Featured Being saved and the 10 commandments

Keep the ten, discRd the rest

 

Brother Bob,

You are wrong when you say that every reference to scripture in the NT is a reference to the Old Testament. Peter references Paul's epistles as scripture "as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Further, other New Testament references show that the gospels were at the time considered "scripture". For example, Paul said "18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (1 Timothy 5:18). This is a quote from the book of Luke 10:7 that states, " And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire".

Also, the New Testament epistles of Paul were being exchanged to be read amongst the various churches, "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" (Colossians 4:16)

God bless you brother Bob. And I hope you have a good day at church today.

 

The term "scriptures" in 2Peter 3 refers to the OT text and Peter argues that Paul's writings should be accepted in the same way - and is misused by some in the same way - as .... "other scriptures" which is a reference to the OT.

My argument is not that the NT is not scripture -- my argument is that every time that term is used in the NT it is a reference to the OT which is NOT 'expected' by the made-up-rule that NT saints should never read the OT as if it were scripture for NT saints.

How fully "debunked" that idea is by the actual example of the NT writers not once saying "the scripture of Paul says" or "the scripture of John says" or "in the scripture we find - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" quoting NT text prefixed by "scripture" as is always done in the NT for the OT.

In 1Tim 5:18 Moses is quoted "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox" Deut 25:4 and again in Lev 19:13 for the Laborer's hire.

Again - I am not arguing against the NT being scripture - my argument is that we do not find any support for ignoring the OT as scripture - binding and authoritative for the NT saints given that ALL reference to scripture in the NT is for the OT.

Your argument that you "might" find 1 or 2 exceptions does not change that point even if it were true that those 1 or 2 cases could be arranged as NT references to the NT out of the dozens that are NT references to the OT as "scripture" and binding authority for NT saints.

Thank you. And as I said I am fully confident that the NT writers accepted the NT letters as scripture. I think that is a "given".

The "practice" I am challenging is the one that rejects the example we have from NT writers of upholding the OT as the "scripture" binding and authoritative for NT saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Again, this has been shown as not accurate, but a misleading statement, and you still try to defend it.

Again, not entirely accurate, seeing that Peter acknowledges Paul's writings as Scripture, which means that all of Paul's writings known to Peter would also be considered Scripture, which entails...all Scripture:


2 Peter 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And even if it is just one single Epistle Peter refers to, it stills shows the point you seek to make as inaccurate.

Relevance to the point?

Just answer this: were there other Scriptures when Paul wrote to Timothy?

It wasn't? Are you sure about that?

Peter speaks of Paul's writing, and Paul states "all Scripture."

You are actually "doing the opposite," seeking to exclude the New Testament in saying...

It's just not true.

And what the Writers of New Testament Scripture did, when they quoted the Hebrew Scriptures, is the same thing Christ does here:


Luke 24:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.



And it was not the Law He was expounding but the Gospel.

A false argument no-one has made but you.

I believe we have 66 books.

I believe that we have to consider All Scripture.

And that all Scripture is both Testaments, and that the New Testament is the revelation we must come to understand in light of the Old Testament, which was foundational, limited, and maintained the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hidden from the world until the appropriate time, which issue I dealt with in detail in the other thread (think it was the other thread, lol).

Now Bob, do you still want to say...

...?

God bless.

 

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A great example where religionists "made stuff up" about drink and food - washing of cups and pots - for fear that sin would have gotten in them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So they "made stuff up" not just about Sabbath in Mark 2 - but also food and drink and even finding ways to bypass the Commandment of God
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As Christians - can we afford to ignore the teaching of Christ??
[/FONT]

 

Responding to my argument that some Christians are downsizing the Bible to 27 or 23 for "Christians" and ignoring the rest

 

Please explain how I am the one downsizing Scripture, Bob.

I don't expect an address of the points made, but at least explain that to me.


God bless.

 

You do realize that Jesus said that he fulfilled and kept all of the law, and that per Paul, we are not now under the law of Moses, but under his grace, right?

 

If you would like to have a discussion you still need to address the posts you ignored when I told you I would await an answer on.

In the Rapture thread.

I have enough antagonists who refuse to respond already, so not going to add you to the list.

Until then all you get from me is...humor.



I will just say that some of the things you say might qualify as humor...if it wasn't so sad that I think you actually believe it.

God bless.

 

Except when it is our Theology others are laughing at.




God bless.

 

The Gospel of Christ is not the gospel you teach, which is a works-based salvation.

At least he was familiar with the Bible.

That is what is necessary to shed one's self of Religion and embrace the Savior of the Bible.

You are welcome to address the posts focusing on the issues involved.

Instead of trying to proof-text your own views. When your doctrine can not just assert, but address those views which conflict with your own, then you might be able to enter into such discussion.


God bless.

 

Chowmie, Chowmie, Chowmie...


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


...salvation is both a Promise, and a Gift.

You cannot work for either, both rely on God fulfilling them.


God bless.

 

Brother Bob,

I trust you were blessed by your service this morning. I thank you for your reply. I am a bit long winded, but hope you bear with me and read my post. This is a very important subject we are discussing.

I agree with you that a child of God should read both the New Testament and the Old Testament as Paul tells us, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16). (I do not know any Baptists that say we should not read the Old Testament, but I suppose there may be a few).

I also think we would agree that if someone is truly a child of God they will have evidence of this by obeying the commandments (though we differ on our belief of if the Sabbath is for the New Testament church). Jesus points out obeying the commandment is evidence of a child of God when he declares, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21) I think we would also agree that keeping the commandments does not bring one eternal life, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20). In other words, one of the purposes of the law for an elect child of God is to act as a prosecutor to show them their sin so we recognize the need why Christ died for them and have faith in Him.

However, we must also recognize we are not under the old Covenant, but the new Covenant, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Hebrews 8:8) and also, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away". Much that is in the Old Testament such as the ceremonial laws, animal sacrifice, circumcision were merely signs and shadows pointing to Christ's sacrifice and thus are no longer applicable to the New Testament church. That is why Paul asks the Galatians who were relying on their flesh, rather than His Spirit working in them through grace to produce sanctification, "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Galatians 4:21 and Galatians 3:3, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?". They were relying on their own flesh to keep the law, not God's spirit in them.

The Old Testament was given to the Israelites, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2), but they are types and shadows.The book of Joshua makes it clear that the old covenant was a system of blessings and cursings that would come upon Israel conditioned on if they obeyed the law. "And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law." (Joshua 8:34)

National Israel never received a single blessing as the result of their obedience to this conditional covenant, for they did not keep it, and if it had been replete with heavenly treasures and blessings to have been dispensed upon condition of their obedience, they would never have obtained one of them, for it is written, “They continued not in My covenant and I regarded them not, saith the Lord” (Hebrews 8:9).

We are not under the old covenant, but under the new covenant. "6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (Hebrews 8:6). Why is this covenant better? Because it is based on grace, therefore all blessings bestowed upon a believer are not based upon obeying the conditions of the law, but by grace are bestowed unconditionally. The proof? "...our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:" (Ephesians 1:3). Notice it says "all spiritual blessings" and they were given to us "in Christ" in the past as the verse says "hath blessed". If a blessing could be earned by obedience, it would not be considered a blessing, but rather a wage. Further, this would only motivate a person to obey from a fleshly perspective in order to get, grace and unconditional on the other hand is a much more effective motivator
than the law and fear of punishment ever could be!

For the New Testament church, we are not under law (the ten Commandments), but under grace. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace", however because of this grace we are under it motivates a true child of God to obey the law, not break it, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31) and "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2) Grace is a motive to serve, not a license to sin for a true child of God.

We should study the Old Testament, but realize most of it (though not all) was not written to us and about us, but the New Testament should be studied more as it was written to the church Christ founded that we are members of (we are not members of National Israel under the Old Covenant), and Paul's epistles in particular were written to Gentiles, thus they are too us and about us.


God bless you brother Bob,

Brother Joe