A Question

[Lamar]

Not to remove. to cover.

And in the Law that covering is only worked through the temple sacrificial ordinances, not by ordinary obedience to regulations - under the law failure to "do" these works outlined in commands and ordinances results in damnation that can be "covered" ((in most cases - but not every sin could be covered by sacrificial blood)) by the blood of sacrifices but not "removed"

only Christ removes sin. by His blood, and by fiat.

"Not to remove. to cover."

Talk about semantics.

 

[posthuman]

"Not to remove. to cover."

Talk about semantics.

No, friend, talk about Leviticus.

Hebrews 7:19​

for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.​

in the Law blood was poured on the altar and sprinkled on the ark, but these things weren't changed by that blood. from the mercy seat God looked down but didn't see a new cration: He saw the same ark, covered with blood. a covering; not a transformation.

we have "a better hope" as it is written.

But go find me the phrase 'works of merit' in the scripture - not the papal decrees - and thenceforth let me know what it is i have to learn of your particular wisdom

 

[Magenta]

No, friend, talk about Leviticus.

Hebrews 7:19​

for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.​

in the Law blood was poured on the altar and sprinkled on the ark, but these things weren't changed by that blood. from the mercy seat God looked down but didn't see a new cration: He saw the same ark, covered with blood. a covering; not a transformation.

we have "a better hope" as it is written.

But go find me the phrase 'works of merit' in the scripture - not the papal decrees - and thenceforth let me know what it is i have to learn of your particular wisdom

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4

 

[posthuman]

the word 'pitch' in Genesis describing what the ark of Noah was 'sealed' with is the same word as is differently translated 'atonement' in Deuteronomy & Leviticus et al.

the literal meaning is 'covering'

just FYI ya know.

what floats our boats, hehehe

 

[posthuman]

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4

i love you sis

i am sorry that sometimes i am stupid and we spat

 

[Magenta]

i love you sis

i am sorry that sometimes i am stupid and we spat

I love you, too! I do not consider our occasional disagreements spats, nor do I think you
lacking in any way in the smarts department, nor in your love of Scripture, and God...
and I am sorry if my disagreeing with you causes you any distress. While it is true we do
not always see eye to eye on everything, it takes nothing away from my respect for you.

 

[posthuman]

Who made this claim? Please cite.

worthychristianforums.com

lol

 

[posthuman]

I love you, too! I do not consider our occasional disagreements spats, nor do I think you
lacking in any way in the smarts department, nor in your love of Scripture, and God...
and I am sorry if my disagreeing with you causes you any distress. While it is true we do
not always see eye to eye on everything, it takes nothing away from my respect for you.

sometimes i feel like an idiot, realizing i've spoken out of place, and i don't want to show my face for weeks

 

[posthuman]

and I am sorry if my disagreeing with you causes you any distress.

your unashamed willingness to stand up to my unrelenting rhetoric for what you believe is true, is beautiful, and it inspires me rather than distresses me - but it also makes me question whether i am right or not, and my distresses are all about my wondering whether i have spoken well or spoken like a fool

nah
you're great; i am thankful you are part of my life, either way 😊
just sometimes i feel dumb ha
because you make good points! ❤️

 

[posthuman]

"Not to remove. to cover."

Talk about semantics.

this is a good point, a worthwhile criticism, because there really is a difference here. see previous post.

 

[Magenta]

sometimes i feel like an idiot, realizing i've spoken out of place, and i don't want to show my face for weeks

Please do not feel that way on my account. Some of your ideas do strike me as rather odd LOL
for instance our most recent "discussion" was about Lot's wife, and you said her being turned
into a pillar of salt was God saving her life, and I do hope you can see my side of it = that making
her dead does not sound like saving her life to me .. However I do know you think deeply
into some of the things I might consider fanciful, such as how you describe Adam's love for Eve
and his willingness to give up his life for her making him a foreshadow of Christ's love for us. So
although Scripture does not say as much as you, I do think there is merit in what you are saying.
To me we are not spatting, it is just us laying bare what we think. My thoughts are often more
bare bones, which is funny if you think about it given your avatar .

 

[Lamar]

i reiterate:

Galatians 3:12
Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."

your argument about "works of merit" is purely semantic here; if salvation is contingent on a particular action, resulting in damnation without that action, then salvation is for all intents and purposes "by" that action.

if glossolalia is necessary for salvation, then salvation is through glossolalia.

I am fully aware that you and many others on this site are followers of faith alone regeneration theology but that does not give you the right to label their acts of obedience as acts of merit towards salvation. They are simply following what they believe the Bible commands them to do for the remission of sins. They do not believe they are earning salvation. You should show some grace.

You believe that the remission of sins happens at some point in your growing in trust of Jesus. That's fine.
But others make a very valid point that the Bible is pointing to water baptism as that point.

 

[Cameron143]

Ou

Who made this claim? Please cite.

The whole conversation has turned to whether the translation should be robed with her own righteous acts or the righteousness of Christ. If it's ones own acts, why is it necessary for believers to have Christ's righteousness imputed to them?

 

[Magenta]

sometimes i feel like an idiot, realizing i've spoken out of place, and i don't want to show my face for weeks

I do get concerned when you disappear... .

And I have apologized to you for just saying straight out what
I think without trying to mitigate it, which would feel dishonest.

 

[Ted01]

Jesus: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."
You: "It is not about Salvation!"

It most certainly is about salvation.

salvation
noun

1. the act of saving or protecting from harm, risk, loss, destruction, etc.
2. the state of being saved or protected from harm, risk, etc.

Don't be disingenuous like that... you purposefully changed the context of my post!
Baptism is not about Salvation... yes, Jesus said that, He also said:

Jn. 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (nothing about baptism)

Jn. 6:47 - Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. (nothing about baptism)

Jn. 11: 25-26 - “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (nothing about baptism)

Jn. 5:24 - Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (nothing about baptism)

(and more...)

I wish that you could see how your hyper focusing on baptism is causing you to miss the simple truth; Jesus is our "all-in-all" in regard to Salvation. He does the "works"; we rest in Him. While I understand that we, as humans, feel compelled to work for success/profit/way, in regard to spiritual things, Scriptures make it clear that we cannot do it. That's the difference between the Old and the New Covenents... and I don't understand why it's so difficult for us to lay that down. But we must... you must.

I think that you're trying to earn your way into God's favor... and your (self)denial of it is to the point of saying that your "works" aren't "meritorious", it's mere "obedience"... even though it's required for Salvation. (Ergo, it is meritorious!) You've asked for proofs that people preach a works-based Salvation... just look at your own postings, I submit all that you've written as proof.

If you don't lose your pride on this issue, I'm afraid that you're going to regret it one day.

 

[Nehemiah6]

sometimes i feel like an idiot, realizing i've spoken out of place, and i don't want to show my face for weeks

The only problem is that the face is missing. Check your avatar.

 

[wrecked]

any catholic church. & when you confront them have your arsenal ready: Ephesians 2:8,9,10

The Catholic church in my town is the only church willing to let anyone - Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist ask questions! That's the way it should be.

 

[Karlon]

so has the catholic church learned anything yet?

 

[wrecked]

so has the catholic church learned anything yet?

Not such a good question. Has the Protestant Church ever admitted making doctrinal errors?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Not such a good question. Has the Protestant Church ever admitted making doctrinal errors?

The "Protestant Church" is not a monolithic entity but many denominations. At the same time no denomination has ever admitted making doctrinal errors. In fact the Catholic Church has always doubled down on its errors. The real issue is whether the Catholic Church in your town is giving people the right biblical answers. This is a matter related to the eternal destiny of souls.