saved by grace or by works

[msortwell]

Your point is saying the same as me.

Genesis 6:14 is a command to no one else but Noah, thus, we don't obey it.

Thus, not all scripture contains commands for us to obey.

Why is it that difficult for you to concede that?

For weeks you have been trying convince anyone who wanders their way into the thread that entire books of NT text should be set aside based upon an interpretation that is fallacious on its face - so now you are simply changing your assertion, as though that is all you have been trying to prove all along. You are asking that I “concede” to a point that is essentially the point that we have been making. But it doesn’t salvage any of your main assertion - it remains without merit.

 

[Guojing]

For weeks you have been trying convince anyone who wanders their way into the thread that entire books of NT text should be set aside based upon an interpretation that is fallacious on its face - so now you are simply changing your assertion, as though that is all you have been trying to prove all along.

I said clearly that all scripture is for our learning, so I have no idea why you said I am setting aside any scripture

 

[msortwell]

But you have no problem believing that Luke 12:33 is not written as instructions to you, correct?

You still don't get what I am trying to establish with you.

All along, I am saying Jesus's instructions in the 4 gospels are only directed to the nation of Israel during that specific time, so they do not apply to us now . . .

James 1:1 tells you who the audience his letter is intended for.

Which of those 12 tribes do you consider yourself to be in?

I said clearly that all scripture is for our learning, so I have no idea why you said I am setting aside any scripture

Over and over again you have asserted that certain inspired writings (including the 4 gospels, the epistle of James and others) were not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church. Now that Scripture has been shown to speak directly against your longstandingi assertions, you want to soften you position to make it seem has though you have not been saying precisely what you have been saying.

 

[Guojing]

Over and over again you have asserted that certain inspired writings (including the 4 gospels, the epistle of James and others) were not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church. Now that Scripture has been shown to speak directly against your longstandingi assertions, you want to soften you position to make it seem has though you have not been saying precisely what you have been saying.

You have asserted that Genesis 6:14 is a command to no one else but Noah and thus "were not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church.

What is the difference between what you are doing above, and what I was doing in those passages?

 

[msortwell]

You have asserted that Genesis 6:14 is a command to no one else but Noah and thus "were not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church.

What is the difference between what you are doing above, and what I was doing in those passages?

1 Cor 10:No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful . . .

Men share a common challenge, making applicable to all types of men, the full breadth of Holy Writ, for it all speaks of their needs and of our faithful God. Noah was given a unique command to build a singular craft, that God promised would never again be needed.

 

[Guojing]

Noah was given a unique command to build a singular craft, that God promised would never again be needed.

This last sentence means the same as saying that unique command to Noah was "not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church."

Is it unreasonable to conclude that?

 

[msortwell]

This last sentence means the same as saying that unique command to Noah was "not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church."

Is it unreasonable to conclude that?

Sad. VERY sad. The proper implications and applications of God’s command to Noah cannot be abused to substantiate your heretical view of Scripture. If you choose to continue trying to twist God’s Word in that way you are putting yourself in a very dangerous place.

 

[Guojing]

Sad. VERY sad. The proper implications and applications of God’s command to Noah cannot be abused to substantiate your heretical view of Scripture. If you choose to continue trying to twist God’s Word in that way you are putting yourself in a very dangerous place.

Wait, didn't you just state "Noah was given a unique command to build a singular craft, that God promised would never again be needed"?

Unique means unique to Noah, and a command to no one else right?

Why is that not the same as saying that command was "not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church."?

 

[msortwell]

Wait, didn't you just state "Noah was given a unique command to build a singular craft, that God promised would never again be needed"?

Unique means unique to Noah, and a command to no one else right?

Why is that not the same as saying that command was "not written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church."?

Because context carries meaning. As I already said. . .

Men share a common challenge, making applicable to all types of men, the full breadth of Holy Writ, for it all speaks of their needs and of our faithful God.

1 Cor 10:13, No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful . . .

Noah was given a unique command to build a singular craft, that God promised would never again be needed.

God promised that there would never again be a need for any man ever to obey the command he gave to Noah.

 

[Guojing]

God promised that there would never again be a need for any man ever to obey the command he gave to Noah.

Therefore Genesis 6:14 is not "written to the present day, largely gentile, church, and do not apply to the church.".

That conclusion follows from this premise of yours, correct?

 

[msortwell]

Therefore Genesis 6:14 is not "written to the present day, largely, church, and do not apply to the church.".

That conclusion follows from this premise of yours, correct?

It might, if I was willing to rip the verse out of its biblical context, but as it stands . . .

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. NASU

the Bble says . . . no. The Bible says it is God inspired so that I may be prepared - for that reason, that I may be prepared. I am not commanded to build an ark, but I am informed that Noah was And I benefit from that test written, in part, for my benefit.

 

[Guojing]

It might, if I was willing to rip the verse out of its biblical context, but as it stands . . .

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. NASU

the Bble says . . . no. The Bible says it is God inspired so that I may be prepared - for that reason, that I may be prepared. I am not commanded to build an ark, but I am informed that Noah was And I benefit from that test written, in part, for my benefit.

I am asking you to look at your premise and see that my conclusion follows from your premise.

You understand what is a deductive argument?

 

[msortwell]

I am asking you to look at your premise and see that my conclusion follows from your premise.

You understand what is a deductive argument?

I do!

Premise: All Scripture is true.

Premise: All Scripture is God-breathed so that I may be equipped.

Premise: Genesis 6:12 is Scripture.

Conclusion: It is true that Genesis 6:12 is God-breathed so that I may be equipped for every good work.

The command does not have to be “to me” for the story to be “for me” to be of benefit to me.

 

[Guojing]

I do!

Premise: All Scripture is true.

Premise: All Scripture is God-breathed so that I may be equipped.

Premise: Genesis 6:12 is Scripture.

Conclusion: It is true that Genesis 6:12 is God-breathed so that I may be equipped for every good work.

The command does not have to be “to me” for the story to be “for me” to be of benefit to me.

Which is what I am saying all scripture is for our learning

You can believe that while also believing that not all scripture are written to you or about you

 

[msortwell]

Which is what I am saying all scripture is for our learning

You can believe that while also believing that not all scripture are written to you or about you

You are speaking nonsense. But that is what it takes to be consistent with your doctrine on the handling of Scripture.

 

[Guojing]

The command does not have to be “to me” for the story to be “for me” to be of benefit to me..

Isn't that what I am also saying? Something can be for me, but not to me.

Both of us are saying the same thing. You just don't want to admit it, for some strange reason only you will know.

 

[msortwell]

No. We are not saying the same thing. The text of Gen 61:2 is written to/for all believers, but the command documented within 6:12 was to Noah alone.

The distinction to be made is that between the command itself and the account of the giving of the command.

 

[Guojing]

No. We are not saying the same thing. The text of Gen 61:2 is written to/for all believers, but the command documented within 6:12 was to Noah alone.

The distinction to be made is that between the command itself and the account of the giving of the command.

So the command was not written to us, it's to Noah alone.

Do you at least agree to that?

 

[msortwell]

So the command was not written to us, it's to Noah alone.

Do you at least agree to that?

The command was not written to anyone. It was said to Noah. The account of the command was written to me - written for, for my benefit.

 

[Guojing]

The command was not written to anyone. It was said to Noah. The account of the command was written to me - written for, for my benefit.

You like to split hair between "command" and "the account of the command".

Let's simplify it: It was said TO Noah but it was recorded FOR our benefit.

Would that be agreeable?