Pastor AIO:

A clear distinction is made between seeking God and going to the ritual centers to deliver tithes and sacrifices.  These are all futile without something called Tsedeq, which is translated as righteousness.  It includes Justice for the poor and the widows and orphans.

While '(J)ustice for the poor and the widows and orphans' are included in the Jewish concept of Tsedeq, this is what another prophet (Isaiah) proclaimed -

But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities,
like the wind, have taken us away.
(Isaiah 64:6)

wordtalk:

Well, that is where the problem stands. I've been asking about the implications of the view seemingly being upheld by yourself and Enigma, which was one that rests on the question of being "born again" - as in this quote from Enigma:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8868344

So, as regards all ideas considered with words such as 'accepted', 'saved', 'works', etc, I wanted to know their implications in your views with reference to Cornelius. It seems to me that the view was that Cornelius religious works procured his being "born again" before Peter even arrived at his house.

I apologise. However, I don't seem to get your point. Could I ask if your implication was that Cornelius was "already born again" because of his religious works (he 'gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway')? I'm asking this in view of what Enigma said earlier - "that Cornelius was ALREADY born again before Peter came to his house to preach"?

If that is another misreading of your view, please oblige me.

Religion means a lot of different things to different people. But whatever or however defined, I was clear in saying: "Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been": the words highlighted qualifies whatever definition of religion one might have in mind.

No; rather I said that he was addressing people who were already saved, and not that he was already addressing them. (Not a big deal, other than that I want to be clear: the 'already' qualifies the people whom he addressed, and not his addressing any crowd).

No, I still don't get you; because, while you're saying this -

- it comes back to the point that is of concern to me: that your view is that Cornelius' religion saved him! That is where I'm quizzed, and was asking: Does religion save any man?

Hmmm  . . .

  I think I (and others) have reiterated several times over the course of this thread that works by themselves are worthless - so I'm not sure how you continue to attribute that pov to me. You said this above:

It seems to me that the view was that Cornelius religious works procured his being "born again" before Peter even arrived at his house.

and I said this in just my last post:

JeSoul:
Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!! It is his religion - which God has accepted - that is rooted in a love for God and his fellow man.

 

---

 I think the main stumbling block here is the seperation of faith from works. Whereas I'm trying to show Cornelius' faith by his works. Yes I agree with Enigma that Cornelius was already accepted by God prior to his audience with Peter - I mean see the flowing colorful language the bible describes him in, and even Peter declaring he now understands "God accepts from every nation people who fear Him" - how could we say any different? To be accepted before God is the ultimate goal and is that any different from being 'born again'? isn't that what its all about? God accepting or approving of us? Can God accept a person's deeds & faith but stop them at heaven's gates because they were not 'born again' as we modernists require it?

What happens to generations of God-fearing men and women who loved God and their fellow men - who never heard of Jesus? Or do we think that the reach of the Holy Spirit to transform a man is limited to after he has been preached to? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ not only affected every man that was born since Calvary - but rather stretched both forward and backward in time - justifing as many who believed in God - and believed enough that it manifested in good works.

Jesus said He has sheep from other pen that also listen to His voice and that He would gather and make us all one. God reminded Elijah, I still have faithful followers who haven't bowed down to baal - you're not my only 'people'. God has followers all around the globe - in every tribe and nation. The arm of God is not restricted to touch and move and yes save - by our human conceptions of tribe, nation and especially religion.

dare2think:

Pls, this is borderline bigotry.


Tel me, if an individual was born in Saudi arabia and all that he knows is islam due to the involuntary Indoctrination most of us have been subjected to, are you now telling me that person is not "saved"?

Do you only have to be a Christian (followers of Christ) to be "saved"?

What is wrong with this world? Even the ones that preaches the "Love", "peace" and "Salvation" are indirectly saying "It has to be our way or no other way" and no other way means eternal damnation.

What is the difference between that and the threat of some islamist fundamentalist ideology of "our way or no way".

My brother is all good . . . we're all sharpening each other and will plead for patience from each other knowing that at one point or another we have all believed awry. I pray that all these things too God will continue to open our eyes and the heart of our understanding to greater revelation of truth - amen!

wordtalk:

While '(J)ustice for the poor and the widows and orphans' are included in the Jewish concept of Tsedeq, this is what another prophet (Isaiah) proclaimed -

But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities,
like the wind, have taken us away.
(Isaiah 64:6)

So how do you understand that verse.  That righteousness is filthy?  Or that our attempts at righteousness are filthy?  If righteousness is filthy to God, and at the same time we hear that Sacrifice is hated by God then what are our options?  

And please, I need to know what you understand as 'born again'.  


Oh yes, and please, I forgot . . .
How do you read the previous verse to the verse you quoted.

5You meet him who rejoices in doing righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
Behold, You were angry, for we sinned,
We continued in them a long time;
And shall we be saved?

6For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

A contrast is made between 2 people. One who rejoices in doing righteousness and God meets him. And those whose righteous deeds are as filthy garments and God hides his face from him.

JeSoul:

Hmmm  . . .

  I think I (and others) have reiterated several times over the course of this thread that works by themselves are worthless - so I'm not sure how you continue to attribute that pov to me.

Okay, sorry for the further misreading - it was unintentional. The one thing that got me quizzed was your statement that "It is his religion" - and I wanted to know if you were saying that Cornelius' religion procured his being "born again". It seemed that while you were saying 'No' on the one hand, you were implying "it is his religion" that did it. I apologise, but that is just where I'm at cross-roads in reading yours.

I think the main stumbling block here is the seperation of faith from works.

Well, I'm not sure that 'separation' is the issue. If anything, works follow salvation - or salvation comes before works: they are intricately connected in that manner, and I think that is what James 2 highlights for us.

Whereas I'm trying to show Cornelius' faith by his works. Yes I agree with Enigma that Cornelius was already accepted by God prior to his audience with Peter - I mean see the flowing colorful language the bible describes him in, and even Peter declaring he now understands "God accepts from every nation people who fear Him" - how could we say any different?

Okay, let's be clear - colourful or poetic language aside: does "accepted" imply "born again"? Is that what you were saying? If yes, how so? If no, then I'm missing something.

To be accepted before God is the ultimate goal and is that any different from being 'born again'? isn't that what its all about?

I think there's a distinction, when it comes to implications thereto. This is why the next query is important:

God accepting or approving of us?

Lol, it was his 'works' (or, his 'deeds') - a different thing from the person himself. This is explained in answer to your next question -

Can God accept a person's deeds & faith but stop them at heaven's gates because they were not 'born again' as we modernists require it?

It is not a modernist enquiry. What if I ask the question another way: can God reject someone's works and yet regard them as "saved"? My answer? Absolutely YES. Take a look again at 1 Corinthians 3:15 - "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

However, the question of whether God could accept a person's deeds and faith and yet stop them at heaven's gates is somewhat preposterous. The implication in that question already supposes that it is their works that saved them - whereas that is the one thing that the NT counters.

What happens to generations of God-fearing men and women who loved God and their fellow men - who never heard of Jesus?

The answer is given in Romans 2:6-11.

Or do we think that the reach of the Holy Spirit to transform a man is limited to after he has been preached to? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ not only affected every man that was born since Calvary - but rather stretched both forward and backward in time - justifing as many who believed in God - and believed enough that it manifested in good works.

As in Romans 3:25-26.

Jesus said He has sheep from other pen that also listen to His voice and that He would gather and make us all one. God reminded Elijah, I still have faithful followers who haven't bowed down to baal - you're not my only 'people'. God has followers all around the globe - in every tribe and nation. The arm of God is not restricted to touch and move and yes save - by our human conceptions of tribe, nation and especially religion.

This is not the issue, Jesoul. Perhaps I should rather ask: what then is the reason why the Gospel must be preached at all?
[quote][/quote]

Pastor AIO:

So how do you understand that verse.  That righteousness is filthy?  Or that our attempts at righteousness are filthy?

But isn't it clear enough? How could anyone assume that verse supposes that 'righteousness is filthy'? It is not even "our attempt" at it that is filthy, but "our righteousness" - as clear as the verse says.

If righteousness is filthy to God, and at the same time we hear that Sacrifice is hated by God then what are our options?

It does not say that 'righteousness is filthy' - there is a qualifier there: "our righteousness".

And please, I need to know what you understand as 'born again'.

 

John 3:5.

Oh yes, and please, I forgot . . .
How do you read the previous verse to the verse you quoted.

A contrast is made between 2 people. One who rejoices in doing righteousness and God meets him. And those whose righteous deeds are as filthy garments and God hides his face from him.

Lol, I saw the previous verse - Isaiah 64:5. But whatever the contrasts, verse 6 is clear enough that EVERYONE is involved -

6[b]For all of us have become like one who is unclean[/b],
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

ALL - not a contrast, but ALL.

Perhaps, the point that man's righteousness is insufficient to save him is yet highlighted by the same prophet - "I will declare your righteousness and your deeds, but they will not profit you" (Isaiah 57:12).

wordtalk:


Okay, let's be clear - colourful or poetic language aside: does "accepted" imply "born again"? Is that what you were saying? If yes, how so? If no, then I'm missing something.

@Wordtalk

Pastor AIO:

What does being 'born again' actually mean to you?  What is the relationship between being born again and being acceptable to God, and what is the relation between being born again and being 'saved'.  I'm starting to get the feeling that these words are actually meaningless when used in religious conversations.  

Pastor AIO:

What does being 'born again' actually mean to you? What is the relationship between being born again and being acceptable to God, and what is the relation between being born again and being 'saved'. I'm starting to get the feeling that these words are actually meaningless when used in religious conversations.

I apologise to have missed that post earlier.

I don't think they are actually meaningless in religious conversations. The one thing I've been seeking is context. If we take any one of the terms we've been considering on their own without due reference to the contexts in which they appear, then indeed everything breaks down into meaningless lighted-hearted conversations.

For instance, the word 'saved' is used in the Bible in various connections. Jesus in Luke 18:42 said - "thy faith hath saved thee", and only in the context of the event is that 'saved' made clear - the blind man receiving his sight.

That above is a radically different thing from the same word ('saved') used in another context, such as in John 10:9 - "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."

Jesus spoke about being "born again" in John 3:3-5; and is perhaps expounded by Paul in Titus 3:5-7 --

Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according
to the hope of eternal life.

This is why I wonder if 'religion' procures these things for any man ('these things', meaning "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" through Jesus Christ).

wordtalk:

But isn't it clear enough? How could anyone assume that verse supposes that 'righteousness is filthy'? It is not even "our attempt" at it that is filthy, but "our righteousness" - as clear as the verse says.

It does not say that 'righteousness is filthy' - there is a qualifier there: "our righteousness".

How do you make a distinction between righteousness, and 'our righteousness'?  What exactly is the distinction that is being made here?  

wordtalk:

John 3:5.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Is being born again as mentioned by Jesus equivalent to being saved, or being acceptable to God?  

wordtalk:

Lol, I saw the previous verse - Isaiah 64:5. But whatever the contrasts, verse 6 is clear enough that EVERYONE is involved -

6[b]For all of us have [size=15pt]become[/size] like one who is unclean[/b],
        And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
        And all of us wither like a leaf,
        And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

ALL - not a contrast, but ALL.

Perhaps, the point that man's righteousness is insufficient to save him is yet highlighted by the same prophet - "I will declare your righteousness and your deeds, but they will not profit you" (Isaiah 57:12).

When one becomes a certain way, is Isaiah not talking about a current situation?  Or is he saying that we can never be righteous so as to please God?  

And as for Isaiah 57 let's look at it in context:

12“I will declare your righteousness and your deeds,
        But they will not profit you.

13“When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver you.
        But the wind will carry all of them up,
        And a breath will take them away.
        But he who takes refuge in Me will inherit the land
        And will possess My holy mountain.”

What exactly was the nature of this righteousness that was being declared.  Did it involve their collection of idols?  Or was it the lies, and failure to remember God in the previous verse . . .

11“Of whom were you worried and fearful
        When you lied, and did not remember Me
        Nor give Me a thought?
        Was I not silent even for a long time
        So you do not fear Me?



Certain people strive for righteousness.  They rejoice in righteousness.  Perhaps they miss the mark of perfection.  However to suggest that righteousness cannot save a man is what I disagee with.  If there is another way be acceptable to God please let us know.  If there is another way to be righteous other than awakening the Spirit and letting it lead and guide our actions then let me know.  What, however, I will not accept from you is the notion that there is a formula that you answer an altar call and repeat a certain prayer or certain words then automatically you're saved and you no longer need to strive for righteousness.  If Righteousness comes automatically from answering an alter call (which I again stress is not what being born again is), then there are surely enough righteous people in 9ja to start a revolution, or to bring heaven down on earth in nigeria.

@Jesoul

JeSoul:

  So Cornelius was acceptable to God until Jesus came?

Yes he was acceptable according to the law. But when the law was done away with. Men can only be acceptable through faith in christ.

Let me ask you a question Jesoul, are you aware Paul had the righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ died? Please answer . Thanks.

I'll give you a chance to take that back and rephrase. Peter wasn't sent to 'save' Cornelius . . . 

I don't know what you mean here. So who was sent?

Joagbaje:

@Jesoul
Yes he was acceptable according to the law. But when the law was done away with. Men can only be acceptable through faith in christ.

Let me ask you a question Jesoul, are you aware Paul had the righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ died? Please answer . Thanks.

I wonder how Paul could be blameless according to the law while he was slaughtering christians. Is there anywhere in the Law where it said christians could be slaughtered.

wordtalk:

Okay, sorry for the further misreading - it was unintentional. The one thing that got me quizzed was your statement that "It is his religion" - and I wanted to know if you were saying that Cornelius' religion procured his being "born again". It seemed that while you were saying 'No' on the one hand, you were implying "it is his religion" that did it. I apologise, but that is just where I'm at cross-roads in reading yours.

 No problem dear. It seems you attach a bit of a negative connotation to the word "religion" which is why I had asked earlier if you could lend us your definition of it.

The word 'religion' is splattered all through our various minds as either positive or negative depending on the context. I meant Cornelius' religion encompassing the entire package of who he was and what he did as described in the scriptures - in obviously a positive light. His 'religion' was a combination of his faith in God and works to his fellow man. What do you understand by religion sir?

Well, I'm not sure that 'separation' is the issue. If anything, works follow salvation - or salvation comes before works: they are intricately connected in that manner, and I think that is what James 2 highlights for us.

Does the 'order of appearance' really matter in the big picture? The main point is that both are tied to each other and each is dead without the other.

Okay, let's be clear - colourful or poetic language aside: does "accepted" imply "born again"? Is that what you were saying? If yes, how so? If no, then I'm missing something.

Now we're getting somewhere

 God accepted Abraham, Lot, David, Rahab the pros.titute and other OT men/women of faith. We know as the scriptures teach that men are saved by faith first (which must result in works). Now Jesus comes along in the NT and declares we must be born again to see God. Now various interpretations abound of what 'born of water and spirit' entails so lets not get into that - but what is the totality of being 'born again' other than to be acceptable before God? Abraham and co were never 'born again' but yet we will meet them in glory.

So yes, to be 'born again' (stripped of all the theological ceremonial garb) is to be acceptable before God.

 Or is someone going to tell us that Elijah who was taken up in a chariot of fire is not in heaven or with God because he was never 'born again'? Or Enoch who walked with God sotay God took him - is also not in heaven/with God because he too was never born again?

 So again I say - yes, to be 'born again' (stripped of all the theological ceremonial garb) is to be acceptable before God. And this relates directly to your next assertion:

Lol, it was his 'works' (or, his 'deeds') - a different thing from the person himself. This is explained in answer to your next question -

It is not a modernist enquiry.

Then please explain how OT folks can possibly see the kingdom of heaven.

What if I ask the question another way: can God reject someone's works and yet regard them as "saved"? My answer? Absolutely YES. Take a look again at 1 Corinthians 3:15 - "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

However, the question of whether God could accept a person's deeds and faith and yet stop them at heaven's gates is somewhat preposterous. The implication in that question already supposes that it is their works that saved them - whereas that is the one thing that the NT counters.

The answer is given in Romans 2:6-11.

As in Romans 3:25-26.

You're are actually making my point for me self   I have been saying 'faith & works' are joined at hip.

This is not the issue, Jesoul. Perhaps I should rather ask: what then is the reason why the Gospel must be preached at all?

Because 1 Tim2: "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

 The glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of truth. Men have lived and died without having this truth - but yet as the bible tells us they are still without excuse. Why must the gospel be preached? Because it is life and by it men can be saved. We're by no means saying don't preach the gospel because afterall God can still reach men . . . to give a crude and well insufficient analogy, that's like saying do not discover and innovate and create better technology because man has survived in the past on a stone cutter and twisting dry twigs to make fire.

 We should all do our part to make disciples of all nations and spread the gospel of Jesus christ that is based on faith - by the forgiveness of sins. And while doing this must also understand that God is more than able to save those who are not as fortunate as us to have had known in glorious detail the sacrifice of Christ.

Pastor AIO:

How do you make a distinction between righteousness, and 'our righteousness'?  What exactly is the distinction that is being made here?

'Righteousness' is unqualified if it stands alone - meaning, that we do not know its bearing until it is qualified in reference to people or to God. Hence, we find reference to "our righteousness", "your righteousness", as well as "my righteousness".

Even so, righteousness is used in various connections - whether in terms of obtaining some favour or victory, or otherwise being the basis of a temporal blessing, etc. Ultimately, beyond temporal blessings, it is God's righteousness which He gives to people in order that they might obtain His salvation.

JeSoul:

 No problem dear. It seems you attach a bit of a negative connotation to the word "religion" which is why I had asked earlier if you could lend us your definition of it.

Not necessarily. I wasn't thinking negatively about 'religion', in view of the fact that James already told us that God the Father accepts a type of 'religion'.

The question ultimately that I'm grappling with is whether 'religion' in whatever defined idea is what procures the 'born again' issue.

Abraham and co were never 'born again' but yet we will meet them in glory.

Okay, although you highlighted the fact that Abraham was "accepted", it yet appears in your comment that he was never 'born again'. That we shall meet in glory is not the issue (as that is not contested, not at all). The one thing here I've been wondering about is -

[whether "accepted" = "born again"]

If it does not (at least, that's what I'm getting from your comments), I think there's no real issues pending.

Thanks for patiently considering my queries.

JeSoul:

 So Cornelius was acceptable to God until Jesus came?

Joagbaje:

@Jesoul
Yes he was acceptable according to the law. But when the law was done away with. Men can only be acceptable through faith in christ.

Hmm . . . oga, I have some news for you oh . . . men have always only been acceptable to God by only faith.
Heb 10:4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins . . . 8 “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law." In Heb 11 a whole gang of OT folks were each stated to have been accepted by God based on faith -and not the following of any Law. So again, do you want to rephrase? Rahab didn't have any Law to follow, yet she was declared righteous - you don forget that one?

God accepted Cornelius until Jesus came? Really?

Let me ask you a question Jesoul, are you aware Paul had the righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ died? Please answer . Thanks.
I don't know what you mean here. So who was sent?

Pastor AIO:

I wonder how Paul could be blameless according to the law while he was slaughtering christians. Is there anywhere in the Law where it said christians could be slaughtered.

wordtalk:

Not necessarily. I wasn't thinking negatively about 'religion', in view of the fact that James already told us that God the Father accepts a type of 'religion'.

Okay no prb .

The question ultimately that I'm grappling with is whether 'religion' in whatever defined idea is what procures the 'born again' issue.

Okay, although you highlighted the fact that Abraham was "accepted", it yet appears in your comment that he was never 'born again'. That we shall meet in glory is not the issue (as that is not contested, not at all). The one thing here I've been wondering about is -

[whether "accepted" = "born again"]

  Ohhhh . . . yeye boy, yes now!!! YES YES YES lol when I say Abraham was never 'born again' I meant that tongue-in-cheek - see the 'born again' is in 'quotes' now And I put am for red here now:

JeSoul:
So yes, to be 'born again' (stripped of all the theological ceremonial garb) is to be acceptable before God.

  If you ask me again ehn   

Thanks for patiently considering my queries.

I guess query dey then abi? You're delightful to spar with wordtalk. It is great to have a solid representation for the other side so we can hash out these issues properly and better ourselves in the process. Thanks for hanging around . . . oya query on!

@Jesoul

God deals  with people according to the standard of righteousness in their dispensation. I asked you a direct question . I want a direct answer . Are you aware that paul had righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ had come ? Consider this scripture in your response pls.

Philippians 3:9
. .  And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

JeSoul:

Hmm . . . oga, I have some news for you oh . . . men have always only been acceptable to God by only faith.
In Heb 11 a whole gang of OT folks were each stated to have been accepted by God based on faith -and not the following of any Law. So again, do you want to rephrase? Rahab didn't have any Law to follow, yet she was declared righteous - you don forget that one?

The bible didnt say so . The bible says by her act, she saved her household from destruction when the city was destroyed.

I agree that heberw 11 talked about faith deed of these OT people .They Were accepted in their generation. According to the standard of Gods dealing then. But that acceptance won't get them born again. Or attain perfection. All of them still had to wait for christ. Are you aware non of them could go to heaven until Jesus came? They were not born again. They only got born again at the resurrection of christ.

I think you should read Hebrew 11 to the end.

Hebrews 11:39-40
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

God accepted Cornelius until Jesus came? Really?

Not only cornellius. All the Jews as were, plus the apostles. Why did paul who had perfection according to the law need to get born again? Consider this scripture.

Philippians 3:6-7
. . . When it comes to winning God's approval by keeping Jewish laws, I was perfect. 7 These things that I once considered valuable, I now consider worthless for Christ,

Salavation Is not character modification , but life transformation through the spirit. Teaching a man character modification is not the gospel. It is glorying after the flesh. A man trying to make himself acceptable before God by good works. It is contrary to truth. Men should glory in the power of God spirit within that turns their lives around.

Titus 3:5
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

@Jesoul; you asked somebody in an early post to tell you what he means by religion that may be from God.

i want you to define religion, in your word. then name a religion that you are absolutely certain is accepted or is from God and no other.

please provide few point for your choice.


and i will come back and talk a little about Islam, because this is the season to give abundantly.

caring is sharing my friend.

20Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” 21The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” 22But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? 23“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 24[b]“But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”[/b]

Luke 5


I am forced to ask the question, 'What was the basis of this forgiveness of sins?'.

Is it based on sacrifice or is it based on fiat?

wordtalk:

'Righteousness' is unqualified if it stands alone - meaning, that we do not know its bearing until it is qualified in reference to people or to God. Hence, we find reference to "our righteousness", "your righteousness", as well as "my righteousness".

Even so, righteousness is used in various connections - whether in terms of obtaining some favour or victory, or otherwise being the basis of a temporal blessing, etc. Ultimately, beyond temporal blessings, it is God's righteousness which He gives to people in order that they might obtain His salvation.

6Thus says the LORD,
“For three transgressions of Israel and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because[b] they sell the righteous[/b] for money
And the needy for a pair of sandals.

Amos 3

Joagbaje:

@Jesoul

God deals  with people according to the standard of righteousness in their dispensation. I asked you a direct question . I want a direct answer . Are you aware that paul had righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ had come ? Consider this scripture in your response pls.

Your question is irrelevant for 2 reasons:

^1. Who is going to argue that Paul was righteous by the standards of the Law (leading christians to their death is a huge disqualifier you know)? He obviously wasn't - he thought he was - that is what Phil 3 is saying. And more importantly
^2.I have never argued that anyone can be made righteous by the following the Law - you're the one reading that into my posts - I have said faith which must result in works.

JeSoul:
In Heb 11 a whole gang of OT folks were each stated to have been accepted by God based on faith -and not the following of any Law.[/b] So again, do you want to rephrase? Rahab didn't have any Law to follow, yet she was declared righteous - you don forget that one?

The bible didnt say so . The bible says by her act, she saved her household from destruction when the city was destroyed.

You're sure the bible didn't say so? From the same Heb 11 vs31 "By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient So is it her action that saved her? or is it her faith resulting in action that saved her? Aren't you the one who's been campaigning against 'works' the whole thread? wetin happen now?

I agree that heberw 11 talked about faith deed of these OT people .They Were accepted in their generation. According to the standard of Gods dealing then. But that acceptance won't get them born again. Or attain perfection. All of them still had to wait for christ. Are you aware non of them could go to heaven until Jesus came? They were not born again. They only got born again at the resurrection of christ.

Siddon. Even we have not received the fullness of the promise.

Salavation Is not character modification , but life transformation through the spirit. Teaching a man character modification is not the gospel. It is glorying after the flesh. A man trying to make himself acceptable before God by good works. It is contrary to truth. Men should glory in the power of God spirit within that turns their lives around.

  I will not respond to this. Because you are obviously not reading the posts clearly or are deliberately reading your own bias into them. I've lost count of how many times I've said this is not a salvation by works, but yet you persist in reading something that is not there

---

JeSoul:
Perhaps if you are paying attention and taking down notes you may have noticed pretty much everyone is in agreement 'works' alone by itself is worthless

JeSoul:

We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.

JeSoul:
. . . and no one on this thread is saying that either!!!!! do you not see this my dear brother? Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!!

JeSoul:

Hmmm  . . .
  I think I (and others) have reiterated several times over the course of this thread that works by themselves are worthless - so I'm not sure how you continue to attribute that pov to me. You said this above:

---

When you're ready to actually read my posts without those biased glasses then I'll be more than pleasured to discuss with you.

[digression]

@Jesoul

Something you might be interested in --- from my vague recollection of a not too old thread.  http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

[/digression]

JeSoul:

Your question is irrelevant for 2 reasons:

^1. Who is going to argue that Paul was righteous by the standards of the Law (leading christians to their death is a huge disqualifier you know)? He obviously wasn't - he thought he was - that is what Phil 3 is saying. And more importantly
^2.I have never argued that anyone can be made righteous by the following the Law - you're the one reading that into my posts - I have said faith which must result in works.
You're sure the bible didn't say so? From the same Heb 11 vs31 "By faith the LovePeddler Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient So is it her action that saved her? or is it her faith resulting in action that saved her? Aren't you the one who's been campaigning against 'works' the whole thread? wetin happen now?
Siddon. Even we have not received the fullness of the promise.
  I will not respond to this. Because you are obviously not reading the posts clearly or are deliberately reading your own bias into them. I've lost count of how many times I've said this is not a salvation by works, but yet you persist in reading something that is not there

---

---

When you're ready to actually read my posts without those biased glasses then I'll be more than pleasured to discuss with you.

Okay make I read them again.

JeSoul:

I guess query dey then abi? You're delightful to spar with wordtalk. It is great to have a solid representation for the other side so we can hash out these issues properly and better ourselves in the process. Thanks for hanging around . . . oya query on!

Query on? Lol, I'm sailing at half mast just now.
I've enjoyed the discussions so far; although I can't help but wonder at our handling of the core issue (being "born again". Yes, I acknowledge your spectrum was more than that when you said: 'The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance . . '; even so, I reckon that the subject of being 'born again' is at the center of this thread. (Again, I may be wrong).

JeSoul:

The glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of truth. Men have lived and died without having this truth - but yet as the bible tells us they are still without excuse. Why must the gospel be preached? Because it is life and by it men can be saved.

I'm trying to connect the dots here. Men must be saved by the Gospel, yes; but what happens to those who are religious, hear the Gospel and yet reject it?

That question was not to stump the discussion or put anyone on spot. I'd be first to say I don't have all the answers or even the only correct one. But I'm just wondering where this leaves the Christian who is commissioned with the preaching of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:16) - is he to be satisfied that one who rejects the Gospel will be 'saved' by that person's "religion"?

We should all do our part to make disciples of all nations and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ that is based on faith - by the forgiveness of sins. And while doing this must also understand that God is more than able to save those who are not as fortunate as us to have had known in glorious detail the sacrifice of Christ.

I don't doubt for one minute that God is able to do so; but I'm very hesitant indeed to assume that "acceptance" through the doors of "religion" would be just as effective as being saved through the Gospel.

Pastor AIO:


6Thus says the LORD,
“For three transgressions of Israel and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because[b] they sell the righteous[/b] for money
And the needy for a pair of sandals.

Amos 3

*Amos 2:6

Let me risk saying that I understand a bit (just a little bit) of your concerns. Yet, I think it's fair to saying that we're on the same wavelength.

I noted that 'righteousness is used in various connections' - and tried to explain briefly. In Amos 2:6 (quoted in yours above) "the righteous" is qualified in its reference to people - and that qualification is based on certain premises or terms which make them "the righteous". An example of such a premise is in Moses declaration to the Jews in Deut. 6:25 - "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. ". Hence, one would be addressed as 'the righteous' based on some defined premise, as in that verse.

Conversely, although there may be some who would boast of their righteousness, Moses again makes the same point in setting a distinction in Deut. 9:4-6 (ESV) --

"Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, 'It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.

The point in saying that righteousness is used in various connections could be highlighted in its application - among which are rightness rectitude, justice, virtue, or prosperity. In such connections, there are varied applications often tending to temporal blessings. However, when it comes to justification with God, it is His righteousness that He gives to people for their salvation.

[color=#990000][/color]My advice to you is that it is wisdom for you to recognise issues that are beyond your scope and seek the true teachings from people like us who by the special grace of God can teach you the undiluted truth.The very concept"why evangelicals should stop evangelising " doesn't reflect the character and lifestyle of Jesus that you talked about in your message.
One of the beautiful thing God has done for humanity is giving us the opportunity to be born again,because when a man is born again,you receive the God life inside of you and that life enables man to live the good life outside.It's like putting a Toyota engine into a KIA car. That is why true Christianity is divinity in humanity.Without being born again, a man can't maintain Godly morals, he can only have man's morals which is still substandard as far as God is concerned.we can see this in Isaiah64v6:But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags,
Rom10v1-3:Brethren,my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. for I bear record that they have a zeal of God but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness,and going about to establish their own righteousness(morals),have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Without the life of God inside ot a man,he can't live it outside. To recieve that life,a man must be born again

Enigma:

[digression]

@Jesoul

Something you might be interested in --- from my vague recollection of a not too old thread.  http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

[/digression]

Just took a quick peek, e long oh! lol but looks quite interesting. Thanks! 

Joagbaje:

Okay make I read them again.

Please do ehn . . .

---

wordtalk:

Query on? Lol, I'm sailing at half mast just now.
I've enjoyed the discussions so far; although I can't help but wonder at our handling of the core issue (being "born again". Yes, I acknowledge your spectrum was more than that when you said: 'The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance . . '; even so, I reckon that the subject of being 'born again' is at the center of this thread. (Again, I may be wrong).

It is - sort of indirectly - we started at teaching people about Jesus and His sacrifice vs requiring them to convert to christianity . . . and after many turns and twists ended up discussing the essentials of what it means for a man to be saved/born again/accepted by God etc etc.

I'm trying to connect the dots here. Men must be saved by the Gospel, yes; but what happens to those who are religious, hear the Gospel and yet reject it?[/b]That question was not to stump the discussion or put anyone on spot. I'd be first to say I don't have all the answers or even the only correct one. But I'm just wondering where this leaves the Christian who is commissioned with the preaching of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:16) - is he to be satisfied that one who rejects the Gospel will be 'saved' by that person's "religion"?

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, [b]but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

I don't doubt for one minute that God is able to do so; but I'm very hesitant indeed to assume that "acceptance" through the doors of "religion" would be just as effective as being saved through the Gospel.

This is to assume that God has different standards by which men must be saved - it is by faith - one and for all. Whether the faith resulted by the hearing of the gospel - or by looking at the evidence of God in nature or by listening to the conviction of the Holy Spirit in the heart or by any other means - it is still faith in God that saves.

Sweetnecta:

@Jesoul; you asked somebody in an early post to tell you what he means by religion that may be from God.

i want you to define religion, in your word. then name a religion that you are absolutely certain is accepted or is from God and no other.

please provide few point for your choice.

and i will come back and talk a little about Islam, because this is the season to give abundantly.

caring is sharing my friend.

Sweetnecta, please open a seperate thread on the topic and I'll meet you there. And then you can abundantly share your vast wisdom with us ehn.

Basito:

[color=#990000][/color]My advice to you is that it is wisdom for you to recognise issues that are beyond your scope and seek the true teachings from people like us who by the special grace of God can teach you the undiluted truth.The very concept"why evangelicals should stop evangelising " doesn't reflect the character and lifestyle of Jesus that you talked about in your message.
One of the beautiful thing God has done for humanity is giving us the opportunity to be born again,because when a man is born again,you receive the God life inside of you and that life enables man to live the good life outside.It's like putting a Toyota engine into a KIA car. That is why true Christianity is divinity in humanity. Without being born again, a man can't maintain Godly morals, he can only have man's morals which is still substandard as far as God is concerned.we can see this in Isaiah64v6:But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags,
Rom10v1-3:Brethren,my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. for I bear record that they have a zeal of God but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness,and going about to establish their own righteousness(morals),have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Without the life of God inside ot a man,he can't live it outside. To recieve that life,a man must be born again

Just two questions. ¹Was Abraham 'born again'? ²Is he going to be in heaven/kingdom of God?

JeSoul:

Just took a quick peek, e long oh! lol but looks quite interesting. Thanks! 

Even me wey I keep the thing open on one tab for several days now never finish de ting!

More "Born again" Stuffs:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=143706.msg2393078#msg2393078

Enigma:

Even me wey I keep the thing open on one tab for several days now never finish de ting!

Phew! just finished it ~30mins. Very interesting thoughts and well laid out. Even though I generally agree with the viewpoint (women can lead etc) I couldn't ignore how subjective it all is . . . perhaps, maybe, in my opinion, I think Paul really meant to say this etc etc . . . but anyways, the whole thing self . . . way too much room for exegetical error. But def a good read, thanks!

Pastor AIO:

More "Born again" Stuffs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=143706.msg2393078#msg2393078

Nice link. I wish you and Mnwankwo had thrashed out those issues . . .

@all
i'm a little confused, or maybe i'm not. Just to confirm, is it that anyone's saying that the works of Cornelius was acceptable before God? If in the affirmative, please quote the verse to this effect, thanks.