• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

'Christians don't sin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
ED: To see so many individuals saying "Yes!" to the High Anglican Church version of the KJV, with the language that is dated by 2 1/2 to 4 centuries and when language is constantly changing, and questionable theology (not to mention the support given to a "divine right of kings") backing the KJV (or likewise, lauding the modern 'all inclusive' types NIV and/or TNIV),

while saying "NO!" to the GENEVA, NASB, HCSB, and NKJV is simply astounding to me, as a 'Protestant' and a 'Baptist.'

HP: I agree.:thumbs: Besides, the King James is not ‘premillinial’ as the NKJ has been touted to be. Why anyone would support anything that has not been doctored and slightly twisted to fit ones particular dogmas is beyond me. That is simply contrary to human nature.
(Is that an oxymoron? Is it even possible to act contrary to human nature? According to the way I read your post it might just be. Since the human nature has been said to be sinful, would that make defending the KJV righteous behavior?)

More to come. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe

New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:


HP: Would you please expound on this preposterous account of attempting ‘cold blooded murder’ you speak of? If you are speaking of Abraham, you could not be further from the truth.
I never stated it was a true account but worded it in the form of a question.

First of all, let me state I do believe it is possible to loose salvation. I believe there are no "set sins" but God judges the heart. Imo, it's not probable but it is possible, so we should definately not push the envelope. On another note, we should also not be obsessing over each and every sin we commit, mulling over loosing our salvation. This is obsessive focus on self imo. We are to examine ourselves from time to time. Our primary focus should be on glorifying God. We were created for his pleasure

Here is a timeline to consider concerning Saul. He made numerous attempts to kill David and once he tried to kill his own son. Yet apparently, the Lord had given him a new heart. And in between his backsliding and murder attempts, he appears to repent and it's stated Saul worships the Lord.

-TIME LINE-

1Sam 10:9 God gave Saul a new heart

1Sam 15:1 The LORD anointes Saul King of Israel

Sam 15:11 God expresses he regrets to Samuel about making him King. God told Samuel "Saul tuned his back from following him and disobeyed his commandments"

1 Sam 15:24-25 Samuel confesses he transgressed God's commandments saying he feared the people thus obeyed their voice. He requests Samuel pardon his sin and allow him to go with him so he can serve the Lord.

1 Samuel 15:31 Saul & Samuel worshipped the Lord


1 Sam 16:14 When God rejected Saul, he sent an evil spirit to torment him.

1 Sam 18:2 Saul was afraid of David for he knew the Lord was with him

Samuel 19 Saul attempts to kill David, tries to con others into murdering David

1 Sam 20:32-43 Saul threw spears at David with intent to kill him again. He also threw spears at his own son David.

1 Sam 16:23 And so it was whenever the spirit of God was upon Saul, that David would take a harp and play it with his hand. Then Saul would become refreshed and well, and the distressing spirit would depart from him.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe: It appears God chastizes Saul for his disobedience again in Acts Or can I say his rejection?


In Acts, the Lord blinds him for 3 days, he repents again.

HP: I believe you might be confusing two distinctly different men named Saul, or maybe I missed the connection you see between them.
 

Joe

New Member
Ok HP

My orginal post to Bob
"Just curious....
I know your thoughts about adultery but do you believe a man could be saved while in the act of attempting to murder a man out of cold blood? This would be a righteous man thus clearly be breaking the 5th commandment "thou shall not murder"
Or his own son possibly?"

It appears Saul was saved while he attempted to kill others. He was a screw up for a long while. Check the timeline.

The point being imo, it is possible to commit grevious sins (sins unto death) while being saved and keep salvation, but it's not smart to bank on that as a license to sin (of course). Imho, a person just might loose salvation when God judges the heart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LeBuick

New Member
Joe said:
Ok HP

It appears Saul was saved while he attempted to kill others. He was a screw up for a long while. Check the timeline.

Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

How could Paul have been saved if he had no faith in the Saviour?
 

EdSutton

New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: I agree.:thumbs: Besides, the King James is not ‘premillinial’ as the NKJ has been touted to be. Why anyone would support anything that has not been doctored and slightly twisted to fit ones particular dogmas is beyond me. That is simply contrary to human nature.
(Is that an oxymoron? Is it possible to act contrary to human nature? According to the way I read your post it might just be. Since the human nature has been said to be sinful, would that make defending the KJV righteous behavior?)

More to come. :smilewinkgrin:
While I doubt that anyone can entirely eliminate a personal bias, it should be a good goal for a translator, be they 'premillenial,' or any other wise, IMO. And I do not think this is an impossibility, FTR, to aim for an 'unbiased' approach.

For an example, there is probably no one more closely connected with 'dispensationalism' as both a theologian and at the same time, a Bible Translator than John Nelson Darby. Yet the DARBY actually uses and renders the word 'dispensation' 2 times, compared to the KJV (4) and ASV (5).

And I suggest that one's choice of versions is simply that - choice and personal preference. Hence, "defending (or 'not defending', when a rendering is, IMO, undefensible, well known case in point, the word "pascha" rendered as "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Ac. 14:4) the KJV" (or any other version, in like manner) neither "righteous behavior" or "unrighteous behavior", per se. I can find reasons to support almost any version I have ever held in my hot little paws, in some instances, that I am not fond of, as a general rule, and, likewise, to not support a version or versions I generally prefer, overall, in some instances. My POV is pretty much akin to that of the KJV translators on this.
We affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
...
Variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the scriptures. ("To the Reader" Preface to the KJV, 1611)
And my intent is to 'handle the Word of God' with care, and never in a deceitful manner, (II Cor. 4:2) although I do not suspect anyone can perfectly achieve that aim.

Ed
 

Joe

New Member
LeBuick said:
Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

How could Paul have been saved if he had no faith in the Saviour?

(Edited sentence out later)

Or faith to follow God's will for his life? Not sure why he rebelled against God so many times...

God gave him a new heart and appointed him to be King so he must have had some faith in God at that point in time.
The Lord seems to have had a whole lot of patience for this man for whatever reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe

New Member
The Lord got sick of Saul and ignored his plights. Then Saul contacted a Medium who summoned Samuel from his death.

Samuel told Saul the Lord would execute his wrath upon him due to his disobedience concerning wrath against Amalek

He also said the Lord will deliver Israel with him into the hand of the Phillistines and tomorrow 'you and your sons will be with me"
1 Sam 28:15-20

So Saul did not go to hell despite his disobedience to the Lord and grevious sins of murder and attempted murder.

He went to heaven where Samuel is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe

New Member
nunatak said:
I always thought the witch called up a familiar spirit, not Samuel himself???
It refers to a familiar spirit in the NIV, you are correct. :) She still called Samuel up



1 Samuel 28:8-12 (New King James Version)
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Please conduct a séance for me, and bring up for me the one I shall name to you.”
9 Then the woman said to him, “Look, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the spiritists from the land. Why then do you lay a snare for my life, to cause me to die?”
10 And Saul swore to her by the LORD, saying, “As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.”
11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”
And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.”

12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul!”
13 And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?”
And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit[a] ascending out of the earth.”
14 So he said to her, “What is his form?”
And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle.” And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down.
15 Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
 

Marcia

Active Member
nunatak said:
I always thought the witch called up a familiar spirit, not Samuel himself???

No, because she was surprised (she cried out) and he is called Samuel. Also, Samuel gives a correct prophecy about Saul and his sons dying the next day in battle, and Samuel rebukes Saul for disobeying God. A demon would not do this.

I think the Lord had Samuel appear. Saul was desperate for Samuel, so it's as though God said, "Okay, that's what you want, here he is but you're not going to like it!" It was a one-time situation.

Just in case people think it's okay to consult a medium or try to contact the dead because of this, this act by Saul of consulting the medium was denounced by God in 1 Chron 10.13.

I deal with this issue all the time in my ministry since I talk about contact with the dead when I speak on the occult. I have a published article where I discuss the Medium at Endor/Samuel situation:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/New Age/dead_people.htm

This is NOT my site but the article is no longer online and is not on my site. Mute the creepy music! I think this may be the only place it exists online so I'm glad the person put it up there.
 

Joe

New Member
Marcia said:
No, because she was surprised (she cried out) and he is called Samuel. Also, Samuel gives a correct prophecy about Saul and his sons dying the next day in battle, and Samuel rebukes Saul for disobeying God. A demon would not do this.

Just in case people think it's okay to consult a medium or try to contact the dead because of this, this act by Saul of consulting the medium was denounced by God in 1 Chron 10.13.

Also the medium told Saul that he would deliver up Israel and Saul at the had of the Phillistines, so he knew he would likely suffer during his death the following day. That is why, imo, Saul immediately fell full length to the ground and was dreadfully afraid. He had no strength because he fasted that day .
I think it was God chastising Saul for consulting the witch. Thanks for the link :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Brother Bob said:
I do not believe as you and the others that you can rape a 6 year old girl and the father shoots you between the eyes while you are in the act with a 38 and you still go to heaven.
Do we advocate this Bob? Do we teach it? Or do you sensationalize things that we never said? What you have said--stretching the truth, is nothing more than a lie--bearing false witness--the equivalent of "raping a six year old girl and shooting someone with a 38 between the eyes." It is the same Bob. Both are a transgression of the law. What is wrong here.
1. You have borne false witness.
2. You have suggested immorality.
3. You have suggested murder.
Of the above three commandments, only one was actually broken, and right on this board; that is the first one. The offender was you. Over and over you bear false witness against your brother, a sin just as grievous as adultery and murder.
You believe the devil's doctrine.
If it was any other moderator Bob, such fits of anger could get you suspended. Be careful what you say to others.
The following is my doctrine, my life and the way I shall die. You and the others sin all you want,
A false accusation. We don't sin all we want. We live as holy a life as possible. Please get that through your head, stop the lying and misrepresentation. Can't you see that over and over you break the Ten Commandments in this way, and breaking one of them (lying) is just as bad as breaking them all--including adultery (James 2:10).
live as you may, die as you will. We will both stand before God according to how we have lived.
This is true. And we will give account to God of how we have influenced others, of how we have taught others, of what doctrine we have taught others.
I teach not to sin,
And, by example, you do sin, and repeatedly so, as demonstrated on this board.
You teach Christians not only sin,
Can you document that? Can you document where we have taught people to go and sin? I want to see the documentation Bob.
they sin greivously and can even die unrepentant and go to heaven.
If that weren't true Bob, you would die and go to Hell. You also have sinned, and you have even admitted it at times. Every sin is grievous in God's sight without exception What gives you the right to say that some sins are greater in God's sight than others? God is holy. Nothing unholy can enter into his presence--nothing. All sin, even the smallest sin is unholy. That makes all sin in God's sight equal.
No where is scripture does it teach such a doctrine. It is not the Gospel, but a doctrine of fables and death.
To teach that sin is wrong and unholy is not in error, Bob.
To teach that believers will sin, and God will forgive them, is not in error Bob.

1Jo 2:4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

BBob,
It's a good verse Bob. Two questions.
1. Do you know what it means?
2. Do you obey it?
 

Brother Bob

New Member
Joe said:
Also the medium told Saul that he would deliver up Israel and Saul at the had of the Phillistines, so he knew he would likely suffer during his death the following day. That is why, imo, Saul immediately fell full length to the ground and was dreadfully afraid. He had no strength because he fasted that day .
I think it was God chastising Saul for consulting the witch. Thanks for the link :)
Why do you all always have to run back to "under the Law" or before. Why can you not prove your case by using the New Testament? They also made molten calves to worship, do the Christians do that today?
If the OT was suffecient, then Christ would not have come. Every time you run back to the OT, to try and justify something under the NT, I hardly ever read it.

The word Hypocrite was used many times in scripture I ask you why was the word "dissemble" used in Gal? Must of been a reason. Was it just because Paul was angry, or was it because God was angry.

BBob,
 

Brother Bob

New Member
trustitl said:
I still don't see you answering the the question in the OP: Can a Christian sin? Also, it is interesting that you will overlook what you see as a possible error when doing so may support those that you see as being in "grave error". I am not trying to pin Bob to a tree (harsh words by the way- sounds like what happened to Jesus.) Bob is just not answering clear and simple questions.


I looked back at it and accept your stated intent as pure. It is well placed. :thumbs:


You cannot "in any way establish" and "prove by scripture" that Peter went to heaven. You work very hard at telling people to use their heads when reading scripture which I very much appreciate. Now, using yours, what would you call Peter's dissembling? Paul said he was to be "blamed" (Strongs # 2607 kataginōskō - 1: to find fault with, blame. 2: to accuse, condemn) If it were not sin, why as you stated, would he needed to have "had a change of heart before he was called from this world"? Isn't that repenting?


I have never advocated that a person can enter into heaven in an unrepentant state. What I am saying is that a person who is covered by the blood is able to sin. You are wanting a sign that a person is repentant. I would agree with what you said above: "God alone knows".

You seem unwilling to admit that Peter did anything wrong in this situation. Notice how Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed". It is clear that Peter was doing something that Paul saw as wrong. What needs to be figured out is WHAT was he doing that was wrong.

Paul also withstood Barnabus, was Barnabus a hypocrite also. Again, why was the word hypocrite not used, when it was used throughout the whole Bible?
Did Christ not "sweat" as great drops of blood when they were going to kill him.Scripture says that Christ had a "dread" about his death. Have you ever looked up the word "dread". It is a great fear. Does that mean that Christ himself was a hypocrite also?
itrusti;
You cannot "in any way establish" and "prove by scripture" that Peter went to heaven
Are you now questioning whether Peter went to heaven or not? Have we gone so far that we now are beginning to question the salvation of the Apostles?

Rev 21:14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

BBob,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brother Bob

New Member
DHK said:
Do we advocate this Bob? Do we teach it? Or do you sensationalize things that we never said? What you have said--stretching the truth, is nothing more than a lie--bearing false witness--the equivalent of "raping a six year old girl and shooting someone with a 38 between the eyes." It is the same Bob. Both are a transgression of the law. What is wrong here.
1. You have borne false witness. (False)
2. You have suggested immorality. (False)
3. You have suggested murder. (False)
Of the above three commandments, only one was actually broken, and right on this board; that is the first one. The offender was you. Over and over you bear false witness against your brother, a sin just as grievous as adultery and murder. (False)

I do not bear false witness and here is proof. I can give you proof of the others also. Here is you advocating that a person can go to heaven and die in the act of adultery.
DHK:
The tense in that verse is present continuous. (False) It refers to a person persisting in a sinful lifestyle. A person who commits adultery may go to heaven. He may even go to heaven while he is in the act of committing adultery. His sins are covered by the blood. Every one sins. The tense is present continuous is ridicilous.
If it was any other moderator Bob, such fits of anger could get you suspended. Be careful what you say to others.

So, now we begin the threats. You call me every name in the book, question my salvation and say you do not, call me a liar over and over, say I break all of the commandments, but yet you threaten me, when I tell you that your doctrine is false. You accuse me of being Catholic, which you believe are all lost, so you are in doing so, saying I am lost also.

A false accusation. We don't sin all we want. We live as holy a life as possible. Please get that through your head, stop the lying and misrepresentation. (False) Can't you see that over and over you break the Ten Commandments in this way, (False) and breaking one of them (lying) is just as bad as breaking them all--including adultery (James 2:10).
Here you once again accuse me of breaking all of the commandments, lying, misrepresentation. When it was you who said a person in the act of adultery and die stills goes to heaven. One time you even said "sing with the angels".


This is true. And we will give account to God of how we have influenced others, of how we have taught others, of what doctrine we have taught others.

And, by example, you do sin, and repeatedly so, as demonstrated on this board. (False)

Again, you accuse me of sinning, you do this over and over and you are a moderator.

Can you document that? Can you document where we have taught people to go and sin? I want to see the documentation Bob. You asking for documentation, knowing that you have said it for the last year at least, is a joke!!

I do not bear false witness and here is proof. I can give you proof of the others also. Here is you advocating that a person can go to heaven and die in the act of adultery.
DHK:
The tense in that verse is present continuous. (False) It refers to a person persisting in a sinful lifestyle. A person who commits adultery may go to heaven. He may even go to heaven while he is in the act of committing adultery. His sins are covered by the blood. Every one sins. The tense is present continuous is ridicilous.
BBob
So you believe you can be on top of your neighbors wife and die in the act and still go to heaven?

Steaver:
Yes, I do believe all sins no matter how many are covered by the blood of Christ for the believer.

No, I do not teach others to sin all they want and they can still go to heaven. I teach them to repent of their sins for the love of Jesus Christ. The Spirit will convict and the Father will chasen.
__________________
steaver

ajg1959
I am not ashamed to answer it.

There is not a sin in the world that is stronger than the Grace of God. It is not the individual sins that a person commits that doom him to hell, it is the nature of sin within us that does. The ONLY sin that will send you to hell is the sin of unbelief.

Once a person has trusted in the Grace of God through Christ, he is no longer subject to the law, and all is forgiven. This does not mean he can do as he wishes and sin at will, but it does mean his sins are covered by the sacrificial blood of Jesus.

IF a person can lose his salvation by sinning then the Gospel of Grace is a lie. If I had the power to be sinless then I would not need Grace.

So my answer is a definate NO.....a person cannot do anything to lose his salvation, even commit adultery, whether he is dyng or not.

You sir, are the one with honesty issues if you expect us to believe that you live sinlessly.

AJ

How is that for documentation.

If that weren't true Bob, you would die and go to Hell. You also have sinned, and you have even admitted it at times. Every sin is grievous in God's sight without exception What gives you the right to say that some sins are greater in God's sight than others? God is holy. Nothing unholy can enter into his presence--nothing. All sin, even the smallest sin is unholy. That makes all sin in God's sight equal.
What gives you the right to say that some sins are greater in God's sight than others?
Scripture:
Jhn 19:11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.


To teach that sin is wrong and unholy is not in error, Bob.
You should try it.
To teach that believers will sin, and God will forgive them, is not in error Bob.
Agree, just not sin unto death for you put God to an open shame.


It's a good verse Bob. Two questions.
1. Do you know what it means?
2. Do you obey it?

Yes.......... Wonder why none of you all ever try and give an answer for it???????????
 
Last edited by a moderator:

trustitl

New Member
Brother Bob said:
Paul also withstood Barnabus, was Barnabus a hypocrite also. Again, why was the word hypocrite not used, when it was used throughout the whole Bible?
The word dissemble is a verb Bob. The word hypocrite is a noun. A sentence needs one of each. Look up the word dissemble and you will see that it is a compound word from two different parts: sun and hupokrinomai. Sun means together with and hupokrinomai means to speak or act under a false part. hupokrinomai is a verb where the word hupokrites is derived from. We do this all the time in English: prove, improve, improvement would be an example. Since there is no English word such as hypocraticize, the word dissemble would be the perfect choice.

Brother Bob said:
Did Christ not "sweat" as great drops of blood when they were going to kill him.Scripture says that Christ had a "dread" about his death. Have you ever looked up the word "dread". It is a great fear. Does that mean that Christ himself was a hypocrite also?
Huh? Your point is ...? Christ would not have been a man had he not dreaded being crucified.

Brother Bob said:
Are you now questioning whether Peter went to heaven or not? Have we gone so far that we now are beginning to question the salvation of the Apostles?
Bob, you display either a lack of intelligence or integrity when you make such absurd comments. Are you man enough to admit that this is a poor representation of what my point was. If you don't, you are showing that you just don't understand simple reasoning. HP had claimed I could not "PROVE" by scripture a certain point because the exact words did not exist in the Bible to which I said the same about Peter going to heaven.

Come on HP help Bob out here. You are showing a lack of integrity yourself by allowing my words for you to be misrepresented. Also, your words "Let's be scriptural and just stick with dissemble" are an indicator that you are willing to let some truth not be defended so as to help your position. You cause me to lose respect for you.

And for the record:

Psalm 26:4-5 "I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked."

Look up the following and you will see that the word translated dissimulation in Galatians is translated hypocrisy:

Matt. 23:28
Mark 12:15
Luke 12:1
I Tim. 4:2
 

Brother Bob

New Member
trustitl said:
The word dissemble is a verb Bob. The word hypocrite is a noun. A sentence needs one of each. Look up the word dissemble and you will see that it is a compound word from two different parts: sun and hupokrinomai. Sun means together with and hupokrinomai means to speak or act under a false part. hupokrinomai is a verb where the word hupokrites is derived from. We do this all the time in English: prove, improve, improvement would be an example. Since there is no English word such as hypocraticize, the word dissemble would be the perfect choice.
So, Peter was in the act of doing something but did not go to the point that he became a "noun" hypocrite???


Huh? Your point is ...? Christ would not have been a man had he not dreaded being crucified.

Bob, you display either a lack of intelligence or integrity when you make such absurd comments. Are you man enough to admit that this is a poor representation of what my point was. If you don't, you are showing that you just don't understand simple reasoning. HP had claimed I could not "PROVE" by scripture a certain point because the exact words did not exist in the Bible to which I said the same about Peter going to heaven.

You are the one lacking, didn't you know that Holy City has twelve foundations and the name of Peter is one of them? At least acknowledge when you fail to know there is scripture showing Peter in Heaven.

Come on HP help Bob out here. You are showing a lack of integrity yourself by allowing my words for you to be misrepresented. Also, your words "Let's be scriptural and just stick with dissemble" are an indicator that you are willing to let some truth not be defended so as to help your position. You cause me to lose respect for you.

It is a known fact by all scholars, that there is not an "exact" word in English to replace the Greek, that is why I wonder why they used the word dissemble. Do you have an answer, instead of questioning my intelligence?

And for the record:

Psalm 26:4-5 "I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked."

I am sure that disemblers in many cases were evil doers. I believe I read in the definition of dissemble, that "most" of the time it was hypocritical, but not all the time.

Look up the following and you will see that the word translated dissimulation in Galatians is translated hypocrisy:

Matt. 23:28
Mark 12:15
Luke 12:1
I Tim. 4:2
HP had claimed I could not "PROVE" by scripture a certain point because the exact words did not exist in the Bible to which I said the same about Peter going to heaven.
Seems to me you are the one lacking in knowledge of scripture.
Rev 21:14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

How much more proof you want??

dissemble:

Why not be honest and say "why did they use the word of dissemble, instead of hypocrital, hypocrite. Why did they use the word dissemble, when you say the only difiniton to dissemble is hypocrite. You need to be honest yourself, there must of been some reason the translators chose to use the word dissemble?

BBob,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe

New Member
Brother Bob said:
Why do you all always have to run back to "under the Law" or before. Why can you not prove your case by using the New Testament?
I can't make my case using either one, as I don't know who the Lord will choose to save. I offered an example, and to my knowledge, OT or NT, GOd was not partial to one group over another.
They also made molten calves to worship, do the Christians do that today?
If the OT was suffecient, then Christ would not have come. Every time you run back to the OT, to try and justify something under the NT, I hardly ever read it.
I don't see much difference as the 10 commandmants imo, are still binding except some some leeway for some people concenring the 4th commandment.
If you honestly believe you can choose any day to worship, then I doubt God will mind if it is with an honest heart.

The word Hypocrite was used many times in scripture I ask you why was the word "dissemble" used in Gal? Must of been a reason. Was it just because Paul was angry, or was it because God was angry.

BBob,

I'll go with DHK's answer. One is a verb, the other is a noun. Need one of each, at the very least, to make a sentence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top