legalizing in the modern church

[mycorrhiza]

Romans 13:1-7 says that you're supposed to abide the laws set by the government, because every government is put there by God. Every authority is the work of God according to this passage.

But you can be a Christian and still reject Paul.

[Rocky S]

Originally Posted by mycorrhiza

Romans 13:1-7 says that you're supposed to abide the laws set by the government, because every government is put there by God. Every authority is the work of God according to this passage.

But you can be a Christian and still reject Paul.

what??

[Rocky S]

Originally Posted by Shermana

So do you believe that you can sin and commit adultery as long as you "believe in Jesus's "finished work"? Apparently you must think Paul is pretty "evil" since he says similarly that you have to actually still be a good person and obey a certain guideline.


Paul also said that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom. Or people that are even just angry. Is that legalism? Is Paul denying the finished work on the cross? Is Paul saying that justification involves obedience to some standard of action beyond claiming to "believe on" Christ?

So the idea that you have to actually obey the commandments like Jesus taught is evil? Dang Jesus was an evil guy!

Why does 1 Peter say that Salvation is something you "grow into"? Why does Paul say to "work out your salvation in fear and trembling"? Apparently there's more to your salvation involved than just believing in "Christ's finished work". What's "evil" is thinking you think can totally ignore everything Jesus says about your works and behavior being important and just go by a few cherry picked verses that ultimately deny 99% of the things he taught, that would be completely "denying" Jesus.

Hebrews 10:26 says that no more sacrifice remains for one who "sins" after receiving knowledge of the truth. The context, in relation to the rest of the Chapter, is not saying that you don't have to do anything, it's saying that you have no more leniency, the sacrifice does not cover your future sins. And what is the definition of "Sin"? 1 John 3:4 is quite clear, "Lawlessness". Who did Jesus say would be rejected in Matthew 7:22-23? "Doers of Lawlessness", that would include all those who call Jesus "Lord" but think that they can ignore obeying what he actually teaches from a Jewish prophet-Messiah perspective, and that's the full compliance with the Law.

What is the point of a sacrifice if you're going to continue to sin? Do you think Christ gives you a free pass to sin? If not, why not? What is the consequence of willful sinning? Nothing?

You did not really read my reply did you. I gave two extremes. I quoted Paul and then you made accusation that I did not state. And why do you discredit Paul anyway? I have always wondered that about you.

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by Rocky S

You did not really read my reply did you. I gave two extremes. I quoted Paul and then you made accusation that I did not state. And why do you discredit Paul anyway? I have always wondered that about you.

You quoted Paul? You resort to lying about what you said when you're put in a plae that challenges what you said? And then you totally ignore the important questions too? It's okay, most people who believe in your doctrine totally ignore the questions when the subject goes like this. Gseeker is another notch on this wall as well, it's amazing how when the questions get tough, the questions go unanswered. So instead of saying that I didn't read your reply because I challenge it and instead of saying you quoted Paul when you did in fact not, you ask me why I discredit Paul and you state that I made an accusation you did not state? No, I asked questions. Try again. You did not quote Paul, if you did quote Paul and I missed it, repeat. Otherwise, you are now blatantly resorting to lying about what you said. If you need me to list my questions and counter reply in numeric list to make it easier, that'd be great. Don't just accuse someone of not reading your reply and "accusing you of someone you didn't state" when they actually ask questions abut what you said. Personally I'll just take it as a hostile refusal to address critical rebuttals because they pose a problem in your claims.

Is this your idea of "quoting Paul"?

Like Paul said if you seek to be justified by the law you are fallen from grace.

That's not quoting Paul. Feel free to get the exact quote where Paul says you are "fallen from grace."

Unlike you, I actually quoted Paul. What you did was attempt to "paraphrase him". Did you provide an actual quote? Would you like to try actually addressing anything I brought up or are you content to add another notch to my wall of anti-works "Christians" who hostily refuse to answer the questions and dodge important criticisms?

As for why I discredit Paul, it's a long story which I have addressed in numerous threads, it's the same reason the early Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected him. If you want to debate Paul vs Jesus we can start yet another thread on that issue and go over it in detail. But then again, this thread could technically be good grounds to bring up the debate about the Law vs. "Grace" yet again. But either way, I asked you simple questions about what Paul said, and unlike you, I actually gave quotes by Paul, probably quotes you're not used to because they're not often addressed by the anti-works crowd. Would you like to try actually addressing what I said about what he said?

If you can't handle simple questions, just say "I don't feel like answering your question". If you don't want to debate, stick to the DIRs.

[gseeker]

Originally Posted by Shermana

You quoted Paul? You resort to lying about what you said when you're put in a plae that challenges what you said? And then you totally ignore the important questions too? It's okay, most people who believe in your doctrine totally ignore the questions when the subject goes like this. Gseeker is another notch on this wall as well, it's amazing how when the questions get tough, the questions go unanswered. So instead of saying that I didn't read your reply because I challenge it and instead of saying you quoted Paul when you did in fact not, you ask me why I discredit Paul and you state that I made an accusation you did not state? No, I asked questions. Try again. You did not quote Paul, if you did quote Paul and I missed it, repeat. Otherwise, you are now blatantly resorting to lying about what you said. If you need me to list my questions and counter reply in numeric list to make it easier, that'd be great. Don't just accuse someone of not reading your reply and "accusing you of someone you didn't state" when they actually ask questions abut what you said. Personally I'll just take it as a hostile refusal to address critical rebuttals because they pose a problem in your claims.

Is this your idea of "quoting Paul"?

That's not quoting Paul. Feel free to get the exact quote where Paul says you are "fallen from grace."

Unlike you, I actually quoted Paul. What you did was attempt to "paraphrase him". Did you provide an actual quote? Would you like to try actually addressing anything I brought up or are you content to add another notch to my wall of anti-works "Christians" who hostily refuse to answer the questions and dodge important criticisms?

As for why I discredit Paul, it's a long story which I have addressed in numerous threads, it's the same reason the early Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected him. If you want to debate Paul vs Jesus we can start yet another thread on that issue and go over it in detail. But then again, this thread could technically be good grounds to bring up the debate about the Law vs. "Grace" yet again. But either way, I asked you simple questions about what Paul said, and unlike you, I actually gave quotes by Paul, probably quotes you're not used to because they're not often addressed by the anti-works crowd. Would you like to try actually addressing what I said about what he said?

If you can't handle simple questions, just say "I don't feel like answering your question". If you don't want to debate, stick to the DIRs.

Faith without works is dead, we are not trying to arge that what we are saying is that works will not get you eternal life the new testament mentions that multiple times even through the very words of Christ. Trying to work your way to heaven isn't realistic that is the reason Christ died!

[Shermana]

I retract in saying Rocky didn't quote Paul, he technically did. Either way, Galatians 5:4 is one of the most critical verses that prove that Paul was teaching something totally contradictory than what the Jerusalem Church under James was teaching.

And if faith without works is dead, what are these "Works" exactly and what role do they play? What is dead faith? He said that such faith "Does not save". Therefore, faith without "works" "Does not save". So what does that mean? What kind of works therefore do save according to James? What specifically? Even in Luther's time it was argued that these "works" were in fact "Works of the Law", only recently did this phrase even come to mean something other than adherence to Mosaic Law. Ultimately James says that faith without obedience to the Mosaic Law is dead according to the traditional interpretation.


Jesus did in fact say you must "Strive" (take pains, "aganizo") to "enter the narrow gate" and that "many will be called but few will be chosen". To say that working your way to heaven is ridiculous and goes against Christ's mission negates everything he taught about how to enter the Kingdom, and treats his sacrifice as an excuse to break any law you want, 1 John 3:4 quite explicitly explains that Sin is Lawlessness, future sins are not atoned for, only past sins. (Hebrews 10:26).

Once again, why did Paul say that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom? Obviously, those who continue to fornicate aren't truly saved by Paul's own words, whether I agree with Paul on everything or not. That is definitely a "legalist" works-based salvation if bad works prohibit you even the slightest.

[gseeker]

Originally Posted by Shermana

I retract in saying Rocky didn't quote Paul, he technically did. Either way, Galatians 5:4 is one of the most critical verses that prove that Paul was teaching something totally contradictory than what the Jerusalem Church under James was teaching.

And if faith without works is dead, what are these "Works" exactly and what role do they play? What is dead faith? He said that such faith "Does not save". Therefore, faith without "works" "Does not save". So what does that mean? What kind of works therefore do save according to James? What specifically? Even in Luther's time it was argued that these "works" were in fact "Works of the Law", only recently did this phrase even come to mean something other than adherence to Mosaic Law. Ultimately James says that faith without obedience to the Mosaic Law is dead according to the traditional interpretation.


Jesus did in fact say you must "Strive" (take pains, "aganizo") to "enter the narrow gate" and that "many will be called but few will be chosen". To say that working your way to heaven is ridiculous and goes against Christ's mission negates everything he taught about how to enter the Kingdom, and treats his sacrifice as an excuse to break any law you want, 1 John 3:4 quite explicitly explains that Sin is Lawlessness, future sins are not atoned for, only past sins. (Hebrews 10:26).

If you love god you will obey God and live for God. So you abstain from sin not to achieve salvation, that is provided through the sacrifice of Christ and if you do lose your focus and sin Christ is faithful to forgive. The idea is not to live for the law but to live for God.

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by gseeker

If you love god you will obey God and live for God. So you abstain from sin not to achieve salvation, that is provided through the sacrifice of Christ and if you do lose your focus and sin Christ is faithful to forgive. The idea is not to live for the law but to live for God.

Except that its said that obedience is necessary for salvation. Trying to put the cart in front of the horse doesn't help when it specifically says the horse is before the cart. If you actually would bother addressing the verses I bring up of what Jesus says directly you'll see that he is saying exactly what I'm saying, and you have to twist, deny, contort, or change what he and James and Jude and Peter say to get it to say what you're saying.

You may have missed this part in edit too: Even Paul says that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom. As with other threads, this issue often gets ignored for some odd reason:

Once again, why did Paul say that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom? Obviously, those who continue to fornicate aren't truly saved by Paul's own words, whether I agree with Paul on everything or not. That is definitely a "legalist" works-based salvation if bad works prohibit you even the slightest.

So why would Paul say that unrepentant fornicators don't enter the Kingdom if your works aren't involved with your salvation? If you are only obeying the commandments because you love God, why are they barred from Heaven from choosing not to?

No matter how you spin it, it's unavoidable: You have to totally ignore vast swaths of the scripture and cherry pick-focus on a select few (after twisting their meanings) to deny the extreme "legalism" that the text itself describes.

[gseeker]

Wrong, Galatians say those who practice the works of the flesh, sin, will not obtain the kingdom of heaven. the word practice is very important because it mean actively doing something over and over again that is what non repentance means.

[gseeker]

Again you can't say you love God and yet refuse his commands. Its a question of motivation. To seek to follow the law to achieve salvation is a selfish intent to seek to obey God because you love God is not selfish or self serving. Christ spoke harshly against both selfishness and self serving. The real question is what does God thuink about your motives?