Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote: Just to be clear, I've held my views on God's grace for around 15 years.

It was quite liberating when I first understood Romans in light of Martin Lloyd-Jones' commentaries.

That said, even if acquainted with certain beliefs, it doesn't stop new ways of looking at the issue from becoming apparent. For example, there are so many responses to the problem of evil in the world if God is good and loves us. Despite reading many responses, I'm sure there is one perspective that I haven't heard which I'd find an interesting way of look at the issue.

This is going to sound quite pugnent to some. You write: "Sin was literally suffocating me until someone told me to stop doing it and follow His commandments." But, for me, anyone who seriously believes they've stopped committing sin, is in my opinion either self-deluded or a hypocrite.
The only way sin can realistically stop suffocating us is through Christ's work that provides forgiveness and the possibility of our being redeemed.

I haven't stopped sinning.. That isn't the issue here.. If I wouldn't have made the move to stop sinning I know I would have died. Something had to change.

Kurieuo wrote:To borrow your analogy of the horticulturalist. It is God who is the Master Horticulturalist. The Holy Spirit who cultivates and tends to us. A tree can't prune and water itself, and a garden can't weed itself. Not sure if you intended your analogy to be extended that far? But it seems good to me.

However G-d created Adam and Eve to be stewards of the earth Genesis 2:15, therefore pruning is required.. And the Holy Spirit will tell us where to prune. And it makes sense too that G-d would give us freedom to either work it or not.. So you could argue that G-d is the Master Horticulturalist, which I think is true also... However, do we ever listen to the Master Horticulturalist? I would say no, but G-d's grace saves us from His wrath.

Don't get me wrong... I would love to sit on a couch all day and do nothing for G-d too and get His approval... I would love G-d to wave a magic wand and call me righteousness just for calling His name out and picking my nose, I just think it's deeper than that. Sometimes we need to follow the Horticulturalist's manual too.

That's all...

I always thought James said it best..

James 2:17-24, “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

Kurieuo, yes, I feel confident that I will be "saved." If I decided to later, before I die, totally abandon Christianity and "fall away from it," and then maybe become a Muslim, for example, I believe I would then lose salvation and not be saved. I do not consider myself a "reborn" Christian because I have not yet been born into an immortal, spiritual body. I cannot yet "go like the wind," invisible but fully alive, which is what I will be able to do after I am "reborn."

I do not consider myself perfectly righteous, of course, just striving to be righteous.

You said you did not fully understand what I wrote in my last comment. Maybe you were referring to the judging part. Matthew 13:8,23, according to some theologians, is related to some kind of "judging process" going on that 1 Peter 4:17 may be referring to.

Wolfgang wrote:Kurieuo, yes, I feel confident that I will be "saved." If I decided to later, before I die, totally abandon Christianity and "fall away from it," and then maybe become a Muslim, for example, I believe I would then lose salvation and not be saved. I do not consider myself a "reborn" Christian because I have not yet been born into an immortal, spiritual body. I cannot yet "go like the wind," invisible but fully alive, which is what I will be able to do after I am "reborn."

I do not consider myself perfectly righteous, of course, just striving to be righteous.

You said you did not fully understand what I wrote in my last comment. Maybe you were referring to the judging part. Matthew 13:8,23, according to some theologians, is related to some kind of "judging process" going on that 1 Peter 4:17 may be referring to.

Just a quickie in response to what you said about loosing salvation....God's grace is limitless, far beyond our understanding and covers our sin. Believing this to be true, how could anyone ever lose their salvation if it was an undeserved gift in the first place? If you're experience with God originally was real then I don't see how! Although this maybe isn't the most realistic analogy ever as if a person has a real experience with Christ then the chances of them becoming a Muslim are pretty much out the window anyway!

But my question is this - how could anyone who truly received salvation lose it? Grace is undeserved in the first place so nobody should ever have gained it.

Sam1995 wrote:But my question is this - how could anyone who truly received salvation lose it? Grace is undeserved in the first place so nobody should ever have gained it.

I think what Wolf is addressing here is choosing to go against G-d after becoming a Christian. Actually when you think about it, satan at one time also had this authority, being one of G-d's chief angel, but decided to go against G-d later on... Therefore it could be a possibility.

Sam1995, is there not a verse in the Bible commanding us to live by every word in the Bible (and also to believe EVERY WORD in the Bible)? Are you silently telling me that you DO NOT BELIEVE every word in the Bible? If you do believe the entire Bible, then you seem to have forgotten what Paul admitted, that he CAN MOST DEFINITELY, like it or not, believe it or not, lose his salvation. For Paul to lose it, it would of course be extremely, extremely unlikely, but quite possible. Why in the world do you continue to totally, absolutely, and completely reject 1 Corinthians 9:27 and 2 Corinthians 13:5 which reveal that salvation can be lost? (Don't worry too much about it, you almost have to want to lose your salvation or deliberately turn on Jesus or what He taught to lose salvation, according to those Corinthian verses, not according to me.)

Read again my comment I made near the bottom of page 17, which is as follows.

"Re: Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?
by Wolfgang » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:11 pm

Maybe the best person to answer that question is Paul himself. He indicated that yes, most definitely, he could lose his salvation according to 1 Corinthians 9:27: "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." --- New King James Version

Paul admits he himself could fail to be saved! The Greek word for "disqualified" is adokimos, Strong's 96, defined as unapproved, rejected, worthless, castaway, and reprobate. 2 Corinthians 13:5: "..... Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you are disqualified." --- NKJV The very same Greek word adokimos also appears in 2 Corinthians 13:5 as the original Greek word for "disqualified," very strongly implying that Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:27 was admitting that he could lose his salvation by no longer having "Jesus Christ in him" if his sins were serious and prolonged enough to "disqualify" him." ---- End of quotation.

There is the possibility I could be wrong about what I said above. But you have to admit, those Corinthian verses really do seem to say that salvation, under the right circumstances, can be lost, and lost irreversibly, for all eternity. Yes, most definitely, that does seem horrendously cruel, but Matthew 13:41,42 and Matthew 7:22,23 (verse 23 shows that some C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-S will lose their salvation [the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. do not cast out demons or prophesy {teach} in the name of Jesus, it is only Christians that do that]) also seem horrendously cruel by most human standards, too. But what can you do about it? Those verses realy, really are in the Bible. "Get over it." "Take it like a man."


Personally, I sometimes wonder why God won't give sinners and Christians who lost their salvation another, or multiple chances at salvation to finally get it right, 200 years from now, 800 years from now, 5,000 years from now, and maybe even 50,000 years from now in a type of Catholic "purgatory." Maybe it's like a man choosing who to marry. Would most men choose a beautiful wife to marry who almost immediately also fell in love with those men, or would they choose to marry an equally beautiful woman who took 5, 10, or 20 years to fall in love with the men? I think most men, including myself, would choose the woman that almost immediately fell in love with me. Maybe that is the way God looks at it, too, concerning those He will give immortality to. Maybe God wants that "first love," with no reservations on the part of us Christians.

Sam1995 wrote:But my question is this - how could anyone who truly received salvation lose it? Grace is undeserved in the first place so nobody should ever have gained it.

Gman wrote:I think what Wolf is addressing here is choosing to go against G-d after becoming a Christian. Actually when you think about it, satan at one time also had this authority, being one of G-d's chief angel, but decided to go against G-d later on... Therefore it could be a possibility.

In my understanding on this point that we are supposed to have the intent to turn from sinning when we accept Christ otherwise what would be the purpose of the indwelling HS?

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

It is clearly stated that the HS will be our indwelling teacher. What exactly is the HS teaching? If there is nothing we can do of our own will to better ourselves then there is no need for a teacher right? A teacher is of no use unless the teaching can be applied by the recipient. So if all we have to do to be saved is believe then we would not even need the HS because the HS isn't given until 'after' we already believe in and accept Christ so obviously the HS isn't given to help us reach a state of belief.
If we check Ephesians we can see instructions being given to Christians from an apostle who has the indwelling HS and what is the nature of this instruction?

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called

We are to walk in a worthy manner right? the only way we can do this is by our actions and what would happen if we freely choose to not walk worthy?

Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

Again, we are admonished to lose the old sinfull manner of the old man we were and put on the new man which is to be righteous and we are further admonished to "sin not". Well if there are no laws then it is not possible to sin right? so obviously there are laws that we can break since the apostle is directly telling Christians not to sin and walk worthy.

Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Here is a direct and indisputible reference to the decalogue commandment not to steal and it is to be applied once you turn to Christ. How can anyone deny that these references are directly refering to the decalogue commandments? Here again what would happen if a thief were to turn to Christ and continue to be a thief? Is the command to not steal no longer a sin and if so then why would the apostle admonish the action stated above? This makes no logical sense to me.

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Here we see a direct reference to fornication and coveting aaaannnnddd all "uncleanness" as actions we are admonished not to do anymore. Why give the admonishment if in fact it has no bearing on our salvation. According to the verses referenced the continued performance of such action does affect the free gift because: For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
So to me these verses state that if you wish to be counted as a child of God then you must turn from doing things that we know are sins in Gods eyes.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Look at this....
This is another indisputable reference to the decalogue ;
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Tell me why the apostle admonishes even the children of the Christians at that time to follow the decalogue commandments if they no longer apply to Christians and have no bearing on their salvation. I would also point out that the apostle also referred to the fact that this was the first commandment with a promise... If the decalogue is not applicable anymore then the promises associated with it are also without applicability. So again it makes no sense for the apostles to give directions for our actions if in fact our freely chosen actions no longer have any effect on our salvation.

So far no one in this discussion opposing my position has addressed these points with a satisfactory answer that would lead me to the conclusion that belief alone will allow for the gift of salvation. I would like to see someone address the specific points in this post and also define what would happen if a believer were to do the opposite of what the apostle admonished us to do.

Gman, I desire to address your last post when I next have time. I'll specifically deal with James, which you only quoted in portion and really ought to be carefully read in the fuller context of itself and even similar Scripture.

You others reading, here is a post from a previous moderator (Bizzt) in 2005. Re-quoted here in full as it is very relevant and interesting to this discussion.

Furthermore, it is also very relevant to the chapters in James only previously quoted in portion. So this lays good foundations to work from:

Bizzt wrote:Ok this is going to be Lengthy but I find this Man to be just amazing in his Responses. The URL for the site is http://www.biblestudy.com (under the Message Board). Here is the quote he said:

Friends and Brothers,

I am new to this site, having joined only two days ago. I found this discussion thread today and read each post. I am sorry to be adding what may be a lengthy post to this thread but I feel that this needs to be said.

The issue of whether Christians should worship on the Sabbath, be circumcised, or keep the old testament law are not new. In fact, these same questions arose in the first century Church. We can learn a lot by observing how they resolved the situation and what conclusions they came to.

I'm not going to include very much scripture here but I encourage each of you to look up and read the fifteenth chapter of Acts in its entirety. I'll summarize here.

Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their first missionary journey (Acts 13, 14). Shortly thereafter some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem came to Antioch and began teaching that the gentile Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them and they decided to go to Jerusalem to get to the bottom of the controversy. Note that Acts 15:1 does not mention the keeping of the law but Acts 15:24 does--these matters are tied very closely together.

When they arrived in Jerusalem, they all met with the Apostles and Church leaders to consider the matter. Peter recounted how the gospel had first been given to the gentiles through the conversion of Cornelius' household (Acts 10) and concluded with this statement in Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" If the Jews could not keep the law, why would the gentiles be required to?

James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gives his decision in verses 13-21. He concludes that the gentiles should not be required to keep the law but that they should be instructed and encouraged to abstain from "pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (verse 20) James reason for making this request is that there are Jews in every city (verse 21). Perhaps he is hoping that the gentile Christians can be a witness to these Jews.

Verses 23-29 contain the text of the letter that was sent to the gentile Christians from the Jerusalem Church. This letter was delivered to the Church in Antioch by Paul and Barnabus along with representatives of the Jerusalem Church who would testify of the matter in person. From this passage of scripture, it seems clear to me what the Apostles' intent was. I encourage each of you to read these scriptures yourself and prayerfully consider what God is saying to you through them.

Paul himself was always carefull to keep the law. However, when he recounts this Jerusalem meeting in Galatians 2 he emphasizes that he refused to allow Titus, who was with him and was a Greek, to be circumcised. In other scriptures, Paul encourages Jewish Christians to continue following the law and encourages the gentile Christians to continue in their "uncircumcision" (I Corinthians 7:19-20).

This does not mean that the gentile Christians are free to do whatever they want to do. Paul encouraged them to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1). He also encouraged them to "Walk in the spirit..." (Galatians 5:16, Romans 8:1).

As you know, Jesus was also careful to follow the law. He said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). When asked which commandment was the greatest Jesus did not respond with one of the '10' but rather said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). I personally believe that this is the one lesson that the Church most needs to learn today.

Jesus said that the law would be fulfilled and He went on to keep the law perfectly. No one before Him had been able to do this and no one after Him has succeeded either. However, Paul writing in Romans 8:4 said that "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." I want to make two points here: 1) the law contains the righteousness of God, and 2) God's intent is that this righteousness will be "fulfilled" in us.

Paul writes in Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." If we can learn to love one another the way that God loves us, this "righteousness" will be fulfilled in us as the scriptures promised it would be.

I love this passage of scripture in Romans 13. It tells us that love fulfills the law. Then it identifies which law it is talking about (Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet). Finally it includes a "catch-all" clause (if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself). All of the commandments are summed up in this phrase "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".

Jesus intends for His followers to be righteous and full of His love one for another. We may not be able to all agree on what every scripture means but we can all do more to show His love. It may seem strange to you that this post started out discussing the law and ended up talking about God's love but I hope you can see that these two topics are related to each other by the scriptures--not by my words. In closing, let me remind each of you that "By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35).

Very Lengthy but very well versed.

Kurieuo wrote:You others reading, here is a post from a previous moderator (Bizzt) in 2005. Re-quoted here in full as it is very relevant and interesting to this discussion.
Furthermore, it is also very relevant to the chapters in James only previously quoted in portion. So this lays good foundations to work from:

seriously... now I am asked to work with someones post whom I can't directly interact with?

Bizzt wrote:The issue of whether Christians should worship on the Sabbath, be circumcised, or keep the old testament law are not new. In fact, these same questions arose in the first century Church. We can learn a lot by observing how they resolved the situation and what conclusions they came to.

First, circumcision is not part of the moral laws and as such should not be considered as part of them.

Bizzt wrote:Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their first missionary journey (Acts 13, 14). Shortly thereafter some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem came to Antioch and began teaching that the gentile Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them and they decided to go to Jerusalem to get to the bottom of the controversy. Note that Acts 15:1 does not mention the keeping of the law but Acts 15:24 does--these matters are tied very closely together.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Now why would any believing Jews assert that it was needful for gentiles to be circumcised? If the proper position is that the entirety of Gods laws were no longer pertinent to salvation then it would be logical that the apostles would have made sure to teach this concept especially to the new Jewish converts who had spent their whole life following the whole law and all the other precepts that were added to those laws. So do we assume that the apostles simply skipped this point when preaching to the Jews?

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment...

Here it is assumed by many that the law as mentioned in this verse was intended to mean the entire Law including the all the moral laws. However, such is not the case when all the other scriptures are taken into account such as those in my last post. The entirety of this verse dealt with the law of circumcision which is not a moral law and its observance had no bearing on following Christ or salvation.

Bizzt wrote:James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gives his decision in verses 13-21. He concludes that the gentiles should not be required to keep the law but that they should be instructed and encouraged to abstain from "pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (verse 20) James reason for making this request is that there are Jews in every city (verse 21). Perhaps he is hoping that the gentile Christians can be a witness to these Jews.

And here is something again that makes no sense. Pollutions of idols and things strangled and blood are all things that would be eaten and we know that anything which goes in the belly cannot make you unclean as is stated in another place in scripture. So why tell the gentiles to keep away from them? If all you absolutely need to do is believe in Christ then this verse makes no sense from a logical perspective and is tatamount to my argument asserting that the decalogue is still in effect.
If you were there when this was told to the gentiles would you also assert to them that gentiles didn't need to perform any actions since salvation has no dependancy on actions as many of the posters in this thread have asserted? Wouldn't the proper response from the apostles have been that all the laws have been fullfilled so there is no longer any need to follow any of them?

Bizzt wrote:Paul himself was always carefull to keep the law. However, when he recounts this Jerusalem meeting in Galatians 2 he emphasizes that he refused to allow Titus, who was with him and was a Greek, to be circumcised. In other scriptures, Paul encourages Jewish Christians to continue following the law and encourages the gentile Christians to continue in their "uncircumcision" (I Corinthians 7:19-20).

why would Paul encourage Jewish Christians to follow the law? If the truth is that it no longer mattered then they would be placing a yoke on them that not even their forefathers could bear right? So why require it of them knowing the entire law Given by God was impossible to be kept? If the apostles were following the spirit of truth then the truth as is represented in this thread is that circumcision and the entire law is no longer necessary... by anyone... for salvation. So at best here I see a gap in continuity for this line of reasoning.

Bizzt wrote:This does not mean that the gentile Christians are free to do whatever they want to do. Paul encouraged them to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1). He also encouraged them to "Walk in the spirit..." (Galatians 5:16, Romans 8:1).

What exactly is the yoke of bondage? Isn't the yoke of bondage the sacrificial laws that prescibed how sins were dealt with and not the moral laws that defined what a sin was?. Remember the sacrificial system never eliminated the past sins because every year the priests had to continually keep sacrificing for past sins because the proper sacrifice had not yet occured. Thus, the old sacrificial laws were the yoke of bondage that only led to death and their intent was simply to be a covering until Christ came and fullfilled them and removed that system since it never actually eliminated the sins themselves.

Bizzt wrote:As you know, Jesus was also careful to follow the law. He said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). When asked which commandment was the greatest Jesus did not respond with one of the '10' but rather said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). I personally believe that this is the one lesson that the Church most needs to learn today.

Christ didn't respond with one of the decalogue commands because all of those commands were derived from the two main or royal laws. Since the decalogue was entirely encompassed by the royal laws then their reference is included because of the main two that they came from. Simple logic dictates that you cannot love your neighbor and still steal from him. Simple logic asserts that you cannot truely love your neighbor and still kill him. Simple logic asserts that you cannot love God or your neighbor and still break any of the commands derived from the royal law. But one could love God and his neighbor and not be circumcised.

Bizzt wrote:Jesus said that the law would be fulfilled and He went on to keep the law perfectly. No one before Him had been able to do this and no one after Him has succeeded either. However, Paul writing in Romans 8:4 said that "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." I want to make two points here: 1) the law contains the righteousness of God, and 2) God's intent is that this righteousness will be "fulfilled" in us.

God said he would write his laws in our hearts... Can you define what laws he was talking about here? and how does one walk after the spirit and still continue to break the intent of the two royal laws?

Bizzt wrote: Paul writes in Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." If we can learn to love one another the way that God loves us, this "righteousness" will be fulfilled in us as the scriptures promised it would be.

And right here in this scripture Paul defines what it means for us to fullfill Gods laws. He asserts that all of the decalogue is "briefly comprehended" or part of the intent conveyed by the royal laws just a I noted above. Thus, if we love God and our neighbor according to the intent of the royal laws we will not break any of the decalogue commands because of their origination from those main laws.

Bizzt wrote:Jesus intends for His followers to be righteous and full of His love one for another. We may not be able to all agree on what every scripture means but we can all do more to show His love. It may seem strange to you that this post started out discussing the law and ended up talking about God's love but I hope you can see that these two topics are related to each other by the scriptures--not by my words. In closing, let me remind each of you that "By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35).

And here we are back to not making a logical conclusion. If Christ wants and intends for his followers to be righteous then where does the argument against following the decalogue originate? Doesn't the decalogue which is founded from the royal laws define how one might be righteous? If as many here assert that the OT laws are no longer applicable to us then how is righteousness defined? further why would Christ assert that he intends an expects us to be righteous if in fact we can't possibly do it? and if as some here have asserted that God will make us conform to his vision of righteousness irrespective of what our desires are then why say anything about what he intends us to do since in the end it wouldn't be us doing it anyway. This would be God preaching to God in this respect right?

Many of these same arguments have already been brought up in this thread in various ways and in the end I see that interpretations presented here don't logically follow when compared to other scriptures which give the impression that is directly opposed to them which I have shown some of in my previous post.

I need to have more than a simple summary interpretation based on a few verses and there must be a reasoning that includes an accounting for all the verses which don't follow from the lines of interpretations given so far in the entirety of the discussion of this thread.
If grace is the only way to gain salvation and that grace is entirely dependant on belief in Christ alone without any actions required of the believer then this must be stated plainly without any flipflopping from that assertion to one where we are required to do something along with having belief in Christ.
So far I have yet to be able to actually define what the bottom line proposition is being asserted here since each poster has varying ways of expressing what they mean.

So I would like to see If I can get any of the people here who have been opposing my position to agree completely with one of the two following statements;

1) The free gift of salvation is entirely dependant on faith in Christ and has no dependancy on our active participation in the process.
2) The free gift of salvation is dependant on both faith in Christ along with a dependancy on our active participation in becoming righteous.

These two points epitomise the two contending views in this thread so far as I understand them and I think we should start by each of us making a position statement that we can all work backward from. If 1 is your understanding and belief then state it that way and then we can address the points I am bringing in my last post that appear to scripturally be against it. If 2 is your position then your understanding is in line with the understanding that I recieved from my study of the bible. No one can hold both positions as true at the same time.

KBCid wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You others reading, here is a post from a previous moderator (Bizzt) in 2005. Re-quoted here in full as it is very relevant and interesting to this discussion.
Furthermore, it is also very relevant to the chapters in James only previously quoted in portion. So this lays good foundations to work from:

seriously... now I am asked to work with someones post whom I can't directly interact with?

No, I didn't asked you to respond or work with anything.

I stated the purpose of it -- relates to the topic and lays foundations for my response re: James. I'm sure other readers will benefit even if you take exception with it.

Feel free to undo your work and remove your post.

Ok... I will briefly respond to some of these points...

Bizzt wrote: Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their first missionary journey (Acts 13, 14). Shortly thereafter some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem came to Antioch and began teaching that the gentile Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them and they decided to go to Jerusalem to get to the bottom of the controversy. Note that Acts 15:1 does not mention the keeping of the law but Acts 15:24 does--these matters are tied very closely together.

When they arrived in Jerusalem, they all met with the Apostles and Church leaders to consider the matter. Peter recounted how the gospel had first been given to the gentiles through the conversion of Cornelius' household (Acts 10) and concluded with this statement in Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" If the Jews could not keep the law, why would the gentiles be required to?

No... Acts 15:10 does NOT say that the "yoke" was G-d's laws. That is Bizzt's interpretation. Love can never be a legalistic "yolk". Paul also made this point or distinction in Galatians 5:1.

Bizzt wrote:James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gives his decision in verses 13-21. He concludes that the gentiles should not be required to keep the law but that they should be instructed and encouraged to abstain from "pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (verse 20) James reason for making this request is that there are Jews in every city (verse 21). Perhaps he is hoping that the gentile Christians can be a witness to these Jews.

Verses 23-29 contain the text of the letter that was sent to the gentile Christians from the Jerusalem Church. This letter was delivered to the Church in Antioch by Paul and Barnabus along with representatives of the Jerusalem Church who would testify of the matter in person. From this passage of scripture, it seems clear to me what the Apostles' intent was. I encourage each of you to read these scriptures yourself and prayerfully consider what God is saying to you through them.

Yes we have been over this verse many times.. Nowhere in Acts 15:13-21 does it say that the gentiles should now NOT be required to keep the law. Acts 15:20-21 mentions only four things for gentiles to abstain from, (by they way these are still commandments). But look at Acts 15:19....

Acts 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

So the idea here that is being conveyed is to give the gentiles a basic understanding of the Torah first.. Later when they visit the synagogues, the gentiles would get the full measure of the Torah way. What do we expect them to do? Blast the gentiles with all the 613 commandments of the law? Also notice that Acts 15:20-21 doesn't mention helping the poor as mentioned in G-d's commandments in Deut. 15:7 or taking revenge Lev. 19:18. Is it implying that if they do only to these four commandants they don't have to follow these other commandments as well?

Bizzt wrote:Paul himself was always carefull to keep the law. However, when he recounts this Jerusalem meeting in Galatians 2 he emphasizes that he refused to allow Titus, who was with him and was a Greek, to be circumcised. In other scriptures, Paul encourages Jewish Christians to continue following the law and encourages the gentile Christians to continue in their "uncircumcision" (I Corinthians 7:19-20).

However another point is where Paul actually circumcises Timothy in Acts 16: 1-3. And then later calls circumcision actually good in Romans 2:25.. Therefore we can clearly see that what Paul was arguing that circumcision has no value if we don't have a circumcision of the heart FIRST. So he was never against the teaching of circumcision, only how it was being applied.

Bizzt wrote:This does not mean that the gentile Christians are free to do whatever they want to do. Paul encouraged them to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1). He also encouraged them to "Walk in the spirit..." (Galatians 5:16, Romans 8:1).

As you know, Jesus was also careful to follow the law. He said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). When asked which commandment was the greatest Jesus did not respond with one of the '10' but rather said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). I personally believe that this is the one lesson that the Church most needs to learn today.

Jesus said that the law would be fulfilled and He went on to keep the law perfectly. No one before Him had been able to do this and no one after Him has succeeded either. However, Paul writing in Romans 8:4 said that "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." I want to make two points here: 1) the law contains the righteousness of God, and 2) God's intent is that this righteousness will be "fulfilled" in us.

Paul writes in Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." If we can learn to love one another the way that God loves us, this "righteousness" will be fulfilled in us as the scriptures promised it would be.

I love this passage of scripture in Romans 13. It tells us that love fulfills the law. Then it identifies which law it is talking about (Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet). Finally it includes a "catch-all" clause (if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself). All of the commandments are summed up in this phrase "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".

Jesus intends for His followers to be righteous and full of His love one for another. We may not be able to all agree on what every scripture means but we can all do more to show His love. It may seem strange to you that this post started out discussing the law and ended up talking about God's love but I hope you can see that these two topics are related to each other by the scriptures--not by my words. In closing, let me remind each of you that "By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35).

Very Lengthy but very well versed.

Again... The ultimate commandment is to love... That is fine. We all want the plot.. However then next question is HOW WE LOVE. That is what we mean by following G-d's commandments. Otherwise we will define how to love under our own understanding and make up our OWN rules.. Notice how Paul ALWAYS goes back to G-d's commandments for the definition of love and sin..

Romans 7:7, What 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."

That is the point here. Seeing the LOVE behind G-d's commandments and wanting to do it in FAITH...

Check the Greek, check the Greek and their definitions before you use a controversial verse to back up your position. You just might be surprised at what you find. Although the vast majority of translators are overwhelmingly accurate, it has been occasionally well proven that they sometimes do make mistakes, and big ones. Acts 15:24 is a perfect example. The following was not copied from someone else's website, but was taken from my own notes, research, study, etc.

Acts 15:24: "....... some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised AND keep the law'---to whom we gave no such commandment---" --- NKJV

The Greek word for "and" is kai, Strong's number 2532, usually translated as "and." Kai definitely CAN also be translated in other ways, depending on the context. The conservative, more literal King James Version of the Bible translates kai in other verses in the New Testament as "even" 108 times, "then" 20 times, and "so" 18 times. Kai has also been translated as "so then," "certainly," "just," "now," "well," "while," "for," "if," "that," "therefore," and "when." Kai can easily mean "as a consequence or result of an action taken" in which verse 24 could very well mean that circumcision would merely be an act or consequence of keeping the law of Moses, and therefore Mosaic law observance in general was not a separate command. In such a situation keeping the other laws of Moses is not an issue. Verse 24: "....... saying, 'You must be circumcised so then or certainly or now or well or while or for or if or that or therefore or when or then or even or so keep the law'---to whom we gave no such commandment---" are other very possible translations.

THINK !!!!!!! Paul and Barnabas had a HUGE argument and debate over only one single part of the law, circumcision, in Acts 15. Can you even begin to imagine how great and prolonged the debate would have been if all the other Mosaic laws were disputed, such as those dealing with murder, the Sabbath, tithing, coveting, using the Lord's name in vain, the Feast of Tabernacles, the law forbidding putting stumbling blocks in front of blind people, removing property landmarks, bribery, incest, and on and on? Kai therefore must have had a meaning other than "and." The verse 1 Corinthians 7:19: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters," only one of many, many dozens of other pro-law keeping verses, helps prove that the Apostles did not conclude that the other Mosaic laws were nullified at the time they decided to abolish circumcision. Acts 27:9 records that Paul continued to observe Old Testament laws such as the fasting Day of Atonement, which occurred well after the time they decided to end circumcision. The Apostles concluded that it would be too much of a burden to impose only circumcision, not the general law, on Christians.

For some reason the NASB95 translation provided by this forum fails to give the complete verse in Acts 15:24. You need to go to other translations to see what it really says.

KBCid wrote:
"So I would like to see If I can get any of the people here who have been opposing my position to agree completely with one of the two following statements;

1) The free gift of salvation is entirely dependant on faith in Christ and has no dependancy on our active participation in the process.
2) The free gift of salvation is dependant on both faith in Christ along with a dependancy on our active participation in becoming righteous." End of quotation.

Sign me up, big time, as agreeing completely with number 2.

Wolfgang wrote:
KBCid wrote:
"So I would like to see If I can get any of the people here who have been opposing my position to agree completely with one of the two following statements;

1) The free gift of salvation is entirely dependant on faith in Christ and has no dependancy on our active participation in the process.
2) The free gift of salvation is dependant on both faith in Christ along with a dependancy on our active participation in becoming righteous." End of quotation.

Sign me up, big time, as agreeing completely with number 2.

I don't know if I would exactly say that faith it dependent on anything. Rather it seems a description of what faith is alone (what it actually means by itself). As an example if we say that we have faith, but lack the willingness to change course into G-d's direction of righteousness, that would be a dead faith..

Hi KBC.

KBC wrote:
In my understanding on this point that we are supposed to have the intent to turn from sinning when we accept Christ otherwise what would be the purpose of the indwelling HS?

KBC,
Yes, when we accept Christ, we are saved. Period. Then the process of sanctification begins. As God sanctifies a believer, the believer will naturally(in the spirit) turn from sin. But, the sinful nature is still there, fighting with the new creature(spiritual nature). See Galatians 5:17:

Galatians 5:17:
For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

KBC wrote:
It is clearly stated that the HS will be our indwelling teacher. What exactly is the HS teaching? If there is nothing we can do of our own will to better ourselves then there is no need for a teacher right? A teacher is of no use unless the teaching can be applied by the recipient. So if all we have to do to be saved is believe then we would not even need the HS because the HS isn't given until 'after' we already believe in and accept Christ so obviously the HS isn't given to help us reach a state of belief.

Of course the HS is our teacher. He also sanctifies a believer. Salvation is a one time deal that happens upon one's belief in Christ. But, there's more to a believer's walk with God. The HS doesn't stop working in a believer after the moment of salvation. But saying the HS doesn't play a part in coming to a belief in Christ, isn't accurate. If a believer presents the gospel of Jesus Christ by the power of the HS, to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever is convicted, and believes on Christ for his salvation, then of course the HS plays a part in one coming to a saving faith in Christ.

KBC wrote:
If we check Ephesians we can see instructions being given to Christians from an apostle who has the indwelling HS and what is the nature of this instruction?

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called

We are to walk in a worthy manner right? the only way we can do this is by our actions and what would happen if we freely choose to not walk worthy?

Our actions as a believer show that God is working in us. If a believer freely chooses to do something other than what the HS is leading us to do, then God will discipline us. But, God disciplines us because we are His children. He doesn't kick us out of His family because we sin.

KBC wrote:
So far I have yet to be able to actually define what the bottom line proposition is being asserted here since each poster has varying ways of expressing what they mean.

So I would like to see If I can get any of the people here who have been opposing my position to agree completely with one of the two following statements;

1) The free gift of salvation is entirely dependant on faith in Christ and has no dependancy on our active participation in the process.
2) The free gift of salvation is dependant on both faith in Christ along with a dependancy on our active participation in becoming righteous.

KBC, let's take #1 first: I believe one is saved at the moment one places his faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation is a free gift to all who believe. See John 3:14-16:

14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

When one believes in Christ, one is now part of God's family. Salvation is assured. The "process" for salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. Notice the text doesn't say, "whoever believes in Him(and stops sinning)..."

Now #2: I would agree that a believer grows as a believer, by "participation". By praying, reading the bible, etc. Since salvation happens at the moment one places his faith in Christ, then "participation" as you say, happens after salvation, and during sanctification.

I think I'm seeing that you think salvation is a lifelong process. Whereas I'm saying salvation is a one time deal, and sanctification is a lifelong process.

I hope that clears up what I believe, if I explained it properly.

Gman wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:
KBCid wrote:
"So I would like to see If I can get any of the people here who have been opposing my position to agree completely with one of the two following statements;

1) The free gift of salvation is entirely dependant on faith in Christ and has no dependancy on our active participation in the process.
2) The free gift of salvation is dependant on both faith in Christ along with a dependancy on our active participation in becoming righteous." End of quotation.

Sign me up, big time, as agreeing completely with number 2.

I don't know if I would exactly say that faith it dependent on anything. Rather it seems a description of what faith is alone (what it actually means by itself). As an example if we say that we have faith, but lack the willingness to change course into G-d's direction of righteousness, that would be a dead faith..

I agree with Gman here. I would even go as far as saying that if one claims to have faith in Christ, and truly has absolutely no desire and willingness to follow God's will, then maybe this person doesn't have a saving faith in the true Jesus Christ. Unless, the person continually ignores or disobeys the prompting of the indwelling HS. Which I would have a hard time believing. If one is dead in his sins, then is saved by God's power, then I really couldn't understand how one could ignore the HS.

Wolfgang wrote:
Kurieuo, yes, I feel confident that I will be "saved." If I decided to later, before I die, totally abandon Christianity and "fall away from it," and then maybe become a Muslim, for example, I believe I would then lose salvation and not be saved. I do not consider myself a "reborn" Christian because I have not yet been born into an immortal, spiritual body. I cannot yet "go like the wind," invisible but fully alive, which is what I will be able to do after I am "reborn."

I do not consider myself perfectly righteous, of course, just striving to be righteous.

Wolfgang, excuse me for being so blunt, but what you wrote above, shows me that you really don't understand what it means to be saved.