SALVATION---instant, or process?

Reformationist:

I too often think my works are what saves me.

Click to expand...

I do *not* think that my works are what saves me. I've told you that so many times already, and it never seems to be enough. No matter what I say, I can't seem to get that through to you: I do *not* believe it is my works that saves me.

It is the blood of Yeshua which saves me. His death atoned for my trangressions. Obedience to His commandments of the Torah is how I *accept* that blood sacrifice.

Shimon

Originally posted by Shimon
I do *not* think that my works are what saves me. I've told you that so many times already, and it never seems to be enough. No matter what I say, I can't seem to get that through to you: I do *not* believe it is my works that saves me.

It is the blood of Yeshua which saves me. His death atoned for my trangressions. Obedience to His commandments of the Torah is how I *accept* that blood sacrifice.

Shimon

Click to expand...

Okay Shimon.  I'll explain it to you.  You say that it's the blood of Jesus that saved you and then you rap off all these different ways that you "accept" what He did for you.  Here's the thing, you make it sound like His death, and only His death, is what saved you and then your comments make it very clear that you believe that His death didn't actually save you.  It was your "acceptance" of His death that saved you.  You say it's not your works, and then cite place after place in the Bible where it shows that our obedience is important.  I, too, believe that obedience is important.  I don't view certain things the way you do, and that's okay.  You seem very learned in your beliefs.  That's great.  Here's the thing that you seem to be missing, which oddly enough, is the same issue I take with mainstream Christianity.  You say He made atonement for your sins.  Atonement doesn't mean "He provided an opportunity for you to be saved."  It means He paid the price.  It means HIS DEATH REDEEMED YOU.  It doesn't mean His death made it possible for you to be redeemed if only you'd accept.  If it's your acceptance that you base your salvation on, then you base it on your works, pure and simple.  I don't even know how it's possible to say that you're saved by grace and then turn around and say that "you have to accept His death for it to be made manifest."  Was it God's Will that you be saved?  If so, was it possible for you to thwart His Will, or, was it a sure thing that you'd be saved?  Were you "dead in your tresspasses" when you were saved, or, were you able to "make the choice to come to Christ?"  Answer these questions and if you do so honestly it should become real clear, real quick who, and what, you put your faith in.

God bless

Reformationist:

Do you cheat and steal? Do you commit adultery? Do you engage in homosexual acts? Do you murder? Why not? Are you trying to work your way into Heaven? Does your obedience to these commandments mean that you believe in "works-based" salvation? Then why do you constantly accuse me of "works-based" salvation for obeying His commandments?

Theft, cheating, adultery, homosexuality, murder,... all of these are commandments of the Torah. You say you believe that it is important to obey God, so my question to you is: Then why don't you? You don't obey His commandment of the Sabbath, you don't obey His kosher laws, you don't observe the biblical festivals... Why? These are His commandments too.

You're picking and choosing which commandments of His you will obey.

Yeshua didn't give us a new set of commandments. Every commandment that He spoke when He walked the earth 2000 years ago were *already* written in the Torah. No commandments of the Torah were ever "repealed." God doesn't change. Every commandment that He's given is still in effect. But, you choose not to obey some of them. And because I choose to obey them, that automatically means I believe in "works-based" salvation? What what about the commandments you *do* obey? Do they automatically mean that you believe in "works-based" salvation?

It's *VERY* annoying to have you constantly misquoting me and misrepresenting what I say.

Shimon

May I interject?



Romans 14:1-23

"1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."

Hope this helps.

Excellent post Bear.

That is what I was referring to earlier.

Sorry, I just get a little riled when I'm constantly accused of believing in "works-based" salvation simply because I believe in obeying God differently.

Shimon

So, Shimon, I do not follow "all" of the Torah, but I know I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. Are you saying the change Jesus made in my life thus far is no good until I follow all of the Torah?

Originally posted by Shimon
You're picking and choosing which commandments of His you will obey.

Click to expand...

Shimon.  You make some very good points here in this post.  Let me research this and I'll get back to you.

I hope that's better than just saying you rely on works.  It just seemed that way to me.  I apologize for insulting you.

God bless

reeann:

So, Shimon, I do not follow "all" of the Torah, but I know I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. Are you saying the change Jesus made in my life thus far is no good until I follow all of the Torah?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that God cannot have a profound impact on your life, and I am not saying that nobody has been saved for the past 2000 years. I'm saying that Israel, as a Nation, has been just as disobedient to His commandments in the 2000 years after His death as she was in the 2000 years before His death.

Man's priorities are not necessarily the same as God's. The wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God. We tend to think that the kosher laws, the Sabbath, and the biblical holidays are "not important." Nevertheless, God commanded them.

How did Adam fall? He ate from a tree that he was told not to eat from. Doesn't sound like a terrible crime, but it was willful disobedience of God's commandment. That "small" act of disobedience is what resulted in Adam's fall. Likewise, God has commanded us not to eat swine-flesh. How is this any different than the sin which caused Adam to fall?

We tend to think of "murder" as the most serious crime, and therefore we deem it worthy of captial punishment. The penalty for disobeying the Sabbath was death by stoning -- the penalty was just as severe as the penalty for murder. And yet the penalty for pre-marital sex was the price of the dowry.

So, when people say that disobedience of the kosher laws, or the Sabbath, or the biblical holidays is "not that big a deal," they might as well be shaking their fist at God and saying "Look, God, I know what's important better than You do."

So, bottom line, I'm saying that it's an act of disobedience. Whether or not it has an impact on one's salvation isn't the issue. The issue is that He commanded it, therefore we should obey.

Shimon

Reformationist:

No problem, apology accepted.

Maybe this will help to clarify my point:

What if you met someone who claimed to be a "Christian" and claimed to have "faith" in Yeshua, but you discover that that person was a pimp or a prostitute? Or maybe they were a hitman for the mafia. They claim to have accepted Yeshua and to be a Christian, yet here they are continuing to live in sin. Would you say that that person really and truly has "faith" in Yeshua?

We may well rationalize in our own minds that being a pimp, a prostitute, or a hitman is a worse sin, but on what basis do we make such a decision? Did God declare them to be "worse" than disobeying His other commandments? Breaking the Sabbath held the same penalty -- death by stoning. So how can we say that breaking the Sabbath commandment is a "lesser" sin than murder?

Prostitution, theft, kidnapping, murder... these are sins against another human being. Breaking the Sabbath is sin directly against God. It's kinda like thumbing our nose at Him and saying that we know what's important better than He does.

Shimon

Originally posted by Shimon
Prostitution, theft, kidnapping, murder... these are sins against another human being. Breaking the Sabbath is sin directly against God. It's kinda like thumbing our nose at Him and saying that we know what's important better than He does.

Shimon

Click to expand...

Shimon, I'm going to have to disagree with this.  We do not sin against others.  Sin means "a transgression of God's Law."  Granted, some of our sins affect others more deeply.  But, our disobedience is against God, not against man.

Take David for example.  He killed Uriah.  You list that as a "sin against another human being."  What was David's response to that?  Did he repent to the dead man's family in an attempt to reconcile himself to God?  No.  This is what he said:

Psalm 51:4
Against You, You only, have I sinned,
        And done this evil in Your sight--
        That You may be found just when You speak, 
        And blameless when You judge.

Our sins are against God because when we rebel it is against God's Law that we have transgressed.  He is our judge.  Should we apologize?  Of course.  However, that is in an effort to "love our brother as we love ourselves" not in an effort to be forgiven.  It stems from our desire to avoid a "root of bitterness."

God bless

Reformationist:

Shimon, I'm going to have to disagree with this. We do not sin against others. Sin means "a transgression of God's Law." Granted, some of our sins affect others more deeply. But, our disobedience is against God, not against man.

Click to expand...

Any sin is, ultimately, a transgression against God. But some sins are *directly* against God, while others are directly against man.

Yeshua told us that the two greatest commandments of the Torah were (1) Love the Lord with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

Breaking the Sabbath violates the first commandment: Love God. Murder and theft violate that second law: love your neighbor.

Again, it's true that any sin is ultimately a transgression against God, but we are still able to dissect them further for greater meaning and understanding.

Shimon

Originally posted by Shimon
Reformationist:



Any sin is, ultimately, a transgression against God. But some sins are *directly* against God, while others are directly against man.

Yeshua told us that the two greatest commandments of the Torah were (1) Love the Lord with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

Breaking the Sabbath violates the first commandment: Love God. Murder and theft violate that second law: love your neighbor.

Again, it's true that any sin is ultimately a transgression against God, but we are still able to dissect them further for greater meaning and understanding.

Shimon

Click to expand...

Okay.  Why, after killing a man, a sin you list as "directly against another man" does David say, "Against You, You only, have I sinned?"  He's talking to God there, not Uriah.

The thing is, sin, by it's very definition, is a transgression of God's Law.  Not "ultimately God's Law."  Just against "God's Law."

God bless

Reformationist:

Okay. Why, after killing a man, a sin you list as "directly against another man" does David say, "Against You, You only, have I sinned?" He's talking to God there, not Uriah.

The thing is, sin, by it's very definition, is a transgression of God's Law. Not "ultimately God's Law." Just against "God's Law."

Click to expand...

When Yeshua was asked "What is the greatest commandment," why did He feel it necessary to mention two commandments? He was only asked for *the* greatest commandment, but He mentioned two. He could've simply said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul" and just left it there, but He felt compelled to mention "Love your neighbor" too. Why do you suppose that is?

In any case, we're arguing semantics here. God said "Observe my Sabbath," therefore we should do it. To disobey is to transgress His commandment.

Shimon

Originally posted by Shimon
cthoma11:

Peter himself explained the meaning of the vision.  What was his explanation?

Peter explained it this way to Cornelius:

Acts 10:34-36:  You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached-- 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

And Peter explained it this way to the Jews:

Acts 11:15-18:  "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[1] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Never did Peter explain the meaning of the vision to infer that "unclean" meats had been made clean.  His explanation of the vision was that God's salvation had been extended unto the Gentiles.

Secondly, notice that Acts 10:2 tells us that Cornelius was a "God-Fearer."  A "God-fearer" was a Gentile who had adopted Jewish laws and traditions.  He was on his way to becoming a Jewish proselyte and had not yet undergone the ritual of circumcision.  So we know that Peter was not eating "unclean" foods in Cornelius's house.

Shimon

Click to expand...

Hi Shimon,

Thanks for the reply. I should have read further when posting the question, as I had forgotten that part of the explanation. Also, Acts 10:28 states what I missed:

He said to them, "You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, yet God has shown me that I should call no person defiled or ritually unclean.

However, I think you miss or ignore the obvious and explicit meaning of the vision. God explicitly says the foods are clean. Now you claim that the only meaning was that Jews were now permitted to go into Gentiles houses and eat with them and that because Cornelius was devout and God fearing that Cornelius' food was therefore Kosher.  

This may (and it is not a given) be true in Cornelius' case, but would in no way be true in the general case. I do not think you can limit the application of the vision to only Peter's visit to this particular Gentile.  Would Peter later have refused to come into my house and eat with me? I think the implication of the passage is that after the vision he wouldn't and further that he would not be breaking any of the laws (dietary or otherwise) by doing so.

I think this is because the vision's purpose had to be two fold for associating (including eating) with Gentiles to work in the general case.

None the less, thanks again for your reply!

Regards,

Clinton

Originally posted by Shimon
When Yeshua was asked "What is the greatest commandment," why did He feel it necessary to mention two commandments? He was only asked for *the* greatest commandment, but He mentioned two. He could've simply said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul" and just left it there, but He felt compelled to mention "Love your neighbor" too. Why do you suppose that is?

Click to expand...

I suppose that is because if you "love your neighbor as you love yourself" you are loving God because the only way you could do that is by putting your faith, not in your own desires but rather in what He says is important, which is to love one another as Christ love the church. 

In any case, we're arguing semantics here.

Click to expand...

Okay.  I thought it was just a difference in interpretation.  Wouldn't want to argue with you.

God said "Observe my Sabbath," therefore we should do it. To disobey is to transgress His commandment.

Shimon

Click to expand...

Huh?  Why are you bringing up the Sabbath thing again?  Did I say something that dealt with that?

God bless

cthoma11:

However, I think you miss or ignore the obvious and explicit meaning of the vision. God explicitly says the foods are clean. Now you claim that the only meaning was that Jews were now permitted to go into Gentiles houses and eat with them and that because Cornelius was devout and God fearing that Cornelius' food was therefore Kosher.

Click to expand...

No, God does not explicitly say that unclean foods are clean. This was a *vision.* Visions are symbolic. Look at the prophesies of Daniel. Look at the Book of Revelation. Are you telling me that we should expect a literal beast like Godzilla to come up out of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans?


Reformationist:

Huh? Why are you bringing up the Sabbath thing again? Did I say something that dealt with that?

Click to expand...

Well, yeah... I thought we were talking about "picking and choosing" which commandments we will obey. My point was that it makes no difference *why* God gives us a commandment. It isn't our prerogative to say to God: "Okay, God, give me one good reason why I should obey this commandments. I makes no sense to me."

Is God a God of Wisdom or a God of Foolishness? Does He, or does He not, have our best interests at heart? Does He give us silly commandments that are nonsensical? It makes no difference whether we understand why He commanded it or not. All that matters is that He commanded it, therefore we should do it. If we have faith that He loves us, has our best interests at heart, and is wise, then we trust Him, and do what He says.

Shimon

Originally posted by Shimon
Well, yeah... I thought we were talking about "picking and choosing" which commandments we will obey. My point was that it makes no difference *why* God gives us a commandment. It isn't our prerogative to say to God: "Okay, God, give me one good reason why I should obey this commandments. I makes no sense to me."

Click to expand...

I understand that.  I told you it was a viable point.  That's why I said I would research it and get back to you on that.

God bless

 

Reformationist:

I understand that. I told you it was a viable point. That's why I said I would research it and get back to you on that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was just giving you some more things to think about in your research. Those were the questions I had to ask myself.

Shimon

Originally posted by Shimon
Does He, or does He not, have our best interests at heart?

Click to expand...

Do you believe that God has the "best interests" of all mankind at heart?

God bless