Behold
Well-Known Member
Your arguments over terminology reflect a wish to prove my beliefs wrong,
The Cross does not agree with Legalism.
Get out of that, and everything is correct.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Your arguments over terminology reflect a wish to prove my beliefs wrong,
You seem unable to comprehend that giving Eternal Life as a free gift does not nullify the need for our repentance in order to be saved.
Again, "grace" is a principle and a means. But it is also a *system,* a covenant system. When Christ came he brought Grace as a system of righteousness, *apart from the Law.* Abraham received a Promise, but the Promise was fulfilled when Christ came and not before.Did Abraham receive grace and truth when He believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?
Paul said it was not because he worked. but because of Grace..
You're apparently unwilling to see. Belief in Salvation requires that we repent of our ways to embrace Christ's ways. You are embracing an antinomian principle when you insist that *belief* is enough, and not *repentance.* Your sense of *repentance* omits real repentance, a real turning from our own ways to embrace Christ's ways.So far in your Thread, i have stated that "Repentance" from "unbelief", is accepted by God as "Faith in Christ".
Do i need to write this 5 more times for you to understand it, as ive written it 5 times for you so far., Randy Kluth.
Now, their is a false theology that teaches that "living IN a state of repentance" is required to be saved and stay saved.
If that is your Cross denying theology, then that is Legalism.
Again, "grace" is a principle and a means. But it is also a *system,* a covenant system. When Christ came he brought Grace as a system of righteousness, *apart from the Law.* Abraham received a Promise, but the Promise was fulfilled when Christ came and not before.
Did Abraham receive a measure of grace? Sure. But he could never have received Eternal Life *before* Christ came and provided atonement for his sins.
You're apparently unwilling to see. Belief in Salvation requires that we repent of our ways to embrace Christ's ways.
You change my words in order to continue promoting antinomianism and an unbiblical denial of the requirement to *repent.* Why is it you can't define "repentance" for what it really is? You call it "repenting from unbelief." But the Bible calls it "repenting from sin"--not just from the sin of unbelief, but more from all sin, especially the sin of going our own way--our self-autonomy.Never.
We dont receive Christ's Atonement, based on "i decided i will keep commandments and law and try to be like Christ".
Listen to the story of Simon the Sorcerer. He believed in Christ and embraced Christ as his Savior, and yet he did not truly get saved because he did not truly repent. *Believing* was not enough.
Why is it you can't define "repentance" for what it really is?
Yet we are told Abraham was imputed righteousness.Again, "grace" is a principle and a means. But it is also a *system,* a covenant system. When Christ came he brought Grace as a system of righteousness, *apart from the Law.* Abraham received a Promise, but the Promise was fulfilled when Christ came and not before.
Did Abraham receive a measure of grace? Sure. But he could never have received Eternal Life *before* Christ came and provided atonement for his sins.
Abraham had faith imputed to him for righteousness. But that righteousness did *not* merit Eternal Life. If you think he obtained Eternal Life before Christ offered up his atonement, you are a heretic.Yet we are told Abraham was imputed righteousness.
It was Christ's righteousness that was imputed to him. God is outside of time
Yeah I doAbraham had faith imputed to him for righteousness. But that righteousness did *not* merit Eternal Life. If you think he obtained Eternal Life before Christ offered up his atonement, you are a heretic.
I just edited my post to include more explanation that I was not calling you a heretic. But if you do believe that Eternal Life came apart from Christ's redemption you are indeed a heretic, and will have to justify that to every doctrinally-orthodox Christian on here or anywhere! You don't want to have to do that! ;)Yeah I do
We have righteousness imputed to our faith, just as God imputed righteousness to men of God in the Old Testament. The difference is, our faith today is a New Covenant system--you may call it either Faith or Grace, in the sense of it being a covenant system, as opposed to the OT covenant system of Law.Paul said we recieve the same gift of grace that abraham did
romans 5
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be [d]sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
Abraham could not be imputed righteousness, UNLESS it was christ's righteousness.I just edited my post to include more explanation that I was not calling you a heretic. But if you do believe that Eternal Life came apart from Christ's redemption you are indeed a heretic, and will have to justify that to every doctrinally-orthodox Christian on here or anywhere! You don't want to have to do that! ;)
Its only called a new covenant in that it is not the law..We have righteousness imputed to our faith, just as God imputed righteousness to men of God in the Old Testament. The difference is, our faith today is a New Covenant system--you may call it either Faith or Grace, in the sense of it being a covenant system, as opposed to the OT covenant system of Law.
But to have righteousness imputed to your faith, you could live in either the OT or NT eras. But it did not grant Eternal Life apart from Christ's atonement. You had better be clear on that. Having righteousness imputed and having received Eternal Life are two different things!
Yes, the New Covenant is kind of a makeover of the Old Covenant, completing what it started. However, it is an entirely different covenant in the sense that the old covenant required 613 requirements, while the New Covenant only requires that we abandon our own ways for the way of Christ. I can't put it much clearer.Abraham could not be imputed righteousness, UNLESS it was christ's righteousness.
There is no other righteousness for which to impute to anyone that would make them righteous
Its only called a new covenant in that it is not the law..
But its the same old covenant of old. it actually is the abrahamic covenant..
Yes this is what I meanYes, the New Covenant is kind of a makeover of the Old Covenant, completing what it started. However, it is an entirely different covenant in the sense that the old covenant required 613 requirements, while the New Covenant only requires that we abandon our own ways for the way of Christ. I can't put it much clearer.
In no case is either the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ void of "law" in the generic sense. Any moral system at all requires "law" in the generic sense. But the Law of Moses was a distinct system of law. As such, the "Law" has a technical application that goes well beyond the principle of "law," marking it as a "system," and not merely as a principle.
Not even the Law was predicated on the notion that men could "earn" their Salvation. It certainly didn't indicate that they could obtain Eternal Life by that system. With each animal sacrifice would come another sin that needed to be sacrificed for.
So the system of "Grace" supplied what the Law was unable to do. Christ offered a final sacrifice of atonement in place of the many sacrifices under the Law that could *never* bring Eternal Life--only a temporary fix.
You are correct - partially. The saved believer is no longer under the law but under grace. The curse of the law is death - physical and spiritual, and as such, the law itself is not a curse. Instead, the law as described in Rom 7:12 is holy, just, and good. Scripture states that the law is also our tutor/guardian leading us to Christ via justification by faith. However, I believe you err when you claim that the law does not apply to the believer. How can that be when sin is defined as TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW per 1 Jn 3:4? So when a believer sins, is he not transgressing the Law of Moses? That is God's standard. We don't get to define what sin is, and is not. Sin is disobeying God as defined in the OT. Jesus fulfilled the law instead of abolishing it. He made the law complete for example by stating that the sin of adultery is not just the act of physical adultery but one commits adultery as well by lusting with one's eyes after another person. Thus when one becomes a believer, the law is not just written on tablets of stone but it is now written upon our hearts. It's obvious then that the act of physical adultery is still sinful (not done away with) but Jesus fulfilled the law by making spiritual adultery a matter of one's heart condition. And that is precisely where evangelical Christians err by disregarding the role of the law as minimal or no longer applicable.The Law indeed exists.
Its here all the time defining unbelievers as SINNERS, needing to be forgiven.
That is the reason its Here. Its to lead them to GOD's Salvation.
And once a person is born again, the Law cannot define you, as the born again are "not under the law, but under Grace".
"not under the LAW".
See that?
That is the reality that the Grace of God creates for the Born again who have become "the righteousness of God, in Christ".
"Christ has redeemed us (the born again) from the CURSE of the Law".....The born again are FREED from the Law's dominion that allows the Law to define you as a sinner.
The Law absolutely can define an unbeliever as a sinner, but because the born are "NOT UNDER THE LAW, but UNDER GRACE" it has no capacity, or power, or dominion to define us ever again,.... because the born are "redeemed from the Curse of the law">
Why? and How ?
Because The Born again exist "IN CHRIST", and there is no law there, there is only Righteousness.
I'm an Evangelical Christian, and would disagree with you. While it's true what Paul said, that sin is defined for Israel by breaking the Law of Moses, it does not define sin for Christians today. We are in no sense *under the Law of Moses.*You are correct - partially. The saved believer is no longer under the law but under grace. The curse of the law is death - physical and spiritual, and as such, the law itself is not a curse. Instead, the law as described in Rom 7:12 is holy, just, and good. Scripture states that the law is also our tutor/guardian leading us to Christ via justification by faith. However, I believe you err when you claim that the law does not apply to the believer. How can that be when sin is defined as TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW per 1 Jn 3:4? So when a believer sins, is he not transgressing the Law of Moses? That is God's standard. We don't get to define what sin is, and is not. Sin is disobeying God as defined in the OT. Jesus fulfilled the law instead of abolishing it. He made the law complete for example by stating that the sin of adultery is not just the act of physical adultery but one commits adultery as well by lusting with one's eyes after another person. Thus when one becomes a believer, the law is not just written on tablets of stone but it is now written upon our hearts. It's obvious then that the act of physical adultery is still sinful (not done away with) but Jesus fulfilled the law by making spiritual adultery a matter of one's heart condition. And that is precisely where evangelical Christians err by disregarding the role of the law as minimal or no longer applicable.