The False Gospel of Grace...

[justbyfaith]

And so what you said was not a judgement and accusation now becomes one again.I disagree with you. How does that conclude that I have "heaped to myself teachers in the translators of other versions to tell me what I want to hear." ?(You really need to rework that sentence.) How does my disagreeing with you mean I seek to have my ears tickled or that I am not seeking God's unadulterated truth? What makes you think you have any business reaching that conclusion, let alone make a public statement like that about me, when you don't even know me? All you know is that I disagree with you.

I know that I have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things (1 John 2:20)? so, if you disagree with me, are you not disagreeing with that unction also?

But the reason you may disagree is that you "do not abide by the kjv".

I will say to you that I find that other versions teach a distinctly different message than the kjv as concerning some doctrine.

And I will say again that the way to life is narrow and there are few who actually find it.

Who determined that the KJV is the only translation that is not watered down? Is it maybe for some reason unknown to me that you simply prefer it, and therefore all others are watered down?

Other translations may not be watered down; but as for me, I will go with what I know is inspired and inerrant.

And yes, you are saying that in your mind I might not be saved.

Yes, not that you aren't; but that you might not be.

This is true of anyone; because the way to life is narrow and there are few who actually find it.

Which suggests that probably you should give your definition of what salvation entails, because if you have read the things I post, you would know that I am, even though I do not agree with you on much of your interpretation of scripture.

If we disagree on what is taught by scripture, it indicates that one of us does not have the unction spoken of in 1 John 2:20.

Also, I am told that I can discern the spirit of truth and error by whether a person agrees or disagrees with what I preach (1 John 4:5-6).

That seems to be what you are measuring my salvation by. But let me give you a bit of insider information you are no doubt lacking. I am a seventy seven year old woman who joined the redeemed at age 35. And have never looked back or waffled in my faith. In my actions, sure, but not my faith. Truth has always been my goal, whether I liked it or not. And it is and always has been God's face I seek.

Then there will come a point when you no longer disagree with me; because in seeking the truth you will come to the knowledge of the truth (unless you are what is spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:7).

So come down off the high horse and stop looking down your nose at people.

You should really be careful about saying that to people. There was a time when I was very much like I am today and someone said that to me; and it devastated me as a straw that broke the camel's back. Previous to that, for a full year, was the year of my greatest joy in my relationship with the Lord. But of course, people very simply hate the righteous.

And I am not looking down my nose at anyone.

I am doing that and always have been. Who are you to suggest otherwise? It is something we are told in the scriptures to NOT do. You are accusing the brethren. You are weighing and measuring and judging against yourself, to calculate another's standing before God----and in a very condescending manner.

It appears that you are offended by my statements. I would only encourage you to remember that there is an offense in the Cross of Jesus Christ (Galatians 5:11).

And I am certainly not accusing any of the brethren; simply making a statement about what might happen to someone who denies the veracity of the kjv because they don't like what it says.

Such people are clearly heaping to themselves teachers (in the translators of other versions) to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

But as for you, you keep walking down the broad path. I don't expect you to listen to me.

 

[justbyfaith]

Paul denied that we can earn our justification as a wage by obeying God's law even if we manage to have perfect obedience to it

Actually, he affirmed that in Romans 2:13.

 

[justbyfaith]

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so to suggest that Jesus disobeyed it is to say that he sinned and therefore to deny that he is our Savior. In John 5:16-18, it states the reasons that the Pharisees had for wanting to kill Jesus, but does not state whether their reasons were correct. It is contradictory to believe both that Jesus is correct about it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath and that the Pharisees were correct about Jesus breaking the Sabbath by healing on it. It has always been lawful to heal on the Sabbath, so the Pharisees were incorrect for thinking that Jesus had broken the Sabbath, but it is nevertheless factual that thinking that Jesus had broken the Sabbath was one of their reasons for why they wanted to kill Jesus

Jesus told the lame man to pick up his bed and walk on the sabbath (which was work), so, technically, He was teaching people not to obey the sabbath. But in Exodus 20:10, we are told that it is a sin to do "any" work on the sabbath days.

Jesus re-defined the sabbath (Hebrews 7:12).

He was obedient to the spirit of the sabbath-day law but not the letter (John 5:16-18).

It is the estimation of the author of John, who wrote that gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus "broke the sabbath".

 

[justbyfaith]

Its Blasphemous to say Jesus disobeyed the Law of God. Religionist thought He disobeyed the Sabbath Day Law as well

I'm saying that He wasn't disobedient to the spirit of the law; but to the letter.

This can be ascertained if you understand the scriptures that relate to the subject.

 

[justbyfaith]

Except that it is the wrong thing to do. It is wrong according to God to do it to the brethren. And it is lack of wisdom to preach the gospel to someone by quoting Bible verses as condemnation of them. It is what makes much of the world see Christians as a bunch of self righteous holier than thou and hypocritical. Because the ones that are self righteous, holier than thou, and hypocritical go around doing that. And it is just as self righteous, holier than thou, and hypocritical when they do it to other Christians too.

However, if I am hated by the world for being "holier than thou", there is a possibility that it is this very attitude that makes me hated by the world as a Christian. Especially if Christians who don't carry this attitude are not hated. It would indicate that those who are hated are in the right spirit; while those who are not hated are lacking in the things of God.

Also, if in my quoting of a scripture, you feel that you are condemned, I would simply say that it is not I who have condemned you but that you are being convicted by that scripture.

If I were to say to someone, you are going to hell, then I am judging that person.

But if I quote to them such verses as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and they think that I am telling them that they are going to hell; all I have done has been to declare to them the judgment of God. God's Holy Spirit judges them according to what is written.

 

[justbyfaith]

I was quoting the ESV because it is the translation I am reading right now. Why not just accept what the Bible says in the ESV? People can read whatever translation they want to. It makes no difference to me. I don't like the KJV simply because I find the old fashioned language distracting. It is the word of God that is inspired and inerrant (which btw pertains to the truths it presents and their consistency throughout, not to clerical errors and such,) not translations.

Some translations actually teach Universalism (which is heresy) and are therefore to be rejected as uninspired.

Personally, I don't trust any translation to be inerrant except the kjv...you can do what you want in regards to this statement.

I will only say that the way to life is narrow and there are few who find it.

Also, many translations have been watered down (ESV included).

In reading them, you just might miss out on some important truth that would be the ultimate salvation of your soul.

 

[Arial]

Also, if in my quoting of a scripture, you feel that you are condemned, I would simply say that it is not I who have condemned you but that you are being convicted by that scripture.

You have been quoting a scripture and applying it to me that suggests I am not saved, and now you say the reason I feel condemned by that is because I am being convicted by that scripture. An unbeliever is not convicted by scripture. I don't feel condemned by it. I see you condemning me with it, and without any justification whatsoever. Your condemnation of me is based on nothing but the fact that I disagree with you.

 

[brightfame52]

Of course not.

They are enabled to receive Christ when the Holy Spirit shall draw them to Christ (John 6:44, John 12:32).

You say " of course not" Then you deny the Justifying Merit of the Death of Christ for them He died for, that's unbelief !

 

[brightfame52]

I'm saying that He wasn't disobedient to the spirit of the law; but to the letter.

This can be ascertained if you understand the scriptures that relate to the subject.

Its Blasphemous to say Christ was disobedient in any shape or form. So you are Blaspheming friend

 

[Arial]

Some translations actually teach Universalism (which is heresy) and are therefore to be rejected as uninspired.

Which translations are those?

Personally, I don't trust any translation to be inerrant except the kjv..

What is your reasoning for that?

Also, many translations have been watered down (ESV included).

In reading them, you just might miss out on some important truth that would be the ultimate salvation of your soul.

What specific translations in the ESV are so watered down that one would miss important truths that would be the ultimate salvation of your soul?

You cannot simply say those things with nothing to back it up and expect anyone to take you seriously. So now is your chance to back up what you say.

 

[Arial]

However, if I am hated by the world for being "holier than thou", there is a possibility that it is this very attitude that makes me hated by the world as a Christian. Especially if Christians who don't carry this attitude are not hated. It would indicate that those who are hated are in the right spirit; while those who are not hated are lacking in the things of God.

So you think a holier than thou attitude is the attitude a Christian should have? That this is the right spirit for the Christian to have even though the scriptures tell us otherwise.
Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another, Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in you own sight. ESV

KJV Be on the same mind one toward another, Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgement, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Prob 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.

It is not about whether or not one should preach the gospel in truth or contend for the gospel, it is about attitude in doing so. Holier than thou is an attitude.

Why are you assuming I was calling you holier than thou? I simply made a statement of the futility of preaching the gospel by condemning the unsaved for things they may be doing.

 

[Soyeong]

Actually, he affirmed that in Romans 2:13.

If he affirmed that in Romans 2:13, then that would mean that he was contradicting himself in Romans 4:1-5. However, Romans 2:13, it doesn't state anything about earning our justification as the result of having first had perfect obedience, but that only the doers of the law will be justified. In other words, out of the set of people who will be justified, all of them are doers of the law, so it is something that all of the people who will be justified have in common, not something that comes as the result of having first been a doer of the law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law, so everyone who has faith is a doer of the law and everyone who has faith will be justified, which means that everyone who is a doer of the law is also someone who will be justified.

Jesus told the lame man to pick up his bed and walk on the sabbath (which was work), so, technically, He was teaching people not to obey the sabbath. But in Exodus 20:10, we are told that it is a sin to do "any" work on the sabbath days.

While God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, God also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who do their duties on the Sabbath are held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. Even during the Sabbath year, people were permitted to eat from what grew from the ground. This is also why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get an ox or a child out of a ditch on the Sabbath. So not all forms of work are intended to be understood as being prohibited by the Sabbath. Likewise, people are permitted to cary things on the Sabbath within an eruv, so it is not correct to think that Jesus was teaching people to sin by not obeying the Sabbath.

Jesus re-defined the sabbath (Hebrews 7:12).

Hebrews 7:12 doesn't mention anything about the Sabbath.

He was obedient to the spirit of the sabbath-day law but not the letter (John 5:16-18).

It is the estimation of the author of John, who wrote that gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus "broke the sabbath".

John was not speaking in his own estimation, but simply stated the reasons that the Pharisees had for wanting to kill Jesus without saying anything about whether he agreed with them. There is room for two people who both agree that followers of God should obey God's command to keep the Sabbath holy to disagree about whether doing something is permitted on the Sabbath or breaking it. For example, Jesus could have quoted Rabbi Yehuda as saying that we are permitted to use our hands to crush heads of wheat on the Sabbath as long as we don't use a too, so while some Pharisees thought doing that was breaking the Sabbath (most likely from the house of Shammai), others did not.

 

[Arial]

I know that I have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things (1 John 2:20)? so, if you disagree with me, are you not disagreeing with that unction also?

Your unction from the Holy one is that I fall into the category of those with itching ears because I do not agree with your theology or the doctrines that you arrive at from it? Absolutely I am not going to trust your "unction". First of all it comes from a false premise that that scripture means that whatever you feel or think is the unction of the Holy One. It exalts your feelings and your thoughts to the level of authority. Truthfully, that is leaning on one's own understanding, and thinking more highly of oneself than they ought. Pride to reduce it to one word. That is all it is.

But the reason you may disagree is that you "do not abide by the kjv".

Last I checked in the scriptures, it says nothing about abiding in the KJV, but rather, about abiding in Christ. Where do you get the authority to say such a thing?

I will say to you that I find that other versions teach a distinctly different message than the kjv as concerning some doctrine.

Like WHAT? Statements such as that need to be supported by something other than your statement. Sorry, I cannot take your word for it.

And I will say again that the way to life is narrow and there are few who actually find it.

Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Not the KJV. And the truth is not confined to one translation. You do realize that the Bible has been translated into many, many languages, even the KJV, not just English.

Other translations may not be watered down; but as for me, I will go with what I know is inspired and inerrant.

On what basis do you determine that other translations aren't inspired and inerrant?

Yes, not that you aren't; but that you might not be.

This is true of anyone; because the way to life is narrow and there are few who actually find it.

Are you God, that you have the ability to see into a person's heart and therefore are about the business of doing so to see if they are or aren't? The job of the believer is to preach the gospel, not weigh and measure their salvation.

If we disagree on what is taught by scripture, it indicates that one of us does not have the unction spoken of in 1 John 2:20.

We do not arrive at a correct interpretation of scripture by an unction. You set yourself up as being infallible by doing that. We can both be wrong and if one or both are wrong it is from not rightly dividing the word of God----which means, not dividing it as if often the case, but cutting the furrow straight. All scripture being consistent with itself. It is not because of an unction.

Then there will come a point when you no longer disagree with me; because in seeking the truth you will come to the knowledge of the truth (unless you are what is spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:7).

You are pronouncing yourself as infallible again. That is a despicable assertion. Puffed up, proud, arrogant without a trace of humility or fear of the Lord. If you could recognize that you would never say such things. But he heart is deceitful above all else.

Also, I am told that I can discern the spirit of truth and error by whether a person agrees or disagrees with what I preach (1 John 4:5-6).

Instead of jumping on that and shouting "Oh me, me, This is me! Whatever I say is the truth and whoever does not listen to me is condemned!" let's look at a bit more.

1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out in the world, By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

BTW John was addressing a particular false teaching that had arisen that claimed Jesus did not really come in the flesh and therefore did not really die. But that aside, given the above, what does John mean when he says what he does in 5-6? The "us" would be the apostles and their teaching in particular, and those who confess Jesus as Son of God come in the flesh. And the "listening to" is that, and the "not listening to" is those who reject Jesus as Son of God come in the flesh.

So where do you get the notion that it says whatever jbf says is the truth is the truth and if you do not listen to or agree with him, you are not of God?

 

[Arial]

Then there will come a point when you no longer disagree with me; because in seeking the truth you will come to the knowledge of the truth (unless you are what is spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:7).

I have a suggestion. Stop making your posts about you and try making them about God. In fact all false doctrine and false claims of infallibility in a person, all come from a bad theology, or no theology. Theology: the study of God. Not anthropology: the study of man.

And stop doing as the Catholic church does for itself: setting yourself up as the authority on the interpretation of scripture. It actually destroys any credibility in what they say.

You should really be careful about saying that to people. There was a time when I was very much like I am today and someone said that to me; and it devastated me as a straw that broke the camel's back. Previous to that, for a full year, was the year of my greatest joy in my relationship with the Lord. But of course, people very simply hate the righteous.

Was that maybe because you refused the correction? And still refuse it? It should have broken you before God to learn humility, not cause you to claim the messenger broke you. Maybe by the end of that previous year, God needed to set your feet back on a level path, because as He says, pride goeth before a fall. Those who think they already know everything and that they cannot be wrong, learn nothing. The Bible says that too.

But why is it others must be so careful with you in what they say, and you can accuse them of all sorts of dammable things simply because they disagree with you?

It appears that you are offended by my statements. I would only encourage you to remember that there is an offense in the Cross of Jesus Christ (Galatians 5:11).

Your statements are offensive.What has that to do with there being an offense in the cross of Jesus and what do you think that is? What does Paul say it is in Gal 5?

The answer: preaching circumcision of the flesh is necessary for salvation. IOW the insufficiency of Christ. You would do better to cut a straight furrow with the word of God,assuring a consistency of its truth, rather than looking at random scriptures as being about you.

And I am certainly not accusing any of the brethren; simply making a statement about what might happen to someone who denies the veracity of the kjv because they don't like what it says.

Who is doing either of those things?

Such people are clearly heaping to themselves teachers (in the translators of other versions) to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

Translators are not teachers.

But as for you, you keep walking down the broad path. I don't expect you to listen to me.

So you HAVE determined that I am walking down the broad path. Is that because I don't believe the KJV is the only accurate translation? Or is it because I do not accept your interpretations of scriptures as infallible and inerrant?

Should I discount what the scriptures say and go instead with what you say. Or can the following scriptures be trusted?

John 6:47 Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of GOd, that you believe in HIm whom He has sent."
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst."
John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

 

[justbyfaith]

You have been quoting a scripture and applying it to me that suggests I am not saved, and now you say the reason I feel condemned by that is because I am being convicted by that scripture. An unbeliever is not convicted by scripture. I don't feel condemned by it. I see you condemning me with it, and without any justification whatsoever. Your condemnation of me is based on nothing but the fact that I disagree with you.

I have not condemned you especially if you don't feel condemned by the scripture that I have quoted.

If you do feel condemned or convicted by it, then it is the scripture that has done that work.

 

[justbyfaith]

You say " of course not" Then you deny the Justifying Merit of the Death of Christ for them He died for, that's unbelief !

How have I done so?

 

[justbyfaith]

Its Blasphemous to say Christ was disobedient in any shape or form. So you are Blaspheming friend

Nope. With a change in priesthood came a change in law (Hebrews 7:12). Jesus came not after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. He is even the Lord of the sabbath.

Technically, He worked on the sabbath (John 5:16-18); and that is a violation of the letter (Exodus 20:10).

He did not violate the spirit of what is written; and therefore did not sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

So you think a holier than thou attitude is the attitude a Christian should have? That this is the right spirit for the Christian to have even though the scriptures tell us otherwise.
Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another, Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in you own sight. ESV

KJV Be on the same mind one toward another, Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgement, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Prob 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.

It is not about whether or not one should preach the gospel in truth or contend for the gospel, it is about attitude in doing so. Holier than thou is an attitude.

I have been living and speaking in accordance with the verses that you are quoting above; and yet you say that I have a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

Well, if I do have one, it is not because I am not living according to scripture.

What I am saying is that the attitude that I now have is a Christian attitude.

You say that it is "holier-than-thou". If it is, then "holier-than-thou" is not an un-Christian attitude.

If I am hated because of a "holier-than-thou" attitude, there are scriptures, which I have quoted, which speak of the fact that my attitude is the correct one.

Especially if other Christians who do not have this attitude are not hated.

For I have shown that those who have the correct attitude will be hated by the world.

 

[justbyfaith]

which means that everyone who is a doer of the law is also someone who will be justified.

However, by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Romans 3:20). That, and the idea that the doers of the law shall be justified, if you combine the two concepts, indicates that no one is a doer of the law.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hebrews 7:12 doesn't mention anything about the Sabbath.

The sabbath isn't a commandment in the law?