or dead works, this problem literally destroys the vitality of so many believers and helps to keep unbelievers from entering into salvation All of which in my book, are very important and foundational issues that unfortunately the Christian church is anything but unified over.

Two different styles at work
Jerry tends to skip around a lot, while he covers a lot of ground, he doesn’t always land each point very securely. Jeremy is more methodical and presents his case solidly before moving on.

[1Way]

NoHell – Being evasive is classic for those in error (and all the way down to outright losers). Evasion is not for those who are willing and able to give a reasonable bible based apologetic for their faith. Christian unity of faith and God instructed accountability towards a bible conforming faith would have it no other way. But I would say that it’s too early to suggest that Jerry is being clearly evasive, he’s just not showing a good start, I hope things improve.

Hundreds may benefit from reading these debates
This is not a duel lecture series, it is not fine that Jerry is unresponsive. An otherwise objective third party observer (which I’m sure may be many over the following years) should be able to end up having a much better idea about which side is the truth after reviewing the entire debate. Many people do not have a clear idea which side is right and which is not, and if Jerry remains unresponsive to Jeremy’s well demonstrated scriptural points, then obviously he is doing a disservice for the sake of his side of the debate. But it may simply become evident that Jerry is in the wrong and that was why he became evasive, so this non-communication issue may prove useful in an objective sense.

The truth will prevail
If you right and you know it, lay your cards down for all to see. If your not right, then it’s customary to just dance around issues and pound the pulpit or repeat your claims as though that somehow establishes them. Aversion is defiantly not a good sign.

example of evasion
It’s like what happens if you walk into say a Sunday school class and you say hello to someone and then ask them some specific question like what time the class gets out, or if there is a scheduled meeting during the following week, but instead of being responsive, the other person simply ignores you. That sort of behavior is rude and not helpful. It takes personal integrity and standing firmly grounded on the truth in order to objectively refute your opposition. It takes no truth to be evasive.

On the other hand, so far as I can tell, Jeremy is doing a great job of dealing with what Jerry has offered.

[BChristianK]

Jeremy is doing a great job, though I would dissagree with him.

1 thing that I do want to know, how the heck did he get greek characters to show up right on this forum?

Grace and Peace

[Freak]

:darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: Acts 9_12 is simply doing a horrific job in dealing with the Scriptures that Jerry has presented. When asked about John 3 he turns to John 8. Absurd.

[Turbo]

When I asked you if you believe what Jesus said in Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17, you turned to Mark 11:25 and Luke 6:37(as predicted), figuring those verses somehow trump what Jesus said elsewhere.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Jeremy is doing a great job, though I would dissagree with him.

1 thing that I do want to know, how the heck did he get greek characters to show up right on this forum?

Grace and Peace use [ font=symbol]text to be displayed in Greek[/font], only without the space after the first bracket. It will look like this:
text to be displayed in Greek

That's a small font. :think: It might help to use the SIZE code to make it a little bigger:
text to be displayed in Greek


Any time you see someone do something in their post and you wonder how they did it, just click the "quote" link and look at the code for their post.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

When I asked you if you believe what Jesus said in Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-17, I believe all of Scripture is God-inspired. I believe those passages...if someone repents we should forgive. But, we all should forgive those who do not repent, in light of those passages I referred to.

...you turned to Mark 11:25 and Luke 6:37(as predicted), figuring those verses somehow trump what Jesus said elsewhere. Silly boy, those passages speaks of Jesus and his teaching on the subject. He calls us to forgive freely...

Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.

Imagine that. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

[CryTears]

Originally posted by Freak

Do you believe Jesus when He states:


Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?

If those under the Law believed in what Jesus declared would they attain eternal life apart from any kind of works?

Your teaching is borderline heresy but Jesus embodies the very truth that you miliate against.

That is for starters; without it you don't get in the front door. But you have to work to keep yourself/ourself in the house.

[CryTears]

:granite: seems to be missing? not even faking an interest.
mmmm. psst granite maybe you can cut and paste something to avoid suspicion of not posting something that does not further your agenda?
free help here when you need it.;)

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by Turbo

use [ font=symbol]text to be displayed in Greek[/font], only without the space after the first bracket. It will look like this:
text to be displayed in Greek

That's a small font. :think: It might help to use the SIZE code to make it a little bigger:
text to be displayed in Greek


Any time you see someone do something in their post and you wonder how they did it, just click the "quote" link and look at the code for their post.

Thanks for the tip :thumb:

[Turbo]

You're welcome. :)

[Rolf Ernst]

I don't believe there is a substantive difference between Jerry and Acts 9_12 out. Acts 9_12 out is addressing Jerry as if Jerry's understanding of "therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God..." does not carry with it the QUALITY of that faith.
Jerry speaks of the sufficiency of faith alone, but in using that perspective, he does not (insofar as I see) deny or rule out the QUALITY of saving faith--that the quality of true faith always issues in works.

Acts 9_12 Out's primary perspective is on the quality rather than on the sufficiency of faith, but one of his statements shows clearly that he understands that salvation is through faith, not through works, but he is stressing that the quality of faith by which men have access to God is a faith which works.

I don't believe they really disagree. They are, I think, just viewing the same truth from different angles. I believe that before this battle is over they will understand that they are warriors belonging to the same camp.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

I don't believe there is a substantive difference between Jerry and Acts 9_12 out. Acts 9_12 out is addressing Jerry as if Jerry's understanding of "therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God..." does not carry with it the QUALITY of that faith.
Jerry speaks of the sufficiency of faith alone, but in using that perspective, he does not (insofar as I see) deny or rule out the QUALITY of saving faith--that the quality of true faith always issues in works.

Acts 9_12 Out's primary perspective is on the quality rather than on the sufficiency of faith, but one of his statements shows clearly that he understands that salvation is through faith, not through works, but he is stressing that the quality of faith by which men have access to God is a faith which works.

I don't believe they really disagree. They are, I think, just viewing the same truth from different angles. I believe that before this battle is over they will understand that they are warriors belonging to the same camp.

So you think they are "talking past each other"?

I've had this very same suspicion about the RCC. My ilk tends to lambast the RCC as teaching a works based salvation, whereas I have pressed catholics on this point. Often the rhetoric they use is not unlike my own, that being an acknowledgement that true saving faith will produce good works.

[Rolf Ernst]

Yeah, Lightson. I also had a conversation with a RCC priest and came to the same conclusion. Too often we get involved in stressing the point which is most interesting to us and in that process, talk past.
BUT Acts 9-12out has some very different theology concerning the Old Testament era, I think. His OT soteriology sounds strange to me and I would not right now be willing to say that he does not believe that obedience to the law is the MEANS, at least to some extent, in securing salvation during the OT era. Maybe his rhetoric just gives that impression. Why can't people just say either that (1) true faith secures salvation and true faith will also result in works out of love or else say, (2) works is the means of salvation. Men now (or then) earned salvation by their works. I believe acts9-12out believes #1 about the New Testament period, but I can't determine yet whether he believes that about the OT period. Jerry is quite plain with his meanings, but acts is not as straightforward with his wording.

[Knight]

Jeremy's round 3 post is :up:.

AWESOME STUFF!!!

[1Way]

Rolf – You said Acts 9_12 Out's primary perspective is on the quality rather than on the sufficiency of faith, but one of his statements shows clearly that he understands that salvation is through faith, not through works, but he is stressing that the quality of faith by which men have access to God is a faith which works. Your talking quality verses sufficiency and Jeremy is saying that it used to be that you could be saved and then loose your salvation by not continuing to keep the law, works were required for salvation, but today they are forbidden for salvation. Jerry is saying that works were never required for salvation. Can’t you see that? Loosing your salvation is a very suffiency focus, or is loosing your salvation not a sufficient concern?

I think you still do not understood what Jeremy is saying. But he's not talking past you, many (or at least us mid Acts folk) understand him just fine, but it seems you and LightSon have a problem understanding this debate.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight

Jeremy's round 3 post is :up:.

AWESOME STUFF!!! I've read it twice and I'm still baffled about your comment. :down:

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by Freak

Silly boy, those passages speaks of Jesus and his teaching on the subject. He calls us to forgive freely...

Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.

Imagine that. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

Freak, you do realize that Paul teaches contrary to this right? According to your scripture (which you never site BTW, how do you expect new Christians to grow if you don't even tell them where you're reading from? Since you won't do it, I'll do it for you. The verse in question is Mark 11:25.) you MUST forgive in order to be forgiven. Matthew speaks of the same thing,

Matthew 6:14-15
14 "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

but according to Paul...

Ephesians 4
32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave us.

Colossians 3
13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.

...you should forgive because you are already forgiven. You'll be a dispensationalist before you know it! But then again, you do have to have a decent understanding of the scriptures first....

p.s. Isn't "forgiving" a work freak? It seems as if you must do that work to be forgiven under the gospel of the circumcision.

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by Freak

I've read it twice and I'm still baffled about your comment. :down:

You resort to putting it down without even showing why. I don't believe you...

[GodsfreeWill]

Jerry answered "2" of Jeremy's 13 questios in his last post. Maybe if you didn't post so soon you'd have time to answer them. The reason Jeremy asked you so many questions is because you DIDN'T answer them previously in the debate. That is why he hasn't answered yours yet, (from round 4) and said he WOULD answer them in his next post. He can't proceed to continue to answer all your new questions when you have the majority of his previous questions unanswered.


Jerry's BIGGEST problem is that he thinks "believing in Him" means believing in Jesus death, burial and resurrection. Well, it doesn't Jerry. No one outside of Paul teaches that, whihc is why you resort to him post after post. In case you forgot, Jeremy agrees with every single Pauline scripture you've put forth, and believes it applies to today. But we are now talking pre-pauline to those millions and millions of people who lived before Paul was ever even born, who also were given the chance to be saved. Do you "believe in Him" Jerry? I don't think you do. "Believing in Him" which you've rightly noted that John and Peter both believed and taught, means believing in what He taught, more specifically, what He taught for salvation. Christ Himself taught a works-oriented salvation.

Mark 16
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

What's that gospel Jerry? Read on...

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

It seems that you must be baptized to be saved. Christ also said that "these signs" will follow those who believed. Have those signs followed any of your "baptize and believing?" Yeah, me neither.

Christ also said you must keep His commandments to be saved.

Matthew 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

How does Christ respond?

17 But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

[Freak]

Originally posted by doogieduff

I don't believe you... Like I'm concerned by what a poster by the name of doogie thinks of me. :crackup:

[Freak]

Originally posted by doogieduff

Christ Himself taught a works-oriented salvation.

And you call yourself a Christian. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by doogieduff

You resort to putting it down without even showing why. I don't believe you...
Would you believe someone if they praised it without showing why? Because, if you did, that wouldn't make much sense now would it? ;)

[Freak]

Jerry spanked the young man like he's never been spanked before. :up: :crackup:

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jerry,

You open Round V with numerous Pauline references. I agree with every single Pauline reference. Why does Paul make these statements? People were attempting to justify themselves by doing fleshly law works. They had gone away from God's principle of pursuing the law by faith. Paul addresses this issue for us.

Romans 9
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[/b] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

You see Jerry, the Jews were attempting to justify themselves by doing works of the law apart from faith in God. Again, the principle I set forth in Round I was God asks man to show faith in different ways. When you quote Paul stating that "no one" can be justified by works of the law, that's absolutely true. Works of the law will not justify. However, OT believers were asked to show that they had faith by keeping God's law. Again, where you are confused is, you think I'm saying "works" justified. I am not saying this. What "justifies" is doing what God asks. You argue that "faith" justifies, but what you have failed to define is, "faith in what?" You quote passages that say, "believe in Him" (Christ) or "believe in Him who sent Me" (God), but what does it mean to "believe in God or Christ?" I have shown that "believing in God or Christ" means doing whatever God / Christ asks. If God asked circumcision believers to show faith by keeping the law, that's what they needed to do. If God asks us to "believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ," that's what we need to do.

Next, you respond to Matthew 19:17. I said,

Jesus’ response to the question is, ”Keep the commandments.” Jesus goes on to again quote the Mosaic Law. How much clearer could it be Jerry?

You respond,

It is too bad that Jeremy did not quote the rest of the Lord’s discourse.After the rich man went away the Lord Jesus told His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

You fail to address the issue. I ask again, if the above statement is not true, why would Christ deceive this man? If I had leukemia, and I asked Jerry, “Jerry, what can I do to help my leukemia?” Would it make any sense for Jerry to say, “Well Jeremy, if you eat four Big Macs a day, the leukemia will go away.”? Wouldn’t it make more sense if Jerry told me the truth? Wouldn’t we expect Jerry to say, “You should see an oncologist. Maybe the doctor can help you find a person in your family that would match your bone marrow for a transplant.”? Why would Christ respond with an answer that is so far in left field? He didn’t… He was telling the young man the truth. Next, I asked,

If Christ did not believe in a “faith / works” program, why would He tell the lawyer and young man a lie? Was Christ attempting to intentionally deceive these men Jerry?

You respond,

Paul says, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.”The law was to “convict” the Jew of his sinfulness so that he would realize that he was in need of a Savior to save him from the penalty and defilement of his sins.Instead of just leaving the rich man should have said that he is a sinner and cannot keep the law and beg for the Lord’s mercy.

Again, you fail to answer the question. Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler something that was not true? Next, you say,

In my very first post in this debate I pointed out that Paul uses the example of David as a man who is justified before God apart from works—“to him that worketh not”(Ro.3:5).

But Jeremy still refuses to reconcile his view that David was required to do “works” in order to be saved with Paul’s words that it is the sinner who “worketh not but believeth” who is justified before God.

Jerry, I have answered this numerous times. To humor you, I will answer again. Paul makes this point in light of his statements in Romans 9:30-32. David's works did not save him. David was justified by faith in God. How did David show he had faith in God? By attempting to keep the law. When David failed, he repented. Even though David's sins were deserving of death, Paul tells us that God graced David out and allowed him to live. Remember, David was a man after God's own heart. God promised that the seed of David would sit on an everlasting throne. God fraced David out of a situation that deserved death. That's why Paul quotes David in Psalm 32.

Romans 4
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."

Again, Paul argues the same point Peter argues in Acts 11. David, just like members of the body of Christ, was justified by faith in God. David's works did not save him. David was saved (and spared) because he had faith in God and did what God asked. You continue,

That does not answer my question and Jeremy knows it!We are discussing how David was “justified” and not whether or not David was spared by grace or not.Paul uses David as an example someone who lived under the law and he was justified before God apart from works—”to him that worketh not”!:

David was justified by faith in God. David followed God's commandments and kept the law by faith. The work did not save David, God saved David when he showed he had faith. Next, Jerry seems to continue to misunderstand me.

But since it is impossible to reconcile the idea that “works” are required for justification with Paul’s teaching that it is he who “worketh not” Jeremy does not even try.

Jerry... How many times do I need to say this? God changes the way He asks man to show faith! Under the law, God asks man to show faith by attempting to keep the law. In the body of Christ, God asks man to show faith by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection. We both have the same faith in God, but that faith is manifested in different ways. Is it really that difficult Jerry? Next, you are critical of my comments on Rom 6:23.

Jeremy forgets that in this debate he is arguing just the opposite—that at one time works were required for salvation.In order to get around the fact that “works” were never required for the “free gift” of eternal life,he argues that the works in themselves did not save but were just a demonsration of faith.But if “works” were required in order to demonstrate faith and faith is necessary for salvation,then it is obvious to anyone who will use his brain that Jeremy is teaching that “works” are required for salvation.And not only that,he also teaches that the Jews must be “justified” by “works”.So it is beyond me how Jeremy can say that he is “not saying that ‘works are required’ in order to receive the free gift of eternal life!

Jerry seems to see the light and sort of understand what I'm saying. What Jerry fails to understand is, I'm arguing that man is justified by faith in God. Jerry fails to understand that I argue that same faith in God is shown in different ways. Jerry fails to understand that God sets the "house rules" for man, and determines how he wants man to show faith. Jerry, do you agree that a "dispensation" is the method by which God deals with man? Do you agree that a dispensation is God's set of "house rules" or marching orders for man? You continue,

When a “gospel” went to the Jews after the resurrection the “message” is the fact that the Lord Jesus is the promised Messiah,the Son of God.On the day of Pentecost Peter used the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah:

” Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”(Acts2:36).

Once again, Jerry fails to continue with the context. Here is Jerry's summary of Acts 2...

Those Jews who believed this “good news” were “born of God” at the very moment they believed.They were “regenerated” or “born again” when they believed that the Lord Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God:

Too bad Peter disagrees with Jerry...

Acts 2
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter, under the gospel of the circumcision tells these Jewish believers that they must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. After they show their faith by being water baptized, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and are born again. This is another one of those "everlasting covenants" that Jerry despises. Water baptism was in effect for the nation of Israel. This faithful ordinance was established back in Numbers 19.

Numbers 19
9 Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin.
10 And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them.
17 And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin,
21a It shall be a perpetual statute for them.

Notice Jerry, it is water of purification from sin! How long will this ordinance last for Israel? It will last forever! It is a perpetual statute for Israel! Who was Peter addressing on the day of Pentecost? The nation of Israel!

Acts 2
5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
10b visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.
22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-

Peter's audience on the day of Pentecost was the nation of Israel Jerry. Peter admonished them to show their faith by submitting to water baptism for purification from sin. It was a perpetual statute for them. Now, Jerry, I know you're going to ask, so I'll answer before you ask. No, the water did not save them. The water was not in any way magical. The children of Israel were asked to show their faith by submitting to water baptism. When they responded by faith and submitted to the rite of water baptism, they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. You continue with Peter,

He seems to think Peter did not preach a “faith only” meassage to Cornelius and his household:

Um, he didn't...

Acts 10:35
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Jerry continues,

And while Peter was saying those words the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and all those in his household!They were saved without doing any works.Peter was not preaching a message demanding “works of righteousness” for salvation.He said that those who “believe” will receive the remission of sin—“faith only”.

That's right! Why did God save them before they showed their faith in a physical way? Because God started the body of Christ in Acts 9 with Paul's conversion. God's house rules changed Jerry. What did Peter do when God interrupted him? He went on with the circumcision message he knew...

Acts 10
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Why were they "astonished" Jerry? Because they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized! They had never encountered this before! Let's continue,

Acts 10
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Peter continues with the message he preached on the day of Pentecost. What Peter does not realize is that God changed His house rules and no longer required water baptism for salvation. Peter went on with his circumcision message... Next, Jerry jumps to 1 John 5:11. Talk about beating a dead horse! Let's look at the context again Jerry...

1 John 5
1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

John opens with MOTS Jerry... Keep His Commandments!

1 John 5
10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

Jerry, you fail to interpret this verse within it's context. They love God "if they keep His commandments" by faith. How do they show that they "believe God?" By doing what God asks them to do by faith. If they show that they love God and "keep His commandments" by faith, they possess eternal life. Let's continue,

1 John 5
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Jerry, what are "these things" John has written "that they may know they have eternal life?" The theme in 1 John is "Keep my commandments!" Let's keep going...

1 John 5
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.

Is this true for the body of Christ Jerry? Do you get everything you pray for? Me neither... Once you understand that 1 John is written to the circumcision believers, and not the body of Christ, you no longer have to do your typing gymnastics to attempt to explain away the problems. Let's continue,

1 John 5
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Now, what's going on here Jerry? You argue that if a person under the law sinned, he died physically. In light of all the information I have provided concerning Numbers 15 and Hebrews 10:26-29, we can see that John is referring to different types of sin. There are some "unintentional sins" which can be forgiven. There are certain "presumptous" sins that a brother could commit that would result in spiritual death. That's why John admonishes them to pray for their brother "who is sinning a sin which does not lead to death." If a brother is committing an "unintentional sin" they should pray for that brother. If they see a brother sinning a "presumptous or intentional" sin, John says they are lost, and should not pray for that brother. Let's continue,

1 John 5
18a We know that whoever is born of God does not sin;

Now Jerry, are you going to argue that believers do not sin, ever? In light of all the information I have provided, John is referring to "presumptous" sin. Whoever is born of God does not sin intentionally. If they do sin intentionally, they should not be prayed for and are lost (Num 15:32; Heb 10:26-29). 1 John 5:11 needs to be interpreted in light of this truth Jerry. John is writing to circumcision believers who are under a conditional program. If they love God, they keep His commandments. If they keep His commandments "by faith" they possess eternal life. If they sin "unintentionally" they can confess (1 John 1:9) to be forgiven. Their brethren can pray for them. If they sin "presumptously or intentionally," they are lost. Their brethren should not pray for them because they are lost. Next, you move on to Matthew 10:28,

”And I give unto them eternal life,and they shall never perish;neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.My Father,who gave them to Me…”(Jn.10:28,29).

Here Jeremy is forced to violate a principle of sound Bibical exegesis when he adds “conditions” to the Lord’s “unconditional” statement.Jeremy just cannot deal with the Scriptures as they are written or else he must admit that his ideas are wrong.Also, the Lord Jesus said that those who He has given eternal life were given to Him by the Father:

Jerry, you have done nothing to show that this is an unconditional statement. The circumcision gospel is full of conditions and must be interpreted as such! How does Jesus "give" eternal life? They receive it after they show that they have faith. As long as they continue to abide in Him, they will never perish. No one is able to take the salvation from them, but they can lose it themselves. If they sin "intentionally" they can fall away and lose it (1 John 5; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2:20). Next, Jerry jumps to Judas...

”And this is the Father’s will Who hath sent Me,that of ALL that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,but should raise them up again at the last day”(Jn.6:39).
Jeremy knows that this verse is devestaing to his teaching,so he says that the Lord did not do the will of the Father because Judas was lost!He says:
Judas is another example of one who “possessed eternal life,” fell away, and went to hell. The Father gave Judas to Christ, and Judas was lost…
Despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said that He came to do the Father’s will and the Father’s will is that He should lose “none” of those who were given to Him by the Father,Jeremy says that “the Father gave Judas to Christ,but Judas was lost!”

Jesus did not "lose" Judas. Judas freely chose to betray Christ and reject God's commands for him. All that remain faithful under the circumcision gospel will be raised up in the last day. This is the will of God. Christ chose the 12, but knew Judas' heart. Jesus called Judas a devil! How did Jesus know Judas was a devil? Because Judas fell away and no loger believed in Him. Judas freely fell away, Christ did not lose Him. Next, Jerry comments on eternal security for circumcision believers.

Despite all of Jeremy’s protests to the contrary,there can be no doubt that the Jewish believers did in fact possess “eternal security”.The Jewish believers were told that they already possess a life in the Son that will not end.The Lord Jesus said that those who have been given eternal life shall not perish and that He will lose none of those who were given to Him by the Father.Jude thells them that they are “preserved” in Jesus Christ:

Jerry, how many times do we need to go over this? I have already provided Numbers 15; Matthew 24:13; John 15; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2:20,21; Rev 3:5. Circumcision believers could lose their salvation. Circumcision believers could committ a sin that led to death. They could be lost! There no longer remains a sacrifice for their intentional sin. The body of Christ is sealed by the Holy Spirit, and we cannot lose our salvation.

In my next post, I will respond to Jerry's comments on my questions, and then I will answer his questions...

--Jeremy

[Jerry Shugart]

Jeremy,

In case you forgot,this is what you said in your first post in the debate:
To summarize, the uncircumcision gospel is rooted in “justification apart from works” (Genesis 15:6 & Abram) while the circumcision gospel is rooted in “justification by faith works” (Genesis 17, 22 & Abraham).

According to you the Jew was "justified by faith works".But now you say:
Again, where you are confused is, you think I'm saying "works" justified. I am not saying this.
Which is it,Jeremy?At first you say that the circumcision gospel is rooted in justification by faith works.Now you write that you are not saying that "works" justified!

You want it both ways.And the only way that you can justify your teaching is by contradicting yourself!

In His grace,--Jerry

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Jeremy,

In case you forgot,this is what you said in your first post in the debate:


According to you the Jew was "justified by faith works".But now you say:

Which is it,Jeremy?At first you say that the circumcision gospel is rooted in justification by faith works.Now you write that you are not saying that "works" justified!

You want it both ways.And the only way that you can justify your teaching is by contradicting yourself!

In His grace,--Jerry Jerry, Jeremy is what the Scripture calls a "double-minded" person. :chuckle:

[1Way]

Freak and Jerry - You openly pervert in order to argue your point. Jeremy stipulated faith works, as contrasted against works alone. They are very similar but different issues. God always requires faith to be right with Him, but what God has required to obey Him in faith unto salvation has changed from prior to this current dispensation of mystery and grace. Today works are forbidden for salvation, back then continuing in works your whole life was “required” for saving “faith”. So no one was ever saved by works alone, but you could loose your salvation if you rejected the works that God required for saving faith in Him.

Jerry, for you to not understand this distinction that I am sure Jeremy (and preiously myself) made clear, means you don’t even understand what you argue against.

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

... but you could loose your salvation if you rejected the works that God required for saving faith in Him. That's why many on TOL simply dismiss you as a novice due to these kinds of statements.

Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior stated:

I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?

What part of never are you having trouble grasping? Stop being "nicer then God."

[1Way]

Freak - Jesus did not explain everything in that one portion of text, and He did not overturn nor contradict His other statements, particularly that to become saved, you must keep the commandments.

Obeying God’s requirements for salvation is a gospel truth, salvation means “eternal life” with God, hence you would “never die” if you are saved, so that statement is synonymous with the gift and what the gift implies, not the requirements to have or keep the gift.

Today, once we get the gift of salvation, we can “not” loose it, however back then, you could loose that gift. Stop confusing the nature of the gift, with the nature of what is required to recieve or keep the gift.

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

Freak - Jesus did not explain everything in that one portion of text, The text is quite clear:

On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.
"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

Martha understood the Lord but you don't. Says much about your spiritual condition, 1way. You like the other double minded inviduals go to great pains to ignoring the clairty of God's Word. This perversion must be repented of.

Jesus said: ...whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

The text is so clear.

and He did not overturn nor contradict His other statements, particularly that to become saved, you must keep the commandments.

You mean like this:

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."


Obeying God’s requirements for salvation is a gospel truth, You spiritual liar. You state that despite what the apostle Paul says:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Paul said "no one." No one. Period!

Today, once we get the gift of salvation, we can “not” loose it, however back then, you could loose that gift. That's downright silly theology. For Jesus said:

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.

No one would include yourself, 1Way.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by 1Way
Freak and Jerry - You openly pervert in order to argue your point.
1Way,

It is Jeremy who is doing the "perverting"!
Jeremy stipulated faith works, as contrasted against works alone.
Yes,Jeremy makes up a "stipulation" that has no basis in fact or in the Scriptures in order to "pervert" the words of Paul.

Paul's words could not be any plainer:

"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.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident"(Gal.3:10,11).

The reason why no man is justiified before God by works is because no man is able to "do all things which are written in the law!

No man,in faith or in unbelief,is able to meet the standards of the law.Once a man (either in faith or in unbelief) breaks one of the Ten Commandments then they are "guilty of all"(James 2:10).

Now let me ask you a question,1Way.How in the world is being "guilty of all" the law ever going to be sufficient to make anyone righteous before God by "works"?

Besides,when Paul is speaking on this subject in Romans he makes it plain that "works" are excluded!

He specifically uses David,a man who lived under the law,as an example of a man who is "justified before God" apart from works--to him that worketh not,but believeth"(Ro.4:5,6).

You can either believe Paul's words or you can believe that being guilty of all the law can somehow justify a man before God.

In His grace,--Jerry

[1Way]

Jerry, so you do not deny perverting what Jeremy said, at least you are that much upright. You misunderstand what he is saying, you have shown no accurate representation of what you are supposedly arguing against. Now if you would ever start showing a reasonable understanding of what we believe, then you might get somewhere.

You said Now let me ask you a question,1Way.How in the world is being "guilty of all" the law ever going to be sufficient to make anyone righteous before God by "works"? This is in no way congruent with Jeremy’s position, but it is totally congruent with your misunderstanding of what we believe. Works never save anyone, that is a hard cold written in stone fact. So your reasoning betrays your misunderstanding. Just like there is a difference between

the gift of salvation,

and God’s requirements for receiving that gift,

there is a difference between

works for salvation

and works as a requirement of faith to receive the gift of salvation.

God, not you, not me, not Jeremy, God required the works added with faith to be saved prior to the dispensation of Grace. That is in no way shape or form anything but God’s requirement of obedience to His gospel requirement for salvation and God never counts this obedience of faith as meritorious for salvation, it was His faith/belief requirement, it is counted as obedient faith, not a work concerning salvation.

You said He specifically uses David,a man who lived under the law,as an example of a man who is "justified before God" apart from works--to him that worketh not,but believeth"(Ro.4:5,6). Wow Jerry, you really twisted that up. Here is what the text says. Ro 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. God used David in this example not as a personal object of the lesson like you inferred, but as the vehicle to proclaim His word about not imputing sin, that is forgiveness and salvation, and forgiveness and salvation was available before the dispensation of Grace, so that is not at issue here. And of course God has the right to personally forgive someone on a one on one basis, again, that is not part of the disagreement.

Any man, not just specifically David, any man is blessed whom the Lord does not impute sin. But God did not stop there, He went on to consistently show the differences that matter between the two different groups of believers. By voiding the meaning and authority of all of God’s commandments for those who lived under them, you render those two different groups virtually the same. Suggestion, stop trying to shove your theology into the scriptures, the meaningful corrective authority should go the other way around. ;)

As to all the rest, we agree with what Paul teaches. Also, the scope of being guilty of the entire law if you break one is not restricted to just the 10 commandments, it is for all of God’s (dispensationally current) commandments commonly referred to from the dispensation of the law. But I would like to imagine that you did not mean to imply otherwise.

In the OT, during the dispensation of law, the gospel unto “so that you shall live” = salvation, required a faith in God that also required keeping the law, you could not be in good standing with God and disobey His commandments, remember, they were never called Gods suggestions, or 10 steps to self improvement.

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

I am almost ashamed to call myself a dispensationalist because I do not want anyone to think that I subscribe to the beliefs put forward by you and those at the Derby School of Theology.To show you what I mean,let us examine your ideas.First you say that "works never save anyone":
Originally posted by 1Way
Works never save anyone, that is a hard cold written in stone fact.
Then you turn around and say that works were "required" for salvation at one time:
God required the works added with faith to be saved prior to the dispensation of Grace.
So we can see that you can throw your reason to the wind and say that "works" never saved anyone but at the same time you teach that those living in the OT times could not be saved without "works"!

Jeremy debated the question of whether or not "works were required for salvation" in regard to the OT saints,and he argued that works of the law were indeed required for salvation.

But at the same time he throws his reason to the wind and argues that works save no one!!!

We are to use our "reason" when it comes to understanding the Scriptures:

"And Paul,as his manner was,went into them,and three sabbaths days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures"(Acts17:2).

Your theology is based on an abnegation of reason!

You would have us believe that "works" were required for salvation but at the same time those "works" saved no one.This is a perfect example of the words of Paul when he speaks of people like you:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but,after their own lusts,shall they heap to themselves teachers,having itching ears;and they shall turn away their ears from the truth,and shall be turned into fables"(2Tim.4:3,4).

You and the Derby School of Theology have turned your ears from the truth that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God.And in order to perpetuate your fables you expect sane men to belief you when you say that "works" were required for salvation but at the same time these "works" saved no one!!

You should take the words of Sir Robert Anderson to heart when he says that "it is a principle of universal application,and it explains the failure of many a Christian life.For if a Christian refuses new light by which God would lead him on,he is in danger of losing even the light he already enjoys"(Anderson,"The Entail of the Covenant",p.12).

In His grace,--Jerry

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
I am almost ashamed to call myself a dispensationalist because I do not want anyone to think that I subscribe to the beliefs put forward by you(1Way) and those at the Derby School of Theology.

Hi Jerry. I think it is awesome that you debate issues on salvation. You are right, it was only by faith.

The original dispensationalism had nothing to do with salvation, or did it? As you porbably know there is an "updated" Scofield reference Bible. You have to ask yourself Jerry, why did they need to update it? And what were the updates? In short it did have to do with salvation. Scofield never once mentioned that the OT saint were saved by works but he did imply it. SO the "updated" version fixed that. 1Way is representing dispensationalism the way it was created.


It is sad to hear that you are a dispensationalist. But I really believe you are much smarter than that system. In fact, most people are. Jerry i hope you study this system like I have. If I was to show you all they teach, I bet most of the time you would say "i don't believe in that". My reply would to agree with you. The entire system is silly.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Hi Jerry. I think it is awesome that you debate issues on salvation. You are right, it was only by faith.
Nimrod,

Thanks!
The original dispensationalism had nothing to do with salvation, or did it? As you porbably know there is an "updated" Scofield reference Bible. You have to ask yourself Jerry, why did they need to update it? And what were the updates? In short it did have to do with salvation.
Just because there was one "mis-statement" in the original Scofield study Bible does not mean that the whole system is in error.
Scofield never once mentioned that the OT saint were saved by works but he did imply it. SO the "updated" version fixed that. 1Way is representing dispensationalism the way it was created.
No,it was not "created" in that way.There were many dispensational teachers before the original Scofield Study Bible even existed that taught that no one was saved by "works".
It is sad to hear that you are a dispensationalist.
The Apostle Paul himself was a "dispensationalist",and this is plain by his many references to the various dispensations as well as his many uses of the word "dispensations".

Is it "sad" that Paul himself was a "dispensationalist"?
Jerry i hope you study this system like I have.
I wonder what "system" you do believe in.Perhaps it is that system that is forced to "spiritualize" away all the unfulfilled prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.That "system" is forced to place a meaning on those prophecies that no longer even resembles what is originally said.In fact,those perversions which do not even resemble what is originally prophesised can only be described as "silly".

In His grace,--Jerry

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Nimrod, Thanks!

The Apostle Paul himself was a "dispensationalist",and this is plain by his many references to the various dispensations as well as his many uses of the word "dispensations".

Is it "sad" that Paul himself was a "dispensationalist"?


Well I certaining believe in dispensations. After all, I don't bring goats to service. We all agree there are two dispensations, one of the OT and one for the NT. But remember that not all of the teachers of dispensationalism agree on the start and finish of the seven dispensations. Why don't they? Hmmmmmm.

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
I wonder what "system" you do believe in.Perhaps it is that system that is forced to "spiritualize" away all the unfulfilled prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.That "system" is forced to place a meaning on those prophecies that no longer even resembles what is originally said.In fact,those perversions which do not even resemble what is originally prophesised can only be described as "silly".

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. When it comes to interpret Scripture, we look to how it was done by the saints in the Scriptures.

As we look at the very first prophecy in Scriptures. Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Tell me Jerry, how was that fulfilled literally? Didn't you learn anything from Dee Dee Warren.

Jerry, when you read poetry, do you try to understand everything as literal? I know I don't. Would you agree that parts of Psalms is poetry?

Luke 24:44 Jesus said "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,". How do you interpret this verse literally? Were all things fulfilled in the OT about Christ? As it turns out. You don't take eveything literally.

God Bless

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Well I certaining believe in dispensations. After all, I don't bring goats to service. We all agree there are two dispensations, one of the OT and one for the NT.
Nimrod,

If all believe this why do some continue to insist that we should follow "the Law" (the OT)?
But remember that not all of the teachers of dispensationalism agree on the start and finish of the seven dispensations. Why don't they? Hmmmmmm.
Some dispensationalists have a better understanding of the various dispensations than others do.
Didn't you learn anything from Dee Dee Warren.
I learned that when it comes to interpreting unfulfilled prophecies the Preterists are clueless.
Jerry, when you read poetry, do you try to understand everything as literal? I know I don't. Would you agree that parts of Psalms is poetry?
If there is a good reason for not taking things of the Bible in a "literal" sense then they must be taken figuratively.However,when there is no reason to take things in a figurative sense then we must attempt to put a "literal" meaning upon them.
Luke 24:44 Jesus said "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,". How do you interpret this verse literally? Were all things fulfilled in the OT about Christ? As it turns out. You don't take eveything literally.
Do you not believe that "all" things concerning Him that are written in the OT will indeed come to pass?

In His grace,--Jerry

[Freak]

There are but 2 covenants--the old & the new. We live under a New Covenant. Nimrod is correct in stating:

"But remember that not all of the teachers of dispensationalism agree on the start and finish of the seven dispensations. Why don't they? Hmmmmmm."

The Scriptural record however clearly makes a divison with the old and new covenants. To take a more biblical balanced approach one should look into covenant theology--that focuses on the realities of the Old and New Covenants.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
Nimrod,

If all believe this why do some continue to insist that we should follow "the Law" (the OT)?

The LAW was never done away with. In this dispensation God no longer wants animal sacrifice and anything related to it. (see hebrews).

Why should we follow the LAW? There are many Scriptural passages of why we should keep the LAW. Here is one of them. Proverbs 3:1-2 "1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. ". To summarize, God will bless us.


Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
If there is a good reason for not taking things of the Bible in a "literal" sense then they must be taken figuratively.However,when there is no reason to take things in a figurative sense then we must attempt to put a "literal" meaning upon them.

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that some of the OT prophecies were fulfilled literally to the very fine point of detail. But some others were fulfilled spirtually. See Acts 15:12-19, OT prophecy fulfilled through the believing gentiles(spirtual Israel).

A combination of a literal and spiritual approach in interpreting prophecy is warranted by the NT itself. This fact militates against the dispensationalist insistence upon a strict literalism in its hermeneutics. As Charles Hodge says in his Systematic Theology,
Two things are remarkable about the prophecies of Scripture, which have already been accomplished. The one is that the fulfillment has, in many cases, been very different from that which a literal interpretation led men to anticipate. The other is, that in some cases they have been fulfilled even to the most minute details. These facts should render us modest in our interpretation of those predictions which remain to be accomplished; satisfied that what we know not now what we shall know hereafter. (pp. 845-850)

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
Do you not believe that "all" things concerning Him that are written in the OT will indeed come to pass?

In His grace,--Jerry

Right now, I do believe that all prophecies in the OT about Christ has already come to pass, in fact I have a discussion going on in the eschatology forum. take a look. LINK (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13750)

God Bless

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nimrod

The LAW was never done away with.

To the believer in Christ the law is dead according to the Scriptural record...

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ...

When you're dead to the law you are dead to it. Case close.

Why should we follow the LAW? There are many Scriptural passages of why we should keep the LAW. doesn't sound like you're a believer...

The Scripures teach...

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Freak

To the believer in Christ the law is dead according to the Scriptural record...
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ...
When you're dead to the law you are dead to it. Case close.

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:"


Mt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus did not come to destroy the law.

Mt 22:37-46 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus gave us two great commandments which sum up the Law. He never done away with it.

Paul said in Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Paul never made void the law.

I guess the verse u are referring to must be in second opinions or first Ahab. :chuckle:


Originally posted by Freak
The Scripures teach..

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Amen. No one can ever be declared righteous by observing the law. So in that sense we are dead to the law. We are new creatures in Christ, but we still observe the law because we love Christ, and we do what He tells us to do. And one of the things He asks us to do is the two greatest commandments which summarizes the Law.

John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments." What commandments is Jesus talking about Freak?

John 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"

God bless.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Nimrod
The LAW was never done away with.
Nimrod,

First of all,Paul tells those in the Body of Christ that they are "not under the law"(Ro.6:14).

In fact,the Gentiles were never under "the law":

"For when the Gentiles, who have not the law..."(Ro.2:14).

And when some in the Jerusalem church attempted to place the Gentiles under the law,it was decided that they were not obligated to keep the law.

So even though those in the Body who walk in the Spirit establish the law,the Gentiles were never obligated to keep the law.
Right now, I do believe that all prophecies in the OT about Christ has already come to pass...
Perhaps you can tell me when the folllowing prophecy was fulfilled:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:8,9).

Now we can see if you have a "reasonable" answer as to when this happened.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Why should we follow the LAW? There are many Scriptural passages of why we should keep the LAW. Here is one of them. Proverbs 3:1-2 "1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. ". To summarize, God will bless us.
Nimrod,

You left out the part that speaks of doing "all things that are written in the book of the law":

"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them"(Deut.27:26).

"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"(Gal.3:10).

Even though Paul tells us that "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us"(Gal.3:13),you seem to want to go back to the very thing that Paul calls "weak and beggarly elements"--the law!

In His grace,--Jerry

[Jerry Shugart]

+

[Nimrod]

In Romans 6:14 "Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace". Paul must be talking about salvation. Why else would he say grace? For those who want to get saved by keeping the law they must keep all aspects of it and never fail at one point. Which is impossible, but those who are without Christ are in this position. Those in Christ are no longer under the condemnation of the law but under grace. Since the righteousness secured by Christ comes upon the sinner through faith, manifestly the works of the Law can have nothing to do with our obtainning of it. But so far is faith-rightousness from undermining the Law, that Paul claims that through faith the Law is established (3:31). Jerry you never answered Jesus statements about the Law and His commandments. Both Christ and Paul asked believers to observe the Law(not the sacrifical). It was never done away with.

Jerry now states that the Gentiles were never under "the law". These same gentiles will "perish without the law". So this can't be referring to us believers. Now to the believing gentiles(spirtual Israel), they are to keep the moral law but not the sacrifical law, circumcison, ceremonial law (not including the sabbath), but they are to refrain from drinking blood. Remember no one is saved by observing the law, we are blessed by God when we do so.


When was Zech 12:8-9 fulfilled. Since Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, then the events outlined in verses 1–9 had to have been fulfilled some time prior to Jesus’ crucifixion. In order for dispensationalists to make their position work, they must reverse the chronology of the chapter by placing the events of verses 1–9 after verse ten. I maintain that it was fulfilled during Ester's time. See
LINK (http://americanvision.org/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=80)

[Nimrod]

Jerry you are mixed up, thinking like a true dispensationalist. Righteousness never came by observing the LAW. To think that one is righteous by keeping the law is cursed because you can't do it.

The Law was essentially a works system that resulted in either blessings or cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30). It was based on what one did, not on what one believed. The function of the LAW was not to give life but to guide life.

Gal 3:11 a verse you conviently missed says " But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,". This part of Gal. is talking about being justified or salvation. Christ took care of the requirements for salvation for us. Nevertheless, now that we are believers and can never lose our salvation we should observe the Law because that is what Christ and Paul said about the law.

When the verse has the work "law" in it, you have to take one step furthur to see if it is referring to salvation or not. Paul clearly stated that we should not make the law void.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nimrod

No one can ever be declared righteous by observing the law. So in that sense we are dead to the law. Okay...then you say this:

We are new creatures in Christ, but we still observe the law because we love Christ, and we do what He tells us to do.

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Note the bold, Nimrod.

John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments." What commandments is Jesus talking about Freak? That's easy the Bible says,

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ...

Homework for Nimrod:

What does this verse mean to you?

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

[Jerry Shugart]

Nimrod,

I asked you when the following prophecy was fulfilled:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:8,9).

You said,"I maintain that it was fulfilled during Ester's time".

The writer of the link which you provided is so confused that he thinks that the events described in the book of Esther is in regard to "Jerusalem".But the events described in that book happened in Persia,and not in Jerusalem!

This is your "reasonable" answer!

In HIs grace,--Jerry

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Nimrod,

I asked you when the following prophecy was fulfilled:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:8,9).

You said,"I maintain that it was fulfilled during Ester's time".

The writer of the link which you provided is so confused that he thinks that the events described in the book of Esther is in regard to "Jerusalem".But the events described in that book happened in Persia,and not in Jerusalem!

This is your "reasonable" answer!

In HIs grace,--Jerry :crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

[Nimrod]

IN the Scriptures, Matthew 5:17-20 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever[COLOR=blue](That would be Freak) therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,[COLOR=blue](That would you, Freak) he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20


I don't know how many times I have to go over this with dispensationalist. It gets frustrating :mad: , but they need to know the proper way to think about the Law.

Things to know about the Law
1.) It NEVER brought righteousness. Just because you see a verse that speaks about the law, you have to ask yourself, if he is referring to salvation or something else. If he is speak of salvation, then yes we are no longer under the law. That is a good thing because no one is saved through observing the law. If we die without Christ we will be judged by the Law, and will fall short and will be condemned.
If he is speaking about the law being good and not to make void, he is not speaking about salvation but of a guide on how to live life he on earth.

Freak, since u say u are no longer under the law. What guides to to know what is right or wrong?


In your last post you quote the law, when it is referring to salvation. So I need no to comment about that.

Originally posted by Freak
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse,
What am I relying on? I don't rely on the Observance of the Law for salvation. SO what do you mean about rely?


Originally posted by Freak
What does this verse mean to you?


I certainly won't disagee, but Jesus also said in Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Are u saying Freak that we no longer need to observe the two greatest commandments?

[Jerry Shugart]

Nimrod,

Do you keep the precepts of the Sabbath commandments which are under the Law?

Are you not aware that there have been new commandments given to the Body of Christ?

In His grace,--Jerry

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Nimrod,

Do you keep the precepts of the Sabbath commandments which are under the Law?

Are you not aware that there have been new commandments given to the Body of Christ?

In His grace,--Jerry

Yes to the sabbath, it was never done away with.
Matthew 24:20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:"
What precepts are you talking about?

Jesus never done away with the commandments, in fact he summarized them in the two greatest commandments. I am aware that some of the law, ie sacrifices, dietary, circumcision is done away with in the NT. But I am not aware of commandments that is for the Church and seperate commandments for the Jews. I hold that God has one olive tree, and one sheep fold.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nimrod

Freak, since u say u are no longer under the law. What guides to to know what is right or wrong?

I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Would you rather be under the Law or be guided by the Holy Spirit? :think:

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Freak

I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.



Couple of problems here.
1.) How do you know you are in the Spirit and when you are not?
2.) Can the devil disguise himself as an angel of light, and u might think it is the Spirit speaking?

Of course you are to live by the Spirit, but we leak. We need to refuel the Spirit within us, thererfore there are times when we are not filled in Spirit.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nimrod

Couple of problems here.
1.) How do you know you are in the Spirit and when you are not?

...because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

2.) Can the devil disguise himself as an angel of light, and u might think it is the Spirit speaking? See above.

Of course you are to live by the Spirit, but we leak. We need to refuel the Spirit within us, thererfore there are times when we are not filled in Spirit. This is unbiblical. We don't "leak" the Holy Spirit. We are sealed so no leaking will occur.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Freak
We don't "leak" the Holy Spirit. We are sealed so no leaking will occur.


Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Acts 4:31 "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

Two different instances where the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. It goes to show that one is not always "filled".

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is not a one time transaction. It starts at re-birth and we need to continue to be filled, by following Jesus commands which summarizes the law and prophets, also by fasting and praying.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nimrod

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is not a one time transaction. It starts at re-birth and we need to continue to be filled, by following Jesus commands which summarizes the law and prophets, also by fasting and praying. :nono: Can you lose the infilling of the Holy Spirit? Where does it state in Scripture that we are filled with the Holy Spirit via obedience to the law?

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Freak

:nono: Can you lose the infilling of the Holy Spirit? Where does it state in Scripture that we are filled with the Holy Spirit via obedience to the law?

Eph 5:18 "but be filled with the Holy Spirit". This statement is in present tense, or another way of wording it 'Be continually being filled with the Holy Spirit', thus implying that this is something that should repeatedly be happening to Christians.

Think of a balloon, once it is filled with air even though it can hold more, you can say it is filled. But when you put more air into it, the ballon stretches. The same way the Holy Spirit works in us, we are filled(air) but as our christian sanctification grows we are able to hold more air and need to be filled again.

This is a poor analogy, hard to explain God. No, you can not lose the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

How to stay filled in Spirit
------------------------------------------
We must: (1) be Christ-centered, (2) be in the Word, (3) be submissive, and (4) be confident.

1.)The first essential for being Spirit-filled is to center our lives on Jesus Christ. He must be the focal point of our thoughts and aspirations. In all we do, we must be conscious of following His example and doing His will. When we are Christ-centered, we are pleasing the Holy Spirit because that's what He wants us to do. In fact, Jesus said, "He [the Holy Spirit] will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you" (John 16:14).
We nned to Purify ourselves from sin (1 John 3:2,3) "Whosoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law....and in him there is no sin...whosoever is born of God doth no commit sin"

If you love Christ you will do what He says, i.e. follow His commandments, which sum up the law and prophets. This is just one of the step of being filled with the Holy Spirit

Freak how do you interpret Romans 8:4?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nimrod

If you love Christ you will do what He says, i.e. follow His commandments, which sum up the law and prophets. This is just one of the step of being filled with the Holy Spirit

Is there a moment in your life that you perfectly line up to the law's requirement? Think about it.

Only in Christ are we acceptable. Only in Christ can we be above the law.

[leers]

"I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong."

This is very much a false statement. Quantum physics predicts that particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously. This has been tested by experiment and shown to be true. When things are at quantum and plank lengths you can't use standard forms of logic or reasoning. Existence and non-existence are not well defined concepts until the quantum system is disrupted by a classical system, ie. measured. As the universe can’t be measured outside itself, by definition, since it is all that there is. Hence, its existence on that scale becomes a difficult question to deal with in its own right. As Hawkings said, time itself is part of the universe. If the universe is point sized time does not process. If time does not process does the universe exist? How could we know it exists if it requires time to observe the universe to measure its existence? If something can't be measured to exist then the discrete distinction between existence and non-existence is meaningless.

( Bahh, rubbish, you say, but take 4 years of undergraduate physics and then come back and talk. One shouldn’t discount things because they superficially make no sense. )

So I guess one could say that the universe was in this very much non-classical, semi-existent (but most likely physically tractable) state until it got large enough for time and existence to have some meaning. Then it existed. When physical systems scale to different rules, ie. Plank weirdness -> quantum -> semi-classical- > classical they do so smoothly. So one can not even say at what point the universe did in fact exist, and what point where existence had no meaning.


A non-quantum argument that addresses this problem:
The universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Anything that is not in this set does not exist. Does this set exist? The universe can’t include itself. Hence the universe does not exist. This is a classic paradox of logic. We see again that discussing the existence, non-existence, especially in the creation of the universe is on a deep level a flawed question. The vary notion of existence is so intimately tied to the concept of the universe that it can not be applied to the universe in a meaningful way.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by leers

The universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Anything that is not in this set does not exist. Does this set exist? The universe can�t include itself. Hence the universe does not exist. This is a classic paradox of logic. We see again that discussing the existence, non-existence, especially in the creation of the universe is on a deep level a flawed question. The vary notion of existence is so intimately tied to the concept of the universe that it can not be applied to the universe in a meaningful way.
This is a version of Russell's Paradox, but the problem here has more to do with the meaning of "existence" as a predicate than with arbitrarily defining the universe as a "set of all that exists."

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by leers
This is very much a false statement. Quantum physics predicts that particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously. This has been tested by experiment and shown to be true.

Could you cite the experiment, please?