Does willful sin separate the elect from God?

[LoveGodsWord]

You disagree with these words?

"The Sabbath is the great test question. It is the line of demarkation between the loyal and true and the disloyal and transgressor. ... It is the seal of the living God."4

"Thus the distinction is drawn between the loyal and the disloyal. Those who desire to have the seal of God in their foreheads must keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Thus they are distinguished from the disloyal, who have accepted a manmade institution in place of the true Sabbath. The observance of God's rest day is a mark of distinction between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not."5

You did not read what you were responding to did you.

 

[Grip Docility]

You did not read what you were responding to did you.

There you go again claiming I am saying things and believing things I have never said or posted again. I will leave that between you and God.

Really? What is the verse that is ripped out of context?

Frankly... 100% of the verses you use to exalt the Law of Stone and make Salvation conditional on the Creation... instead of the Creator.

You disagree with these words?

"The Sabbath is the great test question. It is the line of demarkation between the loyal and true and the disloyal and transgressor. ... It is the seal of the living God."4

"Thus the distinction is drawn between the loyal and the disloyal. Those who desire to have the seal of God in their foreheads must keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Thus they are distinguished from the disloyal, who have accepted a manmade institution in place of the true Sabbath. The observance of God's rest day is a mark of distinction between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not."5

Now who said I disagree with that statement? Sin is the issue here. According to God's WORD in the NEW COVENANT, sin is the breaking of any one of God's 10 Commandments *JAMES 2:10-11; 1 JOHN 3:4; ROMANS 7:7; ROMANS 3:20. Now if God's 4th commandment is one of God's 10 Commandments then if we KNOWINGLY break it just like any one of God's 10 commandments we stand guilty before God of sin. According to God's WORD in the NEW COVENANT all those who continue in known unrepentant sin will not enter the kingdom of heaven because those doing so reject the gift of God's dear son *ROMANS 6:23; HEBREWS 10:26-31. The seal of God is the Holy Spirit that God gives to all those who BELIEVE and FOLLOW God's WORD *ACTS 5:32. You are really trying hard to change the subject here aren't you brother

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Frankly... 100% of the verses you use to exalt the Law of Stone and make Salvation conditional on the Creation... instead of the Creator.

You disagree with these words?

"The Sabbath is the great test question. It is the line of demarkation between the loyal and true and the disloyal and transgressor. ... It is the seal of the living God."4

"Thus the distinction is drawn between the loyal and the disloyal. Those who desire to have the seal of God in their foreheads must keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Thus they are distinguished from the disloyal, who have accepted a manmade institution in place of the true Sabbath. The observance of God's rest day is a mark of distinction between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not."5

Yaaawnn Did you have any scriptures to share? I guess not. Let me know when you want to read and respond to the posts and scriptures only provided in love and sent as a help to you. When sharing the scriptures brother, there is no need to get upset and there is no need not make up things I do not believe or have ever posted. There is also no need to make up claims you cannot prove through the scriptures. If you have God's WORD than share it. It is pretty clear you do not or you would not make up the claims your making and say things I have never said or believe. Your trying now to attack the messanger, yet the messenger is only posting God's WORD. These are God's WORD not mine. Only Gods WORD is true and we should believe and follow it *ROMANS 3:4.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I asked you my questions first. A discussion does not go one way. If you do not know the answer to the questions asked of you just say so. Or if you do not want to answer the question asked of you no one is forcing you to. I know why you will not answer the questions asked of you. Maybe you can pray about it.

We're revolving around the mulberry bush here and getting nowhere, so I'm off to bed seeing that it is midnight.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We're revolving around the mulberry bush here and getting nowhere, so I'm off to bed seeing that it is midnight.

Yep 99 brother getting late my time too. Have a nice rest.

 

[Grip Docility]

An Exegesis of Posts 541 - 583 for the purpose of comparing faith alone doctrine with Salvation by works doctrine.

To eliminate personal reference and simply focus on tangible doctrine, References will be referred to as FA (Faith Alone Doctrine) and SBW (Salvation by Works Doctrine).

Individuals discussing FA vs SBW doctrine will be referred to as SBW proponent and FA proponent.

Post 541: FA Proponent makes claim that the Adulterous passage in John has 3 Parties present. God, Sinner and Accuser.

Post 542: SBW Proponent suggests FA Proponent does not understand discussed allegory of post number topic... accessible via thread history.

Post 543: SBW proponent makes claim that 1 John 1:8-10 is invalidated by 1 John 2:3-4

Post 544: FA Proponent reasserts that 1 John 1:8-10 is imperative to understand, as Christians who claim to be sinless in their flesh are calling God a liar.

Post 545: SBW proponent disagrees with FA Proponent's speculated discussion of Jesus writing in the sand, and asserts Jesus said "Go and Sin no more", through rewritten idea of passage assertion.

Post 546: SBW proponent reasserts that 1 John 1:8-10 is a discardable passage of scripture.

Post 547: FA Proponent asserts that Galatians 3:17 shows that the Promise supersedes the Stone Covenant.

Post 548: FA Proponent reasserts that 1 John 1:8-10 plainly states that it is calling God a liar when Christians claim to be righteous by the Law.

Post 549: SBW Proponent uses scriptures that refer to the Stone Law, to reassert that Salvation is contingent on obedience to the Law of Stone.

Post 550: FA Proponent asserts that LOVE is the LAW as God is Love, thus stating that only God is righteous by the Law.

Post 551: SBW Proponent asserts that the Stone Law is the Commandments referred to in 1 John 2:3-4

Post 552: FA Proponent asserts that John was referring to Love.

Post 553: SBW Proponent asserts that John is referring to the Stone Law.

Post 554: FA Proponent states the Stone Law is inferior to Love.

Post 555: FA Proponent asserts that John isn't referring to the Stone Law, and rebuts that Matthew is not a contextual reference for John in contextual exegesis of John's specific writings.

Post 556: SBW Proponent asserts that John is saying to sin not, according to the Stone Law.

Posts 557-559 become circular in discussion

Post 560: FA Proponent specifies that Sin Not, by John's own context is a reference to Love and Belief, while not a reference to the Stone Law.

Post 561 to 565 become circular in argument.

Now... 566 to 580 are critical... as something occurs that must be doctrinally evaluated!

To be continued.

 

[Grip Docility]

An Exegesis of Posts 566 - 583 for the purpose of comparing faith alone doctrine with Salvation by works doctrine.

To eliminate personal reference and simply focus on tangible doctrine, References will be referred to as FA (Faith Alone Doctrine) and SBW (Salvation by Works Doctrine).

Individuals discussing FA vs SBW doctrine will be referred to as SBW proponent and FA proponent.

The Law is worthless to save you.

It is a witness against all who embrace it. Deuteronomy 31:26

Here in Post 566, FA is seen explaining that SBW exalts the Law as Salvational.

Who said the law saves us? If I have never said the law saves us why do you pretend that I have? OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT of God's work in us as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *JAMES 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *MATTHEW 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50. We are saved by GRACE through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God *EPHESIANS 2:8

Here in Post 567, SBW suggests that it does not suggest that the Law is Salvational. Yet, the doctrine and verses attempt to make the claim that the "Fruit of the Spirit" is following the Law, and further goes on to state the verses about being cut off, due to having dead faith.

Galatians 5:4 would be an enormously important verse for SBW to evaluate, by the very context of the SBW doctrine provided in Post 567

When a person says they sin no more, according to the Law, they are saying Isaiah 14:14

Not at all. You do not know the meaning of JAMES 4:17 and ACTS 17:30-31 do you.

Here, SBW is stating that we sin no more by the Law and the Flesh, because of the Imparted Holy Spirit. James 4:17 is suggested to be a reference to the Stone Law as well as Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31

A verse ripped from context has the pretext to dissect the Truth.

Here FA Proponent is suggesting that Context is being arrested and ignored by SBW Doctrine.

Really? What is the verse that is ripped out of context?

SBW Proponent questions the context statement.

So the Sabbath isn’t what you believe seals believers?

FA Proponent notes specific doctrine of SBW proponent. The Sabbath is noted as a seal of salvation by the SBW doctrine in discussion.

Not at all I posted what I believe above your post and it is not what you are saying at all, yet you continue say I believe things I do not. I will leave that between you and God. I have already forgiven you.

SBW Proponent becomes ambiguous about SBW doctrine.

Nope never said it was. Why are you pretending to know what I believe and state things I have never said or believe? I can understand why you are trying to change the subject though.

SBW Proponent states that Sabbath Keeping is not the seal of salvation.

You disagree with these words?

"The Sabbath is the great test question. It is the line of demarkation between the loyal and true and the disloyal and transgressor. ... It is the seal of the living God."4

"Thus the distinction is drawn between the loyal and the disloyal. Those who desire to have the seal of God in their foreheads must keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Thus they are distinguished from the disloyal, who have accepted a manmade institution in place of the true Sabbath. The observance of God's rest day is a mark of distinction between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not."5

FA Proponent quotes one of SBW Proponents Holy Text references and asks if specific SBW Doctrine is agreed with.

To be Continued.

 

[Grip Docility]

An Exegesis of Posts 576 - 578 for the purpose of comparing faith alone doctrine with Salvation by works doctrine.

To eliminate personal reference and simply focus on tangible doctrine, References will be referred to as FA (Faith Alone Doctrine) and SBW (Salvation by Works Doctrine).

Individuals discussing FA vs SBW doctrine will be referred to as SBW proponent and FA proponent.

With all statements made between doctrines... this quote is imperative to evaluate against specific claims made by SBW Doctrine.

Now who said I disagree with that statement?

The following is the statement being agreed with...

You disagree with these words?

"The Sabbath is the great test question. It is the line of demarkation between the loyal and true and the disloyal and transgressor. ... It is the seal of the living God."4
"Thus the distinction is drawn between the loyal and the disloyal. Those who desire to have the seal of God in their foreheads must keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Thus they are distinguished from the disloyal, who have accepted a manmade institution in place of the true Sabbath. The observance of God's rest day is a mark of distinction between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not."5

The claim of the SBW Proponent was that the seal is not the sabbath... and yet here, we see the Proponent does agree that the seal is the Sabbath. The word seal of God is specifically linked to the fourth commandment of the Stone Law in the SBW Holy writings.

Sin is the issue here. According to God's WORD in the NEW COVENANT, sin is the breaking of any one of God's 10 Commandments *JAMES 2:10-11; 1 JOHN 3:4; ROMANS 7:7; ROMANS 3:20

Here, the 10 Commandments are exalted as the New Covenant Standard of righteousness... Not Jesus Christ.

Now if God's 4th commandment is one of God's 10 Commandments then if we KNOWINGLY break it just like any one of God's 10 commandments we stand guilty before God of sin.

Here sin against the 10 commandments is now associated with the statement that if we go on sinning after we know the Blessed Hope, we will be removed from Him. The TRUTH is found in Galatians 5:4, and the SBW doctrine being evaluated goes to great lengths to claim it is the Holy Spirit that seals, but the Holy Spirit is simply a leverage to achieving Carnal Righteousness by the 10 Commandments, which by the very words of this doctrine have a hold on a "Believer's" Salvational fate.

According to God's WORD in the NEW COVENANT all those who continue in known unrepentant sin will not enter the kingdom of heaven because those doing so reject the gift of God's dear son *ROMANS 6:23; HEBREWS 10:26-31. The seal of God is the Holy Spirit that God gives to all those who BELIEVE and FOLLOW God's WORD *ACTS 5:32. You are really trying hard to change the subject here aren't you brother

This statement is now so clear, that it cannot by misconstrued...

SBW doctrine not only often claims it is not exalting the Stone Law as Salvational, but it uses many tactics to skirt around the final facts.... It is completely dependent upon the Stone Law.

By this final quote... it is seen that SBW doctrine re exalts the Law and calls a failure to Keep the Law and essentially TEACH LAW KEEPING... a REJECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

The actual biblical stance on this matter...

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This concludes my exegesis of these posts.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

An Exegesis of Posts 541 - 583 for the purpose of comparing faith alone doctrine with Salvation by works doctrine.

To eliminate personal reference and simply focus on tangible doctrine, References will be referred to as FA (Faith Alone Doctrine) and SBW (Salvation by Works Doctrine).

Individuals discussing FA vs SBW doctrine will be refereed to as SBW proponent and FA proponent.

Post 541: FA Proponent makes claim that the Adulterous passage in John has 3 Parties present. God, Sinner and Accuser.

Post 542: SBW Proponent suggests FA Proponent does not understand discussed allegory of post number topic... accessible via thread history.

Post 543: SBW proponent makes claim that 1 John 1:8-10 is invalidated by 1 John 2:3-4

Post 544: FA Proponent reasserts that 1 John 1:8-10 is imperative to understand, as Christians who claim to be sinless in their flesh are calling God a liar.

Post 545: SBW proponent disagrees with FA Proponent's speculated discussion of Jesus writing in the sand, and asserts Jesus said "Go and Sin no more", through rewritten idea of passage assertion.

Post 546: SBW proponent reasserts that 1 John 1:8-10 is a discardable passage of scripture.

Post 547: FA Proponent asserts that Galatians 3:17 shows that the Promise supersedes the Stone Covenant.

Post 548: FA Proponent reasserts that 1 John 1:8-10 plainly states that it is calling God a liar when Christians claim to be righteous by the Law.

Post 549: SBW Proponent uses scriptures that refer to the Stone Law, to reassert that Salvation is contingent on obedience to the Law of Stone.

Post 550: FA Proponent asserts that LOVE is the LAW as God is Love, thus stating that only God is righteous by the Law.

Post 551: SBW Proponent asserts that the Stone Law is the Commandments referred to in 1 John 2:3-4

Post 552: FA Proponent asserts that John was referring to Love.

Post 553: SBW Proponent asserts that John is referring to the Stone Law.

Post 554: FA Proponent states the Stone Law is inferior to Love.

Post 555: FA Proponent asserts that John isn't referring to the Stone Law, and rebuts that Matthew is not a contextual reference for John in contextual exegesis of John's specific writings.

Post 556: SBW Proponent asserts that John is saying to sin not, according to the Stone Law.

Posts 557-559 become circular in discussion

Post 560: FA Proponent specifies that Sin Not, by John's own context is a reference to Love and Belief, while not a reference to the Stone Law.

Post 561 to 565 become circular in argument.

Now... 566 to 580 are critical... as something occurs that must be doctrinally evaluated!

To be continued.

Hmm well none of that is true. How sad for you having to make up things I neither believe or have ever posted.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

An Exegesis of Posts 566 - 583 for the purpose of comparing faith alone doctrine with Salvation by works doctrine.

To eliminate personal reference and simply focus on tangible doctrine, References will be referred to as FA (Faith Alone Doctrine) and SBW (Salvation by Works Doctrine).

Individuals discussing FA vs SBW doctrine will be refereed to as SBW proponent and FA proponent.



Here in Post 566, FA is seen explaining that SBW exalts the Law as Salvational.



Here in Post 567, SBW suggests that it does not suggest that the Law is Salvational. Yet, the doctrine and verses attempt to make the claim that the "Fruit of the Spirit" is following the Law, and further goes on to state the verses about being cut off, due to having dead faith.

Galatians 5:4 would be an enormously important verse for SBW to evaluate, by the very context of the SBW doctrine provided in Post 567





Here, SBW is stating that we sin no more by the Law and the Flesh, because of the Imparted Holy Spirit. James 4:17 is suggested to be a reference to the Stone Law as well as Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31



Here FA Proponent is suggesting that Context is being arrested and ignored by SBW Doctrine.



SBW Proponent questions the context statement.



FA Proponent notes specific doctrine of SBW proponent. The Sabbath is noted as a seal of salvation by the SBW doctrine in discussion.



SBW Proponent becomes ambiguous about SBW doctrine.



SBW Proponent states that Sabbath Keeping is not the seal of salvation.



FA Proponent quotes one of SBW Proponents Holy Text references and asks if specific SBW Doctrine is agreed with.

To be Continued.

Hmm none of that is true either . You have no scripture do you.

 

[Grip Docility]

Hmm well none of that is true. How sad for you.

I have no desire to evaluate you as a person, as I Love you, in Jesus Christ.

Doctrinal Statements were made clearly and despite doctrinal claims, the Teaching becomes clear as the topic is discussed. I hold the doctrine accountable, as it has to be duplicitous to circumvent Paul's writings.

The duplicity of the Doctrine is seen, plainly in the discussion, and it is that point that I wanted to make clear.

As for you, I do Love you, in Jesus Christ and appreciate discussion with you.

 

[Grip Docility]

Hmm none of that is true either . You have no scripture do you.

I copied thread history to preserve the Doctrine as it was discussed and have saved it.

All links to the discussion are available unless altered... but even then, the discussion is saved.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

An Exegesis of Posts 576 - 578 for the purpose of comparing faith alone doctrine with Salvation by works doctrine.

To eliminate personal reference and simply focus on tangible doctrine, References will be referred to as FA (Faith Alone Doctrine) and SBW (Salvation by Works Doctrine).

Individuals discussing FA vs SBW doctrine will be refereed to as SBW proponent and FA proponent.

With all statements made between doctrines... this quote is imperative to evaluate against specific claims made by SBW Doctrine.



The following is the statement being agreed with...



The claim of the SBW Proponent was that the seal is not the sabbath... and yet here, we see the Proponent does agree that the seal is the Sabbath. The word seal of God is specifically linked to the fourth commandment of the Stone Law in the SBW Holy writings.



Here, the 10 Commandments are exalted as the New Covenant Standard of righteousness... Not Jesus Christ.



Here sin against the 10 commandments is now associated with the statement that if we go on sinning after we know the Blessed Hope, we will be removed from Him. The TRUTH is found in Galatians 5:4, and the SBW doctrine being evaluated goes to great lengths to claim it is the Holy Spirit that seals, but the Holy Spirit is simply a leverage to achieving Carnal Righteousness by the 10 Commandments, which by the very words of this doctrine have a hold on a "Believer's" Salvational fate.



This statement is now so clear, that it cannot by misconstrued...

SBW doctrine not only often claims it is not exalting the Stone Law as Salvational, but it uses many tactics to skirt around the final facts.... It is completely dependent upon the Stone Law.

By this final quote... it is seen that SBW doctrine re exalts the Law and calls a failure to Keep the Law and essentially TEACH LAW KEEPING... a REJECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

The actual biblical stance on this matter...

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This concludes my exegesis of these posts.

Hmm hatrick. None of what you have posted is true about anything I have said. How is anything you have said is true in any of the last three posts you have provided when I have only ever stated that . OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT of God's work in us as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *JAMES 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *MATTHEW 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50. We are saved by GRACE through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God *EPHESIANS 2:8 and that the seal of God is the Holy Spirit? It is sad you feel the need to make things up that have no truth in them brother rather then address the scriptures and the posts that have been provided to you. I will leave that between you and God.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I have no desire to evaluate you as a person, as I Love you,in Jesus Christ.

Doctrinal Statements were made clearly and despite doctrinal claims, the Teaching becomes clear as the topic is discussed. I hold the doctrine accountable, as it has to be duplicitous to circumvent Paul's writings.

The duplicity of the Doctrine is seen, plainly in the discussion, and it is that point that I wanted to make clear.

As for you, I do Love you, in Jesus Christ and appreciate discussion with you.

If you love me in Christ why are you making things up that I have neither said or believe?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I copied thread history to preserve the Doctrine as it was discussed and have saved it.

All links to the discussion are available unless altered... but even then, the discussion is saved.

No you didn't you simple posted things that were not true and things I have never said or believe. Please post where you quoting me saying anywhere what you are claiming I have said to you. You cannot can you. If you cannot why pretend that you have? Are you bearing false witness against your neighbore even after I have stated to you clearly what I believe? You do not have to answer if you do not want to. God will be our witness.

 

[Grip Docility]

If you love me in Christ why are you making things up that I have neither said or believe?

Again, thread history is recorded and the words spoken are free to be evaluated.

I asked you many times if Salvation was contingent on Carnal obedience to the Stone Law, and you said it was not. I stated that I perceived doctrinal exaltation of the Stone Law and this was denied.

The final exegesis of posts... reveals that the Stone Law is indeed the standard of salvation. It is impossible to miss the implied context of verses chosen.

Either a person agrees with what they teach or they don't.

One cannot share doctrine, then say they do not agree with the doctrine they teach. Saying a person does not teach a thing and then going forward to scripturally teach a thing, is in conflict.

The sincere intention of the doctrine reveals the actual thing being taught.

Salvational assurance has been attacked on multiple fronts. God the Father sent His Son, who Willingly died to give us salvational assurance. I feel that is more important than ignoring doctrine that is duplicitous and attempts to undo what God the Son did.

This is my Opinion.

 

[Grip Docility]

No you didn't you simple posted things that were not true and things I have never said or believe. Please post where you quoting me saying anywhere what you are claiming I have said to you. You cannot can you. If you cannot why pretend that you have? Are you bearing false witness against your neighbore even after I have stated to you clearly what I believe? You do not have to answer if you do not want to. God will be our witness.

God is my witness. If you can disprove what you intended to say by responding to the Exegesis, you are welcome. I only addressed the doctrine. That remains my only desire.

If you find yourself in conflict with your teachings, perhaps this means something important is occurring within you.

Do you retain the intention of your doctrinal implications about the 10 commandments?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Again, thread history is recorded and the words spoken are free to be evaluated.

I asked you many times if Salvation was contingent on Carnal obedience to the Stone Law, and you said it was not. I stated that I perceived doctrinal exaltation of the Stone Law and this was denied.

The final exegesis of posts... reveals that the Stone Law is indeed the standard of salvation. It is impossible to miss the implied context of verses chosen.

Either a person agrees with what they teach or they don't.

One cannot share doctrine, then say they do not agree with the doctrine they teach. Saying a person does not teach a thing and then going forward to scripturally teach a thing, is in conflict.

The sincere intention of the doctrine reveals the actual thing being taught.

Salvational assurance has been attacked on multiple fronts. God the Father sent His Son, who Willingly died to give us salvational assurance. I feel that is more important than ignoring doctrine that is duplicitous and attempts to undo what God the Son did.

This is my Opinion.

No you simply made post numbers and said this is what was said when what was posted says no such thing then when asked from you to provide a single quote from any of those posts that are saying what you are claiming I have said you not able to. Do you believe bearing false witness is a sin?

 

[Grip Docility]

No you simply made post numbers and said this is what was said when what was posted says no such thing then when asked from you to provide a single quote from any of those posts that are saying what you are claiming I have said you not able to. Do you believe bearing false witness is a sin?

I believe ALL lies are sin. Infact, I will go further to say that I am so hard on myself in matters of doctrine, that I have devoted much of my Life to God in this manner, and yet I will still declare myself saved by Christ, Alone.

I will honestly say that I am a sinner, forgiven, only saved by Jesus Christ.

My words remain posted to contest and disprove.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

God is my witness. If you can disprove what you intended to say by responding to the Exegesis, you are welcome. I only addressed the doctrine. That remains my only desire.

If you find yourself in conflict with your teachings, perhaps this means something important is occurring within you.

Do you retain the intention of your doctrinal implications about the 10 commandments?

Well that is easy. Your claiming in your posts that I believe is salvation by works yet I believe no such and despite me correcting you directly more then three times letting you know exactly what it is I believe by saying to you that OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT of God's work in us as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *JAMES 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *MATTHEW 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50. We are saved by GRACE through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God *EPHESIANS 2:8. You continue to post I am saying the opposite despite me telling you directly what I believe. Do you believe bearing false witness against your neighbore is a sin?