Do We Have To Keep The Law?

[posthuman]

If a person is truly repentant they won't do that wrong again. Another maybe, but rarely the same wrong.

for instance, If you break into my [1] house and steal money, and I catch you. If you said you were sorry and would never break into my house again, that is called repentance. Can you argue with that?

But what are "Works worthy of repentance"? Wouldn't that be you never breaking into my house again?

What if you did break in again [2] and steal money and I catch you? Would I forgive you again? If you said you were sorry, and wouldn't do it again, then yes, I would forgive you again for that sin.

But what if you did it again [3] the very next week? How long would it take for me to learn you are a liar, and that you really didn't repent, you just lied to me to deceive me into dropping my guard. Am I to forgive you this time?

This is called "Practicing iniquity" and there isn't any forgiveness for this tradition according to the Bible.

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked,
“Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
(Matthew 18:21)
​

seems like Peter - as yet unenlightened Peter, even - was willing to forgive 7 times. but you're only willing to forgive twice, and at '3 strikes you're out'
((how am i misinterpreting this?))

you sure that's a doctrinally sound position there, Studydude? baseball ain't scripture.

 

[posthuman]

But go and learn what this means:
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
(Matthew 9:13) ​

 

[Studyman]

really?



how so?

i've read this several times and it still sure sounds like your position is that if a person repeats a sin 7 days later you feel justified (1) calling them a liar (2) judging them unrepentant (3) refusing to forgiving them and (4) you consider yourself wise for carrying out {1, 2, 3}

It was an example of fake repentance and "Practiced iniquity". Which you completely ignore as is your custom.

Only you would build your argument on the false narrative that it is impossible for a man to stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing their stuff.

Should I continue to forgive this man after he has stolen everything, each time telling me how sorry he is and how he won't do it again? Maybe rape my daughters too, and killed my dog as well?

Are you really making this argument between the difference of true repentance, and fake repentance. Do you truly not even have a single idea of the point of my post?

This is precious, please keep talking post, it is very informative.

 

[preacher4truth]

He condemned the Mainstream Preachers of His time.

It's to ad nauseam that the above legalist continuous to conflates the pharisees of Jesus' day with today's converted Christian ministers. He does this incessantly, day by day, over and again in a generalized, broad brushed and slanderous way as if all "mainstream" (his favorite word) ministers are religiously lost.

But of course he's not lost; he's earning his way in.

He thinks.

For the record, they're not one in the same (lost religious Pharisees/Christian ministers) as Studyman the Legalist suggests via ripping Scriptural scenarios out of context in order to condemn the entire Christian church ("mainstream").

Oh, and the ironic thing? The Pharisees also thought they were working their way into the kingdom through good works, you know, just like Studyman the Legalist. Isn't it ironic that he cannot see this himself?

 

[notuptome]

We ought to keep the law but not for righteousness sake. Of course the law is far more than just the Mosaic law and comprises the entire bible.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[posthuman]

It was an example of fake repentance and "Practiced iniquity". Which you completely ignore as is your custom.

this isn't about whether your imaginary hypothetical person is evil or not.

instead of sensationalizing fake people who only exist in your mind, and instead of deflecting from the core issues with your ad-hominem attack/replies, let's talk about a few of the things you're ignoring:

(1) you pretty clearly said you'd only forgive a person 2 times if they sinned 3 times in 7 days. that contradicts Christ.
(2) you have a non-biblical definition of "repent"

 

[Studyman]

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked,
“Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
(Matthew 18:21)
​

seems like Peter - as yet unenlightened Peter, even - was willing to forgive 7 times. but you're only willing to forgive twice, and at '3 strikes you're out'
((how am i misinterpreting this?))

you sure that's a doctrinally sound position there, Studydude? baseball ain't scripture.

Matt. 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.



Matt. 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Rom. 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

I get me information regarding what repentance is and what forgiveness from the Bible which says without repentance there is no forgiveness. Maybe your Jesus is different, but the one from the Bible has instructions and those are where I get my information.

 

[jaybird88]

Oh, and the ironic thing? The Pharisees also thought they were working their way into the kingdom through good works, you know, just like Studyman the Legalist. Isn't it ironic that he cannot see this himself?

Matthew 23:3
so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus sounds like He believed the Pharisees were all talk and had no good works. no works was their problem.

 

[posthuman]

It's to ad nauseam that the above legalist continuous to conflates the pharisees of Jesus' day with today's converted Christian ministers. He does this incessantly, day by day, over and again in a generalized, broad brushed and slanderous way as if all "mainstream" (his favorite word) ministers are religiously lost.

But of course he's not lost; he's earning his way in.

He thinks.

For the record, they're not one in the same (lost religious Pharisees/Christian ministers) as Studyman the Legalist suggests via ripping Scriptural scenarios out of context in order to condemn the entire Christian church ("mainstream").

Oh, and the ironic thing? The Pharisees also thought they were working their way into the kingdom through good works, you know, just like Studyman the Legalist. Isn't it ironic that he cannot see this himself?

your post reminded me of a song a local reggae band used to play; part of the chorus was from Proverbs:

♪ if any man dig a pit, he will fall in it
and if you roll a stone,
it will roll back on you ♫​

chune, thanks

 

[graceNpeace]

We ought to keep the law but not for righteousness sake. Of course the law is far more than just the Mosaic law and comprises the entire bible.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger, on the face of it this advice sounds quite plausible and reasonable, but it is not!

We are New covenant believers and are not subject to the demands put on those who were under a different covenant.
Specifically, none of us are subject to the Sinaitic covenant and therefore the Torah - none of it is binding, including the decalogue....
It is noteworthy that nine out of the ten commands in the decalogue are reiterated as part of the New covenant with the specific exception of Sabbath observance...

 

[Studyman]

this isn't about whether your imaginary hypothetical person is evil or not.

instead of sensationalizing fake people who only exist in your mind, and instead of deflecting from the core issues with your ad-hominem attack/replies, let's talk about a few of the things you're ignoring:

(1) you pretty clearly said you'd only forgive a person 2 times if they sinned 3 times in 7 days. that contradicts Christ.
(2) you have a non-biblical definition of "repent"

A person who claims to be sorry only to escape a punishment from his actions is not sorry.

You are welcome to continue talking though. Very enlightening to hear your thoughts. Thanks for sharing them with me.

 

[preacher4truth]

Matthew 23:3
so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus sounds like He believed the Pharisees were all talk and had no good works. no works was their problem.

You forgot to bold where I stated "thought they were working..."

And, their problem wasn't "no works", it was well beyond that.

 

[posthuman]

Matthew 23:3
so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus sounds like He believed the Pharisees were all talk and had no good works. no works was their problem.

rebuking them, He told them to go learn what "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" means.

i don't think there's any question whether they kept the Law or not - insofar as physical observance. just like ultra-orthodox Jews today, they kept it scrupulously, but to the point of missing its intent. "whitewashed tombs" and cups clean on the outside: to me these aren't descriptions of people who outwardly, to human judgement, were sinners or 'lacked works' -- they famously blew trumpets in the street to announce to everyone they were about to do some good works lol

but hey:
first we gotta define "good works" -- and understand what God means by what they "practice."
our definition ought to be what God means, rather than what men mean, when He says "good works"

 

[posthuman]

Just for the record, in the example of fake repentance I gave, I forgave the guy 3 times before realizing he was a liar

beside the fact that 3 < 7 < 490,
i think you need to count again.

If a person is truly repentant they won't do that wrong again. Another maybe, but rarely the same wrong.

for instance, If you break into my [1] house and steal money, and I catch you. If you said you were sorry and would never break into my house again, that is called repentance. Can you argue with that?

But what are "Works worthy of repentance"? Wouldn't that be you never breaking into my house again?

What if you did break in again [2] and steal money and I catch you? Would I forgive you again? If you said you were sorry, and wouldn't do it again, then yes, I would forgive you again for that sin.

But what if you did it again [3] the very next week? How long would it take for me to learn you are a liar, and that you really didn't repent, you just lied to me to deceive me into dropping my guard.

Am I to forgive you this time?

This is called "Practicing iniquity" and there isn't any forgiveness for this tradition according to the Bible.

in your imagination, you forgave twice, and the third time you rhetorically asked 'forgive you this time?' and then immediately shot down the idea of mercy by calling it practicing iniquity and asserting forgiveness is impossible in the third instance.

that makes 2 by my count.
((i used to count professionally, btw ))
3 sins, 1 you refuse to forgive.






are you familiar with the parable that Christ told when Peter asked Him if forgiving 7 times is enough? 'find ourselves in the Bible' some preachers say.

 

[posthuman]

A person who claims to be sorry only to escape a punishment from his actions is not sorry.

not talking about your strawman. he's imaginary. you can make him whatever you imagine him to be.

want me to imagine another so yours doesn't get lonely?

 

[preacher4truth]

Just for the record, in the example of fake repentance I gave, I forgave the guy 3 times before realizing he was a liar...

The above is the epitome of the Pharisaical spirit. Very sad to see.

 

[Studyman]

It's to ad nauseam that the above legalist continuous to conflates the pharisees of Jesus' day with today's converted Christian ministers. He does this incessantly, day by day, over and again in a generalized, broad brushed and slanderous way as if all "mainstream" (his favorite word) ministers are religiously lost.

But of course he's not lost; he's earning his way in.

He thinks.

For the record, they're not one in the same (lost religious Pharisees/Christian ministers) as Studyman the Legalist suggests via ripping Scriptural scenarios out of context in order to condemn the entire Christian church ("mainstream").

Oh, and the ironic thing? The Pharisees also thought they were working their way into the kingdom through good works, you know, just like Studyman the Legalist. Isn't it ironic that he cannot see this himself?

Are you preaching that Jesus didn't condemn the Mainstream Preachers of His Time? Does this trouble you that Jesus rejected a religion saturated with man made doctrines and traditions?

It seems like you would want to know such things. Why are you so bitter towards me?

 

[jaybird88]

You forgot to bold where I stated "thought they were working..."

And, their problem wasn't "no works", it was well beyond that.

your right, "no works" was not their one and only problem, it was one of their many problems. i should have worded it different.

 

[jaybird88]

rebuking them, He told them to go learn what "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" means.

i don't think there's any question whether they kept the Law or not - insofar as physical observance. just like ultra-orthodox Jews today, they kept it scrupulously, but to the point of missing its intent. "whitewashed tombs" and cups clean on the outside: to me these aren't descriptions of people who outwardly, to human judgement, were sinners or 'lacked works' -- they famously blew trumpets in the street to announce to everyone they were about to do some good works lol

i agree that people can take the law to far, take it to the extreme and forget about the world around you, the law IMO is set up to make you a better example to the world around you. i used to think this was the issue with the pharisees, now i dont, Jesus called them hypocrites all the time, i think they talked the talk, but in reality they were rotten to the core, im only refering to the leaders, i think there were many good pharisees, but the leadership was very corrupt.

but hey:
first we gotta define "good works" -- and understand what God means by what they "practice."
our definition ought to be what God means, rather than what men mean, when He says "good works"

i think we make works to complicated. dont steal, dont murder, etc not to hard. feed the hungry, cloth the poor. every church has their own version of theology, there is so many to choose from, how do you know which is the right one??? but works, how many ways are there to feed someone? i like works, simple and to the point, hard to mess that up.

 

[Budman]

I've explained this to you at least three times already and you could not hear a word I said (because you are holding a grudge against me). And since EG and I are in agreement about this particular point I will let him explain it to you. I figure you will listen to him since you both believe in 'once saved always saved' and have been liking each other's posts. So, ask him. See what he says.

Sure you have - by cloaking your answers in vagueness and not specifics. And stop with the whole "you've got a grudge against me" nonsense. Just because one opposes you on doctrine doesn't mean they are holding a grudge.

And what does liking each other's posts have to do with anything?

Grow up.