Featured The OT still counts

. . . and hallows your Marxism.

 

It appears we have another person responding who knows nothing about socialism nor Marxism. I see nothing in your reply that is remotely associated with the topic of the thread.

Thoughtless, irrational one-liners are so tiresome on the BB. Try thinking before typing. Try reading and learning before responding. Thanks.

 

It has everything to do with the topic. You want to wink at abortion and sodomy and roll over for Obama. Here you cite grace to justify it.

You have no understanding of grace or the law.

 

It's pointless to have any type of conversation with Aaron, it's a waste of time and you know it.

 

they were under the old covenantrelationship, we have the new and better new one!

Under Grace of the Gospel, we can do what NONE of them could actually do, and that is be able to keep the law as intended by god, as to the spirit,not letter of the law!

So we do read and study the OT to see principles/ways he has towards his people, and to gain understanding of just what happened in the Cross, as ALL ot points towards his coming!

One saying that we are not bound to the OT law does not mean that we do not read and study the OT, its just that we do come to it and read it thru Christ and the Cross!

 

The presense or abscense of God's Grace on each individual. Those who are saved, are accounted righteous through Jesus' shed blood. Those who are lost, aren't righteous, because they don't have the blood.


Now, how 'bout these verses I can't get an answer from?

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.


Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

 

I hafta agree with this wonderful post!!

 

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'.

You're 'preaching to the choir' Willis, I know these things are true, but 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

How do you rightly divide that?

 

NONE have EVER been rightous before God, apart from the blood of jesus applied towards their sins!

 

In lieu of your typical knee jerk response w/ no scriptural substance, take a stab at rightly dividing it with scripture, if that's possible with you.

[add] Clarification; your statement, "NONE have EVER been rightous before God, apart from the blood of jesus applied towards their sins", is scripturally sound, but you have not refuted the fact, with scripture, that we ALL are going to be judged by our works.

Actually, it's an irrefutable fact.

 

Brother Larry, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we're going to be judged according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil. I have come to view "works" and "fruits" as one-and-the-same, in that the works we do, we do them, not because we have to, per se, but because we want to. People see our works, and it is the evidence of Who we are working for.

Now, as for Romans 2:13 and Galatians 2:14, I am gonna have to study this some more. I read them both, and am still pondering on the context of each.

 

Thank you for the answers....:thumbs:

What I am trying to convey is that the Law, it was a fleshly covenant that God had with the Jews. Jesus fulfilled the Law, and took it away, nailing it to the cross. The moral aspect of the Law is still there, correct, but we aren't under the obligation of the Law, but Grace, seeing that Christ ushered it in with His death, burial, resurrction, and ascension.

 

It is bad Hermeneutics....But...it's also not Dispensationalism either. I'm dispy...so is Scofield, and no Dispensationalist I am aware of with any decent knowledge of Scripture believes that way. And as the article pretends is the case; no knowledgeably Dispy believes that there were ever TWO routes to Salvation, one for the O.T. Saint and another for the New. Even Scofield didn't believe that. If that was your experience, ky, then you were simply raised in a bad church.....but the error wasn't due to Dispensationalism....it was unknowledgeable teaching.

The writer of your article makes numerous errors about Dispensationalist teachings a few are here:

One thing I find amusing is that the disp. who claim to be champions of literalism spiritualize the 7 churches of Rev. which is actually 7 literal existing churches in that day. They make it 7 church ages with no biblical warrant.

Every Dispensationalist I know understands that those were literal existing Churches. They ALSO tend to believe that it holds a deeper prophetic meaning as well.......Even the Scofield notes show this. Having heard this taught/preached about ten different times, read the Scofield notes studied it with the writings of NUMEROUS Dispensational Theologians.........I have NEVER-EVER ONCE heard it taught that those were NOT literal churches. This guy introduced me to that stupid idea. It is not either/or for a dispy...it is both/and, and anyone who actually understands dispensationalism knows this. What I find "amusing" is the piquant irony that this guy is scoffing at a phantom belief of his own imagination.

Now if you disp. want to say that James is just making a reference to the future of the building of the temple what in the world does that have to do with the controversy that he was dealing with?
UH......we don't.......want to. We don't confuse the Tabernacle with the Temple. And strictly speaking.....it could ALSO refer to BOTH if the passage wanted to....Here's a logical hint: Unless two things contradict each other (these interpretations don't) then BOTH meanings are possible.

The [sic] he goes on to show that the promise was made made 430 years before the giving of the law. This of course destroys the disp. position that the OT saints were saved by the law.[/U]

100% agreement...OT saints weren't saved by the law, but, that's not the dispy position. It's just a bad hermeneutic that he has copy/pasted onto the back of Dispensational teaching. He tilts at wind-mills.

It's a-o.k. with me if someone doesn't wanna be a dispy........but, you should probably properly define dispensationalism before you reject it.

 

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Jn 1:17

Scofield reference note:

"(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Rom 3:24-26 4:24,25. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, Jn 1:12,13 3:36 Mt 21:37 22:24 Jn 15:22,25 Heb 1:2 1Jn 5:10-12. The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27. The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" See Scofield Note: "2Tim 3:1" 2Tim 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments."

 

Yes.....and, you still miss the whole point Scofield is making. You put some in red, without reading the qualifier that it is the beginning of a "Dispensation", not the whole of a new salvific plan. Believe me, try as you will you will not find a signifigant number of generally respectable Dispensationalist Theologians who will affirm what you desperately want them to affirm...Why? because it isn't genetic or inherent in the Dispensational system. Dispensationalism isn't a Soteriology. There MAY be dispys who hold that error, but not because Dispensationalism requires it.

You would have us maintain that that form of error is the good and logical end of Dispensationalism, and that's simply not true.

 

SCOFIELD'S BASIC ERRORS (scroll down)

Reveals the roots of many of the early dispie errors.

 

Okay fellers, here's something for y'all to chew on:

Now, if it is contrary to the Law to carry their bed(couch) on the sabbath(and it was, btw), then why did Jesus command these two individuals to take it up and walk?

 

Because it wasn't contrary to the LAW. It was contrary to the additions of traditions that the Pharisees had added to the Law. The man broke no law that was given by God.

 

Are you for sure? I know they weren't supposed to work and feeding and watering their livestock was about the only thing they were allowed to do. Wouldn't carrying one's bed(counch) be in violation of this command?

Listen, I am not saying Jesus was "okaying" for this man to violate on of His own commands, but to prove a point......more on that later.