Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#61 Jan 18, 2013
I still attend CoC and well know their shortcomings - but do speak up when it may be taken in a possitive way.
New Guy

Olive Hill, KY

#62 Jan 19, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
NG, if you read more of my posts you'd know I don't consider the renewed covenant to merely be an extension of the old. Yes, Hebrews is important to note, that if we refuse to hear angels, that brings judgment, but to fail to hear the Son brings much greater condemnation.
"Christians" need to get on board with some earnest discipleship to the Doctrine of God as taught by the Son.
Also, you might tuck 2 Cor. 7:19 in that Scripture belt of things even Paul taught:-)
I don't dispute grace, just that it isn't a spiritual welfare check - only those who believe Jesus and do what He said because they believe will be found faithful servants. Faith is believing God and doing what He says because you believe.(Gen. 26:5)
BW, most of that post was addressed to FC. That being said, our difference here lies in new or renewed covenant. By definition, isn't a renewed covenant just the old one ratified or affirmed again? That's my issue there. I think we have a new one, not renewed.

I agree with you on the rest-except maybe you meant 1 Cor 7:19.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#63 Jan 19, 2013
In the Hebrew, what does Jeremiah 31 say? Is it 'new' covenant, or 'renewed' covenant? It's somewhat like the phases of the moon, the 'new' Moon is not a 'new' Moon, but a renewed phase of the Moon. That's one way of putting it. Another would be the elevated/magnified Torah VS the Doctrine and Commandments and Promises of God as told by the Son. We have the completeness of His will, whereas they didn't through Moses - he gave them the foreshadowing of what was coming.
New Guy

Olive Hill, KY

#64 Jan 19, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
In the Hebrew, what does Jeremiah 31 say? Is it 'new' covenant, or 'renewed' covenant? It's somewhat like the phases of the moon, the 'new' Moon is not a 'new' Moon, but a renewed phase of the Moon. That's one way of putting it. Another would be the elevated/magnified Torah VS the Doctrine and Commandments and Promises of God as told by the Son. We have the completeness of His will, whereas they didn't through Moses - he gave them the foreshadowing of what was coming.
The same word you're quoting saying is "renewed" is also used in Exodus 1:8, where we read that a new king rose over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. Obviously that king wasn't renewed, he was a brand new king. According to Vine's, the only time that word is accurately translated as "renewed" is in Lamentations 3:23..
The Greek word used for new in new covenant means new, not renewed. I would probably venture that the Aramaic is different. But at the end of the day, keeping the commandments of God is what matters.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#65 Jan 20, 2013
Yes. Yes. Yes.

The Bible is one book. At least one of the Church fathers said that calling the latter books the 'New Testament' was a damnable heresy - but Western Christianity has heartily endorsed this concept pushed by Rome. The Aramaic is different in meaning and words. The Greek is prone to limited knowledge BECAUSE it is so specific, when the original was not as specific.

Went to Torah class Thursday and am looking to get a Hebrew translation to English of the 'Old Testament'. After seeing how much of the NT is poorly translated, I'm extremely suspicious of the OT translated through the Greek and then back into English. I suspect the same issues generated in the NT also exist in the OT.

Have any experience with the topic to relate?
New Guy

Berea, KY

#66 Jan 21, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
Yes. Yes. Yes.
The Bible is one book. At least one of the Church fathers said that calling the latter books the 'New Testament' was a damnable heresy - but Western Christianity has heartily endorsed this concept pushed by Rome. The Aramaic is different in meaning and words. The Greek is prone to limited knowledge BECAUSE it is so specific, when the original was not as specific.
Went to Torah class Thursday and am looking to get a Hebrew translation to English of the 'Old Testament'. After seeing how much of the NT is poorly translated, I'm extremely suspicious of the OT translated through the Greek and then back into English. I suspect the same issues generated in the NT also exist in the OT.
Have any experience with the topic to relate?
No, quite honestly I have not done any kind of work in Hebrew, and I thought that the OT we have in our Bibles was translated from Hebrew, not through Greek and into English. Do have access to a septuagint and have used it some. I can comprehend Greek, but Hebrew is a completely different animal. Unfortunately, I'm at the mercy of concordances and other sources for Hebrew.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#67 Jan 21, 2013
Sounds like we have similar backgrounds. I'm not famliar with reading Greek or Hebrew, but have listened to countless talks and sermons on the Greek.
New Guy

Berea, KY

#68 Jan 21, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
Sounds like we have similar backgrounds. I'm not famliar with reading Greek or Hebrew, but have listened to countless talks and sermons on the Greek.
I've had some college level Greek classes, and still have the instruction book issued. I use an interlinear Greek keyed to the NASB. My dad has one keyed to the KJV, there are a few small differences. Mainly use it for the verb tenses, mechanics, etc. Some of the little things make a big impact in the language. I would say that Greek really isn't as difficult as it's made out to be, just don't ask me to speak it :)

I wish I knew more about Hebrew, but honestly just looking at it intimidates me. Reading it backwards, different lettering style. Hard.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#69 Jan 22, 2013
I have to defer to the Aramaic and Hebrew scholars, but do want to do my best to ensure the translation I use is honest and true.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#70 Jan 22, 2013
The title of this thread is "Law Vs Grace".

The law was given so that we could see the condition of our relationship with God. To be acceptable to Him, we must be perfect, holy and righteous. The law shows just how imperfect, unholy and unrighteous we really are.

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags, we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Following the law is not intended to make us closer to God. Rather, it's to show us just how far away we are from Him. That's why there were all those rules and rituals for offerings and sacrifices in which blood had to be shed. They demonstrated the severity of the consequences of our sins. The penalty of sin is death and nothing less.

Paul explains it this way: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
New Guy

Berea, KY

#71 Jan 22, 2013
Bobby wrote:
The title of this thread is "Law Vs Grace".
The law was given so that we could see the condition of our relationship with God. To be acceptable to Him, we must be perfect, holy and righteous. The law shows just how imperfect, unholy and unrighteous we really are.
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags, we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Following the law is not intended to make us closer to God. Rather, it's to show us just how far away we are from Him. That's why there were all those rules and rituals for offerings and sacrifices in which blood had to be shed. They demonstrated the severity of the consequences of our sins. The penalty of sin is death and nothing less.
Paul explains it this way: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Ok. We all agree here. Carry on sir...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72 Jan 22, 2013
Bobby wrote:
The title of this thread is "Law Vs Grace".
The law was given so that we could see the condition of our relationship with God. To be acceptable to Him, we must be perfect, holy and righteous. The law shows just how imperfect, unholy and unrighteous we really are.
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags, we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Following the law is not intended to make us closer to God. Rather, it's to show us just how far away we are from Him. That's why there were all those rules and rituals for offerings and sacrifices in which blood had to be shed. They demonstrated the severity of the consequences of our sins. The penalty of sin is death and nothing less.
Paul explains it this way: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
I have to disagree with your opening statement. The Law was given not to you or me since it was given to the Jews, unless you became a Jew. The Law of Liberty or of Christ was given to all.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#73 Jan 22, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. We all agree here. Carry on sir...
Sorry but I do not think we all agree here on law vs Grace. In fact the word grace is often seen as an enemy to some. They would rather the scripture read this way:

For it is by LAW you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-

Actually they figure that they can substitute the word obedience/water baptism in the place of law or grace and maybe it will go down smoother.What does saved by grace mean if we remove that one word-grace?

And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Now the challenge is to define the word works, by claiming that water baptism is a work of God-not a work of man.

Paul states the LAW is Not of Faith. The ministry of the law working in a Christian cannot please God, for it is not of faith yet the law is not of faith, but “The man who does them shall live by them.

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

So, now we have the un-needed job of separating the law from works. Can you see the circle yet. We come full circle to what is grace, what is law and what is works. Those three words (grace, law and works) seem to confuse many.

A true understanding of what grace is requires us to see our own sinful condition. But there again some believe that man is basically good and capable of pleasing God without life altering grace.

(Grace) is the gospel, clearly displayed on the cross-God's own Son shedding his own blood as a gift to those of us who are helpless to save ourselves.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#74 Jan 22, 2013
I forgot something, the last part of this equation is to challenge the words of Paul and deny his apostleship.
New Guy

Berea, KY

#75 Jan 22, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but I do not think we all agree here on law vs Grace. In fact the word grace is often seen as an enemy to some. They would rather the scripture read this way:
For it is by LAW you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-
Actually they figure that they can substitute the word obedience/water baptism in the place of law or grace and maybe it will go down smoother.What does saved by grace mean if we remove that one word-grace?
And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Now the challenge is to define the word works, by claiming that water baptism is a work of God-not a work of man.
Paul states the LAW is Not of Faith. The ministry of the law working in a Christian cannot please God, for it is not of faith yet the law is not of faith, but “The man who does them shall live by them.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
So, now we have the un-needed job of separating the law from works. Can you see the circle yet. We come full circle to what is grace, what is law and what is works. Those three words (grace, law and works) seem to confuse many.
A true understanding of what grace is requires us to see our own sinful condition. But there again some believe that man is basically good and capable of pleasing God without life altering grace.
(Grace) is the gospel, clearly displayed on the cross-God's own Son shedding his own blood as a gift to those of us who are helpless to save ourselves.
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
I say that you actually make a good point. Many do confuse the ideas of law, works, and grace. In fact, I would say you may be a good example of it. Law is simple- its the law of Moses that's being talked about. One of the purposes of the law was to show us how we are condemned, fall short, need a Savior. Works are works of said law. No man could keep the law, so he was guilty of all. None deserve or can earn salvation. Grace is the undeserved favor and mercy of God, in providing the means whereby sinful man can be saved. Jesus Christ IS the grace of God.

The real problem becomes when WE declare that things Jesus said were necessary for us to do to be saved are "law" that no man can keep or be saved by. The problem is that we change the definition of faith to be simply a mental knowledge or a "trusting" when faith is belief in action. Faith itself is a work- yet are we to believe that by having faith we're keeping the law and working our way to heaven? Most would deny that. And with good reason. Did Jesus say faith was necessary? Yes He did. He also said repentance was necessary. Most don't believe that anyone is working their way to heaven by repentance. But baptism, oh boy, now you ARE trying to work and earn your way there now. It's a "law" that someone is trying to keep.

But let's forget the fact that Jesus said baptism was as necessary as faith and repentance. If we're not in Christ all the grace in the world isn't going to save anyone, because that's where grace is found. False grace, cheap grace, fake grace says you can be saved some other way than what the Master says.
New Guy

Berea, KY

#76 Jan 22, 2013
Bobby wrote:
I forgot something, the last part of this equation is to challenge the words of Paul and deny his apostleship.
Glad you didn't leave anybody out ;)
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#77 Jan 22, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I say that you actually make a good point. Many do confuse the ideas of law, works, and grace. In fact, I would say you may be a good example of it. Law is simple- its the law of Moses that's being talked about. One of the purposes of the law was to show us how we are condemned, fall short, need a Savior. Works are works of said law. No man could keep the law, so he was guilty of all. None deserve or can earn salvation. Grace is the undeserved favor and mercy of God, in providing the means whereby sinful man can be saved. Jesus Christ IS the grace of God.
The real problem becomes when WE declare that things Jesus said were necessary for us to do to be saved are "law" that no man can keep or be saved by. The problem is that we change the definition of faith to be simply a mental knowledge or a "trusting" when faith is belief in action. Faith itself is a work- yet are we to believe that by having faith we're keeping the law and working our way to heaven? Most would deny that. And with good reason. Did Jesus say faith was necessary? Yes He did. He also said repentance was necessary. Most don't believe that anyone is working their way to heaven by repentance. But baptism, oh boy, now you ARE trying to work and earn your way there now. It's a "law" that someone is trying to keep.
But let's forget the fact that Jesus said baptism was as necessary as faith and repentance. If we're not in Christ all the grace in the world isn't going to save anyone, because that's where grace is found. False grace, cheap grace, fake grace says you can be saved some other way than what the Master says.
I disagree with your proposal implying that it is necessary to be in Christ to receive grace because it is by grace that we are saved-through faith, that is how we get into Christ. Grace is found at the cross where we first saw the light.

True grace, the kind found at the cross is never cheap or fake, it cost Jesus his very life. It’s a gift, absolutely free and it cannot be bought or earned. Simon could not purchase it either, even though he was probably already water baptized-he was a fake believer.

If there was any other way God would not have sent Jesus into the world and suffer a horrible death. Maybe he could have just told the Jews from the very beginning that salvation would be by water baptism and faith in the Messiah. But there would be no justice in that, something or someone had to pay the purchase price for our pardon, the blood of bulls and goats fell way short because the trespass was much deeper than that. It was not an external cleaning we needed but rather it is an internal cleansing that water cannot reach.

The argument in acts 2:38 boils down to the word eis. No one should translate it the way you guys do.

Take two aspirins FOR a headache, refutes the idea that "for" MUST mean in order to obtain. No one would take two aspirins in order to obtain/get a headache! We take aspirin because we already have a headache.
New Guy

Berea, KY

#78 Jan 22, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with your proposal implying that it is necessary to be in Christ to receive grace because it is by grace that we are saved-through faith, that is how we get into Christ. Grace is found at the cross where we first saw the light.
True grace, the kind found at the cross is never cheap or fake, it cost Jesus his very life. It’s a gift, absolutely free and it cannot be bought or earned. Simon could not purchase it either, even though he was probably already water baptized-he was a fake believer.
If there was any other way God would not have sent Jesus into the world and suffer a horrible death. Maybe he could have just told the Jews from the very beginning that salvation would be by water baptism and faith in the Messiah. But there would be no justice in that, something or someone had to pay the purchase price for our pardon, the blood of bulls and goats fell way short because the trespass was much deeper than that. It was not an external cleaning we needed but rather it is an internal cleansing that water cannot reach.
The argument in acts 2:38 boils down to the word eis. No one should translate it the way you guys do.
Take two aspirins FOR a headache, refutes the idea that "for" MUST mean in order to obtain. No one would take two aspirins in order to obtain/get a headache! We take aspirin because we already have a headache.
I guess Mark 16:16 means absolutely nothing? As for eis many Greek scholars and teachers would disagree with you. My favorite quote comes from an old baptist in 1877. "When Campbellites translate in order to in Acts 2:38 they translate correctly. Is a translation false because Campbellites endorse it?"

AT Robertson is the person who popularized the idea that eis means because of and not into. That idea is a twisting of the scriptures to get a desired meaning. Serious business, especially if he led someone down the wrong path.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#79 Jan 22, 2013
The old testament clearly pointed to Jesus but if the gospel included water baptism, then that should have been clear as well.

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. I know you agree that we are not saved by the law, but some here like Heath believe that the new covenant is based on law also, but it clearly is not, it is 100% based on grace. We cannot mix law/works with grace, that waters it down. The law was a covenant of works, that is pure and simple. Works on this side of the cross are no better when it comes to justification

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man... so the question is "how sinful is man, does he still have some good in him that God recognizes as righteousness?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#80 Jan 22, 2013
If we are going to believe that mark 16:16 is from Jesus why don't the baptismal regenerationist believe the whole passage?

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Maybe we should all drink poison to prove we are really saved? Maybe this is part of the gospel also. I mean after all it is written in the same passage. It says when they drink poison not "IF" they drink. That must be another condition of our salvation don't you think?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Collinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Annual coat drive kicks off another year in Dan... Dec 7 Blecchh 1
dr.joel smithers (Sep '16) Sep '17 Lurliec 5
Name that store (Mar '15) Mar '15 Old timer 1
Debate: Marijuana - Collinsville, VA (Aug '10) Dec '14 mr.cheef 4
News Indictments issued (Sep '14) Sep '14 shannonsmith 1
We are now open!! Life to Live Counseling and W... (Aug '13) Aug '13 L2LWellness 1
Rachel Kenyon (Aug '13) Aug '13 Tracey 1

Collinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Collinsville Mortgages