Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,865
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,780
Posts54,875
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,864
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:34 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
The When and How of Justification
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:13 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#10275 Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:46 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Quote
Sanctus rightly stated:
And since every man is made in the image of God and that means that God's character would have been imprinted so to speak upon man then so would the moral law too would have been placed into man. This is the only way that the gentiles would even have an idea of right and wrong.
Isn't this the same truth which Paul asserts in showing the necessity of Christ's atoning sacrifice; i.e., that ALL men are guilty of breaking the "moral law" of God? He says that ALL mankind died as consequence of breaking the "law" long before the Jews ever came into existence and longer yet before the Decalogue was given to Moses on Sinai, thus also showing that the Decalogue isn't the origin of the moral law at all, but a iteration of that law which was impressed upon the heart of men from the creation.

Romans 5:12-14 (ASV) "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:-- for until the law [Ten Commandments - Pilgrim] sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law [moral law - Pilgrim]. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come."


In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#10276 Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:10 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Mark,


Will you interact with what Pilgrim, I, Pete,& others, have written to you? You keep writing "The bible says no such thing.." and the like, and continue to ignore the rebutalls.

in Christ,
Carlos


"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
#10277 Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:30 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Hey..

Okay, I am coming from waaaaaaay behind here, and this coversation is way above my head lol. But I wonder if it's okay to just ask this question. This is still bothering me, the issue of "the law." It seems as though this thread has been more about whether we are under the law, or not under the law. So I hope I am staying on topic. I am also still trying to deal with the Hebrew roots issue, and the differences between the jew and the gentile.

Okay, I read the last half of the book of acts today. What I notice is that Paul did still observe the law to some extent. It is not clear how far he went though. He talked about "taking a vow" and having his hair cut. He never did speak against the "law." In fact, he said he had done nothing against it, in what he spoke or what he did. Or.. what he did NOT do. Like when he went to Jerusalem to pay alms and worship, or when he did not let any gentile in the temple etc.

Someone told me that the jews are bound to obey the "covenant" from birth, the Torah, and the gentiles are only bound to obey the four things listed in acts. Not commiting fornication, not to eat blood, etc. Sorry I am not listing the particular verses.

I know there is a whole bunch of stuff that is missing here. I am about to re-read the book of Romans and Galatians together so I can maybe get a better idea what Paul meant. But I had come to some idea like Mark, that we are not bound by the "law." And that the law we follow is of liberty.. not to sin, but that that moral law of God is written on our hearts. In our consciences. For the saved and the unsaved alike. As in, the letter of the law kills, but we follow now, as believers, the Spirit of that law.

Anyway, I may take another "break" after this so I can spend a few months digesting all this. Of course.. I may not lol. We'll see.

Michele

MHeath #10278 Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Okay, never mind my questions, in case anyone was inclined to answer them! hehehe. I have been reading Romans today, and Acts. Half of my issues have been answered and resolved. I think in more reading, the rest will be answered.. we'll see.

Thanks anyway!
Michele

MHeath #10279 Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:42 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Michele,

Read through Timothy also. There are some passages there that speak of law(.i.e "the law is good if one uses it lawfully"; 1 Tim. 1:8-11).

in Christ,
Carlos


"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
carlos #10280 Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Okay, just some simple ideas here. Speaking about using the law, lawfully. In Acts, when Paul observes the Jewish customs and law, is he only obeying the law of love? As when he said that we are not walking in love if we eat meat in front of a weaker brother and make him stumble, or when he says that to the jews he is a jew, to the gentiles a gentile so that by being everything to all men he might save some? (Of course I paraphrased there LOL.)

Michele

MHeath #10281 Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:41 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Michele,

Don't confuse the "law of love", which in the examples you gave have to do with the "law of liberty", aka: Adiaphora (things indifferent). In those situations, there is no "law" prohibiting the use of foods, etc., as they are all "good". It is one's conscience that prohibits one from partaking of them. And thus, for example, Paul could participate in a Jewish festival as just that, a festival that had no bearing upon his salvation. Circumcision is probably the best example however. For in one case, he allowed one to submit to it for the sake of the Gospel, but in another case, he flatly refused to it. For, in that case, those who demanded circumcision held that salvation was dependent upon it.

What this topic is about is the "MORAL law" of God, those laws which are the expression of God's very nature; i.e., that which determines what is holy and righteous. Mark and other Antinomians deny that Christians are "bound", under obligation to keep them, saying they were specifically Israelic; belonging to the nation of Israel and no one else. They would contend that because we are under "grace", then ALL the moral law is abrogated and no longer applicable to believers.

Of course we disagree. The "key", IMHO, is understanding how Paul, e.g., uses the word "law" and in what context he is using it. For a Christian, the law is not applicable for the obtaining of Justification. Nor is the law necessary to securing Sanctification. But rather the moral law is the RULE and GUIDE to becoming sanctified; to becoming more and more like Christ.

Anyway, perhaps that will give you more food for thought? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #10282 Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:59 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
yes yes yes.. and thank you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

On the issue of the Jews though, I am pretty well convinced. While I believe that God has still not finished with the nation of Israel, nor with the jews, we are still ONE body. No one is better than another. If we are all saved in the same way, and we are all one body, then sanctification works the same for all. It's the work of God, through the Spirit. Not following Judaism. Though, i will concede that following say.. the dietary laws, a jewish Christian could say that he is walking in love toward his fellow jews who are not saved yet. Does that make sense? Is that what you just said? LOL

You made more clear the part I was confused about concerning your position on which law we are "under." Still thinking though..thanks Pilgrim!

Michele

MHeath #10283 Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Quote
Though, i will concede that following say.. the dietary laws, a jewish Christian could say that he is walking in love toward his fellow jews who are not saved yet. Does that make sense? Is that what you just said? LOL
This may or may not be true. Again, I refer you to the record of Paul's missionary journey found here: Acts 16:1-3, where Timothy was circumcised so as to open opportunities to preach the gospel to the Jews. But in Gal 2:1-5, Paul adamantly refused to have Titus circumcised, also for the sake of the Gospel. Now, the difference to be seen here is that in one case, circumcision was not looked upon as being necessary for salvation, but in the latter case, it was. Thus, the first was done out of the liberty they had in Christ, to either do that or not do that for the sake of conscience. But on the other hand, in Galatia, it was a group of Judaizers who demanded that to be saved, one had to follow the law of the Old Covenant, to be saved. This latter group denied Sola Gratia and Sola Fide and was guilty of preaching/teaching "synergism"; i.e., faith+works=salvation.

The civil and ceremonial laws were abrogated when the nation of Israel was cast off and had served its purpose. But the moral law is perpetual and applies to all men everywhere and is used for various purposes; e.g., to bring conviction of sin to unbelievers and to be a guide which shows in practical terms what holiness and righteousness is, to which believers are called to be before God. (Matt 5:48; 1Pet 1:16).

As to the nation of Israel and the Jews having yet a major part in God's plan of redemption..... well, that's another topic for discussion and one which I of course, clearly disagree. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

See here: Paul's Theology of Israel's Future.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#10284 Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:57 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Greetings BookMark:

I looked up "covenant of works" at biblegateway.com and there was no passage of Scripture found. I can only assume the concept is outside Scripture.

I suppose we could open the forum to include the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the musings of Buddah for that matter. Perhaps we could have everyone send in their favorite Confucious saying. But, I thought this website was for serious Christian discussion on theology.

My point is this....If it isn't in the 66 books of the Bible, don't bring it to the discussion board - unless you are prepared to have someone start quoting from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and claiming it has authority over your Christian life!

#10285 Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:04 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
I looked up "covenant of works" at biblegateway.com and there was no passage of Scripture found. I can only assume the concept is outside Scripture....I suppose we could open the forum to include the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the musings of Buddah for that matter. Perhaps we could have everyone send in their favorite Confucious saying. But, I thought this website was for serious Christian discussion on theology.....[color:"0000FF"]My point is this....If it isn't in the 66 books of the Bible, don't bring it to the discussion board [/color]
Did you type your response on a computer? Are computers in the 66 books of the Bible? Is there a bibical doctrine of typing? Then why type?--bad argument <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Doctrine is in the Bible. We are to have sound doctrine (1 Tim 1:3-10; 4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 3, etc.). Covenant of Works is a doctrinal principle. Please read the links below to learn more concerning this "biblical doctrine."


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#10286 Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:19 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Quote
I looked up looked up "covenant of works" at biblegateway.com and there was no passage of Scripture found. I can only assume the concept is outside Scripture.

I suppose we could open the forum to include the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the musings of Buddah for that matter. Perhaps we could have everyone send in their favorite Confucious saying. But, I thought this website was for serious Christian discussion on theology.

My point is this....If it isn't in the 66 books of the Bible, don't bring it to the discussion board - unless you are prepared to have someone start quoting from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and claiming it has authority over your Christian life!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" /> What reasoning is THIS??? I just went to biblegateway.com myself and typed up "Trinity". To my surprise, nothing showed up<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. I guess I can conclude that the early church fathers & church councils, and the untold number of theologians have made this up too. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />
As if the best of the reformed theologians were just sitting in their rooms making this stuff from thin air.

If you disagree, then please read the entire thread and join in on the discussion already ongoing.


in Christ,
Carlos

Last edited by carlos; Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:49 PM.

"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
#10287 Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:47 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
1saved,
The word Trinity isn't in the Bible either, but we're not going to throw that away since the doctrine is plainly taught in the Bible!

#10288 Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
You will want to read this post and article on "solo scriptura":

Click here: https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...;o=&fpart=1


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#10289 Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:43 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
My point is this....If it isn't in the 66 books of the Bible, don't bring it to the discussion board - unless you are prepared to have someone start quoting from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and claiming it has authority over your Christian life!

Most surprisingly, no one has done that in this discussion, either with the Catholic Church's catechism or any other. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 77 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,390 Gospel truth