Statues

[DHK]

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/taking-the-measure-of-relics-of-the-true-cross/

That statement about 'enough relics of the cross to build a mansion' seems to be a myth according to this article.

As early as Egeria’s day, a relic of the True Cross was coveted by Christians, which would lead in years to come to a host of false relics, some the product of outright fraud, others of wishful thinking. Today, it is virtually impossible to distinguish which relics of the cross are genuine, although the relics displayed in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and Rome’s Basilica of the “Holy Cross in Jerusalem” are probably authentic.

Thomas J. Craughwell is the author of Saints Behaving Badly and the forthcoming Saints Preserved: An Encyclopedia of Relics​

This is typical RCC propaganda which is false and made up. It is bogus as we all know that there are no genuine or authentic relics of the cross in existence today. What the distance the RCC will go, just to defend their idolatry. It really is unbelievable.
​

​

 

[Moriah]

This is typical RCC propaganda which is false and made up. It is bogus as we all know that there are no genuine or authentic relics of the cross in existence today. What the distance the RCC will go, just to defend their idolatry. It really is unbelievable.
[/RIGHT]

​

DHK,
You sound very frustrated with the Catholics. You even sound condescending at times. I am trying to show them the Truth out of love.

 

[DHK]

DHK,
You sound very frustrated with the Catholics. You even sound condescending at times. I am trying to show them the Truth out of love.

Please do so. Show them the error of their way. But do so in love. That is the way to do it. :thumbs:

 

[Zenas]

He said that ALL the commandments hang on these two and that would include ALL ten commandments. Hence, the Great Commandments do not abolish the ten commandments but rather reinforce them under the motive of love which is a stronger motive than fear.

Obedience to the law does not justify anyone but it does instruct us in the knowledge of right and wrong.

The Moral law exists as long as there are moral beings with a Moral Creator but it exists for the purpose it was given to men.

Furthermore, your quotation of Leviticus 19 and the cuttings refer historically to the religion of Egypt and how they served their gods. Get a good commentary and they will provide the historical setting. However, the moral princple behind that command rests upon the first three of the ten commandments - false worship and false gods.

When you start observing the Sabbath I will take what you are saying here seriously. Just curious, do you also advocate Levirate marriage? That had nothing to do with Egypt.

Here is what you are completely ignoring. First the command literally prohibits the making of images of anything in heaven and earth. So it does prohibit the use of graven statues in worship.

Working on the Sabbath is also prohibited but Jesus and His disciples picked grain on the Sabbath.

Second, you cannot use the images in the temple made by Moses and Solomon to support your position because such images were (1) directly commanded by God (2) according to a heavenly pattern revealed to them and no such command and no such pattern was provided Rome by God.

I haven’t said anything about those images. You will have to take that up with JarJo and some others who have been using those comparisons.

Third, no one but God has the right to determine and command what is mandatory in the house of God. Neither Moses or Solomon conceived, designed or made such things for the house of God. God alone has this authority.

Unless God has given that authority to someone else. Matthew 16:19.

Absolutely irrational thinking. All three commandments are inseparably connected with each other. Even James recognizes this, that to violate one point is to violate all points and then he quotes part of the ten commandments (James 2:10-11) to demonstrate he has the ten commandments in view.

And what is the very next thing James says? “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.”

There is no need for the third commandment apart from the second as the bowing down and worshipping images is only possible if they are made in the first place. Making the images begins SPIRITUALLY with the a wrong CONCEPT of the true God. The true God CANNOT be truthfully conceived in a material form as God is INVISIBLE and UNIVERSAL.

Yes, but the second person of the Trinity is visible and physical. The only reason we can’t see Him is because He isn’t here. For now we have the Holy Spirit but not the physical Jesus.

Where do you get the idea that bowing down to a statue "honors God"???? Where in scripture do you find that rationale supported?????

You are putting words in my mouth again. I didn’t say anything about bowing down. I was talking about putting them up. But why shouldn’t you bow to a representation of Jesus? After all we are told that every knee shall bow at the very name of Jesus, not before His person but just at the spoken name.

What I find is that even when men bowed down to real angels they were rebuked (Rev. 19:11). When men bowed down to real apostles they were rebuked (Acts 14).

In both these cases, it was more than just bowing down. It was worshiping.

Where do you find anyone coming to the temple and bowing down to any of the furniture in the tabernacle/temple? Where do you find any child of God coming to the congregation and bowing down to anything in the congregation?

Where do you find the use of musical instruments anywhere in the N.T.? Where do you find the giving of an altar call (invitation) anywhere in the N.T.? My point is that just because it isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean you can’t do it.

Anointing Christ with oil is a rediculous example to support bowing down to inanimate graven images! You claim to be a ordained deacon in a Southern Baptist church and are incapable of discerning something so simple and clearly wrong! In my congregation you would be put out of such an honorable office immediately.

And I’m sure it is a source of some consternation to you that you can’t do that. For that matter, my pastor can’t do that either. If he were to try to remove a deacon, he would soon find himself on the outside looking in. We don’t tolerate authoritarianism in our church. We leave that to the fundamentalists and the Landmarkers who insist on exercising absolute control over the thoughts and deeds of the members of their tiny churches.

 

[The Biblicist]

When you start observing the Sabbath I will take what you are saying here seriously.

I do observe the fourth commandment under the New Covenant. I have defended my interpertation of the fourth commandment many times on this forum.

I do attempt to observe all moral precepts. I do not obey the precepts that were restricted to Israel as a NATION or to the TEMPLE ministration as these things have been replaced by the New Testament Congregation and its ordinances and teachings.

However, most of your argument is based upon attempting to pit LEVITICAL laws or TEMPLE and PREISTHOOD laws that have been abolished with the New Covenant house of God administration.

Just curious, do you also advocate Levirate marriage?

The whole book of Leviticus had to do withe Levitical Preisthood, the offerings, the ordinances with the temple all of which has been abolished and replaced by a New Covenant house of God, ministry, ordinances, etc. However, the moral principles undergirding them has not as moral principles can never be abolished as that would leave only immorality.

Working on the Sabbath is also prohibited but Jesus and His disciples picked grain on the Sabbath.

Jesus disagrees with you. He explicitly said "IT IS LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath." The Old Testament Sabbath did not prohibit ALL FORM of works but only SELF-SERVING works - see Isaiah 58:13. Christ obeyed the Old Covenant works restriction as interpreted by the prophets.

And what is the very next thing James says? “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.”

You are begging the question! The New Covenant teaches the ten commandments are inseparably connected and you cannot break one without breaking the other and James is referring to the ten commandments.

Yes, but the second person of the Trinity is visible and physical. The only reason we can’t see Him is because He isn’t here. For now we have the Holy Spirit but not the physical Jesus.

You are begging the question again! The Holy Spirit inspired description of Jesus Christ does not fit your pictures- they are perversions of His image! They are the imaginations of German Rationalism that denied the virign birth and believed that Mary was impregnated by a German soldier in the Roman Army and thus he looks like a caucasion in the pictures not a Jew. Like a hippy with long hair rather than a short haired Jew from Nazereth not a long haired nazerite. Like a handsom he man rather than an ugly man that he was with "NO" beauty that we should "desire" him.

But why shouldn’t you bow to a representation of Jesus? After all we are told that every knee shall bow at the very name of Jesus, not before His person but just at the spoken name.

To show the absolute absurdity of your words I challenge you to make an image of Christ and bow down to it and pray to it, since you are going to bow down before him on judgement day anyway!!!!

You are illustrating the very reason that image making is idolatrous as it robs the glory of God and gives it to dead material. You claim to be a deacon in a Baptist Church???????? God help that church!

In both these cases, it was more than just bowing down. It was worshiping.

Bowing down to something declares submission to what you are bowing to and giving it religous significance to represent the mental concept of what gave rise to its existence. God is a jealous God and that is the very reason he does not want you giving that kind of glory to anything in heaven or upon earth BUT HIM and you cannot make an image of Him without PERVERTING who He is!

Where do you find the use of musical instruments anywhere in the N.T.?

It is inherent in the usage of the term "Psalms" (Eph. 5:19) as can be easily seen by reading the Psalms which were accompanied by musical instruments that are listed several times in the Psalms.

Where do you find the giving of an altar call (invitation) anywhere in the N.T.?

We do not have such in our church for that very reason. How about your church?

And I’m sure it is a source of some consternation to you that you can’t do that. For that matter, my pastor can’t do that either. If he were to try to remove a deacon, he would soon find himself on the outside looking in. We don’t tolerate authoritarianism in our church. We leave that to the fundamentalists and the Landmarkers who insist on exercising absolute control over the thoughts and deeds of the members of their tiny churches.

I never claimed the Pastor could do it himself. He is the leader of the congregation and he ought to lead the congregation to remove any person from office that is not sound in the faith as that is a prequisite to obtain that office! We believe in church authority (Mt. 18:17) not elder authority!

 

[Moriah]

Please do so. Show them the error of their way. But do so in love. That is the way to do it. :thumbs:

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Still no one has explained effectively why God would decree something a sin then break his own law in Ex. 27?

The only theory put forth is God designs stuff for religeous use. And its not sin for him because he is beyond his own decrees.

Which is just ridiculous. The easy reading of the commandment is not to worship false God. Bowing down and making images arent the issue its the false god that is the issue.

 

[The Biblicist]

Still no one has explained effectively why God would decree something a sin then break his own law in Ex. 27?

The only theory put forth is God designs stuff for religeous use. And its not sin for him because he is beyond his own decrees.

Which is just ridiculous. The easy reading of the commandment is not to worship false God. Bowing down and making images arent the issue its the false god that is the issue.

You are confusing apples with oranges.

Do you believe that God has the right and authority to do some things that men do not have the right and authority to do? Do you believe there are somethings that are perogatives of God alone?

How about designating the manner and nature of ordinances used in His House?

How about designing and determining the manner of furniture to be used in His house?

The brazen altar, laver, candlesticks, altar of incense and ark were articles of furniture conceived, designed and commanded by God to be built and to be placed in His house!

You are stuck on the lid of the ark because it had images of angels. Can you possibly believe that God can command such an image to be made for his House and to be used according to his designs but yet forbid men to conceive, design and do such things for His house or for his worship? Simple matter of authority and right to determine what can be and what cannot be used in His house.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Please do so. Show them the error of their way. But do so in love. That is the way to do it. :thumbs:

Ok. All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth about having a picture of Jesus has convinced me of the error of my ways. Thus, I have just made a trip to our Christian book store and purchased a picture of Mary and another of Jesus.

I went to WalMart and bought some candles with an image of Jesus (as we think He looked) on it, and ordered a Crucifix for every room in my house. When I have everything, I am going to put them up as a remembrance of the sacrifice that Jesus made in atonement for our sins. Now if this makes God angrier with me than those who idolize money, sex, music, drugs, puritanism, you name it, then I will face this at my judgement. However, something tells me that this is more of a problem with those who idolize their denominational belief system, than for me. Therefore, when I look at a statue or painting of Jesus I will pray for those so radicalized by a man-made religion that they actually believe that having a picture of Jesus is on the same level as abortion and murder.

Seriously, this is the most idiotic position I have yet seen here. This is not Christian doctrine... this is sheer lunacy. Ultimately, if this turns out to be a standard Baptist belief (which I seriously doubt) then I will consider a change.

WM

 

[DHK]

Still no one has explained effectively why God would decree something a sin then break his own law in Ex. 27?

No one has shown effectively where God has broken his own law. He hasn't.

The only theory put forth is God designs stuff for religeous use. And its not sin for him because he is beyond his own decrees.

Where did you get that theory from? Is God religious??

Which is just ridiculous. The easy reading of the commandment is not to worship false God. Bowing down and making images arent the issue its the false god that is the issue.

Whatever you like to believe. The Scripture is quite clear, unless you are in the business of re-writing it?

Exodus 20:3-4 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Is there a question over the meaning of that verse? Problem with the KJV perhaps?
Just asking what the problem is here.

 

[DHK]

Ok. All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth about having a picture of Jesus has convinced me of the error of my ways. Thus, I have just made a trip to our Christian book store and purchased a picture of Mary and another of Jesus.

This is strange indeed. Truth convinces you of error.
Shall we sin that grace may abound. God forbid, Paul said.

I went to WalMart and bought some candles with an image of Jesus (as we think He looked) on it, and ordered a Crucifix for every room in my house.

Aaaah, the paganism of Catholicism--you mimic it well. It has nothing to do with Christianity. I hope you realize this.

When I have everything, I am going to put them up as a remembrance of the sacrifice that Jesus made in atonement for our sins.

It is only a remembrance or a false religion--Catholicism.

Now if this makes God angrier with me than those who idolize money, sex, music, drugs, puritanism, you name it, then I will face this at my judgement.

Idolatry comes in many forms. Idolatry is wrong no matter what form it comes in. Why would anyone be angry at the condemnation of idolatry. Go for it. But abstain from it as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

However, something tells me that this is more of a problem with those who idolize their denominational belief system, than for me.

Maybe, but I wouldn't know. I am IFB--independent. I am not part of any denomination. And my conscience is free from the sin of idolatry. Is yours?

Therefore, when I look at a statue or painting of Jesus I will pray for those so radicalized by a man-made religion that they actually believe that having a picture of Jesus is worse than abortion and murder.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
He that breaks the law in one point is just as guilty as if he broke all the law.
One sin is no worse than any other sin in God's sight.
1John 3:4 states that all sin is a transgression of the law. You break God's law either way. The consequence of some sins are greater, but either way you break God's law. Idolatry is just as great in God's eyes as murder. It is a violation of God's law. We are condemned by breaking God's law. Any sin, big or small, condemns one to hell.

 

[Zenas]

I do observe the fourth commandment under the New Covenant. I have defended my interpertation of the fourth commandment many times on this forum.

I do attempt to observe all moral precepts. I do not obey the precepts that were restricted to Israel as a NATION or to the TEMPLE ministration as these things have been replaced by the New Testament Congregation and its ordinances and teachings.

However, most of your argument is based upon attempting to pit LEVITICAL laws or TEMPLE and PREISTHOOD laws that have been abolished with the New Covenant house of God administration.


The whole book of Leviticus had to do withe Levitical Preisthood, the offerings, the ordinances with the temple all of which has been abolished and replaced by a New Covenant house of God, ministry, ordinances, etc. However, the moral principles undergirding them has not as moral principles can never be abolished as that would leave only immorality.

I haven’t seen any scripture that expressly distinguishes “temple” laws from moral laws. This looks like a concept you and others have developed to fit your soteriology.

Jesus disagrees with you. He explicitly said "IT IS LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath." The Old Testament Sabbath did not prohibit ALL FORM of works but only SELF-SERVING works - see Isaiah 58:13. Christ obeyed the Old Covenant works restriction as interpreted by the prophets

. "And he said unto them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.'" Mark 2:27.

You are begging the question! The New Covenant teaches the ten commandments are inseparably connected and you cannot break one without breaking the other and James is referring to the ten commandments.

It does no such thing. James is referring to the ten commandments but he is not integrating them. He is giving us the standard by which we must obey them--by "the law of liberty."

You are begging the question again! The Holy Spirit inspired description of Jesus Christ does not fit your pictures- they are perversions of His image! They are the imaginations of German Rationalism that denied the virign birth and believed that Mary was impregnated by a German soldier in the Roman Army and thus he looks like a caucasion in the pictures not a Jew. Like a hippy with long hair rather than a short haired Jew from Nazereth not a long haired nazerite. Like a handsom he man rather than an ugly man that he was with "NO" beauty that we should "desire" him.

Oh come now. There have been depictions of Jesus for two thousand years. One of the best known was done by Leonardo da Vinci around 1500 (The Last Supper). German Rationalism didn’t develop until the mid-1700’s. I do note that you like the uncomely Jesus of Isaiah. DHK on the other hand seems to prefer the powerful Jesus of Revelation 1. Interesting contrast.

To show the absolute absurdity of your words I challenge you to make an image of Christ and bow down to it and pray to it, since you are going to bow down before him on judgement day anyway!!!!

Scripture says, and I quote, “[A]t the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” They don’t have to see Him to bow, they will do so merely by hearing His name. So, I repeat, if it’s OK to bow at the name of Jesus why wouldn’t it be equally OK to bow to His image.

You are illustrating the very reason that image making is idolatrous as it robs the glory of God and gives it to dead material. You claim to be a deacon in a Baptist Church???????? God help that church!

It really does bother you that I’m a deacon doesn’t it? :wavey: But we’re doing very well, thank you. In 2011 we baptized 33 and took in another 48 by letter. We had a net gain of 54 members. How many were added you your church? We also paid $156,000 to the cooperative program. You could probably learn a thing or two from the way we do church.

Bowing down to something declares submission to what you are bowing to and giving it religous significance to represent the mental concept of what gave rise to its existence. God is a jealous God and that is the very reason he does not want you giving that kind of glory to anything in heaven or upon earth BUT HIM and you cannot make an image of Him without PERVERTING who He is!

So say you. God is jealous because He doesn’t want us worshiping other gods. He is pleased when we honor Him.

It is inherent in the usage of the term "Psalms" (Eph. 5:19) as can be easily seen by reading the Psalms which were accompanied by musical instruments that are listed several times in the Psalms.

Now that is the longest stretch I have seen even you make, and it is well known that you play fast and loose with your scriptural interpretations. Our Church of Christ brethren would certainly not agree with you. Neither would our Baptist forebears have agreed with you before about 1800.

We do not have such in our church for that very reason. How about your church?

Sure we have altar calls. That’s how we got our 81 new members last year.

I never claimed the Pastor could do it himself. He is the leader of the congregation and he ought to lead the congregation to remove any person from office that is not sound in the faith as that is a prequisite to obtain that office! We believe in church authority (Mt. 18:17) not elder authority!

But what would you do if the congregation won’t follow, and I guarantee that if our pastor attempted such a stunt he would be rebuffed in his efforts. It would be him, not the deacon, who would be removed.

 

[The Biblicist]

I haven’t seen any scripture that expressly distinguishes “temple” laws from moral laws.

What do you think the book of Hebrews is all about especially Hebrews 8-10?

What do you think the title "Leviticus" is all about? It has to do with the Preisthood of the Tabernacle/temple and all of its ordinances.

 

[DHK]

I haven’t seen any scripture that expressly distinguishes “temple” laws from moral laws. This looks like a concept you and others have developed to fit your soteriology. . "And he said unto them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.'" Mark 2:27.76

First, read Ex.31. It explains how the observance of the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and the nation of Israel and their generations forever. In no way was it ever intended for Gentiles or NT Christians to ever keep.
Second, there ca. 316 OT laws. Are you going to keep them all? Or, do you think you have the right to pick and choose at will, if you put yourself under the law, or think that you are obligated to obey the law. The "law" has different usages in the NT. Sometimes it does refer to all the law, but many times it doesn't, and simply refers to the Ten Commandments, as it does in James 2:10. The context clearly spells that out for us, as James quotes a couple of those commands.

It does no such thing. James is referring to the ten commandments but he is not integrating them. He is giving us the standard by which we must obey them--by "the law of liberty."

That is not what James 2:10 states. It is very specific.

Oh come now. There have been depictions of Jesus for two thousand years. One of the best known was done by Leonardo da Vinci around 1500 (The Last Supper). German Rationalism didn’t develop until the mid-1700’s. I do note that you like the uncomely Jesus of Isaiah. DHK on the other hand seems to prefer the powerful Jesus of Revelation 1. Interesting contrast.

Here is the contrast:
1. You gave a description from an unsaved man, probably a religious Catholic.
2. Biblicist gave a fairly accurate picture of who Christ was at that time in history, 2000 years ago. When he hung on the cross his visage was unrecognizable.
3. I gave a description from Rev.1, a vision that John had as he sees Christ in the future or at least in his glorified body. There are other pictures of Jesus:
--Revelation pictures Jesus as a lamb.

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Revelation 5:8-9 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
--As they did, we also will do--worship the Lamb.

Scripture says, and I quote, “[A]t the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” They don’t have to see Him to bow, they will do so merely by hearing His name. So, I repeat, if it’s OK to bow at the name of Jesus why wouldn’t it be equally OK to bow to His image. It really does bother you that I’m a deacon doesn’t it? :wavey:

Simply bow before his name?
You are not serious are you? They will run! They will hide! They will try to escape. But they will end up bowing.

Revelation 6:14-17 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
--Did you ever consider how much wrath a Lamb can have??

God is jealous because He doesn’t want us worshiping other gods. He is pleased when we honor Him.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

 

[WestminsterMan]

This is strange indeed. Truth convinces you of error.
Shall we sin that grace may abound. God forbid, Paul said.

I have no idea what you are talking about and suspect that neither do you.

Aaaah, the paganism of Catholicism--you mimic it well. It has nothing to do with Christianity. I hope you realize this.

I realize that my post flew way over your head.

It is only a remembrance or a false religion--Catholicism.
Idolatry comes in many forms. Idolatry is wrong no matter what form it comes in. Why would anyone be angry at the condemnation of idolatry.

I have no idea because I'm not an idolator. Besides, I did not say "anyone" - I specifically mentioned God.

Go for it. But abstain from it as well.

ZZZZzzzz...

Maybe, but I wouldn't know. I am IFB--independent. I am not part of any denomination.

That my friend is extremely arguable.

And my conscience is free from the sin of idolatry. Is yours?

Go back and read my post.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
He that breaks the law in one point is just as guilty as if he broke all the law.
One sin is no worse than any other sin in God's sight.
1John 3:4 states that all sin is a transgression of the law. You break God's law either way. The consequence of some sins are greater, but either way you break God's law. Idolatry is just as great in God's eyes as murder.

And you are so confused that you just contradicted yourself. Here...let me clear that up for you.
1 John 5:16-17
"If any ones sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will give him life - to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.
There is sin that leads to death; I do not day that one should pray for that."

There is the distinction that you are missing. Now I know that you will point to this as the consequences of sin and not that there is a difference in the severity of sin as we see below...

It is a violation of God's law. We are condemned by breaking God's law. Any sin, big or small, condemns one to hell.

Man...you have a disturbed view of God. Let's take your position to its logical conclusion:
1). I stub my toe and let go with a choice expletive
(take your pick)
2). You go out and brutally kill a pregnant women stabbing her 30 times thus killing her unborn child as well.
3). We both die immediately after each sin is committed and go before Jesus for judgement.
4). We both get sent to hell for those sins.

Yep... You have a puritanical view of God all right. Good luck with that.

WM

 

[DHK]

Man...you have a disturbed view of God. Let's take your position to its logical conclusion:
1). I stub my toe and let go with a choice expletive
(take your pick)
2). You go out and brutally kill a pregnant women stabbing her 30 times thus killing her unborn child as well.
3). We both die immediately after each sin is committed and go before Jesus for judgement.
4). We both get sent to hell for those sins.

Yep... You have a puritanical view of God all right. Good luck with that.

WM

The fact that you can't understand my previous points is evidence that you don't understand the issue at hand. The fact that you totally miss the point on this one is evidence that you have a glaring misunderstanding of salvation.

First realize that I didn't write the Bible; the Holy Spirit of God did. Save your expletives for Him. Someday you will stand before Him and give account for the things you say and even the thoughts you think.

Second understand what the Scriptures say about sin. Look at the Ten Commandments first, as recorded in James.

James 2:10-11 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
--I didn't write this. It is God's Word.
One command is "Thou shalt not bear false witness." That includes lying.
The Lord says that if you lie, you are just as guilty as if you have murdered or committed adultery--or broken all Ten. If you break one, you have broken all. You are guilty as a sinner.

How many times does it take a person to murder before he is labeled a murdered?
How many times does it take a person to steal before he is labeled a thief?
How many times does it take a person to sin before he is labeled a sinner?
--You get the point.

John also point to this truth.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--Here is a definition of sin--a transgression of the law. It is a transgression or breaking of any law. We don't have venial or mortal sins. All sin is just as bad in God's sight. It is just as bad to tell a lie as it is to murder. Sin is a transgression of the law.

A lie will send you to hell.
The adulterer in John 8 was forgiven, as was the thief on the cross.
The difference was is that they put their trust in Christ.
Any sin will send you to Hell. We are guilty by the law. It is the rejection of Christ or receiving of Christ that will ultimately decide whether or not we will get to heaven. The sin that condemns us to hell can only be atoned for by the blood of Christ. His blood and his blood alone can forgive that sin. Salvation is by faith alone. There is nothing we can do. That is why salvation is by faith alone. It is not by works.

 

[WestminsterMan]

First realize that I didn't write the Bible; the Holy Spirit of God did.

True ... But it is YOU who are interpreting it - and incorrectly so I might add.

Save your expletives for Him. Someday you will stand before Him and give account for the things you say and even the thoughts you think.

Yep ... and so will you.

Second understand what the Scriptures say about sin. Look at the Ten Commandments first, as recorded in James.

James 2:10-11 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
--I didn't write this. It is God's Word.
One command is "Thou shalt not bear false witness." That includes lying.
The Lord says that if you lie, you are just as guilty as if you have murdered or committed adultery--or broken all Ten. If you break one, you have broken all. You are guilty as a sinner.

How many times does it take a person to murder before he is labeled a murdered?
How many times does it take a person to steal before he is labeled a thief?
How many times does it take a person to sin before he is labeled a sinner?
--You get the point.

Yes...the point I get is that you have a scatological thought process. Now, is stubbing one's toe and shouting out the expletive the same as murder? Answer the question and stop pontificating such blather.

John also point to this truth.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--Here is a definition of sin--a transgression of the law. It is a transgression or breaking of any law. We don't have venial or mortal sins. All sin is just as bad in God's sight. It is just as bad to tell a lie as it is to murder. Sin is a transgression of the law.

A lie will send you to hell.
The adulterer in John 8 was forgiven, as was the thief on the cross.
The difference was is that they put their trust in Christ.
Any sin will send you to Hell. We are guilty by the law. It is the rejection of Christ or receiving of Christ that will ultimately decide whether or not we will get to heaven. The sin that condemns us to hell can only be atoned for by the blood of Christ.

John also says that there is sin not unto death and a sin unto death. I notice you conveniently ignored responding to that. Typical...

His blood and his blood alone can forgive that sin. Salvation is by faith alone. There is nothing we can do. That is why salvation is by faith alone. It is not by works.

If it is the blood of Christ and His blood ALONE that can forgive sin then, by necessity, it cannot be by FAITH alone. Might I recommend an intro course in Socratic logic? Your powers of reasoning appear to be stinted by the man-made doctrine that you follow.

WM

 

[DHK]

If it is the blood of Christ and His blood ALONE that can forgive sin then, by necessity, it cannot be by FAITH alone. Might I recommend an intro course in Socratic logic? Your powers of reasoning appear to be stinted by the man-made doctrine that you follow.
WM

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone (i.e. His work on the cross or his shed blood alone).

 

[The Biblicist]

If it is the blood of Christ and His blood ALONE that can forgive sin then, by necessity, it cannot be by FAITH alone. Might I recommend an intro course in Socratic logic? Your powers of reasoning appear to be stinted by the man-made doctrine that you follow.

WM

Justification is BY grace alone, THROUGH faith alone, IN Christ (His Person and work - life and shed blood) alone.

Grace ALONE provides the means for justification
Faith ALONE embraces Christ and His work as the object of justification
Christ and His work ALONE provides the meritorious grounds for justification.

Hence there is no contradiction when any of these expressions are accompained by "alone" because they each deal with unique factors of justification.

You may disagree with these distinctions but please don't accuse us of contradicting ourselves when we use the term "alone" in regard to each of these factors. The only ones who accuse of us contradicting ourselves are those who do not acknowledge the distinct prepositional phrase (by, through, in) and the unique factors of each distinct from the other.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Justification is BY grace alone, THROUGH faith alone, IN Christ (His Person and work - life and shed blood) alone.

Grace ALONE provides the means for justification
Faith ALONE embraces Christ and His work as the object of justification
Christ and His work ALONE provides the meritorious grounds for justification.

Hence there is no contradiction when any of these expressions are accompained by "alone" because they each deal with unique factors of justification.

You may disagree with these distinctions but please don't accuse us of contradicting ourselves when we use the term "alone" in regard to each of these factors. The only ones who accuse of us contradicting ourselves are those who do not acknowledge the distinct prepositional phrase (by, through, in) and the unique factors of each distinct from the other.

Look up the word alone...then get back to me.

WM