Then you elaborate upon, or clarify, what you mean with this by saying . . . . . . which is the most convoluted way of saying that 'a person has the right to believe and tell BS' that I have ever heard in my life; this was hard to discombobulate - keep it simple next time and I will understand. So, I agree with that part of the proposition - no big deal. However, I disagree with the other part of the proposition, in that, once you have 'said exactly what you believe,' you are no longer the 'only one' with the 'right to say it,' because others can then quote you and hold you to it - with every privilege comes a responsibility. Agreed, same here. Ok, I am still trailing behind with that. The Mosaic covenant could only be fulfilled by Christ's death - Him being the exact representation of Jehovah's very Being - for a covenant is only valid over the death of the one concluding it, and it seems that therefore both the fulfillment of the old and inauguration of the new covenant were brought about by the one sacrificial death of Christ. Heb 9:16 The people were sprinkled with the blood for obvious reasons, namely their sin; but why sprinkle the book of the Law covenant as well? What had it done wrong? The law is 'holy and righteous and good,' but placing an inherently sinful people under it, not so much, it seems, even if they blithely consented to it. Very good point you make there; that is what I like to hear - now you are talking faith and walking by it, just as David also bears witness: "Happy are those whose lawless deeds have been pardoned and whose sins have been covered; happy is the man whose sin Jehovah will by no means take into account." If David, who was still under the old covenant, could experience that happiness, how much more so those now in the new covenant, and those showing faith like David, now that Christ has died and been raised up? Harry
I literally had to say it a dozen different ways in several different posts because you weren't getting it. And it's on me? lol. I said it the first time very simply, and then I had to find multiple ways of saying it in the hopes that you would get it in one of them. Again, this is irrelevant. There is no scenario you can offer that will change the fact that the speaker is the only one who gets to define their meaning. I never said anything about the speaker being the only one with the right to say what was said. Just because I said only the speaker can define their meaning has nothing to do with anyone else being able to say what the speaker had said. This is exactly what I've been talking about with you. You do this constantly. If I say, "I like steak." that does not give the listener the right to say, "Then why don't you like chicken?" That makes you sound as though you have no common sense whatsoever. The one has nothing to do with the other. You assume constantly. This will NEVER allow you to understand those around you and this approach will always cause fights. The form of communication you are presenting is from Satan and was invented in the Garden of Eden. He invented the twisting of someone else's words. You can't seem to understand exactly what the speaker is saying. And you think you're 100% accurate within Scripture? Think about that. The mistakes you are making in understanding me are entry-level psychology 101. Ask yourself why I can understand you, but you can't understand me. You will think it's how I explain myself, but trust me, it is not. If there was one time in your entire life you should actually imagine you could be wrong, it should be right now, Harry. I've had to try to explain myself in dozens of different ways before you slowly grasp on. And even then, you still haven't. If you truly want to understand the Bible, you must understand the rules of communication. I am trying to help you. If there are still paradoxes in your current understanding, that means your current understanding is wrong. I've spent years realizing that if there was a single paradox I was wrong, I must immediately determine where I was wrong and correct my thinking. Have you not noticed all of the paradoxes to your understandings I've been throwing out at you? You must constantly imagine you could be wrong to rid all paradoxes. This requires enjoying it when you discover you are wrong because you have been corrected. Hebrews 9:16 talks about Wills, and you interpret/apply/assume this includes the covenants given by God. Show me direct Scriptural evidence that this is so. That Paul is talking about fulfillments rather than establishment. The Davidic covenant promise was established when Jesus was baptized. Covenants such as those in Dan 9 are held in place for some time, not in an instant at a death. The Davidic promise wasn't a promise to David that his son would die. (And please do not go on about how the Messiah was to die. No, really?) Where is the New Covenant Kingdom? The disciples are not ruling yet, they are dead. THEREFORE, the New Covenant is not confirmed/established/in place. It's just a promise right now. "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Heb 8:6 I present these paradoxes in your current understanding, and you tiptoe around them, explaining them away with mental gymnastics that violate your original assumptions. The only way you can be right about any of this is if there were no longer any paradoxes in your understandings. Of which you have many. If you actually studied what I've been saying, you would discover no paradoxes within, hence why I've had to come to believe it. I didn't choose to believe as I do; I used to think like you on these matters. I've had to adjust my thinking to remove all paradoxes regardless of what the truth was. Why is it we are only talking about the paradoxes within your understanding and not mine? It's because I'm able to understand what you believe and check Scripture to see if it so. But you can't seem to understand what I believe and check the Scriptures to see if it is so. Think about that.... What are you talking about???? I'm pointing out the paradoxes in your understanding. You can't understand what I am saying, but you think you understand the Bible? AGAIN: You claim the removal of sin by Christ's blood allows us to no longer have any conscience of them within us. I quoted Timothy, who said his forefathers had a clear conscience under the Law. That is a paradox in your thinking, meaning there is a problem with your current understanding. Omg... If it took Christ to remove the consciousness of sin, how could Timothy's forefathers have a clear conscience? Please answer the question I asked. For that matter, how about answering any of the other multitudes of paradoxes I've mentioned? For example, when Jesus removes sin from us, it makes us perfect, but Paul said he wasn't perfect yet because of the sin in him. Don't give me any mental gymnastics; just quantify the paradoxes through Scripture. If there is a single paradox, there is no reason to answer; that should tell you there's a problem with your thinking. How are we forgiven all things except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but once sin is removed, there no longer remains an offering for it? (PARADOX) And your explanation of needing to buy clothes from Jesus to cover the nakedness of sin having to do with physical money on earth is ballocks...lol If you have to cover your sin, that means it is still within you, and Christ has not removed it yet. Just as Paul said, sin was still in him. How can sin be in Paul if Christ removed it????? Joshua
How come you can't see that Paul himself here is using a will of inheritance to compare, and illustrate, its resemblance to both the old and new covenant? Read his words for yourself: "For a covenant is valid over dead victims, since it is not in force at any time while the [human] covenanter is living; consequently, neither was the former covenant inaugurated without blood." Heb 9:17,18 Do you see that little word 'consequently' there? Do you know what that word means? If a will, testament or covenant is not in force until the death of the one making it, it follows that it is in force upon his death, meaning, the new covenant has been in force since Christ's death; that is Paul's point here, and the interpretation is his, made under Holy Spirit, and all you have to do is read it and believe, or read it and weep, since you are unwilling to believe.
Out of all the corrections I made to your misunderstandings and all of the questions I asked you to answer, you focused on one scripture you think you caught me on. lol... Why can't you answer any of the myriad paradoxes in your thinking I presented? One scripture does not make a whole picture. I could be wrong at any time, Harry. This, however, is not one of those times. I do see Paul is using a Will to demonstrate a point about covenants; however, you are the one who misunderstands him. The covenants are promises. The New Covenant promise is in place; it has not been confirmed/fulfilled. I keep saying it and you keep not understanding it. Paul isn't saying that, through his example of a Will, everyone gets the fulfillment of the covenant promises immediately. He's simply saying, " Like a Will, the covenants are established/inaugurated through a death." The simple fact that the New Covenant kingdom isn't here yet proves that the covenant promise was established, not fulfilled, Harry. The Will is set, we're just waiting for the inheritance now. Paul doesn't say anything about receiving the promises of the Will. Paul is only talking about the establishment of the Will. You might not even know you are in a Will, and it could have stipulations to receive items as an heir. You don't always get what's in a Will immediately. Paul's point is, like a Will, the promises are established at a death. "Upon my death, these things are promised." The promises are made/inaugurated at the death, not before. Paul's point is, blood was needed. A will isn't a covenant between two people before death, but only after. The covenant promises are what is established through blood, not their fulfillment. Stop using your own understanding and experiences to define the meaning of God's Word. Only He get's to define Himself. What you think a Will should or shouldn't do is irrelevant to the person who is using the metaphor and has the right to define their meaning, which is Paul and God speaking, not you or me. Did the Israelites get the realities of the Law immediately? No, Christ had to fulfill it. Did David get the Messiah through his line immediately? No, that would be fulfilled later. Is the new kingdom here already? No, that has to be fulfilled still yet future. You are missing the fact that the covenants that were established were promises that needed to be fulfilled at a later date. The covenants are just a PROMISE when inaugurated/established/enacted. "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Heb 8:6 This whole matter is all about your inability to understand me, Harry. I'll say it again for the tenth time: The Old, New, and Davidic covenants were established as promises. That's their inauguration, their establishment through sacrificial blood, Paul is talking about. God established a promise in the New and Old Covenants, and then, hundreds of years later, He confirms them by their fulfillment. The Will is only a promise; it's fulfillment depends on the stipulations within. Paul wasn't discussing the Wills fulfillment, only its establishment. The Old Covenant was not confirmed until it was fulfilled in Christ; only the promise was in place. The Old Covenant was a shadow/promise of what was ESTABLISHED/CONFIRMED in Christ. The Old Covenant was inaugurated through sacrifices, just like the New Covenant through Christ's blood. If Christ had not died faithful He could not have established the promise to rule a kingdom. Therefore, the promise truly began at His faithful death. Christ made a promise to His disciples for a kingdom; hence, the New Covenant promise was established. It was inaugurated/established and made sure through His blood. The promise, however, has not come/confirmed; THE KINGDOM IS NOT HERE YET. Christ promised a kingdom to rule, and that kingdom is not here yet. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. What is a blood pact, Harry? Two men cut their hands and shake on it, right? What is that pact? It's a promise... It took blood to establish the promise. That doesn't mean everything promised within comes immediately. Inaugurated means established, the beginning of something, Harry. Confirmed means fulfilled. No, Jesus made the promise and through His death it was inaugurated/began. That doesn't change the fact that the covenant was a promise. The Mosaic covenants were established/inaugurated through sacrifices, and then hundreds of years later they were "confirmed/fulfilled" in the realities of Christ. The New Covenant promised to rule the new kingdom. That kingdom is not here, Harry. The rulers are dead. Therefore, the New Covenant cannot be fulfilled yet; only the promise is in place. The only thing Christ did was make a promise, and that New Covenant promise was established/inaugurated through His sacrifice. Does this help at all yet? Let alone you completely ignored everything else in my post. Joshua
No, I focus on one book, the NT, and as the title suggests, it is all about the new testament or new covenant. "Therefore, since a promise is left of entering into His rest, let us fear that sometime someone of you may seem to have fallen short of it;" - makes you wonder who that 'someone' might be? Of course they did - blessings and curses according to how they performed, or do you think getting wiped out by their enemies time and again wasn't real? Your own quote says that Christ is mediating [present tense] the new covenant, but you say it is not in operation yet - what gives? Remember, the new covenant is not with mankind to bring about the restoration of all things spoken of by the prophets, the Edenic paradise on earth, which is to happen in the age to come; no, the new covenant is only in preparation of this, to collect and perfect the kings and priests for the coming 1000 year reign of God's kingdom. That's what you say . . . That's what Paul says . . . IT IS ENACTED, present tense, not, will be enacted one day, as you erroneously claim; I rest my case. Harry
Are you trying to say something? Say it, don't be afraid. Be a man. If you've got something to say, say it. They recieved the realities of the Law, huh? "These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17 You're oblivious. The New Covenant is active currently. We are under the New Covenant now, Harry. You are incapable of simple comprehension. You are totally oblivious to what I'm saying. That is not what I said. I said it was enacted/inaugurated at Christ's sacrifice. You are incapable of understanding anything other than your own assumptions.
Good evening, @Joshuastone7, I am still caught off-guard that we have such a marked difference in the matter of a covenant, nor are we likely to come around to the other's perspective on the matter, so it needs to be set aside for now— at least in my estimation. I don't need to wait for something to turn into an argument when my experience is sufficient to know already where differences on soteriology lead. I prefer building bridges anyhow. And thank you for what you responded with as for the graphic I thought would illustrate the divide between us. With that in mind, then, may I offer an alternate one? I'll continue after the example-- which I hope is a better fit... Which brother is right? Or, which brother is correct, rather? You and I, we are both looking at covenants, for example, and we're both saying that we've read the scriptures. While we may have been raised by the same Bible, we have disparate perspectives on certain things about that Bible. And as a result of that, our perspective shapes who we become, the way we reflect on that (parent). Contrary to claim, objectivity is impossible-- although we both can try to approximate it and even pretend we're being entirely objective. My reason for such a bold statement / claim is because we are finite beings, and as a result of this, obtainable objectivity is limited. We are locked inside an existence that offers five senses, a finite sphere of experience, a modicum of fleshly wisdom, and a skewed and fallen mind as children of Adam and Eve. There's far more that we don't know than what we can ever dream to know in this lifetime that stretches between the womb and the grave. Anyhow, I'm not sure if this helps expand on what I've been trying to convey here, but it's worth a try at least. And, again, I'm not expecting either of us to be persuaded to the other's position on covenants where the scriptures are concerned. I place the blame squarely on our respective eschatology and soteriology. Any point offered will be met with a counterpoint, until said discussion degrades finally into contentiousness, and that's not helpful for anyone. Submitted for perusal and consideration, --Timothy a believer.
Greetings, Timothy. As I have always mentioned, I appreciate your perspective, whether I agree with it or not. I don't feel I need to agree or disagree with another perspective to offer my own personal insights into it. I personally still don't see how your metaphor applies, as you present it. To my understanding, alcoholism is a detriment to one's health and spiritual life. Therefore, the brother who became an alcoholic is wrong and blames others for his ailment. One blames the father while the other credits the example for making the correct decisions. If we were to use your metaphor, I suppose we have a difference of opinion in understanding it. Where you may see neither brother being right or wrong, I see one right and one wrong. At some point, murder is either right or wrong. (To take the extreme,) In my eyes, your metaphor looks like this: Two brothers were told by their father that 2+2=5. One brother discovered 2+2=4 and told his brother of his discovery. The other brother did not choose to believe his brother based on his father's teachings growing up. This is how I view understanding the Bible. I understand that you do not. To me, this is nothing more than information, having nothing to do with emotions or continuousness. For the Bible is not my view but its own. I personally disagree with this premise. Just because one may imagine objectivity is impossible, that does not make it so. We must remember God's Word on the matter. "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Mth 19:26 Like Solomon's request to God for wisdom, if an individual today spent years focusing on objectivity from God, who are we to say it's impossible and God could not grant such a gift? I see the Bible as communication. The writer has an intent when speaking, and I don't feel it's the right of the listener to impose their view on the speaker's intent. I believe the speaker is the only one who has the right to define their meaning. Therefore it doesn't matter what you and I think the Bible says, there is only one right answer, the speakers intent. It doesn't matter what we have experienced, how we grew up, or how we presently live our lives. The speaker is the only one who can define their meaning. As someone who intently listens to and studies each understanding presented in the text, I can confidently say I am familiar with where you generally stand within the inspired texts. Where you still have some questions unanswered, you are convicted in other areas. That said, a better way to understand my position on the covenants is through a betrothal. The Israelites would have had a better understanding of these types of covenants, for they were present in their marriage arrangements. A betrothment was a promise, and for all intents and purposes, identical to a marriage which needed a divorce to remove one from. That, however, was not the fulfillment of a marriage or its confirmation that would occur later. "Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." Mth 1:18 "And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly." Mth 1:19 "For I am jealous as to you with the jealousy of God. For I have betrothed you to one husband, to present a pure virgin to Christ." 2Cor 11:2 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom." Mth 25;1 --- "This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void." Gal 3:17 "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Heb 8:6 "Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Eph 2:12 "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." Heb 9:15 "He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations," Psm 105:8 "Yet the LORD was not willing to destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever." 2Ch 21:7 "For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I promised to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant." De 21:20 I could go further, but I suppose this will suffice for the moment. Joshua
Post #2 @Timothy Kline I thought I would go into objectiveness a little further, for it appears we are categorizing the Bible differently. I am familiar with the mainstream literature on objectiveness. Where studies may state complete objectiveness is impossible, the term is generalized. An example of how they are right would be our view of sin. We would not be objective on sin in the world. Some believe immorality is normal, but we are convinced it is not. However, with that said, there are examples of effective impartiality. You are being objective when you accept a fact rather than your own assumptions. Is the earth round, or is it flat? There is only one right answer. Are the flat earthers correct, or are they wrong? One can come to a correct understanding of this subject by being objective. In my view, the Bible is one of those subjects to which there is only one right answer, for it is the intent of someone's spoken words. A desk from Ikea can be put together in many ways, but if you wish to assemble it as the designer intended, you must follow the rules. Does this make the one who put the desk together differently than the manufacturer intended wrong? Not necessarily. However, if he claims his version is as the manufacturer intended, at that point, he is wrong because only the designer/speaker can define their meaning. When someone says something to you, you do not have the right to interpret their words, and define them through your own experiences and life. You will always be wrong, if you're assuming that is what the other person is saying. And if you are interpreting their words and claim you are not saying this is what they are saying, you are having your own conversation and have little empathy. This leans toward narcissism. The Bible has rules. The speaker is to be taken literally unless there is an explicit change denoting metaphor. The context must continue unimpeded unless there is a specifically noted change in context. If the speaker does not say something, nothing can be inferred. Only direct contextual connections throughout Scripture can alter context without the original speaker doing so. And these connections must be word-for-word identical concepts. Again, I can't state these rules more emphatically. If the speaker is speaking in literal terms, the text must be taken literally from there on out unless the speaker states by parable they have changed context, time period, or definition. If the speaker is speaking metaphorically his words must continue metaphoric until the speaker clearly changes context. If the speaker does not specify exactly when something will occur, nothing can be inferred unless clearly defined in that moment, or by word-for-word connection elsewhere. These rules are broken all the time within the text. People believe they can just meander through the text reading metaphor and literal willy-nilly as they wish. People think they can choose for themselves when events occur without taking into consideration all of God's Word. To understand the chronology of the Bible, you must know what event comes before and after each event from the beginning to the end of time. And lastly, as I said in my last post: If one spends decades asking God for objectivity in His Word, it is my experience He is capable of answering those prayers. (Mth 19:26) Obviously I can offer examples if desired. Joshua PS: Hopefully my description of covenants as a betrothal explains my position a little clearer.
Hi Timothy, I hope you don't mind me chiming in here; What if the Bible - as containing the Word of God - were written as a catalyst to discern and reveal the thoughts and heart intentions of those reading and opining on it - something that is alive and interactive; not primarily a literary artifact to study and be objective about? I am not implying that you think otherwise; just saying. The law - as a dead letter - doesn't care about intentions; only living beings do - or, at least they should - which is why interpretation is needed. Similarly, the concept of righteousness is subjective to the parties of a relationship, and therefore cannot be evaluated objectively by some outside standard. Harry
-@-Timothy, Hi Timothy, slightly off topic - but still on 'perspective' - can you picture in your mind - and draw for me without the use of CAD or similar - the third perspective of a three dimensional object where both of the other views are equal in depicting a smaller circle equidistant within a larger one, as you would see when looking at the diameter of a pipe head on? I unintentionally made that object one day and was surprised at the look of the other perspective.
lol... Wow... Astoshining... Everyone can just believe whatever they want the Bible to say...lol Facts are irrelevant; only your feelings matter, huh? The Bible doesn't care what your intentions are; what you think is irrelevant. The Law cared about God's intentions, not the Hebrews. God is the speaker; only His intent matters. The Hebrews followed God's intent as written in the Law, or they died. And this is the very same thing with the New Covenant. God's true intent is all that matters, not yours. Your feelings or intent are irrelevant; only your actions matter. Out of the heart comes the actions. God doesn't care what your interpretation of His Word is; only truth matters. Did not the Garden of Eden teach you anything? Only the speaker can define their meaning. Your personal truth is meaningless. "On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’’" Mth 7:22 You don't describe the God I know. Period... Joshua
Really? Their motives were mercenary or otherwise tainted, and their intent was to seek glory from one another and trying to prove themselves righteous through their actions. 'All the things they do, they do to be seen by man.' 'How can you believe when you are seeking glory from one another, and not the glory that comes from the Only God?' They did all the 'right actions,' but without real faith in God, rendering them 'dead works.' Heb 6:1; 9:14 Only God, who judges the heart by its intentions, can, and will, approve someone for the same actions that He rejects another for, as can be seen in the case of the offerings of Cain and Abel. 'Two man will be working in the field, one taken along and the other abandoned.' 'This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind according to the good news I declare.' Harry
Really... The text says nothing about a lack of faith or any intent to "seek glory" or "trying to prove themselves" or their "motives." You're adding all of that... It says none of that. They believed they could have faith in God, do fine works, and still live a life (act) as they pleased elsewhere. (Lawlessness/sin) Therefore, their intent and feelings were irrelevant. What they thought, and their faith were meaningless, only their actions mattered, just as I said. Only God's intent matters, not yours. Your good intentions and faith only matter when backed by works. "But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." Jms 2:18 Read the Two Sons parable. Did the son's intent have any bearing on doing their father's will? Or were their actions all that mattered? Read the Good Samaritan parable. Did the individual's intent matter at all, or was it their actions? God only cares about your intent if it produces fine actions. If you intend to do good but don't, you are not doing God's Will. If you don't intend to do good but do anyway, you are doing God's Will. If you have the intent of helping others and do so, yet other actions in your life don't coincide with God's commands, you are not doing His Will. Actions... Actions... The text doesn't say that. You are adding more than is there. They obviously had faith; otherwise, they wouldn't have called Him Lord and said they did "WORKS" in His name. The text doesn't say anything about a lack of faith. Yet you assume the text is about a lack of faith even though it says nothing about it? This is just another example of the assumptive interpretations I've been warning you about. You really think you can read whatever you want into the Bible, don't you? Because you think your heart is all that matters. "Always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2Tim 3:7 You must have a different Bible than me. I read out of the heart comes actions. I read that your intent is meaningless to your actions. I read that regardless of your intent and faith, only your actions matter. It was Cain's offering/action God had a problem with. You explain the Two Sons and Samaritan parables to me, Harry. Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding them. Go ahead, I'll wait. Hidden actions are what is revealed. "But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luk 12:23 The Pharisee's hidden actions were condemned by Christ, and He said their actions came from their heart condition. You stop with one concept in Scripture without putting the Bible together as one. This is just like in the other thread, "Sacrifices," where you said, "Through faith alone, you are saved." Is that true? NO. Faith without works is dead. So, tell me, what's more important: your feelings or actions? Paul talks about the heart only because out of the heart comes the actions. You can have no intent of helping anyone, but if you do anyway, you will be found righteous. Yet, if you have intentions of helping others and don't, you will not be found righteous. If you intend to help others, do so, but yet your actions elsewhere are selfish; you are not doing His Will, regardless of your intent or faith. And that last one is what occurs with those in the end who ask, "Lord Lord, did we not do many works in your name?" (Mth 7:22) That's the Bible I read. Joshua
There was nothing wrong with their works in themselves - others were commended for doing the same - but Jesus judged them as lawlessness, because they were not done out of faith, for 'everything that is not done out of faith is sin,' and 'sin is lawlessness.' Ro 14:23; 1 Joh 3:4 In context Jesus said: 'Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom, but the one doing the will of My Father.' Mat 7:21 And what is the will of His Father, according to the text? 'For this is the will of My Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in Him should have everlasting life.' Joh 6:40 I get it: man's intent doesn't matter to you; but it matters to God, and we are fortunate that you are not God. So your intentions do matter after all; and the reverse holds true as well: works without faith are dead works that cannot save, which was the problem with a lot of the people Christ addresses in the Sermon on the Mount here. God loves a cheerful giver, or? If you truly believe something, you act on it; everything else is semantics, not faith. Yeah, 'only,' lol. Yes, righteousness can be an unintended consequence of doing the right thing, I suppose; better be careful, lol. Yeah, because He may become to you what you believe Him to be. Harry
You are severely mistaken about what "works" is being spoken of. The works of "lawlessness" are not the works they claimed they were doing in the Lord's name. You do know what lawlessness is, don't you? Works of Lawlessness have nothing to do with works of faith. You are blinding yourself by interpreting and applying a concept not in the scripture. Not having enough faith is not a sin, Harry. (As you claim) And the text says nothing about their faith. The ones who say "Lord Lord" have faith. PERIOD..... Applying anything further than that is from you, not God. You are trying to say they had faith, but not enough, so their "normally" righteous acts are now considered lawlessness because of their little faith. Yet the text says nothing about their intent. You assume... You can't see the personal interpretations you are spitting out? Why can't you take the text as it says? They had faith and thought they were doing works in His name, prophesying and casting out demons. Every kingdom divided against itself will not stand. "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand." Mth 12:25 They thought they were doing good. I thought you said their intentions mattered. Shouldn't they be saved with faith, according to you? But no, God says they were workers of lawlessness. That means somewhere, somehow, they were ACTING/ACTIONS/DOING sin. That's what "workers" of sin means, doing sin. Sin isn't doing good with no faith! Their (unmentioned) intent is not sin. Doing works in His name, like helping others and casting out demons, is not a sin. Having "little faith" is not SIN! Omg... The brother in the Two Son's parable who did his father's will was the one who said he wouldn't. If you do not have faith and you do works that is not sin, it's nothing. You are just dust walking. You must have both faith and works to be saved. This means that the good you do is for God, not you. I know, one scripture is everything to you, not the whole Bible. By your calculations, those who said "Lord Lord" should get everlasting life, Harry. They had faith. Oh, that's right, they just didn't have enough faith for you. Let me make it very clear to you: Beyond faith, I do not want God to judge me based on my intent. I'll earn my wages, thank you. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." Rom 4:4 Can I say it any more clearly for you? I knew you would assume this. I was speaking about people with faith already. I was speaking of our intent after already having faith. After faith, your intent is irrelevant. If you don't have faith, it doesn't matter what works you do, Harry. When you do good without faith, you do it for yourself, not God. Why do you assume all the time? That constantly makes you wrong. That doesn't bother you? God doesn't care about intent/faith without works. You cannot even prove your intent/faith without works. Your intent is irrelevant; your actions are what people see, not your internal feelings. Love is an action, not a feeling. How is this hard? That's your interpretation of the Two Sons? Figures... The moral of the story is that your intent is irrelevant; only your actions matter. Yes, "only." It's not what goes in that defiles man but what comes out of the heart. You have read the Bible, right? "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” Mth 15:11 "Unintended consequences?" You have got to be kidding me. Doing the right thing is the whole point, not righteousness being an "unintended consequence." You have no idea what I'm saying in the same way you have no idea what God is saying. You aren't considered righteous if you have no faith yet help others. What in the world are you talking about? And just because you have faith is meaningless, Harry. The demons believe! "You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror." Jms 2:19 I don't care what I believe. My intent is irrelevant, remember? I won't be judged based on it. Only His intent matters to me, not my own. Think of your own feelings if you wish. Joshua
"But to whom did He swear that they should not enter into His rest except to those who acted disobediently? So we see that they could not enter in because of lack of faith." Heb 3:18,19 So 'acting disobediently' is 'working lawlessness,' which equates to 'lack of faith' in Scripture. So, there are two separate but related issues: one is unwillingness to believe - lack of faith - and the other is self righteousness - ulterior motives for doing good, but they are related, as Jesus pointed out when saying: "How can you believe when you are seeking glory from one another," meaning, faith is hindered by self seeking - and both are lawlessness in God's eyes. They were seeking their own glory and thought God would be impressed with their works. It is if you are doing it for your own glory, or as a means of getting into God's good graces. No, like I said before in quoting Jesus: 'All the things they do, they do to be seen by man,' so there is nothing wrong with their good works as such, but with the intent behind them, namely, in order to be viewed as righteous before man, as if God were a man that cared more about the outward appearance, just as they did; they were trying to create Him in their image and thought it would flatter Him, because they imagined Him to be just as Pharisaic as them. It is the motivation and intent that is the problem here; not the works themselves, but for what purpose they were done. Yes, I thought as much; and your wages are . . . death! Ro 6:23 People want to 'hold up their end of the log,' meeting God on equal terms, such as the Law proposed, where the keeping of it would justify man and declare God unrighteous. Yes, I see; working for pay makes faith redundant; very convenient for those not wanting to believe. Faith is an expression of will as in, people believe what they want to believe, or to be true, and thus a manifestation of intent. Yes, to people that is so; but God is not people, and He judges actions by intent, and so should we; it is just that a lot of times intent in others is not obvious to us, which is why we should focus on our own. How can anyone say he believes in what he sees? Unless he is one of those - like Thomas - to whom 'seeing is believing.' "Happy are those who do not see and yet believe." Harry
May you be judged as you judge. "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." Mth 7:2 It is one thing to present your interpretations and quite the other to claim you are the spokesman from God pronouncing judgment on others. You are becoming a waste of my time. I do not need to justify my salvation or faith to you. But just so you know how much of an idiot you just made yourself: I don't "work" to gain something, I am a slave of righteousness, an unworthy servant doing what I'm supposed to be doing. (Luk 17:10) My wages very well may be "death," Harry, for my past sin, and if so, that is the wages I'm working for. I have no expectations of making it. I'll work for God till I die, knowing already I won't make it because of my sin. I don't "work" to gain something for myself. You have no idea what you are talking about... If I work to gain the wages of death, so be it.... I will still stand for honor, truth, and righteousness! Consider this a warning. Joshua
One man quoted the statement. "Feel free to disagree with Paul's witness but you argue against him and God". I'll disagree in the fact that you are arguing with Paul because Paul was only a mouthpiece for God Jehovah. Therefore, when you disagree with the witness of Paul, you're actually disagreeing with the witness of Jehovah, our Father and God in heaven. Which means you're in opposition of the truth. Which means you need to check yourself because that's a dangerous state to live within. I'm no man's judge personally, but whenever the Word says if you have done it to one of the least of these, you've done it unto me. And that was Jesus' words, I must obey and believe the truth and uphold it. As to the dispensation, I believe we are under the dispensation of Grace and we are given a blood transfusion into the family of Abraham through the Holy Spirit because of what Jesus has done for us. do I believe that the natural Jews will make it to heaven, or Paradise, simply because they are Jewish? Absolutely not! Even the apostle Paul himself bore witness that not everybody who is of the Jewish bloodline were Jews indeed, but those who followed the teachings of Christ and obeyed God Jehovah would be the true true Jews. As with everyone else that has spoken in this thread, these are just my views and opinions but they are based on the infallible Word of God.
That is called arguing from a position of authority. Just because someone claims their knowledge is from an authority does not make it so. Authorities can be misquoted or misrepresented, and their statements can be taken out of context to support a particular argument. This can be misleading and distort the original intent or meaning of the authority's statements. Those who argue from a position of authority generally do so out of posturing. You know, like a peacock. Joshua