There is NO risk to me if I am wrong about "certain" doctrinal positions.

Fervent · Jan 5, 2022

LoveGodsWord said:
Please forgive me but I do not believe you as shown already from the scriptures shared with you that show the context your disregarding in Romans 7:4 that does not agree with the interpretation you have applied to it as shown in the scriptures contexts shared with you in post # 176 linked and post # 181 linked and the rest of the bible that disagrees with your teachings as shown in only some of the scriptures provided in post # 183 linked. What you believe of course is between you and God but at least you should consider that perhaps an interpretation we apply to scriptures seems to contradict other scriptures in the bible then perhaps our interpretation of the bible is incorrect as Gods' Word does not contradict Gods' Word. Your interpretation beside disregarding scripture context as the bible contradicting itself as proven in the scriptures already provided in the linked posts.

Take Care.

First, what you assert as the context does not disagree with my interpretation. Second, as I said context begins with the nearest context and moves outward so the first place to look for what is meant by "the law" in 7:4 and 7:6 is what it is immediately preceded and immediately followed by. Moving to the nearest point where you believe there is a discrepancy is not contextual analysis but a mockery of it. And no, the rest of the Bible does not disagree in fact it is your position that puts Scripture at war with Scripture. When Christ nailed the law to the cross, He nailed the whole law. When the covenant was made obsolete, it was every part of the covenant. Seeking to recover a portion of the old covenant is to treat the blood of the new covenant as unholy. The excuses you make to maintain a doctrine that is flatly contradicted by the explicit statements of the Bible, not only here in Romans but even more evidently in 2 Corinthians 3 where Paul states that the ministry of death was written on tablets of stone and elsewhere make it difficult to take your username seriously.

LoveGodsWord · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
First, what you assert as the context does not disagree with my interpretation. Second, as I said context begins with the nearest context and moves outward so the first place to look for what is meant by "the law" in 7:4 and 7:6 is what it is immediately preceded and immediately followed by. Moving to the nearest point where you believe there is a discrepancy is not contextual analysis but a mockery of it. And no, the rest of the Bible does not disagree in fact it is your position that puts Scripture at war with Scripture. When Christ nailed the law to the cross, He nailed the whole law. When the covenant was made obsolete, it was every part of the covenant. Seeking to recover a portion of the old covenant is to treat the blood of the new covenant as unholy. The excuses you make to maintain a doctrine that is flatly contradicted by the explicit statements of the Bible, not only here in Romans but even more evidently in 2 Corinthians 3 where Paul states that the ministry of death was written on tablets of stone and elsewhere make it difficult to take your username seriously.

Actually the scripture contexts shared with you from the scriptures, absolutely disagrees with your interpretation of Romans 7:4. That is why scripture context was provided in post # 176 linked and post # 181 linked and why further scripture was provided in a link provided in post # 183 linked showing how your interpretation of Romans 7:4 has Paul in contradiction with Paul, Jesus and all the Apostles in the new testament who all taught obedience to Gods' law through faith in Gods' Word. Romans 7:4 is not talking about being released from obedience to Gods' 10 commandments it is talking about being released from the law of sin that causes death that "God's 10 commandments gives us a knowledge of when broken *Romans 7:7. Let me ask you a question. If you believe that obedience to God's law is no longer the standard or requirement for Christian living and you decide to continue living in a life of known unrepentant sin (breaking God's law) because in your view there is no law now, are you in a saved state with God or an unsaved stated with God? (scripture please). If you answer that anyone living in known unrepentant sin is not in a saved state with God (e.g. Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 6:4-8), then what is the risk to your belief? Something to pray about. None of God's 10 commandments were nailed to the cross dear friend, our sins were.

Take Care.

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
First, what you assert as the context does not disagree with my interpretation. Second, as I said context begins with the nearest context and moves outward so the first place to look for what is meant by "the law" in 7:4 and 7:6 is what it is immediately preceded and immediately followed by.

Ok so Rom 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

So far so good?

Fervent said:
When Christ nailed the law to the cross, He nailed the whole law.

1. No text says "Christ nailed the Law of God to the cross" - but there is a text that says the saints "establish the law" Rom 3:31 and in Romans 3 - that is the same Law of God that condemns the entire world as sinners in Rom 3:19-20

And there is a text that says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 even though you suggest they are deleted at the cross.

2. Col 2 says Christ nailed our "certificate of DEBT" (the speeding ticket and its penalties decreed, so to speak). He paid the death the Law said we owe - instead of deleting the Law. When the penalty of the Law is paid instead of dismissed -- the law is upheld. In fact "The Law is written on heart and mind" under the New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 ... Heb 8:6-12

In any case this thread is about "to options" for scenarios like that where one person says "the Law of God is still Holy Just and good... and is written on the heart under the New Covenant of Heb 8" - while another persons say "Christ nailed the Law of God to the cross". In the OP we consider what happens with each one of those positions in the case where it is "wrong". It asks the question "what risk is created in the case that a given POV is wrong".

You are arguing for the correctness of your POV but the point of the thread is to take each side of a given debated topic (specifically the ones listed in the OP of which your text does represent one of them) - and take the scenario where your view is in fact wrong. It asks the question "which of the two sides has no risk even in the scenario where it wrong". And we ask that question because in scenario #1 That is exactly the sound argument, logic and reason being asked of the atheist.

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

IF you are just arguing rightness or wrongness of a given POV - then you are not following the thread topic because the objective is to evaluate the consequence "risk" when your view is wrong and also when the view opposing your view is found to be wrong. Which is the same thing in example #1 that is being asked of the atheist.

Fervent · Jan 5, 2022

LoveGodsWord said:
Actually the scripture contexts shared with you from the scriptures, absolutely disagrees with your interpretation of Romans 7:4. That is why scripture context was provided in post # 176 linked and post # 181 linked and why further scripture was provided in a link provided in post # 183 linked showing how your interpretation of Romans 7:4 has Paul in contradiction with Paul, Jesus and all the Apostles in the new testament who all taught obedience to Gods' law through faith in Gods' Word. Romans 7:4 is not talking about being released from obedience to Gods' 10 commandments it is talking about being released from the law of sin that causes death that "God's 10 commandments gives us a knowledge of when broken *Romans 7:7. Let me ask you a question. If you believe that obedience to God's law is no longer the standard or requirement for Christian living and you decide to continue living in a life of known unrepentant sin (breaking God's law) because in your view there is no law now, are you in a saved state with God or an unsaved stated with God? (scripture please). If you answer that anyone living in known unrepentant sin is not in a saved state with God (e.g. Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 6:4-8), then what is the risk to your belief? Something to pray about. None of God's 10 commandments were nailed to the cross dear friend, our sins were.

Take Care.

First, context has to begin with the nearest point and work outward. Ad hoc cries of "context" like yours that do not systematically resolve context are exactly why most people don't take notions of context seriously, because what you are doing is little more than an excuse. And again, the "contexts" you claim do not contradict my point you have simply exegeted them poorly(as your current exegesis is also poor...if it can even be called exegesis.) Finally, your complicated phrasing demonstrates the eisegetical content of your position, because no where is the law said to give us knowledge of a second law but that it gives us knowledge of sin and thereby kills us. Sin corrupts and kills apart from the law, but as Paul lays out through the law sin is enflamed and the law itself pronounces death against us. The law spoken of in 7:4 and 7:6 by which our death sets us free as the death of a spouse sets them free from the marriage is the same law which Paul states has the commandment "thou shalt not covet." And we are set free in the same way as a widow is set free, through the death of a covenant partner.

Fervent · Jan 5, 2022

BobRyan said:
Ok so Rom 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

So far so good?

1. No text says "Christ nailed the Law of God to the cross" - but there is a text that says the saints "establish the law" Rom 3:31 and in Romans 3 - that is the same Law of God that condemns the entire world as sinners in Rom 3:19-20

And there is a text that says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 even though you suggest they are deleted at the cross.

2. Col 2 says Christ nailed our "certificate of DEBT" (the speeding ticket and its penalties decreed, so to speak). He paid the death the Law said we owe - instead of deleting the Law. When the penalty of the Law is paid instead of dismissed -- the law is upheld. In fact "The Law is written on heart and mind" under the New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 ... Heb 8:6-12

In any case this thread is about "to options" for scenarios like that where one person says "the Law of God is still Holy Just and good... and is written on the heart under the New Covenant of Heb 8" - while another persons say "Christ nailed the Law of God to the cross". In the OP we consider what happens with each one of those positions in the case where it is "wrong". It asks the question "what risk is created in the case that a given POV is wrong".

You are arguing for the correctness of your POV but the point of the thread is to take each side of a given debated topic (specifically the ones listed in the OP of which your text does represent one of them) - and take the scenario where your view is in fact wrong. It asks the question "which of the two sides has no risk even in the scenario where it wrong". And we ask that question because in scenario #1 That is exactly the sound argument, logic and reason being asked of the atheist.

First, I addressed the assessment of risk several times so your claim that my engagement with the truth of the claim is off topic is nonsense. But let's talk about the risk again, as your non-OSAS position insists that salvation can be forfeited which means anything that forfeits it would constitute a loss of salvation. Galatians makes explicit that returning to the law for justification puts someone in a state of being cut off from Christ and fallen from grace. Which makes the question of whether being fully reliant on Christ and exhibiting no works is preferable to exhibiting works of keeping the Sabbath to the exclusion of relying on Christ a very serious risk. And so the one who does not work but instead trusts God is justified. So it seems to me that relying on being saved by grace through faith, and not of works is the position that does not carry risk not the one that demands we work at obeying the 10 commandments.

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
let's talk about the risk again, as your non-OSAS position insists that salvation can be forfeited which means anything that forfeits it would constitute a loss of salvation. Galatians makes explicit that returning to the law for justification puts someone in a state of being cut off from Christ and fallen from grace.

Ok so in Gal 5:4 we see that there IS such a thing as being "severed from Christ" - which is the very thing that OSAS says "can't be possible".

Now the next step is "what is the risk" in a scenario that OSAS is wrong - what is the person who believes in OSAS risking?

But instead of that next step you go here...

Fervent said:
Which makes the question of whether being fully reliant on Christ and exhibiting no works is preferable to exhibiting works of keeping the Sabbath

"exhibiting no works" ... you mean "by their fruits you shall know them" rule of Christ would fail???

If being in total rebellion against the word of God is deemed to be "Fully reliant on Christ" then even Christ's own "if you love me KEEP my commands" statement in John 14:15 is being tossed out the window and is turned into "if you fully RELY on ME ignore my commands...".

Either way - it veers off the topic of the thread that would be evaluating the OSAS "risk" at the point of failure that you noted above.

Fervent · Jan 5, 2022

BobRyan said:
Ok so in Gal 5:4 we see that there IS such a thing as being "severed from Christ" - which is the very thing that OSAS says "can't be possible".

Now the next step is "what is the risk" in a scenario that OSAS is wrong - what is the person who believes in OSAS risking?

But instead of that next step you go here...

"exhibiting no works" ... you mean "by their fruits you shall know them" rule of Christ would fail???

If being in total rebellion against the word of God is deemed to be "Fully reliant on Christ" then even Christ's own "if you love me KEEP my commands" statement in John 14:15 is being tossed out the window and is turned into "if you fully RELY on ME ignore my commands...".

Either way - it veers off the topic of the thread that would be evaluating the OSAS "risk" at the point of failure that you noted above.

These doctrine do not exist in a vacuum, so the "risk" evaluation requires exploring the truth of multiples and so I took your position that salvation can be lost, applied the reason that Paul was saying the Galatians had been cut off(seeking justification in the law) and turned it on another position(the keeping of the Sabbath.) And I mean exactly what I said, if one does not work but trusts God to justify the wicked has his faith credited as righteousness. So the one who frets and dutifully observes the Sabbath as a work is putting himself at risk of being cut off because he is not trusting God to justify the wicked but is instead trying by his own hand to display his righteousness.

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
These doctrine do not exist in a vacuum, so the "risk" evaluation requires exploring the truth of multiples and so I took your position that salvation can be lost, applied the reason that Paul was saying the Galatians had been cut off(seeking justification in the law) and turned it on another position(the keeping of the Sabbath.) .

You invented a statement for Paul that does not exist.

You invented "if you fail to be in rebellion against the 4th commandment you have fallen from Grace" -- a text that does not exist.

that is not the scenario we are looking at since nobody claims it is true.

Rather the two sides of the Sabbath are:

1. The 4th commandment still matters and has not been deleted -- it is unchanged.

2. The 4th commandment is deleted and now you can keep whatever day you like as in Rom 14 "any day you wish" including Saturday.

Those are the two positions that exist "in real life". As already noted in the OP.

======================

The next step is to compare what is the "risk" when "1" is found to be wrong... and what is the risk when "2" is found to be wrong.

You are inventing an odd construct in Gal 5 where even "not taking God's name in vain" should be condemned as "being severed from Christ". Which is way off the plane of real options in debates on that Sabbath topic.

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
And I mean exactly what I said, if one does not work but trusts God to justify the wicked has his faith credited as righteousness.

The one that takes God's name in vain is not trusting God at all for anyhing.

1 Cor 6 makes this clear in the "do not be deceived" section.

7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather suffer the wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves do wrong and defraud. And this to your brothers and sisters!
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

It means there is no such thing as "I trusted God by doing nothing but taking His name in vain all the way into glory". No such thing as that according to 1 Cor 6.

1 Johh 5:4 "This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His commandments" rather than "this is the LOVE of God that we take His name in vain and thus show we are doing no good works and relying fully on Christ".

1 John 2:
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, walk just as He walked.

Walking "as He walked" would not be in the form of "constantly taking God's name in vain to prove I am relying on Him and not doing anything good merely proves how perfectly I am relying on Him"

Fervent · Jan 5, 2022

BobRyan said:
You invented a statement for Paul that does not exist.

You invented "if you fail to be in rebellion against the 4th commandment you have fallen from Grace" -- a text that does not exist.

that is not the scenario we are looking at since nobody claims it is true.

Rather the two sides of the Sabbath are:

1. The 4th commandment still matters and has not been deleted -- it is unchanged.

2. The 4th commandment is deleted and now you can keep whatever day you like as in Rom 14 "any day you wish" including Saturday.

Those are the two positions that exist "in real life". As already noted in the OP.

======================

The next step is to compare what is the "risk" when "1" is found to be wrong... and what is the risk when "2" is found to be wrong.

You are inventing an odd construct in Gal 5 where even "not taking God's name in vain" should be condemned as "being severed from Christ". Which is way off the plane of real options in debates on that Sabbath topic.

No, there are two positions. We are justified by our works of the law, or we are justified by faith. Those who seek to be justified by the law are cut off from Christ. Observance of the Sabbath isn't directly material to the discussion, as far as I know no one is opposed to someone of their own conviction choosing to worship on Saturday. Where it becomes an issue is when it is demanded as law. You say there's a risk to not observing the Sabbath, what risk is that?

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
No, there are two positions. We are justified by our works of the law, or we are justified by faith.

Both sides say "justified by faith". Both sides say all have sinned.

People that choose to "not take God's name in vain" also claim "we are justified faith"
People that choose "not to profane God's Sabbath" also claim "we are justified faith"

Those who choose to ignore "the Sabbath of YHWH" Ex 20:10 also claim "we are justified faith"
but they usually don't claim that rebellion against the Ten Commandments is a funny kind of "proof of justification" or that it earns justification.

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

the two sides of the Sabbath are:

1. The 4th commandment still matters and has not been deleted -- it is unchanged.

2. The 4th commandment is deleted and now you can keep whatever day you like as in Rom 14 "any day you wish" including Saturday.

Those are the two positions that exist "in real life". As already noted in the OP.

Fervent said:
No, there are two positions. We are justified by our works of the law, or we are justified by faith.

No body is claiming "justified by works of the law" not even when we choose not to take God's name in vain. How is this even a little bit confusing???

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

the two sides of the Sabbath are:

1. The 4th commandment still matters and has not been deleted -- it is unchanged.

2. The 4th commandment is deleted and now you can keep whatever day you like as in Rom 14 "any day you wish" including Saturday.

Those are the two positions that exist "in real life". As already noted in the OP.

Fervent said:
No, there are two positions. We are justified by our works of the law, or we are justified by faith.

No body is claiming "justified by works of the law" not even when we choose not to take God's name in vain. How is this even a little bit confusing???

Fervent · Jan 5, 2022

BobRyan said:
Both sides say "justified by faith". Both sides say all have sinned.

People that choose to "not take God's name in vain" also claim "we are justified faith"
People that choose "not to profane God's Sabbath" also claim "we are justified faith"

Those who choose to ignore "the Sabbath of YHWH" Ex 20:10 also claim "we are justified faith"
but they usually don't claim that rebellion against the Ten Commandments is a funny kind of "proof of justification" or that it earns justification.

Cut the jibberish, what's the supposed risk? Will God not justify the wicked if they don't perform Sabbath observance?

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Fervent said:
No, there are two positions. We are justified by our works of the law, or we are justified by faith.

Both sides say "justified by faith". Both sides say all have sinned.

People that choose to "not take God's name in vain" also claim "we are justified faith"
People that choose "not to profane God's Sabbath" also claim "we are justified faith"

Those who choose to ignore "the Sabbath of YHWH" Ex 20:10 also claim "we are justified faith"
but they usually don't claim that rebellion against the Ten Commandments is a funny kind of "proof of justification" or that it earns justification.

almost all Bible scholars admit to this obvious Bible fact regarding rebellion vs obedience when it comes to New Covenant saints having the Law of God written on the heart - as we have seen in the case of both "the Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 and also "the Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19.

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the sabbath debate are in full agreement at that point.

Fervent said:
Cut the jibberish,

So far I have only stated the obvious.

Fervent said:
what's the supposed risk? Will God not justify the wicked if they don't perform Sabbath observance?

James 4:17 does not mention the Sabbath.

Presbyterian Continuist · Jan 5, 2022

SabbathBlessings said:
How do you know why anyone obeys God? Only God knows our thoughts and hearts, so again I would leave that task of up to Jesus.

We are saved by grace (God’s gift to give or not give) though our faith. Does grace delete these words from Jesus: If you love Me, keep My commandments? John 14:15.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not!

The church did not write the Ten Commandments, God did. God is the one who advocates that we obey His law Exodus 20:6 and Jesus Matthew 5:19, Matthew 7:21-23, John 14:15, John 15:10, and Paul 1 Cor 7:19, and James James 2:10-12 and John 1 John 5:3, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12, Revelation 22:12, 1 John 2:4 and Hebrews 8:10

If you are walking in the Spirit you are obeying. To claim you are in the Spirit and sinning, that spirit does not come from God. Isaiah 8:20

Which law is too difficult to keep? Just curious.

There you go again cobbling verses together to make your point! If you did a verse by verse study of Romans, you will find out as I did that Paul says that the Ten Commandments failed to justify anyone before God, not because there was any fault in the Commandments, but no one was able to keep them to the strict perfect standard that God required and still requires. We can't even sanctify ourselves by trying to keep the Commandments. We need the indwelling Holy Spirit to do it in us.

HARK! · Jan 5, 2022

MOD HAT ON

Please adhere to the Statement of Purpose for this forum:

Examples of inflammatory words/phrases (including but not limited to): idolaters, false/different/other gospel, false prophet, false doctrine, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing, different God, antichrists, Antichrist, cannibalism/cannibal (concerning Eucharist), Judaizer.

MOD HAT OFF

BobRyan · Jan 5, 2022

Oscarr said:
There you go again cobbling verses together to make your point!

I am not troubled by the fact that "more than one text agrees" with the point I am making.

Oscarr said:
If you did a verse by verse study of Romans, you will find out as I did that Paul says that the Ten Commandments failed to justify anyone before God

Agreed.

As I already posted - nobody is arguing for the Law "as savior" that would "justify the guilty".

I think this is the easy part.

Would like me to post that again - or just give the links on this thread where I keep saying it??

As already noted - Rom 8:4-12 makes the case that the lost "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they submit to it".

Presbyterian Continuist · Jan 5, 2022

BobRyan said:
I am not troubled by the fact that "more than one text agrees" with the point I am making.

Agreed.

As I already posted - nobody is arguing for the Law "as savior" that would "justify the guilty".

I think this is the easy part.

Would like me to post that again - or just give the links on this thread where I keep saying it??

As already noted - Rom 8:4-12 makes the case that the lost "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they submit to it".

I've done my dash here. Got too far off topic. CYA!

There is NO risk to me if I am wrong about "certain" doctrinal positions.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

שמע

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads