Uzytkownik "James Hajicek" <hajicek@execpc.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3F7954CA.5D9150CD@execpc.com...
> "Uncle Davey" wrote:
>
> I see you are still addressing me in the third person.
>
> Care to comment on why you are doing this?
>
> Is this one of the Requirements of your Church?
>
> I am not writing TO Davey, because I presume that he is beyond any
> hope of being convinced by me. I am writing ABOUT Davey to those more
> innocent people who might possibly deceived by Davey's arguments, but
> who are also still capable of listening to the truth.
Okay.
I on the other hand believe that God is powerful enough to change your mind,
if he wants to.
Just as he is powerful enough to forgive all your sins, if he calls you to
repentance.
So I am very much addressing you, James.
Very much so.
>
> Those who claim to be Christian, but who teach that infernal doctrine
> of "salvation by faith alone", can be classified into at about five
> categories:
>
> 1. Those who have been duped, but who might possibly be converted.
> These are very rare among those who post "faith only" messages.
> However, there may be some of them among the lurkers, and they are the
> ones who I write for.
It says that satan seeks, if it were possible, to deceive the very elect.
You've just shown me a fine illustration of this.
>
> 2. Those who are trapped in some kind of continual sin, unable to
> find a way out of their dilemma except the "faith only" doctrine, but
> who might be redeemed if they could learn how to avoid sin or learn
> why what they are doing is not sinful.
Not sinful? Care to expand?
> 3. Those who conscience has been seared, and who seem to be beyond
> redemption. They are under the strong influence of some kind of a
> devil, and it as if they are blind to both common sense and to certain
> scripture verses. They literally cannot see some things. It is as if
> when they look, that their devil makes noise in their head to distract
> them.
>
That's what it looks like to me when you ignore the clear scriptures about
salvation being 'not of works, lest any man should boast'.
> 4. Those who are conspirators, for example atheists or pagans, people
> who do not believe any portion of the scripture, but who are willing
> to use it in a deceitful way to fight against the Christian faith.
I would put Joseph Smith in that category.
>
> 5. Those whose bodies have been literally taken over by a demon.
> They are open hypocrites who fully know that they are lying and
> deceiving.
I wouldn't give the devil so much credit, he'll be after you for more.
Although he has you in his grasp already, of course, since you knowingly
reject the sufficiency of Christ.
But while you breathe, there is hope.
Actually the above are all not the case, but those who have read the
passages of the Bible which talk about salvation by faith alone.
You know they exist, you choose to overrule them or ignore them.
But they will not go away.
>
> It can be difficult to know which category a person is in, and it may
> not matter too much.
>
> I might have been willing to write TO Davey, instead of ABOUT him, if
> I thought that there were any hope that he was in category 1 or 2,
> above. However, here are three things which suggest the contrary.
>
> First, Davey is not merely someone who believes that "good works" are
> unnecessary for salvation.
True.
What works did the thief on the cross do?
> Davey actually seems to hate it that
> people do "works".
Untrue. I hate it if they think their works are anything other than a thank
you for salvation already conferred. I hate it if they think they can make
any difference to the gorgeous wedding robe of Christ's imputed
righteousness by plastering it with their personal righteousness, which is
'filthy rags'.
> This is evident from his analogy in which he
> compared people who do "works" to someone who is "grossly insulting".
> Davey wrote:
>
> We can't add anything to what Christ did on the cross for us
> - it was a full and perfect work of redemption.
>
> Trying to add some works of our own on top would be like
> taking a masterpiece of art in a museum and adding our own
> amendments with a felt tip pen - grossly insulting to the
> author, and likely to get us kicked out of the museum.
>
> Second, Davey could admit that his analogy was phrased badly, and try
> to reword it, but he does not. Even someone in category 2 might be
> willing to do this, but not Davey.
I will add to my analogy. To be inspired by the painting to be a painter
too, to go home and take a canvas and emulate what the artist did out of
love to the artist's work is to honour the artist. To daub our own additions
to his canvas is to insult the artist grossly. you will not get kicked out
of a museum because you imitate an artist's work in your own works and under
your own roof and not add something on top of the artist's work.
Christ's work on the cross is all our righteousness. It and it alone is what
God will look at in deciding whether we are redeemed or not. Our works of
love change nothing from that, and only endanger us if we put them in the
way and ask God to look at them instead of on Christ's perfect
righteousness.
But our works of love do have many positive effects if they are done purely
in the context of gratitude for salvation already received as a gift,
namely:
1. They are a sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling savour, but only when
done not in order to obtain a better righteousness than that given by
Christ.
2. They help us to see that we are growing in sanctification, and bear
witness to ourselves that we are of the faith. They are a natural outpouring
of saving faith, so that in their absence you have to wonder whether your
faith really is a saving faith, and then give diligence to make your calling
and election sure, because not all faith is effectual; people are very good
at self deception, but 'handsome is as handsome does' and actions should
follow from what we believe. That does not mean that we will be always
victorious over all sins, it means we will hate sins and fight against them.
It also does not mean that this fighting against sin adds one iota to the
salvation earned for us ONLY by the death and resurrection of our Lord and
savious Jesus Christ.
3. They are a good witness to others, and God may honour our efforts by
using them to convert the sould of those he wishes to save.
4. There is talk of a greater heavenly reward for those who have done better
than others. There is talk of being saved but 'so as by fire' for the
believer who has failed in his sanctification, but still only hopes on
Christ's righteousness. I don't believe anyone really knows yet what these
things mean.
5. There is the question of sowing and reaping, and sin in this life
certainly results in trouble.
>
> Third, Davey is not willing to budge from anything that he has said.
> He could admit an error on some portion or other of his doctrine, when
> scripture is offered to refute it, but he does not do that. The
> people in category 1 and 2 above are educable, but Davey is not. When
> Davey is confronted by scripture, he ignores it and repeats his
> original assertion. This suggests that Davey is either a blind person
> (category 3) or a hypocrite (category 4 or 5).
>
I have explained all of the scriptures you have given, but you have not
explained mine.
> ----------
>
> I wrote:
>
> Actually, "Uncle Davey" compared those who do the "works" of
> obedience to God to someone who is "grossly insulting".
>
> That was my FIRST objection to Davey's sincerity.
>
> "Uncle Davey" replied:
>
> If they think they can gain favour through them, and they
> they will be of any added significance to their salvation
> after what Christ has done, then they are indeed grossly
> insulting.
>
> That statement illustrates my SECOND objection to Davey's sincerity.
> Instead attempting to reword an unfortunate analogy, Davey confirms
> what he wrote before, and even makes it more plain.
>
> Departing from the analogy, now Davey makes his accusation DIRECTLY.
>
> Davey says that those who think that [works of obedience to God] have
> "any added significance to their salvation" are "grossly insulting".
>
> However, Jesus said:
>
> Matthew 5:20
> 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
> exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye
> shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Amen!!!
But YOU don't seem to know what He meant by that.
YOU seem to think it means we have to go one stage better than the religious
zealots of the first century.
If that's the case, I think they probably stopped going to heaven some time
ago.
No, no. Think again. How can our righteousness exceed that of the best
lawkeepers of all time?
It can only be through the imputed righteousness of the Son of God himself!
Or did you really think you could keep the law better than them?
Oh dear, oh dear!
Get yourself a righteousness that exceeds many times over that of the
scribes and pharisees! Get yourself a righteousness that is NOT your own,
that is NOT from the works of the law, but is the imputed righteousness of
the Sun of Righteousness! It's yours for the taking if you will only abandon
your doctrine based on carnal pride and flee to the Cross of Calvary!
> "Uncle Davey" continued:
>
> 'If righteousness comes by the law' it says, 'then Christ is
> dead in vain'. I happen to think that for a believer to make
> Christ dead in vain is grossly insulting to Him.
>
> It isn't the obedience it's the motive for it, that's the
> point I'm making.
>
> Davey is apparently citing the following:
>
> Galatians 2:21
> 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if
> righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
>
> Paul was referring to the "law", namely the Law of Moses. He wrote
> that atonement by animal sacrifices has been ENDED. If those animal
> sacrifices continued to have any value, then Christ would have died in
> vain.
Nonsense. It is works of law as opposed to the gift of God.
Try reading Galatians with an open and prayerful mind, as if you were coming
to God for the first time.
Forget whatever harmful sermons or books you may have read and go to God
with Galatians.
Your eternal life is in jeopardy now because you have errors, serious errors
of the kind that damn people.
Please look at Galatians properly, and gain the true salvation.
> I wrote:
>
> In no place in Genesis does it say that the serpent in the
> garden of Eden told Eve to be disobedient to God. But we
> all know what his intention was by the general slant of his
> statements to Eve.
>
> "Uncle Davey" replied:
>
> That has nothing to do with me.
>
> I can tell by the general slant of your statements that you
> would like to ensnare men that Christ has freed into the
> yoke of bondage again.
>
> The Law of Moses, with its numerous statutes and ordinances, was
> indeed a "yoke of bondage", Galatians 4:24, 5:1, etc.
Read Galatians, and not your organisation's commentary thereon.
>
> The Ten Commandments are NOT "bondage". The real "bondage", the
> burden which we suffer under, are things like murder, adultery,
> stealing, and lies. However, the Ten Commandments prohibits those
> things. Only a fool or someone who wants to murder, commit adultery,
> steal, or lie would consider that to be a law of "bondage".
>
> The Ten Commandments is what keeps other people from killing you,
> messing with your wife, stealing from you, lying about you, plotting
> to cheat you out of your property, and so forth. No righteous person
> would call the Ten Commandments "bondage".
>
> The Law of Moses is so difficult to keep that it was a heavy burden.
> However, the Ten Commandments presents no exceptional problem for
> honest people. This is why Jesus said that his "yoke" was easy, and
> that his "burden" was light, Matthew 11:30. This is why the Ten
> Commandments is said to be the law of "liberty", Romans 8:21,
> 1 Corinthians 8:9, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 2:4, 5:1,13,
> James 1:25, 2:12, 1 Peter 2:16.
>
In no place does Christ single out the Decalogue for special attention.
This is just dogma dreamed up by members of your organisation to deflect
from the truth of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
>
> I wrote:
>
> Actually, John wrote that those who claim that they have not
> sinned, IN THE PAST, are liars:
>
> 1 John 1:10
> 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar,
> and his word is not in us.
>
> "Uncle Davey" replied:
>
> Two verses earlier the PRESENT tense is used with the same
> sentiment, but you seem to have missed that.
>
> It is a good idea to read around your verses, to get a bit
> of context.
>
> Not only did I "read around" the above verse, but I even quoted the
> verse which Davey is concerned about:
And still you didn't get that it's an ongoing matter of repentance and
forgiveness of every day's fresh sins, and the mercies of God are new every
morning.
>
> John wrote that by confessing those sins, we can be forgiven
> for those PAST sins, and that by faith in Jesus Christ we
> can be CLEANSED of those PAST sins:
>
> 1 John 1:7-9
> 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we
> have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
> Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
> 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
> the truth is not in us.
> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
> forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
> unrighteousness.
>
> John wrote that the sins of the PAST leaves a stain which persists up
> to the PRESENT, but that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from that
> stain.
>
It simply doesn't say that.
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
> ----------
>
> I wrote:
>
> Yes, I know what Luther taught. For example:
>
> A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
> August 1, 1521
>
> ... Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your
> trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is
> the victor over sin, death, and the world. ...
>
> ... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill
> or commit adultery thousands of times each day. ...
>
> "Uncle Davey" replied:
>
> He knew what it was to lead a life challenged by the devil.
>
> Yes, Luther put himself into a real jam. After having taken an oath
> of celibacy, he married a former nun, a woman who had also taken such
> an oath of celibacy. This is an example of what I referred to above
> in category 2, "trapped in some kind of continual sin, unable to find
> a way out of their dilemma".
Luther knew all about the bondage of the will, but he also knew about the
releasing power of the atonement.
> I continued:
>
> That doctrine is utterly abominable. I repeat:
>
> The doctrine that we can be forgiven BY GOD as often as we
> repent, repeatedly, without limit, three times and more, is
> found NOWHERE in the Bible.
>
> "Uncle Davey" replied:
>
> 70*7, my friend. 70*7
>
> His mercies are new EVERY morning.
>
> The command was given TO THE DISCIPLES to forgive their brothers in
> the church 490 times, Matthew 18:21-22. It is a leap of
> interpretation to suppose that there is the same requirement BY GOD.
>
> Even so, God may give each sinner that many opportunities to repent
> and to be converted.
>
> Even so, God may allow sinners that many opportunities to fall after
> their conversion, and to be saved again, but most of those additional
> opportunities may come in hell, not in this life.
And this is where we see the devil working in your religion. You tell people
that they can relax, because God saves even those who are in hell. So people
don't worry about hell any more. they should, because this promise that you
make as menpleasers runs contrary to scripture.
>
> Even so, even if God gave us a new chance "every morning", and we
> continued to sin every day, that 490 times would last LESS THAN TWO
> YEARS.
Most people concur on the symbolism of 70*7.
The point is, if God doesn't forgive sins even after a person is converted,
you've had it.
You've had it, I've had it, everybody's had it.
And if you only knew how filthy you are, you would agree with me, you would
see how unworkable your doctrine is.
I know how filthy I am, but not in full no doubt, as the vision would
destroy me.
And yet Christ covers all, according to his promises.
> Satan wants you to think that you can be forgiven as many times as
> necessary, so that you will be tempted and enticed into continual sin.
>
No, Satan wants you to give up after sin and not get back on the programme
of taking it all to the foot of the cross.
> ----------
>
> I wrote:
>
> I wrote, "some RELATIVELY minor sins". It ought to be
> obvious that murder or stealing a man's wife is more serious
> than stealing some of his property.
>
> "Uncle Davey" replied:
>
> There are no minor sins.
>
> In making that denial that there are some RELATIVELY minor sins, Davey
> utterly turned his back on all of the scripture that I cited:
>
> For example, Jesus spoke of the "least" of the commandments,
> Matthew 5:19.
>
> For example, John wrote that some sins are a sin "unto
> death" and that some sins are "a sin not unto death", 1 John
> 5:16-17.
>
> For example, the Law of Moses provided an immediate death
> penalty for murder and for adultery, Deuteronomy 19:11-13,
> 22:22, Leviticus 20:10-11. But the penalty for theft was
> merely restitution and atonement, Leviticus 6:2-7.
>
> For example, the Law of Moses required an atonement by an
> animal sacrifice for sins of "ignorance", Leviticus 5:17-18,
> Numbers 15:27-29. But the penalty for "presumptuous" sin
> was death, Numbers 15:30-31, Deuteronomy 17:12-13.
>
> That illustrates my THIRD objection to Davey's sincerity. Instead of
> learning something from the scripture, Davey simply ignored it and
> repeated his original assertion.
>
> Satan wants you to think that all sins are equally important. Then if
> you discover that you are committing a relatively minor sin, you will
> be tempted and enticed into committing more serious sins as well.
>
> For example, if a person can be convinced that a mere momentary
> thought of adultery is as serious a sin as actual physical adultery,
> then someone who has a stray immoral thought can be tempted and
> enticed into acting out that thought, falsely thinking that his actual
> physical adultery is no more serious than the thought.
>
> One difference is that a momentary thought, if caught and corrected,
> can be considered to be a sin of weakness, and forgiven. But actual
> physical adultery is more likely to be a PREMEDITATED and WILLFUL sin.
>
Adultery is usually premeditated to some extent, but still it is not the
unforgiveable sin, and even you have acknowledged that.
I would expect any Christian to flee fornication, but if they happen to
fornicate, then they don't have to slice long and deep the next day. God is
still kind, and has an ear to listen to their repentance.
They may have a low place in heaven, they may have trouble on the earth, but
they will still be redeemed if they repent.
And that's the Gospel truth.
Uncle Davey
|
|