Love One Another and the Cross

[shazeep]

So, see the hypocrisy in what you are saying. Judgement is not the same as condemnation; one is something you do in your mind, and the other requires that you speak. The first, done incorrectly, is bad enough; the second is a sin. You read "there is no condemnation in those who are in Christ" to mean they are not condemned; but see that there is another interpretation also.

But i truly believe that these are written in such a way that you may choose, and the choice defines you.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

bump

good point--i find support for both interpretations in other areas of Scripture.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The wonder of grace.

God actually gave me His personal righteousness. As soon as I obeyed Acts 2:38 by faith in my heart that I died with Christ, and my old man died and the body of sins was destroyed in my life, He granted me His righteousness, and I was therefore as righteous as He is. It is HIS own righteousness He gave me. And that was before I could do one righteous thing.

Rom 5:19 KJV For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1Co 1:30 KJV But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2Co 5:21 KJV For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Mat 6:33 KJV But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Rom 10:3-4 KJV For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Php 3:9 KJV And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

When focus is on us and our good deeds, the eyes are removed from grace. The greatest miracle above all is salvation from sin by the cross. And anything that downplays that as we have seen in this thread is essentially antichrist.

ok, fair enough. When the focus is on your navel, and saving your skin from hell by reciting a magic spell some guy tells you will save you, grace might also be removed. I would suggest doing the one, and not forgetting the other, myself. All of these verses are great, and they mean a lot more to me now, i can say that much.

If you do not gain a better understanding of Christ's sacrifice by finding the Good Samaritan's heart, "Go, and do likewise," then you are free to return to your former understanding. The Holy Spirit is going to be guiding you, if you are seeking a better grasp of Christ. What is more likely is "no good deed goes unpunished" will chase you back to it!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm; more like i would remove the hierarchy. There is a time and a place for preaching, just like lecturing; but these are often not the best ways to teach.

"Love is 9/10 of law and law saves no one."

I don't think Christ meant what you mean.

I gave an explanation in those two posts listed more than once. Lol

It would save if man had no sin. But then there 'd be nothing to be saved from.

[mfblume]

Love. God so loved the world that he told us to love one another.

Focus is off there.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I gave an explanation in those two posts listed more than once. Lol

It would save if man had no sin. But then there 'd be nothing to be saved from.

yes, and i disagree with your explanation, and i have never heard anyone else who holds this view. If there was no other support in the NT for "love one another" being the doctrine, you might have a chance there, but 2John1 and many other passages make clear that that is not the case.

The law is fulfilled, not negated. Love one another fulfills the law; it is not somehow negated because Christ likened it to law. Paul is elevated over Christ, consistently, in the hope of defending Christ?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Love. God so loved the world that he told us to love one another.

Focus is off there.

if you are crossing your eyes, yes. If you decide you have a definition for "...believes in Him" that is exclusive, yes. God so loved the world that He gave, there is no telling in that verse, anyway. So yes, the focus is bad there. Once again, look at the contortions one must go through to avoid true doctrine, which is expressed over and over in NT Scripture.

It becomes quite easy to see the hypocrisy when i tell you that you are lost and going to hell if you don't change your mind, and i have Scripture to prove it. Why not pursue that?

[shazeep]

And, we have developed about 5 other questions here that haven't been answered, that show the way. Do these negate Acts 2:38? Hardly. But they do call into question one's definitions for the terms of Acts 2:38, and whether a mental acceptance and agreement of it is sufficient. Many cry "Lord, Lord."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, and i disagree with your explanation, and i have never heard anyone else who holds this view. If there was no other support in the NT for "love one another" being the doctrine, you might have a chance there, but 2John1 and many other passages make clear that that is not the case.

The law is fulfilled, not negated. Love one another fulfills the law; it is not somehow negated because Christ likened it to law. Paul is elevated over Christ, consistently, in the hope of defending Christ?

If you think I espouse the law is negated in those posts, then you totally misunderstood what I said.

You disagree. Prove why I am wrong. Discuss. Talk. Show me where I went wrong. I guess you simply don't want to think anything else.

Originally Posted by shazeep

And, we have developed about 5 other questions here that haven't been answered, that show the way. Do these negate Acts 2:38? Hardly. But they do call into question one's definitions for the terms of Acts 2:38, and whether a mental acceptance and agreement of it is sufficient. Many cry "Lord, Lord."

See? Not reading what I said. I never said mental acceptance or agreement. It's the heart. Evidently you equate the heart with the mentality of a person. All I ever emphasized in this is the heart

Originally Posted by shazeep

if you are crossing your eyes, yes. If you decide you have a definition for "...believes in Him" that is exclusive, yes. God so loved the world that He gave, there is no telling in that verse, anyway. So yes, the focus is bad there. Once again, look at the contortions one must go through to avoid true doctrine, which is expressed over and over in NT Scripture.

It becomes quite easy to see the hypocrisy when i tell you that you are lost and going to hell if you don't change your mind, and i have Scripture to prove it. Why not pursue that?

You won't talk. I never said anything about changing the mind. But you want to believe what I espouse is the way you misunderstand it, so what can I do?

You like John's words about love, which are good words, but you dislike what he says about antichrist. Words lose all meaning. Evil becomes good and good becomes evil. Quite the trick.

You deny the blood of Jesus on this forum more than anyone I ever saw except outright muslims. Enjoy your company!

[shazeep]

If you think I espouse the law is negated in those posts, then you totally misunderstood what I said.

You disagree. Prove why I am wrong. Discuss. Talk. Show me where I went wrong. I guess you simply don't want to think anything else.

well, explain what you mean by

"Love is 9/10 of law and law saves no one."

See? Not reading what I said. I never said mental acceptance or agreement. It's the heart. Evidently you equate the heart with the mentality of a person. All I ever emphasized in this is the heart

No, i am the one who says that OPs accept a profession of faith to be faith. "I came to the Lord in suchandsuch church on suchandsuch date, and spoke in tongues and was baptized by suchandsuch pastor" is considered bona fides for salvation. Is it not?

You won't talk. I never said anything about changing the mind. But you want to believe what I espouse is the way you misunderstand it, so what can I do?

What you may mean is that i'm not answering the way you like. I am the one who said about changing your mind, not you. What you espouse is OP doctrine, and what you can do is address the statement, or not. From a doctrinal level, not personal. After all, we are just talking, i might be the puppy killer for all anyone knows