Gospel perverted

HP: We have nor play any part, as I have stated numerous times, in the grounds of salvation. Christ alone has made atonement for sins. We play NO part in the atonement.

God has so designed salvation to include ‘conditions, (never thought of in any meritorious sense whatsoever, but rather thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ NOT ‘that for the sake of’) without which we will not be saved. One of those conditions is that we indeed must choose to obey and believe the gospel, which not only included placing our faith in Him by choosing to believe in Him but to repent from our sins as well.

When one says salvation is ‘all of God,’ I will fully agree if you are talking about the bridge built between God and man, or the grounds by which salvation is made possible. If one denies God has set forth conditions, such as you evidently do, then there is but one option left, it is indeed all of God in an absolute sense, and salvation according to you can be none other than an absolutely necessitated fatalistic system. There is no avoiding that outcome.

HP: No, I cannot see that period. The word rejection does not mean ‘lack of choice.’ If one is to ‘reject’ something, the will must indeed make a choice. If there is no act of the will there cannot be a ‘rejection’ of something. Rejection again MUST of necessity involve a choice of the will to do so. Just as any choice necessitates an understanding in some degree of the objects to be chosen, rejection must involve some idea of the object to be rejected. If one has absolutely no conception of an object, it cannot be chosen as an object of choice nor rejected as an object to reject. I see your remark as being a clear sophism without the slightest truth in it when fairly examined.

 

In context Paul was just rebuking what was going on then, Judaism/Christians trying to add the Mosaic Law to Christianity. If you try to add the Mosaic Law to Christianity then I would say yes, you are doing harm to the Gospel of Grace.

 

When it comes to salvation, not making a choice is saying "no" to God. It is that simple.

Every man must choose to accept what is freely offered and already paid for by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Either man will say yes and accept that salvation, say no and reject it, or not make a choice thereby saying no by default. Whether or not man understands the choice does not have any application here.

Philosophy doesn't not work when applied to God or the things of God. God is not a man that anyone should try to out-think Him, or out-rationalize Him. Hell will have plenty who tried.

 

Ok. But then there is this passage

 

HP: Ok, your thinking 'truthful stuff' once again, as usual I muight add. :thumbs:

Your comments lead to the following conclusion. Anyone that presents a gospel as a sinning religion as if though you can be actively any or all the above if in fact you have been born again and still make heaven your home, is guilty of perverting the gospel. Scripture states that no one that is engaged in, or is guilty of doing these things, will inherit the kingdom of God apart from turning from them in repentance and faith.

Here is another such list as well. Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

>In context Paul was just rebuking what was going on then, Judaism/Christians trying to add the Mosaic Law to Christianity. If you try to add the Mosaic Law to Christianity then I would say yes, you are doing harm to the Gospel of Grace.

Agree! It baffles me why all kinds of Christians insist that Mosaic Law continue to be posted in public places. Would it not advance Christianity or at least be neutral to Christianity if Jewish law was removed from court houses and wherever?

 

HP: If you are referring to the ten commandments as 'Jewish' law, I would clearly take exception to that. They are moral law designed and fit for all moral agents in all ages under the same finite circumstances we find ourselves in.

 

I entirely agree. While we all agree with the "spirit of the 10 commandments", posting them propagates an incorrect theology -the belief that the Law of Moses (including the 10 commandments) is still in forces as a prescriptive written code.

It is clear from the New Testament that it has been retired.

 

Before you read my last post and we come to blows, let me nuance what I have posted. The 10 commandments, of course, embody "timeless" moral truth. But we no longer need the 10 commandments as a prescriptive guide for our actions - we have the Holy Spirit instead now. And, of course, He (She) will not guide to us to steal, bear false witness, commit adultery, etc. etc.

 

Besides, both our Lord and His Apostles are clear if we love God and love neighbor we fulfill the law (Matt 22:37-40; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Of course, only Christ perfectly loved God and neighbor, and we can only love God and neighbor and show our love towards the same in keeping His commands by the power of the Spirit who is in us as we abide in Christ.

 

HP: I could not disagree more. (no blows though) Besides, multitudes are not walking with the aide of the Holy Spirit and need those clear moral principles as frontlets before their eyes, without which situational ethics abound and man is drowning in his self-devised moral code and not God’s. The ten commandments are indeed timeless and will always serve as a wall of truth against the ungodly and selfishness.

As I look around even the church world, there is clear evidence that whatever some are relying on as the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide them is woefully deficient. There is not one of us that should not keep the ten commandments as frontlets before our eyes, and should be checked in our spirits clearly if our intents and subsequent actions are not in accordance to them. That is and will remain God’s basic moral code to man. They were by the way, chiseled not in wood or clay but in stone.

By the way, just for the record, the only gender of God used in Scripture is in the form of the male gender.

 

Well, I think that Paul is quite clear that we are no longer led by the Law of Moses:

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

In order to preserve this idea that Torah still applies fully, some argue that, in the above, Paul is talking about the "traditions of men" and not the "real Torah" - he is saying we have been released from the "traditions of men", not from Torah.

Such a position is ruled out by what Paul immediately goes on to write:

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Clearly Paul is indeed talking about the Torah "as is" - not men's distortions of it. It was the Torah - the genuine article - that contained the "do not covet" command.

And germaine to the discussion, note that the "do not covet" commandment is, of course, one of the 10 commandments.

Do you see a way that Paul can be read as affirming that the 10 commandments are still in force? Please explain how, if you do.

 

Don't you just hate it when people quote Scripture out of context, giving it a different meaning than what it was intended? Why do you do it?
Look at it again:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Yes, those "sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" did inherit the kingdom of God. But first they were saved, washed by the blood, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Take things in their context. See what Paul was saying.

 

Well Paul certainly thinks of the Spirit in decidedly female terms here:

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

This is not an issue to get into knots over, but note that even though most translations have a "himself" in reference to the Spirit in verse 25, the original Greek can assume either gender. I suggest that Paul is a careful thinker - he clearly connects the groaning of the Spirit to the female image of childbirth. But, again, this is not an important issue (at least to me it isn't).

 

Perhaps that is why the KJV is a much more accurate translation here:

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
--There is no direct reference to childbirth. The creation groans. It travails. It is in pain. It is decaying, degenerating. Ever since the curse the Second Law of Thermodynamics have been set in motion.

 

Excellent point DHK.:thumbsup:

HP: Andre, here is evidence from the verse you quoted: 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

 

This does not overturn what Paul has clearly said - the Law of Moses has been retired. Remember, we need to take Paul seriously at the level of "the details". And here is what Paul has just said:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code

I see no wiggle room here - Paul clearly replaces the Law with the Spirit.

Now to the text you cite. This is merely a statement that the Law has just been declared to be retired was not retired because there was something wrong with it, or that the law is in any sense is "sin". Just because Paul asserts that the Law "told him what sin was", this does not mean that it is eternally set in that role.

Paul discerns an unfolding plan - the function of the Law is now fulfilled by the Spirit. Besides, Paul is quite clear in other places: the Law of Moses, which includes the 10 commandments, has been retired (see Ephesians 2, as just one example).

 

I do not see you making any distinction between what might be termed as ceremonial law, that which clearly had been fulfilled and as such replaced, and moral law which has not been replaced. Certainly we are not to honor the moral law by simply complying on the outside, but rather are to be in compliance with the spirit of the law as well.

For something to be in reality termed as ‘law’ in the moral realm it must have some clear cut attributes. Immutability is one of those attributes. Moral law is also universal in that under the same conditions and circumstances it requires precisely the same thing out of all moral beings. Moral law is rooted in the very character of God and His law and is obligatory upon all moral creations under like circumstances and conditions. It is as morally binding upon us as it was when God gave it to Moses. Certainly man has at times twisted the interpretations and implications of moral law, such as the Jews did with the Sabbath, but that does not negate the principles God intended for them.

There is not one idea or principle within the ten commandments that every one of us yesterday, today, and tomorrow should not be conforming our outward actions in agreement with.