The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save - Page 154

Evang.Benincasa · #**1531** 08-18-2016, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Basing our love upon whether or not we inform people they are lost is ridiculous. God so loved us while we were sinners, and LOST, that He sent His only begotten Son to die for those sins. Telling them they're lost is one thing. Telling them they're lost and God loves them so much that He sent His Son to die for the reason that they're lost is totally something different.

Spare the rod spoil the child means if you don't correct you don't love.

Warning a Muslim or a Catholic they are lost isn't hate. Telling them they are alright with God is dangerous to both sides.

Muslims don't believe in the Cross of Christ, and they believe as well with the Catholics that they must work their way towards God's Grace. Both religions have no Cross salvation.

mfblume · #**1532** 08-18-2016, 04:40 PM

Truth or error, and saved or lost, is not a matter of love or hate.

Except for mixed up minds.

shazeep · #**1533** 08-18-2016, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Truth or error, and saved or lost, is not a matter of love or hate.

Except for mixed up minds.

Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law and prophets.

and that's me, right? ya, i can live with that

Evang.Benincasa · #**1534** 08-18-2016, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law and prophets.

and that's me, right? ya, i can live with that

For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

So, how do you reconcile the two verses?

Because if you break one you have broken them all.

Therefore loving your neighbor fulfilling the whole law, James either didn't know that, or didn't have YOUR understanding.

Which was it?

mfblume · #**1535** 08-18-2016, 10:13 PM

Always missing the point. When an issue is truth or error, that issue has nothing to do with if someone loves or not. Love and hate are serious issues, but are not determined by whether one believes another is in truth or error.

But that will go ignored as well.

shazeep · #**1536** 08-19-2016, 07:10 AM

i would argue that the entire issue of truth or error in a matter--or "law," iow--is dependent on love, and i'm not sure how the two could be separated. Sinning against someone = not loving them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

So, how do you reconcile the two verses?

Because if you break one you have broken them all.

Therefore loving your neighbor fulfilling the whole law, James either didn't know that, or didn't have YOUR understanding.

Which was it?

well, neither, and i mean, listen to yourself--what then is the inescapable conclusion of "love your neighbor, this fulfills the law and prophets?" It could only be "don't do this, at all costs" right? I mean, what are you saying?

If one 'fulfills the law and prophets,' 'keeping all the laws except one' does not even apply, so 'fulfills the law' shouldn't be conflated with 'has faith in the law.'

Evang.Benincasa · #**1537** 08-19-2016, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

i would argue that the entire issue of truth or error in a matter--or "law," iow--is dependent on love, and i'm not sure how the two could be separated. Sinning against someone = not loving them.
well, neither, and i mean, listen to yourself--what then is the inescapable conclusion of "love your neighbor, this fulfills the law and prophets?" It could only be "don't do this, at all costs" right? I mean, what are you saying?

If one 'fulfills the law and prophets,' 'keeping all the laws except one' does not even apply, so 'fulfills the law' shouldn't be conflated with 'has faith in the law.'

Again, you are refusing you simply answer my direct question to you.

How do you reconcile the two verses?

James is making the statement, if you break one you have broken them all.

Therefore loving your neighbor fulfilling the whole law, James either didn't know that, or didn't have YOUR understanding.

James even goes on to say in Acts 21:20 that many thousand new converts to the Apostolic truth were zealous for the law. If you believe that loving your neighbor was fulfilling all of the law, then what is happening in Acts 21:20?

Also at the Jerusalem conference the opening statements found in Acts 15:1 are never refuted with love thy neighbor?

Why not?

Also please show where Paul lays out your teaching of loving your neighbor as fulfilling the law? Therefore anyone who loves their neighbor can believe in whatever they want and still make it through the narrow way, and the straight gate?

Evang.Benincasa · #**1538** 08-19-2016, 08:50 AM

Shazeep, read James 2 and it might help you with a direct answer to my direct question.

Or do you ever read the Bible?

shazeep · #**1539** 08-19-2016, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Again, you are refusing you simply answer my direct question to you.

my answer is that you are trying to conflate fulfilling the law with following the law, faith in the law, when the two are not the same, otherwise you must arrive at a different understanding of love your neighbor--which it appears many have done. If one has an issue with reconciling James with Christ, that still does not mean it is ok to try to reconcile Christ with James imo.

shazeep · #**1540** 08-19-2016, 09:14 AM

as to the rest, you are asking the wrong guy, but i can't help but feel that i am being sukked into 'law' here, and

James even goes on to say in Acts 21:20 that many thousand new converts to the Apostolic truth were zealous for the law

and

Also at the Jerusalem conference the opening statements found in Acts 15:1 are never refuted with love thy neighbor?

might be why Paul avoided, or at least did not seek the opinions of the est'd church of his day.