Can A person Keep the law and live? Have salvation thru the law itself?

[Winman]

You can go on repeating yourself and quoting others, but if many of the posters here believe like I do--that the passage refers to the Jewish justice system, why would you be defending the teaching of Original Sin from this passage? You still have not answered that question. You seem to be very confused. You want to defend OS from this passage and attack it from others. What gives?
No need to expound the passage again. I have read your explanations.
You want the passage to teach OS for some warped reason. This is truly odd.

I don't believe it has anything to do with OS; it is teaching about the Jewish justice system; the Ten Commandments. But if you want to be a Calvinist and convert to the Reformed be my guest.

I am not defending Original Sin, that is an invention of your mind. I was simply pointing out that Ezekiel 18 concerns imputation of sin similar to OS, and the JF & B commentary directly mentioned that. This opposed to your idea that Ezekiel 18 is speaking of civil law only. Read any commentary, Gill, Henry, JF & B and you will see they all agree with my interpretation.

But I don't expect you to admit you are wrong, you will NEVER do that.

You just go on and believe whatever you want. I am not going to argue with you for 10 pages like you do other persons.

 

[DHK]

I am not defending Original Sin, that is an invention of your mind. I was simply pointing out that Ezekiel 18 concerns imputation of sin similar to OS, and the JF & B commentary directly mentioned that. This opposed to your idea that Ezekiel 18 is speaking of civil law only. Read any commentary, Gill, Henry, JF & B and you will see they all agree with my interpretation.

But I don't expect you to admit you are wrong, you will NEVER do that.

You just go on and believe whatever you want. I am not going to argue with you for 10 pages like you do other persons.

All right. So let's be rational here. Although you may believe that, and even Gill and JFB and MH may believe that. It is possible that you and they may be wrong. Correct?
But that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that I don't believe in your interpretation, and surely you have read some posts by other current posters that agree with me. Thus when those that are currently posting here, agree with me that this passage is speaking of the Jewish Justice system, i.e., the Ten Commandments, and not OS, that makes your argument totally moot and irrelevant. It is a non-argument since we don't believe it is teaching OS in the first place. I am not a Calvinist though I believe in the depravity of man. I believe there are many here (Cal and non-Cal) that would agree with me on the interpretation of this passage.

That makes your entire argument irrelevant.
That is all I am saying.

 

[Winman]

All right. So let's be rational here. Although you may believe that, and even Gill and JFB and MH may believe that. It is possible that you and they may be wrong. Correct?
But that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that I don't believe in your interpretation, and surely you have read some posts by other current posters that agree with me. Thus when those that are currently posting here, agree with me that this passage is speaking of the Jewish Justice system, i.e., the Ten Commandments, and not OS, that makes your argument totally moot and irrelevant. It is a non-argument since we don't believe it is teaching OS in the first place. I am not a Calvinist though I believe in the depravity of man. I believe there are many here (Cal and non-Cal) that would agree with me on the interpretation of this passage.

That makes your entire argument irrelevant.
That is all I am saying.

I would never claim to be infallible, but I do not believe I am wrong here. :laugh:

Ezekiel 18 deals with a form of Original Sin. These Jews believed they were being punished for the sins of their fathers. That may have included Adam or not, but they believed the punishment for the sins of their fathers fell on them. Now this is the same as Original Sin, you believe we are born spiritually dead because of Adam's sin.

This false belief is what is being addressed in this chapter, God says repeatedly that a person dies for their own sin. This is not speaking of temporal death only, and I could show you from all of these commentators that God is speaking of eternal death in many of these verses. You will disagree.

Now, you can insist that this chapter is dealing with civil law only, but the proverb about the father eating a sour grape and the children's teeth being set on edge completely refutes you. It is absolutely certain this chapter is dealing with the imputation of sin from the parent to the child.

If you want to deny, that is your choice, but I think you know better.

 

[DHK]

If you want to deny, that is your choice, but I think you know better.

First we are off topic and need to get this thread back on topic.
Second, you are not being logical.
If you wanted a debate on OS then we would go to the appropriate thread and I would post Psalm 51:5 where we could do battle over the interpretation of that verse, as we have in the past. We both disagree on the interpretation, but not only do we disagree, I believe it teaches OS and you don't, and thus the debate.

Here it is different. You want to debate this topic. You don't believe in OS, and I don't believe this verse teaches OS, so there is nothing to debate. We may differ on the interpretation of the verse, but that has no relevancy on the debate of OS, since I don't believe this passage has anything whatsoever to do with OS. It is totally irrelevant. There is no debate here.

As to the OP.
It is impossible for on to be saved under the law. Gal.3:10

 

[convicted1]

So you knew the answer all along and let us go on bickering! Very sad!

Hey, that's how I roll.....LOL....I just leave y'all to your own devices and destructions............anutter LOL....j/k......

 

[Winman]

First we are off topic and need to get this thread back on topic.
Second, you are not being logical.
If you wanted a debate on OS then we would go to the appropriate thread and I would post Psalm 51:5 where we could do battle over the interpretation of that verse, as we have in the past. We both disagree on the interpretation, but not only do we disagree, I believe it teaches OS and you don't, and thus the debate.

Here it is different. You want to debate this topic. You don't believe in OS, and I don't believe this verse teaches OS, so there is nothing to debate. We may differ on the interpretation of the verse, but that has no relevancy on the debate of OS, since I don't believe this passage has anything whatsoever to do with OS. It is totally irrelevant. There is no debate here.

As to the OP.
It is impossible for on to be saved under the law. Gal.3:10

If a man could perfectly keep the whole law for his entire life, he would not be lost. This is why Jesus spoke of persons who need no repentance.

Gal 3:10 is simply accepting as FACT that no man has ever, or will ever perfectly keep the law, therefore no man can by saved by the law.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

If a man is cursed that continues not in ALL THINGS which are written in the law to do them, then the opposite is true, a man who continues in all things written in the law to do them is not cursed.

When the young rich ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus did not tell him he could do nothing, Jesus brought up the law.

Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

If your interpretation of Gal 3:10 is correct, then Jesus's answer was a lie. A man could not inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments.

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

If your interpretation of Gal 3:10 is correct, then Jesus lied in Luke 10:28

If a man perfectly keeps the law his entire life he will not be lost. If a man is born dead in sin, then Luke 10:28 would also be a lie, for it would not matter if you kept the whole law. Do you see that?

No, the word of God had CONCLUDED all under sin.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

 

[DHK]

If a man could perfectly keep the whole law for his entire life, he would not be lost. This is why Jesus spoke of persons who need no repentance.

I never said that.
First it is impossible to keep the whole law. That is what Gal.3:10 demonstrates.
Second, even if he could keep the law he would still need to be saved, for the law does not save.

Jesus demonstrates the above:
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
If a servant could be perfect, doing all that his Master (God) told him to do, he would still be in the position of "unprofitable," for he would just be doing his duty. Doing your duty doesn't bring you salvation. Salvation is not of works. Keeping the law doesn't save.

Only Christ can save.

 

[Winman]

I never said that.
First it is impossible to keep the whole law. That is what Gal.3:10 demonstrates.
Second, even if he could keep the law he would still need to be saved, for the law does not save.

Jesus demonstrates the above:
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
If a servant could be perfect, doing all that his Master (God) told him to do, he would still be in the position of "unprofitable," for he would just be doing his duty. Doing your duty doesn't bring you salvation. Salvation is not of works. Keeping the law doesn't save.

Only Christ can save.

What??

I guess you believe Jesus does not know proper doctrine when he said if a person would enter life to keep the commandments. Is that what you think?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Now, it is absolutely true that no man has ever kept the law, nor will any man (except Jesus) ever keep the law, but if a man did perfectly keep the law he would not be lost and would inherit eternal life.

 

[DHK]

What??

I guess you believe Jesus does not know proper doctrine when he said if a person would enter life to keep the commandments. Is that what you think?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Now, it is absolutely true that no man has ever kept the law, nor will any man (except Jesus) ever keep the law, but if a man did perfectly keep the law he would not be lost and would inherit eternal life.

Your argument is self-defeating.
First, you admit that no one is able to keep the law except Jesus. (debate over, no need to go any further).
Second, what Jesus said to the rich young ruler was not a promise.
One cannot promise to give something based on a premise impossible to accomplish.
Third, the directive given to the man was given to demonstrate his sinfulness. No man can keep the law. The law is our school master to bring us to Christ.
Next, look at the response of the young man: "All these things have I done from my youth up." He lied. He had not kept the law. Jesus sets out to demonstrate how he had broken the law. This was his intention all along. The law cannot save.

One thing you lack, Jesus says:
Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross and follow me.
Now the decision had to be made. Will it be riches or Christ? Which did he love more? The answer is given in his actions.
"And he went away sorrowful for he had much riches."
Jesus demonstrated his sin of covetousness. He coveted his riches more than he desired Christ.

Jesus never promised that if he kept the law he would be saved or have eternal life. He referred him to the law. He used the law to point out his sinfulness and his failure to keep it.

 

[Winman]

Your argument is self-defeating.
First, you admit that no one is able to keep the law except Jesus. (debate over, no need to go any further).
Second, what Jesus said to the rich young ruler was not a promise.
One cannot promise to give something based on a premise impossible to accomplish.
Third, the directive given to the man was given to demonstrate his sinfulness. No man can keep the law. The law is our school master to bring us to Christ.
Next, look at the response of the young man: "All these things have I done from my youth up." He lied. He had not kept the law. Jesus sets out to demonstrate how he had broken the law. This was his intention all along. The law cannot save.

One thing you lack, Jesus says:
Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross and follow me.
Now the decision had to be made. Will it be riches or Christ? Which did he love more? The answer is given in his actions.
"And he went away sorrowful for he had much riches."
Jesus demonstrated his sin of covetousness. He coveted his riches more than he desired Christ.

Jesus never promised that if he kept the law he would be saved or have eternal life. He referred him to the law. He used the law to point out his sinfulness and his failure to keep it.

You must think people are stupid, my argument is not self defeating at all.

Jesus said several times in scripture that if a person would enter life to keep the commandments. You must either believe Jesus does not know doctrine, or Jesus is a liar, that is your only options. I believe Jesus always told the truth and that Jesus always knows exactly what he was talking about.

So, believing the scripture I can only say you are in total error and do not know the scriptures.

Jesus most certainly did tell the young rich ruler that to enter life keep the commandments. He said something very similar in Luke 10:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus told this lawyer that if he kept the law he would live. This was a direct answer to the question of "what shall I do to inherit eternal life".

Now, I know you think you know everything, and no one can tell you a thing, but I am going to believe the words of Jesus on this one.

I get very offended when people tell me the exact opposite of what scripture says. Jesus said if a person would enter life to keep the commandments, you tell me the opposite. In my opinion you are a false teacher.

 

[DHK]

You must think people are stupid, my argument is not self defeating at all.

Jesus said several times in scripture that if a person would enter life to keep the commandments. You must either believe Jesus does not know doctrine, or Jesus is a liar, that is your only options. I believe Jesus always told the truth and that Jesus always knows exactly what he was talking about.

So, believing the scripture I can only say you are in total error and do not know the scriptures.

Jesus most certainly did tell the young rich ruler that to enter life keep the commandments. He said something very similar in Luke 10:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus told this lawyer that if he kept the law he would live. This was a direct answer to the question of "what shall I do to inherit eternal life".

Now, I know you think you know everything, and no one can tell you a thing, but I am going to believe the words of Jesus on this one.

I get very offended when people tell me the exact opposite of what scripture says. Jesus said if a person would enter life to keep the commandments, you tell me the opposite. In my opinion you are a false teacher.

There is no need for personal attacks. Please refrain from such.

Look at the context of the passage:
Behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him.
These words "tempted him," are important. They were constantly testing, tempting, trying to get Jesus tied up in his words, or defeat him in argument. But he was sinless, the sinless Son of God, and could not sin.

He answers them in the light of their motivation in "tempting or testing him."
Keep the two Great Commandments and thou shalt live.
The trouble is that no one can keep those commandments, no one!
Christ came into the world because the law could not save.
The law condemns; Christ saves.
Those two commands are a summary of the Ten Commandments, which no man can keep.
Jesus is throwing it right back at them. They weren't interested in "life" (spiritual or eternal life). They were interested in tempting or testing Jesus. He directs them to the Ten Commandments, the Law.

What did Abraham say to the rich man in hell?
They have the law and the prophets. If they will not listen to them neither will they listen though one be raised from the dead.
The law could only lead to Christ. It could not save.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

[Winman]

There is no need for personal attacks. Please refrain from such.

Look at the context of the passage:
Behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him.
These words "tempted him," are important. They were constantly testing, tempting, trying to get Jesus tied up in his words, or defeat him in argument. But he was sinless, the sinless Son of God, and could not sin.

He answers them in the light of their motivation in "tempting or testing him."
Keep the two Great Commandments and thou shalt live.
The trouble is that no one can keep those commandments, no one!
Christ came into the world because the law could not save.
The law condemns; Christ saves.
Those two commands are a summary of the Ten Commandments, which no man can keep.
Jesus is throwing it right back at them. They weren't interested in "life" (spiritual or eternal life). They were interested in tempting or testing Jesus. He directs them to the Ten Commandments, the Law.

What did Abraham say to the rich man in hell?
They have the law and the prophets. If they will not listen to them neither will they listen though one be raised from the dead.
The law could only lead to Christ. It could not save.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

I understand that no man keeps the law, therefore no man is saved by keeping the law. That doesn't change the fact that Jesus told people who asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life, that if they kept the law they would live.

The wages of sin is death. You teach that the wages of keeping the law is death as well. That is absurd.

The scriptures simply accept as a fact that all men have and will sin. That does not mean that if a person kept the law they would not inherit eternal life.

Your view makes Jesus a liar, it is as simple as that. That you cannot see this is amazing, you guys cannot think.

 

[DHK]

I understand that no man keeps the law, therefore no man is saved by keeping the law. That doesn't change the fact that Jesus told people who asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life, that if they kept the law they would live.

Does Jesus give commands that are impossible to keep?
I say he does. In the light of that question and answer, you have the answer to your conundrum. If the command is impossible to keep, then the promise cannot be fulfilled.

For example: If you keep the law, you shall live.
The Bible explicitly says that it is impossible to keep the law. Jesus knew that. He was giving a command that it was impossible to keep. Therefore the fulfillment of the promise was impossible.

Winman, Jesus promised "All things are possible with Christ."
Therefore, Swim across the Atlantic and you will get to England.
What is wrong with the command, the promise, and the fulfillment thereof.
Why am I lying even if I am basing this on the promise of Jesus who says you are able to do all things?
As the command given to the rich young ruler was impossible to keep, so the command for you to swim the Atlantic is impossible for you to do. Thus the fulfillment of reaching England also is impossible. It doesn't matter if it is based on my word or Christ's word. It is impossible because it is physically impossible to do, just as it is physically impossible to keep the law--for ALL people except Christ.

Be ye perfect as my father is perfect. Can't do it.
Be ye holy as my father is holy. Can't do it.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart. You don't and never will.
Love the Lord your God with all your strength. You don't and never will.
Love the Lord your God with all your mind. You don't and never will.

Love your neighbor as yourself. You don't and never will.

These commands may be better interpreted as goals. But interpreted as commands, they are impossible to keep.

The wages of sin is death. You teach that the wages of keeping the law is death as well. That is absurd.

The end of the law is sin.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The scriptures simply accept as a fact that all men have and will sin. That does not mean that if a person kept the law they would not inherit eternal life.

Your view makes Jesus a liar, it is as simple as that. That you cannot see this is amazing, you guys cannot think.

And what do you think Jesus was teaching here:

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Total error. Jesus had the flesh of David, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was made of the "seed of David according to the flesh". Jesus had the same flesh as David. If we inherit a sin nature, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature through the seed of David.

This shows once and for all your error that you claim Jesus avoided a sin nature by being born of a virgin. Romans 1:3 clearly shows Jesus inherited the seed of David through his mother Mary. Even science knows we inherit from our maternal grandparents.

So, that bogus argument of yours is proven FALSE.

Not only did Jesus have the flesh of David, he had the nature of the seed of Abraham who was born after the fall and was a sinner.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (the Jews). He was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS.

When you deny that Jesus was made exactly like us you deny that Jesus came in the flesh. This is warned against in 1 John 4:2-3

1 Jhn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Jesus wasn't oblivious to temptation, the scriptures say he was "touched" with the "feeling" of our infirmities. Jesus felt temptation just like you and I, but he never obeyed these temptations and sinned.

You teach false doctrine.

You teach heresy, IF you hold that jesus was JSUT the same as we are, that he came as a "natural" person, for the bible clearly states that jesus was God Incarnate, that he was Humna, yet WITHOUT the Sin nature, DUE to the Virgin birth!

Either jesus was a sinner like you and Me, or else he was unique being Virgin Bo0rn God Incarnate!

I choose the latter!

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand that no man keeps the law, therefore no man is saved by keeping the law. That doesn't change the fact that Jesus told people who asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life, that if they kept the law they would live.

The wages of sin is death. You teach that the wages of keeping the law is death as well. That is absurd.

The scriptures simply accept as a fact that all men have and will sin. That does not mean that if a person kept the law they would not inherit eternal life.

Your view makes Jesus a liar, it is as simple as that. That you cannot see this is amazing, you guys cannot think.

The Law was NOT given to save any sinner, its purpose was to expose just how sinful we all are by birth and choice, and to drive us to see the need to go the way of the cross to be saved!

jesus would NEVER tell a sinner to live by the law to be saved, for that would contridict His very mission toseek and save the lost under the burden of the law!

 

[convicted1]

You must think people are stupid, my argument is not self defeating at all.

Jesus said several times in scripture that if a person would enter life to keep the commandments. You must either believe Jesus does not know doctrine, or Jesus is a liar, that is your only options. I believe Jesus always told the truth and that Jesus always knows exactly what he was talking about.

So, believing the scripture I can only say you are in total error and do not know the scriptures.

Jesus most certainly did tell the young rich ruler that to enter life keep the commandments. He said something very similar in Luke 10:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus told this lawyer that if he kept the law he would live. This was a direct answer to the question of "what shall I do to inherit eternal life".

Now, I know you think you know everything, and no one can tell you a thing, but I am going to believe the words of Jesus on this one.

I get very offended when people tell me the exact opposite of what scripture says. Jesus said if a person would enter life to keep the commandments, you tell me the opposite. In my opinion you are a false teacher.

Brother Winman, none of us without God, can keep the commandments. I am sure you already knew this.

 

[Winman]

Brother Winman, none of us without God, can keep the commandments. I am sure you already knew this.

I know that no man except Jesus has perfectly kept the law, nevertheless, when Jesus was asked what a man must DO to inherit eternal life he answered that they must keep the commandments. When the lawyer answered to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, Jesus responded that he had answered correctly and said "this do and live".

The scriptures assume that no man has ever or will ever keep the law, therefore no man is justified by the law. Nevertheless, IF a man were to perfectly keep the law from the day he was born until he died, he would be guilty of no sin and not be lost. It is the wages of SIN that is death.

Now, we know from scripture that Esau and Jacob had done no evil in their mother Rebecca's womb. If they had died at this point (and many millions of children DO die at this point) they would be guilty of no sin and need no repentance. This is who I believe the 99 just persons who Jesus said need no repentance are.

These 99 just persons cannot be the Pharisees for several reasons. First, Jesus always condemned the Pharisees and called them hypocrites and sinners. He did not give them the false impression they were righteous. Secondly, if Jesus was speaking of the Pharisees when he spoke of the 99 just persons, the proportion or ratio is off. The Pharisee were a very select few, there certainly were not 99 Pharisees to every sinner.

But if Jesus was speaking of unborn or small children as I have shown in Matthew 18, there have been literally billions who have died. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of babies and small children die every year. So the proportion matches up.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

People simply don't get it because they have been taught the 99 just persons are the Pharisees. That doesn't match up. If a person reads carefully they see Jesus was speaking of little children. Many little children die before they ever go astray in sin.

 

[DHK]

And what do you think Jesus was teaching here:

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

Winman,
Please answer the question.

 

[convicted1]

I know that no man except Jesus has perfectly kept the law, nevertheless, when Jesus was asked what a man must DO to inherit eternal life he answered that they must keep the commandments. When the lawyer answered to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, Jesus responded that he had answered correctly and said "this do and live".

The scriptures assume that no man has ever or will ever keep the law, therefore no man is justified by the law. Nevertheless, IF a man were to perfectly keep the law from the day he was born until he died, he would be guilty of no sin and not be lost. It is the wages of SIN that is death.

Now, we know from scripture that Esau and Jacob had done no evil in their mother Rebecca's womb. If they had died at this point (and many millions of children DO die at this point) they would be guilty of no sin and need no repentance. This is who I believe the 99 just persons who Jesus said need no repentance are.

These 99 just persons cannot be the Pharisees for several reasons. First, Jesus always condemned the Pharisees and called them hypocrites and sinners. He did not give them the false impression they were righteous. Secondly, if Jesus was speaking of the Pharisees when he spoke of the 99 just persons, the proportion or ratio is off. The Pharisee were a very select few, there certainly were not 99 Pharisees to every sinner.

But if Jesus was speaking of unborn or small children as I have shown in Matthew 18, there have been literally billions who have died. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of babies and small children die every year. So the proportion matches up.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

People simply don't get it because they have been taught the 99 just persons are the Pharisees. That doesn't match up. If a person reads carefully they see Jesus was speaking of little children. Many little children die before they ever go astray in sin.

Brother Winman, if we kept the Law and made it to heaven, we got there by our works. Jesus told them "to keep the commandments and live", yes that's correct. But He knew full well that they couldn't. That's where grace comes in. If we keep the Law, we make grace null and void. And we can't and won't get to heaven w/o grace.

 

[DHK]

Brother Winman, if we kept the Law and made it to heaven, we got there by our works. Jesus told them "to keep the commandments and live", yes that's correct. But He knew full well that they couldn't. That's where grace comes in. If we keep the Law, we make grace null and void. And we can't and won't get to heaven w/o grace.

:thumbs: Absolutely!

Confirmed by Paul, who said:

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