Works

[Zeek]

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

--Heb 10

Tony's reply:
And just where did Paul ever write such as the above to the nations? Where did Paul tell us of the nations that if we willfully sin that God is going to have fiery indignation on us etc? He never did because we are under grace. And Paul wrote that "God hath not appointed us to indignation."

I could answer every one of your points. The problem is you are mixing Paul's writings with the Circumcision writings and causing great confusion.

so, are you saying, the "wrath" is not the same as "destruction" that Paul talked about.

Where did Paul tell the believers of the nations that they had destruction or wrath waiting for them from God if they sin?
[/quote]

i already posted those scriptures, first one comes to mind is in I Corinthians.  That's why i earlier asked if all Pauline written books are the same context (to the nations).  Do you see his early writings as "not to the nations"? 

[Tony N]

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

--Heb 10

Tony's reply:
And just where did Paul ever write such as the above to the nations? Where did Paul tell us of the nations that if we willfully sin that God is going to have fiery indignation on us etc? He never did because we are under grace. And Paul wrote that "God hath not appointed us to indignation."



I could answer every one of your points. The problem is you are mixing Paul's writings with the Circumcision writings and causing great confusion.

?


Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Molly, if I got a dollar for every time I answered Colossiand 3:11 I'd be a wealthy man.
Please note that Paul said that was the "in Christ" position. And that was in the body of Christ position which is unique to Paul's evangel for us of the nations. The Circumcision believers are the bride of Christ. We of the nations are in the body of Christ.

Also please note that in those same letters by Paul he noted that there is till Circumcision and Uncircumcision, still slaves and free, still male and female in the Lord. So you can't just rip one of Paul's verses out of its context such as "no Circumcision nor Uncircumcision" and expect people to be swayed into believing that there is no difference between Paul's writings and those of the Circumcision.

If you don't understand this I am sorry but I cannot help you.

Tony, could you start a thread, or point me to some teachings re: "bride of Christ" versus "body of Christ"?  I am trying to wrap my head around what u believe, and how you "divide" the bible up to what u believe is written for "nations" versus "physical jews".  thanks

Here is an article on: Are we the Bride of the Lamb? http://www.gtft.org/Library/knoch/arewethebride.htm

[Zeek]

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

--Heb 10

Tony's reply:
And just where did Paul ever write such as the above to the nations? Where did Paul tell us of the nations that if we willfully sin that God is going to have fiery indignation on us etc? He never did because we are under grace. And Paul wrote that "God hath not appointed us to indignation."



I could answer every one of your points. The problem is you are mixing Paul's writings with the Circumcision writings and causing great confusion.

?


Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Molly, if I got a dollar for every time I answered Colossiand 3:11 I'd be a wealthy man.
Please note that Paul said that was the "in Christ" position. And that was in the body of Christ position which is unique to Paul's evangel for us of the nations. The Circumcision believers are the bride of Christ. We of the nations are in the body of Christ.

Also please note that in those same letters by Paul he noted that there is till Circumcision and Uncircumcision, still slaves and free, still male and female in the Lord. So you can't just rip one of Paul's verses out of its context such as "no Circumcision nor Uncircumcision" and expect people to be swayed into believing that there is no difference between Paul's writings and those of the Circumcision.

If you don't understand this I am sorry but I cannot help you.

Tony, could you start a thread, or point me to some teachings re: "bride of Christ" versus "body of Christ"?  I am trying to wrap my head around what u believe, and how you "divide" the bible up to what u believe is written for "nations" versus "physical jews".  thanks

Here is an article on: Are we the Bride of the Lamb? http://www.gtft.org/Library/knoch/arewethebride.htm

thanks

[Molly]

Molly, if I got a dollar for every time I answered Colossiand 3:11 I'd be a wealthy man.
Please note that Paul said that was the "in Christ" position. And that was in the body of Christ position which is unique to Paul's evangel for us of the nations. The Circumcision believers are the bride of Christ. We of the nations are in the body of Christ.

Also please note that in those same letters by Paul he noted that there is till Circumcision and Uncircumcision, still slaves and free, still male and female in the Lord. So you can't just rip one of Paul's verses out of its context such as "no Circumcision nor Uncircumcision" and expect people to be swayed into believing that there is no difference between Paul's writings and those of the Circumcision.

If you don't understand this I am sorry but I cannot help you.

Are you saying the circumcision does not have Christ and has no access to Christ?


38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

--Mat 23


If their house is left desolate, God has left the building.  What, then, is there to preach to them about except to repent?

What, then, are you claiming is this 'preaching' to the circumcision that doesn't apply to us?

God took the one most well versed in the Old Testament, the Jew of Jews, and placed him as the messenger to the Gentiles.

5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

 6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

--Phil 3

[Tony N]

Molly, if I got a dollar for every time I answered Colossiand 3:11 I'd be a wealthy man.
Please note that Paul said that was the "in Christ" position. And that was in the body of Christ position which is unique to Paul's evangel for us of the nations. The Circumcision believers are the bride of Christ. We of the nations are in the body of Christ.

Also please note that in those same letters by Paul he noted that there is till Circumcision and Uncircumcision, still slaves and free, still male and female in the Lord. So you can't just rip one of Paul's verses out of its context such as "no Circumcision nor Uncircumcision" and expect people to be swayed into believing that there is no difference between Paul's writings and those of the Circumcision.

If you don't understand this I am sorry but I cannot help you.

Are you saying the circumcision does not have Christ and has no access to Christ?


38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

--Mat 23


If their house is left desolate, God has left the building.  What, then, is there to preach to them about except to repent?

What, then, are you claiming is this 'preaching' to the circumcision?

All of the gospels, Acts, Peter, James and John and Hebrews are to the Circumcision.
Their (the Jews) house was left to them desolate after 70 A.D. That was not written to the nations. Once God set Israel aside the door was opened to the nations of which Paul was our apostle. Paul's writings are for us, the Uncircumcision.

The Circumcision is the Bride of the Lamb. They are not ever called "the body of Christ" as Paul calls us of the nations.

Now rather than bring up more points, Molly, can you see anything of what I wrote to you concerning no Circumcision or Uncircumcision in Christ but in the Lord there is?

[Molly]

Molly, if I got a dollar for every time I answered Colossiand 3:11 I'd be a wealthy man.
Please note that Paul said that was the "in Christ" position. And that was in the body of Christ position which is unique to Paul's evangel for us of the nations. The Circumcision believers are the bride of Christ. We of the nations are in the body of Christ.

Also please note that in those same letters by Paul he noted that there is till Circumcision and Uncircumcision, still slaves and free, still male and female in the Lord. So you can't just rip one of Paul's verses out of its context such as "no Circumcision nor Uncircumcision" and expect people to be swayed into believing that there is no difference between Paul's writings and those of the Circumcision.

If you don't understand this I am sorry but I cannot help you.

Are you saying the circumcision does not have Christ and has no access to Christ?


38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

--Mat 23


If their house is left desolate, God has left the building.  What, then, is there to preach to them about except to repent?

What, then, are you claiming is this 'preaching' to the circumcision?

All of the gospels, Acts, Peter, James and John and Hebrews are to the Circumcision.
Their (the Jews) house was left to them desolate after 70 A.D. That was not written to the nations. Once God set Israel aside the door was opened to the nations of which Paul was our apostle. Paul's writings are for us, the Uncircumcision.

The Circumcision is the Bride of the Lamb. They are not ever called "the body of Christ" as Paul calls us of the nations.

Now rather than bring up more points, Molly, can you see anything of what I wrote to you concerning no Circumcision or Uncircumcision in Christ but in the Lord there is?

Not really.  I'm going to have to look into it some more.  What about the Christians who are physically circumcised?  Are they all secret Jews?

As I said above, Paul was the 'Jew of Jews'.  He knew the Old Testament better than any other.  He was a Pharisee and blameless in the Law.

And, he points out that the circumcision was never meant of the flesh, but of the heart.

Personally, I don't want to rule from heaven, or whatever you are talking about, I want to be here, in this beautiful place God has created me for and for me.  I also consider the entire Bible written for me and to me.


Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

[CHB]

I am with Tony on this circumcision and non circumcision, Bride and Body thing. We may see it a little different I don't know? All of the apostles taught New Covenant teaching. It is only in two or three of Paul's writings that this isn't the case. If you read all of the epistles with this thought in mind you can see the difference. Always ask yourself, who is it addressed to. Who, what, where, when, is the key. I do believe most of the epistles were to the Israelites, that is who Jesus told them to go to.

CHB

[Molly]

I am with Tony on this circumcision and non circumcision, Bride and Body thing. We may see it a little different I don't know? All of the apostles taught New Covenant teaching. It is only in two or three of Paul's writings that this isn't the case. If you read all of the epistles with this thought in mind you can see the difference. Always ask yourself, who is it addressed to. Who, what, where, when, is the key. I do believe most of the epistles were to the Israelites, that is who Jesus told them to go to.

CHB

Well, I'm willing to look into it.  Maybe we need another thread.  But, I cannot imagine why the one who knew the Old Testament backwards and forwards would give a teaching that departed from it.

Mind you, nobody knows to this day what people or peoples are the lost tribes of Israel, lost to history almost a millenia before Jesus walked on this earth.

[trettep]

I am with Tony on this circumcision and non circumcision, Bride and Body thing. We may see it a little different I don't know? All of the apostles taught New Covenant teaching. It is only in two or three of Paul's writings that this isn't the case. If you read all of the epistles with this thought in mind you can see the difference. Always ask yourself, who is it addressed to. Who, what, where, when, is the key. I do believe most of the epistles were to the Israelites, that is who Jesus told them to go to.

CHB

Did Jesus address the Israelites or the Gentiles then?

Paul

[Nathan]

I am with Tony on this circumcision and non circumcision, Bride and Body thing. We may see it a little different I don't know? All of the apostles taught New Covenant teaching. It is only in two or three of Paul's writings that this isn't the case. If you read all of the epistles with this thought in mind you can see the difference. Always ask yourself, who is it addressed to. Who, what, where, when, is the key. I do believe most of the epistles were to the Israelites, that is who Jesus told them to go to.

CHB

Well, I'm willing to look into it.  Maybe we need another thread.  But, I cannot imagine why the one who knew the Old Testament backwards and forwards would give a teaching that departed from it.

Mind you, nobody knows to this day what people or peoples are the lost tribes of Israel, lost to history almost a millenia before Jesus walked on this earth.

It has been my impression that Paul was not called to the Jews, but to the Gentiles . . .and Peter was to the Jews . . .Jesus was to the Jews, originally . . .I believe Jesus was the closing opportunity given to the Jews that the 70 weeks of Daniel speak of.  He came to them on the 70th week.  Traditionally, we're taught that only 69 of those weeks have been fulfilled . . .then there's this space in between that's given to the Gentiles . . .then the 7-year tribulation is supposedly the 70th week reinstated for the Jews . . .but affecting the whole earth.

But I don't agree with that anymore . . .I believe Jesus fulfilled even that upon his arrival.  I believe the martyr of Stephen was the sealing of the 70th week . . .after that incident, Paul's ministry took center stage . . .which was to the Gentiles rather than the Jews.

[Molly]

I am with Tony on this circumcision and non circumcision, Bride and Body thing. We may see it a little different I don't know? All of the apostles taught New Covenant teaching. It is only in two or three of Paul's writings that this isn't the case. If you read all of the epistles with this thought in mind you can see the difference. Always ask yourself, who is it addressed to. Who, what, where, when, is the key. I do believe most of the epistles were to the Israelites, that is who Jesus told them to go to.

CHB

Well, I'm willing to look into it.  Maybe we need another thread.  But, I cannot imagine why the one who knew the Old Testament backwards and forwards would give a teaching that departed from it.

Mind you, nobody knows to this day what people or peoples are the lost tribes of Israel, lost to history almost a millenia before Jesus walked on this earth.

It has been my impression that Paul was not called to the Jews, but to the Gentiles . . .and Peter was to the Jews . . .Jesus was to the Jews, originally . . .I believe Jesus was the closing opportunity given to the Jews that the 70 weeks of Daniel speak of.  He came to them on the 70th week.  Traditionally, we're taught that only 69 of those weeks have been fulfilled . . .then there's this space in between that's given to the Gentiles . . .then the 7-year tribulation is supposedly the 70th week reinstated for the Jews . . .but affecting the whole earth.

But I don't agree with that anymore . . .I believe Jesus fulfilled even that upon his arrival.  I believe the martyr of Stephen was the sealing of the 70th week . . .after that incident, Paul's ministry took center stage . . .which was to the Gentiles rather than the Jews.

If God intended a special teaching that was for the Jews only, it seems to me he would have taken the one most well versed in the Old Testament, the Pharisee, and put him as messenger to the Jews.  God did not do that.

And, it is the Pharisee who explains that Jesus has opened the door to the entire world--be ye reconciled to God.

[chuckt]

i always wondered about Christ marying his own body.

i also kinda wondered if the body and bride be different, gives me a headache

[Molly]

i always wondered about Christ marying his own body.

i also kinda wondered if the body and bride be different, gives me a headache

..and they shall be one flesh.

--Gen 2

[sheila]

  and I have other sheep that are not of this flock,

  them to I must bring..and they will be one flock John 10;16

[Molly]

  and I have other sheep that are not of this flock,

  them to I must bring..and they will be one flock John 10;16

So who are those other sheep?

[Tony N]

  and I have other sheep that are not of this flock,

  them to I must bring..and they will be one flock John 10;16

So who are those other sheep?

the other sheep were proselytes to the Jewish/Christian faith like Peter preached to after seeing the vision of the unclean animals.

[trettep]

i always wondered about Christ marying his own body.

i also kinda wondered if the body and bride be different, gives me a headache

 Think about this:

Joh 1:1  In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.

Compare to this:

In the beginning, was the Rib, and the Rib, was with Adam, and the Rib was Adam.

The Rib being the reference to Eve.  Did you ever realize that all those born unto the Father in Heaven come by way of Christ?  So to do all those born unto Adam come through Eve.

Additionally, all those born unto Christ, come through the Church.

Paul

[Doc]

When I say you "blew it", I simply meant that you undid everything you'd just said by putting the whole thing back on us again.

Doc, you haven't been paying attention if you believe I ever said we are saved by our works.  I haven't said that once.  I continue to say that we are saved by His works through us.

Paul

Well, it isn't that I haven't been paying attention. It seems to be that you were using confusing language that lead me to believe that's what you were saying, if that's not what you were saying.

Perhaps it's putting too fine a point on it, but I believe that our scriptures are telling us we are saved by grace through faith, not by His works through us. I see His works through us as the fruit of His grace and faith given to us.

[Doc]

Not only does God "give the talent", but He is also the one who does it in us (the work). He both works and wills in us to do His good pleasure.

Hi Doc yes God both works and wills IN US, but God does NOT work and will FOR US, which is the meaning you are conveying.

Let me give you an example.

The servant who did not use his talent became unprofitable, correct?

So if it was GOD who WORKED and WILLED this for that servant than it is GOD who became the unprofitable servant.

It looks all fine and dandy to say God worked and willed for the servants who gained more talents because God used the talent to gain more talent, but if you are going to say that for the profitable servant you must also say that of the unprofitable servant. Thus making God unprofitable.

Not necessarily. We don't necessarily get to choose whether we get assigned to be vessels of honor or dishonor. If God working his will in us in choosing some of us as vessels of dishonor seems to us as being unprofitable on His part, then I think that perhaps represents a misunderstanding of how God works all things together according to the counsel of His own will. God will harden whom He will harden, and have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Perhaps the situation is somewhat different for us once we become servants, but I don't know if that parable gives us sufficient evidence to come to that conclusion.

[Doc]

On the UR view, yes. Salvation is a process. We are still being saved, regardless of where we are at in that process. Even the act of falling away moves us in that direction, because God's judgment produces righteousness.
You seem to be implying that we can remove ourselves entirely from that process by falling from grace.

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to have had a pentecostal background would you?

Then Doc, your saying that someone is saved at a point in time that they don't abide in Grace. And yes, I am saying that we can remove ourselves from abiding in His Grace.  I'm most definately saying that in case there is any doubt about it.  I will say it again -  We can remove ourselves from abiding in His Grace.



Paul

Well, no; I'm saying they are still in the process of being saved at a point in time they are not abiding in grace. If our salvation depends at all on us and our ability, then we're all screwed. Once again; His faithfulness, not ours. Do you abide in grace perfectly all the time?
 
I agree that we can remove ourselves (to a degree) from abiding in grace, but that can only be for a season. You claim to believe in universal salvation, which I am finding increasingly hard to believe in view of your stance on the requirements of salvation.

[Doc]

It's possible that you missed some of my posts pointing out how I see works.  I say that in respect since there are a lot of posts here to go through.   If needed I will clarify my position better but basically in a nutshell I do believe Works are required, the difference with my outlook on them is that those works are of God since he makes sure that we meet the criteria for reconciliation.

If they are of us, then that contradicts verses saying it is not out of us and even contradicts Jesus who said he can do nothing apart from the father.

Hi Paul H that what Paul T has been stating all along.

And I agree with it up to a certain age, then God calls US to do His WORK. Yes Jesus said He could do nothing apart from the Father, but that does not mean the Father did the WORKS of Jesus. But Jesus waited until He received power from ON HIGH before He did His works. Jesus received His talent and was a faithful servant.

Its still of God because He's the one who gave the power.

Why do you think it is US that is judged according to OUR WORKS in the BODY? If these works are God doing them what need have WE to be judged?

The Father directs and enables, thus we like Jesus can do nothing apart from the Father.

Even Jesus said that he did nothing apart from the Father.  So I am not refuting works I am trying to get across that those works are not of us.  We cannot work our way to perfection, God works us to perfection.   This is why when we work and hope for glory for ourselves those works will be burned  "Yet we shall be saved"

That scenario make God the unprofitable servant then Paul, If God gives the talent and is the one who does the WORK with the talent then it is God who is unprofitable. And obedience is WORK and obedience is the ONLY way to perfection, so WORKS are indeed our way to perfection. But these WORKS are only preformed by using the talent GOD has given US. I am NOT talking about works we perform after the flesh but the works WE perform after the SPIRIT.

You may be missing my point that I have been trying to build up to with all of my posts.  I was dispelling the typical religious outlook on works with my story.   I grew up being told works was something that I had to do a certain way to avoid hell.

My point was that works was happening in my life despite all the other stuff.   I did respond to that love in the way God designed us to react to pure truth

.

No I did not miss your point brother these things happen to all babes in Christ. Where Christ does ALL the work because a babe does NOT nor can they WORK, they need to be feed, changed bathed all by the Father. I am not refuting this aspect Paul I agree with it, but I also see that what a babe receives is different than one who has come to the age of taking over the Fathers business, where the Father gives His sons all the necessary tools and oversees all but gives His sons to run the business.

I know some see me as saying they are babes in Christ as through I thought I was not myself but that is NOT what I am saying. I too am a babe in Christ; howbeit, a babe that knows that if we want to go on to perfection WE must USE/WORK that which the Father has given us less we become unprofitable to His work.

Again Jesus says the Father works and I work, Jesus did not say the Father works for me, He said I work.
God bless

So pneuma; I don't want to try to put words in your mouth here, so I'm going to ask for some clarification. If this post means that you are supporting Paul's (trettep) position, then are you saying that at some point in our spiritual maturity we become responsible for our own salvation, or am I misreading you here?

[Doc]

Don't know if I am reading everyone's post right or not but it seems some are referring to the flesh and some are referring to the spirit concerning being saved, saved, works and salvation.

I see this as, we are perfect spiritually because of what Christ did but we are not, nor never will be perfect physically because of Adam.

Paul said, we are sitting in Christ in the heavenlies and we have died and was buried with him therefore we are dead to sin and works. Now spiritually that is the case but physically we are sinners because we are flesh.

We will never be perfect while in the flesh but we are now perfect in the spirit because we are in Christ. Paul said to think on things above and not on things on earth, so spiritually we can think of ourselves as being perfect because Christ did everything for us and we need no more works. To say we need to work is saying Christ didn't do his complete job and we have to help him somehow.

CHB

That's how I see it too, CHB. God's promise was never to our Adamic flesh (flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God), but to the spirit he placed within us that is a piece of Him. His promise is to His seed in us. Isaac, not Ishmael.

[Doc]

  the parable of the talents refers to spiritual light and

  understanding...or spiritual growth.When we engage in

transactions with others  with these talents of light given

 us,there is an increasing of spiritual growth in the kingdom

 of light.[we see this on forums like this]to the benefit of the

 KING. the two increased 100% to four...the five to 100%

to 10.  The unprofitable servant did not  share his spiritual

 talent...or even deposit it so it could gain INTER-REST...

  his FEAR led him to hide his talent...and his opinion that

  his master was a 'hard' man. He failed to go about his masters

 buisiness and increase to his masters benefit.

   So the Lord took this talent of light and gave it to the one

who had the 10...no doubt this servant will increase

 that 'understanding' 100%...for a total of 12.

  there can be a great 'fear'  along with an understanding in the

 spirit.....I think of certain religious organizations that are so

 fearful and think God is so hard...that they never grow nor can

they accept and increase in spiritual light from this fear.

  what they think they have and possess spiritually will be

 taken from them...they will find their actions did not increase

 for their Lord but actually brought loss to their Lord.

  these talents are given for the LIGHT OF THE WORLD

 and we are to let our LIGHT SHINE...which increases the

 KINGDOM OF LIGHT AND THE CHILDREN OF LIGHT


  

Great post, sheila. 

[Doc]

I am with Tony on this circumcision and non circumcision, Bride and Body thing. We may see it a little different I don't know? All of the apostles taught New Covenant teaching. It is only in two or three of Paul's writings that this isn't the case. If you read all of the epistles with this thought in mind you can see the difference. Always ask yourself, who is it addressed to. Who, what, where, when, is the key. I do believe most of the epistles were to the Israelites, that is who Jesus told them to go to.

CHB

Well, I'm willing to look into it.  Maybe we need another thread.  But, I cannot imagine why the one who knew the Old Testament backwards and forwards would give a teaching that departed from it.

Mind you, nobody knows to this day what people or peoples are the lost tribes of Israel, lost to history almost a millenia before Jesus walked on this earth.

Well, I'm not clear on that either Molly, as this is new to me as well, but perhaps a clue is what Jesus himself said to the Pharisees: (paraphrased here) " I know what your law says, but I say... (when he was referencing an eye for an eye, etc. vs. love your enemies). Jesus knew the Old Testament backwards and forwards and gave teaching that "departed" from it, or at least appeared to...

Just a thought.

[trettep]

Well, it isn't that I haven't been paying attention. It seems to be that you were using confusing language that lead me to believe that's what you were saying, if that's not what you were saying.

Perhaps it's putting too fine a point on it, but I believe that our scriptures are telling us we are saved by grace through faith, not by His works through us. I see His works through us as the fruit of His grace and faith given to us.

Doc, why would God be concerned about the works at all?  Since obviously, He is as we read in Chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation.

Paul