Destined To Reign

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

You know what is meant by that terminology.

Yes, Bro. Robbins, I know what is meant by the terminology, but I just HAD to inject some smart mouth remark.

People a lot smarter than I and a lot better than I have argued over the security of the believer and have not agreed with one another. I think we have seen extremes both ways ranging from the "Once in grace always in grace but with a dirty face" to people who are always afraid of losing their salvation through a careless word, an angry response to pain, or a minor infraction of the pastor's teaching.

The people described in Hebrews 6:1-9 were enlightened, had tasted of the heavenly gift, were partakers of the Holy Ghost, and had tasted of the good Word of God and the power of the world to come. This sounds like they were not just nibbling on samples but had committed at one time. Now they had "fallen away" and it was "impossible" to renew them to repentance. Some say this could only refer to those who had left the sacrificial and legal system of the law, accepted Christ's sacrifice and His righteousness, and then later repudiated Him and His work and went back under the law. Maybe.

The folks described in 2 Peter 2:20-22 had escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord but had later become entangled by them and and overcome. The Apostle said their latter end was worse than the beginning and it would have been better if they had not known the way of righteousness.

In Romans 9, 10, and 11 where the Apostle Paul speaks of Israels past present and future, he warns that if Israel could be cut off by unbelief we can too because we stand by faith.

I know we should not establish doctrine by a parable but in the story of forgiveness in Matthew 18:21-35, the man was forgiven a large debt but that forgiveness was rescinded when he did not forgive a debt owed to him. Jesus warns about an unforgiving attitude and seems to say we can lose our forgiveness from Him if we have an unforgiving attitude toward others.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I don't know DM, I think it's hard to live for God without some personal standards.

For instance, if Friday night finds me getting drunk and sleeping around with a few of my closest friends,

Sat finds me laying on the couch with a hangover watching porn on Dish and snorting coke,

Sun most likely will not find me in a proper state to worship God,

Just saying.

"My life is my message." ~ Gandhi

like i told bro joe. prince does not condone sin. he argues that radical grace makes you fall in love with jesus and overcome sin. i am just saying that standards as a means of earning righteousness is nonbiblical. not condoning sin at all, but i was mainly referring to hair, pants, jewelery and makeup.

[BroJoe]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

like i told bro joe. prince does not condone sin. he argues that radical grace makes you fall in love with jesus and overcome sin. i am just saying that standards as a means of earning righteousness is nonbiblical. not condoning sin at all, but i was mainly referring to hair, pants, jewelery and makeup.

I'm telling you bro, Dr. Bernard explains all of your inquiries in that video series I posted. He explains it much better than I can.

Standards always point back to the condition of the heart. I follow and have standards because of my relationship with Jesus, not because I'm trying to attain righteousness. Jesus is my righteousness. My righteousness is as filthy rags.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by BroJoe

I'm telling you bro, Dr. Bernard explains all of your inquiries in that video series I posted. He explains it much better than I can.

Standards always point back to the condition of the heart. I follow and have standards because of my relationship with Jesus, not because I'm trying to attain righteousness. Jesus is my righteousness. My righteousness is as filthy rags.

i believe I watched that series several months ago. But even bro Bernard is now talking about apostolic "identity". standards are about identity not biblical holiness.

[HolyFire]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

i believe I watched that series several months ago. But even bro Bernard is now talking about apostolic "identity". standards are about identity not biblical holiness.

Standards (most) are about modesty. Holiness standards (don't like the term) - my standard of Holiness is Christ Himself. None will attain until were are raptured and translated.

Hair belief is about submission, authority and obedience. If you want to use one man's book and twisting of scripture (sounds Calvanistic I might add) to justify any steps you are taking/about to take that's up to you. Get ready to throw baptism in Jesus name and the Oneness of God out the window because those will soon follow, and I am sure you will get a standing ovation from several of the more mainstream Christians on this board.

[Michael The Disciple]

Let us understand that keeping "standards" as prescribed by some Apostolic Church is not the same thing as keeping the Lords commands. We can be certain that only those who do will enter the heavenly kingdom.

And yes a thousand times we will keep his commands because we love him. His Spirit within the disciple is more than enough to make us "more than conquerers".

[BroJoe]

It's amazing to me that anyone who has any types of boundaries, any type of standards about clothing, conduct, and speech, people automatically begin to cry legalism.

I can't say this enough. It's the condition of my heart and the relationship with Jesus that drives me to live holy.

[tv1a]

Legalism as defined by Paul in Galatians the the imposition of non-biblical mandates as a requirement for salvation.

Legalism is the imposition of one's personal convictions (for the lack of a better word) on another person.

Legalism is the selective application of principles.

Paul says legalism is demonic. He asked the Galatians who put a spell on them to turn from faith in the power of the cross.

When you judge another's relationship with God based your personal convictions you are a legalist.

Originally Posted by BroJoe

It's amazing to me that anyone who has any types of boundaries, any type of standards about clothing, conduct, and speech, people automatically begin to cry legalism.

I can't say this enough. It's the condition of my heart and the relationship with Jesus that drives me to live holy.

[BroJoe]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Legalism as defined by Paul in Galatians the the imposition of non-biblical mandates as a requirement for salvation.

Legalism is the imposition of one's personal convictions (for the lack of a better word) on another person.

Legalism is the selective application of principles.

Paul says legalism is demonic. He asked the Galatians who put a spell on them to turn from faith in the power of the cross.

When you judge another's relationship with God based your personal convictions you are a legalist.

I agree .

[houston]

Originally Posted by HolyFire

They were in the church. Dude's way off base. He's trying to say there is no backsliding, which is unscriptural. See Hebrews.

What about Hebrews?