He Who Covers Sin Shall Not Prosper

[JonC]

wiki-
The law of Christ" (ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ) is a New Testament phrase most likely referring to the two commandments mentioned by Jesus: "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’” The related Bible verses are in the Pauline Epistles at Galatians 6:2[1] and parenthetically (ἔννομος Χριστῷ "being under the law to Christ") at 1 Corinthians 9:21.

Yes, I now understand what you meant. This was also my point. I agree.

Christians are not under the Law (or the Ten Commandments). The Law (including the Ten Commandments) were for the people of Israel to whom it was given, not to the world or to Israel prior to Moses (Deut. 5).

This does not mean the Law fails to reflect God's moral nature. It is, however, narrower a law serving a purpose apart from a means of salvation.

For example, I could tell a group of kids not to shoplift. That is a more narrow law under "do not steal". The Ten Commandments were like this to Israel and served to show their sin.

If we are under the law of Christ then we will not be disobedient to the Ten Commandments or expressions of God's moral law NOT because we were ever under them but because they are under Christ's law.

A Christian will not br mastered by sin - bear false witness, fail to forgive others, keep a record of wrongs, steal, lie, murder, ect. - because they are alive spiritually and Christ is working in their lives.

In my example, had I not forgiven the guy who made the false accusations then I would not have been forgiven for my part (for replying to him in anger). God never blesses disobedience. But God disciplines His children and they repent if sin (that is an assurance we are saved - God dies not work that way in the lives of those who are not His own). I apologized, forgave, was forgiven. He continued by covering this sin and except he repent will face a condemnation as disobedience is not "of Christ" but "of the flesh" and carries with it consequences.

The man in my example violated one of the Ten Commandments (he bore false witness against me). Under the Law if this was unintentional then it could be forgiven. If it was intentional (sinning "with a high hand") there was no forgiveness. I responded by insulting him. I did not violate one of the Ten Commandments. BUT neither that man and I are/ were under the Law. Even if it turns out that man is not saved he is not under the Law or under the Ten Commandments. We were both guilty of sinning, though, even though he was the only one who violated one of the Ten Commandments. We both violated the law of Christ. All judgment has been given to Christ and both this man and I were both guilty.

If he covers his sin and never repents, then what? It could be that he was never saved. It could be that he is saved but is in disobedience. But the issue is his status or place "in Christ". The ONLY place he will find no condemnation is "in Christ". Had I decided to live in sin then I would be under the same Christ-centered judgment.

I think we agree but perhaps the wording threw me off.

 

[JonC]

Please use black letters, the red hurts my eyes. What's your point. Interpret what you are trying to say.

The colors do detract from communicatoin.

I've learned that if I choose to implement colors there has to be a reason. Typically the only reason I will use colors is to put in red the words of Christ (I usually don't), and then I will use a darker red. I wish we would remove other color fonts.

 

[Iconoclast]

Please use black letters, the red hurts my eyes. What's your point. Interpret what you are trying to say.

Have you ever read or studied this confession of faith?

And Yet the 1689 says this; chap.19:
5._____ The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
( Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12; James 2:10, 11; Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31 )

6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )

7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

Christians are not under the Law (or the Ten Commandments).

All ten commandments are still in effect.

The Law (including the Ten Commandments) were for the people of Israel to whom it was given, not to the world or to Israel prior to Moses (Deut. 5).

The ten commandments are for all men for all time. All law revealed by God is based on the decalogue.
.
To deny this strikes at the heart of the gospel and is based on a view best described as antinomianism.
I have found that when a person does not understand that spiritual death happened at the fall, they can never get the rest of their theology right.

 

[JonC]

"JonC,

All ten commandments are still in effect.



The ten commandments are for all men for all time. All law revealed by God is based on the decalogue.
.
To deny this strikes at the heart of the gospel and is based on a view best described as antinomianism.
I have found that when a person does not understand that spiritual death happened at the fall, they can never get the rest of their theology right.

It is not an issue of "being in effect". Everything from God that has ever expressed the nature of God continues to do so because God is immutable.

But we are not and were never under the 10 Commandments (this is clear if for nothing but the Bible states as much).

When people place others or themselves under the Law they sin. This does not mean the Ten are not useful. But they are less than. They were given to Israel to show their sin.

But we know that men sin without disobeying one of the commandments.

To place men under the Ten Commandments is to violate and reject Scripture. There is a much greater law, a greater blessing, and a greater condemnation.

The man who falsely accused me violated a commandment (he bore false witness against me, he lied). I did not violate a commandment when I responded by insulting him. Yet I sinned all the same.

The 10 were given as a Covenant for Israel at that time forward. Not for Gentiles. Not for those dead. Not for the New Covenant. They are still applicable but not "over" man.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

But we are not and were never under the 10 Commandments (this is clear if for nothing but the Bible states as much).

When people place others or themselves under the Law they sin[/QUOTE].

To place men under the Ten Commandments is to violate and reject Scripture

.

The 10 were given as a Covenant for Israel at that time forward. Not for Gentiles.

Your views are unbiblical but you are welcome to them.
Denying Spiritual death at the fall leads to these defective views, but you turn away from truth, that is on you.

Now to get back on topic, I will use your posts to illustrate the Proverb above.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

Per the Bible we are not under the Ten Commandments but under a law encompassing the Ten Commandments.

That is what the Bible says, not what I say or you have to believe. It is not that I "want" to believe it but that thus is what the Bible specifically states.

I do not have the right to decide whether or not I will believe it. Scripture says the Commandments were given to a specific people at a specific place in time.

And for me it does not matter because I believe we are under God's law (which is greater than the 10 Commandments) so I obey the Ten by default (by obeying the law of Christ).

That is why I was wrong to insult the one who lied about me. It was not a violation of the "Big Ten" but it was just as much a sin as was that man's actions.

You are looking at too low a standard. And in the wrong way. We do not obey to love but obey as a result of that love.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC insists on posting these things in every thread;
from this thread alone;

I faced false accusations against me and responded by insulting and attacking (which was sin). I was sorrowful for my actions when it was pointed out to me. But the issue kept repeating itself.

They would conclude my “opponent” made false accusations and I responded sinfully. I would feel sorrow. He would again start up the false accusations. I would again respond with insults and attacks.

I told you about an encounter with a member who made assumptions leading him to make false accusations about me.

I gave an example where a man made false accusations against me. I think he probably just made a mistake and misunderstood, but that does not matter. I focused on his accusations and insulted him.

I wanted people to know exactly why that man's accusations were false

What I should have done was simply comment that he had made a mistake and ignored any continued false accusations.

QUOTE]My own actions ended up as an act to cover up my sin (my sin of unforgiveness, of pride, of insulting the man) by pointing to his sin of making false accusations about me.[/QUOTE]

God used an instance where I responded to a person making false accusations about me with hatred. I do not even remember what the initial conflict concerned,

he of false accusations and me of responding in hatred. And this did keep things stirred up.

[QUOTEI gave an example earlier of a man making false accusations, slanderous claims, and insults against me. I responded by attacking him.][/QUOTE]

In the example I gave I realized I was wrong (God convicted me of my sin; He disciplines those who are His own) and I responded (I repented, forgave the man who made false accusations,

In my example I spoke of a man who continued to make false accusations

Notice 14 times on this thread alone JonC mentions his obsession with this unnamed person, a violation of Prov18:17, He has been asked to stop, but it seems as if he is bound by a defiled conscience as he himself says this which I have bolded below in RED

If someone makes enough noise perhaps others will not see their sin. But the problem is that the more noise they make the more obvious their sin becomes.

If the other person [the object of the obsession of JonC] had made true statements,perhaps what is being labeled as "false accusations" are indeed true observations, not
owned up to.
It is possible this mentioning of this same thing 14 times here, and as many times on about 5 other threads is an illustration of the bolded red portion.
JonC take this obsession to your own threads if you do not mind.

 

[Iconoclast]

Per the Bible we are not under the Ten Commandments but under a law encompassing the Ten Commandments.

That is what the Bible says, not what I say or you have to believe. It is not that I "want" to believe it but that thus is what the Bible specifically states.

I do not have the right to decide whether or not I will believe it. Scripture says the Commandments were given to a specific people at a specific place in time.

And for me it does not matter because I believe we are under God's law (which is greater than the 10 Commandments) so I obey the Ten by default (by obeying the law of Christ).

That is why I was wrong to insult the one who lied about me. It was not a violation of the "Big Ten" but it was just as much a sin as was that man's actions.

You are looking at too low a standard. And in the wrong way. We do not obey to love but obey as a result of that love.

As I said, you are entitled to your error and double talk.
We have no evidence anyone lied about you by the way, so give it up JonC.

 

[JonC]

Yes. I have found long ago when using true accounts as an illustration it is best to use myself. This way I do not pull others into my illustration.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am still enough of a sinner I can be the object of my illustrations. I am probably the most imperfect person perfected in Christ on this board.

 

[JonC]

As I said, you are entitled to your error and double talk.

That is not "double talk". That was what the Bible says.

The Ten Commands reflect God's moral nature and show us our sin. But the Bible says that they were given to a specific people at a specific time. We were never under the Ten Commandments. We are and have always been under a greater law.

My example is applicable. It is a true story. You have no reason or justification to question my account.

I use it for a few reasons. 1. It is applicable. 2. It is true. 3. It demonstrates how I dealt with my own sin and gained victory and forgiveness.

 

[Iconoclast]

THE MORAL LAW

Calvinism has theologically and historically reserved a high and prominent place for the Moral Law or “Ten Commandments.”1299 The Moral Law is seen as the expression of the moral self–consistency of God [his absolute righteousness] and so is binding upon all humanity, including the state. This accounts for the high moral standard Calvinism has doctrinally and historically brought in its application to religion, government and society.

Bahnsen, Greg L., Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1977. 619 pp. (Reformed Reconstructionist)

Boardman, George Dana, University Lectures on the Ten Commandments. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1889, 378 pp.1300 (Baptist)

Boston, Thomas, Complete Works of Thomas Boston. Vol. II. Wheaton: Richard Owen Roberts, 1980. pp. 51–383.


THE 1689 BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH480

Of God’s Covenant

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.1

1Luke xvii. 10, Job xxxv. 7, 8.

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace,2 wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;3 and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.4

2Gen. ii. 17, Gal. iii. 10, Rom. iii. 20, 21. 3Rom. viii. 3, Mark xvi. 15, 16, John iii. 16. 4Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27, John vi. 44, 45, Ps. cx. 3.

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel, first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman,5 and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;6 and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;7 and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all of the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.8

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2
5Gen. iii. 15. 6Heb. i. 1. 72 Tim. i. 9, Tit. i. 2. 8Heb. xi. 6, 13, Rom. iv. 1, 2, &c., Acts iv. 12, John viii. 56.

Of Christ the Mediator

1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both to be the mediator between God and man;1 the prophet,2 priest,3 and king;4 head and saviour of his church,5 the heir of all things,6 and judge of the world;7 unto whom he did from all

480 From the Second London Baptist Confession of 1677 (1689), Chapter 7, “Of God’s Covenant” and Chapter 8, “Of Christ the Mediator.” 178

eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.8

1Isa. xlii. 1, 1 Pet. i. 19, 20. 2Acts iii. 22. 3Heb. v. 5, 6. 4Ps. ii. 6, Luke i. 33. 5Eph. i. 22, 23. 6Heb. i. 2. 7Acts xvii. 31. 8Isa. liii. 10, John xvii. 6, Rom. viii. 30.

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof,9 yet without sin,10 being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the scriptures;11 so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion, which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.12

9John i. 14, Gal. iv. 4. 10Rom. viii. 3, Heb. xi. 14, 16, 17; iv. 15. 11Matt. i. 22, 23, Luke i. 27, 31, 35. 12Rom. ix. 5, 1 Tim. ii. 5.

3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure,13 having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;14 in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell,15 to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled,16 and full of grace and truth,17 he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety;18 which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father;19 who also put all power and judgment in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.20

13Ps. xlv. 7, Acts x. 38, John iii. 34. l4Col. ii. 3. 15Col. i. 19. 16Heb. vii. 26. 17John i. 14. 18Heb. vii. 22. 19Heb. v. 5. 20John v. 22, 27, Matt xxviii. 18, Acts ii. 36.

4. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake,21 which that he might discharge he was made under the law,22 and did perfectly fulfil it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered,23 being made sin and a curse for us;24 enduring most grievous sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body;25 was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption:26 on the third day he arose from the dead27 with the same body in which he suffered,28 with which he also ascended into heaven,29 and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father making intercession,30 and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.31

21Ps. xl. 7, 8, Heb. x. 5–10, John x. 18. 22Gal. iv. 4, Matt. iii. 15. 23Gal. iii. 13, Isa. liii. 6, 1 Pet. iii. 18. 242 Cor. v. 21. 25Matt. xxvi. 37, 38, Luke xxii. 44, Matt. xxvii. 46. 26Acts xiii. 37. 271 Cor. xv. 3, 4. 28John xx. 25, 27. 29Mark xvi. 19, Acts. i. 9–11. 30Rom. viii. 34, Heb. ix. 24. 31Acts x. 42, Rom. xiv. 9, 10, Acts i. 11, 2 Pet. ii. 4.

5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God,32 procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for those whom the Father hath given unto him.33

179

32Heb. ix. 14; x. 14, Rom. iii. 25, 26. 33John xvii. 2, Heb. ix. 1.

6. Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifice wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent’s head;34 and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,35 being the same yesterday, and to–day, and forever.36

341 Cor. iv. 10, Heb. iv. 2, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 35Rev. xiii. 8. 36Heb. xiii. 8.

7. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.37

37John iii. 13, Acts xx. 28.

8. To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them;38 uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them in and by the Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey,39 governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit,40 and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom,41 in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation, and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.42

38John vi. 37; x. 15, 16; xvii. 9, Rom. v. 10. 39John xvii. 6, Eph. i. 9, 1 John v. 20. 40Rom. viii. 9, 14. 41Ps. cx. 1, 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26. 42John iii. 8, Eph. i. 8.

9. This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God, and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from him to any other.43

431 Tim. ii. 5.

 

[1689Dave]

Have you ever read or studied this confession of faith?

And Yet the 1689 says this; chap.19:
5._____ The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
( Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12; James 2:10, 11; Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31 )

6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )

7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )

If you are born-again, you will live in harmony with the law even though you are not under it.

 

[JonC]

"JonC,

All ten commandments are still in effect.



The ten commandments are for all men for all time. All law revealed by God is based on the decalogue.
.
To deny this strikes at the heart of the gospel and is based on a view best described as antinomianism.
I have found that when a person does not understand that spiritual death happened at the fall, they can never get the rest of their theology right.

You are making false assumptions about what I believe and posting false accusations, insults, and misrepresenting what I have actually posted. You did the same thing to @Revmitchell. This is wrong. When people disagree with you you make false accusations, insult them, and misrepresent what they say. You do this every time. I forgive you but you need to consider your behavior.

If you do not understand what has been posted then please just ask for clarification. We are held responsible for the words we say.

I never said people are not spiritually dead. I do not even recall mentioning spiritual death on this thread. I never advocated antinomianism. I never departed from what was written in Scripture.

I presented what the Bible states. We are not under the Law. We were never under the Ren Commandments. The Ten Commandments are a part of the Law. The law of Christ is greater than the Law of Moses (of which the Ten Commandments is a part). That is not my words but Scripture. You "prove" me wrong by offering commentary to combat what the Bible teaches.

Consider the example I gave - I responded to a liar by insulting him. He violated one of the Ten Commandments. I did not. But we were equally sinful. This is because the law of Christ exceeds the Law of Moses. It does not nullify the Law but fulfills the Law.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understood the error that was posted.
I insulted no one
I do not respond to dishonest posters and troublemakers. When people come onto a thread only to disrupt it they do not deserve a response.
When such people are identified, it is not an insult but a public service.
Christians are not lawless.
Adam died spiritually at the fall.
Jesus is the law giver and no one said Moses was superior.
Your off topic posts are not welcomed.
The thread is about He who covers sin shall not prosper but who ever confesses his sin shall find mercy
Your little snide remarks are as the commentators said a covering and distraction.
You have been asked repeatedly to keep them on your threads rather than spamming all the threads and embarrassing yourself.

 

[JonC]

I understood the error that was posted.
I insulted no one
I do not respond to dishonest posters and troublemakers. When people come onto a thread only to disrupt it they do not deserve a response.
When such people are identified, it is not an insult but a public service.
Christians are not lawless.
Adam died spiritually at the fall.
Jesus is the law giver and no one said Moses was superior.
Your off topic posts are not welcomed.
The thread is about He who covers sin shall not prosper but who ever confesses his sin shall find mercy
Your little snide remarks are as the commentators said a covering and distraction.
You have been asked repeatedly to keep them on your threads rather than spamming all the threads and embarrassing yourself.

I understand you would rather censure me than allow me to make observations regarding your posts. But I think that we have to allow others to challenge our doctrines.

When responding you need to do so in a Christ-like manner (without insults). But you also need to be very careful not to misrepresent what the other person has posted. You made false accusations against both @Revmitchell and me on this very thread.

What did I say about people being spiritually dead? Nothing. People who are not saved are spiritually dead. Did this stop you from saying that I deny spiritual death? No. You went right ahead and made that claim right here on this thread. That was a false accusation.

Did I ever even hint at antinomianism? No, of course not. I said that we are under the law of Christ which is superior to the Law of Moses (which includes the Ten Commandments). I said that the Law is not made void but fulfilled in Christ. Did that stop you from making the false claim that I was advocating antinomianism? No. You made the false accusation anyway.

And you somehow find it "snide" of me to point this out.

Do I agree with all of your theories? No. Do I agree with your traditions? No. Do I agree with all of your interpretations? No.

But that is not a reason to insult me and make false claims about me on the public forum. We are not combatants with one another. I expect members to be adult enough to carry on a "grown up" discussion instead of devolving into misrepresentations, insults, and false accusations.

I do forgive you for misrepresenting what I have stated. Perhaps you did not understand what I had written. If so, then please feel free to ask questions about my posts on this thread.

I think that this is still the best illustration:

1. I responded to a person who falsely accused me by insulting him.
2. He violated one of the Ten Commandments (he lied). I did not violate one of the Ten Commandments.
3. He and I both sinned - not because of the Ten Commandments but because the law of Christ.

Do you understand the point I am making?

 

[JonC]

Putting on moderator hat.

One issue that has plagued this forum (and this thread) is assumptions. We have to be careful not to make assumptions about other people and about what they believe. The reason is assumptions can be false. They can lead to false accusations and misrepresentations about what another person has posted or said.

Rather than assuming things about what another has posted seek clarification. If you do not understand what was posted then ask.

Example – “You posted that we are under the law of Christ which is above the Law of Moses to include the Ten Commandments and the Law is fulfilled in Christ. Are you advocating Antinomianism?”

This allows the other person to clarify anything that may have been misunderstood and prevents false accusations based on assumption.


Taking moderator had off.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand you would rather censure me than allow me to make observations regarding your posts. But I think that we have to allow others to challenge our doctrines.

When responding you need to do so in a Christ-like manner (without insults). But you also need to be very careful not to misrepresent what the other person has posted. You made false accusations against both @Revmitchell and me on this very thread.

What did I say about people being spiritually dead? Nothing. People who are not saved are spiritually dead. Did this stop you from saying that I deny spiritual death? No. You went right ahead and made that claim right here on this thread. That was a false accusation.

Did I ever even hint at antinomianism? No, of course not. I said that we are under the law of Christ which is superior to the Law of Moses (which includes the Ten Commandments). I said that the Law is not made void but fulfilled in Christ. Did that stop you from making the false claim that I was advocating antinomianism? No. You made the false accusation anyway.

And you somehow find it "snide" of me to point this out.

Do I agree with all of your theories? No. Do I agree with your traditions? No. Do I agree with all of your interpretations? No.

But that is not a reason to insult me and make false claims about me on the public forum. We are not combatants with one another. I expect members to be adult enough to carry on a "grown up" discussion instead of devolving into misrepresentations, insults, and false accusations.

I do forgive you for misrepresenting what I have stated. Perhaps you did not understand what I had written. If so, then please feel free to ask questions about my posts on this thread.

I think that this is still the best illustration:

1. I responded to a person who falsely accused me by insulting him.
2. He violated one of the Ten Commandments (he lied). I did not violate one of the Ten Commandments.
3. He and I both sinned - not because of the Ten Commandments but because the law of Christ.

Do you understand the point I am making?

I do not believe in Censorship. That being said I do not think you have a right to go on and disrupt every thread with off topic posts.

Anyone who wants to challenge doctrine should do so scripturally.

Next you post one responding you need to do so and that Christ like manner which you post quite often the thing is that implies that you are posting in a Christ like manner and that I or others are not. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. I believe posting in a Christ like matter means being direct and not dishonest I believe posting in a crisis like manner means posting truth and not lies or slander.

I have not misrepresented anyone on this thread.

I did not make false accusations against Mitchell or you. He did not comment on the proverb he came here To make an attack,

He never really addressed the proverb or try to help while offer any scriptural input
On the proverb.

I made a general comment on those who deny spiritual death happened that the fall .
I said if a person denies spiritual death at the fall that the theology is going to be off I did not mention you by name I just made a general observation I said if a person,
now if the shoe fits wear it.
God has put his law in the heart of all christians.
10 commandments Are For all time. The 10 commandments Are not done away.

No insults were made because you make that accusation doesn't mean it's so.

I did not Mis represent you.Again you saying it doesn't make it so.

You are Offering your one sided account Of a person that we don't even know exists doesn't contribute to this thread.

 

[JonC]

I do not believe in Censorship. That being said I do not think you have a right to go on and disrupt every thread with off topic posts.

Anyone who wants to challenge doctrine should do so scripturally.

Next you post one responding you need to do so and that Christ like manner which you post quite often the thing is that implies that you are posting in a Christ like manner and that I or others are not. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. I believe posting in a Christ like matter means being direct and not dishonest I believe posting in a crisis like manner means posting truth and not lies or slander.

I have not misrepresented anyone on this thread.

I did not make false accusations against Mitchell or you. He did not comment on the proverb he came here To make an attack,

He never really addressed the proverb or try to help while offer any scriptural input
On the proverb.

I made a general comment on those who deny spiritual death happened that the fall .
I said if a person denies spiritual death at the fall that the theology is going to be off I did not mention you by name I just made a general observation I said if a person,
now if the shoe fits wear it.
God has put his law in the heart of all christians.
10 commandments Are For all time. The 10 commandments Are not done away.

No insults were made because you make that accusation doesn't mean it's so.

I did not Mis represent you.Again you saying it doesn't make it so.

You are Offering your one sided account Of a person that we don't even know exists doesn't contribute to this thread.

I do not understand how you can say that you do not believe in censorship when you have repeatedly tried to stop me from replying because you see my posts as unacceptable or inapplicable (which is, by definition, censorship). When we say one thing but do another our actions communicate truth where our words fail.

My point deals with the verse provided in the context of the Law and the law of Christ. It is applicable to the OP regardless of how much you believe it contributes to the thread.

You are introducing points that I never made in responses to my posts which is wrong. I stated directly that the Ten Commandments were not "done away with". Yet you post as if I am saying the opposite. This is a false accusation and/ or misrepresentation of what I did post. You tossed out some comment about rejecting the idea of spiritual death in a reply to my post, which again is not something I have done and is creating a misrepresentation of what I have said. Since you insist that you understand my position your misrepresentation of my position has to be wrong or you are wrong in claiming you grasp what I have posted. Either way you have misrepresented my words.

Again, I encourage you to ask rather than assume. Ask if I believe the Ten Commandments are no longer reflective of God's moral law. Don't assume. Ask if I believe we are not under a moral law. Don't assume. Ask for clarificaiton if you do not understand what I mean by the law of Christ exceeding and encompassing the Ten Commandments. Don't just assume. If you do not understand the passages that state the Ten Commandments were given to a particular people at a certain place in time then ask for the reference and an explanation (Deuteronomy 5).

If you do not understand these things then please ask for clarification. Do not assume you understand, make misrepresentations, and then "double down" on your false accusations.

People misunderstand all the time. They misrepresent others all the time. BUT this can, largely, be avoided by simply asking for clarification AND accepting the clarification when given (you have a habit of arguing your understanding of another's words are correct even when the other person explains what they meant).