BEWARE the Lawkeepers

[haz]

What matters is what the Bible teaches so why are you so concerned with what others teach?

The Bible says people are judged according to the light they have and if they live up to it. Not everyone has the same light. If you have more light than others then more will be required of you.

Laodicea, are you SDA?

Gotime described those who do not obey the law as unrighteous. This means lost.

With the above in mind, what about when Jesus said we are to forgive one another 7x70. It seems, according to legalist doctrines, that you are suggesting that we to be even more forgiving than God is.

The legalists here speak of a different measuring gauge for each of us in determining whether we are righteous or not. To those who more is given, more is expected. So according to you, God may forgive some Christians less than 7x70 whilst others He forgives 7x70, depending on what is expected of them.

I'm curious if there's any scripture detailing what these individual forgiveness limits are? After all it is important as it relates to our salvation, whether we are righteous or not. Remember that gotime said we are unrighteous if we do not obey the law.

And whilst you claim that God forgives to a different extent depending on an individual's ability or "light", it's interesting that Christians are told to forgive 7x70, without any differentiation between what "light" people have.

This is a very confusing, ambiguous doctrine you preach here. Perhaps you can explain further, with scripture to support

 

[JaumeJ]

Unrighteousness is, indeed, sin, and sin is breaking the law. No one can possibly be judging others in sharing this truth.

Grace does not mean the law is to be ignored or tossed out. Toss out that curse of the law, for now we have not fear of death in our feeble attempts to obey all of the law, this is only correct. If we sin deliberately after knowing the Lord, Yeshua, we are recrucifying Him.

Please do not teach others to recrucify our Salvation. Yes, we are not yet perfect, but our righteous self strives for the perfection being worked in us by the most-time gradual increase of Yeshua in us, as our selfish self decreases.

Yes, unrighteousness is sin, and righteousness is obeying the law in the safety net of grace.........Yeshua, amen.

 

[Laodicea]

Laodicea, are you SDA?

Gotime described those who do not obey the law as unrighteous. This means lost.

With the above in mind, what about when Jesus said we are to forgive one another 7x70. It seems, according to legalist doctrines, that you are suggesting that we to be even more forgiving than God is.

The legalists here speak of a different measuring gauge for each of us in determining whether we are righteous or not. To those who more is given, more is expected. So according to you, God may forgive some Christians less than 7x70 whilst others He forgives 7x70, depending on what is expected of them.

I'm curious if there's any scripture detailing what these individual forgiveness limits are? After all it is important as it relates to our salvation, whether we are righteous or not. Remember that gotime said we are unrighteous if we do not obey the law.

And whilst you claim that God forgives to a different extent depending on an individual's ability or "light", it's interesting that Christians are told to forgive 7x70, without any differentiation between what "light" people have.

This is a very confusing, ambiguous doctrine you preach here. Perhaps you can explain further, with scripture to support

I know Gotime and I think you may misunderstand what he is teaching. A person is righteous because they recieve Christ's robe of righteousness. That does not mean we have no work.

Revelation 16:15 KJV
(15) Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

As far as 70 x 7 does anyone really keep an account? Also 70 x 7 is a reference to Daniel 9. Now let us look at the judgement. Look at the Pharisees and the woman caught in adultry, the Pharisees had much more knowledge than her. she could not be expected to be judged in the same light because it would make God unfair. Also 70x 7 could be for just one sin not just in total.

 

[JaumeJ]

Just a note, as far as I have been informed, the SDA has declared Jesus Christ is God and Savior, so the only argument most have with them is that they love to observe the Seventh Day as the Sabbath. Remember Paul's teachings on individuals not being questioned (or faulted) on what day they hold over another in the sight of Yahweh with a clear conscience, especially in light of the truth that the only designation of the Seventh Day is by God, Himself. It is in the Word, while there is nothing about another day assuming the Seventh Day's position.

No, I am not SDA, but if they accept Yeshua as Salvation and God, they are family in Yeshua, so leave them alone please. It is a sure thing those who criticize them have many more faults than they are able to find in others.

 

[BradC]

Just a note, as far as I have been informed, the SDA has declared Jesus Christ is God and Savior, so the only argument most have with them is that they love to observe the Seventh Day as the Sabbath. Remember Paul's teachings on individuals not being questioned (or faulted) on what day they hold over another in the sight of Yahweh with a clear conscience, especially in light of the truth that the only designation of the Seventh Day is by God, Himself. It is in the Word, while there is nothing about another day assuming the Seventh Day's position.

No, I am not SDA, but if they accept Yeshua as Salvation and God, they are family in Yeshua, so leave them alone please. It is a sure thing those who criticize them have many more faults than they are able to find in others.

Because you have been persuaded in your conscience that it is a good thing to do and to keep the law of the Sabbath, if you stopped keeping the law of the Sabbath would that be sin for you? How do you interpret the following and how do we apply it to our lives today...

Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to men who are acquainted with the Law—that legal claims have power over a person only for as long as he is alive?
2 For [instance] a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is loosed and discharged from the law concerning her husband.
3 Accordingly, she will be held an adulteress if she unites herself to another man while her husband lives. But if her husband dies, the marriage law no longer is binding on her [she is free from that law]; and if she unites herself to another man, she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brethren, you have undergone death as to the Law through the [crucified] body of Christ, so that now you may belong to Another, to Him Who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
5 When we were living in the flesh (mere physical lives), the sinful passions that were awakened and aroused up by the Law were constantly operating in our natural powers (in our bodily organs, in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh), so that we bore fruit for death.
6 But now we are discharged from the Law and have terminated all intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained and held us captive. So now we serve not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [under obedience to the promptings] of the Spirit in newness [of life].

 

[john832]

Because you have been persuaded in your conscience that it is a good thing to do and to keep the law of the Sabbath, if you stopped keeping the law of the Sabbath would that be sin for you? How do you interpret the following and how do we apply it to our lives today...

Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to men who are acquainted with the Law—that legal claims have power over a person only for as long as he is alive?
2 For [instance] a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is loosed and discharged from the law concerning her husband.
3 Accordingly, she will be held an adulteress if she unites herself to another man while her husband lives. But if her husband dies, the marriage law no longer is binding on her [she is free from that law]; and if she unites herself to another man, she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brethren, you have undergone death as to the Law through the [crucified] body of Christ, so that now you may belong to Another, to Him Who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
5 When we were living in the flesh (mere physical lives), the sinful passions that were awakened and aroused up by the Law were constantly operating in our natural powers (in our bodily organs, in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh), so that we bore fruit for death.
6 But now we are discharged from the Law and have terminated all intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained and held us captive. So now we serve not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [under obedience to the promptings] of the Spirit in newness [of life].

Uh, let's see, would that be a sin?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Does it transgress the Law?

Yep, it is sin.

 

[haz]

A person is righteous because they recieve Christ's robe of righteousness. That does not mean we have no work.

And Jesus tells us that our works are to believe on him, John 6:29.

But legalists insist that it's works of the law that we are to do to show our faith (and this in spite of scripture such as Gal 3:12 "the law is not of faith").

You quoted Rev 16:15 about "keeping his garments", and describe this in terms of obeying the law. But that is such an ambiguous claim.
Some legalists correctly state that the law requires perfect obedience for one to be righteous, but others, such as yourself, suggest some lessor, unspecified, ambiguous level of obedience to the law is enough to still be righteous. You suggest that God expects differing minimum standards of obedience to the law from each of us, and that claim is made with no scripture to support it.

The Bible gives us a specific limit regarding what is required under the law to be righteous. It's perfect obedience, James 2:10. There are no scriptures saying that 90% or 50% or 20% obedience to the law is enough to pass the grade for "imparted" righteousness. Hence your doctrine is error.

The Bible also gives us a specific commandment as to the alternative to righteousness by works of the law. That alternative is to believe on Jesus, thus our faith is counted for righteousness, Rom 4:5.

The Bible is specific.

But the doctrine you propose is ambiguous.

As far as 70 x 7 does anyone really keep an account?

Legalists like yourself claim that there is an account being kept. You yourself claimed that we each have our own individual minimum standard of obedience to the law that God expects of us.
You said:
"people are judged according to the light they have and if they live up to it. Not everyone has the same light. If you have more light than others then more will be required of you."

It would only be fair and just if scripture provided details of these differing expectations God has for each of us on obeying the law to prove our "imparted" righteousness.
But, we both know there are no scriptures giving such details to support this error doctrine you propose.

Now let us look at the judgement. Look at the Pharisees and the woman caught in adultry, the Pharisees had much more knowledge than her. she could not be expected to be judged in the same light because it would make God unfair. Also 70x 7 could be for just one sin not just in total.

We could take your point even further too.
Perhaps 7x70 could be just for one sin.
But over what time period? After all we all live differing life spans.

I hope you can see how this legalistic doctrine you follow is so ambiguous that we're now left wondering what our individual minimum standard of obedience to the law is that God requires of us as proof of "imparted" righteousness, and over what time period we have been allotted to attain this as we do not know what our life span will be.

I suggest you reject such ambiguous doctrines, and believe on Jesus instead. The gospel of Christ is specific.

 

[JaumeJ]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to john832 again.

I too have addressed this recurring question by those with deaf ears many times. This time I am with you in your reply. I would have already replied, however I do have a life away from the keyboard, a life in Yeshua..

Uh, let's see, would that be a sin?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Does it transgress the Law?

Yep, it is sin.

 

[haz]

Just a note, as far as I have been informed, the SDA has declared Jesus Christ is God and Savior, so the only argument most have with them is that they love to observe the Seventh Day as the Sabbath.

Hi JaumeJ,

You're so generous to SDA's in your post that you missed the facts altogether.

If the SDA's want to keep the Sabbath that's their choice. I've not seen anybody have any argument against an SDA's choice to keep the Sabbath.

Instead the major fact that you missed is that the argument against SDAs is all about their insistence that we all must come under the law just like they are and if we refuse then we're unrighteous. The SDA's preach condemnation under the law and it's this that those under grace oppose.

 

[Laodicea]

And Jesus tells us that our works are to believe on him, John 6:29.

But legalists insist that it's works of the law that we are to do to show our faith (and this in spite of scripture such as Gal 3:12 "the law is not of faith").

You quoted Rev 16:15 about "keeping his garments", and describe this in terms of obeying the law. But that is such an ambiguous claim.
Some legalists correctly state that the law requires perfect obedience for one to be righteous, but others, such as yourself, suggest some lessor, unspecified, ambiguous level of obedience to the law is enough to still be righteous. You suggest that God expects differing minimum standards of obedience to the law from each of us, and that claim is made with no scripture to support it.

The Bible gives us a specific limit regarding what is required under the law to be righteous. It's perfect obedience, James 2:10. There are no scriptures saying that 90% or 50% or 20% obedience to the law is enough to pass the grade for "imparted" righteousness. Hence your doctrine is error.

The Bible also gives us a specific commandment as to the alternative to righteousness by works of the law. That alternative is to believe on Jesus, thus our faith is counted for righteousness, Rom 4:5.

The Bible is specific.

But the doctrine you propose is ambiguous.



Legalists like yourself claim that there is an account being kept. You yourself claimed that we each have our own individual minimum standard of obedience to the law that God expects of us.
You said:
"people are judged according to the light they have and if they live up to it. Not everyone has the same light. If you have more light than others then more will be required of you."

It would only be fair and just if scripture provided details of these differing expectations God has for each of us on obeying the law to prove our "imparted" righteousness.
But, we both know there are no scriptures giving such details to support this error doctrine you propose.



We could take your point even further too.
Perhaps 7x70 could be just for one sin.
But over what time period? After all we all live differing life spans.

I hope you can see how this legalistic doctrine you follow is so ambiguous that we're now left wondering what our individual minimum standard of obedience to the law is that God requires of us as proof of "imparted" righteousness, and over what time period we have been allotted to attain this as we do not know what our life span will be.

I suggest you reject such ambiguous doctrines, and believe on Jesus instead. The gospel of Christ is specific.

I do not mind being called a legalist because read these texts.

Jesus is a legalist
Matthew 19:17 KJV
(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Paul is a legalist
Romans 3:31 KJV
(31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

John is a legalist
Revelation 22:14 KJV
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


I could give much more texts. It looks like you have a lawless religion. Anytime someone mentions keeping the law you cry legalist. So then if Jesus, Paul and John were on CC teaching this you would call them a legalist.

 

[john832]

I do not mind being called a legalist because read these texts.

Actually, being called a legalist is kind compared to some of the things I have been called.

I really don't care what you call me, just don't call me late to dinner.

 

[john832]

I do not mind being called a legalist because read these texts.

Jesus is a legalist
Matthew 19:17 KJV
(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Paul is a legalist
Romans 3:31 KJV
(31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

John is a legalist
Revelation 22:14 KJV
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


I could give much more texts. It looks like you have a lawless religion. Anytime someone mentions keeping the law you cry legalist. So then if Jesus, Paul and John were on CC teaching this you would call them a legalist.

If Christ came today as a humble carpenter, He would be crucified all over again.

 

[Laodicea]

Some legalists correctly state that the law requires perfect obedience for one to be righteous, but others, such as yourself, suggest some lessor, unspecified, ambiguous level of obedience to the law is enough to still be righteous. You suggest that God expects differing minimum standards of obedience to the law from each of us, and that claim is made with no scripture to support it.

Do you really think people will get to heaven having a lazy attitude? Doing whatever they want, living as a worlding, living a life of sin?

 

[JaumeJ]

Again, if the SDA wishes to be bound by the law instead of freely obeying the law in grace, this is the affair of that particualr theology, or doctrine of the denomination.

I belong to no organized denomination, as posted many times in the past. My doctrine is the faith of Abraham, non-denominational.

If the SDA indeed believes it is justified by law, this is unfortunate, however if they believe they are justified by faith in Yeshua, yet follow the law, there is no harm here. At least they do not preach against the law, as do so many who come in here.

Teaching against the law is tantamount to being permissive to sin, sin is breaking the law. Teaching against the law in general is recrucifying our Savior, Yeshua.

We know how to live in grace while being obedient from the Master, not from made up doctrines. I know I will not judge nor condemn an entire denomination just because they choose to be obedient. Salvation is by the Blood of the Lamb of Yahweh, however disobedience is still akin to witchcraft according to Yahweh. Rocket science? I think not.

Hi JaumeJ,

You're so generous to SDA's in your post that you missed the facts altogether.

If the SDA's want to keep the Sabbath that's their choice. I've not seen anybody have any argument against an SDA's choice to keep the Sabbath.

Instead the major fact that you missed is that the argument against SDAs is all about their insistence that we all must come under the law just like they are and if we refuse then we're unrighteous. The SDA's preach condemnation under the law and it's this that those under grace oppose.

 

[john832]

I have referenced this many times but one more won't hurt. If we were discussing "Thou shalt not kill." how many people would bristle up and argue against keeping that Commandment? None! The only one that is fought over is the fourth Commandment.

 

[Laodicea]

If the SDA indeed believes it is justified by law, this is unfortunate, however if they believe they are justified by faith in Yeshua, yet follow the law, there is no harm here. At least they do not preach against the law, as do so many who come in here.

SDA do not teach they are justified by the law. It is a false accusation by those either misinformed or teach against the law as there seem to be here on CC. Anytime keeping the law is mentioned, no matter how much people say it is out of love, in His strength not ours, as a result of grace people always find fault. The law is good as the Bible says, so why do they teach against it.

 

[Laodicea]

I have referenced this many times but one more won't hurt. If we were discussing "Thou shalt not kill." how many people would bristle up and argue against keeping that Commandment? None! The only one that is fought over is the fourth Commandment.

That is true, it always comes down to that. Why do they hate something that God says is good?

 

[JaumeJ]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Laodicea again. Do not ever stop teaching truth...

 

[jag1977]

what in the he'll is reputation?

 

[Brother_Don]

why in the world would you ask your question like that?