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

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

Your response...

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.

Actually this is non responsive to the post you are quoting from and does not answer the question asked of you in the post you are quoting from. If you do not want to answer the questions asked of you just say so as you do not have to if you do not want to. As shown earlier in the posts and scriptures shared with you in (post # 176 linked; post # 181 linked and post # 183 linked) you're disregarding scripture contexts and subject matter while reading into the scriptures what they do not say or teach (eisegesis). So we will have to agree to disagree. The previous posts were only provided to you to be helpful but I see you are not interested in discussing them with me so I guess there is no need to continue our conversation but I would suggest you prayerfully consider what has been shared with you from the scriptures already in the linked posts.

Take care.

 

[Fervent]

So far I have only stated the obvious.

So far you've done everything but. So again, what's the risk of not observing the Sabbath? Does God not justify the wicked?

 

[Fervent]

Your response...

Actually this is non responsive to the post you are quoting from and does not answer the question asked of you in the post you are quoting from. If you do not want to answer the questions asked of you just say so as you do not have to if you do not want to. As shown earlier in the posts and scriptures shared with you in (post # 176 linked; post # 181 linked and post # 183 linked) you're disregarding scripture contexts and subject matter while reading into the scriptures what they do not say or teach (eisegesis). So we will have to agree to disagree. The previous posts were only provided to you to be helpful but I see you are not interested in discussing them with me so I guess there is no need to continue our conversation but I would suggest you prayerfully consider what has been shared with you from the scriptures already in the linked posts.

Take care.

Actually, I have answered your question as well as pointing out the flaw of the manner in which you're trying to invoke context. But to put directly, if you do not obey the law but instead trust God to justify the wicked what fear do you have of disobedience from the law? Seems to me that the risk is on the one who believes they are at risk(i.e. they do not have faith that God will justify the wicked) and attempts to win justification through obedience to the law. So what risk is there for not obeying the Sabbath, since my works are not what justify me nor are they what condemn me?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Actually, I have answered your question as well as pointing out the flaw of the manner in which you're trying to invoke context. But to put directly, if you do not obey the law but instead trust God to justify the wicked what fear do you have of disobedience from the law? Seems to me that the risk is on the one who believes they are at risk(i.e. they do not have faith that God will justify the wicked) and attempts to win justification through obedience to the law. So what risk is there for not obeying the Sabbath, since my works are not what justify me nor are they what condemn me?

Actually no you didn't but that is ok. You do not have to if you do not want to.

Take Care.

 

[Fervent]

Actually no you didn't but that is ok. You do not have to if you do not want to.

Take Care.

I did, because as I said I am not saved by the law I am saved by grace through faith not of works. I have the Holy Spirit for assurance of my salvation, I do not need the inferior promises of the old covenant. It seems to me that you're on precarious grounds, though, because you're speaking of risk as if your salvation depends on you. Certainly something to pray about.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I did, because as I said I am not saved by the law I am saved by grace through faith not of works. I have the Holy Spirit for assurance of my salvation, I do not need the inferior promises of the old covenant. It seems to me that you're on precarious grounds, though, because you're speaking of risk as if your salvation depends on you. Certainly something to pray about.

No you didn't but that is ok as posted earlier you do not have to address my posts and questions asked of you if you do not want to. No one has ever said to you we are saved by the law so I do not know what your talking about here. According to the scriptures however, no one is saved by grace for disobedience to the faith according to Romans 1:5 and if we saved by God's grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) I am sure you would agree that we are not saved through faith by not believing and following what Gods' Word says? That does not make much sense now does it? Please refer to post # 182 linked.

 

[Fervent]

No you didn't but that is ok as posted earlier you do not have to address my posts and questions asked of you if you do not want to. No has ever said to you we are saved by the law so I do not know what your talking about here. Please refer to post # 182 linked

I did, in post 176. And your question implies that in order to be justified I must be justified in accordance with the law, otherwise why would I question my state of salvation based on the law? It's one thing to acknowledge salvation by grace through faith in a doctrinal statement, another to back up that assertion by actually trusting your salvation to Christ and getting off the hamster wheel of works. The whole package from justification to glorification is grace, which means you do as the Spirit leads and trust that Christ knows what He's doing rather than looking around and buying yourself insurance against "risk" through adherence to the law. If you are so persuaded that Saturday is the Sabbath, that's your prerogative and I encourage you to celebrate the day. But if you are doing it as a matter of law, how are you not trying to be justified by the law? And if you are seeking to be justified by the law, how are you not severed from Christ?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I did, in post 176. And your question implies that in order to be justified I must be justified in accordance with the law, otherwise why would I question my state of salvation based on the law? It's one thing to acknowledge salvation by grace through faith in a doctrinal statement, another to back up that assertion by actually trusting your salvation to Christ and getting off the hamster wheel of works. The whole package from justification to glorification is grace, which means you do as the Spirit leads and trust that Christ knows what He's doing rather than looking around and buying yourself insurance against "risk" through adherence to the law. If you are so persuaded that Saturday is the Sabbath, that's your prerogative and I encourage you to celebrate the day. But if you are doing it as a matter of law, how are you not trying to be justified by the law? And if you are seeking to be justified by the law, how are you not severed from Christ?

Once again. No you didn't and I implied no such thing as I do not believe or have I ever ones posted anywhere in this forum that we receive Gods salvation by works so you post here is not being truthful. I asked the question in post # 182 linked and you say you answered it in post # 176 how does that work?

 

[Fervent]

Once again. No you didn't and I implied no such thing. I asked the question in post # 182 linked and you say you answered it in post # 176 how does that work?

Because your question was built on a presupposition that had already been addressed so there was no need to address it. Which is why my post 205 was nothing more than an echo of 176. So if you want questions you're asking answered, how about you start answering ones that were posed earlier?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Because your question was built on a presupposition that had already been addressed so there was no need to address it. Which is why my post 205 was nothing more than an echo of 176. So if you want questions you're asking answered, how about you start answering ones that were posed earlier?

Well that is not true at all. The question asked of you in post # 182 was based on scripture and your interpretation of Romans 7:4 which was shown through the scriptures not to be biblical in post # 176 linked; post # 181 linked. As posted earlier there is no problem you are free to believe as you wish. The posts and scriptures and even the question asked of you were only meant to be helpful. What we all choose to believe and not believe is between us and God come judgement day according to Jesus in John 12:47-48. I guess we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

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

The writings of Paul does not delete the scripture written by God or the teachings of Jesus, or James, or John or any other gospels. All scripture must reconcile. Peter tells us many misinterpret Paul to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

The word wicked here means lawless. Most people never quote Paul here for some reason, when trying to make a case of lawlessness, where Paul sums up what matters.

1 Cor. 7:19 keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

Which says the same thing from the scriptures I quoted that you think was just cobbled randomly together. Paul does not teach a different Gospel than Jesus. Who said- If you love Me, keep My commandments. John 14:15. Jesus did not teach a different gospel than God who wrote: but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20:6

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.

No one is saying we don’t need the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit is given to those who obey. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32. If you find yourself breaking the law of God and sinning you are not in the Spirit. That is another spirit 1 John 3:8 which is why we should examine ourselves to ensure we are in the faith. 2 Cor 13:5. We don’t want the enemy to prevail in our lives!

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20

God bless!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Agreed. But that is not what the OP or subject title of this thread is about.

Actually it does.

If forgetting doctrine is not a problem, then having wrong doctrine is not a problem either. The scripture even says in Romans, May God be true and every man a liar.

This obsession over having the correct doctrine and equating to salvation is very similar to things implied in gnostic texts.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually it does.

If forgetting doctrine is not a problem, then having wrong doctrine is not a problem either.

Is that your response to Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheists etc? Can you show an example where rejecting Christ as Messiah is "not a problem" - has no "risk" associated with it???

Can you show an example where the difference between "tithing" vs "offerings" becomes a huge problem as if one were rejecting Christ as the Messiah?

The scripture even says in Romans, May God be true and every man a liar.

Agreed - God is always correct - but is it true that even his own disciples were not 100% correct on everything they thought. For example Peter is not "clued in" on the topic of gentile evangelism until Acts 10.

This obsession over having the correct doctrine and equating to salvation is very similar to things implied in gnostic texts.

That statement does not fair well in the first example in the OP since it provides the atheist with "yet another avenue" for rejecting Christ, and the speculation that a "focus on sound doctrine" is "bad" is the opposite teaching from what we find in scripture.

As it turns out: the Bible teaching on "sound doctrine" is not the "optional thing" many may have hoped it would be.

1. 1 Timothy 6:3
   If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
   
2. 2 Timothy 4:3
   For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires,
   
3. Titus 1:9
   holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.
   
4. Titus 2:1
   Proclaim Sound Doctrine
   But as for you, proclaim the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.
5. 1 Peter 3: 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (KJV)
   
   15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; (NKVJ)
6. Acts 17:2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
7. Acts 19:8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

 

[Hazelelponi]

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that none of the listed points are concerning matters of doctrine that are salvific, then you would be correct that there would be no risk to yourself.

However, if the matters are in fact concerning points of doctrine which are salvific, then you not only risk your own salvation, you put the salvation of others at risk when you preach them in which case Matthew 18:6 is in play.

So the real question would be, are the doctrines you speak of destructive heresies or are they minor points of doctrine.

 

[Leaf473]

(again, maybe this has been talked about already.)

In the OP, if I understand point number one correctly, the idea is that a person living as a Christian who then ceases to exist after death,
as the atheists say,
does not experience any loss.

That's true. At the same time, there is loss in this lifetime.

If Jesus didn't come back to life, we're the most pitiful of all groups.
Why?
Because we missed out on all the partying, the eating, drinking, and being merry.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No you didn't but that is ok as posted earlier you do not have to address my posts and questions asked of you if you do not want to. No one has ever said to you we are saved by the law so I do not know what your talking about here. According to the scriptures however, no one is saved by grace for disobedience to the faith according to Romans 1:5 and if we saved by God's grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) I am sure you would agree that we are not saved through faith by not believing and following what Gods' Word says? That does not make much sense now does it? Please refer to post # 182 linked.

Sadly, people have convinced themselves that God's will for us is not obedience, so they think they are free with God's blessing to do their will over God's will. Or they have convinced themselves that Jesus watered down the commandments of God despite the clear warnings from Jesus that He did not come to destroy the law and keeping the least of the commandments you will be least in heaven. Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus is God, so the law of God is the law of Jesus. John 14:9-11 There is no conflict of the law that Jesus came to magnify. Isaiah 42:21

Grace obviously does not delete the commandments because John so clearly gives us this warning, right before the Second Coming of Jesus!

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers (Exodus 20:3) and sexually immoral (Exodus 20:14) and murderers (Exodus 20:13) and idolaters (Exodus 20-4-6), and whoever loves and practices a lie (Exodus 20:16).

Similar to the warning Jesus gave: Matthew 7:21-23

So where is the Sabbath commandment after the cross?

Thats easy:

Luke 23:56 Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.

Jesus referring to the Sabbath as being kept long after He descends back to heaven Matthew 24:20

And absolute proof the Sabbath commandments continues as a perpetual covenant that God promised Exodus 31:16

And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord. Isaiah 66:23

Thats why there remains a Sabbath keeping for the people of God in the New Covenant Hebrews 4:9 Just like God ceased from His works on the seventh day Hebrews 4:4, Hebrews 4:10, Genesis 2:1-3 Exodus 20:10-11 God does not need rest, He is our example!

Why anyone would want to argue with God about the day He deemed holy for us Exodus 20:8 and for Him Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13 is really beyond comprehensible! if God told us to keep Tuesday holy who are we to argue with the Creator of all things!

Jesus even gives us this warning to keep commandments (which is Sabbath keeping Exodus 20:8-11) over traditions (which is Sunday keeping) and doing so we are worshipping in vain! Matthew 15:3-9

Hopefully something to consider praying about.

 

[Fervent]

Well that is not true at all. The question asked of you in post # 182 was based on scripture and your interpretation of Romans 7:4 which was shown through the scriptures not to be biblical in post # 176 linked; post # 181 linked. As posted earlier there is no problem you are free to believe as you wish. The posts and scriptures and even the question asked of you were only meant to be helpful. What we all choose to believe and not believe is between us and God come judgement day according to Jesus in John 12:47-48. I guess we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.

All I can say is you'd do well to read Galatians without the SDA blinders.

 

[pasifika]

I believe only God knows what I think or feel, so the judging should be left up to Him. You have demonstrated nothing through scripture, including understanding the new covenant, which God writes His laws in our hearts and minds. God bless

SB, see first if you obey all God's commandments before telling others to do so..I mean at the now..
Focus on one command means nothing if you fail the rest..

Follow the "letter" of the law will only leads to death ask the Spirit for spiritual gifts and not the teaching of a so call prophet at your church..

 

[SabbathBlessings]

SB, see first if you obey all God's commandments before telling others to do so..I mean at the now..
Focus on one command means nothing if you fail the rest..

Follow the "letter" of the law will only leads to death ask the Spirit for spiritual gifts and not the teaching of a so call prophet at your church..

Thats a lot of assumptions from someone I have never met or knows me. Please quote me where I said we only need to follow the letter of the law. If you can't quote me saying that, then you can't assume that's what I believe. However, you cannot follow the Spirit of the law by breaking the letter, that spirit does not come from God. 1 John 3:8

Since you want to continue with your opinions and not talk scripture, I am going to leave this conversation.

Take care.

 

[pasifika]

Thats a lot of assumptions from someone I have never met or knows me. Please quote me where I said we only need to follow the letter of the law. If you can't quote me saying that, then you can't assume that's what I believe. However, you cannot follow the Spirit of the law by breaking the letter, that spirit does not come from God. 1 John 3:8

Since you want to continue with your opinions and not talk scripture, I am going to leave this conversation.

Take care.

2Corins 10:11...such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent...