:thumbs:
:thumbs:
-
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!
No Law- no happiness
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
[add] Oh, wait a minute, you were talking about Willis's reply and not Christ's reply to the 'eternal life queries'.
Never mind.
FWIW, I mostly agree with Willis, I'm also mostly messing with him to try get him to do some 'dividing'.
It's all about rightly dividing. Christ's reply was in line with how we're all going to be judged:
"Concerning the tribunal of Christ, only works, deeds, and doing are mentioned as the criteria in the scriptures for ALL OF US, 'saved' or 'lost'."
Again, it's all about 'rightly dividing':
Compare:
......by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16
With:
......the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:14
Both statements are true.
Never mind.
FWIW, I mostly agree with Willis, I'm also mostly messing with him to try get him to do some 'dividing'.
It's all about rightly dividing. Christ's reply was in line with how we're all going to be judged:
"Concerning the tribunal of Christ, only works, deeds, and doing are mentioned as the criteria in the scriptures for ALL OF US, 'saved' or 'lost'."
Again, it's all about 'rightly dividing':
Compare:
......by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16
With:
......the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:14
Both statements are true.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fred's Wife
Member
Prior to Mount Sinai, God administered His unchangeable, moral absolutes in ways other than the Mosaic Law. Therefore God's eternal moral absolutes can be in effect without the Mosaic Law being in effect.
Before the Mosaic Law was instituted, there were people who lived righteous lives in conformity to God's moral absolutes:
1. Abel (Hebrews 11:4)
2. Enoch (Genesis 5:22, 24; Hebrews 11:5)
3. Noah (Genesis 6:9; Ezekiel 14:14, 20)
4. Job (Job 1:8; 2:3; Ezekiel 14:14, 20)
The fact that some people lived righeous lives in conformity to God's moral absolutes before God instituted the Mosaic Law is an indication of two things:
1. People can be related to the eternal, unchangeable, moral absolutes of God without being under the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law.
2. It is possible for a person to be free from the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law without being lawless.
Resource: There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology, by Renald E. Showers, pg. 187-188 (excerpts)
Before the Mosaic Law was instituted, there were people who lived righteous lives in conformity to God's moral absolutes:
1. Abel (Hebrews 11:4)
2. Enoch (Genesis 5:22, 24; Hebrews 11:5)
3. Noah (Genesis 6:9; Ezekiel 14:14, 20)
4. Job (Job 1:8; 2:3; Ezekiel 14:14, 20)
The fact that some people lived righeous lives in conformity to God's moral absolutes before God instituted the Mosaic Law is an indication of two things:
1. People can be related to the eternal, unchangeable, moral absolutes of God without being under the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law.
2. It is possible for a person to be free from the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law without being lawless.
Resource: There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology, by Renald E. Showers, pg. 187-188 (excerpts)
What???
What are you talking about?????
Do you even know??
Why ON EARTH does that matter?????
convicted1
Guest
I asked you first.
You asked me an irrelevant question based on erroneous premises.
The Ten Commandments do NOT all begin with "Thou shalt not"
Furthermore, why would it matter if they did?
Why would it matter that the OT commandments start with "Thou shalt not" and New Testament commandments start with whatever you erroneously think they start with?
Do you see? This is why I am right about this and you are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about.
Smooth :laugh:.....are you aware you just insulted the guy? Really, your comment was demeaning. Im well aware you like to be direct & that is the way men need to speak to men but clearly this was not the best way to have approached Willis. Your better than that! :thumbsup:
convicted1
Guest
No he's not. That's the way he rolls. He is going to get his M. Div., so that makes him that much smarter than us "backwoods, uneducated, experienced based, preachers." I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he sat one of his professors down and taught them what John Calvin actually said.
convicted1
Guest
IOW, you don't have a clue.
convicted1
Guest
I started another christian website a while back, and I asked a Brother this very question, to which you don't have an answer, and this is what they stated:
I think he "slam dunked" it!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
saturneptune
New Member
I really do not have a right to say anything, because of some of my responses in the past, but I am honestly trying to work on being more civil. All I can say is that I have lots of respect for Convicted 1, Luke 2427, and Earth, Wind and Fire.
Psalms 23 "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want..........."
Psalms 23 "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want..........."
convicted1
Guest
I have much respect for all on here. I do not ever wish to offend any of them, but when when we get mad, and the flesh comes to the forefront, nothing good can come of it if we don't bring back under subjection. I know I have been guilty of it on here many times. The problem I have is those who say I don't know what I am talking about based solely on their view of that particular subject, whether it's about the bible, or something in the secular realm. That childishness to the inth degree.
We all have the ability to read, but to have the ability ot rightly divide God's Word comes solely through the Spirit as we read. There's nothing I've held in my hands that means more to me than God's Word, which we call the bible. That also includes my wife. As much as I love her, and would give my life for her, she doesn't compare to the bible. It is what I have based my whole existence upon. But just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about.
No, it is not an insult. It is a fact.
He asked an irrelevant question based on the erroneous premise that all the Ten Commandments begin with "Thou shalt not..."
That's a fact.
There is no insult there.
It is a fact.
Plain and simple.
He did not "slam dunk it". That is an ignorant response, frankly, without a SHRED of exegetical support.
It seems as if you think that if you can put enough exclamation points and thumbs ups behind something and really gush like a school girl over it, that makes it true.
It does not.
Truth does not have to do with how "cool" something sounds.
Truth has nothing to do with how cute you can say it with turn of phrase and all of that.
Nothing has made the church more mind-numbingly stupid in this culture than "bumper sticker" statements like "prayer changes things" etc, etc...
The fact of the matter is that there is NO, NONE, NADA, not one tiny BIT of biblical support for that cute nonsense that the old law was for Esau and the new for Jacob.
But it sounds cool to you so it must be true.
He NAILED it !!!!
WooHOO!!!
Enter Willis jumping with palm-palms like a cheerleader.
convicted1
Guest
****entering in with my pom poms****** not palm-palms those are part of your hand, not something you shake in them........
Study Esau and Jacob and what they symbol and get back to me....
all that fluff and STILL no answer, eh? Go ahead and admit it, you haven't a clue unless someone like Johnny Boy Calvin spells it out for you, you haven't the foggiest.....
Study Esau and Jacob and what they symbol and get back to me....
all that fluff and STILL no answer, eh? Go ahead and admit it, you haven't a clue unless someone like Johnny Boy Calvin spells it out for you, you haven't the foggiest.....
Yes, you are right about the spelling of "pom poms."
As for "what Jacob and Esau symbol..." I do not know what you are talking about.
They "symbol" several things.
Which one are you wanting to cherry pick to suit you here?
The answer to the question has been given to you several times.
Perhaps you need an oversimplified answer in order to recognize it.
I'll try to simplify the answer more so that you can get it this time.
The answer to your question is....
pay close attention here...
The Ten Commandments DO NOT ALL BEGIN WITH "THOU SHALT NOT..."
Did you get it that time?
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
Okay, so 7 out of 10 start with "Thou shalt not", but if Johnny Boy Calvin espoused what I am conveying, you'd be all over it like a "duck on a junebug".
The point I am making is the the Law was a fleshly covenant that no man other than Christ has been able to keep perfectly. It is directed towards the flesh, and Esau is a symbol of the fleshly man.
Christ took the Law and nailed it to the cross in His flesh. He swallowed up the Law, if you will, and when we are saved, He comes in and takes up His abode in our lives, and we keep the Law(moral law, that is) based solely on the fact that He abides within us now. He took the Law and abolished it in His flesh, and we now have the two "Thou shalts", because we are dead, and our lives are hid with Christ in God.
Why? Because you say so?
The Bible is what I am interested in, Willis. The Bible, rightly divided in its context. I do not agree with Calvin on everything, but I do agree with him on many things because he, too, was most interested in the Bible, rightly divided and in its context.
It is not directed at the flesh. Why do you say that it is directed at the flesh.
In fact, Paul says the dead level OPPOSITE of what you purport here. Paul says, "The law is spiritual, but I am carnal." He goes on to say, "I delight in the law AFTER THE INWARD MAN..."
That's the spiritual man!
The law is not FOR THE FLESH. It does not aim at the flesh. It is not "directed at the flesh" (whatever in the world that means!).
It is spiritual.
Spiritual people love it and long to keep it. They "delight in the law of the Lord and in God's law they meditate day and night" (Psalm 1).
He did not nail "the law" to his cross and take it away. He nailed the list of our offenses to the cross. He nailed the many times we had broken the law of God recorded against us to his cross.
No where does the Bible say that Jesus NAILED the moral law of God to his cross!
So we DO KEEP the moral law now??? Be consistent please.
,
No he did not. You just SAYING he did does not mean that he did. NO WHERE does the Bible say that Jesus ABOLISHED the moral law of God. NO WHERE.
He fulfilled it. He is the GOAL of it. He crucified the long list of our offenses against God's law. But NO WHERE does the Bible say he "abolished" God's law.
In fact, Jesus said he came to do the DEAD LEVEL OPPOSITE of "abolishing the law."
He said in no uncertain terms, "Think not that I am come to destroy (abolish) the law. I came not to destroy it but to fulfill it."
Why do you think the commandments beginning with "Thou shalt..." is relevant to this discussion?
Haven't we already shown you sufficiently that you were wrong about that cute thinking you had earlier that all the Ten Commandments begin with "thou shalt not..."?
saturneptune
New Member
Would it help you two if we come out with a version of Exodus that says, "Now God says this is a no, no.............."