KEEPING G THE LAW -is not an OPTION!

[BobRyan]

BTW - Dustin as much as I thoroughly enjoy pounding your argument for Calvinism because it is totally contradicted by scripture -- I also have to admit that there are Arminians in this world that would strongly argue against God's Law as you do - and there might even be some Calvinists out there that would not debate against God's Law.

So how is this a C vs A issue?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

The Law was _NEVER_ meant to be the final solution...

It was an intermediate solution until in the fullness of time God sent Jesus...

That is a classic "two gospel blunder".

In Gal 1 Paul makes it clear that there HAVE NEVER been two Gospels.

In Gal 3:7 he shows the ONE Gospel actively preached in the OT EVEN to Abraham BEFORE Moses!

In Gal 4 above Paul is NOT arguing that "savlation by LAW" WAS the Gospel in the OT!!!

In BOTH Gal 3 AND 4 Paul argues that the lost person is STILL TODAY under the condemnation of the law and STILL TODAY in need of salvation.

Lost is still LOST.

The LAW (as Paul points out in Gal 3) WAS NEVER Given as "A Gospel" or as a "salvation solution"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Dustin:
Right, so if a person is commiting adultery with his father's wife, would you wonder if he's saved? I would. But it's not my business to say so one way or another. All we can do is rebuke them and excommunicate and hope that God sees fit to give them a repentant heart. What else don't you agree with?

Isn't that approach exactly what happened to the individual spoken of in I Cor. 5, especially if that is the one referred to in II Cor. 2:5-10, as I believe it is?

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
What a terrible distortion of God's loving character that He delights in torturing His creatures forever in Hell.

Many (typical) misconceptions her ---

God does not torture: the torture is the direct result of the lost's own doing;

God is infinitely great and mercyful. Just consider what sin against this God is, and it is easy to imagine the scope and reach of hell. See a pregnant women cruely killed for nothing but the enjoyment of the murderer - hell can never be long enough to pay that murderer his reward. His sin was infinite; the wages for it should be infinite - the sin was against this infinite God and His infinite grace and love. Not I nor you are different than that murderer, but for the grace of God. That is election; that is grace; that is God's sovereignty - that I and you do not perish in the same fate as that murderer, but by Jesus' blood and life, receive the infinity He alone could deserve and did deserve for sinners such as you and me - an infinity of glory. It is only fair. Grace gives eternal redemption and joy; in and by ourselves therefore we could only receive eternal hell.

But that simply is how I feel. I shall not attempt to give Scriptures for feeling so - and sometimes for really believing so - depending on how recent or near such calamaties occurer.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting ClaiaT,
"God has mercy upon those who submit to rely on the merits of Jesus and who repent of their sins."

In fact, God had had mercy upon those who submit to rely on the merits of Jesus and who repent of their sins.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Dustin:
But how can one believe in Christ, call upon God,or do righteousness without God first changing his heart? A vessel dead in sin cannot up and say, I decide to be righteous, I decide to believe...

Amen! So simple; I cannot understand how people cannot understand.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
That is a classic "two gospel blunder".

Sez you.

In Gal 1 Paul makes it clear that there HAVE NEVER been two Gospels.

In this we agree... Only one Gospel...

The Letter Killeth... *THAT* is _NOT_ Good News...

The Spirit Giveth Life... *THAT* _IS_ Good News...

SMM

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ah Bobryan! Quoting: "Instead of being able to DRAW THEM to a point of salvation as the Bible says - the Calvinist argument is that God MUST first SAVE THEN DRAW because He can not manage to do it the way He claims to be doing it - DRAW and THEN save."
What is impossible with man is possible with God. You Arminians say: First repent and convert yourselves and then be saved and regenerated; Calvinism - as do the Gospel - says, Regenerated by the sovereign will and power of God - who - Himself - afterwards, still, will, give you repentance, and still Himself, will, convert you and still by His own divine power, will, make fruit grow in your life.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Gospel 101.

John 3:16 "God so loved the WORLD that He gave..." Yes really!

1John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" -- yes "really".

1John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD" -- Yes really!

Rom 2:11-13 "There is NO paritiality with God" --- Yes really!

2Peter 3 " God is NOT WILLING for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" -- Yes "really"!

The Arminian POV is based on ACCEPTING the Bible where the Calvinist view requires rejection of it.

Then the Calvinist response is invariably "failed attempts to BE God" in trying to out-think HOW HE does IT!!

In Christ,

Bob

What parade of incompetence and ignorance!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I bet you - Bob Ryan - has never read one sentence of Calvin's; nor of Luther's; nor of the Puritans'; not even of men like Spurgeon and hundreds of Calvinists of centuries - Lloyd Jones's etc.
All you have ever read, it is clear, is your own Church's doctrinizing. I think you not even paid much attention to your Mrs White. Or follow her like a zombi, because she wrote - I have read - : There is no election but man's election of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In Rev 3 we have the Gospel101 lesson perfectly illustrated

"Behold I stand at the door and knock" -- Christ on the OUTSIDE. The Sinner, lost and alone on the INSIDE without Christ, without hope.

"IF anyone hears my voice AND OPENS THE DOOR" -- Christ on the OUTSIDE is knocking but NOT tearing down the door! He WAITS for the one on the INSIDE to OPEN!!

And when they do--- "FELLOWSHIP" results
"I WILL come in and dine WITH him"

In Christ,

Bob

Now if we look at the topic of this thread, you by implication actually say, the Law makes the difference: First how I 'obey', then gets saved.
Have it all for yourselves, dear Bob.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In Rev 3 we have the Gospel101 lesson perfectly illustrated

"Behold I stand at the door and knock" -- Christ on the OUTSIDE. The Sinner, lost and alone on the INSIDE without Christ, without hope.

"IF anyone hears my voice AND OPENS THE DOOR" -- Christ on the OUTSIDE is knocking but NOT tearing down the door! He WAITS for the one on the INSIDE to OPEN!!

And when they do--- "FELLOWSHIP" results
"I WILL come in and dine WITH him"

In Christ,

Bob

But this is one text from Rv I have much pondered.
"Behold I stand at the door and knock" -- Christ on the OUTSIDE, penetrating the heart despite its closed door : through His WORD. The Sinner, lost and alone on the INSIDE without Christ, without hope : Lazarus the dead man, hears, and lives!

"IF anyone hears my voice AND OPENS THE DOOR" -- supposing: "if ..." by the mercy of God both by choosing this individual to knock at and to call at the door, and second to enable him to hear and receive. Christ on the OUTSIDE is knocking but NOT tearing down the door! Indeed! We stay who we are: undeserving, fallen, weak, corrupted totally, yet being shown grace despite. He does not WAIT for the one on the INSIDE to OPEN He enters against His will and despite his wishes, to dine with him. God loved us while we were sinners, and haters of God. What do think does Christ at the door for? Because the one 'in there' is His enemy must be saved because God's will.

And when they do--- "FELLOWSHIP" results
"I WILL come in and dine WITH him"

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Dustin,

Do you agree with this statement:

Those whom God chooses are the "whosoeverwills".

Mike

The 'who so ever willeth's' are those who will by the grace of God - upon whom God had been mercifull already - so they are the ones who will to believe. Any honest Christian knows that. Goodness, who wants to declare that he willed to accept God and His mercy even before God introduced him to it? You think you can stay one step in front of God the while you're miles behind; if in pace with God, you think only how far behind you are, and realise better and better through life, it's not I who keep up; but God who turns back for me every moment I breath His manifold mercies.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
Do any of you truly believe that God would give people all these commands to do and not to do things and then have created them not to be able to even repsond to anything He asks them to do or not do?

I dont care what theological term you use for it, to me thats CRUELTY, and my God isnt a monster.

Claudia

No Claudia, don't blame God; He did not "create" us that way. But remember HOW we got that way: By man (Adam) WILLING FREELY. Now we think we are better that the unfallen Adam, and many ages of being sinners nevertheless can choose better than Adam did. Wake up to reality: we are sinners; sinners saved by grace through faith - the faith of Christ. God saves NONE but sinners.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Dustin:
Has anyone els read the first 10 verses of Ephesians which explains that all believers were presdestined to adoption as sons by Christ to himself, according to the pleasure of His will?

SD28guy sez "Do you agree with this statement:

Those whom God chooses are the "whosoeverwills".


Again if we're spiritually dead in our sins, how can we WILL to believe in Christ? If we, by nature, will not seek God, how can we do so without God changing our hearts, and unstopping our ears, and unblinding our eyes? WE cannot make that change, only God can.


Claudia sez: "Do any of you truly believe that God would give people all these commands to do and not to do things and then have created them not to be able to even repsond to anything He asks them to do or not do?"

I do. God created us. Who are we to say His ways are unfair? His ideas and thoughts are so far above us, how can we understand Him? Why save ANY of us, when we all deserve hell, for sinning against a holy and just God? Knowing that we don't deserve Christ, and knowing at the same time God GAVE us to Christ, makes God's grace all the more amazing, and His glory all the more evident.

Thank you, Dustin; I find great comfort in what you have said. And praise our God for His mercy. Thanks! God bless you.
Gerhard

 

[BobRyan]

GE He does not WAIT for the one on the INSIDE to OPEN He enters against His will and despite his wishes, to dine with him

Perfectly stated belief that some suppose -- now lets contrast that belief with what the bible actually says --

Rev 3
20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

21 " He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

How wonderful for man's tradition if INSTEAD of that text we had found

"Behold I DO NOT wait for anyone to hear AND to open the door! Rather I ENTER FIRST - I OPEN the door first - AGAINST the will of the one on the inside!"

But that would be "another bible" entirely wouldn't it?! One written by man-made-tradition.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Ed Sutton;
I can't believe you would use those under the Law Covenant to try and justify being saved today. They had concubines (we certainly can not, they offered beast of the field for their sins, we certainly can not, they had more than one wife, we certainly can not.)

Also, You use the one committing adultery with his father's wife as being saved.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Ed Sutton;
I do believe I recall something like this in a couple of places in the Bible, as to a man being "with a woman not his wife, committing adultery with her and be saved at the same time", to use your words.

I'd suggest that David would qualify as one of those. I'd also suggest that the individual in I Cor. who was with "his father's wife", is another.

1 Corinthians, chapter 5
1": It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1 Corinthians, chapter 5
"12": For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

"13": But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person
(No Salvation here!!!)

Come on Ed, its not like you to use such a statement, is there some hidden reason to do so? </font>[/QUOTE]No, Bob, I had no ulterior motive. I merely answered the question as you wrote it, at the time. I did not read all the posts before getting involved, but answered them as I came to them. You have somewhat altered the question by expanding in later posts, that you are talking about a specific instance and a "lost man". That was not clear at the time, nor the question you asked that I responded to.

The question was then, and I quote:

We are not talking about Salvation here. Salvation is of the Lord. We are talking if a man has to quit doing wrong, can he be in the act of adultery and be saved without first quitting. You still haven't answered it.

I can't put it too plain without getting thrown off here, but can he be with a woman not his wife, committing adultery with her and be saved at the same time. answer please?

The answer was and still is "Yes!" David is Exhibit "A". Described as 'the man after God's own heart', he certainly, IMO at least, was saved before he committed adultery with the woman who is unnamed in Scripture other than three titles, the most common of which we know as Bathsheba ('Daughter of' Sheba, literally) or "Her that had been the wife of Uriah", whom David arraigned to have subsequently murdered, after finding out that she was "with child". (You're the daddy!!). David was saved before his act of adultery; David was saved while he was "committing adultery with her"; David was saved after his act of adultery with her: David was saved while having Uriah murdered - er, I mean killed in battle; David was saved when he was confronted by Nathan; David was saved when he confessed and asked God to restore the joy of his salvation, after this, not his salvation itself, which he never ceased to have, as recorded in Psalm 51.

David never 'stopped' "being saved", during any of this, even when Scripture declares:

"But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD." (II Sam. 11:27b, NJKV)

But I would offer that he did pay a heavy price for this.

Secondly, you now write (but not then):

"I can't believe you would use those under the Law Covenant to try and justify being saved today. They had concubines (we certainly can not, they offered beast of the field for their sins, we certainly can not, they had more than one wife, we certainly can not.)"

I'm not sure that "those under the Law Covenant" are any different than 'those under "the Grace Covenant"' as to adultery. Another poster has well put that the offering of the "beast of the field" did not 'take away sins', but merely 'covered' them, as in Hebrews. Nor was one 'saved' differently under the Law than under Grace. Read Romans 4. Salvation was and is "by faith", with righteousness accounted "apart from works", and with a citing from David, himself, in the chapter. I'll offer that a 'mistress', to use a genteel term, of a married man is in essence, a concubine. And there are groups that do practice multiple marriages, to this day, although they are not very common. (And probably displease God, as well, as I read Scripture, also.) In fact, was there not a mention in the news, only in the last couple of weeks, of such recently in some Western state?

As to the individual in I Cor. 5, I'd say that since the ones who are addressed are described as "the church which is at Corinth; sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called saints", none of which terms, to my knowledge, are used of unsaved individuals in Scripture, that the addressees are saved. (Based on the whole overall reading of the Corinthian epistles, I'd suggest that many of the saints weren't acting very 'saintly' at all, however.) Since the one is "among you", that implies to me that he was a saint, hence a saved individual. Paul is telling the Corinthians, as I read it, to "church" him, to use a term that many of us Kentuckians would know, even though many of other areas would not. ('Disfellowship' or discipline him, for those in Palm Beach County and Rio Linda.) The verses you cited (I Cor. 5:12,13) support this as well, but do not say as you wrote "(No Salvation here!!!)"!
I'd add that II Cor. 2:1-10 seems to refer to a particular individual, and I believe it is this individual, considering the language, and he should now be restored, having apparently confessed and forsaken this.

That, and that only was my point. I cannot be responsible for taking something at face value, as written, when the meaning is not what you or any other may have intended. There have been adequate posts in this thread on the idea of 'free grace'.

I have previously tended to be one of those, in belief. I may however, be rethinking a bit of this. I want to be identified with those Scripture calls righteous, faithful, and godly. How about you or any other? Is that a good group to want to be associated with, for Biblical 'heroes'?

Awaiting a response, on this one.

In his grace,

Ed

 

[gekko]

ok - i want to get back into this discussion.

could somebody please sum up in three or four points - what each side of the argument believes?

God bless - i will read the other posts after school...

 

[gekko]

ecclesiastes 12: 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

 

[gekko]

this verse wasn't in conclusion to the thread though... c'mon people - lets get over 300! hahaha.