The Sad Lives Of Legalists And Sinless Perfectionists

[Magenta]

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
― Augustine of Hippo

 

[Jason0047]

In effect, Jesus is not your Savior because of what He did.... YOU are your own savior, because of how well you keep on doing certain things, day by day.

The Jews already had this well in effect with the Sacrificial System.

Not at all. I believe Jesus is the One who works thru me. For I realize that I can do nothing without Christ. Any good comes from God. I do not believe there is any good in me but Christ. For if one truly abides in Christ, then they will have the fruit to prove that their faith is true.

 

[Magenta]

Jesus said, there is a GREATER sin.

True

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

 

[Skinski7]

For I have said before that I do not believe that future sin is forgiven. I don't care what others think about what their version of the Substitionary Atonement means.

There is only one version of Penal Substititionary Atonement.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement teaches that Jesus literally acted as your substitute and was punished by God in your place. Thus the "wrath of God" was poured out on Jesus wherefore it is no longer due on you anymore.

Now you believe that this actually occurred and thus "your sin debt" was paid in full. That is the doctrine you hold to and that is what Penal Substitution teaches. If you don't believe that then you don't believe Penal Substitution.

If your sin debt was "paid in full" then your sin debt is "paid in full" and is thus not due anymore. Thus when you say...

I believe that the Substitionary Atonement ONLY goes into effect when a person aligns themselves with God's will. This is first admitting that they are a sinner, and accepting Jesus as their Savioir.

Thus you are stating that if one does not...

1. Admit they are a sinner.

and

2. Accept Jesus as their saviour.

Then the Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not go into effect.

The Bible does not teach anywhere that we are to "admit we are sinners and accept Jesus as our saviour" in order for some substitionary provision to go into effect. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that so WHY DO YOU?

All you have done is butcher what the Bible actually teaches.

Honestly, on what basis do you conclude that a substitional provision goes into effect when one confesses they are a sinner and accepts Jesus as their saviour? You certainly don't get that from the Bible do you? If you did you would be able to quote passages and demonstrate such a teaching clearly, yet you cannot.

Then from there, they have to continue to walk in Christ's righteous ways (by allowing Christ's righteousness to work within them) according to His Word. So a person is saved when they yield to God in both Justification (Initial salvation by receiving the Lord) and in Sanctification (Continued salvation by walking with God and His good ways). The moment the believer sins and refuses to repent of such sin, then God's Spirit can withdraw from them and the Substitionary Atonement will then not be applied to them anymore.

So a believer can sin (like get drunk) and then repent and the "Substitutionary Atonement" you speak of is still being applied. You think it is only "not applied anymore" if they don't repent. Yet the Bible plainly states...

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Once we truly come clean with God and are CLEANSED (not some substitution applied like you teach), if we willfully sin (ie. rebellion against God) then no more sacrifice remains but only a certain fearful expectation of judgement.

You don't believe what the Bible teaches but instead hold to something else foreign to the Bible. Why?

You see, your theology focuses on the death of Christ enacting a PROVISION which you TRUST IN and then that PROVISION is only in effect so long as you are on the repent side of this sin/repent/sin/repent cycle you believe in. It is really typical Wesleyian garbage because he taught bascally the same thing.

Instead of reading the Bible and reflecting on what it actually says, you approach the Bible with a bias of theology which you received from theologians. That is one of your problems. You uphold the traditions of men over the truth that is set before you. You don't even seem to be interested in seriously investigating these things either.

It is sort of like having one's name blotted out of the book of life. One's name was originally there and then it was "x"-ed out by the fact that they sinned and have refused to repent of that sin. For a believer can go from a saved state to an unsaved state and then back again to a saved state (See the Parable of the Prodigal Son and James 5:19-20).

The Prodigal Son did not sin/repent/sin/repent. The Prodigal Son rebelled ONE TIME and forsook his father and his ways. The Prodigal Son then came to his senses ONCE and decided to go back to his father ONCE. The Prodigal Son was then returned to favour ONCE. There is no sin/repent/sin/repent in that parable. There is no substitution in that parable either.

In your view the Prodigal Son could have rebelled every now and again, so long as he repented each time then he would still remain saved. How is that any different to what the other sin defenders teach? How is it really any different at the fundamental level?

You all still teach that you can sin and not surely die. You just throw a sin/repent/sin/repent cycle into the equation in an attempt to reconcile the scriptures which speak about obedience being mandatory.

You seriously need to look at what the Bible actually teaches and cleanse your mind from the theological traditions which you still hang on to.

 

[JGIG]

No, when the Bible says that all sin has been forgiven, it's saying that what Jesus did was enough.

1. There absolutely are consequences to sinning, but all JUDGMENT for sinning has been poured out at the Cross.
   Don't confuse earthly consequences with eternal judgment.
2. The believer who sins has continual internal conflict because they DO have a reborn spirit - the DO have New Life in them. You assume that a believer who understands that ALL of their sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven will WANT to go out and sin as much as they can. Not the case.
3. There IS NO SIN that can separate the believer from God and heaven. The gift of salvation is complete, uttermost (Heb. 7:25). If you believe that there are sins that can separate the believer from God, then you believe that what Jesus did was not enough. That He missed some. That there were sins that would be committed that He didn't see coming.

It may be time for you to examine yourself to see if you are truly in the faith.

-JGIG

Well, when you tell others that their future sin is forgiven them, you are giving them a license to sin.

How is your belief of continual asking for forgiveness for sins committed any less of a license?

The one who believes all of their sins are forgiven knows that Christ will never leave them. Therefore, Christ is right there with them when they do sin - quite a deterrent, don't you think?!

The one who believes that they lose fellowship when they sin - well, all they have to do is repeatedly ask for forgiveness and all is well again, right? And if they want to keep sinning, well, Jesus isn't around for them now, so go for it, right? And they can always ask for forgiveness later!

Which scenario above is more empowering of the believer to stop sinning? Knowing that Christ is right there with them, ALWAYS, even in the midst of sinning (see 1 Cor. 6:16), or thinking that fellowship is broken, so more sinning won't matter anyway, and you can always ask for forgiveness later (no Scripture ref. for that one)?

For if I handed out a miracle cure for weight loss that had no ill side effects, then what do you think people are going to do if they took that miracle cure? Many of them will then not worry about eating right and excercising anymore like they used to do. It's because the consequences have been taken away. It's no different when you take away the consequences of sin by saying that their future sin is forgiven them. Oh, sure. You might say they should walk holy and they may even for a time, but at some point they could then easily rationalize sin because there is no real lasting consequence in them committing it. They can have their cake and eat it, too. For "chastisement" is not an effective deterrent to the person who does not really want to obey God. Only those who truly want to please the Lord by doing what is good and right will chastisement be effective.

No one here is saying that sinning has no consequences.

Again, you are confusing earthly consequences with eternal judgment.

The believer who is in sin is a miserable believer. As I stated above, the believer who is sinning has JESUS RIGHT THERE WITH THEM. What they're doing is contrary to the New Life within them and their reborn spirit. There can be real, life-long consequences for the sinning believer. But eternal judgment for their sins has already been poured out and propitiated at the Cross.

Oh, and just because somebody is a believer does not mean they will always automatically follow Christ at some point. Matthew 6:15 dispells such a false notion. For Jesus had said Matthew 6:15 to believers and not unbelievers because forgiving others is not really a salvation issue to unbelievers. An unbeliever first has to repent of their sins and accept Christ before they can even understand and obey Matthew 6:15. For Jesus said if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven. This is said to the believer. Which means that a believer can be unforgiven or not saved.

Sigh.

"A believer can be unforgiven or not saved"???

Come on, Jason, you're a smart guy. Even you must see issues with THAT statement!

-JGIG

 

[Jason0047]

Also, if a believer did struggle with really bad sins like murder and or abusing children, I think he or she would turn themselves into the Law so as to be imprisoned so as to prevent themselves from harming others. But can Christ forgive even them? Yes, you betcha. If they are serious to stop, then they will take steps to make that so (Like handing themselves over to people that will help them to stop). For these are very very serious sins that harms another. But is God's grace there for them? Yes, it sure is. For God's grace was there for David when he murdered. Not as a license for him to continue in that sin, but as a way to be reconciled and cleansed by God so as never to do that sin again.

 

[Willie-T]

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
― Augustine of Hippo

Don't agree with EVERYTHING the man said.... but he DID have some real truths going at times.... like what you quoted.

 

[Willie-T]

Also, if a believer did struggle with really bad sins like murder and or abusing children, I think he or she would turn themselves into the Law so as to be imprisoned so as to prevent themselves from harming others. But can Christ forgive even them? Yes, you betcha. If they are serious to stop, then they will take steps to make that so (Like handing themselves over to people that will help them to stop). For these are very very serious sins that harms another. But is God's grace there for them? Yes, it sure is. For God's grace was there for David when he murdered. Not as a license for him to continue in that sin, but as a way to be reconciled and cleansed by God so as never to do that sin again.

It's not, "can Christ." Christ already did.

 

[Magenta]

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

 

[Jason0047]

There is only one version of Penal Substititionary Atonement.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement teaches that Jesus literally acted as your substitute and was punished by God in your place. Thus the "wrath of God" was poured out on Jesus wherefore it is no longer due on you anymore.

Now you believe that this actually occurred and thus "your sin debt" was paid in full. That is the doctrine you hold to and that is what Penal Substitution teaches. If you don't believe that then you don't believe Penal Substitution.

If your sin debt was "paid in full" then your sin debt is "paid in full" and is thus not due anymore. Thus when you say...



Thus you are stating that if one does not...

1. Admit they are a sinner.

and

2. Accept Jesus as their saviour.

Then the Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not go into effect.

The Bible does not teach anywhere that we are to "admit we are sinners and accept Jesus as our saviour" in order for some substitionary provision to go into effect. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that so WHY DO YOU?

All you have done is butcher what the Bible actually teaches.

Honestly, on what basis do you conclude that a substitional provision goes into effect when one confesses they are a sinner and accepts Jesus as their saviour? You certainly don't get that from the Bible do you? If you did you would be able to quote passages and demonstrate such a teaching clearly, yet you cannot.




So a believer can sin (like get drunk) and then repent and the "Substitutionary Atonement" you speak of is still being applied. You think it is only "not applied anymore" if they don't repent. Yet the Bible plainly states...

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Once we truly come clean with God and are CLEANSED (not some substitution applied like you teach), if we willfully sin (ie. rebellion against God) then no more sacrifice remains but only a certain fearful expectation of judgement.

You don't believe what the Bible teaches but instead hold to something else foreign to the Bible. Why?

You see, your theology focuses on the death of Christ enacting a PROVISION which you TRUST IN and then that PROVISION is only in effect so long as you are on the repent side of this sin/repent/sin/repent cycle you believe in. It is really typical Wesleyian garbage because he taught bascally the same thing.

Instead of reading the Bible and reflecting on what it actually says, you approach the Bible with a bias of theology which you received from theologians. That is one of your problems. You uphold the traditions of men over the truth that is set before you. You don't even seem to be interested in seriously investigating these things either.



The Prodigal Son did not sin/repent/sin/repent. The Prodigal Son rebelled ONE TIME and forsook his father and his ways. The Prodigal Son then came to his senses ONCE and decided to go back to his father ONCE. The Prodigal Son was then returned to favour ONCE. There is no sin/repent/sin/repent in that parable. There is no substitution in that parable either.

In your view the Prodigal Son could have rebelled every now and again, so long as he repented each time then he would still remain saved. How is that any different to what the other sin defenders teach? How is it really any different at the fundamental level?

You all still teach that you can sin and not surely die. You just throw a sin/repent/sin/repent cycle into the equation in an attempt to reconcile the scriptures which speak about obedience being mandatory.

You seriously need to look at what the Bible actually teaches and cleanse your mind from the theological traditions which you still hang on to.

So you do not think God can forgive somebody who struggles with sin? They are just out of luck and are thrown to the wolves? You do not think God has the power to help them? I disagree. With God nothing is impossible. Have you stopped sinning those sins that lead unto spiritual death? If you refuse to reply to this question, I will take that as a silent admission of your own guilt before God.

As for the Substitionary Atonement: Like I said, I do not adhere to what others think that Doctrine means. I told you what it means and I stand behind it based on Scripture. I have shown you the verses before but you do not want to see them in what they plainly say. So I don't think me repeating those same verses or even showing you new ones will help you (Because I believe your mind is closed to it).

 

[convallaria]

OK sinless perfectionists, was the apostle Peter saved or not?

Matt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Clear instruction there. Peter would have heard these words of Jesus and yet later on we have this:

Matt 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

And he went and did it, didn't he. Not once, but thrice, fully knowing (therefore not ignorant of) the Word of God.

And after he did it we have this:

Matt 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.


Did Peter know that it was wrong to sin? Of course. Did he know it was wrong to sin in that particular way, and that Jesus had said he who denied Him before men He would deny before the Father? Of course he did. Was he saved at that point? I think so, because Jesus had already washed their feet and told them that they were clean every whit except needing to have their feet washed.

What happened to Peter was huge. He had a choice to believe Jesus words that he was damned....or to see that something else was happening here that would take the punishment away. The "something else that was happening" was that Jesus had yet to die for the sins of the whole world, which is, was and will be the propitiation for ALL our sin who receive Him. This was the only comfort possible and one which Peter had to become aware of, namely that (2 Cor 5:19 ) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Simon son of Jonas lovest thou Me? Lord Thou knowest.

This huge thing that happened to Peter in understanding the depth of rebellion in his sin nature was also the thing that saved him in the sense of bringing him humbly to accept that he needed what Jesus is offering to all, a new and living way; a way of reconciliation by the shedding of His blood.

Did Peter continue to sin? Yes, we know he did. Did he want to? Quite likely, because all sin is willful: that is what sin is. But Peter had a new position before God then, that he now knew his sin nature was totally out of his own control...and so Jesus became fully his SAVIOUR because he truly truly needed Him. It is the same with us. If we are happy with our own sin why would we need Jesus? No, we are miserable about the condition of our flesh but Jesus has made us rejoice, because Jesus (Col 2:14) blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Now then, if the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, like the first verse posted, which was contrary to Peter, has been taken out of the way, being nailed to the cross, can we not believe that the same thing is given to us, through being born again, trusting Jesus to have paid that price in full?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There are not 'fruits of salvation'. That's a made-up term.

There are either fruits of the flesh or the Fruit of the Spirit.



That's a big blind spot for folks that tend toward legalism and conditional security: It's NOT all about YOU.

The Fruit of the Spirit is not all about YOU.

It's about OTHERS.

Loving them. Serving them. Bringing the Good News of the Work of Christ to them.

The Fruit of the Spirit enables and facilitates that.

Are there benefits to the believer? Yep. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control all make our lives more enjoyable and peaceful.

-JGIG

Amen sis, all we have to do is look at the life of Christ to see this, for he gave us the perfect example of the fruit of the spirit.

How many times did his family, His disciples or anyone who cared for him tell him he needed to rest, to take time for himself. To do things which SOUND TO US to be right, and smart thing to do. Yet jesus said it is not time for him to rest yet, He had to much work to do (loving others)..

oh if we could just find this perfect love in ourselves.

 

[Willie-T]

So you do not think God can forgive somebody who struggles with sin? They are just out of luck and are thrown to the wolves? You do not think God has the power to help them? I disagree. With God nothing is impossible. Have you stopped sinning those sins that lead unto spiritual death? If you refuse to reply to this question, I will take that as a silent admission of your own guilt before God.

As for the Substitionary Atonement: Like I said, I do not adhere to what others think that Doctrine means. I told you what it means and I stand behind it based on Scripture. I have shown you the verses before but you do not want to see them in what they plainly say. So I don't think me repeating those same verses or even showing you new ones will help you (Because I believe your mind is closed to it).

I believe Jesus has ALREADY saved Believers who still struggle with sin...... like you and me.

 

[Jason0047]

OK sinless perfectionists, was the apostle Peter saved or not?

Matt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Clear instruction there. Peter would have heard these words of Jesus and yet later on we have this:

Matt 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

And he went and did it, didn't he. Not once, but thrice, fully knowing (therefore not ignorant of) the Word of God.

And after he did it we have this:

Matt 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.


Did Peter know that it was wrong to sin? Of course. Did he know it was wrong to sin in that particular way, and that Jesus had said he who denied Him before men He would deny before the Father? Of course he did. Was he saved at that point? I think so, because Jesus had already washed their feet and told them that they were clean every whit except needing to have their feet washed.

What happened to Peter was huge. He had a choice to believe Jesus words that he was damned....or to see that something else was happening here that would take the punishment away. The "something else that was happening" was that Jesus had yet to die for the sins of the whole world, which is, was and will be the propitiation for ALL our sin who receive Him. This was the only comfort possible and one which Peter had to become aware of, namely that (2 Cor 5:19 ) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Simon son of Jonas lovest thou Me? Lord Thou knowest.

This huge thing that happened to Peter in understanding the depth of rebellion in his sin nature was also the thing that saved him in the sense of bringing him humbly to accept that he needed what Jesus is offering to all, a new and living way; a way of reconciliation by the shedding of His blood.

Did Peter continue to sin? Yes, we know he did. Did he want to? Quite likely, because all sin is willful: that is what sin is. But Peter had a new position before God then, that he now knew his sin nature was totally out of his own control...and so Jesus became fully his SAVIOUR because he truly truly needed Him. It is the same with us. If we are happy with our own sin why would we need Jesus? No, we are miserable about the condition of our flesh but Jesus has made us rejoice, because Jesus (Col 2:14) blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Now then, if the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, like the first verse posted, which was contrary to Peter, has been taken out of the way, being nailed to the cross, can we not believe that the same thing is given to us, through being born again, trusting Jesus to have paid that price in full?

Peter did not continue to deny Jesus the rest of his life. Peter also did not deny Jesus while having the Holy Spirit and the gifts thereof, either. For if he were to have done so, it would have been apostasy, which is unforgivable according to Hebrews 6:4-6. Yes, David sinnned, and Noah sinned. But they did not stay as sinners the rest of their lives. God does not condone His people in doing evil. True believers are to confess and forsake sin so as to receive mercy (See Proverbs 28:13). For it is absolute non-sense to suggest that a believer can continue to do evil and yet also be saved. What is the point of serving God then if that is the case? Do you really believe God would condone or allow His people to get away with evil? I say thee nay. God's people are good, they are not evil. This is Morality 101.

 

[Willie-T]

Peter did not continue to deny Jesus the rest of his life. Peter also did not deny Jesus while having the Holy Spirit and the gifts thereof, either. For if he were to have done so, it would have been apostasy, which is unforgivable according to Hebrews 6:4-6. Yes, David sinnned, and Noah sinned. But they did not stay as sinners the rest of their lives. God does not condone His people in doing evil. True believers are to confess and forsake sin so as to receive mercy (See Proverbs 28:13). For it is absolute non-sense to suggest that a believer can continue to do evil and yet also be saved. What is the point of serving God then if that is the case? Do you really believe God would condone or allow His people to get away with evil? I say thee nay. God's people are good, they are not evil.

But Peter DID still discriminate against Gentile Believers some forty years later.

 

[Jason0047]

I believe Jesus has ALREADY saved Believers who still struggle with sin...... like you and me.

If a believer has backslidden into the ways of the world and is consumed by iniquity and sin and they want to do what is right but they just refuse to do so, then they are not saved. But if the believer actually confesses and forsakes sin, then they will have mercy (See Proverbs 28:13, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:7, and 1 John 2:3-4).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Eternally Grateful,

You just do what you have always done. You completely IGNORE what I write and dance around the subject and continue to argue in favour of being able to engage in wickedness and not be condemned. That is the bottom line.

Dude, I am not ignoring all you write (I used to ignore everything you write, but other people keep posting back to you. so I see it, and see things I fell I need to jump in and correct about your false gospel of works) , I have read it over and over same old arguments which have been PROVEN to be in error since you first God here.

You spout so much crap one does not have to respond to everything you say (not to mention it would take about 5 posts to respond to everything you say)

So as I have said so many times before. Lets pic the most important parts. and get them straightened out first.

You then allude to a few Bible passages and act as if they cancel out the standard of righteousness Jesus commanded in the Sermon on the Mount. You don't believe the teachings of Jesus.

What Jesus made the standard LESS than the law of moses?

And you now want to say it is ME who is excusing sin?

News flash. the standard Jesus made on that mountain does not negate the standard God gave moses on that mountain. And you can not fulfill either one.

You see, people like you NEVER directly address the plain statements of Jesus Christ. You dance around "heart purity" and "faith working by love" and "love upholding the law" and respond without acknowledging any of that. You do this in all your responses.

You basic premise is that everyone is wicked and that none can truly love God or their neighbour. Thus, in your mind, anyone who claims to have forsaken all known wickedness and who claims to actually love God and their neighbour is either deceived or a liar.

You truly believe that wickedness is more powerful than godliness over those in a flesh body. You must truly believe that because you utterly deny that anyone can truly be redeemed from all iniquity and made pure whereby they are zealous of righteousness.

No. I do not believe wickedness is more godly, You arrogant person who thinks you know it all. and yet more proof you can not live up to Gods standard, because you again beared false witness.

How many times do you have to lie and break the law of God in this room until you admit your a sinner?

I believe as Paul I want to do what is right, I want to serve others the way God served me, But I am not going to be to proud to think I do it as good as Christ did, He set the standard. Not you. and not the men you listen to you. Face it dude, YOUR STANDARD US BELOW GODS STANDARD.

YOU CAN THINK YOU LIVE IT ALL YOU WANT> YOU CAN"T

 

[Willie-T]

If a believer has backslidden into the ways of the world and is consumed by iniquity and sin and they want to do what is right but they just refuse to do so, then they are not saved. But if the believer actually confesses and forsakes sin, then they will have mercy (See Proverbs 28:13, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:7, and 1 John 2:3-4).

And you are describing NO Christians I know.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

wow, I should unblock jason. Nothing like watching the two most legalistic people in Christian Chat go at each other. it is like watching two kids fighting over something that they both have.. and both totally blind to the fact they both preach the same thing.

will have to watch it later, I have to take of for a bit But I need to make sure I have some popcorn when I get back!

 

[Jason0047]

But Peter DID still discriminate against Gentile Believers some forty years later.

So you think Peter was always discriminating against believers his whole life up until that point? The Scriptures really do not say now do they? Besides, the fact that Peter did not continue to discriminate after he was rebuked proves that God was convicting Peter of that sin thru another brother so that he would repent of it and then receive forgiveness. The apostles did not live in habitual unrepentant sin as a way of life. Yes, they might have stumbled on occasion but they did not live a life a sinner and or promote others to be that way, either (With the thinking that one was saved). For Titus 2:11-12 says that the Grace of God teaches us that we are to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live righteously in this present world. Do you believe that??