-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Yes because one's outer expression and actions will be evident of their faith.
One who's faith is truly for the Lord will do the things that He said to do, meaning others will see this obedience in their outer expressions/actions/works of love.........
James says if your actions show no love, mercy, and a uncaring nature to others then the your faith is a dead faith.
And that dead faith does not lead to salvation. He then also uses the same examples that Jesus gave as in what I mentioned before.
You see people naked, homeless, and hungry but do not give them the things they need then your faith is a dead faith because your lack of love toward them. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 25, but Jesus said if you deny others then you deny Him. And do not get eternal life for denying others help.
K
When is that, for I have been one of the many that have taken your brunt's of negativity, down grading, and harsh comments. I have not once gotten an apology from you, nor have I seen another.
The reason that you don't apologize is that your misuse of rebuking tactic's that is wrong, you feel as though they are not.
Even though many have called you out on it.
Remember the bible says that if somebody calls you out on wrong doing and you ignore the person, and then others come out and call you out on the same matter then you should listen. If you still don't listen your to be brought before the whole congregation, if you still don't listen then you are to be cast out.
Well I have seen many besides myself that have called you out on this, and even let you know that you are being reported.
The choice becomes yours now to accept others, and to stop being negative toward others.
I suggest you go read as I have OPENLY apologized several times when I feel I have gotten out of LINE..so if you missed it, it is not my fault!
This isn't a church KENNETH so your twist of the scripture to fit your hurt feelings is contrary....and if you teach heresy I will call you out on it.....which it what you seem to do quite a bit......
and the ones reporting me are just as negative and have had mouthy things to say as well, yet I do not cry or whine to the moderators.....so...if you feel you have been wronged then report me dude......that in itself has much to say about your so called Christianity!
This isn't a church KENNETH so your twist of the scripture to fit your hurt feelings is contrary....and if you teach heresy I will call you out on it.....which it what you seem to do quite a bit......
and the ones reporting me are just as negative and have had mouthy things to say as well, yet I do not cry or whine to the moderators.....so...if you feel you have been wronged then report me dude......that in itself has much to say about your so called Christianity!
K
This isn't a church????????
The real church is the body of believers, not a building.
When you are here on this site among other believers and at all times by the word, your conduct is to be of an edifying nature. Not one of tearing down, down grading, and using negative name calling or disrespect to others. Your conduct here should be the same as you would use in a church building.
Well you see that is where we differ because the bible says if you don't listen to the correction in your treatment toward others you are to be cast out, and as Paul put it disqualified. Your speech is not becoming of a man of God.
Then the rules of this site as well, state that the mannerism you use toward others is a direct violation of the rules.
You are to be respectful and use edifying language toward others. Plus have you ever stepped back and looked and seen why these people have gotten negative and mouthy to you. I have and most of the time it is because of you being that way with them first. Now they are not proper with retaliating in that manner, but we are human and prone to error to.
I am just trying as a fellow brother to tell you to please take a step back, and reevaluate how you talk to others.
And also think about what you say before you post it. We are not pointing a finger at an innocent man, for you are guilty of negativity and mouthy attitude toward others.
show the flaw....this is not an explanation...
this is the original quote....
if the president pardons a man who murdered(broke the law).....and the man after being pardoned does not murder anymore (break the law)...is he now earning his pardon by not murdering anymore (breaking the law)?
In the same way we were born again into the kingdom of Christ and given a new sin free start....created a new creature unto good works...that is doing what we ought to do... our reasonable sacrifice...it is not earning or acquiring anything....
you probably misunderstand what I wrote....but you cannot try to make me understand what I wrote...you have to try to understand what I mean...man broke law ...man get pardon...man break law no more...man not try to earn pardon by not breaking law...man now obey law...man now friend with President...man understand president don't like man to break law...break law is sin...sin kill...you think man trying to earn pardon...but man get pardon already...man just doing what president say...man living for president now...
this is the original quote....
if the president pardons a man who murdered(broke the law).....and the man after being pardoned does not murder anymore (break the law)...is he now earning his pardon by not murdering anymore (breaking the law)?
In the same way we were born again into the kingdom of Christ and given a new sin free start....created a new creature unto good works...that is doing what we ought to do... our reasonable sacrifice...it is not earning or acquiring anything....
you probably misunderstand what I wrote....but you cannot try to make me understand what I wrote...you have to try to understand what I mean...man broke law ...man get pardon...man break law no more...man not try to earn pardon by not breaking law...man now obey law...man now friend with President...man understand president don't like man to break law...break law is sin...sin kill...you think man trying to earn pardon...but man get pardon already...man just doing what president say...man living for president now...
Not everyone here is in one accord obviously Kenneth, this gathering isn't necessarily " the church " all though there are members of said church present, I do agree about Dc language at times, but he just said he's publicly apologized in a thread .. I think he's telling you right, know when your wrong..
M
I already posted in clear words that the charge was that they had strayed from the truth of the gospel...its written in plan words...it was not a small matter, it was a matter of utmost importance to the truth of the faith we have been given. Paul uses the most harsh warnings of the New Testament in this case and tells the people they have been bewitched...fallen from grace...cut-off from Christ...foolish..that he doubts there faith..etc I guess to legalist they must just ignore these warnings? Saying its no big deal really?
M
What example did James use to show us a living faith or faith with works? Rahab the Harlot...who just let some folks stay in her house because she believed in the God of Israel...so for some to try and twist this back to dead works of law is just a great error...this is not for you Dcon...just seemed a good place to add the thought 
K
Yes Paul was saying that to the Galatians because they were trying to earn salvation through the works of the mosaic law, and not that they received their faith through the hearing of the Word.
Peter was charged for letting it get this way by trying to force the Gentiles to live and follow the laws like the Jews. I have said this already, but they still preached the same Jesus and His teachings. Peter as others wanted to still keep all of the laws as some Jews do still today. Paul taught the only truth that was to be taught from the beginning, that the gospel is apart from the mosaic laws.
Peter was charged for letting it get this way by trying to force the Gentiles to live and follow the laws like the Jews. I have said this already, but they still preached the same Jesus and His teachings. Peter as others wanted to still keep all of the laws as some Jews do still today. Paul taught the only truth that was to be taught from the beginning, that the gospel is apart from the mosaic laws.
K
What example did James use to show us a living faith or faith with works? Rahab the Harlot...who just let some folks stay in her house because she believed in the God of Israel...so for some to try and twist this back to dead works of law is just a great error...this is not for you Dcon...just seemed a good place to add the thought
He also used that if you see a person naked, and hungry and do not give them the things they need, your faith is dead.
Lord Jesus gave us this same picture in Matthew 25, and said if you deny them you deny Me and are sent to eternal punishment.
Woohoo! I made it To the end!
I personally don't agree with anything that says the law was changed EXCEPT as it references penalty/remedy (i.e. sacrifices; "sin = death") because if we think about it the law always had an overlay of God's mercy (i.e. the tablets in the ark covered by the "mercy seat"). In fact, it was God's mercy that established the sacrificial laws to substitute an animal for a man so that the man didn't have to pay for sins with his *own* life. But the law in this way was insufficient because it could never affect the cleansing of the guilty party's conscience/heart. Note that this insufficiency is dealing with *after* a sin has been committed (i.e. law is broken). The Law is insufficient in making the sinner whole again post-crime.
But if we think about it further, not even the penalty has changed. One still had/has to die for sin. So the truth is someone else who had no sin simply took that penalty for us, making "The Sacrifices" (this section of the Law) useless. He didn't take the penalty away...rather He took it upon himself. But the penalty still stands: the wage of sin = death.
Dcontroversal, I know you guys are on to other portions of this debate but you bring up great questions to address again. So this post isn't directed at you specifically. I just want to share another apology (as it were).
Let's step back from punishment for a second and look at the more pressing issue being addressed; the sin that warrants punishment.
We start from a foundation that the law is the foundation of supreme authority in heaven and earth. It's why it was made from the same stone as God's throne and it's why it was placed in his ark (earthly throne) in the OT. It can't simply change because that would prove there wasn't any weight to it to begin with. So if Christ & David broke the Sabbath then they are sinners. Pure and simple. Because a sin is transgressing God's Law.
...But we know that Christ did not sin...
So something has to give, right? This looks like clear justification for saying The Law (as in "the *whole* law" and not just "the law of Sacrifices") was put away. I mean, it had to be, right, if Christ did something that wasn't previously allowed? If he didn't sin then it obviously was put away, with reason.
But Christ himself explains to the Pharisees (those *supposed* keepers of God's law), what was going on so let's let Christ explain it himself:
Matthew 12:1-5
What is Christ saying here?
He's giving the Pharisees the *biggest* clue as to why it was possible for David and why it's possible for Christ and them. But the Pharisees can't see it because they don't see him or David for who or what they were/are..and for Christ MUCH more.
The clue is in the word "Priests".
Why was it "ok" for Christ and his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath? Christ even leans on the law to show that the law itself allows priests in the temple to break the Sabbath (which is not really them breaking it if the law said they could do it). Why? Because "only priests are allowed to work on the Sabbath", in fact a priest's work *begins* on the Sabbath. (like a pastor's work begins on Sunday for so many today).
But how or why was David, Christ and company counted by God as priest? Who were not from the tribe of Levi?
Order of Melchizedek - The Priest-king priesthood.
David, Christ, and his disciples are priests-kings. So they were fully within the law to work on the Sabbath and eat the temple's bread; no punishment required because no sin committed...but the Pharisees didn't see this. And even today, we forget this massive revelation even though Hebrews explains this to us.
Christ even hints at it in the rest of his answer to the Pharisees...
Matthew 12:6-8 {brackets & CAPS are mine and for emphasis & context}
We must read everything Christ did in light of the revelation we have that he was a heavenly ordained (High) Priest of God after the order of Melchizedek and then ask ourselves whether he actually broke any law or whether he was fully with the law with everything he did.
I personally don't agree with anything that says the law was changed EXCEPT as it references penalty/remedy (i.e. sacrifices; "sin = death") because if we think about it the law always had an overlay of God's mercy (i.e. the tablets in the ark covered by the "mercy seat"). In fact, it was God's mercy that established the sacrificial laws to substitute an animal for a man so that the man didn't have to pay for sins with his *own* life. But the law in this way was insufficient because it could never affect the cleansing of the guilty party's conscience/heart. Note that this insufficiency is dealing with *after* a sin has been committed (i.e. law is broken). The Law is insufficient in making the sinner whole again post-crime.
But if we think about it further, not even the penalty has changed. One still had/has to die for sin. So the truth is someone else who had no sin simply took that penalty for us, making "The Sacrifices" (this section of the Law) useless. He didn't take the penalty away...rather He took it upon himself. But the penalty still stands: the wage of sin = death.
Dcontroversal, I know you guys are on to other portions of this debate but you bring up great questions to address again. So this post isn't directed at you specifically. I just want to share another apology (as it were).
What does the law say concerning the two questions I asked?
Originally Posted by dcontroversal
Questions for law keepers....
1. Was it against the law to work on the Sabbath?
Yet Jesus and his disciples picked corn.
2. Was it unlawful to use the shew bread for anything other than it's given usage under the law?
Yet David and his companions ate it.....
So, what was the punishment for breaking these laws and why were they both overlooked and no punishment?
1. Was it against the law to work on the Sabbath?
Yet Jesus and his disciples picked corn.
2. Was it unlawful to use the shew bread for anything other than it's given usage under the law?
Yet David and his companions ate it.....
So, what was the punishment for breaking these laws and why were they both overlooked and no punishment?
We start from a foundation that the law is the foundation of supreme authority in heaven and earth. It's why it was made from the same stone as God's throne and it's why it was placed in his ark (earthly throne) in the OT. It can't simply change because that would prove there wasn't any weight to it to begin with. So if Christ & David broke the Sabbath then they are sinners. Pure and simple. Because a sin is transgressing God's Law.
...But we know that Christ did not sin...
So something has to give, right? This looks like clear justification for saying The Law (as in "the *whole* law" and not just "the law of Sacrifices") was put away. I mean, it had to be, right, if Christ did something that wasn't previously allowed? If he didn't sin then it obviously was put away, with reason.
But Christ himself explains to the Pharisees (those *supposed* keepers of God's law), what was going on so let's let Christ explain it himself:
Matthew 12:1-5
What is Christ saying here?
He's giving the Pharisees the *biggest* clue as to why it was possible for David and why it's possible for Christ and them. But the Pharisees can't see it because they don't see him or David for who or what they were/are..and for Christ MUCH more.
The clue is in the word "Priests".
Why was it "ok" for Christ and his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath? Christ even leans on the law to show that the law itself allows priests in the temple to break the Sabbath (which is not really them breaking it if the law said they could do it). Why? Because "only priests are allowed to work on the Sabbath", in fact a priest's work *begins* on the Sabbath. (like a pastor's work begins on Sunday for so many today).
But how or why was David, Christ and company counted by God as priest? Who were not from the tribe of Levi?
Order of Melchizedek - The Priest-king priesthood.
David, Christ, and his disciples are priests-kings. So they were fully within the law to work on the Sabbath and eat the temple's bread; no punishment required because no sin committed...but the Pharisees didn't see this. And even today, we forget this massive revelation even though Hebrews explains this to us.
Christ even hints at it in the rest of his answer to the Pharisees...
Matthew 12:6-8 {brackets & CAPS are mine and for emphasis & context}
We must read everything Christ did in light of the revelation we have that he was a heavenly ordained (High) Priest of God after the order of Melchizedek and then ask ourselves whether he actually broke any law or whether he was fully with the law with everything he did.
Last edited:
M
Yes if we walk in faith and love these type works will flow from us by the divine nature of God at work in us...If you really get the gospel you will go looking for people to help because Gods love in you will compel you beyond a list of rules. Love not only don't steal ..it looks for a place to give...thats what I have been trying to explain on this thread. But under the law, the desire to covet is stirred up in the flesh of those under the law.