more sure because it came directly from God: 2pe1:19-21; 2tim3:16 (θεοπνευστος); jas1:25 (perfect); ezk2:7; ezk3:26-27; jer26:2; jer36:2-4+jer36:17-18; ex24:12; ex31:18; dan5:24-25; 1chr28:19; mt10:19-20; jn12:47-50; deut18:18-19;

God put his own words in the prophets’ mouths: 2chr35:22; jer1:9; 2sam23:2; isa59:21; ex4:12,15; ac4:24-25

moses was God's mouth: ex4:16; ex4:28; ex4:30

words from God, himself: ezk3:4; zec1:6; hos6:5; jn17:8; 2chr36:12; jer37:2; jer29:19; zec7:7,9,12; 1ki17:16; mt1:22; mt2:15

irrelevant without words direct from God: mt4:4; deut8:3; pr30:5-6; ps119:130; jn8:47; (1pe4:11 "oracles" (λογια) = "utterances" + ac2:4)

words of the Holy Spirit: heb10:15; heb3:7; ac1:16

how verbal plenary inspiration name was hijacked

literal meaning of the term, verbal plenary inspiration:

verbal: the words, themselves mt4:4

plenary: completely, throughout (all of them 2tim3:16 and each of them)

inspiration: θεοπνευστος 2tim3:16 is compound word from θεος (God) and πνεω (breathe hard or blow)

literal meaning of the term: all the words completely throughout breathed by God

popular theology has hijacked the term, verbal plenary inspiration, to be anything except the literal meaning of this name

here is how:

1. create an effigy term of similar meaning, mechanical dictation, and mock the idea that God caused specific words of his own personal choosing to be spoken or written verbatim

2. emphasize the expression, "God breathed," can be figurative: [which is provably possible in some cases (e.g., 1chr28:19; ezk3:26-27; dan5:24-25)]

3. use the "figurative" argument as an excuse to deemphasize/deny the words, themselves, originated with God, while promoting arguments very similar to the other theories (intuition inspiration, thought inspiration, and concept inspiration)

4. pretend to assert inerrancy of the word by making indefensible arguments (because no record of such ever happening), while implicitly denying inerrancy with those other arguments

other theories of inspiration

intuition: the prophet thinks about God and writes his own thoughts, feelings, and ideas

thought: God puts thoughts into the prophet's mind and the prophet writes those thoughts in his own words

concept: God speaks to the prophet, the prophet understands the concept, and writes the concept in his own words

intuition, thought, & concept theories impossible: 1pe1:10-11 why ask questions about words that came from your own understanding?

hijacked "verbal plenary" theory borrows from other theories

some modern "verbal plenary" theologians: jw mcgarvey, norman geisler, william nix, rex turner sr, j gresham machen

mcgarvey's horse argument: "it would be nearer the truth to compare the whole work of the Spirit to that of driving a well trained horse…":

"[the horse] is going most completely at his own will, and yet he is never without the control of the driver"

"well trained" implies either thought or concept inspiration: God "trains" the prophet with thoughts or concepts

"his own will" implies the prophet decides what words are used to express the message

this sounds remarkably like thought inspiration or concept inspiration

turner's research argument: lk1:1-4 "luke researched the life of Christ prior to his writing his gospel"

"traced the course" (παρηκολουθηκοτι): mk16:17 "follow"; 2tim3:10 "fully known"

jer36:10-11; jn12:47-50; 1th2:13 both prophet's words and God's

lev14:34-35(God commanded to say, "it seemeth to me…" sounds a lot like what luke said…)

research leaves room for some of the same kinds of human fallacies/uncertainties as intuition inspiration

specious arguments against each word chosen by God

first person argument: "God would not use first person for things written about the prophets or third person about himself"

ex3:18 (God commanded moses to say these words about himself in first person)

ac2:25-32 (david wrote this by supernatural revelation in first person about Christ)

2chr34:23-24 (God commanded huldah to say, "God said to say, 'God said…'")

jer14:17 (God commanded jeremiah to say this in first person about himself)

hos14:2-3 (God commanded words to be spoken to himself in first person.)

lev14:34-35(God commanded to say words in the first person)

yet others: ex7:16; ex13:14; deut6:21

pache's style argument: "mechanical dictation would have produced a complete uniformity [of style] on all the pages of the bible"

God spoke to the prophet and his audience in language and style they understood best

he didn't speak to hebrews in chinese or the greek-speaking world in egyptian

Without witnesses/evidence, cannot prove what "the prophet's style" was; it can only be proven to have style different than other books

the prophet's own style is likely to be the most understandable both to him and his audience

personal commentary argument: "God would not make comments about the prophets' personal thoughts and feelings"

No one was more familiar with the innermost thoughts of the prophets than almighty, omniscient God

God gave inspired testimony to the prophets' personal words & thoughts & personal feelings

ignorance argument: 1co1:16 "omniscient God would not be uncertain who was baptized by paul"

God gave inspired testimony to paul's lack of knowledge

we can only guess why God chose not to reveal this information

the question of why he withheld it is problematic to any theory of inspiration

unless you doubt the inerrancy (jn10:35) and sufficient completeness (2pe1:3) of the word itself… (i.e., limited by fallable human mind)

the flawed statement argument: "God would not inspire someone to make a flawed statement"

for instance, he would not inspire someone to say something like, "i am become a fool" (2co11:17; 2co12:11)

(1co2:13; jn10:35; jn8:32) these are inspired examples of what not to do/say

the scriptures comment on paul's personal judgement

inspired record of uninspired judgement or words: mt4:3; lk5:22; 1sam27:1; gen7:17

God knows men's thoughts and could tell the prophets words to write about their own thoughts

we either believe these or not: 1co2:13; 2pe1:21 nothing but the Holy Spirit's words; jn10:35 "scripture cannot be broken"; jn8:32 not "maybe truth maybe not"

"i speak not by commandment" (1co7:6; 1co7:25-26): inspired comment on uninspired judgement that God wanted us to be aware of

"by" (κατα) is “regarding”: the permission was for them to do it, not for him to speak it

other passages using κατα this way: rom9:5; rom11:28; 2co11:21; eph4:22; php3:6; rom4:1; heb9:9; php4:11

"i speak, not the Lord" (1co7:12): "i say" is inspired comment on uninspired judgement (as opposed to commandment); God wanted us to know about it but did not bind it on us

otherwise, is "I say" not inspired of God? rom9:1 "i say" clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit

"i think i have the Spirit of God" (2co7:40): must be irony; otherwise, if we are unsure of the truth of one statement in scripture, we can't be sure of any of them

2pe1:20-21: no personal explanation because prophecy came from God

"prophecy" is all of God's word: 1co14:3; pr31:1ff

gen40:8: interpretations belong to God

why don't we have to explain the explanation? at some point one must simply understand (2tim2:7; jas1:5; eph3:4; lk24:45; 2pe1:3; ps119:130)

gen41:16: it is not in me; God will give an answer

dan2:26-28,30: daniel (a wise man), "wise men cannot interpret it, but God can"

proverb or vision: to be understood after it happened

dan12:8-9: words closed up until the time of the end

jn13:18-19: understand when it came to pass so they would believe (in his deity)

1pe1:10-12: prophets (including daniel) asked for interpretation of their own prophecies

types of judgement

determining guilt: 1co5:3,12-13; 1co6:1-7

discerning what is best or correct: lk7:41-43; 1co10:15-16; 2co5:14; 1co7:37

discernment whether an action is morally right or wrong: lk12:56-57; ac4:19; ac15:19; ac16:4; 1co11:13

condemnation or final judgement: jas4:11-12; 1co4:5; jn8:10-11; rom14:13

only final judgement forbidden

1co4:5 final judgement: "until the Lord come"

jas4:11-12 condemnation: "judge the law" & "lawgiver" = make up our own rules

jn12:47-48+1pe4:11+1co2:13: my words will judge you because…

heb6:6; jas5:20; titus3:10-11; heb10:26-27: unbelievers condemned

so "before the time" is about disciples's final judgement

don't have to pretend we don't know about those outside of Christ

jn12:47-48 the word judges, so i'm not

1co5:13 “God judges (condemns) those without“

2tim2:10; 2tim3:15 “salvation is in Christ” period!

heb6:6; jas5:20; ti3:10-11; heb10:26-27 those who repudiate the truth not saved

God told us what his judgement will be: (1pe1:17; mt25:31-40; mt25:41-46; mt7:21-23; 2th1:7-9; ecc12:13-14; pr24:12; rev20:12-13; rom2:5-10)

rom7:9: implies innocents not outside of Christ

(see also topic "baptism" exceptions)

1co4:4-5 "judge nothing" not categorical

"judge not any" context whether paul (a christian) is saved

context is "hidden things" and "counsels of the heart"

"i know nothing against myself yet not hereby justified"

ezk18:20-24 all deeds judged, but the final state of a man is the verdict

final judgement is always by works without exception

rom2:5-10; rev20:12-13; mat16:27; pr24:12; 1pe1:17; ecc12:13-14; 2th1:7-9; mat7:21-23; mat25:31-40; mat25:41-46; 2cor5:9-10; jn5:29; rev22:12; rev2:23

heb11:4: this is the significance of works "witness he was righteous"

jas2:22: works first transform then bear witness

ezk18:20-24 all deeds judged, but the final state of a man is the verdict

mt25:35: small % can't feed hungry 1tim5:8;1sam15:22 (hindered)

mt25:15,21,26;1tim6:17-19: using abilities we are given is mandatory

judged by other things too

mt10:33: believe Jesus is the Son of God

mt12:37: our words

1co16:22: love God

rom7:16-17: consent to the covenant

works is only one always mentioned

"justify" (δικαιοω): "regard as righteous"

lk16:15: men justify the unjust (jer17:9 because deceived/deceitful)

rom5:19: God justifes those he made just (because God cannot lie ti1:2)

(see also: topic "romans grace & faith" imputed and pretends)

see also topic: saved by… (saved by grace alone)

see also topic: earning salvation

see also topic: good enough

see also topic: none righteous

see also topic: not to call the righteous

see also topic: filthy rags

see also topic: God hid his face

see also topic: ridiculous extremes

"'perfect' (i.e., flawless) law-keeping means i’m doomed!"

jas2:22; rom5:3-5: commands are for transformation (not score-keeping)

lk12:47; 2pe1:10-11: and transformation is required

false dilemma: "'justified by works' requires flawless execution"

"either flawless works required, or no works at all required"

("presumes law-keeping would be required for its own sake")

false! if saved requires transform, and transform requires works!!!

1jn4:16-17; jas2:22; jas1:3-4; rom5:3-5: doing required to transform

lk12:47; rom8:13; 2pe1:5-11 "these things": transformation required for salvation

why can't we know/do all the will of God?

2pe1:3-4; jn8:31-32; php3:15: we can know it all (mt28:20)

1jn5:3: we can keep any of them (if not, which?)

1pe4:1: we can keep all of them

any narrative that construes any command impossible denies 1co10:13 & 1pe4:1

(see also topic "the impossibles")

2co13:11; 1co15:34: sin to think humans can obey these?

rom2:6-7; col1:28; col4:12: sin to do this?

1pe4:1-2; 1jn2:1: you won't necessarily sin (and recourse if you do)

an accident is not a sin, and a sin is not an accident

an accident is not the same as a sin of ignorance

what's the practical difference?

cease from sin with safety net: (prepare=transform+abound not optional)

grace-only with outward manifestation: (sinner at top/bottom no different)

rom3:27: "'law-keeping' is always pride/boasting"

is pride the only sin not covered by the blood of Christ?

rom3:29-30 (rom2:17,23,29): "boast" context is jews vs. gentiles & circumcision

(see also topic "pharisee & publican")

jas1:3-4; 1pe5:10: trials imply commands & transform

ac14:22+2tim3:12+rom5:3: trials imply transform (enter kingdom)

(see also topic "earning salvation")

jn10:9: "either in Christ & saved or outside & lost"

reality: disciple also may be in Christ but lost

mt13:40-42: lost still in the kingdom at end of world

heb10:26: no more sacrifice (still believes heb10:27)

1co5:5: dis-fellowshipped but still a brother

gal5:19-21: christians not exempt from this

jas5:19-20: (brother err) converted = soul saved from death

specific examples of in Christ but lost

mt19:9: adulterous marriage

1jn3:15: hate a brother

only God-level righteousness can remain in God's presence

hab1:13: passage itself falsifies taking this literally (gen6:12, etc.)

lk1:19 gabriel (and michael); rev8:2 angels; rev7:11 beasts; ps18:10 cherubims; isa6:1-2 seraphims

no one guilty of sin can remain in God's presence (absolution)

gen5:24 enoch; ex33:11,15 moses sinned but in God's presence

(note: someone's past sins forgiven in rom3:25, but whose?)

(ps32:5; ps99:8 impossible to prove sins pre-Christ "rolled forward")

change of mind real key to remaining in God's presence

ps51:10-11; ps140:13 david: "presence" requires right spirit

rom8:13; rom12:2; lk12:47: change of heart also ultimately required

rom8:6-7; rom7:16-17: become not an enemy (ezk18:21-23; ac10:35; 2co5:9-10; heb13:21)

note: heb10:26 (2pe2:19-20; col1:21): friend becomes enemy same way

this is a critical weakness in grace-only salvation: ("weak point; shout here")

rom6:2; gal5:16 construed: "gratefulness/Spirit compels us to live godly"

improved in some vague way to some vague extent

jude1:4: "grateful grace" narrative is a myth!

rule (not exception) grace-only unapologetic for "endorsed" sins (e.g., fornication, profanity, covet, pride, etc.)

unapologetic sin quandary for grace-only: either…

are saved: (admits licentious grace jude1:4)

not saved: (effectively defeats "not of works")

if unapologetic sin not saved

works still effectively required

"not of works" becomes a technicality

if only those with outward-show saved

how much? (sinner at top/bottom effectively no different)

if remorse is only difference for salvation

sinner at top/bottom still effectively no different

theory: "natural outgrowth" replaces careful study/observance of law

gal5:16: "indwelling compels us to change our lives"

in effect becomes a substitute for searching law/doctrine of Christ

improves in some vague way to some vague extent

otherwise, “don’t have the Spirit” (not really saved)

gal5:18,22: "fruit/led of the Spirit means not under law"

can't divide between fruit and law: (jn13:34; eph5:9) love is both fruit and command

2jn1:6; 1jn5:3: loving God is keeping his commands

jn15:10; jn14:21: keep commands is required to remain in God's love (but we are lost if we do it for that reason???)

how do we know what “love” is (vs. fornication/lying) unless we know his laws?

knowing doctrine matters

1tim4:13-16; 2jn1:9: doctrine is a salvation issue

2jn1:10-11; 1tim6:3-5; ti2:10; ti1:9: can't disregard doctrine

2tim4:3-4; eph4:14: ignorance of doctrine is dangerous

knowing details matters

mt19:9: adulterous marriage

eph5:19: instrument

1co11:29: proper observance of communion

we can know the truth

2pe1:3: we have it all

jn8:31-32; mt7:7+pr2:4-5: God promised we can know it

php3:15; jn7:17; jas1:5: God promised to reveal it

jas2:24: "working faith, not works" narrative (rom4:2; gal2:16)

rom4:10; gal2:15: context is circumcision & jews/gentiles

jas2:16; gal6:2; jn13:34; 1jn3:17: context is law of Christ

jas2:21,24,25: "justified by works" 3 times

the fact you feel compelled to change wording proves its not the same

jas2:14,24: "justified by men" narrative

question being answered: "can faith [without works] save him?"

human justification does not save: but this kind of justification does save

"human opinion" spin must be injected (never stated)

jas2:21,25: "justified by works" expressed as statement of fact

is "faith without works" actually dead: or is it mere human opinion?

"faith perfected by works": another real (not fake) benefit of works

if only human justification: "faith perfected by works" completely off-topic

rebuttal of faith-only via james

jas2:17,20,26: "faith without works is dead"

jas2:24: "not justified by faith only"

jas2:21,25: "abraham/rahab were justified by works"

jas2:22: "faith was made complete by works"

1jn3:7: (works are both the means & evidence of transformation)

rom4:5 "God justifies the ungodly" is the same logical pattern as "God saves the lost"

once he saves them: they aren't lost anymore

once he justifies them: they aren't ungodly anymore

jude1:15; 2pe3:7 God will not justify those who remain ungodly

pr17:15; ex23:7: ungodly ("wicked" rasha רָשָׁע) not justified

"ungodly" is what they were before they were made righteous and justified

same as, "God saves the lost": "lost" is what they were before they were saved

1tim1:15: "chief of sinners" but he was no longer committing those sins (e.g. killing christians)

rom5:19 (context for rom5:1,9,16,18) God justifies those whom he has "made righteous" because they are righteous

rom4:5: grace-only narrative: vaguely "worketh not some things"

proves too much

"worketh not" categorically proves too much

rom4:5: if “worketh not” is law categorically, grace truly is licentious

necessarily implies very thing grateful-grace denies

saved people could abandon the works of the law of Christ!

jude1:4: condemns licentious grace

law of moses fits this perfectly; law categorically does not

"worketh not" 2 possibilities

"worketh not but believeth" could be 1 of 2 things

may be law of moses

may be the spiritual mind (vs. flesh)

rom7:18: the spiritual mind consents to the law

rom7:17,20,25: the spiritual mind does not sin (but the flesh sometimes does)

rom8:6-7: the spiritual (alive) mind is subject to God

ultimately must kill the deeds too

rom8:13: to avoid being lost ultimately must kill the deeds of the body

rom8:11: "give life to your bodies" must be taken in context

Christ's resurrection figure of overcoming the flesh (similar to rom6:5,9)

1st century greek had no distinction of proper names by capitalization

(hebrew still doesn't: see also ruach רוּחַ)

almost 100% of personal indwelling doctrine relies on translation ambiguities and translator bias

Translations of "πνευμα":

a breeze, breath, or current of air: (jn3:8)

a spiritual being like an angel, a ghost, or a demon: (lk24:36-37; mt10:1; mk1:23; heb1:7; lk4:33)

a mind(set) or mental disposition: (eph4:23; 2tim1:7; 1jn4:6; rom1:4; 1co2:12; 1co4:21)

things of spiritual nature: (jn3:6)

the spirit of man: (1co2:11)

the Holy Spirit: (rev2:29)

quick list

"in" (εν with plural object) = "among"

"Spirit" without "Holy" = usually "mindset"

1co6:19 "body" = the church "temple"

antanaclasis (mistaken as context) e.g., jn3:5,6,8; mt8:22 (see "grammar" topic)

1co3:17; 2co6:16: consistently one temple many people

eph2:22: one temple inhabited by the Spirit (i.e., "in the church")

indwelling was always miraculous; there never was a “limited measure”

“limited measure” is a gateway theory to Pentecostalism

compelling thought or strong emotion = you are your own God

notes

("protestant" translators tend to personal indwelling bias)

"non-miraculous" indwelling can be gateway to personal revelation

to anyone compelling thought and/or strong emotion is "God speaking": their own heart is their God!

2co8:16; jn13:2: God may not be the source

pr28:26; jer17:9: not infallable

pr14:12; 2co11:14: satan makes untruth seem compelling

1co4:17; 1co14:33: God will never contradict his own words

jn17:17; 2pe1:3; gal1:8-9: God's word source of all truth; why use anything else?

"indwelling" always miraculous

"baptized" at pentecost: ac1:5; mtt3:11; mk1:8; lk3:16; jn1:33 (cornelius ac11:16)

"filled" at pentecost: ac2:4 (churches ac4:31; ac13:52 & individuals lk1:15,41,67; ac9:17; lk4:1; ac4:8; ac6:3,5; ac7:55; ac11:24)

"poured" at pentecost: ac2:17 (cornelius ac10:45)

"come/fallen upon" at pentecost: ac1:8; ac11:15 (cornelius ac11:15 & samaria ac8:16 & church ac19:6 & individual lk1:35)

"gift/given" at pentecost: ac11:17; ac2:38 (cornelius ac10:45; ac11:17; ac15:8 & samaria ac8:18)

"promise" at pentecost: ac2:33; ac1:4; lk24:49; ac2:39

"received" at pentecost: ac1:8; ac2:33; ac2:38 (cornelius ac10:47 & samaria ac8:15,17,19 & church ac19:2)

"limited measure" not clearly mentioned/described

(see also "gifts ceased" below)

(see also topic "Spirit πνευμα")

(see also topic "grammar tips" subtopic "εν (among)")

1co6:19: "your body is the temple"

arguments for physical body

jn2:21: physical body called "temple"

1pe1:13 vs lk10:27: plural "you" with singular noun is a thing

1co6:13-18: physical body context

arguments for church body

physical context is not the only explanation of "body"

antanaclasis (an-tə-NA-clə-səs): intentional use of a word in different senses

examples: jn3:5,6,8 spirit/wind; mt8:22 dead; 1th5:6-7,10 sleep (see also topic "antanaclasis")

switch from 1co6:15 "your bodies" to 1co6:19-20 "your body"

1co6:19-20: the body of believers (church eph2:21; 1co3:16-17; 2co6:16)

eph2:20-22: Spirit provably dwells in the one temple

"in you" (εν = "among" with plural object)

examples: 2pe2:8; mt16:7; mt20:26-27; mk6:4; lk2:44; lk7:16; lk10:3

5 arguments against fornication

1co6:15: our bodies belong to Christ

1co6:16-17: a man's spirit is joined to the Lord

1co6:18: sin against a man's own body

1co6:19: "temple" belongs to God

1co6:20: "body" should glorify God

context not 100% physical

1co6:13-14: physical body

1co6:15: physical bodies (of church members)

1co6:16: physical body

1co6:17: "spirit" (not physical body)

1co6:18: physical body & "without the body"

1co6:19-10: "temple" body

3 indications gifts ceased

purpose of miracles

lk4:25-27: primary purpose not charity

heb2:3-4; ac2:22; jn3:2; mk16:20; mk16:17-18; mt12:28; ex19:9; 2ki1:9-10: bear witness to new revelation

i only need to sign my will once

gal1:8-9: no more new revelation after 1st century

jas1:25; 2pe1:3; 1co13:10; 2ti3:16-17: revelation perfect (complete)

end of gifts prophesied

zec13:1-2: "land" אֶרֶץ often translated "earth" (prophecy of Christ zec13:6-7)

1co13:8-10: prophecy/tongues cease when "the perfect thing" comes

future to corinthian epistle

"perfect" is oddly neuter (i.e., not Christ)

jas1:25: "perfect law of liberty" is a thing (not a person)

nature of gifts

ex8:18-19: modern "gifts" all can be faked

unverifiable: "tongues" babbling, "prophecy" trickery, psychosomatic, etc.

new testament gifts verified

mt15:30-31; mk3:3-5: regeneration of limbs

ac3:2-8: known disability/healing

jn11:39,44; mt14:17-21; mt8:3; jn9:1,6,8,20-21: provably unnatural

jn3:2; jn11:47-48; mk6:2-5: hostile witness

deut13:1-3: doctrine must still match scripture

1co14:33: prophecies cannot conflict

God will not contradict his own word

ac17:24-28; mt10:29; pr21:31; ps147:6-9: not every act of God is miracle

jas1:5; pr2:3-6: only inspiration infallable (jn13:2; ac5:3; pr28:26; jer17:9)

gift to "all afar off"

ac2:39: "the promise" to those afar off

ac22:21; eph2:12-13; eph2:17: μακραν gentiles were "afar off"

"you and your children" as many of those 2 generations as were called

ac2:33: "the promise" of Holy Spirit involved tongues & inspired prophecy

this witness was given once (1st century) for the entire church

"not under law" vs "the law"

rom6:14; gal5:18; gal3:23,25; gal4:21: “not under the law”

1co9:21: we are “under law” (εννομος) to Christ

description fits law of moses perfectly

categorical law creates impossible conundrums

grace-only: "not under any law at all"

"no law" makes sin (transgression) impossible (rom4:15; 1jn3:4)

"can't sin" makes some passages false/meaningless

1jn5:16-17: brethren can sin "not unto death"

1jn2:1: "if we sin" proves it is possible

jas5:14-15: "if he committed sins" proves it is possible

jas2:9: disciples can sin by partiality

jas1:14-15: "every man is tempted [to sin]" proves it is possible for us

heb12:1: "[lay] aside…sin" means we have sin to lay aside

heb10:26: "if we sin willfully" proves we can sin

1tim5:20: "those that sin" proves we can sin

1co8:12: we can sin against our brethren

rom6:12: "don't let sin reign in your body" proves we can sin

ac8:22: "pray for forgiveness" proves Simon could sin

grace-only "not under law" theory

impossibly hard to keep the law

so Christ makes us not under law's condemnation

but Spirit compels saved to keep it anyway

"law-keeping impossibly hard"

"Failing to perfectly [flawlessly] keep the law results in condemnation and separation from God."

only true if objective is record-keeping

false if objective is transformation

law of Christ is framework for transformation

(aka pattern/instruction) lk6:40; rom6:17; jn13:15; 2tim3:15+2tim3:16-17; 2pe1:3-4

God's laws are not unbearable (1jn5:3; 1co10:13; eph6:13; 1pe1:1)

"so God freed us from law"

"Being ‘not under the law’ means believers are freed from condemnation [of law]." (because substitution)

"not under law" exempts from law, itself (rom4:15)

more than just the condemnation of law

fits law of moses exactly, but not law categorically

"God moves us to do it anyway"

(always to some vague extent: best/worst sinner no different)

dilemma: "not of works" either licentious or a technicality

rom4:5: "any law"+"worketh not" implies licentious, but most choose "outward show"

(see topic "grace-only talking points" section "grateful grace")

"not under any law" = no condemnation + no rules

"no rules" = nothing to transgress

(e.g., italy’s mop law; mexico’s bike law)

literally can’t break that law right here & now (not under it)

"no transgression" = no sin

1jn3:4; rom4:15: sin = transgression of law

without law, we literally can't sin in the first place

not just auto-forgiven, it's impossible

heb10:26: no need for a sacrifice

rom8:34: nothing to intercede for

1jn2:1: nothing to advocate for

1jn1:9: nothing to confess/forgive

1jn1:7: nothing to cleanse

if sin is impossible, what do these mean? (heb10:26; 1jn5:16; jas4:17; jas2:9)

1co9:21: we are “under law” (εννομος) to Christ

condemnation is possible

rom8:1: this is conditional, not absolute

jas5:9: grudge

jas2:13: unmerciful

mt18:34-35: not forgive

mt25:41-42: no charity (mt25:34-35,46)

recourse if we do sin (1jn2:1)

different than grace-only blanket exemption

heb10:26: not willful sin

1jn2:1: requires an advocate, but not just an advocate

1jn1:9; pr28:13: confess & forsake (way of life, not itemize)

rom7:25+rom8:1; rom8:6-7: serve God with mind therefore no condemnation

(but eventually must kill deeds of body: rom8:13)

faith-only: "grace & law mutually exclusive for salvation"

faith-only: "grace itself & law itself mutually exclusive for justification"

"mutually exclusive" fits law of moses perfectly

creates conundrums if law categorical

(see also topic "not under law")

(see also topic "not of works")

(see also topic "grace-only talking points")

(see also topic "new testament is law")

gal5:4 not justified by law categorical?

if so, that would include the law of Christ

false dilemma: "it's either faith or works (of law of Christ)" implies works-only

no one in human history ever argued new testament works-only salvation

question always only ever: faith-only vs. faith and works

rom3:28 justified by faith and not "the law": rom3:29; gal3:17 context provably the law of moses

gal4:24,30 paul says "faith or the law": because you can't be saved by two laws!

ac13:39; rom3:27: the two laws are the law of Moses vs. the law of faith in Christ

jas2:14,24: we are justified+saved by both works and faith

mt25:25: parable of talents is about cheap grace

to pit law against faith categorically: proves too much

categorical instead of "law of faith vs. law of moses": fundamentally changes the question!

gal5:18+rom6:14; rom4:15; 1jn3:4 (1co9:21 εννομος!!): if you're not under a law you can't sin

1jn1:9: if you can't sin, there's nothing to confess or be forgiven of

jas1:14-15; gal6:1; jas1:2,12; 1co7:5: can't sin, can't be tempted to sin

1jn5:16; 1jn2:1; jas5:16: can't sin, can't pray for or receive forgiveness

1jn2:1-2; rom8:26,34: don't need an advocate or intercessor

1tim1:15: "sinners" (world) amenable to law of Christ, but we're not?!

1jn3:4: "you're all going to hell because you transgress our law; "join us so you can be exempt from our law like we are…"

rom11:6 faith-only construes this to support categorical grace

[selection by] grace/works: is no longer [selection by] grace/works

selected because God likes us (pleased), not because he's obligated

“grace no more grace”: is about how we are chosen, not about how we are justified

rom11:5: "election of grace" & rom8:6-7 "mind pleases!" & rom7:25 "mind"

rom9:11 & 2tim2:25 & 2pe1:10 sure=firm: chosen by grace not works (1co13:3)

lev26:25 "do this or I'll kill you" not grace, not designed to please God

1co5:9-10+rom3:21 works that please God don't require the law of moses

mt23:23 weightier matters; pr15:8+pr21:27 sacrifice of wicked: non-grace

rom2:13; jas2:14,24: we are justified by works

rom2:6-7: eternal life to those who seek [eternal life] by patiently continuing in good work

rom2:13: the doers of the law shall be justified

rom2:26: righteousness of the law not include circumcision

rom3:21: righteousness of God witnessed by the law

rom3:20: contrasted with "deeds of the law" (e.g., circumcision rom3:1,30; rom2:26)

mt22:36-40+deut6:5+lev19:18: the righteousness of God is to love God and love your neighbor

rom12:20+pr25:21-22; etc.: the righteousness of God is to feed our enemy etc.

rom8:4-7: righteousness of the law is to be spiritually minded

rom11:22: cut off if not "continue in his goodness" (xref heb10:26-31 "he was sanctified")

rom5:19: God justifies those he has "made righteous," first the mind (rom7:17,21), then the man (rom8:13)

rom5:17 righteousness is the "gift": (not pretend we have righteousness)

rom5:18-19: "made righteous" is how justification comes upon us

2co3:18 μεταμορφοω; 2pe1:4: "righteousness of one" transforms

1jn3:7 καθως; rev3:21 ὡς: "made righteous" is to become, not pretend

rom5:16,18: righteousness ("the free gift" rom5:17) results in justification

rom5:21: grace, δια (by means of) righteousness, results in eternal life

rom3:20; rom4:13-14: how are we "not justified by the law"?

paul commissioned to teach that gentiles not under law of moses: ac15:22-29; rom11:13; 2tim1:11; 1tim2:7

context of "not justified by law/works" explicitly law of moses

context: moses (4x), jew(11x) vs gentile(21x) rom3:9,29; circumcision(26x) rom2:28-29

eph2:9; ti3:5 the 2 exceptions to that rule are ephesus/titus

ac20:31;2co8:23: no one knew this doctrine better than ephesus and titus (he was paul's partner)

without exception every specific example of law/work that does not justify is from law of moses

lev12:3 vs 1co7:19 & gal5:2; lev11:46-47 vs rom14:14; lev11:25 vs heb9:10; ex31:14 vs col2:16

the works of the law of Christ are not treated that way!!! mt25:34-35,41-42,46; 1jn3:15,17; jas2:12-13,9; gal6:2; jas2:15-17; jas2:14,24

rom2:26 "deeds of the law [of moses]" (like circumcision) very specifically not the same as "the righteousness of the law"

the law of moses bore witness to God's righteousness (rom3:21; rom2:26 [rom2:21-22; mt22:36-40; lk10:27; eph6:2])

spin: rom6:14; rom4:14-15 "not under law = not under any law" proves too much

similar spin: rom4:15-16 inherit by "faith-only" because "all" law works wrath (no law no transgression 1jn3:4)

means we can't sin at all, if not under any law at all (but we provably can sin: 1jn1:8; 1jn2:1; 1jn5:16; 1co6:18)

no sin means nothing to ask forgiveness for (but we are commanded to pray for forgiveness: lk11:4; 1jn1:9; jas5:15)

rom7:17,20; 1jn3:6; 1jn5:18: "sinneth not" in these passages does not support "not under any law": because