Fisher of Men

Jesus plainly was conceived before Mary was married to Joseph. Read Matt. 1. No, Jesus was not born an illegitimate child becauae Joseph "took" Mary, meaning they began to live together as husband and wife some months before Jesus was born. During their espoused state, they were given the titles of husband and wife but did not live together. Their culture used the words husband and wife the way we would today use the phrases husband-to-be and wife-to-be. So the definitions of husband and wife possessed duality. There existed the premarital wife and the married wife. So when the angel said to Joseph "fear not to take Mary thy wife", He did not say fear not to take Mary to be thy wife. "Mary thy wife" was the possessive form the same as if I said to you, don't forget to take your wife to the restaurant. Mary was regarded as his "wife" in their form of engagement. So there existed such a thing as a "virgin wife". This is proven to be the case in their culture as far back as Deut. 22 where we again see a wife who is a virgin by way of being betrothed. The translators of the filthy NIV had not the revelation of the duality of the definitions as existed not only in the Jewish but also in the Greek cultures. Even in parts of Africa today among the indigenous tribes, labola (dowry) would be paid and the woman would thereafter possess the title of the man's wife even before the final ceremony after which she would then begin to live with her husband. So the exception clause pertains to any culture where the man could terminate the status of the woman being his wife PRIOR to the time when she became his wife (after our definition meaning the woman is living with her husband). After they are husband and wife meaning living together, no longer in engagement, there is no way out as there was no way out for Adam and Eve. It was impossible for Adam to say Eve was not one flesh with him. That reality could not be altered no matter what she could do except die. And even though Jesus established marriages as unbreakable as Adam and Eve's marriage, those determined to remain under the Law will find ways to circumvent the reality that the lawful husband and wife today possess that identical status as revealed by Jesus and reiterated by Paul in Eph. 5. No man is justified by the law, yet modern Christianity denies that reality and justifies divorce and remarriage as allowed by Moses which Jesus plainly said was not so from the beginning. Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Ignoring the reality of the duality of definitions of "husband" and "wife" and "put away" blinds the ignorer from how a man can be allowed to "divorce" yet at the same time be prohibited to divorce. Divorcing the wife BEFORE marriage was allowable. Divorcing the wife AFTER marriage is NOT allowable as it contradicts "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder". The anger and disdain shown to me for defending this truth is similar to what John the Baptist faced with Herodious. I can say Mark 10:2-12 means exactly what the plain wording appears to be plainly saying as it applies to divorcing the lawfully married wife. The divorce for adultery (prisoners to the law) cannot accept the plain truth as worded there. They must also warn others from being deceived by accepting those plain words in childlike trusting faith. Whoever marries the divorced wife commits adultery because whoever marries her is having sex with another man's wife. The divorce does not dissolve the first lawful marriage. Only death makes the couple no longer one flesh. Just like Adam and Eve. The man who divorces his wife will also be judged and bear responsibility for his wife's adultery by remarriage because by divorcing his wife he is causing her to commit adultery whether it be by remarriage or otherwise. Please, stop saying you believe Jesus' words on divorce and remarriage while you endorse divorce and remarriage. Rather, say you choose to hold to what Moses allowed under the OT law. That would be more honest as the divorce for adultery position must denounce the plain wording in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 The reasoning used from what was omitted in the separate accounts of his resurection etc. are not applicable to the plainly spelled out doctrine of divorce and remarriage. We can piece that together concerning the resurrection. There is no contradiction. Allowing divorce, as do the proponents divorce for adultery, are in direct contradiction of the phrase, "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder. My understanding of the exception clause fully supports that phrase. The woman put away for fornication and the woman divorced in Matt. 5:32 are two separate situations. Thats why the one is NOT being caused to commit adultery while the other DOES commit adultery by marrying another. The putting away for fornication is the premarital divorce, they have not been joined together by God through his institution of marriage. The woman with whom whoever marries her commits adultery had been joined together in marriage. That's the way words work.

FoC writes: The list of sins listed in Gal. that will put someone in hell is accompanied with the phrase, "and such like things". Christians supposedly having the Holy Ghost shouldn't need someone telling them what "such like things" mean. Also "uncleanness" would provide a category for beastiality. It should also be recognised as something "else not according to sound doctrine" as stated by Paul. So it's not true that beastiality is not repeated as a prohibited act under the NT We are not under the OT in Christ except where the 2 covenants share the same moral requirements. Or put more correctly, the 2 covenants share some things in common thought they are distinct and separate covenants. By the NT, divorce is immoral as it disrespects the basis of marriage in the first couple wherein divorce was impossible. Divorce is still impossible seeing that the lawful couple are one body; one person. Like with Adam and Eve, only death can render the couple as no longer one flesh. Moses's allowance for divorce was only for the hardness of hearts. It never was truth. John 1:17 Those going to Deut. 24 etc to try to justify divorce for ANY reason are simply showing their bondage to the OT law in that particular doctrinal area where Christ has brought a change. The NT changes a lot of things. Some things are stricter now under the NT. Some OT things have been relaxed or abolished. Divorce is one of those abolished things as it contradicts the pattern after which marriage was fashioned in Adam and Eve. Mark 10:2-12 happens to be the complete truth as written. Interpreting Matt. 5:32; 19:9 to mean divorce is allowed for adultery is a direct contradiction of the plain wording of Mark 10 and Luke 16:18. The divorce for fornication as exemplified by what Joseph was about to do with Mary (premarital divorce for fornication, not adultery) does NOT contradict the straightforward apparent wording of Mark and Luke. Hence also, "what God has joined together let not man put asunder" is also allowed to mean exactly that. Something that the divorce for adultery position must also contradict.

Just because something is free doesn't mean that there isn't anything necessary for you to do in order to get that which was freely given to you. Imagine you standing in line at a bank waiting to fill out the necessary paperwork on a million dollars that was freely given you. Imagine now someone approaching you and saying, "what are you doing in line? It's free so it doesn't require you to do anything! Man are you deceived, you think that you can earn the million dollars by standing in this line. Don't you know that if it is a free gift you don't have to do anything to earn it?" Our reasonable service is to do what he says we must do morally in our day to day living. That is like waiting in line to receive the promise of eternal life of being changed from a corruptible body into an incorruptible body at his return. The false Christians are those who approach us as we wait in line and accuse us of being deceived for being there. They accuse us of trying to earn salvation when in reality we are only doing our reasonable service necessary in order to get that which has been freely given. So what happens when the person in line is deceived by the false prophets and gets out of line? Would you be silly enough to heed the foolish counsel and get out of line and so forfeit the free gift of a million dollars? Working out our own salvation by fear and trembling is done by simply making sure we stay in that line so we can inherit that which is promised. Noah's day to day labour of building the ark was his line so to speak. By staying in line he maintained a good conscience as he was working out his own salvation. Php. 2: 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Matt. 12 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. When someone is justified by the shed blood of Christ, this means they have accepted the NT on his terms and have therefore repented, prayed, been baptised and received the Holy Ghost, (not necessarily in that order). All this is accredited to grace working through that individual through faith in the Gospels commandments. So yes, the shed blood of Christ is the cause for our right standing with God (justification). And as the shed blood of Christ further effects us to continue in His word and thereby be his disciple indeed we will read the necessity to yield to Him to only let our conversation be as is becoming to the gospel of Christ. We will yield to this as we will know that by our words we shall be justified, and by our words we will be condemned.

2 Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: 15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. It is not necessarily wrong to name those guilty and to warn others of them. 2 John 1: 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. It is not necessarily wrong to label someone as not having God (verse 9) because they abide not in the doctrine of Christ. 3 John 1: 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. 2 Cor. 10: 8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: 9 That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. 10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. 11 Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present. Paul was accused of writing weighty letters as if to terrify them. It wasn't done in pride or maliciousness as some may have accused him. It was done to edify. 2 Cor. 13:10 10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction. My motive for expressing disdain for the heresy that works are not part of justification/salvation as James plainly said they are, is to edify; to awaken the sleeping to come to the simplicity of the gospel; repent or perish; abide in him and bear fruit thereby or be burnt, John 10. There are those who have been edified and there are those who have been offended. By our words (a work) we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned. Isn't it therefore important that we order our conversation aright so that we will be shown his salvation and not be condemned for not keeping our heart with all diligence and for not yielding to him to keep the doors of our mouth? Even here we see our salvation hinging (either justifed or condemned) on whether or not we yield to Him to do what we should. Tess, that is what the redemptive properties of the Gospel are all about. "Through Jesus Christ" denotes the means he has made available for us to be saved from sin to escape having to pay the wages of sin. What is that means? Always bearing about in our bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus that His life might be made manifest in us: believing in his purpose for dying for us and adopting an attitude conducive to that purpose. A child of God who has been corrupted from the mindset that his works do in fact have bearing on his ultimate salvation will have an attitude not acceptable to God and which will effect his behaviour. The child of God who has not been so corrupted holds an attitude of godly fear and caution of what he does and as a father to a son who he delights in, revelation of more truth will be granted. And though he may occasionally fall, his repentance is more heart felt and fervent as he doesn't have the defiled attitude as though his works cannot effect his salvation. The fear of God is clean. We obey him not only out of love but also out of the realization of consequences for not serving him, which realization is the clean fear of God. This fear and loving him go hand in hand. Jesus himself strongly exhorted us to fear Him. He said this in relation to our decision of actions we make. Satan can use fear to cause us to denounce Christ: Luke 12: 4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. 8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: 9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. So again we see works having bearing on whether or not we will be ultimately saved. ALL of the attempted uses of scripture to contradict this simplicity of the gospel are a misuse of scripture and which it is not incorrect to call ignorance as Peter was merciful to the Jews who had killed their own Messiah by realising that they did it through ignorance.

John 5: 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I think some on this thread are marvelling when they ought not to be. The wages of sin is still death. Because you have accepted Jesus, this law has not changed. In fact because of it Jesus' death was necessary. He hasn't thrown out the law that the wages of sin is death as many in effect presume. He came rather to grant us grace or strength so that we can not be on the wrong side of that law at judgment. Acts 3: 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. This is his purpose in dying for us and rising again. This is the blessing and freedom that the NT is all about: turning us from our iniquity. Why? Because the wages of sin is death! He doesn't want us to die, so he died to take our place for what we deserved and then by that death we could receive His Spirit, the resurrected Christ living in us over whom sin has no dominion. Do we have the faith to believe that, and to walk in that Spirit and so not fulfil the lust of the flesh and so escape the wages of sin? Or will we receive a bastardized demonic doctrine denying the very purpose for his coming and separate faith from works and works from salvation? The quickening enabling power from God to change our behaviour is the definition of grace as found in Eph. 2:5 (1-3). There are some among you trying to maintain the very unbiblical restricted undefined definition that grace means unmerited favour only and the definition of that relieves the believer of the fear of God concerning what he does so that the quotation from John 5 above has to be weedled out of. Is it not true that all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation? Is it not true that we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works so that we will be on the right side of that resurrection? In Matt. 25 those found worthy of eternity did so on account of what they did as in Heb. 11 concerning faith, what we see there is what people did because of their faith. We see in that chapter how Noah condemned the world. The modern day Noahs faithfully working out their own salvation by yielding to God to will and to do of His good pleasure will warn others and in effect also condemn the world by those warnings for their words will come to pass in the end. Those on this thread fighting against the truth will be ashamed in the end when they find that Paul wasn't speaking against works for salvation in Eph. 2. He was speaking against boasting of good works as if they are of ourselves. The truth is that the good works a Christian does are not of themselves but of Him who has called them and works in them, for they are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Their good works are not their own workmanship. The righteousness we see manifested in the lives of the Ephesians (2:1-3) was not of themselves lest they should boast. It was of Him. 1 Cor. 1: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. There are some on this thread incapable of grasping this concept. Numerous times Paul reiterates this thought concerning it being God that we give credit for for the good we do. For it is he who is responsible for it! That's what Eph. 2:1-10 is all about. He is not casting out works in their connection with salvation, He is putting works in their proper perspective as that which He is ultimately doing in our lives for we are his workmanship. The measure of our abiding in Him and being in the faith is reflected in how much of an overcomer we are. If we are not abiding in him as the branch must abide in the vine, then we will be burnt. Abiding in Him cannot be separated from what we do, (think, say and behave). Hence, we are saved in the end for abiding in Him who keeps us from sin so we won't receive those wages.

Fisher, you seem to show a true lack of understanding when it comes to Scripture. But hey, don't let me tell ya, let's let Paul blow the above statement out of the water: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you telling me that nobody knows the work we can do to get faith? Everything about our salvation revolves around works. After hearing the gospel message, you had to make a conscious decision to do something. Do you know what that something was. Without that work, you would not have repented (a work) prayed (a work) sought him for the Spirit (a work) and been baptized (a work). Ovedya, There were some very serious flaws in your explanation of Eph. 2. You left out a major component in what Paul is saying in Eph. 2:1-3; those deeds of walking according to the prince of the power of the air thereby making them children of disobedience was no longer a reality. Hence the definition of saved in this chapter means saved from committing those sins since they were no longer doing them. But leaving it out is crucial in order to justify the heresy that he came to save us in spite of our sin instead of FROM our sin. Let's suppose we were talking about different means of travel. Let's say air travel and traveling by land. When we speak of air travel we know that machinery is involved making it possible to travel that way. It's all about words and how they are understood. If I say I prefer to travel by air am I going to be accused of claiming that I can spread my arms and take off like a bird? But you see that is the ignorant way in which Paul's writings are taken. When he speaks of being justified by faith, the ignorant have assumed that there is nothing else to it the same way if I say I'm going by air, it could be construed that no machinery is involved. In Romans 5 when Paul speaks of being justified by faith, He is speaking to those who had heard, believed, repented, were baptized, received the Holy Ghost and were walking in newness of life. Yes they were justified, they were right with God. It all started with and is attributed to faith in Jesus which made it possible and by which all of these things depend. The new system (NT) is represented by the term justified by faith which is understood to mean that certain works are necessary in order to get there and in order to stay there. The old system (OT) is represented by the term "the works of the law" by which no man is justified. Hence we see the difference between what Paul is referring to in Rom. 3 and what James is referring to in chapter 2. Paul is saying that since Jesus has come, a person cannot be justified by obeying the OT. In order to be right with God a person must accept the sacrifice for sins through faith in Jesus and accept his system; repentance baptism, receiving of the Holy Spirit and continuing to be obedient to the NT. However morally correct a person can be outside of accepting Jesus, their good works don't mean anything for their sins are still hanging over their heads, they having not been forgiven and regenerated as a result of faith in Jesus. Hence, no man is justified by the law. James is not referring to the same thing as Paul was when he said that works ARE necessary for justification giving us Abrahams example of obedience. (James 2) James was making reference to obedience to the NT which does justify us and Paul was making reference to obedience to OT things: 1) outside of faith in Jesus or 2) OT things that are obsolete or contradictory to the new and better NT. These things do NOT justify (puts one in right standing with God.) Submitting to Christs words initially by faith; repentance, etc. and consciously making effort by faith and grace to continue in that obedience to his word in all areas of our behaviour after being initially saved DOES justify. As long as Noah was working, he was at peace with God and was assured that God would see him and his family through. He had a good conscience. Paul is saying the same thing in Rom. 5: 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. When reading "justified by faith", don't forget the airplane.

Paul is not saying salvation comes without the need of works. He is saying that the works they experience (obedience, loving their neighbor etc as a result of being quickened, Eph. 2:1-3,5) are not of themselves lest they should boast but of Him who has quickened them and enabled them by his grace to perform those works that will keep them out of hell. Verse 10 qualifies verse 9. When quoting Eph. 2 people quote 8 and 9 which are an incomplete thought and taken out of context. Quoting verses 9 and 10 is not an incomplete thought. We are not saved by works that we can take credit for. We are however saved by works for we are his his workmanship. We were saved to do good works and it is him that works in us that does those good works. The Israelites were saved to serve Him and then to obtain their promise. They didn't serve acceptably; they didn't fulfil their duty as was expected after being saved. They therefore did not inherit that for which they were saved. The OT did not bring the Power of Grace and the Spirit. The NT clarifies the truth and cuts away unnecessary things found in the OT. What Paul said is true: If righteousness is come by the law then Christ is dead in vain. The unlearned on this thread have claimed in effect that this verse means that if it is necessary to obey in order to be righteous and to thereby be saved, then Christ is dead in vain. When in reality Paul is making reference to the OT when he says "by the law". Other verses by Paul relating to the OT law are interpreted to apply to ANY law including the NT law. And that interpretation borders on blasphemy. It is wild to apply "No man is justified by the law" to Christians being obedient to the NT. Paul is making reference to the OT system that has been reformed into the different NT by Jesus. Wild, I say because it directly contradicts James and Jesus and Peter and Paul. Isn't it wild to directly contradict He who has initially saved us by claiming that our ultimate salvation is not dependant on whether or not we obey Him? Noah knew as a matter of life and death that he had to build according to the instructions if he was to live and not perish with the rest of the world. Fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell, Yea I say unto you, fear him. Knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men.

Paul is talking about the OT system when he refers to law there. Law in that context does not apply to obedience to Jesus as a believer. He is making a comparison between the Old and New systems. Both have laws. The doing of the laws that do not justify are trying to please God under the old system. Believing is called a work, along with prayer and reading the Word. So yes, doing something (works) are necessary for justification (being in good standing with God). And yes, there is a work we can do to get faith.

That is a definition that YOU have manufactured, Fisher. Nowhere are we saved from committing sin. You are the one with the demonic gospel. You are attributing things to the Scriptures that it does not say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John 8: 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? The first century Pharisees hated Jesus for his teaching against sin and the freedom he came to give us over committing it, the same as the modern day Pharisees hate it. OK Shiloh, show us how "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" doesn't mean that and how when Jesus made that statement, the freedom he came to give does not relate to freedom from committing it. Your interpretation doesn't fit with the plain words the Holy Ghost used. Our Messiah's name is Yeshua because he came to save us from our sin, not in spite of our continuance to commit sin. His coming to "take away sins" in Heb. 10 relates to taking them out of our committing them as we see in Jesus' example. Jesus, though tempted, did not commit them. Heb. 4: 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. We see here again the fuller definition of grace as per Tit. 2:11-14. Grace helps us to not commit sin. Changing the meaning of grace to exclude His favour expressed to us in giving us strength to not walk after the lust of the flesh unto salvation is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Tit. 2: 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. In order to be faithful to the Word, I must maintain that a gospel that perverts the definition of grace to exclude the fuller definition of the strengthening helping power against sin is nothing more than a counterfeit, demonic, false light gospel. It is accursed as per Gal. 1:6-9. That is not the gospel of grace that Paul taught. See Tit. 2:11-14 above. Do we see John saying that Jesus came to make us righteous "positionally"? Absolutely not. He contradicts that spirit of antichrist by declaring that "he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." John is saying this in regard to being warned against deceivers. No doubt there were some saying you can be righteous without really being righteous. The Nicolaitanes probably taught that lie seeing that God hated their doctrine.

Did we see the disciples standing at the cross telling the other thief who was railing on Jesus to shut up? But the humble thief who was more justified by beating on his breast, so to say, and saying God be merciful to me a sinner, stood up for Christ against the thief reproaching Him. He also brokenly admitted to being worthy of death for his sin; he was repentant. He also expressed a genuine and strong faith in who Jesus was. This was accredited or imputed to him for righteousness and Jesus trusted that he would fulfil that which had been imputed to him [as Abraham also fulfilled it with good works James 2] if given the chance. That faith brought about a change of heart. These numerous works moved God so as to say "this day shalt thou be with me in paradise". Christ's death brought forth the beginning of good fruit it was designed to bring forth in the life of the poor thief because he believed. He didn't get a chance to be baptised. Jesus trusted he would if given the chance. Jesus imputed righteousness to him. James 2: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Honestly looking at this in context we must admit that his literal doing of what was right was a fulfilment of righteousness being imputed to him.

The problem lies with the definition of "saves". The limited definition of "saved' meaning the escape from hell without its true and correct attached definition of being saved from committing sin creates a demonic gospel. One where ongoing obedience isn't necessary for maintaining salvation. You can be freely given a large mansion, and the necessary work of going to the bank to fulfil your obligation (signature, paperwork etc.) concerning what has been freely given to you would not be considered work. you would never agree to someones claim that since you had to fill out legal forms, sign papers etc meant that you earned the large mansion. Also, the obligation of paying the taxes and maintaining the property so as the state doesn't confiscate it for neglect would also not be considered work whereby you were entitled to initially come into possession of the house. It would be regarded as your reasonable service in order to keep that which was freely given to you. Grace/salvation from sinhas been given to us through Christ's death and resurrection. It happens to take effort, like the person going to the bank to fulfil the necessary signing of papers etc, to enter into that which has been given us. What effort does it take? Faith, self examination, repentance, prayer, and baptism. Doing these things is like the person going to the bank to fulfil his obligations concerning that which was freely given to him. Do we hear anyone saying that doing those things means the person has earned their salvation even though those things are required before the receiving of the free gift is finalized? So now you move into the house. You've received the Holy Ghost sometime after repentance and of course your heart has been changed so that you don't want to do what you had previously been bound to do against your own conscience. You were bound to sin and were opposing yourself. You have since, after receiving the Holy Ghost, experienced freedom from the bondage to sin and have found great joy in doing those things that you know please God. You have been set free and are at the beginning of growth in the Lord. Do we hear anyone saying that this change in your life is something you have earned? This change is part of the riches of his grace. Eph. 2:7, 1-3,5. Do we hear anyone saying that abiding in this freedom by yielding to his grace that works mightily in us to both to will and to do of his good pleasure is trying to save ourselves? Or is it more scripturally accurate to say, they are not trying to save themselves after the slanderous connotation in that accusation, but are rather allowing God to save them by not grieving and quenching the Spirit and by not frustrating, falling from or failing of the grace given them by not allowing that grace to fulfil in them that which is necessary to maintain that which has been started? Noah allowed God to save him by yielding to do that which God said was necessary for him to do in order to be saved. Should we accuse Noah of trying to save himself? It is an absolute shame that those calling themselves by his name will accuse those making the necessary effort, [which is their reasonable service, to continue in the good works that have been freely given them] in order to continue in salvation of trying to save themselves and will ask accusatory questions such as: Since the wages of sin is death, Jesus saves us first of all by being the substitute payment for our past sins and secondly by ensuring our safety from the wages of sin by granting us access into the same grace he walked in to live righteously in this present world as per Tit. 2:11-14. (Rom. 5:1) Saved from hell and saved from committing sin are as inseparable as are faith and works. And if we do sin after this? Well he is merciful and we can be forgiven again as He is our Father and advocate. But sinning is shameful and an affront to him who died for our sins. So the mercy to forgive for error as a father to his son is used as a subtle form of taking sin lightly when in reality it is shameful and backsliding and a show of not loving God after what he has done for us. And a continuation of this can result in the taking away that which was freely given to us the same way a house may be taken away for neglect to maintain it. We see this reflected in the parable of the talents as well as numerous other places: Rom.11: 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Before any discussion can take place on this, agreements as to the basic definitions of words has to be established: saved grace imputed righteousness by faith justification by faith After each side has presented their definitions and each side is unwilling to move from their definitions and the definitions are contradictory, then it is hopeless to come to any mutual agreement on what is the truth on this subject. Any serious attempt to agree on the truth of the scriptures hinges on whether or not honest discussion can be had to allow the scriptures to define the above words. Without this willingness to approach this from the foundation, then these discussions are vain.

Shiloh, your contradictions are based on wrong definitions. Here we see your wrong definition of walking after the Spirit and walking after the flesh. They do not fit at all with Gal. 5 which clearly reveals that these terms relate to what we actually do and our responsibility to actually do. Our salvation depends on whether or not we are actually doing, which doing is accomplished by yielding to the Spirit by which we are strengthened so that we can say we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. So now show us how Him literally strengthening us doesn't really mean that, as you have shown that some of Rom. 8 doesn't really mean what it plainly says.

Your premise 3 is incorrect. We ARE saved by the works that he does through us. Without those works we will be damned because other works will replace His which will be of the flesh and we are assured that those works will result in damnation. Also your definition of grace lacks the definition we see in Tit. 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 15:10. Using that definition I agree that we are saved by grace. We are saved by the power given to us (grace) to not yield to the lust of the flesh. Also your definition of saved needs to line up with how Paul is using it in Eph. 2. "Saved" here means living a life away from the works of the flesh. Eph. 2:1-3,5. I offer here a document showing how Eph. 2:8,9 are taken out of context and perverted to mean to say that what we do has no bearing on where we go eternally.

Please read 1 Cor. 6:9 or Rom. 8:13 and tell us that the act of yielding to God and restraining from these things will not profit you where your eternal destiny is concerned. We are waiting for a response of teachings us how to wrest these scriptures as we have been taught how to wrest the scripture about cold, hot, and lukewarm. Even in Matt. 25 on the ten virgins we see the same principle; believers who are rejected for not being ready. Also we are watching for more self contradiction.

You can't see that you just contradicted yourself. Since faith is necessary for salvation how can you say works aren't if you are not making a separation between faith and works? I want to be compassionate here because I understand that you have been led to believe what you do and are not aware of the inherent instability and seducing spirit and doctrine of devils from which it comes. It is plainly unstable to say you are not separating works from faith and then in the next breath separate works from faith. 2 Pet. 3 "unlearned and unstable"

Rom. 2:6-10 Noone gets in without effort which is work by the definition of those opposing me. However, when Paul spoke of works that don't profit, he was not speaking of the works that Christ said we must do. Otherwise, Jesus didn't really mean many things he said.

If there's any butchering it's by them who are using desperate and unstable reasonings to deny that Noah would have been destroyed if he had not obeyed. But it becomes necessary for such desperate measures by virtue of the fact that leaven begets leaven. Once the foundation against the commonsensical easy to understand concept that God's plan was that an ark was necessary has been laid, the rest of the building has to follow suit. Hence, the nonsensical claim that if the ark wasn't built then they would have been saved anyway. Even a little child knows better. But the real leaven began at the false interpretation of Eph. 2:8,9 and other verses that the unstable have wrested to separate faith from works which is impossible. O well you can separate them the same way you can separate the spirit from the body, but then it's dead, isn't it? Faith without works is dead. Noah without works would also have been dead. But that is at the root of the bad judgment being demonstrated by them trying to find some kind of biblical support for such heresy. What is at the root? The lack of a childlike faith and humility. He has cursed the proud who do err in judgment. If any do not consent to wholesome words he is proud. Noah moved with the clean fear of God and prepared the ark, his salvation. We are told to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. So do these desperate folks actually believe that Noah's fear had nothing to do with him being destroyed if he didn't obey the instructions God gave him in order to escape the flood? Was he afraid he would not get as many rewards as those that do obey? These lame attempts to try to use Jonahs situation, for example, are laughable. Being swallowed rather holds the message of fearing God. He was severely punished and had to do anyway what he initially refused to do. Yes, of course I am teaching salvation by works, just like Jesus, and James did. James 2:14. (All the other NT writers also teach the necessity of obedience to the NT in order to be saved, which the unlearned and unstable are calling "works of the law". I am not teaching salvation by the works of the law (OT) but rather we are to be under the NT law to Christ by his grace and Spirit that enable us to live righteously after the NT definition of righteousness which is not an abstract not real righteousness that "that spirit of antichrist" teaches.

So if he had not built the ark, he would have been saved anyway? Would God then have given him and his family gills?

Saved by Grace This is what I initially wrote. You admitted not getting past the first sentence. You then write in a condescending manner as if you feel sorry for me for being so ignorant as to believe that Adam was created as a sinner on day 6. I am writing on this thread to those who are familiar with the Word. I believe I charitably assumed anyone knowledgable who would read the above quote would make a connection to Rom. 5. I believe that it appears not only by me, that you are the one using words to spark controversy. Also your unwillingness to understand that Adams initial sin was the beginning of the sin nature within himself (he didn't have that before the fall) and this in turn was passed on to all of mankind. So in that sense, yes, Adam was made a sinner as a result of that first sin. I really supposed the knowledgable would immediately pick up the connection to Rom. 5. This is what you wrote: Your wording here can easily appear that Adams sin made us sinners but it did not also make him a sinner. Can you please clarify? I doubt if you'll get many to agree with you there. Or is your last sentence above jumping back to the sixth day and you really do agree that his sin really did turn him into a sinner? You owe this to all of us. The positional righteous theory is a subtle means of relieving believers of consciously making effort (the grace of God working in them and yielding to the Spirit) of daily denying themselves and taking up their cross in order to be acceptable into eternal life at judgment since Jesus said that if we are not his disciple we are not worthy of him and self denial and crossbearing are essential for being his disciple. The positional thing also doesn't hold up under the fact that in John 8 we again find the word "make" relating to the same thing. He said the truth will make us free. This is not positionally free but literally free because Jesus clarifies when he said he that commits sin is the servant of sin. He came to make us free from being a servant of sin which by Jesus' clear definition means anyone who commits sin. Did Jesus mean he that commits sin positionally? No, but He would have meant that if the being free from sin means being positionally free. So are we correct to assume that when Jesus said "He that commits sin is the servant of sin" that you believe that he was speaking about those who commit sin positionally? And if so, can you then please explain to us how this is done? Also, if being free and being righteous are only positional in those verses, please, someone make a list and inform the Christian world what literal sins are acceptable to God. But it would seem it could be concluded that they all are, if the being free from them is only positional. Sounds like the grace of God being turned into lasciviousness. (Jude)

In all fariness to you, I will admit that I have NOT read your entire post. I couldn't get past this statement. Adam was made a sinner????? What? Fisher, you have so much wrong and I think this statement is truly at the cruz of your misunderstanding. God made man in HIS own image...perfect and without flaw. [Genesis 1:26,27] It was Adam who entered sin through his own disobedience. Honestly friend, you have confused what is credited to man and what is credited to God. May the Lord Bless you richly, Wayne <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it not true that Adam fell and his fall was passed on to all of mankind? So before his fall he was not a sinner. They receiving the knowledge of good and evil and their receiving the sentence of death (that's why we die) were simultaneous. We can hardly call Adam a sinner before the fall seeing he did not possess the knowledge of good and evil. Upon receiving the knowledge of good and evil he became a partaker of the sinful nature we all have experienced. So you see, his transgression made him a sinner and that is why we were born with a nature to sin that would manifest itself. In Christ we should be partakers of the divine nature that overrides the sinful nature inherited from Adam. The NT gift of the Holy Spirit fulfills the reverse effect from what Adams transgression placed on us. His sin made us sinners as it made him a sinner. 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Notice how grace and righteousness are connected. (See also Tit. 2:11-14) As the "many were made sinners" part is literal, so must "many be made righteous" also be literal. To deny that "many be made righteous" is referring to literal genuine righteousness, means that the person claiming that, must then also agree that the "many were made sinners" part is also not literal. This is because Paul is very clearly drawing a parallel between the two 'makings' if you will. The gift of righteousness in verse 17 is what Paul is talking about in verse 16 when he says: "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." False Christianity defines this "gift of righteousness as an abstract, not real righteousness, when in reality Paul is speaking to those who had experienced the quickening power of the Holy Ghost that changed their behaviour from unrighteous to righteous. They had had that very experience of having been made righteous! They didn't stumble or wrest Paul's writing here. An example of Christians having experienced this being "made righteous" is found in Eph. 2: 1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) So the definition of grace here is "quickened" and the definition of "quickened" relates to the stopping of walking according to the spirit that works in the children of disobedience. Children of disobedience disobey. Children of obedience, are that, by the quickening or grace that enables them to do so. The thing about Noah is that he obeyed. His obedience is what saved him. True, his obedience was the result of his faith and fear of God. But isn't that how our salvation also works? According to James and Paul it is. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. And like Jesus, Noah was a preacher of righteousness, as will the true body of Christ also be. So, Saved by Grace, am I correct to assume that you misunderstood me when I wrote: Adam was made a sinner? Wouldn't you agree that if you had not been so quick to judge, you would not have made that mistake? I forgive you for speaking to me in the manner that you did. Let's just forget it. And please, please, if you don't mean it, don't call me your friend.

Adam was literally made a sinner. In Christ we are to literally be made righteous. The definition of grace cannot be limited to favour, forgiveness etc as a one sided thing from God. His favour is expressed to us in giving us ability to do that which we before were unable to do; live in a manner that is acceptable to God. The definition of grace that includes the favour expressed to us in giving us strength is seen in Titus 2:11-14. Also in Rom. 5- When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. He died to give us strength. In Hebrews Paul refers to sins being taken away, something the law could not do. The OT sacrifices were like a payment for sin but it was necessary that those sacrifices were offered on a continual basis because sinning was a continual reality for those under that first covenant. There has now been made the one last and ultimate sacrifice to take away sin. It is erroneously believed that this taking away of sin only relates to taking it out of God's sight as if it is impossible for Christians to behave in a manner that it is acceptable with God. But the truth is that the new testament lays down the rules for how we are to behave (to some extent a modification of the moral code of the OT) and it also provides the means, by way of its gift of the Holy Spirit for believers to submit to that moral code. The taking away of sins is in reference to them being taken out of our lives to the extent to what we see in Jesus' life. He was tempted like as we are, yet without committing that which he was tempted to do. The taking away of sins of which Paul speaks relates to the cessation of committing sin. It is believed that it is inevitable that we as Christians will continue to sin, therefore sin is excused as long as you stay away from the really bad ones. This causes sin to be taken lightly to some extent when sin should not in any degree be taken lightly. If it was understood that any committing of disobedience to Christ was not walking in the Spirit and evidence of not walking in the light and is a shortcoming to what Jesus expects of us, there would be more obedience out of love for Him who died for sins to take them out of our lives. The claim that we can't please God and it is all what Jesus did and denying that what he did was so that we can do, is a subtil means of causing sin to be looked upon in a light that undermines the purpose for Christ's sacrifice. Satan comes as an angel of light. If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness.

Jesus said we must continue in his word which of course would include being a doer thereof and not a hearer. By not yielding to be a doer of the word guess what happens? we will then become doers of something else and where do you think that something else will lead. It is shameful that such a fundamental verse that teaches us that the wages of sin is death should be wrested to imply that the Christian is not under that truth. The reason that the christian is not going to be in the second death is because the grace of God and the Spirit of God are restraining them from sin thus overcoming the unmoveable law that the wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Isn't it through Him that we can walk in the Spirit and not fulfil the lust of the flesh? If Christians do not walk in the Spirit and thereby fulfill the lust of the flesh they will die. Hence the need for works to maintain salvation after being saved. But as I have said all along the works that are necessary are works that we need him to help us to literally do and we give him all the glory for that help to the point that we confess as did Paul that it is God that works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. That is how we work out our own salvation as Noah did: yield to that working that moves us to will and to do. If we do not yield? we fulfil the lust of the flesh instead and endanger our salvation as Paul plainly said to Christians, If they walk after the lusts of the flesh they shall die. Also our hearts can become deceived and hardened through sin. Isn't repentance a work? Wasn't that work necessary for salvation? It's not really true then is it, that salvation is not dependent on what we do. So please stop saying that. That is corrupting the sober truth of the gospel. We all have a choice. Do or die. For God's sake consider the young believers who are being corrupted from the simplicity of Christ by contradicting the sound doctrine I present here. Did I say the doing is accredited to our own selves ultimately? Am I not saying that it is the grace of God working in our consciences that is ultimately being given the credit for the works necessary to both initially obtain salvation through obedience and to retain salvation through obedience? So can those accusing me please stop?

Since the purpose of grace is to bring about works, obviously, frustrating that grace by bringing forth the wrong works cannot lead to where grace wants to lead us. It's like being given a million dollars to get something done and saying I don't need to get it done because I have a million dollars. It's like the talents, we must do with it what we are supposed to or it will be taken from us and at the reckoning we will be appointed a place in eternity with the unbelievers for denying him by doing the wrong works. Tit 1:16

I'm sure not denying that: