Nimrod – From post 108, you and Mr Barns both missed my point, ,,, AGAIN.
Ok, you will not deal with what I have presented on that issue which was plainly reading what God plainly says and you have not once responded to it, “being completely cut off” “with your sin upon you” is spiritual damnation, you don’t want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole, that is your way of dealing, not mine, I call that fear or aversion or ignorance.
Then, on the same issue you said
Just because you are not a Jew during the OT, doesn’t mean you couldn’t be saved. There are other believers that were not Jews and were saved. So this man who picked up sticks became an outlaw(“cut off from his people”), was brought outside the camp and was stoned(put to death). It has nothing to do with his salvation.
Now you go on about being cut off “from God” but I do not see the words “from God” in this passage.
Oh, boy, and wasn’t it YOU how said that you don’t make up certain literal rules, you go by the context in order to derive the appropriate meaning? You missed the boat on this one. God does not have to say the specific words, “you are cut off from me” in order for that reality to be His teaching. Being “completely cut off” is sufficient for including being cut off from God, but God does not stop there, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING (did you hear that?) He says that 1) you are completely cut off, 2) no longer part of God’s people, 3) God condemns you to death for your sin, 4) which is despising His word (Jesus=you are of the devil) 5) and your sin remains upon you being un-forgiven for your sin! So only every single feature of this teaching spells out spiritual eternal damnation. But somehow through your growth and understanding, all that has escaped your notice.
And, I have no problem with exceptions to the rule, remember, God forgave David from capitol offenses BUT THAT DID NOT put an end to capitol offense commands. The rule was that to be saved, be a Jew or adopt their form of faith, however with very little examples, but Nineveh may be a large exception, people were saved yet may not have become proselyte Jews. My understanding is that back in the OT, not many people got saved, not even many from the nation of Israel got saved.
Similar issue within this dispensation of mystery, you are saved by the gospel which highlights Jesus and faith in His death burial and resurrection, but it includes people who don’t even formally or particularly know the gospel message at all! So when I speak about the gospel unto salvation prior to this dispensation, do not infer by that, that God can not make limited but righteous exceptions.
Qb1 – No, it is not fine. I suggest that it should correct you, that would be fine. You do not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments to keep and alter.
Qb2 – I gave you your own example as part of my answer! If you disagree with my answer than you are one contrary person because the first aspect of my answer was me agreeing with you!
You said
Again I disagree on two points. 1.) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or a Sunday? I don’t think you can. 2.) Circumcision is not considered work, therefore doing the circumcision on the Sabbath is acceptable.
1) You have not previously challenged me on this issue, so no “again” implied as though I have not already answered you. You are the evasive one, although that is not fair, you are only evasive in vary narrow sense, generally you are very forthright and I appreciate that. I think your fear of the issue of the sticks man is only clear. I’ll use part of your own argumentation to answer you. The Sabbath is a very old tradition with God going way back. He rested on the seventh day, and I believe that Sabbath is a word that either means seven, or is a derivative of the word for seven. It’s the last day of the week, and that day is Saturday. I have NEVER been challenged to prove that the Sabbath is on Saturday, it is common knowledge that it is then and not Sunday. Anyone can use Polyana wishful thinking in place of a critical denial of someone’s view, but in this case the burden clearly rests upon you to overturn evidently thousands of years of acceptance that the Sabbath is on Saturday. Try if you will, but I do not think you will be able to do it.
You said
My faith has nothing to do with keeping the law, it is separate from it.
You are very confusing. First you said that you keep the law by observing i.e. keep the Sabbath, but later admitted that you probably brake it in more ways than you are probably aware of. Then you said that you are under the law every time the issue of sin is in your life, you even equated sin with breaking the law (Mosaic commandments) not the commands and teachings of God expressly given for this dispensation, you referred to the old covenant laws by referencing the 10 commandments. Now, if your faith in God does not somehow include not sinning, then I suggest to you that you reconsider your statement, because as a mach law keeper that you have barely been arguing that you do, keeping the law is as you pointed out, vital to being right with God. So your faith as being a neo law keeper especially on the grounds of keeping the law to please God by not sinning, that is purely connected to your faith in God, it can be no other way.
Here I find you extremely inconsistent, I hope you make up your mind which you are, under the law, or having been delivered from the law, with death separating you from it, being dead to the law, you are freed from it. Don’t fall from grace, obey God’s superceding commandments, not the Mosaic law for the previous dispensation.
Your very next sentence says that you obey the law because you love and want to please God. So obviously your keeping the law has nothing to do with your faith in God. CAN YOU SAY CONTRADICTION?
You quoted PAUL who teaches us that we are DEAD to the law, being delivered from, NOT TO, the law. It passed away (concerning us in Christ), and God does not impute sin upon us concerning salvation, and so on and so forth. You run back to the beggarly elements and risk falling from grace and making what Christ did for you of no avail.
You said
Well that raises a question. Can I lose my salvation either under grace or under the law? Simple Yes or No would suffice.
Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
Yes. Also I believe I’ve answered this before via other questions you’ve asked. I think you are getting careless.
Qc2 – No, not the this dispensation. Also I believe I’ve answered this before via other questions you’ve asked. I think you are getting careless.
You said
(1) No you miss the boat again and again. I listen to the NT teachings also, but I also don’t forget about the OT teaching because it was under another dispensation. (2) I have not thrown out Paul teachings, and I have not thrown out the OT teachings(except for the sacrificial laws).
Paul is an excellent example of following the Sabbath. HE did time and time again. This is what Paul did.
(1) I missed nothing, the fact is that you have added absolutely nothing to my knowledge nor understanding of the bible. Not that you have to, but that for you to claim that I’m misunderstanding you, when I understand you perfectly is just nonsense. I used to be like you, the average Christian is like you. I agree that we should not forget about the other dispensational teachings.
(2) Yes, I believe you have thrown out Paul’s teachings, you certainly do not live by them, i.e. the law is dead to us, God imputes no sin on us who are in Christ, we are not to return to the beggarly elements, being bound to the curse of the law, etc. You reject those teachings so that you can mix law and grace and try to make them synonyms instead of mutually exclusive in this dispensation.
Ok, so now you’ve made a substantial amendment to being a law keeper. You keep the law except the sacrificial commands which you believe are no longer in affect. What about the dietary laws for example. I’d like to peg you on eating meat sacrificed to idols. And warning, when I do, it will be a pretty firm pegging. Paul taught against keeping the Sabbath for faith in this dispensation, but, because we should not let our liberty (freedom FROM THE LAW) make the weaker brother stumble. Paul writes about the differences between the circ and uncirc in much of his writings. He’s the one who said that in Christ there is no more Jew or Gentile, but then went about teaching the differences between the Jew and the Gentile on an almost constant basis, and I bet you have no reasonable reconciliation for that. Mine is simple, two different dispensations co-existed until they died out. So while the believers who were under the law were still living, Paul did not violate their gospel and way of life, instead he affirmed it because for them, and for those in the next dispensation, that was the way for salvation.
Sorry, but this remark bares note, like Paul rightly said on a very similar confrontation between law and grace (i.e. they “added nothing to me” and he quickly dispatched them instead of them me), you have not only not (biblically) corrected me, you have given me nothing that I have not heard before, except the very strange notion that the Sabbath is not for the last day of the week, i.e. Saturday, but may be instead for the first day of the week. Conversely, you should stand corrected on perhaps several things and you are certainly learning new things that I believe even though you may not agree with much of it.
For example, you should be able to see the 4 or 5 spiritual damnation teachings in that picking up sticks issue, also that Jesus commanded to keep every bit of the law, the greater and the lesser, you can not pick and choose, but you just keep ignoring the former like they aren’t even there, and the latter you just said, “oh”. :doh:
You said
So you really didn't answer that question. I'll ask it again. My answer to you is this, my Sabbath just happens to be a Sunday. Even though it doesn't have to be a Sunday. I pick Sunday because I am a normal 40hr work week person. Sunday fits best for me.
I would repeat the warnings against adding to, or taking away from the word of God, but I feel rather dumb having to do that. The level of your audacity to think that you have the right to alter or correct God’s commandments that God demonstrates is a matter of life and death, and arguably salvation and damnation, is gross to say the least. Again, you do not have the standing to overturn Jesus.
Qc4 – It’s not called the future, it’s called in the next dispensation, so far, we still have a future in this current dispensation. Why are you asking me such a basic question. Earlier you sounded to informed like a well read bible student, now you sound like a rookie. First question I purposefully deny answering. I’ll focus on more important issues and wait for you to make your questions for relevant.
Qc5 – That again is a very hostile response. You already know my position that God gave the dispensation of grace to him to give to us. Read Paul and you will have the entire deal.
You said
Qb4)Not talking about salvation, of the ten commandments, which one(s) can we break as believers in Christ, saved by Grace, and will not be considered a sin?
Answer
Your question contradicts what I believe to be God’s word, so I can not answer according to your presuppositions as previously stated.
I do have a better understanding of your logic. If I understand correctly this is what you believe.
There are two groups today.
Nope, take out “today” and then you’d be right. The previous group ended, we started, we will end, and they will pick back up again basically where they left off.
You went on to say
But those under Grace need to follow this dispensation commands, especially from Paul.
No, only Paul gives us teachings for this dispensation. Others can teach to us nonspecific or cross-dispensational teachings, but only Jesus through Paul teaches us about the dispensation of mystery. But you got the next part very good, so maybe you just chose your words not as carefully here. You go on to say
Let me put it another way. God draws a line on what is a sin. Picture in your mind a big circle, anytime an unbeliever today goes into that big circle it is considered a sin. Now draw another circle, smaller, and put it inside the big one. Anyone under grace will only be sinning if he is in the smaller circle. If he is in the bigger circle and not the smaller, he is not sinning. In conclusion, there are sins that an unbeliever today can commit, yet if a believer does the exact same thing it would not be considered a sin. I am trying to find out what those are.
Nope. Only one circle. But there are two different groups of people (not to be confused with the two different saved groups of people, the law and grace, circ and uncirc), saved people, and unsaved people. For each group there is just one circle when we discuss sin. God does not have multiple standards of righteousness, a sin is a sin is a sin. The issue is not about sin, it’s about our relationship to the law. We who are saved are NOT under the law. God teaches without ambiguity that we can not sin because we are not under the law, we are freed from it and so on. But if we who are saved do the same sinful things that we did before we were saved, does that make it right? NO, not in the least, sin is sin, but our sin is not held against us for the sake of salvation, our sin is only held against us in terms of reducing our rewards in heave and pleasing God. I hope this helps and I do not mind at all the lack of understanding we may have on this issue, the grace gospel message is foreign to most Christians, and we have only barely covered this issue. And don’t charge me with not establishing stuff yet, I know I have only alluded to some teachings, allow me (and me to you too) the brevity to wait for more in-depth treatment until the 30 other issues have subsided.
You said
I would ask what are the actions the believers can commit and not be a sin, and the unbelievers if they do the same action, are sinning, but you won’t answer that.
No, I have, but you are not yet understanding the paradigm shift. God, not me friend, God says that we are not under the law, all things are lawful, the law is dead to us having been nailed to the cross, and just like the woman who can marry after the death of her husband, so also are we to the law! That is a fact, God teaches that, I am just relating that to you. Also, the fact is that we still sin even though God does not impute sin to us. Those are both facts and they each have dramatically different implications and associations, you can not combine them like you would like to, and like you do law and grace.
You said
Yes I understand you better now, Christ doesn't void any of those under the Law. But what I am asking is those who are under grace, which ones under grace does Jesus voids?
None, void is a bad word, the law is not in the least void, it is active, and remains that way, but we are not under it, Jesus has put us under His superceding teachings for faith as explained in the dispensation of grace through Paul. It’s an either or thing, and it matters a world of difference if you are referring to salvation or not. You want to mix them up, and I want to keep separate what God does not mix up.
You said
Questions--
Qc1) Prove to me the Sabbath had to be either a Saturday or Sunday. I don’t think you can.
Qc2) Can I lose my salvation?
Qc3) how do you interpret this verse literally? What does “one Sabbath to another” mean?
Qc4) Will we have a Sabbath in the future? Will all people observe the Sabbath in the future?
Qc5) what is this dispensations commandments from God?
Qc2 If you are truly saved under the dispensation of Grace teachings, you can not loose your salvation.
Qc3 It means what it literally says. I may be missing the significance of your question; you have been a bit sketchy on some of your questions.
Qc4 I think so.
Looking back, I want to let our current and somewhat large discussion boil down, but I will hammer you on the dietary laws when you are ready. I have not studied the Sabbath that much, it is so obvious that it is not for us today so why bother, but I have studied several verses about the dietary laws and how they most certainly will be in force in the next dispensation after this dispensation of mystery, i.e. not prophecy.
Blessings
