SALVATION---instant, or process?

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Shimon
So, in essence, you’re telling me that your church doesn’t teach you that it’s okay to transgress God’s commandments, and yet you proven exactly the opposite.  It *does* teach that it’s okay to transgress God’s Torah because each of the observance I mentioned above are commandments of the Torah.

Shimon

Well, you know us non-Messianic Jews, just a bunch of transgressors.  Good thing we're forgiven of that.

God bless, and good luck with that whole holier than thou thing you got going on.

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by Shimon
If you have any more *specific* questions, let me know.
Shimon [/B]

Hi, I'm not sure if you saw my add-on to knights post about Acts 10:10-16 (sorry I had the wrong end verse the last time). Here it is not refering to pagans as you claim Romans 14 is in your response to knight, but rather God explicitly declares animals that were up to that time unclean as being clean, thus removing the dietary restrictions.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

Regards, Clinton

 

[Michie]

Reformationist,
I don't think Shimon has in any way put forth a impression that he has a "Holier than thou" thing going on.

Let's not start with the barbs.

Regardless of how we worship & the doctrines we believe we are still all one within the Body of Christ & we have all excepted Him as Savior/Messiah.

We asked the questions & he is answering, simple as that.

Thank's!

I think this has turned into a wonderful educational thread that can foster understanding among Christians/Messianic Jews.

Let's keep it that way.

Michie

 

[Shimon]

cthoma11:

Hi, I'm not sure if you saw my add-on to knights post about Acts 10:10-16 (sorry I had the wrong end verse the last time). Here it is not refering to pagans as you claim Romans 14 is in your response to knight, but rather God explicitly declares animals that were up to that time unclean as being clean, thus removing the dietary restrictions.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

Regards, Clinton

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

 

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by Michie
Reformationist,
I don't think Shimon has in any way put forth a impression that he has a "Holier than thou" thing going on.

Let's not start with the barbs.

Regardless of how we worship & the doctrines we believe we are still all one within the Body of Christ & we have all excepted Him as Savior/Messiah.

We asked the questions & he is answering, simple as that.

Thank's!

I think this has turned into a wonderful educational thread that can foster understanding among Christians/Messianic Jews.

Let's keep it that way.

Michie

Uh, yea.  Seemed a bit sharp to me, too.  But, us unclean spirits tend to stick together so what do I know?

 

[Michie]

What to do?

Stop with the sarcastic attitude.

I would think we are all secure enough with our faith & our relationship with Jesus Christ not to feel like we are unclean because we have eaten a BLT.

What others look upon as a sin may be a stumbling block to them.

What they see as sin, may not make us stumble at all.

I think Paul mentions this in Scripture.

 

[Gabriel]

I use the NASB and the NKJV and neither of them say Torah in Acts 24:14.  Both versions use the word Law.

Ephesians 2:15 "having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,..."

So if you can show me that the law is the Torah, you can see that it and it's law has been abolished.  Do I keep the commandments?  Not as well as I should, but by the grace of God I do try and succeed more often than not.  Do I eat pork?  Only with spicy/sweet BBQ sauce.  Do I observe Jewish holiday or tradition?  No, I'm not Jewish.  But I am an Israelite.

 

[Shimon]

Gabriel:

Uh, yea. Seemed a bit sharp to me, too. But, us unclean spirits tend to stick together so what do I know?

If I were to come in here and start telling everyone that it was okay to commit adultery, homosexuality, and to steal and rob from each other, I'd expect some pretty sharp replies. I would certainly expect some sharp replies if I were to say that no one must accept Yeshua as their Savior.

Teaching against the Torah is no different. I'm not about to declare what the Torah clearly tells us is a sin, to not be a sin. And considering the fact that I consider obedience to the Torah commandments to be the very method by which we accept Yeshua as our Savior, then teaching against Torah is no different than teaching that one does not have to accept Yeshua as their Savior. It is exactly the same thing.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I'm not about to declare a sin not to be a sin, and I'm not about to declare that one doesn't have to accept Yeshua.

Shimon

 

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by Michie
What to do?

Stop with the sarcastic attitude.

I would think we are all secure enough with our faith & our relationship with Jesus Christ not to feel like we are unclean because we have eaten a BLT.

What others look upon as a sin may be a stumbling block to them.

What they see as sin, may not make us stumble at all.

I think Paul mentions this in Scripture.

That he does.  Stating that what we do may not be sin, but that we should be careful that it not offend the weaker brother.

I apologize if I offended anyone. 

 

[Michie]

Thank's guys.

I just didn't want a good thread to get trashed with our insecurities.



Michie

 

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by Shimon
Gabriel:



If I were to come in here and start telling everyone that it was okay to commit adultery, homosexuality, and to steal and rob from each other, I'd expect some pretty sharp replies. I would certainly expect some sharp replies if I were to say that no one must accept Yeshua as their Savior.

Teaching against the Torah is no different. I'm not about to declare what the Torah clearly tells us is a sin, to not be a sin. And considering the fact that I consider obedience to the Torah commandments to be the very method by which we accept Yeshua as our Savior, then teaching against Torah is no different than teaching that one does not have to accept Yeshua as their Savior. It is exactly the same thing.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I'm not about to declare a sin not to be a sin, and I'm not about to declare that one doesn't have to accept Yeshua.

Shimon

Listen dude, don't come in here compoaring us to gays, adulterers, thieves and the like because we don't agree with you.  We backed off and I suggest you do likewise.

I have debated with many here who don't believe what I can plainly see as God's decreed plan and I have never insulted anyone like that.

I think that tight little hat is making you pompous. 

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Michie
What others look upon as a sin may be a stumbling block to them.

What they see as sin, may not make us stumble at all.

True.  But I don't see anyone else posting saying that your Christian lifestyle is unbiblical and if you continue to not "observe" Yom Kippur then you're breaking God's Law.  Come on.  That's not biblical.

God bless

 

[Michie]

It perfectly ok to disagree but remember to do it respectfully.

Shimon is our brother as you are also.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Shimon
And considering the fact that I consider obedience to the Torah commandments to be the very method by which we accept Yeshua as our Savior, then teaching against Torah is no different than teaching that one does not have to accept Yeshua as their Savior. It is exactly the same thing.

Like I said, you consider your ability to be obedient to God's commandments to be the reason your saved, not the result.  Salvation is by grace, not by "not eating pork." 

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I'm not about to declare a sin not to be a sin, and I'm not about to declare that one doesn't have to accept Yeshua.

Shimon

I'm not trying to offend you either Shimon.  You seem very good at telling people they are living sinful lifestyles but not very good at taking criticism.

God bless

 

[Gabriel]

I thought one of the rules was that we not attack anothers religion?  Isn't that what Tamone is doing?

s0uljah and I have gotten into it a few times and even at it's worse we never resorted to outright telling the other that they were ****** if we didn't agree. 

What we are being told basically is that salvation is not enough if we don't back it up with the right holidays and works.

 

[Shimon]

Gabriel:

Why the antagonistic attitude? I'm certainly not comparing anyone with adulterers and homosexuals, I'm merely saying that I'm not about to declare a sin to not be a sin.

Evidently, you don't believe that eating swine-flesh is a sin. I do. I was only trying to help you understand it from my point of view.

Shimon

 

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by Shimon
Gabriel:



If I were to come in here and start telling everyone that it was okay to commit adultery, homosexuality, and to steal and rob from each other, I'd expect some pretty sharp replies. I would certainly expect some sharp replies if I were to say that no one must accept Yeshua as their Savior.

Teaching against the Torah is no different. I'm not about to declare what the Torah clearly tells us is a sin, to not be a sin. And considering the fact that I consider obedience to the Torah commandments to be the very method by which we accept Yeshua as our Savior, then teaching against Torah is no different than teaching that one does not have to accept Yeshua as their Savior. It is exactly the same thing.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I'm not about to declare a sin not to be a sin, and I'm not about to declare that one doesn't have to accept Yeshua.

Shimon

This whole post is offensive to me.  I get the drift that you are insecure in your faith and need to live by the law to feel secure.  But I am not the type to tell you that as I don't want to be offensive.  So I won't.

Now, my work here is done...

 

[Shimon]

Reformationist:

Like I said, you consider your ability to be obedient to God's commandments to be the reason your saved, not the result. Salvation is by grace, not by "not eating pork.

Not true. I believe we are saved by God's grace because He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross and atone for our sins. He took the penalty for our transgression upon Himself. If we wish to accept His atonement for our sins, we are to obey His commandments of the Torah.

Shimon

 

[Shimon]

I thought one of the rules was that we not attack anothers religion?

I'm not "attacking" anyone's religion, I'm pointing out what I believe to be a very serious doctrinal error.

I think what you are really taking offense to is that you don't like being corrected.  I'm simply saying that I'm not about to say that eating swine-flesh is not a sin any more than I am going to say that being homosexual is not a sin.

This whole post is offensive to me. I get the drift that you are insecure in your faith and need to live by the law to feel secure. But I am not the type to tell you that as I don't want to be offensive. So I won't.

Sounds to me like you just did.

Shimon

 

[Gabriel]

See my post #87.  Before things got ugly.  What say you to that?