Function of the Law in Salvation

[hr.jr.]

Wow, there is sure an effort to bury that 7th Commandment, I wonder why?

Here again is Paul's teaching on Justification, in His own words:

Only Past sins:

Rom 3:23

For

all have sinned,

and

come short

of the glory of God;

3:24

Being

justified freely

by his grace

through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

3:25

Whom God has set forth to be a

propitiation through faith

in his blood, to declare

his righteousness

for the

remission of sins

that are

PAST

(I would hope that we can all understand that past means past, there is no present or future mentioned here),

through the forbearance of God;

Now Paul deals with any sin thereafter which would be future:

Ga 2:17

But if, while

we

seek

to be

justified

by Christ,

we ourselves also

are found sinners,

is therefore

Christ the minister of sin?

God forbid.

(Now why would Paul ask such a question? Because the converted, justified one is indwelt by Christ who is to live through Him and Christ would not lead him to sin, so Paul tells what happened)

2:18

For

if I

build again

the

things

which

I destroyed

(when I was crucified with Christ),

I

make myself

a

transgressor

.

(again, after he was justified, forgiven of all past sin, but now has made himself a transgressor again and must be forgiven for that new sin and thus justified for it)

Now John tells us how this happens:

1John 1:9

If

we

confess

our sins,

he is

faithful

and

just

to

forgive

us our sins,

and to

cleanse us

from

all unrighteousness.

Now this is certainly not initial forgiveness or justification, which takes place at conversion, for that has already taken place.

So we see that any future sin is forgiven at a future time, following the confession of it to God. Now this is a very easy point to grasp. If it was already forgiven at conversion, then why would any need to confess it at a later time in order to be forgiven at that time? At least be logical, if you are not going to believe the Scriptures.

This is why there is a separation of the wheat and tares in the churches, to determine who have continued to confess their sins and be forgiven, and who have presumptuously assumed that they did not need to do so.

God Bless,

Dennis

You should be a Catholic. They also mix up justification with sanctification.

You attempt to re-crucify our Savior. You do not need to confess sins after conversion to be forgiven of them. You confess sins committed after conversion to free you of holds they have created on your physical boday and on your soul. Your Spirit was declared righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ at conversion. His blood makes our Spirit righteous. Sins committed have effect on our soul (mind) and on our body, but they do not effect our Spirit. Our Spirits were made righteous by Christ Jesus. Our human spirit is not tainted or stained by sin. Paul separated the human into three distinct dimensions. Sin can stain two of these dimensions after conversion, but not the third.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul does discuss the death, he does discuss the blood. The thing that you and your theology are missing is that he does not separate the two.

(snip)

I think you have a concept that you simply enjoy hanging onto. For some reason your theology likes to separate the cross from the atonement. That, is bad theology.

Wrong. You are trying refute an argument I did not raise. I am "separating," compartentalizing" or any of the other nonsense you accuse me of. I simply state that we have two distinct works that are accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ.

[hr.jr.]

Paul does discuss the death, he does discuss the blood. The thing that you and your theology are missing is that he does not separate the two.

(snip)

I think you have a concept that you simply enjoy hanging onto. For some reason your theology likes to separate the cross from the atonement. That, is bad theology.

Wrong. You are trying refute an argument I did not raise. I am "separating," compartentalizing" or any of the other nonsense you accuse me of. I simply state that we have two distinct works that are accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ.

I am not trying to refute an argument you "did not raise." I think if you go back to the beginning of the exchange you wll see that the entire topic of our discussion has not been over an argument "you did not rasise." You are compartmentalizing the atonement. You seem to have trouble admitting that the Cross did nothing without the blood; neither did anything without the ressurrection. You are complicating an issue that is too simple to complicate. Christ provided a total atonement. We are to receive His total atonement. We are saved through the entire redeeming work of Jesus Christ, not by individual elements of it. You can not die to a sin nature unless you have been given a new nature. You can not separate one from the other.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not trying to refute an argument you "did not raise."

Yes, you are.

You are compartmentalizing the atonement. You seem to have trouble admitting that the Cross did nothing without the blood;

I never said or implied that. Perhaps you should take some classes in reading comprehension.

neither did anything without the ressurrection.

I never suggested or implied anything to the contrary.

We are saved through the entire redeeming work of Jesus Christ, not by individual elements of it. You can not die to a sin nature unless you have been given a new nature.

I never said otherwise. You are responding to what you THINK I am saying and values YOU seek to assign to my argument, thus making intelligent dialogue with you next to impossible.

I am not compartmentalizing anything. I am talking about fruit of Christ's atonement. You are just too caught up in your arrogance to admit that you have me pegged wrong. Get over yourself. You really don't have a clue, so there is really no point in continuing this nonsense.

[Pilgrim7]

Letter versus Spirit #8

The 8th Commandment is very basic, a foundational principle, forbidding the stealing of that which belongs to others.

The Letter of the Law- - The 8th Commandment

Exo 20:14

Thou shalt not steal.

The 8th Commandment deals only with the physical acts stealing. Jesus, who gave the 'Commandments' and was the 'living example' of them, now expanded them to include the very thoughts and desires that motivate men.

The Spirit of the Law

Now Jesus, in the 'Spirit of the law', expands this Commandment, as He did all the others, showing the true meaning of godliness, the love of giving rather that receiving, the essence of the 'New heart' in which the Lord, who gave His life, dwells.

Giving what one has received:

Mat 10:6

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

10:7

And as you go,

preach,

saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

10:8

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:

freely

you have

received

,

freely

give

.

Going on to Perfection:

Mat 19:21

Jesus said unto him,

If you will be perfect

(#5046-finished, complete in virtue and integrity),

go and

sell what you have,

and

give

to the poor,

and you shall have

treasure in heaven:

and come and

follow me

.

Giving Forgiveness:

Luke 6:35

But

love

your enemies,

and

do good

,

and

lend

,

hoping for nothing again;

and your

reward shall be great,

and you shall be the

children

of the Highest:

for he is

kind

to the unthankful

and to the

evil.

6:36

Be therefore

merciful

,

as your

Father

also is

merciful

.

6:37

Judge not

,

and you shall

not be judged

:

condemn not

,

and you shall

not be condemned

:

forgive

,

and you

shall be

forgiven

(Hmm, here we have those who have been justified, being warned if they don't forgive, they won't be forgiven. So much for the false concept of justification):

6:38

Give

,

and it shall be

given unto you;

good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the

same measure

that you mete withal

(use on others)

it shall be

measured to you again

(used on you).

Giving what you have:

Acts 3:6

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but

such as I have I

give

you:

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Giving of oneself:

Acts 6:3

Wherefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

6:4

But we will

give

ourselves

continually

to prayer,

and to the

ministry

of the word.

Christian would rather give that receive:

Acts 20:35

I have showed you all things, how that so laboring

you

ought

to

support

the

weak

,

and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said,

It is

more blessed

to

give

than to

receive

.

Christian give to their enemies:

Rom 12:19

Dearly beloved,

avenge not

yourselves, but rather

give place to wrath:

for it is written,

Vengeance

is mine;

I will repay

,

saith the Lord.

12:20

Therefore

if your enemy

hungers

,

feed him; if he thirst,

give

him drink:

for in so doing you shal heap coals of fire on his head.

12:21

Be not overcome of evil, but

overcome

evil with

good

.

Giving instead of Stealing:

Eph 4:28

Let him that

stoled

steal no more

:

but rather

let him labor,

working with his hands the thing which is good, that

he may have

to give

to him that needs

[Pilgrim7]

So much for 'Christian courtesy' for I see that some have ignored my request to stay on topic. But thats OK, Shiloh, for when your ride in to rescue 'truth' as you see it, it brings so much more attention to the topic and brings so many more who are able to see the contrast between truth and error, between 'christian courtesy' and discourtesy. I guess that you enjoy 'train wrecks'.

Always in Love,

Dennis

[hr.jr.]

I am not trying to refute an argument you "did not raise."

Yes, you are.

You are compartmentalizing the atonement. You seem to have trouble admitting that the Cross did nothing without the blood;

I never said or implied that. Perhaps you should take some classes in reading comprehension.

neither did anything without the ressurrection.

I never suggested or implied anything to the contrary.

We are saved through the entire redeeming work of Jesus Christ, not by individual elements of it. You can not die to a sin nature unless you have been given a new nature.

I never said otherwise. You are responding to what you THINK I am saying and values YOU seek to assign to my argument, thus making intelligent dialogue with you next to impossible.

I am not compartmentalizing anything. I am talking about fruit of Christ's atonement. You are just too caught up in your arrogance to admit that you have me pegged wrong. Get over yourself. You really don't have a clue, so there is really no point in continuing this nonsense.

I would really think that you are the one who is arrogant. Reading comprehension, I think the last class like that I took would have been Sophomore Literature in college.

As I said, go back and look at where we began to differ. You plainly gave function to works that the cross did. I simply pointed out the cross did none of those. The total atonement did those works; the cross was the mechanism that put those works into the atonement. I would say that you are too arrogant to admit that. Since names have begun to be called. keep in mind who started the childish name calling.

[Guest shiloh357]

I would really think that you are the one who is arrogant.

It is the person who thinks he can assign values to my position that I never espoused, who refuses to actually read what I said, who wants to put the lie in my mouth so he can argue against it, is the one practicing arroagance.

I simply pointed out the cross did none of those.

I never said the cross did those things. I have already said that the "work of cross" was not meant be understood as meaning that it was the literal cross that did those things. It is simply a convenient phrase I use identify a particular work of Christ on the cross. Like I said, you don't have a clue and you refuse to admit that you had me pegged wrong. Maybe, if you would actually read what has been written instead of what you THINK I am saying, then I might find it possible to have an intelligent dialoge with you, but I am not holding out for that.

Since names have begun to be called. keep in mind who started the childish name calling.

I a woman goes out and sell her body on the street, and I say she is a harlot, I am not calling her names. That is what she is.

If a man drinks himself under the table 5 nights a week and I say he is a drunkard I am not calling him names; that is what he is.

When you refuse to admit that you have my arguments pegged wrong and cannot swallow your pride to admit it, that is arrogance, and it is not "name calling" to say so. You insist upon assigning values to my position that I did not espouse did not even imply and have repeatedly sought to clarify my position to no avail. You are the one, who for some reason, just can't let it go. Like I said, get over yourself.

[Guest shiloh357]

So much for 'Christian courtesy' for I see that some have ignored my request to stay on topic. But thats OK, Shiloh, for when your ride in to rescue 'truth' as you see it, it brings so much more attention to the topic and brings so many more who are able to see the contrast between truth and error, between 'christian courtesy' and discourtesy. I guess that you enjoy 'train wrecks'.

Always in Love,

Dennis

Noone has taken anything off topic. I have copied and pasted specific remarks you have made in this thread. That is not "off topic." The problem is that I have raised issues you don't want to discuss, as Cobalt has pointed out. He has provided you with questions you wont' answer because they point to obvious flaws in your performance basedk, legalistic system of salvation.

Christian courtesy does not include allowing false teachers free reign to peddle their snake oil. This is a Christian messageboard, not a sounding board for every wacky "doctrine" that someone wants to teach to the Body of Christ.

[refugepsa91]

Break time....24 hours to step back and pray