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

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Not so. An argument for "A" could be salvific and the proposition that "A is wrong" could make it non-salvific since it is merely a fiction that when held to "does nothing".

example "someone claims that God wants everyone to live in Ohio to be safe from tribulation - so they move to Ohio". They claim it is salvific - but it is completely wrong. However living in Ohio does not get someone lost as even the opposing view to that doctrine would admit.

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

Indeed - if a doctrine is of the form "Jim Jones is the Messiah believe on him to be saved" then the fact that such a doctrine turns out to be false - puts the one who believes in it at great risk.

We see that also in example #1 in the OP where atheism is the doctrine being promoted and the post notes that having that belief "be wrong" is placing the person who believes in it at some serious level of risk.

 

[Fervent]

The phrase in Rom 3:19-20 "Under the Law" is about the fact that instead of God's moral law being deleted -- it continues and condemns all mankind "every mouth" , and in fact "the whole world" as Paul says in Rom 3.

It says that all need salvation for "all have sinned" and 1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the Law".

What a nice thing then to have the Gospel solution that includes the Jer 31:31-34 NEW Covenant that writes the "LAW of God on heart and mind". With the result that born-again saints "do not abolish the LAW of God by our faith" but rather "we establish the law" Rom 3:31.

However this strays a bit from the OP context and subject title for this thread.

The objective here is to take the doctrinal POV stmts that have no risk if that doctrine is wrong (as we see in the OP) compare that to the opposing argument along with consideration of the risk when that opposing argument is found to be wrong. As I pointed out in the OP.

That's not the verse I was refering to, but it's quite funny how you claimed the "the law doesn't actually mean the law" was a false accusation but then immediately turn around and try to explain how "the law" does not mean "the law." As for the verse I was referring to it's:
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

 

[BobRyan]

That's not the verse I was refering to, but it's quite funny how you claimed the "the law doesn't actually mean the law" was a false accusation but then immediately turn around and try to explain how "the law" does not mean "the law."

Its funny that you have no quote from me saying " "the law" does not mean "the law." -- and then post "as if" you did.

 

[BobRyan]

As for the verse I was referring to it's:
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Well although I did not know if your reference was to Rom 3:19-20, 23 or if it was Gal 3 -- however the point is the same since both texts address the same point.

Rom 3:19-23
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
... 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Gal 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
...
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

 

[Fervent]

Well although I did not know if your reference was to Rom 3:19-20, 23 or if it was Gal 3 -- however the point is the same since both texts address the same point.

Rom 3:19-23
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
... 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Gal 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

No, both points do not address the same point. Romans speaks of the condemning ministry of the law, as its sole purpose is to demonstrate that there are none sufficiently good for salvation. Galatians is speaking to those who turn from justification by faith and believe their own works sanctify them. He is addressing the same Galatians to which he said just prior:
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

The warnings in Galatians are quite severe for those who would abandon Christ in order to try to find righteousness in the law.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Michael no one is born of the Spirit of God if they are knowingly practicing known unrepentant sin according to the scriptures. That would be a sign that someone does not know God and needs to be born again according to 1 John 2:3-4 and 1 John 3:4-9. God's Spirit is the Spirit of the word of God and works through Gods' Word as we believe and follow what God's Word says according to John 17:17; John 6:63; John 8:31-36; Philippians 2:13. Those who are born of God according to 1 John 3:6 do not practice sin (breaking Gods' law).

Take Care.

I had a period recently where I'd listen to the bible in order non-stop for more than a month.

I can see where you get that conclusion from the bible, but it does not meet the requirement of representing the whole counsel of God.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Those texts don't say "have sound doctrine or be born-again". The Bible example is "both-and".

Have sound doctrine AND be born again.

"You shall know the truth AND the truth shall set you free" John 8:32.

By contrast notice in Mark 7:6-12 the faith-destroying damage that false doctrine can cause according to Christ.

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

Your argument that there are born-again saints among those who have unsound doctrine is not being disputed in this post. But it is not what the Bible calls us to. The Bible calls us to sound doctrine and to the born-again life in Christ who IS "the way the truth and the life" John 14.

Jesus is indeed the way, the truth, and the life. This is why it is important to have that way truth and life indwelling us.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What SDA blinders would that be? Only God's Word (scripture) has been shared with you that disagree with your teachings. I did not get them from the SDA Church. I found them in my bible. They are God's Word not my words or the words of the SDA church. Sadly according to Isaiah in Isaiah 6:9-10, Jesus in Matthew 13:13-15 and Paul in Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27 many refuse to see and hear what God says. Let's all pray we are all open (I include myself here) to see and hear Gods Word as He guides is with His Spirit.

Take Care.

Only scripture has been shared ??

The problem is that your word (or anyones word) does not become God's Word just because scripture is quoted.

Satan quoted scripture during the temptation and it was not God's Word.

The bible is potentially dangerous - without His grace it cant be understood.

While you are self convinced and faithful to the sense of what you deliver - it may not be God speaking but a clever collection of ideas and arguments.

So let us offer our thoughts with a humble hand rather than pushing our barrow and risk bringing folks into condemnation.

Boiling the thesis down to it's natural conclusion folks who don't keep the Saturday Sabbath are deliberately rebelling against the Law of God. Millions of faithful believers are subsequently judged as unrighteous and in wilful rebellion.

Do you really think that God intended to hide His truth from those who have no connection with one sect of Christianity?

Is it possible that a theology can be driven by a denominational spirit with the intent to divide the body of Christ?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

One wonders how the Apostles and believers coped in NT times. They had no scholars or theologians to turn to for help. Neither did they have strongs concordance, or a multitude of other things to aid them that people have now. However, they lived their lives in simple faith and a total reliance on the Holy Spirit. Oh the miracles they saw. The greatest power and most rapid growth was seen in the church during those times, before the emergence of the scholar and theologian.

Also, as we see in Acts ch 15, some believers insisted the gentiles should be circumcised and be required to obey the whole of the mosaic law, Paul was there with them, and others who disagreed on that point. It took a while to come to a common consensus, but they did, as one united church. Oh to have those days back again.

Church history follows the pattern of the histories of Israel and Judah so ... to go all the way back there - the anathemas attached to the original creeds (much like the curses of deuteronomy of the previous covenant) would need to be repealed as a starting point.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Boiling the thesis down to it's natural conclusion folks who don't keep the Saturday Sabbath are deliberately rebelling against the Law of God. Millions of faithful believers are subsequently judged as unrighteous and in wilful rebellion.

Do you really think that God intended to hide His truth from those who have no connection with one sect of Christianity?

I’m sorry, hide the truth? The Sabbath is repeated over 160 times throughout the Bible, written by the finger of God, kept by Jesus His whole life Luke 4:16 as our example, will be the day we will be worshipping Christ forever Isaiah 66:23. There is nothing hidden about God’s chosen holy day Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13, only those who prefer traditions over God’s commandments. If you love Me, keep My commandments, which includes the 4th commandment God asked us to Remember and keep holy the Sabbath day Exodus 20:8, becuase it is also God’s holy day. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13 He wants us to have holy communion together on the day He blessed and sanctified and is the holy day of the Lord thy God. God asked us to Remember and what is being taught today is to forget, the opposite of what God told us. There is nothing hidden for those who wish to see what is right in their Bibles.

 

[BobRyan]

Only scripture has been shared ??

The problem is that your word (or anyones word) does not become God's Word just because scripture is quoted.

True but we still don't have the practice of seeing a text of scripture then responding to it with a "no" to what it commands -- because that practice can carry "risk".

 

[BobRyan]

in the case of Rom 3:19-20, 23 and Gal 3:10-22 ... both texts address the same point (about the Law not being a saviour).

Rom 3:19-23
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
... 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

31 "What then - do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the LAW"

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

Gal 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
...
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe

No, both points do not address the same point.

You have free will - you are welcome to your POV

Though this is not the topic of this thread.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

To be honest, I am surprised that so many people believe for whatever reason Gods' 10 commandments are abolished? I mean for me if we read the bible it is a belief that is not in scripture and is a belief that is a contradiction the whole bible and the teachings of Jesus and all the Apostles in the new testament. Jesus and none of the Apostles taught this teaching. If God's law could be abolished there would be no reason for Jesus to have to come into our world and die for our sins. There would be no reason for the world to be destroyed by a flood or Sodom and Gomorrah by fire or for Jesus to destroy the wicked defined in the scriptures as those who continue in sin, breaking God's commandments and unbelief. It is because Gods' law is not abolished that Jesus had to come as God's sacrifice for the sins of the world because the wages of a single sin is death according to the scriptures.

God bless sis.

What also amazes me is the arguement some make that keeping God’s law is a curse, but sinning you are in the Spirit. It’s amazing how God’s commandments that is holy, righteous and perfect and reflect the nature of our Savior has been so perversely twisted that people don’t take a step back to think about what they are saying. Truly heartbreaking.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is nothing hidden about God’s chosen holy day Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13, only those who prefer their will over God’s.

Right there - billions of sincere believers are judged...

They read their bibles and came to different conclusions, and you state they are rebellious...

 

[BobRyan]

What also amazes me is the argument some make that keeping God’s law is a curse, but sinning you are in the Spirit. .

Here then is a "risk" comparison.

God says "A" -- the opposing view says "B"?? Which view has risk?

If God says "whatever you do - do not keep My Law about not taking my name in vain" -- then are we to faithfully and loyally "take God's name in vain" in compliance with that not-in-the-Bible directive?

Truth is - it is pretty hard to find even one person who argues this is what God wants.

But still you can bring up one of those ten and get exactly that kind of reaction - depending on which one you choose.

 

[BobRyan]

Boiling the thesis down to it's natural conclusion folks who don't keep the Saturday Sabbath are deliberately rebelling against the Law of God.

Why do you say that?

Consider "the Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19. They are not arguing a POV of "deliberately rebelling against the moral law of God" which they admit - "includes the TEN". Rather they claim the Ten are "written on the heart" and binding on all mankind both the saved and unsaved.

Consider "the Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19. They are not arguing a POV of "deliberately rebelling against the moral law of God" which they admit - "includes the TEN". Rather they claim the Ten are binding on all mankind both the saved and unsaved.

James 4:17 cannot be entirely dismissed

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

This thread deals with a wide variety of doctrines as we can see in the OP.

But still I see a lot of interest "in just one" so far.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Why do you say that?

Consider "the Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19. They are not arguing a POV of "deliberately rebelling against the moral law of God" which they admit - "includes the TEN". Rather they claim the Ten are "written on the heart" and binding on all mankind both the saved and unsaved.

Consider "the Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19. They are not arguing a POV of "deliberately rebelling against the moral law of God" which they admit - "includes the TEN". Rather they claim the Ten are binding on all mankind both the saved and unsaved.

James 4:17 cannot be entirely dismissed

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

This thread deals with a wide variety of doctrines as we can see in the OP.

But still I see a lot of interest "in just one" so far.

You believe the Sabbath is one day of the week and we believe the Sabbath is Christ, Christ is our rest.

We live in the Sabbath, we celebrate it on the day Christ Rose victorious over sin and death and set free the captives, which the first day of the week, not the last. Because this is a new week, the old has passed and the new covenant between God and man is here.

We celebrate the Sabbath therefore, in a manner appropriate to our Covenant, the one we are under...

We also stress all of God's moral law.

 

[BobRyan]

You believe the Sabbath is one day of the week and we believe the Sabbath is Christ, Christ is our rest.

Ok fine.

Now all we need is the actual texts saying

1. "the Sabbath is Christ not a day of the week"
2. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of YHWH" Ex 20:10

I know where to find one of them.

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

So for this thread the idea is to take such proposals and start by looking at the risk comparison.

What is the risk in each case if the one you pick is wrong (is not correct doctrine) and the opposing view is the correct one?

We do that for both views - taking each one - one at a time.

 

[BobRyan]

We celebrate the Sabbath therefore, in a manner appropriate to our Covenant, the one we are under...

We also stress all of God's moral law.

I assume we all agree we are under the NEW Covenant.

Here it is in scripture

Jer 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”


What did Jeremiah and his readers think about the moral law of God written on the heart? Did they think God's words spoken from mount Sinai were excluded?

 

[Fervent]

in the case of Rom 3:19-20, 23 and Gal 3:10-22 ... both texts address the same point (about the Law not being a saviour).

Rom 3:19-23
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
... 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

31 "What then - do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the LAW"

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

Gal 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
...
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe




You have free will - you are welcome to your POV

Though this is not the topic of this thread.

The topic is risk, and why Paul says the Galatians are cut off from Christ is integral to establishing risk. Since the law does not justify, and instead condemns all who are under it the risk is in abandoning justification by faith and placing ourselves under law. The Biblical warnings are directed, it would seem, are firmly directed against those who say we must honor a specific day as law because the law is not of faith.