"Works Salvation"

[Doug Brents]

Well, that is certainly what the RCC and the "many" religions of this world promote. But the Church of God existed and grew for several years while Paul was still persecuting it, let alone, before he wrote any of his Epistles, and decades, in some instances, centuries, before most of the Body of Christ would ever read Paul's letters. But the Holy scriptures that Paul said he believed all that was written therein, that is able to make a man wise unto Salvation through the Faith that was in Christ Jesus, that we can trust "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works", was there for them, being read by those who sit in Moses Seat every Sabbath of God.

This again, is simply undeniable Biblical Truth.

The Gospel of Christ is most explicitly laid out in 1 Cor 15:1-4, with proofs given in vs 5-9. This is the Gospel of Christ, and Christ was pointed toward, but was not yet incarnate, throughout the OT. There is no doubt that the OT was the only Scripture that they had written in the first century. But at that time, theirs being a primarily oral culture, they relied on the Apostles whom they had there in person, and their words were Scripture (I believe) during their life.

Again, this is why I left mainstream Christianity of today. Because they promote such foolishness as this, that Jesus came to destroy or "make obsolete" God's Laws.

He did not make obsolete God's laws. He made obsolete the Old Covenant, and established a New Covenant. The righteousness is the same, but the method of implementation is completely different.

The "Way of the Lord" of the Bible, is the Life of Christ. The Jesus "of the Bible" didn't create HIS own religion, HE Walked in the Righteousness of His Father, and advised us to do the same. At least the Jesus of the Bible did.

I didn't say anything about Him creating His own religion. I said He had His own righteousness.

Again, as I pointed out. The religions of this world have created their own religion, their own judgments, their own definition of Good, Clean, and Holy. Their own Sabbaths, their own High Days, their own images of God in the likeness of some random handsome long haired man.

What is absolutely undeniable, is the Body of Christ in Acts did not behave in such a fashion. In Acts 15, the Apostles led Gentile converts away from the mainstream religion in Jerusalem, with their doctrines and traditions of men, and turned them towards Moses, just as Jesus did to the multitudes and His Disciples.

I agree with everything in this section except what I highlighted. Jesus NEVER turned people toward Moses, but toward HIMSELF!!! Moses was a precursor to Jesus, but Moses was not the Christ.

Acts 15: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (Unclean according to the Judgments of God)

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Matt. 7: 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

The words of Christ were the foundation built on the rock, not the words of Moses, not the Old Covenant.

Except for the Law and Prophets that you said the Christ made obsolete. But the Christ of the Bible didn't even imply any such thing.

Look, I knew this is where we were headed. I was hoping you might consider the Scriptures I posted, perhaps even discuss them. But you went straight to the religious philosophies of the religion you adopted, which varies from the philosophies of the Catholic adopts, which varies from the philosophies the JW's adopt, which varies from the philosophies the SDA adopt and on and on.

The Christ of the Bible frees men from all this Babylon, but they must first believe Him.

No, the Law and the Prophets are still valuable for the history of God's people that they provide, for the insight they give us into the heart and mind of God, and the knowledge they provide about what God requires of us in terms of living righteously. But they do not contain the Law that we are to live by today. Today we are under the Law of Christ, which differs from the Law given to Moses.

OH my, how can you even say such things. What did God do to Adam and Eve? Cain? The world of Noah's Time. Sodom and Gammora? The Egyptians? Amalek? Jerico? Goliath? Is this not God's Wrath against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men being revealed to us?

I didn't say anything about God not revealing His righteousness and what He demands of us to be righteous. No, I said God did not reveal His righteousness IN Moses. Moses was not the messiah. Moses was a man, and was full of sin, just as you and I are.

Religions in whose doctrines and traditions cause those who follow them to Transgress God's Commandments, should be avoided, even if they call Jesus Lord, Lord, even if they are the religion of our fathers.

But this a cost to great for many, therefore Jesus called the Path HE walked, the Narrow Path, that few strive to enter.

Your focus on the OT is greatly in error. The Gospel of Christ is in His life, His death, and His resurrection, attested to by the hundreds who witnessed Him after His resurrection, and predicted in the OT Scriptures.

 

[Studyman]

The Gospel of Christ is most explicitly laid out in 1 Cor 15:1-4, with proofs given in vs 5-9. This is the Gospel of Christ, and Christ was pointed toward, but was not yet incarnate, throughout the OT. There is no doubt that the OT was the only Scripture that they had written in the first century. But at that time, theirs being a primarily oral culture, they relied on the Apostles whom they had there in person, and their words were Scripture (I believe) during their life.

This is simply not true Doug.

Luke 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Zacharias believed in the One True God, "AND" the Christ, the Rock of Israel who HE Sent. In other words, he had FAITH in God to forgive his sins, and didn't rely on the sacrificial "works" the Pharisees were still promoting. Men may adopt the philosophy that Zacharias did not know, or was not given the Gospel of Christ, and they can ignore Hebrews who says flat out that Israel was given the Gospel of Christ same as us, and they can ignore Paul's own words in which he tells you where the Gospel of Christ is found. Or the Scripture he quoted from within the Gospel of Christ.

But such behavior will not "Lead" a man to salvation, it will only lead them to the religion which ignores God.

He did not make obsolete God's laws. He made obsolete the Old Covenant, and established a New Covenant. The righteousness is the same, but the method of implementation is completely different.

Yes, this is what I have been trying to show. You are promoting "The OT, being made complete and obsolete by Christ, is not the "rules and laws" by which we live today.

This implies that the laws and rules were made obsolete, which is the very foundation of Mainstream Christian doctrine. But now you are saying something different, now you are saying HE made obsolete the "Old Agreement", and that the Righteousness revealed to men by God in the Law and Prophetes is the same, but what changed was the manner in which these Laws are given, and the manner in which forgiveness of transgression of these laws, are provided for.

If your latter position is the one you believe, then we are in agreement with Paul who says the "Laws and Rules" written in the Law and Prophets, were written for "OUR Sakes" no doubt, and have not become obsolete at all.

I didn't say anything about Him creating His own religion. I said He had His own righteousness.

LOL, How is the above any different than saying HE created His Own Religion? Didn't the Pharisees also go about establishing Their Own Righteousness, because they were "ignorant of God's Righteousness?" Are you saying Jesus refused God's Righteousness to promote HIS OWN Righteousness? Was HE also ignorant of God's Righteousness, or just didn't agree with His Father?

So What did Jesus actually say?

John 17: 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Who taught you that Jesus walked in His Own Righteousness? Certainly not the Jeus of the Bible.

I agree with everything in this section except what I highlighted. Jesus NEVER turned people toward Moses, but toward HIMSELF!!! Moses was a precursor to Jesus, but Moses was not the Christ.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Simeon, Zacharias, Anna, the Wisemen, they knew the Christ because they believed Moses. The mainstream preachers of their time didn't believe Moses, therefore, they didn't know the Christ. Paul didn't believe Moses either, for a time. But when he was renewed in the Spirit of his mind, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Why would I not accept these words as true?

The words of Christ were the foundation built on the rock, not the words of Moses, not the Old Covenant.

Now come on Doug, who wrote the Words of Christ, the Rock when HE was up where HE was before?

No, the Law and the Prophets are still valuable for the history of God's people that they provide, for the insight they give us into the heart and mind of God, and the knowledge they provide about what God requires of us in terms of living righteously. But they do not contain the Law that we are to live by today. Today we are under the Law of Christ, which differs from the Law given to Moses.

Truly that is what Constantine and the RCC promoted in order to justify their manmade sabbaths, they manmade high days, their manmade images of God. Their manmade judgments, their own definition of righteousness, clean and good.

They do this in part by separating some verses in Matt. 5, and promoting the falsehood that the "Them of old time" Jesus spoke of, was God and Moses, and not the Prophets and Priests who had become partial in the Law, as Malichi 2 tells us, or who promoted a vision of their own mind, like Jeremiah tells us.

Upon a review of scriptures, the Law and Prophets taught everything Jesus taught in Mat. 5. The Pharisees didn't, the corrupt Priests and prophets didn't, but Moses and God did. When you accept the truth that the "Them of old time" in Matt. 5, wasn't God and Moses, but the Shepherds who led God's people astray your understanding will change.

I didn't say anything about God not revealing His righteousness and what He demands of us to be righteous. No, I said God did not reveal His righteousness IN Moses. Moses was not the messiah. Moses was a man, and was full of sin, just as you and I are.

Now come on Doug. I was quoting Paul's teaching in Romans 1. He was not implying that God revealed His Righteousness in Moses and neither did I. God revealed His Righteousness through Moses. And again, you have been convinced of just the opposite of what is actually written in so many issues. I just wish you would consider what was actually written, over what this world's religions promote.

Num. 12: 6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

So men are free to preach that Moses was full of sin. But I'm not going to make such a judgment against God's anointed. Jesus certainly didn't.

Luke 16: 31 And he (The Jesus "of the Bible") said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Your focus on the OT is greatly in error. The Gospel of Christ is in His life, His death, and His resurrection, attested to by the hundreds who witnessed Him after His resurrection, and predicted in the OT Scriptures.

Like I have pointed out, that is what Constantine and the RCC established as "Christian" doctrine centuries ago, and her daughter have adopted the same doctrine.

But for me to believe this religious philosophy promoted by you here, I would have to ignore and reject so much of the Holy Scriptures that Paul said were written for our sakes no doubt, Holy scriptures he said could be trusted "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God (The high calling of God which was in Christ) may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Works Paul said God before ordained that His People should walk in them.

Not my Righteousness, but God's Righteousness that Jesus walked in. Not me, but Christ's Life in me.

We will not agree it seems, and that is OK. Thanks for the opportunity to share what study, apart from this world's many differing religious influences have shown me. I am freed, by the Grace of God, and the sacrifice of His Son, from religious businesses which must reject so much of God's Word in order to exist.

 

[charismaticlady]

Duly noted. I accept your explanation and understand it. I also respect your opinion but I have studied this out for myself and disused many times on many forums and my conclusion is Christians do sin. Sins like anger, lust, Pride. And then there are the sins that we accept.

Like our gossip or unkind words about a brother or sister in Christ roll easily off our tongues without any awareness of wrongdoing. We harbor hurts over wrongs long past without any effort to forgive as God has forgiven us. We look down our religious noses at “sinners” in society without any sense of a humble “there but for the grace of God go I” spirit.

Believe it or not these things happen.

What you are describing is grieving the Holy Spirit. Yes we are able to do that if your free will is not harnessed. Come back and don't advance to quenching the Spirit.

 

[charismaticlady]

Of course he did and thank you for pointing it out. Bad news is we will sin. If anyone thinks they have sinless Perfection down pat guess what? They're traveling under the sin of spiritual pride.

Who preaches "sinless perfection"?

 

[Azriel]

Who preaches "sinless perfection"?

I don't know any personally but they're out there.

Is sinless perfection possible in this life? | GotQuestions.org

Is sinless perfection possible in this life? Is it possible to be completely and permanently free from sin?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Azriel]

What you are describing is grieving the Holy Spirit. Yes we are able to do that if your free will is not harnessed. Come back and don't advance to quenching the Spirit.

Thank you for your concern I really do appreciate it. When I committed sin the conviction from the Holy Spirit weighs on my heart and I ask for forgiveness. 1 John 1:9

There'll be no Quenching of the Holy Spirit In My life. Jesus has forgiven me for so much and I love him so much that I would never deny him.

The Bible does not teach that the sin nature was eradicated at salvation or is ever eradicated in this life.
For there is no distinction, Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives.
Romans 3:22–23.

Paul is writing to people that are saved in the church. As is John.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

10 If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts]. 1 John 1:10.

Then there's this:

In relating his personal experience in 7:14–25 Paul consistently used the present tense whereas he had used the imperfect and aorist tenses. Obviously he was describing his present conflict as a Christian with indwelling sin and its continuing efforts to control his daily life.

14 We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am a creature of the flesh [carnal, unspiritual], having been sold into slavery under [the control of] sin.
15 For I do not understand my own actions [I am baffled, bewildered]. I do not practice or accomplish what I wish, but I do the very thing that I loathe [which my moral instinct condemns].
16 Now if I do [habitually] what is contrary to my desire, [that means that] I acknowledge and agree that the Law is good (morally excellent) and that I take sides with it.
17 However, it is no longer I who do the deed, but the sin [principle] which is at home in me and has possession of me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot perform it. [I have the intention and urge to do what is right, but no power to carry it out.]
19 For I fail to practice the good deeds I desire to do, but the evil deeds that I do not desire to do are what I am [ever] doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not desire to do, it is no longer I doing it [it is not myself that acts], but the sin [principle] which dwells within me [fixed and operating in my soul].
21 So I find it to be a law (rule of action of my being) that when I want to do what is right and good, evil is ever present with me and I am subject to its insistent demands.
22 For I endorse and delight in the Law of God in my inmost self [with my new nature]. [Ps. 1:2.]
23 But I discern in my bodily members [in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh] a different law (rule of action) at war against the law of my mind (my reason) and making me a prisoner to the law of sin that dwells in my bodily organs [in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh].
24 O unhappy and pitiable and wretched man that I am! Who will release and deliver me from [the shackles of] this body of death?
25 O thank God! [He will!] through Jesus Christ (the Anointed One) our Lord! So then indeed I, of myself with the mind and heart, serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Romans 7:14–25.

 

[charismaticlady]

The Bible does not teach that the sin nature was eradicated at salvation or is ever eradicated in this life.
For there is no distinction, Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives.
Romans 3:22–23.

Yes it does. You are quoting from chapter 3 of an 8-chapter teaching on Law vs. Spirit. Chapter 6 teaches that the sin nature called "old man" is crucified, and is resurrected free from sin. False teachings have been made by those who take verses from chapters 3, 4 or 5 out of context of the whole.

Romans 6:5-7
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Jesus must wonder why He went through dying if no one believes the truth that sets us free.
John 8:32, 34-36
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Azriel, don't you realize that the heaviness that departed from you was the sin part of your nature??? You are not a sinner! You are a child of God! 1 John 3:1-9 And remember, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he." You don't want to murder, steal, lie, or commit adultery do you? If the answer is no, then you are clean. What Jesus does next while we abide in Him is prune the fruit of the Spirit towards perfection. Now read John 15:1-4 and see that even though you may have immature fruit of the Spirit, you are still CLEAN.

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He [a]takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

 

[Doug Brents]

This is simply not true Doug.

Luke 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Zacharias believed in the One True God, "AND" the Christ, the Rock of Israel who HE Sent. In other words, he had FAITH in God to forgive his sins, and didn't rely on the sacrificial "works" the Pharisees were still promoting. Men may adopt the philosophy that Zacharias did not know, or was not given the Gospel of Christ, and they can ignore Hebrews who says flat out that Israel was given the Gospel of Christ same as us, and they can ignore Paul's own words in which he tells you where the Gospel of Christ is found. Or the Scripture he quoted from within the Gospel of Christ.

But such behavior will not "Lead" a man to salvation, it will only lead them to the religion which ignores God.

If you don't understand what the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ really is, then there is no point in talking about any of this further. The Gospel is the promise of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Prophets pointed toward Christ, and foretold His coming (thus the fulfillment of "He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets"), but their foretelling is not the Gospel.

Up until Jesus death, the sacrifices that the Pharisees were promoting were still God's law for all Israel. Even Jesus made annual sacrifices in the Temple, because that was the LAW under which He lived.

Yes, this is what I have been trying to show. You are promoting "The OT, being made complete and obsolete by Christ, is not the "rules and laws" by which we live today.

This implies that the laws and rules were made obsolete, which is the very foundation of Mainstream Christian doctrine. But now you are saying something different, now you are saying HE made obsolete the "Old Agreement", and that the Righteousness revealed to men by God in the Law and Prophetes is the same, but what changed was the manner in which these Laws are given, and the manner in which forgiveness of transgression of these laws, are provided for.

If your latter position is the one you believe, then we are in agreement with Paul who says the "Laws and Rules" written in the Law and Prophets, were written for "OUR Sakes" no doubt, and have not become obsolete at all.

The laws of the Old Covenant that are still in effect today were the ones that were restated in the New Covenant: fornication, theft, lust, murder, hatred, envy, idolatry, etc. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and other lists). But anything that was sin in the OT that was not restated in the NT is not still sin (sabbath worship, eating "non-kosher" foods, sacrificing anywhere other than in the Temple in Jerusalem, etc.). Yes, the OT was made completely obsolete as we can see in Gal 4:21-31. The Old Covenant, which included all the Law given at Mt. Sinai, was to be driven out like Hagar was, because it was not the Covenant that the heirs of God would come through.

LOL, How is the above any different than saying HE created His Own Religion? Didn't the Pharisees also go about establishing Their Own Righteousness, because they were "ignorant of God's Righteousness?" Are you saying Jesus refused God's Righteousness to promote HIS OWN Righteousness? Was HE also ignorant of God's Righteousness, or just didn't agree with His Father?

So What did Jesus actually say?

John 17: 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Who taught you that Jesus walked in His Own Righteousness? Certainly not the Jeus of the Bible.

Jesus is God, so He had His own (God's) righteousness from birth. He did not create a new righteousness, He had the original righteousness of God in Him.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Simeon, Zacharias, Anna, the Wisemen, they knew the Christ because they believed Moses. The mainstream preachers of their time didn't believe Moses, therefore, they didn't know the Christ. Paul didn't believe Moses either, for a time. But when he was renewed in the Spirit of his mind, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Why would I not accept these words as true?

Again, the words in the Law and Prophets point toward the Christ, but they are not the Gospel. Is the dot on a map the actual city? No. The dot helps point you toward the real thing. Moses, the Law, the Prophets, all these were merely pointers toward the truth. Jesus is the truth.

Now come on Doug, who wrote the Words of Christ, the Rock when HE was up where HE was before?

The Holy Spirit poured the words into the instruments through whom He wrote the Scriptures.

Truly that is what Constantine and the RCC promoted in order to justify their manmade sabbaths, they manmade high days, their manmade images of God. Their manmade judgments, their own definition of righteousness, clean and good.

They do this in part by separating some verses in Matt. 5, and promoting the falsehood that the "Them of old time" Jesus spoke of, was God and Moses, and not the Prophets and Priests who had become partial in the Law, as Malichi 2 tells us, or who promoted a vision of their own mind, like Jeremiah tells us.

Upon a review of scriptures, the Law and Prophets taught everything Jesus taught in Mat. 5. The Pharisees didn't, the corrupt Priests and prophets didn't, but Moses and God did. When you accept the truth that the "Them of old time" in Matt. 5, wasn't God and Moses, but the Shepherds who led God's people astray your understanding will change.

I don't find "them of old time" in Matt 5. Can you please give me the verse and version reference you are using here?

Now come on Doug. I was quoting Paul's teaching in Romans 1. He was not implying that God revealed His Righteousness in Moses and neither did I. God revealed His Righteousness through Moses. And again, you have been convinced of just the opposite of what is actually written in so many issues. I just wish you would consider what was actually written, over what this world's religions promote.

Num. 12: 6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

So men are free to preach that Moses was full of sin. But I'm not going to make such a judgment against God's anointed. Jesus certainly didn't.

Luke 16: 31 And he (The Jesus "of the Bible") said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Yes, God did reveal His righteousness through Moses, but that is not what you said (at least not what I heard you saying). But again, this is not saying that the OT contains the Gospel. It points toward the Gospel, but the Gospel is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus through which we obtain reconcilliation with God and life eternal.

Like I have pointed out, that is what Constantine and the RCC established as "Christian" doctrine centuries ago, and her daughter have adopted the same doctrine.

But for me to believe this religious philosophy promoted by you here, I would have to ignore and reject so much of the Holy Scriptures that Paul said were written for our sakes no doubt, Holy scriptures he said could be trusted "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God (The high calling of God which was in Christ) may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Works Paul said God before ordained that His People should walk in them.

Not my Righteousness, but God's Righteousness that Jesus walked in. Not me, but Christ's Life in me.

We will not agree it seems, and that is OK. Thanks for the opportunity to share what study, apart from this world's many differing religious influences have shown me. I am freed, by the Grace of God, and the sacrifice of His Son, from religious businesses which must reject so much of God's Word in order to exist.

No, accepting the fact that the Gospel in in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus does not necessitate the rejection of the OT Scriptures. It just means that you do not base your life on the rules contained therein.

 

[Rowan]

Romans 6:5-7
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.

We're free from the penalty of sin.

 

[Studyman]

If you don't understand what the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ really is, then there is no point in talking about any of this further. The Gospel is the promise of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Prophets pointed toward Christ, and foretold His coming (thus the fulfillment of "He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets"), but their foretelling is not the Gospel.

Up until Jesus death, the sacrifices that the Pharisees were promoting were still God's law for all Israel. Even Jesus made annual sacrifices in the Temple, because that was the LAW under which He lived.

When did Jesus Kill animals in the Temple?

Can you provide me with the Scriptutres which show this?

 

[charismaticlady]

The Gospel is the promise of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

How do you think the Gospel affects us?

 

[charismaticlady]

We're free from the penalty of sin.

Of course. If you are freed from committing sin, that also means we are freed from the penalty of the sins we are not committing.

 

[Doug Brents]

When did Jesus Kill animals in the Temple?

Can you provide me with the Scriptutres which show this?

There is no Scripture that says that Jesus killed an animal in the Temple (He was not a priest of the Levitical line, so He was not allowed to offer the sacrifices. He only provided the sacrifice for the priests to offer.), but He also did not sin, and there are several sacrifices and offerings (that are not sin offering) that every Israelite was required to make every year. One example is the Passover lamb. It is possible that, as indicated in Luke 22, the Apostles actually went to the Temple to have the lamb offered by the priests, but He as the leader of the group was the one responsible for the sacrifice.

 

[Studyman]

The laws of the Old Covenant that are still in effect today were the ones that were restated in the New Covenant: fornication, theft, lust, murder, hatred, envy, idolatry, etc. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and other lists). But anything that was sin in the OT that was not restated in the NT is not still sin (sabbath worship, eating "non-kosher" foods, sacrificing anywhere other than in the Temple in Jerusalem, etc.). Yes, the OT was made completely obsolete as we can see in Gal 4:21-31. The Old Covenant, which included all the Law given at Mt. Sinai, was to be driven out like Hagar was, because it was not the Covenant that the heirs of God would come through.

This is truly what "Many" who come in Christ's Name preach. But the Scriptures simply don't agree in my view.

A man is unclean but can repent. He can "Trust in God", and "Put on a New Man". He can "turn to the Lord" and be cleansed. And God will then call this man, who HE has cleansed, "clean". And let no man judge him that God has cleansed, as unclean.

A maggot is also not clean. But it has no chance of repentance. It cannot "Trust in God" or "put on a new maggot". A maggot was created unclean, and will always be unclean. We don't eat them, or feed them to our children, because God has deemed them unclean. There are cultures which eat them just as there are cultures who engage in fornication. But that doesn't make them clean or the behavior acceptable to God.

God has prepared for us everything we need. Even defining for us what is clean, what is righteous and what is not. His people need not worry about these things, as the Jesus of the Bible teaches;

Matt. 6: 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

You are promoting a religious philosophy where these Words of the Christ are to be ignored. That Seeking God's Righteousness is Seeking what you have been convinced is Obsolete. That I can reject God's instruction, and "I shall surely not die". Although this philosophy is seductive and has been around a long time, and surely the Old man lived by this philosophy. But the New Man is supposed to a New Man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness". Eating maggots or committing fornication is not acceptable behavior for a "man of God", in my view. And the Jesus of the Bible would never engage in such behavior.

Acts 5: 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So because of these things and more, I won't be eating or feed to my children maggots, or anything else God deems as unclean, even if other cultures or religions do.

And the same thing applies for God's definition of Holy, Just, Righteous, etc.

You know, like the lifestyle of the Chosen One, the Christ of the Bible.

As Paul said, we are all free to "Yield ourselves" servants to whom we wish to obey. The Body of the Christ of the Bible, "Yielded themselves" servants to obey God, and became Servants of God's Righteousness. I believe this is the Narrow Gate Jesus said to enter.

 

[Studyman]

There is no Scripture that says that Jesus killed an animal in the Temple.

Yes, therefore your statement, "Even Jesus made annual sacrifices in the Temple, because that was the LAW under which He lived", is unfounded speculation" although it is taught by "many" who come in christ's Name.

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes, therefore your statement, "Even Jesus made annual sacrifices in the Temple, because that was the LAW under which He lived", is unfounded speculation" although it is taught by "many" who come in christ's Name.

Wrong! My statement is not "unfounded speculation" because there is sufficient evidence to prove that He did.

If you had finished quoting the rest of my statement, there are several annual sacrifices that have nothing to do with the Sin Offering, that are required of every Israelite each year. Jesus did not sin, therefore He had to have offered those sacrifices that are required.

 

[Doug Brents]

This is truly what "Many" who come in Christ's Name preach. But the Scriptures simply don't agree in my view.

A man is unclean but can repent. He can "Trust in God", and "Put on a New Man". He can "turn to the Lord" and be cleansed. And God will then call this man, who HE has cleansed, "clean". And let no man judge him that God has cleansed, as unclean.

A maggot is also not clean. But it has no chance of repentance. It cannot "Trust in God" or "put on a new maggot". A maggot was created unclean, and will always be unclean. We don't eat them, or feed them to our children, because God has deemed them unclean. There are cultures which eat them just as there are cultures who engage in fornication. But that doesn't make them clean or the behavior acceptable to God.

God has prepared for us everything we need. Even defining for us what is clean, what is righteous and what is not. His people need not worry about these things, as the Jesus of the Bible teaches;

Matt. 6: 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

You are promoting a religious philosophy where these Words of the Christ are to be ignored. That Seeking God's Righteousness is Seeking what you have been convinced is Obsolete. That I can reject God's instruction, and "I shall surely not die". Although this philosophy is seductive and has been around a long time, and surely the Old man lived by this philosophy. But the New Man is supposed to a New Man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness". Eating maggots or committing fornication is not acceptable behavior for a "man of God", in my view. And the Jesus of the Bible would never engage in such behavior.

Acts 5: 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So because of these things and more, I won't be eating or feed to my children maggots, or anything else God deems as unclean, even if other cultures or religions do.

And the same thing applies for God's definition of Holy, Just, Righteous, etc.

You know, like the lifestyle of the Chosen One, the Christ of the Bible.

As Paul said, we are all free to "Yield ourselves" servants to whom we wish to obey. The Body of the Christ of the Bible, "Yielded themselves" servants to obey God, and became Servants of God's Righteousness. I believe this is the Narrow Gate Jesus said to enter.

You are promoting a religious philosophy where these Words of the Christ are to be ignored.

WRONG!!!!
I am not promoting any such thing. You are reading into what I am saying your personal bias against modern world religious falsehoods, but I am not promoting any such thing.

What I am saying, is that the OT is no longer the law that binds us. I am not saying it is not valuable or beneficial for us to study.

Eating maggots or committing fornication is not acceptable behavior for a "man of God", in my view. And the Jesus of the Bible would never engage in such behavior.

Fornication is condemned in both the OT and the NT, so it is still sin today.
But eating anything, regardless of its status under the OT, is not sin today under the NT. This is demonstrated in the vision Peter had in Acts 10. In it, God tells Peter to arise and eat of all the "unclean" animals, and when he refuses God tells him not to call unclean what God has made clean. Further, Jesus Himself tells us that what goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of the mouth (from the heart) makes him unclean. Further, no animal was unclean from the Flood (when man was first given animals to eat) up until Sinai and the giving of the Law. The "kosher" diet was given to the Jews to distinguish them from the Gentiles, but since there is no longer a separation between Jew and Gentile (all are one people spiritually in the NT), there is no longer any need to distinguish between them by the way we eat.

Now, you are welcome to consider any food "unclean" as you see fit. And for you, because you see it as evil to eat pork, for you it is sin to eat pork (1 Cor 8). But for me, because I have been freed from this restriction by my faith in Christ, it is not sin for me to eat pork, or shellfish, etc. It may not be healthy to eat bat, for instance, but it is not sin.

As Paul said, we are all free to "Yield ourselves" servants to whom we wish to obey.

By this, you are implying that I have yielded myself to serve Satan, and not the Lord Jesus, but nothing could be further from the truth. Because of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, I a freed from the Law and am bound to Christ as my master. His yolk is easy, and I am not bound to any religious "do this/don't do that" set of rules. As Paul said in 1 Cor 10, all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.

 

[Studyman]

Wrong! My statement is not "unfounded speculation" because there is sufficient evidence to prove that He did.

If you had finished quoting the rest of my statement, there are several annual sacrifices that have nothing to do with the Sin Offering, that are required of every Israelite each year. Jesus did not sin, therefore He had to have offered those sacrifices that are required.

Perhaps before HE was anointed by John the Baptise, this could be true. But after HE became the Priest of God, and began forgiving sins, and curing Lepers, etc., HE no longer followed the Sacrificial "works of the Law" that were, according to Paul, "ADDED" till the Seed should come. And of course He didn't. HE was the SEED.

 

[Azriel]

Of course. If you are freed from committing sin, that also means we are freed from the penalty of the sins we are not committing.

The propensity to sin is still part of us.

Our holiness is the goal, but John acknowledges that we still sin: “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1).

God’s desire for us is that we not sin, and one day our sanctification will be complete (1 John 3:2). But, until that time, we still inhabit fallen bodies in a fallen world, and we struggle with the flesh and sometimes lose the battle. But we will not be lost; Jesus Himself intercedes for us as our High Priest (Romans 8:34).
Got?

If after salvation we were without sin why would Jesus have to intercede for us? Why would we need an advocate?

Why can’t I stop sinning? Please help! | GotQuestions.org

Why can’t I stop sinning? Please help! How can I find the strength to stop sinning?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Doug Brents]

Perhaps before HE was anointed by John the Baptise, this could be true. But after HE became the Priest of God, and began forgiving sins, and curing Lepers, etc., HE no longer followed the Sacrificial "works of the Law" that were, according to Paul, "ADDED" till the Seed should come. And of course He didn't. HE was the SEED.

Of course, you have proof of that statement?

No, I didn't think so, because if that were the case, then He sinned, and cannot be our savior.