Function of the Law in Salvation

[tsth]

Amen Dennis! And this purity of heart reveals the purity of TRUE love, that can only be found in our LORD!!!

Man does not even know what true LOVE IS, without GOD!

1 John 4

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Guest shiloh357]

Wow!! So many words contrary to those of Christ, His 'bargin basement teachings', now back on topic once again.

No, it is your bargain basement theology. You do not teach the words of Christ. You teach a false doctrine and then try to force the words of Jesus to agree with your filthy rags.

That is why you are a false teacher.

[Pilgrim7]

Amen Sister!!

Dennis

[Pilgrim7]

They are not contrary to the Words of Christ, only your understanding of them which has been made quite clear in this thread.

Bottom line is, though, how can the words of Christ, which you fail to even acknowledge, be contrary to Christ. Christ is not contrary to Christ and neither is Paul, when you understand him.

This debate is over, Christ has the last word for He is the Omega, the end of all debate.

Dennis

[Guest shiloh357]

They are not contrary to the Words of Christ, only your understanding of them which has been made quite clear in this thread.

Bottom line is, though, how can the words of Christ, which you fail to even acknowledge, be contrary to Christ. Christ is not contrary to Christ and neither is Paul, when you understand him.

This debate is over, Christ has the last word for He is the Omega, the end of all debate.

Dennis

I have not failed to acknowledge them at all. I have simply put them back into their proper context and understanding. You are hell bent on keeping the law for your salvation. I will trust in Jesus for mine. You put your faith in your own efforts. I, however, am a Christian. Christians put their faith in Jesus and not the law or human effort.

You can trust your works, those who know the truth, will live and believe according to the genuine New Testament faith, not the ramblings of a false prophet.

As long as you continue to promote a works-based system of righteousness, this debate will never be over.

[hr.jr.]

The Cross is worthless without the Blood of our Savior shed on it. The cross is a couple pieces of wood and some nails. The shed blood of Savior on the Cross gives the "cross" its relavence. Jesus Death, Bural, and Resurrection provides our Salvation. It provides our complete attonement. The two pieces of wood did nothing.

You are missing the point. You need to study the difference between the work of the cross and the work of the blood as outlined in the first eight chapters of Romans. Paul deals with both. Romans 1:1 - 5:11 deals with the blood and Romans 5:12 - 8:32 deals with the work of the cross. Obviously we are not talking about two pieces of wood but of two different works that were accomplished in the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.

I am not missing the point. I would be willing to say that I have studied the "Cross" more than you. You are merely trying to compartmentalize the atoning work of Christ. It is one work, It is not compartmentalized.

[hr.jr.]

The Cross is worthless without the Blood of our Savior shed on it. The cross is a couple pieces of wood and some nails. The shed blood of Savior on the Cross gives the "cross" its relavence. Jesus Death, Bural, and Resurrection provides our Salvation. It provides our complete attonement. The two pieces of wood did nothing.

Wow, you really see the cross as just two pieces of wood? Take up your cross brother, then say that.

To you, what does "take up your cross" mean?

I have taken up my cross. You are elevating the "Cross" to a position of iconic worship. The "Cross" provided nothing. Our Savior on the Cross provided our atonement. 1 billion people could shed blood on 1 billion crosses, and it would mean nothing. Our Savior's death, burial, and ressurrection is where our atonement comes from. It does not come from two pieces of wood.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Cross is worthless without the Blood of our Savior shed on it. The cross is a couple pieces of wood and some nails. The shed blood of Savior on the Cross gives the "cross" its relavence. Jesus Death, Bural, and Resurrection provides our Salvation. It provides our complete attonement. The two pieces of wood did nothing.

You are missing the point. You need to study the difference between the work of the cross and the work of the blood as outlined in the first eight chapters of Romans. Paul deals with both. Romans 1:1 - 5:11 deals with the blood and Romans 5:12 - 8:32 deals with the work of the cross. Obviously we are not talking about two pieces of wood but of two different works that were accomplished in the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.

I am not missing the point. I would be willing to say that I have studied the "Cross" more than you. You are merely trying to compartmentalize the atoning work of Christ. It is one work, It is not compartmentalized.

I am not "comparmentalizing" anything and yes you are missing the point. The fact remains that the blood and cross effect two different two aspects of redemption, whether your "theology" makes room for it or not. It well explained in the book Romans. It is Paul who makes the distinction. If that is problem for you, then obviously you still have something to learn.

[hr.jr.]

When one is converted, He is justified, forgiven for all past sin only and then indwelt by Christ. This is his 'initial justification' and he stands clean before God. Any future sin needs to be confessed and forgiven for him/her to continue in justification. On Judgment Day, he/she will be judged, examined to see if they have been faithful to God and confessed and forsaken all known sin. Thus they would be 'finally' justified as noted in the last post.

Wrong. Christ either died for all our sins, past, present and future on the cross or He died for none of them. He didn't just die for a few of our sins, or some of our sins, or just our past sins. His blood had to apply to every sin we commit through-out our entire lives, or His death was meaningless. This is where your false works-based doctrine really takes a hit to the bread basket. Your little paragraph above, paraphrased basically says, "Well, sure, all your past sins are forgiven, but now that your saved, your going to have to earn forgiveness." You can't get much more bogus doctrine than that. If you are standing before the Lord on the Judgment day you are speaking of here, you have got some big problems, and there is only one outcome.

You are correct. Jesus only died one time. Paul plainly told us that we can not re-crucify Christ and put him to an open shame. When you are saved, all sin is forgiven. All past, all present, and all future sin is forgiven. Any attempt to say that future sin is not forgiven is heretical teaching. The need to continually have sin forgiven is derived from the Catholic church and has been considered heresy by protestants since the reformation.

[hr.jr.]

The Cross is worthless without the Blood of our Savior shed on it. The cross is a couple pieces of wood and some nails. The shed blood of Savior on the Cross gives the "cross" its relavence. Jesus Death, Bural, and Resurrection provides our Salvation. It provides our complete attonement. The two pieces of wood did nothing.

You are missing the point. You need to study the difference between the work of the cross and the work of the blood as outlined in the first eight chapters of Romans. Paul deals with both. Romans 1:1 - 5:11 deals with the blood and Romans 5:12 - 8:32 deals with the work of the cross. Obviously we are not talking about two pieces of wood but of two different works that were accomplished in the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.

I am not missing the point. I would be willing to say that I have studied the "Cross" more than you. You are merely trying to compartmentalize the atoning work of Christ. It is one work, It is not compartmentalized.

I am not "comparmentalizing" anything and yes you are missing the point. The fact remains that the blood and cross effect two different two aspects of redemption, whether your "theology" makes room for it or not. It well explained in the book Romans. It is Paul who makes the distinction. If that is problem for you, then obviously you still have something to learn.

Shiloh, this is easy. What is Paul referring to when he says "Cross?" If you will think closely about that, the answer is obvious. Define what "the cross" is, and you will have your answer.

I am quite familiar with the teachings on "the Cross." I own more books, commentary, and teachings on "the Cross" than I could even find. However, the term "The cross" is a compartmentalization of the total atonement. When you reference "the Stripes," you also compartmentalize the atonement. Without the death, burial, and ressurrection; they did nothing. They were a part of the death. The cross was a part of the death. "Take up your cross" is a symbolic saying. It simply means "die to God." It is a reference to the mode of death of our Savior. Thus, it is a compartment of the atonement.

Many people try to complicate a very simple concept.

Closely define what "cross" is, and you can not escape arrival at the same conclusion. When you separate any aspect of the atonement from the full atonement, you make that aspect powerless.

You are not the first person I have ever discussed this issue with. What seems universal is that most do not lay out an explanation that can be followed as to what "the Cross" is. Whenever they attempt to define it, it always leads them back to the total sacrifice of Christ. The Total atonement of Christ did everything. The Cross of itsself did nothing. We should be careful to refrain from raising it to an idolic position of worship.