Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
i am especially interested in John 7:538:11
lol!
I think one has to go to a library and use the Dewey Decimal system to look that up. It might be found in the Reference section.
It's not that hard to look up
it was a simple joke..(based on the missing hyphen or separation)
Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
i am especially interested in John 7:538:11
lol!
I think one has to go to a library and use the Dewey Decimal system to look that up. It might be found in the Reference section.
It's not that hard to look up
it was a simple joke..(based on the missing hyphen or separation)
Evaluation and scutiny of source, evaluation of internal and external consistency and context, and multi-source independent objective corroboration. Biblical stories fail as historically reliable on these criteria.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
What about the notion that there's no such thing as the supernatural? Is it also a preconception that should be abandoned? Do modern historians not have agendas?
Without objective credible evidence, it shouldn't be given credence beyond incredible. Historians use a structured framework of critical analysis, and rigorous methodology to separate fact from myth. Objectivity operates outside of agendas. Apologetics begins with an agenda.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
The schizophrenic guy in the mental hospital knows beyond a doubt that he is Napoleon. That doesn't make him Napoleon. True story, a Calvinist friend of mine once told me she no longer went to church. When I asked her why, she told me that she did not have "assurance of her… https://t.co/wG7OHCdiUD
Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.
And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.
The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.
Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."
There are a couple of passages in dispute, but nothing changes any doctrine. 99% of the discrepancies are spelling differences or errors, punctuation differences or errors.
Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.
And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.
The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.
Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."
It is possible the passage in question wasn't in the original manuscripts.
But it's certain there are no monks in any of the manuscripts.
Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.
And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.
The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.
Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."
It is possible the passage in question wasn't in the original manuscripts.
But it's certain there are no monks in any of the manuscripts.
We don't know that for sure, but they aren't on the oldest Manuscripts.
Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?
In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.
They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.
And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.
The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.
Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."
It is possible the passage in question wasn't in the original manuscripts.
But it's certain there are no monks in any of the manuscripts.
This manuscripts are incredibly close and accuracy. Most of the differences are punctuation and spelling differences. There are only two passages in question that do not change any major Doctrine.
Something to remember: The law was fulfilled not abolished. The word fulfilled doesn't mean bringing something to completion and now it no longer applies. That's an insane western development. To fulfill the Law is to fill it full, to bring it to its intended depth and perfection, not to cancel it.
We still abide in the law today but as has been revealed to us by Christ and His Church, to include how God wants to be worshipped. There is still a prescribed offering for God and this only changed by exactly what is offered. Christ in the Sermon on the Mount intensifies the law and that's what fullfilling is. Don't just avoid murder, don't even harbor anger. Don't just avoid adultery, don't even entertain lust. That's not canceling a contract. That's revealing the Law's full depth. Which is exactly what "fulfill" means.
Something to remember: The law was fulfilled not abolished. The word fulfilled doesn't mean bringing something to completion and now it no longer applies. That's an insane western development. To fulfill the Law is to fill it full, to bring it to its intended depth and perfection, not to cancel it.
We still abide in the law today but as has been revealed to us by Christ and His Church, to include how God wants to be worshipped. There is still a prescribed offering for God and this only changed by exactly what is offered. Christ in the Sermon on the Mount intensifies the law and that's what fullfilling is. Don't just avoid murder, don't even harbor anger. Don't just avoid adultery, don't even entertain lust. That's not canceling a contract. That's revealing the Law's full depth. Which is exactly what "fulfill" means.
The Law no longer applies. We are under grace. Paul said that we are no longer under the law, but qe are under grace. Peter was commanded to eat pork and associate with gentiles. Paul said if you are circumcised (For Salvation) Christ shall profit you nothing. We are not under the Law. The 10 commandments are re iterated by Paul that we must obey them, except the Sabbath is not. We don't do works or commandments to gain Salvation.
Something to remember: The law was fulfilled not abolished. The word fulfilled doesn't mean bringing something to completion and now it no longer applies. That's an insane western development. To fulfill the Law is to fill it full, to bring it to its intended depth and perfection, not to cancel it.
We still abide in the law today but as has been revealed to us by Christ and His Church, to include how God wants to be worshipped. There is still a prescribed offering for God and this only changed by exactly what is offered. Christ in the Sermon on the Mount intensifies the law and that's what fullfilling is. Don't just avoid murder, don't even harbor anger. Don't just avoid adultery, don't even entertain lust. That's not canceling a contract. That's revealing the Law's full depth. Which is exactly what "fulfill" means.
The Law no longer applies. We are under grace. Paul said that we are no longer under the law, but qe are under grace. Peter was commanded to eat pork and associate with gentiles. Paul said if you are circumcised (For Salvation) Christ shall profit you nothing. We are not under the Law. The 10 commandments are re iterated by Paul that we must obey them, except the Sabbath is not. We don't do works or commandments to gain Salvation.
It is extremely dangerous to make a blanket statement that says the Law no longer applies because it is much more nuanced than that. Jesus said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18 It is more correct to say that the fulfillment of the law in Christ resulted in certain ceremonial and observational aspects of the law being set aside or fulfilled. Of course, its moral aspects are still in full force. Let me give you an example of how the fulfillment of the law works.
Now I know that Doc and I both believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist/communion and you probably don't. But we know that Saint Paul said that those who took communion unworthily could get sick and die. That is right in the text of the New Testament, right? So that's beyond argument.
"Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep." -1st Corinthians 11:27-30
So let's take a look at Leviticus chapter 7, specifically the Mosaic Law of the peace offering.
"'This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which he shall offer to the Lord: If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer, with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil, or cakes of blended flour mixed with oil. Besides the cakes, as his offering he shall offer leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offering. And from it he shall offer one cake from each offering as a heave offering to the Lord. It shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace offering.
'The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day it is offered. He shall not leave any of it until morning. But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offers his sacrifice; but on the next day the remainder of it also may be eaten; the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned with fire. And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination to him who offers it, and the person who eats of it shall bear guilt.
'The flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten. It shall be burned with fire. And as for the clean flesh, all who are clean may eat of it. But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people." -Leviticus 7:11-20
Do you see the correlation between the bolded texts? And the portions of Leviticus 7 that are ceremonial that no longer apply under the New Covenant as well as the fulfillment in Christ of that section of the law? After all, one of Christ's roles was as the peace offering of the New Covenant.
"and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." - Colossians 1:20
You may think that we are Orthodox because we don't know the Bible. In fact, we are Orthodox because we do know the Bible...inside and out.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore. That was for the Jews who were under the law. Go over to Paul's writings Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians first and second Thessalonians Titus... that is what the church is under today not the levitical law. You are in deep error.
Romans 3:20 NKJV [20] Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[27] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. [28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Romans 7:4 NKJV [4] Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to anotherto Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
Romans 7:6 NKJV [6] But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore. That was for the Jews who were under the law. Go over to Paul's writings Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians first and second Thessalonians Titus... that is what the church is under today not the levitical law. You are in deep error.
Romans 3:20 NKJV [20] Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[27] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. [28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Romans 7:4 NKJV [4] Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to anotherto Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
Romans 7:6 NKJV [6] But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
You were conditioned to hear "law = works salvation" that the moment Leviticus appears you can't even processing what's actually being claimed.
Jesus said explicitly "I did not come to abolish." You're saying He abolished it. Who's in error?
The Levitical peace offering required that anyone eating it while unclean bore guilt and was cut off. Paul says anyone eating the Eucharist unworthily bears guilt, gets sick, and dies. Same structure. Same logic. Same consequence. Are you denying that this is CLEARLY a mirror/parallel?
It's not coincidence. Paul inherited this framework directly from Leviticus and applied it to its fulfillment in Christ. The mirror is right there in your NT. The entire Levitical sacrificial system is prospective prophecy…and you're denying it.
You brought up Romans 7:6 "But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." The key word is "so that." Paul isn't saying we're free from obligation. He's saying we're free from the mechanism of letter-based law keeping in order to serve God in a deeper way. Deliverance from the law is the means, not the end. The end is still service. Still obedience. Still fruit.
Read 7:4, He says we died to the law like dying to a first husband, so that we could be married to Christ. You're not delivered from marriage. You're delivered from one covenant into another. he says so explicitly: "that we should bear fruit to God."
Do you understand that when we use the word 'works', we mean effort? Ongoing repentance, humility, perseverance, commitment, saying "Yes" to Grace are works. If your faith doesn't include this behavior, your faith isn't legit. Repentance isn't you storming heaven with merit. It's you opening the door grace is already knocking on. That's still an act. It's still effort. That's still a work…just not a meritorious one.
Did ya'll know that toward the end of his life Luther expressed deep alarm at what the Reformation had produced? He watched Germany descend into moral chaos and explicitly blamed the doctrine of grace he'd preached for producing licentiousness rather than holiness.
People heard "not by works" and concluded nothing was required of them. They bought into antinomianism. He said people were using evangelical freedom as a cover for living however they wanted. He actually coined the term antinomian.
You can CLEARLY see this behavior on steroids today. Pray the sinner's prayer once, you're in forever regardless of how you live. Assurance of salvation completely detached from fruit. "Once saved always saved" weaponized to eliminate any behavioral expectation whatsoever.
The evangelical church's divorce rate is almost higher than the secular rate. Cohabitation, pornography, homosexual practice: all steadily normalized within mainstream evangelical congregations over the past 20 years.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore
Not once did I say that we are keeping the Levitical law to be saved. But that having been said, the Christian prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, for example, come straight out of Leviticus. I hope you would agree that those moral laws of Leviticus are still in effect.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore
Not once did I say that we are keeping the Levitical law to be saved. But that having been said, the Christian prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, for example, come straight out of Leviticus. I hope you would agree that those moral laws of Leviticus are still in effect.
Yes but we don't keep the ceremonial law and we don't kep the Law for salvation. We are also not under the Sabbath. Paul makes that clear.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore
Not once did I say that we are keeping the Levitical law to be saved. But that having been said, the Christian prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, for example, come straight out of Leviticus. I hope you would agree that those moral laws of Leviticus are still in effect.
Yes but we don't keep the ceremonial law and we don't kep the Law for salvation. We are also not under the Sabbath. Paul makes that clear.
And your point?
Colossians 2:16-17
Quote:
"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."
The Sabbath was a shadow of the ultimate Rest we find in Christ. We don't "drop" the Sabbath: we enter into the permanent, cosmic Sabbath of Christ's resurrection.
Why would God strike people sick and dead for eating bread incorrectly if the ceremonial holiness laws are completely canceled? The answer is that the holiness principle of the ceremonial law was never abolished. Christ didn't come to make things less holy...He filled the symbols with His actual Presence, making them more holy.
How do ya'll not see the OBVIOUS fulfillment?
Leviticus 7: The text splits the world into two clear groups: "As for the clean flesh, all who are clean may eat of it. But the person who eats... while he is unclean..."
1 Corinthians 11: Paul establishes the exact same binary boundary line: "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup... in an unworthy manner..."
Leviticus 7: Eating the peace offering while unclean means the sacrifice "shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination." You have defiled God's table.
1 Corinthians 11: Paul defines the sin in the same way: "not discerning the Lord's body." By eating it like a regular meal, without recognizing the real holiness present, you commit a profound sacrilege. You become "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
Leviticus 7: God's verdict is absolute: "...that person shall be cut off from his people." In the Torah, being cut off meant either excommunication or premature death by a direct act of God.
1 Corinthians 11: Paul records the historical reality of that exact same divine verdict playing out in real time in Corinth: "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep [have died]."
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore
Not once did I say that we are keeping the Levitical law to be saved. But that having been said, the Christian prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, for example, come straight out of Leviticus. I hope you would agree that those moral laws of Leviticus are still in effect.
Yes but we don't keep the ceremonial law and we don't kep the Law for salvation. We are also not under the Sabbath. Paul makes that clear.
And your point?
Colossians 2:16-17
Quote:
"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."
The Sabbath was a shadow of the ultimate Rest we find in Christ. We don't "drop" the Sabbath: we enter into the permanent, cosmic Sabbath of Christ's resurrection.
Why would God strike people sick and dead for eating bread incorrectly if the ceremonial holiness laws are completely canceled? The answer is that the holiness principle of the ceremonial law was never abolished. Christ didn't come to make things less holy...He filled the symbols with His actual Presence, making them more holy.
They were not struck sick or dead for eating bread "incorrectly". They brought judgement on themselves for taking the Lord's Supper unworthily. This meant that they were eating their own meals separately, so that the rich ate lavish meals and the poor ate hardly anything. This was dividing the body of Christ, and it was dishonoring to Jesus' memory of his sacrifice. Paul only talks about eating the meal in memory of Jesus' sacrifice and to "proclaim Jesus' death until he comes". NOWHERE says anything about the communion bread and wine actually becoming or containing Jesus' "presence" within them. The judgement brought upon those taking communion unworthily was because of what was in their heart. It wasn't the holiness of the bread and wine themselves they were offending, it was the holiness of what they were to remember and proclaim through the symbols of the bread and wine. The same kind of judgement was brought upon Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts, who lied to the Holy Spirit about their offering. It wasn't because the offering mysteriously "became" or "contained" Jesus' presence within themselves, the judgement came because of the sin in their heart. It was their attitude that dishonored Jesus and his church that brought their judgement.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore
Not once did I say that we are keeping the Levitical law to be saved. But that having been said, the Christian prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, for example, come straight out of Leviticus. I hope you would agree that those moral laws of Leviticus are still in effect.
Yes but we don't keep the ceremonial law and we don't kep the Law for salvation. We are also not under the Sabbath. Paul makes that clear.
And your point?
Colossians 2:16-17
Quote:
"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."
How do ya'll not see the OBVIOUS fulfillment?
Leviticus 7: The text splits the world into two clear groups: "As for the clean flesh, all who are clean may eat of it. But the person who eats... while he is unclean..."
1 Corinthians 11: Paul establishes the exact same binary boundary line: "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup... in an unworthy manner..."
Leviticus 7: Eating the peace offering while unclean means the sacrifice "shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination." You have defiled God's table.
1 Corinthians 11: Paul defines the sin in the same way: "not discerning the Lord's body." By eating it like a regular meal, without recognizing the real holiness present, you commit a profound sacrilege. You become "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
Leviticus 7: God's verdict is absolute: "...that person shall be cut off from his people." In the Torah, being cut off meant either excommunication or premature death by a direct act of God.
1 Corinthians 11: Paul records the historical reality of that exact same divine verdict playing out in real time in Corinth: "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep [have died]."
This isn't addressing his point, though, that we are not under ceremonial law to be saved. Yes, Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Sabbath and ceremonial law, but salvation doesn't come through adherence to rule keeping regarding any sacraments.
The parallel between Lev. 7 and 1 Cor. 11 isn't an argument for sacramental works righteousness. It's an argument that the Eucharist is a real sacrificial offering with real covenantal stakes.
It carries the same covenantal gravity. Lev. 7 didn't require perfect Torah observance for justification either. It required worthy participation in a holy sacrifice. Paul says the same thing. God killing Corinthians for unworthy communion isn't a works salvation argument it's evidence that what's on the table is genuinely sacred. You can't 'fail to discern' a symbol. You either see it or you don't. Paul says people are dying for missing something. What are they missing?
This isn't legalism guys. When Paul says we are "justified," the Greek dikaioo carries covenant-relational meaning, it's not some kind of strange forensic verdict in a Roman law court.
Covenant-relational is saying "Yes" to grace. Because grace in the Greek patristic sense isn't a substance transferred to cover a legal deficit. It's God's own energies drawing you into participation with His life. You cooperate with that or you don't. The covenant-relational view is more grace centered because it means God is perpetually and actively drawing you into Himself, and the entire sacramental life is the ongoing "yes" to that movement.
Not even the original reformers were dumb enough to collapse all participation into merit. They still adhered to sacraments.
But with the radical reformers…any act that "does something" spiritually must be earning something. So Baptism regenerates? Works righteousness. Eucharist conveys grace? Works righteousness. Confession restores communion? Works righteousness.
By that same logic, faith itself is works righteousness. Faith is something you do. That's why a lot of you guys are Calvinists. You're full on determinists who think God made you have faith in Him. Now you have God predestining some to belief and others to damnation and calling that justice.
The parallel between Lev. 7 and 1 Cor. 11 isn't an argument for sacramental works righteousness. It's an argument that the Eucharist is a real sacrificial offering with real covenantal stakes.
It carries the same covenantal gravity. Lev. 7 didn't require perfect Torah observance for justification either. It required worthy participation in a holy sacrifice. Paul says the same thing. God killing Corinthians for unworthy communion isn't a works salvation argument it's evidence that what's on the table is genuinely sacred. You can't 'fail to discern' a symbol. You either see it or you don't. Paul says people are dying for missing something. What are they missing?
This isn't legalism guys. When Paul says we are "justified," the Greek dikaioo carries covenant-relational meaning, it's not some kind of strange forensic verdict in a Roman law court.
Covenant-relational is saying "Yes" to grace. Because grace in the Greek patristic sense isn't a substance transferred to cover a legal deficit. It's God's own energies drawing you into participation with His life. You cooperate with that or you don't. The covenant-relational view is more grace centered because it means God is perpetually and actively drawing you into Himself, and the entire sacramental life is the ongoing "yes" to that movement.
"The Eucharist is a real sacrificial offering"?? What are you guys sacrificing for real, and for what?
"Real covenantal stakes"?? No. Our covenantal relationship with God through Jesus Christ is not dependent at all on how we observe the Lord's Supper or the mistakes we may make in it. Sure, in Paul's time, people were judged harshly for an improper attitude in communion and in church offerings, but there is no indication that salvation was at stake. And if such judgements were still happening today, there would be many, many people dropping dead in church all over they world. But they aren't.
Our covenantal relationship with God through Jesus Christ is through faith. Not by any kind of sacramental performance doled out by an institution. It's NOT "faith... PLUS your effort" as you are saying. These are what you RC's and Orthodox get completely wrong. Sin may have consequences, some severe like what Paul was describing and what Ananias and Sapphira experienced, but for the believer, the consequence is not eternal separation from God. For believers, Jesus is always at the right hand of God, interceding for us.
Not even the original reformers were dumb enough to collapse all participation into merit. They still adhered to sacraments.
But with the radical reformers…any act that "does something" spiritually must be earning something. So Baptism regenerates? Works righteousness. Eucharist conveys grace? Works righteousness. Confession restores communion? Works righteousness.
By that same logic, faith itself is works righteousness. Faith is something you do. That's why a lot of you guys are Calvinists. You're full on determinists who think God made you have faith in Him. Now you have God predestining some to belief and others to damnation and calling that justice.
Faith is defined in Scripture - "the assurance of what we hope for, the conviction of things unseen".
Notice that there's no action or works mentioned. It's all the matter of the heart. This is straight from Scripture, folks.
**** And notice that Scripture directly says that faith is assurance. Without assurance of salvation, it isn't faith. Therefore, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, who deny assurance of salvation, do not have faith.
What you are doing is very dangerous. If you are keeping the deeds of the law in order to be saved then the Bible says that you are not saved. We don't have to obey the law. You are quoting from Leviticus. We are not under Leviticus anymore
Not once did I say that we are keeping the Levitical law to be saved. But that having been said, the Christian prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, for example, come straight out of Leviticus. I hope you would agree that those moral laws of Leviticus are still in effect.
Yes but we don't keep the ceremonial law and we don't kep the Law for salvation. We are also not under the Sabbath. Paul makes that clear.
This is what I said: "the fulfillment of the law in Christ resulted in certain ceremonial and observational aspects of the law being set aside or fulfilled. Of course, its moral aspects are still in full force."
I've heard many claim sanctification is the evidence of justification, therefore no works indicates no justification, it begs the question: did God then fail to justify? How would one know? And when would one know?
It's epistemically inaccessible to have assurance of salvation because you have no reliable self knowledge or external verification if your faith is real.
God, to a Calvinist, deceives... From Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 3, Chapter 2). "Evanescent grace is a theological concept primarily associated with John Calvin's writings, referring to a temporary or fading form of grace that God supposedly grants to some non-elect (reprobate) individuals." "In this context, it describes a non-saving, illusory grace or faith that mimics true regeneration for a time (allowing the person to experience conviction, joy in the gospel, or apparent belief), but later dissipates, leaving the person without salvation."
Next question: how can you know you have saving grace and not evanescent grace?
"For God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever was already elect would be regenerated so they could believe in Him and would not perish but have everlasting life." John Calvin 3:16
If salvation is entirely monergistic and you had no real part in receiving it, the only way to verify your elect is to inspect the fruits. So you spend your life forensically auditing your own spiritual state trying to determine if your faith is the real God-given kind or the fake kind that looks identical from the inside. Everyone continues to sin their entire life: this is why the Calvinists report the most anxiety about salvation.
