Featured Pardon by Grace or by Works?

You need to stop. What you just posted out of context is dishonest. Just because Biblicist denies something in a debate with me, that does not make what I say as being the dishonest one. Now stop playing favorites. What is being done about Biblicist having two accounts?
Now try answering the questions I gave you. Let us get to the root of what you really believe.

 

Go back and read the post. You dishonestly portrayed Biblicist's beliefs. He never said sin was ok. He posted that "sin is not ok." And then you accuse him of believing that sin is ok, or at least implying that that is what he believes. That is dishonest.

 

DHK,
Biblicist did say the moral law was abolished on the cross. If the moral law is abolished, then it does make sin okay. In fact, that is what you believe too when you keep saying we are not saved by works. When you accuse my beliefs as being heretical, get prepared to have your beliefs disproven.

 

Your reading comprehension skills are not too good are they? I explicitly said that sin is not ok. Look at the very words you quoted from me:

You are admitting that the PENALTY of that law has been abolished. Good! Because that is the sense in which I mean the whole moral law has been abolished because Christ paid the PENALTY in full and thus we are not under any of the Law for condemnation. It has also been abolished as a theocratic government administration. - TB

Try reading it to understand what I said. I pointed out that you admitted that the PENALTY of the law has been abolished. Did you get that? Look back at your own post which I responded to where you acknowledge this. Hence, I am agreeing with you on that point or can you comprehend what you have said?????

Second, look how I qualify my next statement: "Good, BECAUSE THAT IS THE SENSE IN WHICH I MEAN the whole moreal law has ben abolished because Christ paid THE PENALTY in full and thus we are not under any of the Law FOR CONDEMNATION.

Can you comprehend that careful qualified statement? Do you believe that you are still under the CIVIL THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL????? If not, then you are not under the CIVIL THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION of the Law? Do you believe you are still under the CEREMONIAL LAW OF ISRAEL? If not then you are no longer under the CEREMONIAL LAW of Israel. Do you believe you have been morally JUSTIFIED by faith before God? If so, then you are no longer under the CONDEMNATION of the moral Law of God.

I have proven that the Moral Law is included with the Ceremonial Law in Romans 2:16-27; Romans 3:9-31; Romans 4:1-15; Romans 6-7. They are not separated from each other but we are no longer "under the law" (Romans 6:14) and it is the moral law he is speaking about as Romans 7:8 proves and the term "the law" previous to Romans 6:14 proves.

You cannot disprove what I said and so you will stoop to personal ridicule which only demonstrates you have no substance to support your case.

 

Would you be seeing here that the Law no longer is an obligation for us today under the new Covenant as it was to isreal, and that jesus death completely fulfilled ALL our obligations towards God for keeping it, but that we still live under/by the Moral aspect of the law, NOT to get justified before God by keeping the law, but to live in a way pleasing to God!

 

The law was "added" to define sin. It is still good to define sin and lead a person away from their own works of righteousness to faith in Christ.

We are no longer under the Old Covenant ADMINISTRATION of the law as that was a THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRTION. We are no longer under the PENALTY of the law as we have been JUSTIFIED by grace through faith.

The law is still the divine STANDARD of MORAL right and wrong and the civil laws as well as the ceremonial laws were founded upon the MORAL principles of the Ten commandments. The Ten commandments still serve as the MORAL STANDARD of right and wrong and thus teach us the nature of sin and direct us to Christ.

 

I should let him answer for himself, but I will try to put it in my own words and see if I get it right.
The Ten Commandments (basically the moral law) was included in the entirety of the civil law of the Jews. That Law--civil and ceremonial was done away with at the cross. Hence the Ten Commandments as well. This of course would do away with the Sabbath Day included in the Ten.
Jesus gave us his law to abide by. He gave us the moral law back again summarized in the two great commandments, but in so doing I believe it was minus the Sabbath Day Command. That was a command specific only to the Jews. Living under grace we are to follow the commands of Christ, and the principles that are set forth in the NT.

 

Keep your little personal anger rants to yourself. Do you really think that I cannot think of worse cut downs to say to you? I can, but I choose to obey God.

Not everyone sees the implications of their own beliefs. When you say we do not have to obey anything from the Old Testament because Jesus died for us that IS saying it is okay to sin. Are you forgetting about those who do not become Christians? God still will judge them for what they have done, and those who live under the law will be judged according to the law, Romans 2:12. You said the moral law was abolished, you not only said the punishment was abolished; you said the moral law was abolished. Keep in mind that you are the one who teaches we do not have to repent before God saves us. Face it, you believe that all humans are born totally depraved, that alone gives reason to believe we are not responsible for our sins. Put those two beliefs of yours together, and you have two solid reasons to teach man is not responsible for what he does and will not be held accountable. Explain how God will judge people if they cannot do any good and only bad, that they were born that way, and that God nailed the moral laws anyway. Talk about comprehension skills being needed… What you teach is nonsense. IMHO.
Romans 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Just because those in Christ do not pay the penalty for the moral law, that does not mean morals are abolished. To say that morals are abolished is to say that it is not a sin to sin.

 

That is not true. We are no longer under the law.

Are you? How active are you in carrying out the Great Commission?

Only the Jew believes he is under the law; not all the unsaved.

The moral law as defined in the Ten Commandments was nailed to the cross. The Law cannot save. It only has the function of pointing out our sinfulness. It is Christ that saves.

That is not true. We sin because we are depraved. We also sin because we want to sin. Both are true. And when we do sin we are responsible for the sin we do, just as you are responsible for the things that you post, and the people that you misrepresent when you do post.

You misunderstand the teaching.

Unsaved people cannot do any good that will please God.

You accused him falsely. He never said "It is ok to sin." That is your false accusation, in essence a lie. If you didn't read that or read it and didn't understand that, then he is right. You don't have good comprehension skills. Either that or you are a deliberate liar. Which do you choose?

What is the context of this verse?
It is the Jews that have the law. Did you also read verses 4 and 5 to put things into context.

Who said anything about morals being abolished. Now you are putting words in people's mouths which is dishonest. You are falsely misrepresenting people once again. The Ten Commandments, as part of the civil law was nailed to the cross. The two great commandments as reiterated by Christ was not. That can be summarized as God's moral law. Which do you follow: the commands of Christ or the commands of Moses?

 

You think you can say whatever you want and slander because someone let you be moderator. Follow the rules of the board and stop attacking me. It is creepy the way you speak to others.
Are you and Biblicist the same person? Stop using your moderator power to call me names for him.
You believe people cannot have true repentance before they are saved, you might as well believe like SBM, same with Biblicist, you both do not understand the implications to what you believe and teach. God says believe and repent…Biblicist no we cannot save us first. You say I can believe but will not be sorry for my sins. Both your beliefs would be hysterically funny, except that I would be horrified to even teach people what you two do, or should I say three, for SBM is the other one who teaches we cannot do what God tells us to do to be saved. It amounts to believing God nailed repenting to the cross, and not just the works of the law like circumcision.
You do not even let anyone post their beliefs here. You take it upon yourself to use this forum as a chance to fulfill your wicked thoughts and tongue toward others.
Which is it? Are you a liar or a liar? You are a joke.

 

Agree!

I see the Moral aspects of the law revealing the nature of God unto us, and what He requires his people to live by...

Jesus death provided for us freedom from the obligation owed God of law breaking, and failure to meets it standards, and while the Moral Law still in force today, God gives us His Spirit in order to have the empowering needed in order to live as God desires us to...

Our new natures desire to please and obey God, thus "keeping" the law morally, but we still MUST reply upon the Holy Spirit to do such!

 

Prove to me that I slandered you.

Do you reserve the right to attack people all for yourself. This is news.
It is a debate forum. If you can't take the heat get out of the line of fire.

First we are not the same person.
Second, we don't even share the same beliefs on many things.
Third, I do not call you names; I point out what you do.

Actually, unlike a couple of other posters on this board, I do believe that. I don't believe that you know what repentance is, and I don't define repentance the same way you do. That is where we part.

You are wrong. In fact some of the things that you post are totally unbiblical, but you refuse to listen to what others say. You just call them names instead, as noted in this post.

I said: I don't equate being sorry for your sins with repentance. Remember, that I and Biblicist do not believe the same on this issue (regeneration, faith, and salvation).

Your belief is just as unbiblical. You are at the other end of the spectrum preaching a gospel of works. SBM also preaches a gospel of works without realizing it.

Here you misrepresent my beliefs.

You are freely posting what you want right now aren't you. So you are telling another lie. Let me ask you two or three questions?
How many times does it take a person to commit a murder before he is called a murderer?
How many times does it take a person to commit adultery before he is called an adulterer?
How many times does it take a person to lie before he is called a liar?
How many times have you lied on this forum?

This is an ugly attack for which you have gained for yourself an infraction.