Bacon eaters! Do you see?

The Apostle John writes -

And Steaver immediately complains...

Take it up with scripture -- you have chosen to place yourself in opposition to the sola-scriptura position merely by reason of "complaint".

The "one" I speak of - is the Romans 3 - lost soul. Is it your intent to pretend that you think of all saints as merely lost souls - without the new creation, without the Romans 8 Holy Spirit? without the ability to respond as Christ stated in John 14 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"?

As I said --

There I show the perfect balance between the Bible fact of the lost condition of man - in rebellion vs the Bible fact of the saved condition that enables the Romans 6 and 1John 2:1 teaching of non-stop victory over sin. For you may wish to complain that John says "I write these things to you that you sin not" and you may wish to complain that Paul writes in Romans 6 that "sin shall not be master over you" -- yet the scripture is clear no matter your complaints against it.

The appeal on your part to the Romans 3 lost condition of man - as the only condition that you understand for the saints - tells more about the lengths to which you will go in your argument so that you can pick-and-choose in the Bible what commands you will accept and what commands you will choose to ignore.

So Steaver, I know you do not actually believe what you are pretending to believe in your complaint above - you only do it because you think it serves your purpose for the moment.

But in doing so - your method is more transparent than you mave have at first imagined.



Are you confused or did you misspeak?

:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

All these proof texts are making me dizzy...

 

Read through Bob's carefully. He uses proof texts only when it is convenient, taking them out of context, applying OT Scripture written to the Jews and never intended to the NT Christian: he applies it to the Christian anyway.
He uses very allegorical passages such as those in Rev.12 where no time frame is given. The passage is easily debated as to who those "ones" are speaking of, and what is being overcome. Thus the passage is rendered moot. It is Scripture again taken out of context.
He takes Scripture that is universally applicable to all men (saved and unsaved) and then categorizes it only to one group or the other--thus again taking Scripture out of context.
Bob's post is easily defeated. He is not consistent.

He believes he should keep the OT dietary law.
Yet he doesn't believe that he has to keep the OT "clothing" law, that he should wear apparel of all one type of cloth? Why? He is a hypocrite. He picks and chooses from the OT what laws he wants to obey and what laws he wants to avoid.

 

Consider national citizenship

The US does not recognize the existence of dual citizenships. Other countries do.

Christian theology teaches a dual citizenship, a dual righteousness. When we deal with God we are "righteous" but when we deal with people in this world we are sinners. In other words, our righteousness is a legal fiction that does not apply while we are in this world.

 

Sad to say, but an unsaved person might say that.
And no, that isn't Christian theology. It is liberal theology. There is a difference.

 

Empty unproven accusation after accusation - so sad.

But how "instructive" that the sola scriptura principle of Acts 17:11 where the OT text of scripture is "studied daily to see IF those things spoken by Paul were so" is being thrown under the bus because of some part of God's Word that DHK wants to avoid!

Why start ditching sola-scriptura acceptance of the Word of God now? Just because rats and cats are not approved by the Word of God as food for humans? Is that really where you "draw the line" DHK - after all that "sola-scriptura is good" argument given on the RCC threads?

How "instructive".

Actually Rev 12 speaks about people living After the Cross - called saints who "keep the Commandments of God".

And 1Cor 7:19 is another place where the Apostle Paul says "but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God".

But how "instructive" that DHK must not only toss out the text of scripture used in Acts 17:11 to test Paul's doctrine (the OT) but NOW he is even "going after" the offending NT texts!!

Is there no END??

Ok fine. Have a go at it.

There we see DHK - quoting DHK - because he has no quote from me to support his "hollow accusation after hollow accusation" style of solution.

How "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader.

I like to think that DHK's irrational approach - as transparent as it is for the reader - is in fact "the best" there is to offer in opposition to the texts I have provided here.

So take your pick - the texts of scripture you are pointed to on this thread (no throwing the Word of God under the bus) - or DHK's wild accusation after empty unproven accusation as he tries to turn the reader away from both the OT and NT texts that do not fit his bias.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

How well did you do Bob?
Let us see?
Here is the verse I gave for you to both exegete and challenge: Do you follow the instructions, the command, given in this law!

Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

The command is clear. You shall only wear one type of clothing. Do you follow that command? Yes or no.

Hear is your rationalized answer:

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1541224&postcount=56

In short you do not follow God's Word here. In fact you make a mockery of it. You rationalize it away. You know you cannot keep it. You more than amply demonstrate yourself to be a hypocrite by admitting that you don't follow this command--picking and choosing which parts of the law to obey and disobey. Your answer is not yes or no. You will not answer yes or no. You will only beat around the bush. You are a hypocrite.



Why don't you follow God's law and wear only one kind of clothing at all times, like dressing in 100% in wool all the time, as the Bible commands you to? Do you have a problem with obeying God's Word?

 

He believes he should keep the OT dietary law.
Yet he doesn't believe that he has to keep the OT "clothing" law

Ok that much seems clear enough.

Actually it is pretty simple - as I stated - go with scripture - not DHK's wild "Reaching" for some non-Bible argument to undermine what scripture says.

It could not be any simpler.

A -- that is not a quote of anything.

B - the text specifically addresses linen and wool. Deal with it.

Thus in my answer I AFFIRMED the text of Deut 22 and ask you why you quote it as if it is some great burden and we should not obey it because God is too severe.

THIS you take as some kind of "proof" that texts of scripture can be tossed under the bus just because you don't like them?? What in the world are you thinking??

But then -- even worse - you appear to not even have read what I posted as you say

Hello! Earth to DHK - are you even reading my post?

in Christ,

Bob

 

And you don't, as is evidenced by the simple command given in Deut.22:11. It is a simple command. Do you wear clothing all made of one cloth Bob? Yes or no. We all know the answer. Why do you transgress the command of God in this matter?

No you don't. You avoid Scripture, rationalize it, disobey it, but you won't obey it.

I never though I would see the day when you would outright deny the Word of God. If I paste John 3:16 would you also say: "This is not a quote of anything." Shame on you. Let me quote it again, this time in some context.

Deuteronomy 22:9-11 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

The Lord is teaching principles of separation, and principles of purity. It seen all throughout these Scriptures. The vineyard must be planted with only one kind of seed. It must be pure. Otherwise it will be defiled, just as sin defiles the person. Be ye separated.
An ox must plow with another ox, not with another animal. Again the principle of unity and separation from others that are not in unity with your faith is taught.
Wear one type of cloth. More than one type results in impurity. That is the picture here. Which part of this do you not get??
I ask again, therefore, do you wear only one type of cloth, as the law demands??

The text is applicable to all types of cloth. I believe you ought to deal with it.

The law is severe. No man can keep the law. That is why Christ abolished the law. He nailed it to the cross. We bear it no more. The great words that Christ uttered on the cross "It is finished," the work of Christ is finished. He is the lamb that takes away the sin of he world. He fulfilled the law. There is no longer any more sacrificial lambs to be sacrificed or any more related Levitical laws to keep. He fulfilled it all.

No, I believe in the work of Christ, the finished work of Christ, don't you?

I read it. You didn't answer my question. You just jumped around, rationalizing.

 

Yes, God told Jews not to eat pigs. I eat pigs, and if I can shoot a local feral one, I'd eat him too. (or her)

Jesus declared all foods cleaned. Old Covenant is abolished.

 

DHK - undaunted by the full exposure of his less-than-biblical attack on God's Word that is of the form "I dont like this Law of God - so I also trash that other one too" style of "bible study" continues ...

To which I gave this mistaken reply

I actually only meant to point out that the Deut 22:11 text speaks strictly to the point of mixing wool and linen into a single garment.

YLT
11`Thou dost not put on a mixed cloth, wool and linen together.

NASB
11"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

NIV
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.




Holman
11 Do not wear clothes made of both wool and linen.

Darby
11Thou shalt not wear a garment of mixed material, [woven] of wool and linen together.



Sorry for the confusion in my previous 2 point answer.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Apostle John writes -

And Steaver immediately complains...

Take it up with scripture -- you have chosen to place yourself in opposition to the sola-scriptura position merely by reason of "complaint".

The "one" I speak of - is the Romans 3 - lost soul. Is it your intent to pretend that you think of all saints as merely lost souls

- without the new creation, without the Romans 8 Holy Spirit?

without the ability to respond as Christ stated in John 14 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"?

As I said --

There I show the perfect balance between the Bible fact of the lost condition of man - in rebellion vs the Bible fact of the saved condition that enables the Romans 6 and 1John 2:1 teaching of non-stop victory over sin. For you may wish to complain that John says "I write these things to you that you sin not" and you may wish to complain that Paul writes in Romans 6 that "sin shall not be master over you" -- yet the scripture is clear no matter your complaints against it.

The appeal on your part to the Romans 3 lost condition of man - as the only condition that you understand for the saints - tells more about the lengths to which you will go in your argument so that you can pick-and-choose in the Bible what commands you will accept and what commands you will choose to ignore.

So Steaver, I know you do not actually believe what you are pretending to believe in your complaint above - you only do it because you think it serves your purpose for the moment.

But in doing so - your method is more transparent than you mave have at first imagined.


Are you confused or did you misspeak?

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

To which we get ... "no answer at all from Steaver"...

hmm.. how "surprising".

Yes indeed I am - are you ready to give one to the question asked above?

(I guess not...)

That is ok - I can wait...:type:


:jesus:
in Christ,

Bob

 

Your misinterpretation of the text, and your quoting of many versions doesn't change the true meaning of it. The well known Baptist scholar, John Gill states this:

http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=022&verse=011


Your interpretation is out in left field. You don't want to follow the laws that you don't like.

 

BTW, Bob, even if your interpretation were correct you would still be limited to one type of cloth (mixed or not). Which material or type of cloth are you wearing today? I hope it is just one.

 

Since you decline to answer my previous questions - how about this --

Could you bring yourself to present your "have you ever sinned" question into something like a Biblically-relevant point?

In other words - are you really to trying out (testing out) the idea that the disciples were supposed to reject the teaching of Christ in Matt 22 when He said that they were to "Love the Lord with all your heart" (Deut 6:5) and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18) by responding "Oh no Lord we cannot choose to listen to the Word of God or honor the Commandments of God now - after all - we sinned yesterday. Come back some week when we have stopped sinning and talk to us about your Word then.".

Because if you are really trying to go down that kind of road - I think we would all like to know what in the world causes you to think that is helping your case.

in Christ,

Bob