THE ENTIRE BIBLE

I did not vote for I was limited in my choice. I add (other) below..

1) I believe that the Ten Commandment Law of God was abolished at the Cross
2) I believe that we are not free to break the Ten Commandment Law of God today even though Jesus died on the Cross
3) Other..MY VOTE IS HERE >>>The law was abolished in justification but is still intact in separation.

*********

This seems to be a hard subject for some to understand, for they keep bringing it up.

as to this statement..
"Are you a LEGALIST if you keep the Ten Commandment Law of God? Are you a LEGALIST if you tell others they need to keep the Ten Commandment Law of God?"
*****************

Keeping the law does not make you a legalist by itself. A legalist keeps the law and then turns and points their finger and tells others they should be like them.

IN Christ...James

 

I like that James...

It amounts to - "Only the wicked need to listen to the Word of our Creator God spoken at Sinai and think about their obligation to honor it. The People of Christ should just ignore it.".

What a great way to state that view!

Of course the "good news is" that even in that view God's Law is allowed to be continued and "established as still authorotative and binding on mankind " in the case of the "wicked" at least.

So "at least the wicked" would be allowed to say with Paul "our faith ESTABLISHES the LAW of GOD" Rom 3:31 and in Eph 6 they could read vs 1-4 and actually follow the point as the Ten Commandents are appealed to as "authorotative" and argued as the authority for our oblication to honor parents.

The wicked could then read James 2 and agree that they need to follow his commands related to the Ten Commandments.

Of course - once they are saved - they would not need to read those texts "in agreement" any more except to think "this text is for the wicked to agree with"

In Christ,

Bob

[ May 20, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

In Rev 12 we read that the saints of God "keep the commandments of God" -- but I believe that James is trying to say "Not because they think it is right for mankind to listen to God in that regard - they just happen to like doing it as sort of a custom on their part".

What a wonderful view James!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob,


Hers is a idea Bob, if you do not understand what I'm saying, why not ask?

You said..

No not really. let me make myself clear. The law will not save us. We are to live a separated life. Now..how far do we take the Law? That is what we are asking. I know your short anwser will be.."As far as the Bible tells us"

Ok..let us look at that. Many believers think that ladies should cover their head as they go into church. They pull out a few verses and point to them as proof. To them this is the law of God.

Others read this in another way, and so they say that a lady can go to church without her head covered.

A LEGALIST is...for you to think others should do as you, for your way is holy. Both views can fall into this. If i believe I am more in line with God and whatever side of this matter I may be on..and I turn a try to cram my few down your face for you see it another way...THAT IS A LEGALIST.

Whatever law we follow if we do it for it makes us holy it is wrong. We do it to bring glory to God.

Therefore i say again...its not if you keep the law...its why you keep it..and they way you view others that do not.

Yes..tis the Bible

This is wacky. The wicked can keep the law all they want..and it will never help them. Good law keepers that have no faith in God will go to hell. If you are the "wicked"...and you reject Christ..you may as well live it up in sin. Good works will not help you in salvation.

You better check this...is not james 2 addressing jewish believers? look at james 1:1 and get back with us. I'm not sure why you think the unsaved wicked world would follow God. And even if they kept the law..do you really think this alone would help them?


In Christ..James

 

Who is "we," Kemosabe? The Mosiac Covenant was a social contract for Israel and has nothing to do with gentiles living in Newark. Jewish Christians are probably obligated to observe the commandments (out of the 613 statements) that are still apply since the Destruction.

That being said, 9 out of the 10 words are repeated in the NT. Gentile Christians are obligated to observe them because they are NT Law and not because they are mentioned in the listing of 613 - or of 10.

 

The WORST tendency is to read the Bible backwards. Moses established the canon (rule) in Deut.

 

Oh really? what else am i saying?

oh never mind that...

As I have not really shared "WHY" on this tread...to keep from you reading my mind..let me say...you are wrong. sorry...it happens to the best of us. You must have been reading james deans mine...or something.

We follow the Law for we LOVE Him and worship Him and would have it no other way.

Now...you can quote me on that one.

In Christ...James

 

Hello Claudia,

I think you said you read the KJV.

James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

No need to change translations because the KJV does not agree with your view on this. As it turns out...all translations say the same.

But...that is not the point. Bob said this was to the wicked which means unsaved. This is clearly not the case. This was addressed to the Jewish believers, but all believers can learn from this.

However...it is silly to say this is to the non-believer. What good would keeping the law do for those that do not believe?

I'll tell you what..NOTHING No good at all.


In Christ...James

 

Claudia nobody is neglecting other Scripture and basing anything on a verse or two. It's quite the opposite. We are comparing Scripture with Scripture.

What you try to do is read Ephesians 2:8-9 and say yeah I agree with that. Then you go to Romans are wherever and take some verse there that clearly disagrees with Ephesians and you completely forget what Ephesians had to say.

Just to take the example that you have Ephesians says salvation is by grace through faith not of works. That's pretty plain.

So when you come to Romans or James and works are mentioned what you do is instead of taking things in context, you try to cram a round peg in a square hole to make the two things fit together.

What we are doing is taking the circle pegs and making sure they fit in the circle holes and the square pegs and making sure they fit in the square holes to keep everything from getting broken.

You clearly can't see that there are two different topics being discussed. Instead you see one topic that clearly doesn't mesh with another topic, yet your try to make it the same topic.

If we would compare Scripture with Scripture that wouldn't happen.

 

Somehow it did matter to the Lord that a sinner keep the Law or else why did He ask the young man, "thou knowest the Law" of which he answered, these have I kept since my youth up but it still had not give him everlasting life for he asked the Lord "what must I do to inherit everlasting life". Now what he had done was important to the Lord of keeping the Commandments and he lacketh one thing, "Salvation" which is of the Lord who said sale all thou hath and give to the poor (which everyone gets stuck on but the important part is this "come and follow me".

You say, Salvation is by Grace but do not go on to say that by Grace we keep the Law. Grace brings Salvation but it also teacheth us to deny ungodliness, worldly lust, live soberly and righteously in this present world, etc. and righteouly is "the righteous of the Law is fulfilled in us".

 

Bob salvation by grace through faith is not an inheritance. When you are saved you are in possession of life. It's not something you wait for as an inheritance.

Once again you are trying to force a circle peg into a square hole. Bottom line is that passage is not talking about eternal salvation. It doesn't matter how much you dance or how much you twist the Scripture it's not going to say what you want it to say.

Salvation by grace through faith is a gift, not an inheritance. Why is that so difficult to see?

 

JJ; Why!!! do you always have to add your little comments to try and put someone down. Is that the Christian way for if it is I never was taught it.

Inheritance or gift, you still fail to see that Grace continues on with a Christian so the righteous of the Law is fulfilled in us. I see you never comment on that one.

 

How absurd. This obviously shows that you are not reading and or understanding what I have been saying. Please find ONE quote from me where I said it was okay to sin.

That is absolutely a false representation of my beliefs. No one has the right to sin. If a Christian continues in rebellious sin they will be paid according to their deads, just as a Christian that allows the Spirit to control their life will be paid according to their deeds.

But look at the verse that you gave: Should we sin now because we are under grace? NO"

Once again you lay out yourself in plain writing the key SHOULD we sin. No we SHOULD NOT. That doesn't mean we can't. That means we shouldn't. Those are two totally different concepts.

No one has advocating giving anyone a free pass, nor does the Bible. But one's works whether Godly or wicked have nothing to do with one's eternal salvation, because we know that's not of works.

 

Bob I haven't commented on grace because there is no point, because we can't even get past point A. There is no use going on to point B if point A is not agreed upon.

Seeing the difference between gift or inheritance is a HUGE key.

As to you first comment I have no idea what you are talking about. What comment did I make that was offensive to you?