Is a Christian really subject to the OT Law?

[Soyeong]

Yes all Gods commands are good, therefore it is wrong to disobey any of them. But there are laws that were only for the Nation of Israel to separate them and make them a light unto the nations, these were ceremonial laws that were not based on morality, but to make Israel a perculiar people, easily recognised by their dress, diet and observances.
The ceremonial laws were shadows of Christ to come, now that the bridegroom has come the bride no longer needs them.
It is not morally wrong for a Christian to chose a different day of rest, the 7th day was not for all nations, its not wrong to eat pork either but God did not change anything about its make up, He merely lifted the prohibition, therefore it never was a moral law either.
Mate, i wouldnt begin to tell a Jew what is right or wrong for them, apart from needing Jesus, and i don`t expect a Jew, messianic or not, telling me what i must obey based on out dated and expired laws.

If you believe that God's Law was given to reveal what sin is and that Gentiles are required to refrain from what God has revealed to be sin, then you should therefore believe that Gentiles are required to obey God's Law and that refraining from sin isn't just for Jews. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Law, and as his follower we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6), to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1), and that our sanctification is about being to be made like him (1 John 3:2), so following Jesus is not just for Jews, but for Gentiles too. There are a number of verses that describe God's Law as teaching us how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-12, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, so it was not given as instructions for how to live as Jews, but as instructions for how to reflect God's attributes. For example, in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct not in order to be more like Jews, but because God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, so being faithful to follow those instructions is about acting in accordance with the holiness of our God.

While the Law was address to Israel, it was never intended only for Israel, but rather Israel was given the role of being a light to the nations, of blessing them by teaching them to turn from their wicked ways to walking in God's ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Genesis 22:18). In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a peculiar people, so they now get to act in accordance with God's instructions for those roles. In Romans 9:6-8, Israel is not made up of those who are descended from Israel, but of those who have faith in Messiah. In Ephesians 2:12, 19, Gentiles were one separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, but through faith in Messiah all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God. In Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, so the only way for a Gentile to become part of the New Covenant is through being grafted in to Israel through faith in Messiah, and as such Gentiles now also get the divine privilege and the delight of obeying God's instructions to Israel.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul drew the connection of Christ being our Passover Lamb, but his conclusion for that was that we should therefore keep the Feasts, not that we no longer need to keep it. The Feasts are incredibly rich with teachings about the Messiah and and God's plan of redemption, and now that Messiah has brought full light to them and we have full access to what God was teaching us through them, it makes them all the more important to continue to keep them in remembrance of him. When God commands His people to keep the Sabbath and disobey God in order to establish your own tradition, then you are doing what is immoral, and the same goes for when you eat what God said was an abomination. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's holiness can't be ended without first ending God's holiness, and God's holiness has never been outdated or expired, so neither have those prohibitions. In Galatians 6:1, we are instructed to gently restore those who are caught in sin, not that we have no business doing that.

 

[r4.h]

If you believe that God's Law was given to reveal what sin is and that Gentiles are required to refrain from what God has revealed to be sin, then you should therefore believe that Gentiles are required to obey God's Law and that refraining from sin isn't just for Jews. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Law, and as his follower we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6), to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1), and that our sanctification is about being to be made like him (1 John 3:2), so following Jesus is not just for Jews, but for Gentiles too. There are a number of verses that describe God's Law as teaching us how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-12, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, so it was not given as instructions for how to live as Jews, but as instructions for how to reflect God's attributes. For example, in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct not in order to be more like Jews, but because God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, so being faithful to follow those instructions is about acting in accordance with the holiness of our God.

While the Law was address to Israel, it was never intended only for Israel, but rather Israel was given the role of being a light to the nations, of blessing them by teaching them to turn from their wicked ways to walking in God's ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Genesis 22:18). In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a peculiar people, so they now get to act in accordance with God's instructions for those roles. In Romans 9:6-8, Israel is not made up of those who are descended from Israel, but of those who have faith in Messiah. In Ephesians 2:12, 19, Gentiles were one separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, but through faith in Messiah all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God. In Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, so the only way for a Gentile to become part of the New Covenant is through being grafted in to Israel through faith in Messiah, and as such Gentiles now also get the divine privilege and the delight of obeying God's instructions to Israel.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul drew the connection of Christ being our Passover Lamb, but his conclusion for that was that we should therefore keep the Feasts, not that we no longer need to keep it. The Feasts are incredibly rich with teachings about the Messiah and and God's plan of redemption, and now that Messiah has brought full light to them and we have full access to what God was teaching us through them, it makes them all the more important to continue to keep them in remembrance of him. When God commands His people to keep the Sabbath and disobey God in order to establish your own tradition, then you are doing what is immoral, and the same goes for when you eat what God said was an abomination. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's holiness can't be ended without first ending God's holiness, and God's holiness has never been outdated or expired, so neither have those prohibitions. In Galatians 6:1, we are instructed to gently restore those who are caught in sin, not that we have no business doing that.

Mate, you just dont know what your talking about. You havnt taken anytime to know what i believe and seem to be on some some sort of crusade. Couldve saved yourself alot of time of you had asked a few questions before going to trial.

I know im born again, and I never said anything about gentiles not needing to obey Gods laws. But you are mixed up if you think ceremonial laws given to Jews have anything to do Christians. "let NO man judge you in what you eat or drink, nor in reguard to religious festivals, a new moon celebration, or A sabbath day" Col 2:16.

Cant get any simpler than that, but if you still disagree, please do it with someone else, im not interested sorry. I know my God, whom serve with a pure heart.

 

[Soyeong]

Mate, you just dont know what your talking about. You havnt taken anytime to know what i believe and seem to be on some some sort of crusade. Couldve saved yourself alot of time of you had asked a few questions before going to trial.

I know im born again, and I never said anything about gentiles not needing to obey Gods laws. But you are mixed up if you think ceremonial laws given to Jews have anything to do Christians. "let NO man judge you in what you eat or drink, nor in reguard to religious festivals, a new moon celebration, or A sabbath day" Col 2:16.

Cant get any simpler than that, but if you still disagree, please do it with someone else, im not interested sorry. I know my God, whom serve with a pure heart.

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize, but from what you've just said, it does not appear that I have. What you call ceremonial laws are all Laws that God has commanded, so they are all God's laws. I'm not sure how you can insist that you've never said anything about Gentiles not needed to obey God's Law and immediately proceed to speak against Gentiles obeying God's laws As I quoted from 1 Peter 1:13-16, as part of the New Covenant we are still told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving ceremonial laws, so they have everything to do with Christians. Paul never spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands, ceremonial or otherwise. Having a holy conduct straightforwardly involves keeping God's holy days. However, when God commanded His followers to obey something, you think that Paul spoke against Gentiles obeying God, and that God therefore spoke against obeying Paul (Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:4-5), then you have a decision to make who has the higher authority and which one to follow.

If you look at Colossians 2:16 by itself, then it is ambiguous as to when Paul was saying not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but it we look at the context of the views of the people judging them and keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear:

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Paul would never have described those who were teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition and not according to Christ. He went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands and in accordance with the example Christ set for us to follow, they were being judged by those teach human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man judge them keep them from obeying God.

 

[bugkiller]

You said, "The whole 6 chapters explains clearly that Jesus came to free us from the law" so I apologize if I misunderstood you, but it sure sounds to me like you were interpreting Paul as speaking against obeying God's Law, and it seems to be very inconsistent with what you just said in your reply, so I hope you see why I misunderstood you. If God commanded His followers to do something and Paul said that Christ freed from having to obey what God commanded, then Paul would be speaking against obeying God, so people who refrained from following what God commanded because of what Paul said would be giving Paul more authority than God.

Paul does not speak against the law. Paul does say the Christian is not obligated to the law.

I agree.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that was of works with a law that was of faith, so works of law are of works, while he said that our faith upholds God's Law (Romans 3:31), so they are not the same thing. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law, so again God's Law is of faith. However, I will completely agree that we are not saved through our obedience to either God's Law or works of law, but only through faith in Christ, though the same faith that saves us also requires our obedience to God's Law.

I think you mean Paul intends for us to believe we are to keep the law. Paul does not say this anywhere. For instance Paul can not say "now we are delivered from the law" and are required to keep it. Paul can not say "if you are lead by the Spirit, you are lead by or to the law." No where does Paul try to enforce the law or direct us to the law.

So you originally said that Christ came to free us from the law, but now you are saying that Jesus did not necessarily take away the requirement of obeying God's laws, so to me that sounds like you are contradicting your earlier position. I agree that we can't follow God's Law perfectly, but perfection was never the expectation. The Law itself comes with instructions for what to do when we sin and repentance would be pointless because it would already be too late for perfection, yet every single prophet up to and including Jesus came with the message of repentance. Again, in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:4-10, God said that what he commanded was not too difficult for us, which would not be true if it were pass/fail based on perfection, but rather keeping the law is about continuing to practice repentance when we sin. So no one can go to heaven by obeying the Law primarily because it was never given for that goal in the first place.

I read your referenced passages again. I did not see any mention about the difficulty in keeping the law in either passage. But I do have a pair of questions for you - if a person violates any part of the law are they guilty of sin, or are they still righteous? And if one willfully and continually violates what has been point out to them, can they have eternal life and enter heaven? It seems to me that would be practicing sin. So how can the law take away that which it can not grant? If righteousness comes by the law, Jesus died in vain. Jesus said very clearly you will enter through Him and not the law or you will not get in - Jn 10.

In Romans 9:30-10:10, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was precisely because they had that fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the Law. They had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that the righteousness of God comes only through faith in Messiah, so they pursued the Law as through righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the Law as though righteousness were by faith, for a relationship with Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the Law, but without having a focus on growing in his relationship with Christ, so he had been completely missing the whole point and counted it all as rubbish.

Tell us if you keep the law based on knowledge or based on faith in Jesus. Is your righteousness based on keeping the law or based on Jesus? If you demand keeping the law is it not based on the law? Do you believe you can keep the law? If so why do you not so perform? Nothing personal is intended with my questions.

Faith is always associated with the willingness to follow God's instructions, such as with every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11, so someone can at least be willing to follow God's instructions even if they are physically prevented.

What are God's instructions for Christians? Is I Jn 3:23 valid?

In Matthew 5:16, Jesus said to let our light shine before others, that they may see our good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven, so doing good works in obedience to the Law has always been about glorifying God and about growing in a relationship with Him based on faith and love.

My neighbor spoke about his life style of law keeping with disgust opposed to joy. As soon as the sabbath was over he was beating down the road for personal pleasure. He bragged he could have phony soy hot dogs and ice cream, etc. Is lusting (coveting) after things you can not do sin? Just as well have a real hot dog and be happy. If you are going to eat soy beans eat them as beans without all the additives to make them something different to the eye. Now who really wants that kind of life?

Again, saying Christ came to free us from Lawlessness is the opposite of saying he came to free us from the Law, but it now appears that we are on the same page about a number of issues, so I happy about that. I also agree that everything in the Bible is the Word of God and everything in it is true, but the problem is that many people interpret Paul as speaking against obeying God's Law, which would mean that God spoke against obeying Paul (Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:4-5), so they either need to correct their interpretation of Paul or decide who has the higher authority, and which one to follow.

It appears to me you are saying you can eat a hot dog with mustard and without mustard at the same time. It is kinda like a woman being kinda pregnant.

I completely agree that our faith in Christ should compel us to obey OT Law, so that is what faith looks like, though I'm not sure why you said that we are not subject to God's Law when we are God's servants. In Romans 1:8, it spoke about their faith being reported all over the world and how else do you report someone's faith if not by speaking about the actions that their faith led them to take? That's certainly how Hebrews 11 reported people's faith. In Romans 2:26, the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by looking at their obedience to the Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6).

Gal 5:18. And the covenant law given to Israel has no bearing on the Christian, it is not our covenant.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I didn't speak against following the law. I just find it of higher value to base your obedience to the law through your faith in Jesus Christ rather than be concerned about being overwhelmed trying to follow every single law.

A person can follow the law or follow Jesus. A person can not do both.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

In Matthew 11:28-30 and Jeremiah 6:16-19, the Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, but making it about trying to be good enough rather than about expressing our faith and love would rob our souls of the rest it was intended to give.

Where? Here is the passage from Matthew -↑

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Jesus said nothing about the law here. The law provides no rest especially for the soul. Israel sorta kept it and never had God's rest.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Mate, you just dont know what your talking about. You havnt taken anytime to know what i believe and seem to be on some some sort of crusade. Couldve saved yourself alot of time of you had asked a few questions before going to trial.

I know im born again, and I never said anything about gentiles not needing to obey Gods laws. But you are mixed up if you think ceremonial laws given to Jews have anything to do Christians. "let NO man judge you in what you eat or drink, nor in reguard to religious festivals, a new moon celebration, or A sabbath day" Col 2:16.

Cant get any simpler than that, but if you still disagree, please do it with someone else, im not interested sorry. I know my God, whom serve with a pure heart.

You are on the right track.

bugkiller

 

[Joseph Lim]

A person can follow the law or follow Jesus. A person can not do both.

bugkiller

Now that's where you're wrong. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." There is a difference between putting Jesus before the Law and just solely idolizing the Law without the foundation of Jesus' sacrifice. Just because you are saved it does not mean that you can go around committing crimes because you know that your past, present, and future sins are forgiven through Jesus' death and resurrection. If you do that you cheapen the price that Christ paid on the Cross and you are not a true follower of Christ.

A true follower wants to glorify God. Going and killing someone, for example, does not glorify God. If you take pleasure in going against God but claim that you are a Christian, you are a hypocrite just like the Pharisees.

In Matthew 7:19 Jesus says, "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." This further proves my point that a "Christian" that does not bear good fruit does not please God. I want to make it clear that bearing good fruit is NOT the action following the law itself but having the desire to follow the law to PLEASE God.

Therefore, a person can follow both. A true Christian, however, puts more emphasis on faith in Jesus. Think about it like this. Faith in Jesus Christ is like a ticket into heaven while your works decide your reward in heaven.

 

[bugkiller]

Now that's where you're wrong. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." There is a difference between putting Jesus before the Law and just solely idolizing the Law without the foundation of Jesus' sacrifice. Just because you are saved it does not mean that you can go around committing crimes because you know that your past, present, and future sins are forgiven through Jesus' death and resurrection. If you do that you cheapen the price that Christ paid on the Cross and you are not a true follower of Christ.

A true follower wants to glorify God. Going and killing someone, for example, does not glorify God. If you take pleasure in going against God but claim that you are a Christian, you are a hypocrite just like the Pharisees.

In Matthew 7:19 Jesus says, "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." This further proves my point that a "Christian" that does not bear good fruit does not please God. I want to make it clear that bearing good fruit is NOT the action following the law itself but having the desire to follow the law to PLEASE God.

Therefore, a person can follow both. A true Christian, however, puts more emphasis on faith in Jesus. Think about it like this. Faith in Jesus Christ is like a ticket into heaven while your works decide your reward in heaven.

I am sorry but you do not understand Mat 5:17 and or choose to ignore LK 24:44. Even if I were to post the definitions from the Greek we still could not get along.

bugkiller

 

[Buzz_B]

Works are not required to receive the free gift. Otherwise it is payment and not a gift. It is not Jesus and .... or faith and works of any kind.

What are these good works you seem to think James requires to get or maintain salvation?

Sorry but I do not get your closing statement at all.

bugkiller

But are we playing a mind game in what you said?

Consider the following example:

A rich man who really needed nothing from anyone saw a poor man who could scarcely afford the food to keep his and his family's bodies alive.

The rich man said in his heart, I feel compassion for this man and I know he has nothing with which he can pay me for the things he needs but I desire to give those things to him. But I do not want to just hand them to him so that he comes to expect charity, for charity too must be offered voluntarily and not because he comes to expect it, else my charity is no longer charity, but debt as if I owed him these things.

So the rich man sends a messenger to the poor man and tells the poor man I have these things that I ask you to do to show you have respect and love toward me and then I will open my hand to satisfy all of your needs. And I will continue to satisfy all of your needs if you keep confirming your respect and love for me by continuing to do the things I requested of you.

When that poor man does the things the rich man required him to do did he really earn all or even any of the things the rich man would do in return?

Toss that around in your mind and your heart and decide what the true answer would be.

 

[bugkiller]

But are we playing a mind game in what you said?

Consider the following example:

A rich man who really needed nothing from anyone saw a poor man who could scarcely afford the food to keep his and his family's bodies alive.

The rich man said in his heart, I feel compassion for this man and I know he has nothing with which he can pay me for the things he needs but I desire to give those things to him. But I do not want to just hand them to him so that he comes to expect charity, for charity too must be offered voluntarily and not because he comes to expect it, else my charity is no longer charity, but debt as if I owed him these things.

So the rich man sends a messenger to the poor man and tells the poor man I have these things that I ask you to do to show you have respect and love toward me and then I will open my hand to satisfy all of your needs. And I will continue to satisfy all of your needs if you keep confirming your respect and love for me by continuing to do the things I requested of you.

When that poor man does the things the rich man required him to do did he really earn all or even any of the things the rich man would do in return?

Toss that around in your mind and your heart and decide what the true answer would be.

The poor man became an employee contracting for compensation. And yes the rich man was obligated at that point. The poor man no longer had charity.

bugkiller

 

[Buzz_B]

The poor man became an employee contracting for compensation. And yes the rich man was obligated at that point. The poor man no longer had charity.

bugkiller

So if I show you kindness and ask that you of your own free-will appreciation reciprocate with some small thing, I have ruined my kindness and rendered you my slave? Don't you think your attitude is horribly ungrateful?

Do you not realize that it is God's grace which even kept us alive after Adam sinned? Could you have purchased the chance to live so as to be able to seek salvation then, while you were yet just a plan lain out in Adams genes?

You are supporting the attitude of a spoiled child who thinks all should be handed to it on a silver platter. And yet you know that a child would learn nothing by that and so you know that simply to hand things to us on a silver platter would not really be love at all. It would actually be hate.

Why not kill some of those bugs in your own thinking?

 

[Buzz_B]

As a parent, we feed our children and supply all of their needs for a good number of years.

One thing many of us do, is, we put things in place to teach our children to be generous, empathetic toward others, respectful, and responsible. That is, we do these things if we are a good parent.

We often offer our children what are called incentives in the form of a modest monetary allowance and/or additional privileges which we do not really have to give them of our appreciation for their doing what we ask of them which is really for their benefit in leaning values which will make their life better even long after they leave the nest.

Most of us have experienced the child who rebels and accuses us of making them our slave merely because we require of them what is for their own good.

Ergo those who insist that because God asks of us that we do what is good for us it means salvation is no longer a free gift.

Although the parent could have chosen not to even have children, the parent chose to have them and to be responsible for their care, before these children ever even knew what life was.

Still, we find some of them who when not getting things their way, and when insisting they have a right to this and that, and intimating that the parent is cruel for denying it to them, they retort, "I did not ask to be born."

I have to say it like it is. That brat attitude is all this free gift doctrine has been twisted into by many. God owes them this and so if he asks them to do anything for their own good and to learn appreciation, suddenly they claim they are earning God's grace (his goodness and generosity).

Very sad. They render it difficult for God to teach them the same as the spoiled child makes it difficult for a parent to teach them. Haughtiness, "I should not have to do anything because you owe me!" Only disguised under a claim that the Scriptures support that they do not have to do anything. So that they even deceive themselves as to what they are really saying.

 

[Buzz_B]

The holy spirit spoke to me a moment ago just after signing off from here and told me to look closer at the entire idea that the Jews believed they could earn salvation.

I do not know why it told me that as yet but I suspect I will find out that too is a false assumption born of those in their defense of the gift being free in the way they consider free.

No, not exactly what i said. It turns out that he was directing me to put more thought into Matthew 18:21-35. The key to this is in the parable Jesus there spoke.

We all begin life in debt to God. Being as we cannot at all afford the cost of that debt, for that reason alone, matter not what God requires of us, salvation is a free gift. Free only because we have nothing to offer which can purchase it. Though God require things of us to receive that gift, those things he is asking are not much, and certainly those things he is asking of us are not even close to being enough to purchase that gift. So the entire idea of considering doing those things as trying to purchase that gift is ridiculous. That no works able to be required idea is not at all what Paul meant and is an idea born of the wicked one just to confuse us..

 

[bugkiller]

So if I show you kindness and ask that you of your own free-will appreciation reciprocate with some small thing, I have ruined my kindness and rendered you my slave? Don't you think your attitude is horribly ungrateful?

Yes you ruined your act of kindness because it was for personal gain. No I do not think my attitude is being ungrateful.

Do you not realize that it is God's grace which even kept us alive after Adam sinned? Could you have purchased the chance to live so as to be able to seek salvation then, while you were yet just a plan lain out in Adams genes?

Do not get ya here.

You are supporting the attitude of a spoiled child who thinks all should be handed to it on a silver platter. And yet you know that a child would learn nothing by that and so you know that simply to hand things to us on a silver platter would not really be love at all. It would actually be hate.

You are still posing salvation by merit. I can not accept that based on the words of Jesus. Sorry

Why not kill some of those bugs in your own thinking?

Good idea. What about yours? Opps! I know you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

As a parent, we feed our children and supply all of their needs for a good number of years.

One thing many of us do, is, we put things in place to teach our children to be generous, empathetic toward others, respectful, and responsible. That is, we do these things if we are a good parent.

We often offer our children what are called incentives in the form of a modest monetary allowance and/or additional privileges which we do not really have to give them of our appreciation for their doing what we ask of them which is really for their benefit in leaning values which will make their life better even long after they leave the nest.

Most of us have experienced the child who rebels and accuses us of making them our slave merely because we require of them what is for their own good.

Ergo those who insist that because God asks of us that we do what is good for us it means salvation is no longer a free gift.

Although the parent could have chosen not to even have children, the parent chose to have them and to be responsible for their care, before these children ever even knew what life was.

Still, we find some of them who when not getting things their way, and when insisting they have a right to this and that, and intimating that the parent is cruel for denying it to them, they retort, "I did not ask to be born."

I have to say it like it is. That brat attitude is all this free gift doctrine has been twisted into by many. God owes them this and so if he asks them to do anything for their own good and to learn appreciation, suddenly they claim they are earning God's grace (his goodness and generosity).

Very sad. They render it difficult for God to teach them the same as the spoiled child makes it difficult for a parent to teach them. Haughtiness, "I should not have to do anything because you owe me!" Only disguised under a claim that the Scriptures support that they do not have to do anything. So that they even deceive themselves as to what they are really saying.

What you talk about is payment for behavior. That may be mercy but it is not grace. It also is not love.

bugkiller

 

[Buzz_B]

What you talk about is payment for behavior. That maybe mercy but it is not grace. It also is not love.

bugkiller

OK. Have it your way.

Many will only see what they want to see. I am not trying to alter that fact of this fallen life.

Those who oppose the truths of God which I have been speaking are falsely judging my words, goading, and threatening me in private mail with warnings and threatening to ban me from this site as one would expect. If that happens you can find me on WireClub as busybuster64 if you yet desire to speak more to me. I am intending to begin a blog on that site.

I won't resist them with appeals as I believe in letting them carry out their own judgment to the full.