One Way Love: An Antidote to Legalism?

[Willa]

But

It is best not to major on minors.

Our church does not have a dress policy, but we are encouraged to DRESS SO AS NOT TO CALL ATTENTION TO OURSELVES so that OUR ATTENTION CAN BE FOCUSED ON GOD. So when we see someone over dressed (three piece suit or in a stylish, expensive dress, 5" heals, lots of bling and and heavy make up), we assume that they are new to the church or are not saved. In such case we need to welcome them warmly.

.

I remember a woman in the 70s who came in off the street wearing flip flops and capris. She went to the alter that day and gave her life to the Lord. Meeting her at the door with a dress code would have cost her salvation. She was very poor and had many growing children to support. So the godly older women came back the next sunday wearing pants suits so make the new Christian feel more welcome and comfortable. It was the loving thing to do. No one criticised her. In the 80s when we visited another church a woman walked over to me and sat down. Instead of welcoming me she made a remark about my dress being out of fashion by a couple of years. I later learned she was a deaconess and wealthy. We were not able to afford new clothes for ourselves. But then, ISN'T IT WORLDLY FOR US TO BE OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT CLOTHING AND NOT TO BE MORE CONCERNED AS TO THE CONDITION OF A PERSONS SOUL?. ISN'T IT WORLDLY FOR OUR ATTENTION TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD OUTDRESSING EACH OTHER AND FOCUSED ON OUTWARD APPEARANCES. ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE WELCOME AS THEY ARE OR WE RISK BECOMING A STUMBLING BLOCK TO THEIR SALVATION OR GROWTH. Wouldn't it be better to hand out tracts that welcome people and explain the way of salvation, and then to pray for them?.]

Most come back dressed more casually; but we do have a half dozen who continue to dress immodestly. In this case most of us assume [i SHOULD SAY SUSPECT, SORRY] that they may not be saved yet and we are thankful they came. They need even more godly love. Jesus welcomed sinners and so should we. We pray for them to open their hearts to hear God's call when we see them and we look on them with compassion, because they must be very hungry for attention and love. God can fill that void. MAN LOOKS AT THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE BUT GOD LOOKS AT THE HEART.. We try to see them as God does and He sees their need.

It is not good to play god and try to change others. Believe me, when I was first married I tried to change hubby and it didn't help. In fact it took more time to undo the harm I had done. He just saw criticism as rejection, no matter how constructive it was meant. So I thought I had married a Christian but he was an unbeliever. I was stupid.

We also must leave the job of changing new Christians to the Holy Spirit. We need to understand that God has His own priorities in changing us into the likeness of Christ. He usually starts with unseen issues of the heart like repentance, reading the Bible, hatred, unforgiveness, Godly love, and forming the fruit of the Spirit in us. The outward things start to change as the inward sins and needs are dealt with. It is best to let God do His job His way.

I  [that's OK, God loves people in suits and ties, too.] I do that out of respect for the house of God.  It is not a common place, but a church.  [people constitute the Church, not a building] All you are describing is how different people look at how people dress, and giving your personal opinion as to how you think they should deal with it. 

 

Since you did give your opinion of how people should deal with it, I will too.  I would use tracts to promote proper dress.  They would be in the front of the church for anyone to look at.  I had one by Dr. Hal Webb, a Baptist minister that addressed women in pants, for instance.  I would on occasion preach about appropriate clothing, based on my standards.  I find it interesting your Pastor will preach on clothing based on his standards?  He is clothes line? [Here you are wrong]  That surprises me.  I am finding people all over the board when it comes to what they believe is right and wrong when it comes to clothing, but my point is, nearly everyone has some standards when it comes to clothes.

OUR PASTOR, WHILE COVERING THE BOOK OF 1 PETER, READ CHAP 3 AND CROSS REFERENCED 1 TIMOTHY 2:9, THAT THE WOMEN ADORN THEMSELVES IN MODEST APPAREL, WITH PROPRIETY AND MODERATION. THESE ARE THE STANDARDS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND ARE NOT HIS OWN as HE JUST READ THEM. THE POINT IS THAT OUR ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARD GOD AND NOT FOCUSED ON PEOPLE OR HOW THEY ARE DRESSED. THE HIDDEN BEAUTY OF THE HEART IS WHAT GOD SEES AND it is HOW WE CAN HONOR THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. A church is only a building; its members who are born of the Spirit are the temple that God indwells.

God does not focus on outward appearances. Nor should we.

Butero, as much as I respect you, I fear I would be made to feel unwelcome in your church. Not having money to meet your churches standard of dress and shoes, you may even turn me away or ask me not to come back. I am so thankful that Jesus does not do that and that He welcomes me as I am.

Blessing to you, brother,

Willa

I would fear I would be made to feel unwelcomed at your church because I would choose to wear a suit and tie out of respect for the house of God?  I have never turned anyone away because they were poor and couldn't afford fancy clothes.  In the cases where there might be a woman show up that didn't have a dress and couldn't afford one, I would offer to buy them one to wear to church.  Apparently, Jesus might welcome you as you are, but by your own admission, there are people that came to your church and were told they weren't dressed like they should be.  You also have a Pastor that preached on clothing.  Perhaps you should let women know they shouldn't wear expensive dresses and 5 inch heels?  I don't get the issue with the heels, or the expensive clothes, but to each his own?  Maybe you need to find a new church?

[ I didn't say this was wrong, only that they draw attention to themselves since most dress modestly and in moderation ].

Thank you for your generosity. To be honost I have not bought a dress for 15 years since I was the matron of honor at my friends wedding. I have had no need to since my work required I wear slacks both for the sake of modesty and for safety around machienery.

Now neither of us are able to work due to health. So I do appreciate your offer and kindness.

Anyone is welcome just as they are at our church and you would be welcomed tie, suit and all.. Dress only became an issue because 1 or 2 individuals out of 1500 people were becoming hurtful to the work of the Holy Spirit by criticizing others. Our pastor addressed the unkind people twice. He does not bring up a subject while preaching unless it pertains to the text. He preaches through a whole book of the Bible verse by verse, addressing all pertaining references as he goes. It takes months to years but he is very thorough. That is how the verses were mentioned. He was preaching through 1Peter and 2 Peter.. It was not the subject of the sermon but he read a cross reference to 1 Peter 3:3-4. He is a very good expository Bible teacher, and is of good character. I feel very fortunate to find such a church that exercises so much grace, patience and love. It is an atmosphere conducive to maturing in Christ. But thank you for your concern.

Is it beneficial to criticise my pastor whom you have never heard? Perhaps you misread my post, causing you to twist my words to malign my pastor and my church. I have reading problem as well and occasionally misread posts. And I often do not express myself clearly so I may not have represented them correctly. If this is true I am very sorry.

May God bless you,

Willa

[Guest Butero]

I am not criticizing your Pastor Willamina.  All I am saying is that he is not much different from me, except when it comes to emphasis.  He is willing to preach on clothing.  He doesn't tell people they can't come based on what they wear, but does spend at least some time on how a person should look, which makes him clothes line.  The fact of the matter is, there are few churches that aren't clothes line to some extent, and few Christians that don't make judgments on how people dress.  The exception would be a church that allows people to come there as slutty or indecent as they want.  They wouldn't care about things like "skinny jeans" which you mentioned being a problem for some.  Anything would go.  There are just not many churches like that.  It usually just comes down to where the church places the emphasis?  I place the greater emphasis on women wearing feminine looking clothes and the men wearing masculine looking clothes in keeping with Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, and you place the greater emphasis on things like "skinny jeans," a lot of make-up, 5 inch heels, expensive dresses and a man wearing a 3 piece suit.  It is just on different things, based on what the individual finds important?  I have made that point over and over again, and people either refuse to see the similarities, or just won't admit it? 

 

On the subject of legalism, it comes down to anything a person criticizes someone else is doing.  Let me give you an example.  I know of a minister that believes that it is wrong to wear short sleeved shirts.  I wear short sleeved shirts.  If I was the typical Christian today, my way of dealing with his dislike for what I wear is to attack him as a legalist to get him to be quiet.  Who is he to judge another man's servant?  I would get offended.  Crying legalism is a tactic.  It could be over tv shows.  You might have someone who thinks "The X Files" is terrible, and it is one of my favorite shows.  You might not like it, or tv in general?  If someone said this show is awful, and I was the typical Christian of this day, I would call the person who criticized me a legalist and judging another man's servant.  I would do this because I just can't tolerate the fact anyone could disagree with anything I was doing.  It is a way of censorship.  The first tactic is to gang up on the person and attack them in numbers.  In most cases, that will get them to change their view or leave the discussion.  If that doesn't work, then I start crying "Legalism." 

 

So here once again we have another thread attacking legalism.  This is one of the easiest things for a minister to do.  They leave preaching the gospel, which is sharper than a two edged sword and will be offensive to some, and they turn to pandering to people by appealing to their desire for acceptance, regardless of what they are doing. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

That being the case Sevenseas, that would mean that a Christian is free to do anything they want, good or bad. 

That simply isn't true, Butero.  A genuine believer isn't looking for a way to sin.  The Eternal Security is predicated on the notion that you are genuine believer and have been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.   Eternal Securiy makes no provision for sin, no matter how people like you try to misrepresent it. 

 

It would also mean that those scriptures that tell us certain sins will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven are a lie, or the people committing those sins were never saved. 

 

No, it would mean that you are mishandling and misreading those texts as I have already demonstrated with I Cor. 6:9.

 

 

You said you are not promoting sin, and I am not suggesting you are, but at the same time, you are telling people that their behavior has no bearing on their being saved or lost.  That means that if a Christian does carry on an affair or takes up robbing banks, and even kills someone in the process, their soul is safe, provided they were a Christian in the first place? 

 

 Genuine followers of Jesus don't live that  way.   BTW, I know lots of folks who believe you can lose your salvation and that doesn't stop them from going out getting drunk on the weekends, so this notion that if you believe that living sin will cause one to lose their salvatoin is an impediment to sin, you are gravely mistaken.   Threats and fear are not impediments to sin.  The ONLY impediment to sin is being with and walking in the Spirit.  That's it. 

 

 

If you think I am misrepresenting your position, I want you to explain where I am wrong?  I agree that if someone confesses their sins, no matter how bad they are, there is forgiveness, but what of those who don't confess them? 

 

Did you ever notice that confession of sin is not in any of Paul's letters?   Paul never mentions confession of sin.  It occurs once in I John 1:9,10.  And there is it is not about salvation, but about the cleansing of the conscience.   There is NO place in the Bible that says that you cannot go to heaven if you die with any unconfessed sin.   That is yet another part of your "theology" that you have exactly zero biblical basis for.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

That being the case Sevenseas, that would mean that a Christian is free to do anything they want, good or bad. 

That simply isn't true, Butero.  A genuine believer isn't looking for a way to sin.  The Eternal Security is predicated on the notion that you are genuine believer and have been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.   Eternal Securiy makes no provision for sin, no matter how people like you try to misrepresent it. 

 

It would also mean that those scriptures that tell us certain sins will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven are a lie, or the people committing those sins were never saved. 

 

No, it would mean that you are mishandling and misreading those texts as I have already demonstrated with I Cor. 6:9.

 

 

You said you are not promoting sin, and I am not suggesting you are, but at the same time, you are telling people that their behavior has no bearing on their being saved or lost.  That means that if a Christian does carry on an affair or takes up robbing banks, and even kills someone in the process, their soul is safe, provided they were a Christian in the first place? 

 

 Genuine followers of Jesus don't live that  way.   BTW, I know lots of folks who believe you can lose your salvation and that doesn't stop them from going out getting drunk on the weekends, so this notion that if you believe that living sin will cause one to lose their salvatoin is an impediment to sin, you are gravely mistaken.   Threats and fear are not impediments to sin.  The ONLY impediment to sin is being with and walking in the Spirit.  That's it. 

 

 

If you think I am misrepresenting your position, I want you to explain where I am wrong?  I agree that if someone confesses their sins, no matter how bad they are, there is forgiveness, but what of those who don't confess them? 

 

Did you ever notice that confession of sin is not in any of Paul's letters?   Paul never mentions confession of sin.  It occurs once in I John 1:9,10.  And there is it is not about salvation, but about the cleansing of the conscience.   There is NO place in the Bible that says that you cannot go to heaven if you die with any unconfessed sin.   That is yet another part of your "theology" that you have exactly zero biblical basis for.

 

If a genuine believer wouldn't behave like that, the only conclusion I can come to is these people that continue in sin were never saved.  I left that option open. 

 

As far as 1 Corinthians 6;9 goes, even if I completely agree with the context you put the verse in, it still doesn't nullify the fact that it states that people that commit these sins shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  All you did was show that the context wasn't to scare people but only to point out how unbelievers live.  It changes nothing. 

 

Once again, you say genuine believers don't live that way, so that means that people that are professing Christians and continue in sin were never saved.  Again, I have allowed for that possibility? 

 

1 John is part of the Bible.  I don't care who penned those words.  You are making the claim that confession is only to make the conscience feel better, but you can't prove that is correct.  It is just your opinion, and I disagree.  I do have a Biblical basis for saying confession is necessary.  In Hebrews, it states that if you commit willful sins after being saved, those sins are not under the blood covering.  Once again, I know you don't hold to the same interpretation I do, but I stand by my interpretation, and that is the basis for my belief.  Even so, you said real Christians don't behave that way, so where is the disagreement?  Again, I am allowing for the possibility that a real Christian wouldn't behave that way?  Which position are you arguing for?  Are you saying a real Christian wouldn't behave that way, or are you arguing a real Christian may behave that way and be secure?  It seems like you are taking both positions? 

[Guest ninhao]

 

"Under the law" and "under grace," refer to our standing before God.   When the Bible says we are not "under the law"  it doesn't mean that we are not living within the framework of the law."  Rather it refers to the spiritual condition of the unsaved person.  A person without Christ stands before God, "under the law."   A person who is saved stands before God, "under grace."

 

 

God's law has not been abrogated.  If anything, it has been augmented due the empowering of Holy Spirit to enable to keep God's commandments.

 

 

Hello Shiloh I like this explanation and immediately it made me think. Does this mean OT Saints were also not "under the law" ?  

[Guest shiloh357]

If a genuine believer wouldn't behave like that, the only conclusion I can come to is these people that continue in sin were never saved.  I left that option open. 

 

And that option makes far more sense than claiming that a believer who has been transformed by the power of God can still live in the mire of sin. To make that claim is almost an assault on God's ability to change a life.

 

 

As far as 1 Corinthians 6;9 goes, even if I completely agree with the context you put the verse in, it still doesn't nullify the fact that it states that people that commit these sins shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.   All you did was show that the context wasn't to scare people but only to point out how unbelievers live.  It changes nothing. 

 

If you agree???   The context is right there in the text.  You have choice but to agree with regard to the context.  You can't deny that the issue being addressed pertains to the Corinthians not exposing Christ to ridicule in the presence of those who have no inheritance in the Kingdom.  The context is beyond any possible dispute.

 

 

Yes, it says what it says.  The problem is that in your mind, context is expendable because you are bent on using that verse as a prooftext instead of letting the text say what it intends to say.   You rip verses from their context and apply them to issues and doctrines that they were not intending to address, and that screws up doctrine. 

 

 

1 John is part of the Bible.  I don't care who penned those words.  You are making the claim that confession is only to make the conscience feel better, but you can't prove that is correct.  It is just your opinion, and I disagree. 

 

  I John 1:9 is not talking about the cleansing of the heart.  He says if we sin we confess it and the blood of Jesus cleanses from all unrighteousness.  Our hearts are already made right by the death of Jesus on the cross.  The blood of Jesus is for forgiveness and we  need forgiveness for the sake of our conscience so that we don't fall into condemnation.  Confession of sin is not for God's benefit, but for ours.  It doesn't "re-save" us.  Confession of sin is like a point of contact and when we appropriate the blood of Jesus over our lives on a daily basis, the enemy cannot use our past failures as a means of condemnation and shame over us.

 

 

I do have a Biblical basis for saying confession is necessary.  In Hebrews, it states that if you commit willful sins after being saved, those sins are not under the blood covering. 

 

It actually doesn't say that.  Your interpretation is based on a faulty representation of what the text says. 

 

 

Once again, I know you don't hold to the same interpretation I do, but I stand by my interpretation, and that is the basis for my belief.  Even so, you said real Christians don't behave that way, so where is the disagreement?  Again, I am allowing for the possibility that a real Christian wouldn't behave that way?  Which position are you arguing for?  Are you saying a real Christian wouldn't behave that way, or are you arguing a real Christian may behave that way and be secure?  It seems like you are taking both positions? 

No, it doesn't appear that I am saying arguing for both at all.  If you can't even correctly represent my words, why should anyone trust that you can properly reprsent what the Bible says?

 

What I am saying is not that a Christian won't sin.  I am saying that a genuine Christian can't sin and enjoy it.  Furthermore a genuine Christian cannot forsake the Lord.  We have a lot of people who claim one thing and live another.  It would make  sense that there a lot of people who are claiming to be Christians who are really nothing more than religionists. 

 

Religionists can appear to be saved; they are good at keeping up appearances for a while, but eventually, the facade is just too hard to keep up and their unregenerate nature comes to the fore and people see them for who they really are.   They didn't lose salvation; they never had it.  It also would explain the weeken warriors who live one way at church and another way during the week.   I think it is rather alarming to think that we have unsaved people populating the church convinced they saved despite never having been born again.

[Guest Butero]

 

If a genuine believer wouldn't behave like that, the only conclusion I can come to is these people that continue in sin were never saved.  I left that option open. 

 

And that option makes far more sense than claiming that a believer who has been transformed by the power of God can still live in the mire of sin. To make that claim is almost an assault on God's ability to change a life.

 

 

As far as 1 Corinthians 6;9 goes, even if I completely agree with the context you put the verse in, it still doesn't nullify the fact that it states that people that commit these sins shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.   All you did was show that the context wasn't to scare people but only to point out how unbelievers live.  It changes nothing. 

 

If you agree???   The context is right there in the text.  You have choice but to agree with regard to the context.  You can't deny that the issue being addressed pertains to the Corinthians not exposing Christ to ridicule in the presence of those who have no inheritance in the Kingdom.  The context is beyond any possible dispute.

 

 

Yes, it says what it says.  The problem is that in your mind, context is expendable because you are bent on using that verse as a prooftext instead of letting the text say what it intends to say.   You rip verses from their context and apply them to issues and doctrines that they were not intending to address, and that screws up doctrine. 

 

 

1 John is part of the Bible.  I don't care who penned those words.  You are making the claim that confession is only to make the conscience feel better, but you can't prove that is correct.  It is just your opinion, and I disagree. 

 

  I John 1:9 is not talking about the cleansing of the heart.  He says if we sin we confess it and the blood of Jesus cleanses from all unrighteousness.  Our hearts are already made right by the death of Jesus on the cross.  The blood of Jesus is for forgiveness and we  need forgiveness for the sake of our conscience so that we don't fall into condemnation.  Confession of sin is not for God's benefit, but for ours.  It doesn't "re-save" us.  Confession of sin is like a point of contact and when we appropriate the blood of Jesus over our lives on a daily basis, the enemy cannot use our past failures as a means of condemnation and shame over us.

 

 

I do have a Biblical basis for saying confession is necessary.  In Hebrews, it states that if you commit willful sins after being saved, those sins are not under the blood covering. 

 

It actually doesn't say that.  Your interpretation is based on a faulty representation of what the text says. 

 

 

Once again, I know you don't hold to the same interpretation I do, but I stand by my interpretation, and that is the basis for my belief.  Even so, you said real Christians don't behave that way, so where is the disagreement?  Again, I am allowing for the possibility that a real Christian wouldn't behave that way?  Which position are you arguing for?  Are you saying a real Christian wouldn't behave that way, or are you arguing a real Christian may behave that way and be secure?  It seems like you are taking both positions? 

No, it doesn't appear that I am saying arguing for both at all.  If you can't even correctly represent my words, why should anyone trust that you can properly reprsent what the Bible says?

 

What I am saying is not that a Christian won't sin.  I am saying that a genuine Christian can't sin and enjoy it.  Furthermore a genuine Christian cannot forsake the Lord.  We have a lot of people who claim one thing and live another.  It would make  sense that there a lot of people who are claiming to be Christians who are really nothing more than religionists. 

 

Religionists can appear to be saved; they are good at keeping up appearances for a while, but eventually, the facade is just too hard to keep up and their unregenerate nature comes to the fore and people see them for who they really are.   They didn't lose salvation; they never had it.  It also would explain the weeken warriors who live one way at church and another way during the week.   I think it is rather alarming to think that we have unsaved people populating the church convinced they saved despite never having been born again.

 

Just a couple of things I want to address.  I didn't rip anything from it's context.  The point I am making is that regardless of the intent of the passage in 1 Corinthians, the result of living the sinful life describes is the person won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  Nothing you said changes that.  Context doesn't change that.  The only thing your context argument does is show the reason why the point was made in the first place?  Was it to scare people so they won't sin, or was it to describe how the sinners live?  It is irrelevant to whether or not people that commit those sins will make it to heaven, and your context argument in this case is nothing more than a smoke screen.  It doesn't matter if Paul said an adulterer won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven to put fear on people or to describe sinners.  They won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, so your claim I am ripping this out of context is irrelevant. 

 

Your writings are hardly the equal of scripture.  It is much easier to take your words to mean something you didn't intend them to mean than scripture, and I am laughing as I have to take the time to point that out.  As such, your comment that if I can't get your words right, I can't be trusted to interpret scripture right is ludicrous.  You were not clear in what you were saying, and even now, there are apparent contradictions.  Does a real Christian commit sins like this, or is it only the actions of a sinner?  Not being able to enjoy sinning is not the same as not sinning.  In addition to that, I would imagine that there are times where a professing Christian enjoys committing adultery.  The Bible even says that sin brings pleasure for a season.  I think what you mean to say is they can't do it without being convicted? 

 

The problem again is that you are first saying a Christian won't behave that way, and now you are saying they may behave that way but won't enjoy doing it.  That is why it appears you are taking two sides?  You can make the claim all day you aren't being confusing, but you are, which is why I asked you to clarify your comments.  You are definitely not on par with Paul, James, Peter, John, or any of the other NT writers, so it is quite possible to interpret their writings and have problems with yours. 

 

I do want to add this one comment.  I do recognize that it is possible that someone might not understand something I am saying, yet be able to understand scripture.  I realize my writings are no match for scripture, and I do sometimes come across as meaning something I didn't intend.  If you don't understand something I said, feel free to ask, and I won't assume you can't be trusted to understand the "Bible simply because you didn't get my meaning the first time.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just a couple of things I want to address.  I didn't rip anything from it's context.  The point I am making is that regardless of the intent of the passage in 1 Corinthians, the result of living the sinful life describes is the person won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  Nothing you said changes that.  Context doesn't change that.  The only thing your context argument does is show the reason why the point was made in the first place?  Was it to scare people so they won't sin, or was it to describe how the sinners live?  It is irrelevant to whether or not people that commit those sins will make it to heaven, and your context argument in this case is nothing more than a smoke screen.  It doesn't matter if Paul said an adulterer won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven to put fear on people or to describe sinners.  They won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, so your claim I am ripping this out of context is irrelevant. 

 

EVerytime you use it as a prooftext for losing salvation, you are violating context.  And that is completely relevant.  Only you would come up with a response that claims context is irrelevant.  The irony is that context, an interpretative method based on demonstrating relevance is declared irrelevant by you.

 

Your writings are hardly the equal of scripture.  It is much easier to take your words to mean something you didn't intend them to mean than scripture, and I am laughing as I have to take the time to point that out.  As such, your comment that if I can't get your words right, I can't be trusted to interpret scripture right is ludicrous. 

 

I didin't claim my writings are equal to Scripture.  I was using the lesser to greater argument.  The point is that if you can't be trusted to handle my words which are insignificant by comparison, how can you be trusted to correctly handle the Word of God?  The question is rhetorical in case you missed it.  The fact is that your responses, as is the one quoted above are based on your inability to correctly frame my words, which means I have to waste time clarifying one post after another when it comes to you. The fact you accused me of thinking my words are equal to Scripture is evidence of your poor reading comprehension skills.   So your accusation of stupidity rings pretty hollow.

 

You were not clear in what you were saying, and even now, there are apparent contradictions.  Does a real Christian commit sins like this, or is it only the actions of a sinner?  Not being able to enjoy sinning is not the same as not sinning.

 

 

I was perfectly clear.  I said that a real Christian doesn't live sin.   There is a stark difference between a Christan who stumbles in a sincere attempt to serve the Lord and someone who claims to be a Christian but lives in sin.  A true Christian commits a sin and they are grieved. A professing Christian can live daily in sin with no remorse, no compunction about a need to repent or grieve over sin.   Everyone else seems to be able to understand that.  I can't believe you are really that obtuse.

 

The problem again is that you are first saying a Christian won't behave that way, and now you are saying they may behave that way but won't enjoy doing it.  That is why it appears you are taking two sides?

That is because you are reacting to what you have decided I believe instead of responding to what I actually posted.  I was clear enough that anyone else can understand me perfectly. The problem is on your end not on mine.

[Guest Butero]

 

Just a couple of things I want to address.  I didn't rip anything from it's context.  The point I am making is that regardless of the intent of the passage in 1 Corinthians, the result of living the sinful life describes is the person won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  Nothing you said changes that.  Context doesn't change that.  The only thing your context argument does is show the reason why the point was made in the first place?  Was it to scare people so they won't sin, or was it to describe how the sinners live?  It is irrelevant to whether or not people that commit those sins will make it to heaven, and your context argument in this case is nothing more than a smoke screen.  It doesn't matter if Paul said an adulterer won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven to put fear on people or to describe sinners.  They won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, so your claim I am ripping this out of context is irrelevant. 

 

EVerytime you use it as a prooftext for losing salvation, you are violating context.  And that is completely relevant.  Only you would come up with a response that claims context is irrelevant.  The irony is that context, an interpretative method based on demonstrating relevance is declared irrelevant by you.

 

Your writings are hardly the equal of scripture.  It is much easier to take your words to mean something you didn't intend them to mean than scripture, and I am laughing as I have to take the time to point that out.  As such, your comment that if I can't get your words right, I can't be trusted to interpret scripture right is ludicrous. 

 

I didin't claim my writings are equal to Scripture.  I was using the lesser to greater argument.  The point is that if you can't be trusted to handle my words which are insignificant by comparison, how can you be trusted to correctly handle the Word of God?  The question is rhetorical in case you missed it.  The fact is that your responses, as is the one quoted above are based on your inability to correctly frame my words, which means I have to waste time clarifying one post after another when it comes to you. The fact you accused me of thinking my words are equal to Scripture is evidence of your poor reading comprehension skills.   So your accusation of stupidity rings pretty hollow.

 

You were not clear in what you were saying, and even now, there are apparent contradictions.  Does a real Christian commit sins like this, or is it only the actions of a sinner?  Not being able to enjoy sinning is not the same as not sinning.

 

 

I was perfectly clear.  I said that a real Christian doesn't live sin.   There is a stark difference between a Christan who stumbles in a sincere attempt to serve the Lord and someone who claims to be a Christian but lives in sin.  A true Christian commits a sin and they are grieved. A professing Christian can live daily in sin with no remorse, no compunction about a need to repent or grieve over sin.   Everyone else seems to be able to understand that.  I can't believe you are really that obtuse.

 

The problem again is that you are first saying a Christian won't behave that way, and now you are saying they may behave that way but won't enjoy doing it.  That is why it appears you are taking two sides?

That is because you are reacting to what you have decided I believe instead of responding to what I actually posted.  I was clear enough that anyone else can understand me perfectly. The problem is on your end not on mine.

 

It is very difficult to have a conversation with you because your comments are always insulting, which automatically causes me to want to respond with insults.  Even so, I am going to do my best to give answers that don't violate the TOS. 

 

Your context argument ONLY addresses why the passage was written.  It doesn't have any bearing on the FACT that people that commit certain sins SHALL NOT inherit the Kingdom of heaven.  The context matters to the question of why the passage was written.  It matters if we are discussing whether or not the intent was to put fear on people or simply talk about how sinners live, but that is not what this discussion is about?  The question is whether or not people that commit a certain group of sins will make it to heaven?  The Bible says they won't, and makes no exceptions for Christians.  The assumption is not that Christians know Paul doesn't mean them, so they don't have to worry, but that real Christians don't behave that way, in context.  The point is, regardless of why this passage was given, the statement is absolute.  There is no getting around it. 

 

It is funny.  I have never looked at it as a waste of time trying to clarify something when another person didn't understand my meaning?  I would rather go out of my way to get them to understand my intent, than constantly insult them for not getting it the first time?  I don't believe everyone understood your meaning, and you can't prove such a statement.  You would literally have to get every single person that read it to come here and say they understood it to make it so, and you can't do that, so such statements carry no weight.  Apparently I did manage to understand what you meant in this case, but it isn't what you said.  You said a real Christian doesn't enjoy sinning, and I was able to figure out what you really meant?  I had to translate what you said to what you meant?  If you can be unclear in a case like that, you might want to consider you are being unclear in other areas too?  You spoke of my reading comprehension skills?  You might want to consider your writing skills, when you tell us a Christian doesn't enjoy sinning, when what you really meant was they get convicted when they sin?  That is not the same thing.  Professing Christians have been known to carry on affairs, and I would imagine they enjoyed it, which is why they did it?  You were not clear, and if you are going to make a blanket statement everyone else understood you, I would challenge you to prove it. 

[Sevenseas]

 

No Butero.  That is not the question at all because every single one of us does sin.  We have forgiveness through the blood of Christ and if we confess our sins, God who is faithful

and just will forgive our sins.

 

This thread was not ever about sin.  It was always about grace.  God's grace.  I understand that some people are not quite comfortable accepting that as their robe of righteousness

and that some alterations may be in order.

 

I for one, however, do not ever imagine I can add to the grace of God.  I also know I cannot make anyone else stop sinning.  The only thing I can do, is pray for others.  Only the Holy Spirit

can create a new heart.  

 

God alone can see each of our hearts and He does not tell us to keep account of the hearts of others.  

 

As I cannot save even myself, I doubt your question with regards to others has any validity at all.  It is by grace that we are saved and not through any works just in case

anyone should boast.

 

So, praise God, He alone saves and He alone keeps those saved who are saved.

That being the case Sevenseas, that would mean that a Christian is free to do anything they want, good or bad.  It would also mean that those scriptures that tell us certain sins will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven are a lie, or the people committing those sins were never saved.  You said you are not promoting sin, and I am not suggesting you are, but at the same time, you are telling people that their behavior has no bearing on their being saved or lost.  That means that if a Christian does carry on an affair or takes up robbing banks, and even kills someone in the process, their soul is safe, provided they were a Christian in the first place?  If you think I am misrepresenting your position, I want you to explain where I am wrong?  I agree that if someone confesses their sins, no matter how bad they are, there is forgiveness, but what of those who don't confess them? 

 

 

You have an arguement with God Butero...not with me.  I am sorry you do not seem able to be able to understand what the rest of us do understand and thank God for...

and that would be the fact that the work of Jesus on the cross is finished and we cannot add to it.

 

It is an insult to God to keep insisting that people who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, need to keep parts of the law or that God is somehow incapable of 

saving to the utmost those who are His.

 

Actually, Paul did say a Christian is free to do what they want....the difference is, you think freedom means we should sin and the rest of us think it means we are free

to follow Christ.

 

Big difference there Butero.  BIG difference.