yet anyone to anwser atleast one of my questions i quoted from the scriptures.
You wrote truth in scripture, why is it that you need answer? Just curious
yet anyone to anwser atleast one of my questions i quoted from the scriptures.
Then please show how it applies to what I quoted, because I don't see it.
And God's instructions were spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2), given through the NT writers, and is the light in which all Scripture is to be understood.
That is NT Christianity.
Justified = declared righteous, right standing before God, not guilty by forgiveness of sin through faith
Old Covenant: how to remain in covenant with God = do or not do by your flesh.
New Covenant: how to remain in covenant with God = do or not do by your spirit.
We are to die to our flesh as the means by which we use for our walk before God.
We are to become alive to our spirit as the means by which we use for our walk before God.
No one was ever justified by the physical walk (flesh).
We are justified through faith by a walk done spiritually.
It says that the Law was weak through (channel of an act) the flesh.
That is, because of the flesh, the Law was not able to make us righteous.
Which one then, flesh or Law, was at fault for the Law not being able to make us righteous?
Was it not the flesh which prevented the Law?
Again. we must ask this
1. Can the law make us righteous - Saved? No
2. Can the law make us righteous - (morally good) No
the law can do niether..
Even if not for the flesh, The law would not have the ability to make us righteous. It does not have that power. All it can do is show us how weak we are. In that it has power.
Because you asked me about what the church considered, instead of asking me what I would consider. If the church considered the man was sinful, I would reject the church. Wow!! How long will this continue? I can't answer for others. Would they, or would they not, I don't know?
Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull![]()
The question should be.
If a 25 y/o male came into their church. And his parents did not circumcize them. And he was circumcized by the hands of God in his heart. would they try to force him to be physically circumcised. And would they consider him to be in sin if he did not. and make it a yes or no answer.
The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, not by us, who then walk in the gift of righteousness
(Ro 5:17) from God (Ro 3:21).
So, if you are not preaching the physical aspect of God's Law as a requirement for salvation, then may I ask you and EG what you two are disagreeing on?
Look into it.
You'll find that we are justified by faith alone, not by a walk.
Justification means declared righteous, in right standing before God, not guilty, by forgiveness of our sin through faith by grace.
Righteousness is a gift (Ro 5:17) from God (Ro 3:21) by faith (Ro 1:17).
Well, "holy" does not mean totally without sin.All truth here Elin, and I have confessed this, now show me where it says to do this over and over again after I have received this forgiveness provided by God through Christ? Once one has received then they see truth and truth is by his death coupled with my belief Through Christ's death, I am made Holy to God and is where God has given me new life:Elin said:Addressed to believers (2:12-14, 19, 3:1, 5:13) after the death of Christ, John writes:
"If we (including himself) claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we (including himself) confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
If we (including himself) claim we have not sinned (as did the Gnostics), we make him out to be a liar, and his word has no place in our lives." (1Jn 1:8-10)
Originally Posted by Elin![]()
![]()
Look into it.
You'll find that we are justified by faith alone, not by a walk.
Justification means declared righteous, in right standing before God, not guilty, by forgiveness of our sin through faith by grace.
Righteousness is a gift (Ro 5:17) from God (Ro 3:21) by faith (Ro 1:17).
To me, EG is asking what is the proper thing for THE CHURCH to do according to Scripture. And you properly answered that that policy would be wrong.
Here it is for all to see clearly:
Paul makes it very clear that if a man becomes circumcised (as a means of obedience to the law of Moses), he is cut off from Christ and the new covenant of grace.
Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! And again I testify to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You are estranged from Christ, you who are attempting to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4
The law of Moses says that every male must be circumcised, and that those not circumcised would be cut off from the old covenant (of law).
In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Leviticus 12:3
The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14
Who do you obey: Moses or Paul?
The question should be.
If a 25 y/o male came into their church. And his parents did not circumcize them. And he was circumcized by the hands of God in his heart. would they try to force him to be physically circumcised. And would they consider him to be in sin if he did not. and make it a yes or no answer.
Thou shalt not murder is not useful in the physical realm? I honestly don't get it. If one keeps it in the intent, the Spirit, how can thy not keep it in the physical?
Thank you for seeing that. that policy is wrong for sure. I reject it.
One can't answer the question he asked with a simple yes or no as he demanded.
Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull![]()
The question should be.
If a 25 y/o male came into their church. And his parents did not circumcize them. And he was circumcized by the hands of God in his heart. would they try to force him to be physically circumcised. And would they consider him to be in sin if he did not. and make it a yes or no answer. end of EG's quote.
I continue..
The proper thing would be "no?" Then one would ask "No what?" Or...The proper thing would be "yes?" Then one would ask "Yes what?"
As it escalated into more confusion, the obscurity of the truth that others were sharing would be accomplished. It is for the purpose of confusing the issue that he doesn't agree with or want to see. I've seen this from him twice before. I'm pretty sure it's on purpose.
Does God want us to get past the Old Testament? The New Testament makes it clear that 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
With that in mind, Paul is referring to the Old Testament, for the New Testament writings were part of that letter Paul was writing, referring to what Timothy already had in his possession. Henceforth, the scripture Paul was endorsing was the Old Testament, as we know it. It's profitable. Why would we want to get past it, or pass it by?
Yes, but is not the walking (doing) that justifies, it is the faith (believing) that justifies (Eph 2:8).
To all it many concern,
Perhaps, it just broils down to not understanding the manner they use to convey their thoughts. There is one on here who I absolutely cannot understand because of grammatical mannerisms and often find myself not agreeing with what I can gather from that person, but, in fairness, I do not assume that person's intent because of my inability to understand (No, sister Elin, not you). I found this most precious gem to be of value in exchanges of thoughts: give not an adverse sentencing and one will not receive an adverse sentencing.
I have also found that in the exchange of thoughts it is our own thoughts which make us individuals. And sometimes, those thoughts clashes. But, really, does that make us demons working evil to the detriment of the others soul? Or, could it simple mean that we are at different stages in our walk to find what we know in part for now: Truth?
Does not the Scripture tells us how to distinguish spirits? Yet, neither one would deny that the Christ (the One sent to be the Savior) came in the flesh.
This I know: if someone disagrees with another, it does not necessarily mean they are saying you are wrong, but, in fact, saying: this is what I think. Yet, when declaring one wrong and perhaps a demon in sheep clothing, edification is thrown to the wind and condemnation is spitted upon the face.
Honestly, I don't get mad at these people. Perturbed that they are so obtuse and evasive is more accurate.