One Way Love: An Antidote to Legalism?

[Qnts2]

 

It doesn't say they remain his servants.  Lets suppose you have a minister of a church, and a woman seduces him.  That man would be referred to as the Lord's servant, and the woman as being guilty of seducing him. 

 

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that scripture plainly says certain sins will keep us out of heaven, and nobody has been able to refute that. 

 

 

The verse you refer to is referring to those who are sinners, comparing them to saints. Sinner commit adultery etc, and because of their sin, are condemned already. All of us were sinners, who had sinned, and were condemned already. Jesus came to rescue and save people who were already destined for hell.

 

As a part of the process, Jesus died for our sins. There is nothing we could do to pay our own penalty.  

 

So, once saved, did Jesus die for all of our sins, after salvation, or just before our salvation. All of our sins were committed after Jesus died on the cross, so all of our sins were in the future when Jesus died. Is there a dividing line, before salvation and after salvation? After salvation, does the set of unforgivable sins change. Are there sins we do after salvation which sends us to hell and sins which don't? 

 

These are the issues with not understanding when the verse is referring to the unsaved compared to the saved.    

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:9-10

 

This passage has been used alot in this thread but it has been torn from its immediate and literary context to reference an issue that Paul wasn't addressing.

 

Starting up at verse one which begins the context, Paul is addressing a problem with the Christians at the Corinthian church taking their internal disptutes and having them decided before secular magistrates.   Paul in verses 1-8 exhorts the believers at Corinth not to take one another to court but to settle their disputes in-house. 

 

Paul's ground and basis for this is the fact that the gross immorality of the city of Corinth had infected everyone right up to those who governed the city.  Corinth was considered the most immoral city in the world at that time.    Paul's point is that you, who will one day judge angels are taking your disputes before people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

Paul is not warning the Corinthians as if they were themselves committing these sins, but he is exhorting them that fornicators,  idolaters, adulterers,effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God and therefore, they have no business ruling and passing judgment in the affairs of the church.

 

Paul is not warning them that if they participate in these sins, they will lose their salvation.  In verse 11, he obviously assumes they are not living in that manner.  He says, "you used to live that way, but now you have been washed, justified and sanctified."  HIs point is that they should not be bringing a reproach upon Christ by airing their dirty laundry in front of the heathen.

It doesn't matter Shiloh.  He still says that people that do those things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.  Even if his intent was not a warning, he still made this point clear. 

 

It does matter.  It matters because the doctrine of salvation assumes right living.   The Scriptures present salvation as a complete transformation of the heart wherein there is no desire to live in sin. 

 

Salvation is not a matter of God moving over from one side of the ledger to the other when you get saved and then moving back to the first side the next time you sin.  You are ignoring the context and using Paul's words in a way that he didn't intend.

 

The passage is talking about unbelievers not inheriting the Kingdom.  It is not talking about believers committing those sins.  The complaint about believers pertains to them airing their disputes in front of the unbelievers.  

 

Those who promote a false gospel always have to ignore context and insist that the Bible means something other than what is written.

[Guest Butero]

The verse you refer to is referring to those who are sinners, comparing them to saints. Sinner commit adultery etc, and because of their sin, are condemned already. All of us were sinners, who had sinned, and were condemned already. Jesus came to rescue and save people who were already destined for hell.

 

As a part of the process, Jesus died for our sins. There is nothing we could do to pay our own penalty.  

 

So, once saved, did Jesus die for all of our sins, after salvation, or just before our salvation. All of our sins were committed after Jesus died on the cross, so all of our sins were in the future when Jesus died. Is there a dividing line, before salvation and after salvation? After salvation, does the set of unforgivable sins change. Are there sins we do after salvation which sends us to hell and sins which don't? 

 

These are the issues with not understanding when the verse is referring to the unsaved compared to the saved.    

 

When we get saved, we are forgiven of all past sins.  We are not automatically forgiven of all present and future willful sins.  We have to confess them to get forgiveness for them.  Of course, we have already had this debate.  I am referring to the passage in Romans that speaks about if we sin willfully after being forgiven, there is no more atonement for that sin.  I am very much aware there are people of the Baptist faith that have their own interpretation of that passage which differs from mine, but I stand by my interpretation. 

 

The reason he is speaking of sinners compared to saints is it is just expected saints don't live like this.  Even so, he still says those who don't won't inherit the Kingdom of God.  He doesn't make exceptions. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:9-10

 

This passage has been used alot in this thread but it has been torn from its immediate and literary context to reference an issue that Paul wasn't addressing.

 

Starting up at verse one which begins the context, Paul is addressing a problem with the Christians at the Corinthian church taking their internal disptutes and having them decided before secular magistrates.   Paul in verses 1-8 exhorts the believers at Corinth not to take one another to court but to settle their disputes in-house. 

 

Paul's ground and basis for this is the fact that the gross immorality of the city of Corinth had infected everyone right up to those who governed the city.  Corinth was considered the most immoral city in the world at that time.    Paul's point is that you, who will one day judge angels are taking your disputes before people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

Paul is not warning the Corinthians as if they were themselves committing these sins, but he is exhorting them that fornicators,  idolaters, adulterers,effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God and therefore, they have no business ruling and passing judgment in the affairs of the church.

 

Paul is not warning them that if they participate in these sins, they will lose their salvation.  In verse 11, he obviously assumes they are not living in that manner.  He says, "you used to live that way, but now you have been washed, justified and sanctified."  HIs point is that they should not be bringing a reproach upon Christ by airing their dirty laundry in front of the heathen.

It doesn't matter Shiloh.  He still says that people that do those things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.  Even if his intent was not a warning, he still made this point clear. 

 

It does matter.  It matters because the doctrine of salvation assumes right living.   The Scriptures present salvation as a complete transformation of the heart wherein there is no desire to live in sin. 

 

Salvation is not a matter of God moving over from one side of the ledger to the other when you get saved and then moving back to the first side the next time you sin.  You are ignoring the context and using Paul's words in a way that he didn't intend.

 

The passage is talking about unbelievers not inheriting the Kingdom.  It is not talking about believers committing those sins.  The complaint about believers pertains to them airing their disputes in front of the unbelievers.  

 

Those who promote a false gospel always have to ignore context and insist that the Bible means something other than what is written.

 

And I would suggest that those who promote false doctrine ignore what is clearly stated and cry context.  He doesn't make any exceptions here.  He doesn't say that those who are Christians will be able to do those things and inherit the Kingdom of God.  But lets suppose you are right for the sake of argument.  That means you have just given us a license to sin.  Now you are saying a Christian can be a womanizer, can steal, or commit any of these sins and be in right standing with God.  Is that your position? 

[Sevenseas]

 

Also...

 

"Your identity is firmly anchored in Christ's accomplishment, not yours; his strength, not yours; his performance, not yours; his victory, not yours." - Tullian Tchividjian

 

“The world isn't scandalized by our freedom but by our fakeness.” - Tullian Tchividjian

“God's ability to clean things up is infinitely greater than our ability to mess things up.” - Tullian Tchividjian

 

 

 

I think it is time to get back to the op.  Really.  This thread has swerved into the shoulder and it's pretty gravelly there.

[Sevenseas]

And I would suggest that those who promote false doctrine ignore what is clearly stated and cry context.  He doesn't make any exceptions here.  He doesn't say that those who are Christians will be able to do those things and inherit the Kingdom of God.  But lets suppose you are right for the sake of argument.  That means you have just given us a license to sin.  Now you are saying a Christian can be a womanizer, can steal, or commit any of these sins and be in right standing with God.  Is that your position? 

 

 

So who is promoting false doctrine?  Anyone we know?

 

This thread is becoming personal....not very helpful.  I mean, I'm not a mod, but I think things need to come back to reality and stay on topic

 

Exaggeration and twisting what others say is mean spirited IMO and not at all helpful.

 

I'm done posting till next week because we are busy with something else all week end.

 

Should be interesting when I get back...hope it doesn't get shut down.  

[Guest Butero]

 

 

Also...

 

"Your identity is firmly anchored in Christ's accomplishment, not yours; his strength, not yours; his performance, not yours; his victory, not yours." - Tullian Tchividjian

 

“The world isn't scandalized by our freedom but by our fakeness.” - Tullian Tchividjian

“God's ability to clean things up is infinitely greater than our ability to mess things up.” - Tullian Tchividjian

 

 

 

I think it is time to get back to the op.  Really.  This thread has swerved into the shoulder and it's pretty gravelly there.

 

I didn't realize we had left it?  My initial reaction to the OP was if what the man said is true, we don't need to know anything but how to get saved?  We don't need Bibles.  We don't need instructors to make disciples.  We certainly don't need this man's book.  Just accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, and do anything you want.  We can't add to God's perfect plan of salvation by giving instructions.  That could be misconstrued as legalism? 

 

One thing that did come to mind having read Shiloh's last post is this.  First of all, if he is correct, the passage is poorly worded.  It should say "and such were and still are some of you."  That would make it clear Christians can do these things.  It would have to further state that some were washed of these things, rather than making out like everyone was washed.  The other thing goes to the matter of forgiveness.  I was reminded of the man forgiven of a massive debt he couldn't repay.  Jesus forgave him, and he went and found someone that owed him much less and demanded full payment.  If all our sins are automatically forgiven by God for all future transgressions, shouldn't we do the same for those who trespass against us?  Take adultery for instance.  If God readily forgives a man who constantly cheats, shouldn't his wife be as forgiving?  After all, look at all the things God forgave her for?  The same thing could be said for any sin. 

 

I just see a bunch of holes in this anti-legalism doctrine.  It is almost like they are trying to take two sides of the argument by saying we don't have to live right to remain saved, but real Christians live right.  If someone claims to be a Christian and they don't live right, their salvation is questioned.  When I pointed this out, OSAS starts being promoted again.  The whole thing goes full circle.  You can't have it both ways.  You either believe we are saved 100 percent by grace and have no responsibility to live by any standards, or you believe we do have to live right after being saved to remain saved.  Saying we must live by standards means we are following laws.  And why does anyone get upset when people sin against them if they believe God overlooks every bad thing people do? 

[Guest Butero]

 

And I would suggest that those who promote false doctrine ignore what is clearly stated and cry context.  He doesn't make any exceptions here.  He doesn't say that those who are Christians will be able to do those things and inherit the Kingdom of God.  But lets suppose you are right for the sake of argument.  That means you have just given us a license to sin.  Now you are saying a Christian can be a womanizer, can steal, or commit any of these sins and be in right standing with God.  Is that your position? 

 

 

So who is promoting false doctrine?  Anyone we know?

 

This thread is becoming personal....not very helpful.  I mean, I'm not a mod, but I think things need to come back to reality and stay on topic

 

Exaggeration and twisting what others say is mean spirited IMO and not at all helpful.

 

I'm done posting till next week because we are busy with something else all week end.

 

Should be interesting when I get back...hope it doesn't get shut down.  

 

I don't know SS.  I was just responding to what Shiloh said.  His exact quote was "Those who promote a false gospel always have to ignore context and insist that the Bible means something other than what is written.'  Was that personal?  Who do you suppose he was speaking of?  I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say things like that, and I took it as a generalized statement.  I responded with a generalized statement.  You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and you are making accusations.  You accused me of exaggerating and twisting what others said and being mean spirited.   

 

I am just going to overlook this and move on because I don't want the thread to get closed down either.  Up until your comment, I thought everyone had been having a rather friendly discussion, considering we all have strong feelings about this subject.  Have a good week, and try not to take things so personal. 

[Guest man]

I started to address legalism, but even Shiloh acknowledges it is not a Biblical term, so why should I care what different people think it means?  It is just a term people created to attack anyone that comes against something they are doing.  It is a way of silencing those who speak against sin.

 

 

This is true.

[Guest shiloh357]

I started to address legalism, but even Shiloh acknowledges it is not a Biblical term, so why should I care what different people think it means?  It is just a term people created to attack anyone that comes against something they are doing.  It is a way of silencing those who speak against sin. 

That isn't true.  There is a difference between legalism and holiness.  Legalism focuses on external things, like how much jewelry someone wears, how much makeup or the kind of clothes they wear or the kind of music they listen to or other such things. 

 

Holiness is comes from the inside out.  Holy living the result of a life transformed by the power of God.  Holiness is produced in us by the Holy Spirit. 

 

When I am being legalistic, I can measure your walk with the Lord by my standards of what holiness is.  In effect, I am measuring you against me.  If you don't look the way I think you ought to look, if your hair doesn't meet MY definition of a holy haircut, if your clothes don't meet MY standard of proper dress, etc, then you are not living holy.

 

However, when holiness comes from the inside, when it is a reflection of the Lord's character I don't have time to say that you are sinning by doing this or that. 

 

The difference is that legalism is the product of the flesh. Holiness is the product of the Spirit.