Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2019 15:31:55 GMT
I guess I have been banned from the site because I cannot pull it up on my PC and when I try to log in via phone my name is not found. I have been blotted out it appears. I knew when I confronted the Moderator that this was a possibility, but anyone can read the thread and see that I was not the one being hateful.
And there has been a response from this person so I will address that now:
The whole core of this argument of yours rests on (Rom. 2).
I am not sure how it is this fellow comes to this conclusion when there has been many passages presented to underscore Temporal Justification. It is quite obvious that basic truths of Scripture, basic principles that are found in the Law...are simply not known to him.
And I will interject at this point that I see this as the "conditioning" many receive in Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical groups. For the Catholic, opposition to grace alone and faith alone drives them into a need to see works in every passage, whereas for our other two groups it is a need to deny works. Folks, we have to balance Scripture and leave what is stated in place or we are going to end up like this fellow in a syllogistic system of error.
I would at this time go on to what couldn't be discussed due to this fellow's insistence that his magic bullet response ended the discussion. You will see that in more detail because this post is again the same argument. And you will notice that he has still never responded to the points already made.
Consider:
Romans 10 King James Version (KJV)
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 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.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
In view is Temporal Justification and Eternal Justification through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus. How we know this is based on a couple indicators given us.
First, we see the contrast between the righteousness of God and the righteousness Israel sought after. Does it imply that the basic principle of keeping the Law is made void? Not at all, we simply see that in view is a rote practice of the Law to be righteous which misses the righteousness the Law was intended to bring. For example, "THou shalt not kill" has in view having love for your neighbor, not simply the matter of not physically murdering someone. The Lord clarifies that if one hate their brother without a cause they are guilty of murder, and this is how the righteousness of God is not attained to by those who practice a ritualistic pattern of keeping the Law. They were ignorant of the basic principles that the Law presented.
Secondly, we have only to consult the Law itself and see what it is that God has said, and we will look at three passages found when the (Covenant of) Law was established, and centuries later during the Kingdom years, and then finally a look at a correlating New Testament passage:
Leviticus 18 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
Is it really rational to nullify...what God has said? The argument presented by several members of this particular Forum (and we are going to see that on most Forums, I believe) is that keeping the Law was impossible. That is the entire basis of this fellow's rejection of Temporal Justification. But what does the Scripture say? "If a man does these things...he shall live in them." Sound remotely familiar?
Romans 2:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
We see this contrasted with what they are not to do...
Leviticus 18 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Do this and you will live. One of the most basic principles of the Law. Many designate the Covenant of Law as the only "if/then" Covenant God established. "If you do as I have commanded you will live. If you do not you will surely die."
Now here is the most important issue I want to sink in...this is not an eternal context, it is temporal. What happened to those who rejected the Law?
Hebrews 10:28 King James Version (KJV)
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
They were put to death physically. What do we see in the Gospels? Charges of not keeping the Law and an attempt (which at times was successful, such as in the case of Stephen)to execute the penalty of the Law.
What was the provision for Man since everyone broke the Law in some way? Vicarious death of animals, the penalty of death exacted on them instead of the sinner. There's nothing really hard about this, and we cannot nullify Scripture in an attempt to justify the doctrines of men.
Our second text is found here:
Ezekiel 20:10-16 King James Version (KJV)
10 Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.
11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.
14 But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, in whose sight I brought them out.
15 Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands;
16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.
Anyone that thinks they can nullify the fact that God expected Israel to keep the Law simply hasn't a grasp of this basic principle. We don't overlook the fact that the Law was meant to create faith through the knowledge that the Law cannot be kept perfectly, but God never expected perfection from an imperfect people, but knew that it would be Himself that supplied Perfection to Man (Hebrews 10:14), and this through the Cross of Christ.
It is pretty evident in our first passager that God gave the Law expecting men to keep it. It is pretty clear here that Israel was judged because they did not keep it. So the nullification of the principle of Temporal Justification by our fine friend falls short of even a basic understanding of the Word of God.
Now let's take a look at this principle and see an New Testament witness to GOd's judgment against Israel for their transgression of the Law:
Hebrews 8:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
The very reason for the New Covenant is stated here as a necessity because they did not continue in His Covenant. Not "could not keep His Covenant." They are held responsible for breaking the (Covenant of) Law, just as we saw in Hebrews 10:28. Do we think God holds one accountable for something they cannot accomplish? It would be foolish to do so, seeing that God has not even held men accountable for the very separation they suffer from Him. He has always given men the ability to accomplish His will, and held only those who reject His will accountable.
Again, we have to clarify that we are not talking about men keeping the Law as a means of salvation, that is simply not a possibility. But at the same time we do not, as this fellow has done, nullify basic principles to support a tired and erroneous doctrine of men. That doctrine is salvation by faith, which is works-based salvation just as erroneous as salvation by faith and works. Salvation is and always be by the grace of God, bestowed on those unworthy of God's regard, but given it just the same. What we are talking about is God's demand to obey His will (and this is found in all Ages) and the fact that there is a temporal aspect to this and an eternal. In the temporal you and I are fully capable of obedience, and when we do not obey it is usually because we determine to sin. That does not impact God's gift of salvation because despite the fact we sin before we are saved, and we sin after we are saved (and anyone denying that is, as John states, a liar)...yet God still loves/d us enough to die for us, to take the penalty of sin upon Himself that we might have eternal life in and with Him.
One last passage, which I guess was hidden from my antagonist, seeing his claim is that my view is based on one verse:
Luke 1:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Do we take this to mean they kept the Law perfectly? Not at all. They are righteous (justified)...before the Lord. Just as Abraham was. Within a few verses, Zacharias will be struck dumb...for unbelief (vv.18-20). We know they are both still in need of the Redemption Christ will bring. If the declaration of righteousness held an eternal context why would it still be necessary for Christ to die? Their righteousness has a horizontal application, just as the righteousness of any man who has not been freely justified through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus is. So we return to the question, why do Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals all impose an eternal context into James 2 and Romans 4? Particularly when we see that all Old Testament Saints died in faith...not receiving the very promises concerning Eternal Salvation?
Continued...
And there has been a response from this person so I will address that now:
The whole core of this argument of yours rests on (Rom. 2).
I am not sure how it is this fellow comes to this conclusion when there has been many passages presented to underscore Temporal Justification. It is quite obvious that basic truths of Scripture, basic principles that are found in the Law...are simply not known to him.
And I will interject at this point that I see this as the "conditioning" many receive in Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical groups. For the Catholic, opposition to grace alone and faith alone drives them into a need to see works in every passage, whereas for our other two groups it is a need to deny works. Folks, we have to balance Scripture and leave what is stated in place or we are going to end up like this fellow in a syllogistic system of error.
I would at this time go on to what couldn't be discussed due to this fellow's insistence that his magic bullet response ended the discussion. You will see that in more detail because this post is again the same argument. And you will notice that he has still never responded to the points already made.
Consider:
Romans 10 King James Version (KJV)
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 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.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
In view is Temporal Justification and Eternal Justification through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus. How we know this is based on a couple indicators given us.
First, we see the contrast between the righteousness of God and the righteousness Israel sought after. Does it imply that the basic principle of keeping the Law is made void? Not at all, we simply see that in view is a rote practice of the Law to be righteous which misses the righteousness the Law was intended to bring. For example, "THou shalt not kill" has in view having love for your neighbor, not simply the matter of not physically murdering someone. The Lord clarifies that if one hate their brother without a cause they are guilty of murder, and this is how the righteousness of God is not attained to by those who practice a ritualistic pattern of keeping the Law. They were ignorant of the basic principles that the Law presented.
Secondly, we have only to consult the Law itself and see what it is that God has said, and we will look at three passages found when the (Covenant of) Law was established, and centuries later during the Kingdom years, and then finally a look at a correlating New Testament passage:
Leviticus 18 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
Is it really rational to nullify...what God has said? The argument presented by several members of this particular Forum (and we are going to see that on most Forums, I believe) is that keeping the Law was impossible. That is the entire basis of this fellow's rejection of Temporal Justification. But what does the Scripture say? "If a man does these things...he shall live in them." Sound remotely familiar?
Romans 2:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
We see this contrasted with what they are not to do...
Leviticus 18 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Do this and you will live. One of the most basic principles of the Law. Many designate the Covenant of Law as the only "if/then" Covenant God established. "If you do as I have commanded you will live. If you do not you will surely die."
Now here is the most important issue I want to sink in...this is not an eternal context, it is temporal. What happened to those who rejected the Law?
Hebrews 10:28 King James Version (KJV)
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
They were put to death physically. What do we see in the Gospels? Charges of not keeping the Law and an attempt (which at times was successful, such as in the case of Stephen)to execute the penalty of the Law.
What was the provision for Man since everyone broke the Law in some way? Vicarious death of animals, the penalty of death exacted on them instead of the sinner. There's nothing really hard about this, and we cannot nullify Scripture in an attempt to justify the doctrines of men.
Our second text is found here:
Ezekiel 20:10-16 King James Version (KJV)
10 Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.
11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.
14 But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, in whose sight I brought them out.
15 Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands;
16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.
Anyone that thinks they can nullify the fact that God expected Israel to keep the Law simply hasn't a grasp of this basic principle. We don't overlook the fact that the Law was meant to create faith through the knowledge that the Law cannot be kept perfectly, but God never expected perfection from an imperfect people, but knew that it would be Himself that supplied Perfection to Man (Hebrews 10:14), and this through the Cross of Christ.
It is pretty evident in our first passager that God gave the Law expecting men to keep it. It is pretty clear here that Israel was judged because they did not keep it. So the nullification of the principle of Temporal Justification by our fine friend falls short of even a basic understanding of the Word of God.
Now let's take a look at this principle and see an New Testament witness to GOd's judgment against Israel for their transgression of the Law:
Hebrews 8:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
The very reason for the New Covenant is stated here as a necessity because they did not continue in His Covenant. Not "could not keep His Covenant." They are held responsible for breaking the (Covenant of) Law, just as we saw in Hebrews 10:28. Do we think God holds one accountable for something they cannot accomplish? It would be foolish to do so, seeing that God has not even held men accountable for the very separation they suffer from Him. He has always given men the ability to accomplish His will, and held only those who reject His will accountable.
Again, we have to clarify that we are not talking about men keeping the Law as a means of salvation, that is simply not a possibility. But at the same time we do not, as this fellow has done, nullify basic principles to support a tired and erroneous doctrine of men. That doctrine is salvation by faith, which is works-based salvation just as erroneous as salvation by faith and works. Salvation is and always be by the grace of God, bestowed on those unworthy of God's regard, but given it just the same. What we are talking about is God's demand to obey His will (and this is found in all Ages) and the fact that there is a temporal aspect to this and an eternal. In the temporal you and I are fully capable of obedience, and when we do not obey it is usually because we determine to sin. That does not impact God's gift of salvation because despite the fact we sin before we are saved, and we sin after we are saved (and anyone denying that is, as John states, a liar)...yet God still loves/d us enough to die for us, to take the penalty of sin upon Himself that we might have eternal life in and with Him.
One last passage, which I guess was hidden from my antagonist, seeing his claim is that my view is based on one verse:
Luke 1:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Do we take this to mean they kept the Law perfectly? Not at all. They are righteous (justified)...before the Lord. Just as Abraham was. Within a few verses, Zacharias will be struck dumb...for unbelief (vv.18-20). We know they are both still in need of the Redemption Christ will bring. If the declaration of righteousness held an eternal context why would it still be necessary for Christ to die? Their righteousness has a horizontal application, just as the righteousness of any man who has not been freely justified through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus is. So we return to the question, why do Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals all impose an eternal context into James 2 and Romans 4? Particularly when we see that all Old Testament Saints died in faith...not receiving the very promises concerning Eternal Salvation?
Continued...