True or False: Grace is harder than Law

[shazeep]

how bout for a change we mix it up a little--you do your best to paint me into a corner for a while? I would prefer a third party that we both had to answer to here, or even some stricter adherence to Robert's Rules--which i have certainly been ignoring myself, don't get me wrong--but failing those this first idea might bring some insight, if painting yourself repeatedly into corners has not. Which i don't mean to be taken wrong, you are defending a religion, and so i have the advantage of you, as i have already mentioned.

You might take another whack at Be Holy, as I am Holy too, if you like; i missed how you perceive this verse?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, i understand that, as you keep coming back to it, so to put my reply a different way this time, i don't believe you (or them) when you say that these people understand something that they are "holding in their heart," and you have no evidence that the phrase is not being used just like abra-cadabra,

My point is is that whether people use it as a magic incantation or not, the POINT of those who KNOW what they are saying and actually PLEAD THE BLOOD in reality, are indeed living in grace.

I know people use it as a magic word and do not know what it means. But you tarred everyone who uses it with the same brush that they don't know what they're talking about, and they know nothing of grace. And that is not true.

because faith without works is dead, as dead as saying "I believe the Golden Rule" while asserting that "Everyone is lost who does not believe like i do."

It has nothing to do with believing as I believe, in response to this subtle slur against me again. It has to do with believing what the bible says. And every time you repeat this distortion I will correct it by saying it again--- it's believing what the bible teaches that determines our salvation or not. And to say a person thinks others are lost is a person who does not practice the golden rule is the same worldly, dark and unbelieving spirit (that I explained in the poll thread I started about salvation by the golden rule) the world holds and is proclaiming loudly in recent years when it sees us say homosexuality is a sin and they therefore call us hateful.

You see, the opinion you are proposing is the world's opinion. It is the opinion that nobody can love people who are yet in sin. And that wicked like has to be exposed. It's the lie that says we cannot love homosexuals if they accuse them of being sinners. It's the lie that says nobody can have that much love to die for people who are considered sinners. The whole basis of Christianity is GOD LOVED US WHILE WE WERE SINNERS.

Your proposition cannot accept that. To say one is a sinner is the same thing as saying one is lost. It's just change of words describing the same situation. The view you espouse claims we cannot believe someone is lost and love them. That is why you accuse me of hatred. You cannot imagine people loving the very ones whom they claim are sinners. So the golden rule is violated by me in your eyes. But those are the eyes of the spirit of the world.

Stephen pointed into the faces of people whom he accused were wicked and sinful. Your opinion would accuse Stephen of violating the golden rule.

Act 7:51-53....Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. ..(52)....Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: ..(53)....Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

You would cry this man breaks the golden rule! He called people WICKED!he called them murderers.

But did Stephen hate them because he accused them of murder and wickedness?

His death boggles the minds of those who are of the world as much as Christ's did.

Act 7:59-60....And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. ..(60)....And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Stephen prayed God not lay their sin of murder to their charge. He loved them that much! But yet he called them wicked and murderers.

Your philosophy cannot allow for that any more than it can allow for someone to say people are lost and in sin. You cannot comprehend love in a person who claims another is in sin. God claimed people were in sin and loved them! Stephen did!

And what about Jesus:

Joh 8:4....They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Joh 8:11....She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Go and "sin no more"? He accused her of being a sinner! But he was not condemning her when he told her to sin no more. Your philosophy cannot accept that. Oh, it's in the bible so you have to say it's right. But when it comes down to someone else doing the same thing and accusing people of sin, and therefore saying they are sinners, and therefore saying they are lost, you throw that truth away.

It is NOT condemnation to say someone is lost and is a sinner. It is condemnation to intentional demean and belittle them. But when Jesus told her to sin no more, he acknowledged she was lost and a sinner. But he was not condemning.

Your philosophy says a person is condemning if they say someone is sinning and lost.

The first statement is obviously lip-service when the second statement is seen to be from the heart.

You hypocritically say those who claim others are lost for not believing the same as the proclaimers, because your belief is that one must BELIEVE LIKE YOU DO that they are not lost. And you, in turn, claim those who think differently than you are lost. So, while you accuse people of being lost because they think others are lost if they don't agree with what they believe, you think the same way! You claim I am lost because I disagree with what you believe about how is lost!

You say I judge people when I say they're lost. Meanwhile you judged me for the same thing you did yourself by saying I am lost!

So, this is why your words have lost all value to any serious Bible believer reading them on this forum.

But the truth is that EVERYONE thinks people must believe what they believe or else they're lost. Otherwise, NOBODY would be doing what they think would SAVE THEMSELVES.

But the truth is the bible plainly makes statements your philosophy cannot handle, and so you claim it's not saying what we claim it is. And when asked what it does mean, you cannot say. You say God put those words there to trip people up. Nice excuse.

ya, but you have once again gratuitously chopped off my quote to imply that i am saying Christ is not necessary, when what i am saying is "follow Christ." Which, according to you, cannot be done, hence this circular discussion.

It's obvious how you distort a picture. The following of Jesus is doing what Jesus did. And what did Jesus do? He lived a life described by Himself as this:

Joh 5:19....Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Joh 14:10....Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 15:5....I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

And to prove that is what Jesus meant...

Joh 6:57....As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

There is no vine/branch relationship in your crossless gospel. There is no reliance of God for righteousness in your salvation by works, but only self-righteousness achieved without any cross of Jesus being necessary.

So once again...

Mat 19:21....Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Mat 19:26....But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Following Jesus is living a life of reliance on HIS LIFE for the ability to do anything God is impressed with, as the branch does nothing if worth without the vine's life, and that that is the only way the rich young man could do what would otherwise be impossible.

This antichrist spirit of the lack of the cross and an ANTI or ALTERNATE way to Life is exposed for what it is.

The disciples knew they could not leave Jesus and needed HIS LIFE!

Mat 19:27-28....Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? ..(28)....And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Following Him is truly leaning on Him as He leaned on the Father.

Joh 6:57....As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

The same chapter says to get life by his blood and flesh. That means LIFE is gained by Christ being our very lives... his blood and flesh refer to what was shed and broken ON THE CROSS. it ALL goes back tot he cross no matter how much you try to remove the cross from it's absolute place in salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

how bout for a change we mix it up a little--you do your best to paint me into a corner for a while? I would prefer a third party that we both had to answer to here, or even some stricter adherence to Robert's Rules--which i have certainly been ignoring myself, don't get me wrong--but failing those this first idea might bring some insight, if painting yourself repeatedly into corners has not. Which i don't mean to be taken wrong, you are defending a religion, and so i have the advantage of you, as i have already mentioned.

You might take another whack at Be Holy, as I am Holy too, if you like; i missed how you perceive this verse?

Deal with what I said about the cross and what following Jesus means. This crossless gospel has to go.

[shazeep]

My point is is that whether people use it as a magic incantation or not, the POINT of those who KNOW what they are saying and actually PLEAD THE BLOOD in reality, are indeed living in grace.

listen to yourself. the people who talk right are saved

i know you don't see it that way, but you have other peoples' feelings to protect. these people needed an easy answer to a question they could not answer, and you have provided it for them. You have laws that they must follow in order to get and stay saved, and things that they are REQUIRED TO SAY in order to indicate that they agree to these laws. You dispute some laws, and split and create new governments enforcing those laws, requiring people to be reinitiated
WITH A DIFFERENT SAYING if they come from an opposing government.

Paul spent an entire chapter in Corinthians disputing this, which i have recently quoted. As VS has recently said, Christ is sought in Scripture when He is in fact manifest, and you have to ask yourself if you would not be arguing with Christ Himself if it were He suggesting Love your neighbor here, and being Holy. Just even ask, no one can make you.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Deal with what I said about the cross and what following Jesus means. This crossless gospel has to go.

so, Be Holy not something you wanna touch, or what

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

My point is is that whether people use it as a magic incantation or not, the POINT of those who KNOW what they are saying and actually PLEAD THE BLOOD in reality, are indeed living in grace.

listen to yourself. the people who talk right are saved

. I never said that at all. You can't talk without destroying a person's intentions.

i know you don't see it that way, but you have other peoples' feelings to protect. these people needed an easy answer to a question they could not answer, and you have provided it for them. You have laws that they must follow in order to get and stay saved, and things that they are REQUIRED TO SAY in order to indicate that they agree to these laws.

There are no laws to get saved like you accuse. Lol. There is a faith followed by obedience to get saved, since faith demands works, and you reject it. The works don't save. The faith does. But the faith is absent if the works are absent.

You dispute some laws, and split and create new governments enforcing those laws, requiring people to be reinitiated
WITH A DIFFERENT SAYING if they come from an opposing government.

Paul spent an entire chapter in Corinthians disputing this, which i have recently quoted. As VS has recently said, Christ is sought in Scripture when He is in fact manifest, and you have to ask yourself if you would not be arguing with Christ Himself if it were He suggesting Love your neighbor here, and being Holy. Just even ask, no one can make you.

It's easy to say Paul spoke against something without showing what he said and laying out how those words apply to what you claim they do

Once again, talk scripture and you're gone. Just making claims and generalities without foundation. Accusations without evidence.

Of course we must love our enemies, our neighbors, and be holy.

To fight Christ is to deny his words that we cannot be saved without faith and baptism into his death. You deny those words.

So, Shazeep, going by what Peter said in his own words and no interpretation added,...

1) Is one saved by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus and being candidates for receiving the Holy Ghost?

2) Is a person saved by believing and being baptized, according to Jesus' words?

3) Is a person saved, who has not done what Peter and Jesus said to do above, but by simply doing good to others as they would have done to them?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Perhaps the question assumes things that need to be re-examined?

Perhaps nothing.

You're the one, in post #27, who argued persuasively, that the reason people don'y obey God's laws is due to a moral inability. To quote:

Moral inability means an inability due to unwillingness.

and

We are not willing, and thus fail to do what we are obligated to do, and therefore incur GUILT. This is why sin is odious to God.

So, instead of being flip, just try to answer the question:

Where does the unwillingness come from?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Perhaps nothing.

You're the one, in post #27, who argued persuasively, that the reason people don'y obey God's laws is due to a moral inability. To quote:



So, instead of being flip, just try to answer the question:

Where does the unwillingness come from?

And since there is "no man who sins not", and "all have sinned", and since "sin is the transgression of the law", it means that there is no man who ever had a willingness to keep God's law, and that all have had an unwillingness to keep God's law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Perhaps nothing.

You're the one, in post #27, who argued persuasively, that the reason people don'y obey God's laws is due to a moral inability. To quote:



and



So, instead of being flip, just try to answer the question:

Where does the unwillingness come from?

Whom shall we blame for our unwillingness to obey God?

By the way I'm not trying to be flip, I was trying to get you to think about your question as to whether or not it reflects the paradigm represented in the Bible.

Why is everyone unwilling to keep the commandments of God? Are they? Was the rich young ruler someone who did not in fact keep the commandments of God? He obeyed those commandments, he confessed he had consistently obeyed them, and Jesus did not rebuke him for his 'hypocrisy in thinking and claiming he could actually keep the law of God consistently'. What he lacked was not obedience to any of the given commandments of God. What he lacked was following Jesus - even if you obeyed all the commandments of the law you STILL CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED because apart from Christ there simply is no justification possible. The rich young ruler was given the opportunity to follow Christ - and he turned it down, preferring instead to keep his wealth.

He made a choice - a voluntary choice. He was unwilling to follow Jesus. Why? Where did that unwillingness come from?

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.
(James 1:14-16 KJV)

His desires were more important to him than Christ's desires, that's for sure.

Again, James says that sin is the result of yielding to desires, as when a man yields to a temptress. So then why do people yield to their desires instead of to God's desires (as explained in his word)?

Jesus said this:

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
(John 8:34 KJV)

People who commit sin are the bondslaves of sin. Paul said this:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
(Romans 6:16-20 KJV)

So then sinners are bondslaves of sin, and they became servants because they yielded themselves to sin, and sold themselves into bondage to disobedience and iniquity.

Why?

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
(2 Timothy 3:4 KJV)

Sinners love pleasures - specifically, they love their own desires - more than they love God. And therefore they are unwilling to sacrifice their desires for God's.

Seems pretty simple, actually.

Why do people love pleasure more than they love God? Sounds like a great philosophical question, but I think it is self evident. PLEASURES. There is 'pleasure' in sin for a season. There is some kind of self-benefit the individual believes they are getting. 'I lied because I didn't want to get into trouble, Momma.' 'I stole because I wanted it, period.' 'I killed her because she talked back to me, and it made me feel bad inside when she talked back to me, but it made me feel better about myself when I shot her. I might feel bad about it now, but AT THE MOMENT my FEELING was to take out my anger and frustration on her with a 12-gauge.' I don't think anyone here who has ever been involved with fornication needs an explanation as to 'why' a person is unwilling to say 'no' to temptation, it's pretty well known: 'it felt good'.

People are unwilling to obey God when it interferes with some perceived pleasure they are going to have from doing that which is forbidden.

[Esaias]

And by the way, I do not deny that there is a point at which a person's voluntarily yielding to sin can result in a state of 'involuntary servitude', much like a heroin addiction or becoming a complete lush. But, the person's reduction to a state of involuntary slavery to their sin was originally the result of them yielding themselves to sin.

'Sin will take you farther, than you want to go...'