Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[_Rick_C]

Theology and Biblical Studies blog:
N.T. Wright on Justification and Righteousness in Paul

excerpted

Christian theology, so Sanders and Wright argue, has seen Judaism as a legalistic religion that was somewhat akin to the heresy of Pelagianism, where human beings had to perform good works or keep a religious law in order to be acceptable to God, or to be ‘saved’. By contrast, Jesus comes and offers salvation and forgiveness by grace, as opposed to the Pharisees who insisted that one had to ‘earn’ salvation. This same hypothesis has also been read into Paul. Protestant exegesis has read Paul – especially Romans and Galatians – as being about justification by faith over against ‘earning’ salvation by performing good works.

Both Sanders and Wright (amongst others) have shown that this interpretation of Jesus, Paul, and historical Judaism is almost entirely without foundation historically speaking. The Jews did not believe that they ‘earned’ salvation by observing the law, and neither were Paul and Jesus offering salvation whereby one is justified freely by faith (as opposed to religious works.)

What the Jews did believe however was that keeping the law zealously was their part of the bargain as God’s covenant people. They had already been chosen by grace, and the keeping of the law was a response of gratitude to God. Keeping the law did not get you into God’s people, but you kept the law to stay in. This way of keeping the law was not a form of proto-pelagianism, but what Sanders termed ‘covenantal nomism’. As Wright puts it, “keeping the Jewish law was the human response the God’s covenantal initiative.”
____________

This is the heart of Paul’s message in Romans. He is not proposing a system of righteousness by faith as opposed to a righteousness that is earned by good works. God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, which is nothing less than his plan to defeat sin and evil once and for all. He has done this in Jesus Christ, and by raising Jesus from the dead God has vindicated him. Those who believe the Gospel and are faithful to Christ are likewise declared to be ‘righteous’, that is to say, God will show them to be in the right and also raise them from the dead. God does this from his own righteous status as judge, but this is not the same thing as God giving this status to human beings.

Wright does not deny justification by faith, or that God declares us to be righteous. He simply states that these things do not mean what Protestant theology has generally read them to mean.

No further comments: Have a Nice Day,

[Guest]

Homer, Thank you for the encouragement! You wrote:

I found your story of your spiritualizing the command to break the neck of the first born colt to be most interesting. You are headed in the right direction; there is hope. Why don't you spiritualize the Sabbath command (the shadow). As in:

We do know that the Law is Spiritual. What makes you think that "spiritualizing" it means not to keep it? Regarding the command from God to "break the neck" of a first-born male donkey, it is possible that I had misunderstood what God meant by the "English" word 'break'. I had thought it meant to "kill" it, when it very possibly means to "train it" as in to "break a horse" means to cause it to become submissive to the will of the trainer, instead of being "stiff-necked" and only wanting to do its own will!

I do realize that the Sabbath command is, as are all of the commands from God, "spiritual". Well, maybe "realize" is not the right word, because I'm still learning, and have not realized it all, because I do not yet understand it all, nor have I employed all of God's commands toward me, probably.

I am "laboring" to enter "that rest" spoken of in Hebrews 4. Interesting isn't it? Laboring to rest. This command agrees with Jesus' command to make every effort to enter through the narrow door.

Further, you wrote:

Please do not assume I am antinomian. We are under the Law of Christ. I most emphatically believe that if Jeus is not our Lord, then neither is He our Savior.

I am trying to converse with different people here, so please forgive me if I have made an incorrect assumption concerning your position. I'm gald that you see yourself "under the law of Christ"!

This term "under the law" is assumed to be understood by many who also claim to understand Paul's writings. Peter warned us that some of what Paul wrote is hard to understand and that the unlearned and unstable twist as they do the other scriptures to their own destruction. Most probably do not consider themselves unlearned or unstable, so this warning seems to them to be for other people.

If I may discuss this a bit, maybe it will help shed a little light on the topic, or at least show where I am coming from.

I'm just going to type about a speed limit law to try to explain. The speed limit sign on the side of a road does not have any power to "make" a person obey it. It is "weak" in this regard. It simply is a "mark" along the way to define "righteousness". Now, everyone that drives along the road and comes to pass the speed limit sign, is expected to see it and to obey it. Obedience to speed limit laws does not necessarily "make one righteous" in all areas of life, but it does show that in obedience to this law, the driver is trying to be lawful, and has an attitude of submission to rules of the road. He/she knows that these laws are designed for our good, and to provide an enjoyable and safe journey to our destination.

Sometimes a person "misses the mark", or does not see the sign posted, and continues and finds him/herself being asked to pull over by a law enforcement officer. The law's author is interested in showing mercy and may in this case, because he sees the intent of the driver was not to disobey, so he may let him off with a warning. He/she finds him/herself still "under grace".

Now, what if the person knew he was breaking the law and transgressing the will of the author of the law? How can this person be brought into compliance? He has demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by the rules, and has transgressed intentionally. This illegal driver who thought the sign had been done away with and felt himself above the law and need not keep its righteous command, may find himself "under law". This means that he will be "under law" until he has paid a fine, taken some instructive classes, or otherwise been shown that the law is still in existence and that it would be better for him and all other drivers if he obeyed it. Once he has satisfied the law's penalty, he is therefore placed back "under grace". Grace teaches us to obey the laws. Once we disobey we are under the law's dictates.

Now, what happens if a person repeatedly violates the speed limit laws, and is caught once again? He may be levied a fine so large that he cannot pay it. If the debt exceeds his ability to pay it, then he will be "sold" to the "law" and be required to work it off gradually, and this may take some time. All this while, he will be "under the law".

The law provides for a kinsman redeemer, however, to pay the fine for the disobeyer. If this happens, the violator is then set free from the "law" that had him held, but is then "under the law of the Redeemer". This means that the kinsman redeemer has become the violator's master, and he needs to do the will of the new master, rather than the will of the impartial law. the New master, because He is a kinsman is naturally expected to "love" his relative, and will treat him fairly, and without the "coldness" that the impartial law could inflict.

This example is getting away form me....sorry. I need to go, but will try to follow it up later, Lord willing.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Homer, Thank you for your patience. You wrote:

You have put great stock in Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-19 as support for your position:

Now it must be noted that a great number of the laws given through Moses are, at least since the Lord destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 70AD, rendered "passed away", as they are of no relevance and, indeed, any possibility of being obeyed. But even more importantly, what if Jesus could be shown, as I believe, to have abrogated a prominent "divine positive command" of the Mosaic law? What then of "not one jot or tittle". Would we not be forced to say that "all is fulfilled" or else Jesus misspoke?

Indeed, I put great stock in everything Jesus said!

I would be happy to view your thoughts concerning the abrogation of a prominent divine command.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Sean, you wrote:

First, you said this in one of your latest posts:

dmatic wrote:

Righteousness is doing what is right. And right is defined by God and His Law.



So righteousness comes by the law then? Are you sure about that?

I did not say that righteousness comes by the law. I said that righteousness is doing what is right, and that God defines what is right.

Righteousness comes from God by faith.
The Law also comes from God.
Everything, actually, comes from God. All things are of God.

Anyway, John tells us not to be deceived.
Those who are righteous do righteousness.
Those who are unrighteous do things that are not right.
When an unrighteous person claims to know God, but does not keep His commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

as for Paul thinking, or assuming he was righteous because he was thinking that he was keeping the law, he was in error. He even thought that killing people that were turning to faith in Jesus was a righteous thing to do. Afterward, he realized that he was the very worst of all sinners! He came to realize that he was not righteous as he had thought! What a concept! he found out that he was self-deluded, until Y'Shua appeared to him, and asked him why he was persecuting Him?

Anyway, I need to answer Allyn and I have but a few minutes left....so hope this helps your objections. If not, please ask them again.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn, you wrote:

No crassness intended because it was more a statement of exasperation.

I suppose it is never one's intention to be grossy stupid or dull (crass), but when irritated, angered or vexed (exasperated), we often get that way!

This is one of the reasons that James instructs us to be slow to anger because man's anger does not work the righteousness that God intends. (James 1:20)

I'm sure that you assumed that your exasperation with Paidion's good comments, correcting your error, was justified, but I can assure you that it was not!

In an effort to try to help you correct your delusion, Allyn, I urge you to "lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive, with meekness, the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul. BUT, be ye a doer of the word, and not a hearer only, deceiving yourself." (James 1:21-22)

Your comment about your "futile attempt at keeping (doing) the (word) law", is telling. Why do you think you've been so unsuccessful at keeping God's commandments?

You disagree with the wisest human that ever lived, besides Jesus, who recorded the conclusion of the whole matter: "Fear God and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Eccl.12:13) Of course, Jesus agreed with Solomon!

The fact of your disagreement with The Messiah, and one of the wisest men who's ever lived, should get your attention and casue you to re-think your position. Maybe you've got something wrong. Even though you think you're right, maybe your way, too, leads to death, even though you're pretty sure you got it figured out!

You expressed disdain for intellectual reasonings while implying that you posessed superior common sense, but it is evident that you lack both, though neither will assure one of being on the right path that leads to life.

I read the rest of your inane comment where you wrote:

I will simply never understand one who wants to be justified by works (such as yourself) which puts the focus on you and less on Christ and one who denies Christ in a certain way (as Paidion does) by trying to be intellectual rather than humbly submissive.

It is apparent that you do not seek understanding. But if you did, maybe you should ask me if that is what I am saying, rather than assume incorrectly, that you have perceived my view, and then condemn me based on your incorrect assumptions.

I do not claim to have any understanding of the history you have incurred, while interacting with Paidion; nor do I know either of you very well, but your comments to him were out of line and I think you should seek reconciliation, by apologizing to him for your crassness. He has taken the "high" road here, in my view, and will welcome your humble contrition and submission to your own stated views of loving.

And then, maybe you should exert more effort trying to keep the top-less bar out of your community than commenting on this topic.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn, you wrote:

No crassness intended because it was more a statement of exasperation.

I suppose it is never one's intention to be grossy stupid or dull (crass), but when irritated, angered or vexed (exasperated), we often get that way!

This is one of the reasons that James instructs us to be slow to anger because man's anger does not work the righteousness that God intends. (James 1:20)

I'm sure that you assumed that your exasperation with Paidion's good comments, correcting your error, was justified, but I can assure you that it was not!

In an effort to try to help you correct your delusion, Allyn, I urge you to "lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive, with meekness, the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul. BUT, be ye a doer of the word, and not a hearer only, deceiving yourself." (James 1:21-22)

Your comment about your "futile attempt at keeping (doing) the (word) law", is telling. Why do you think you've been so unsuccessful at keeping God's commandments?

You disagree with the wisest human that ever lived, besides Jesus, who recorded the conclusion of the whole matter: "Fear God and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Eccl.12:13) Of course, Jesus agreed with Solomon!

The fact of your disagreement with The Messiah, and one of the wisest men who's ever lived, should get your attention and casue you to re-think your position. Maybe you've got something wrong. Even though you think you're right, maybe your way, too, leads to death, even though you're pretty sure you got it figured out!

You expressed disdain for intellectual reasonings while implying that you posessed superior common sense, but it is evident that you lack both, though neither will assure one of being on the right path that leads to life.

I read the rest of your inane comment where you wrote:

I will simply never understand one who wants to be justified by works (such as yourself) which puts the focus on you and less on Christ and one who denies Christ in a certain way (as Paidion does) by trying to be intellectual rather than humbly submissive.

It is apparent that you do not seek understanding. But if you did, maybe you should ask me if that is what I am saying, rather than assume incorrectly, that you have perceived my view, and then condemn me based on your incorrect assumptions.

I do not claim to have any understanding of the history you have incurred, while interacting with Paidion; nor do I know either of you very well, but your comments to him were out of line and I think you should seek reconciliation, by apologizing to him for your crassness. He has taken the "high" road here, in my view, and will welcome your humble contrition and submission to your own stated views of loving.

And then, maybe you should exert more effort trying to keep the top-less bar out of your community than commenting on this topic.

Peace, dmatic

Did that make you feel better? BTW, we have no topless bars in my community. Is trying to make a world, which is already lost in sin, become bound by the law your way of saving the world or just your effort to make it more comfortable for you? Would a law forbidding topless bars in my community make less sin in my community or simply put that sinner in check under the law?

That last sentence of yours, dmatic speaks thousands of sentences to me concerning just how much you are in bondage to the Law. It is so much a burden for you that you cannot help but judge others by what you think is right or wrong. You must find it awfully unfair that you cannot have the same freedom we Christians have and in fact you want to make the whole world fall in lock-step behind you when the world is just doing what the world has always done.

[Guest]

dmatic,

Long before the Law of Moses was bound upon those God brought out of Egypt He declared:

Genesis 9:3 (New King James Version)

3. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.


For many centuries there were no foods that God considered unclean; all was for man's benefit. Through Moses, God put restrictions upon the children of Israel:

Deuteronomy 14:3

3. “You shall not eat any detestable thing.

Deuteronomy 14:7-8

7. Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they are unclean for you. 8. Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.

Deuteronomy 14:10

10. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11 (New King James Version)

1. Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2. “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: 3. Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. 4. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 5. the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 6. the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 7. and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. 8. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
9. ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. 10. But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. 11. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. 12. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you.
13. ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14. the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15. every raven after its kind, 16. the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17. the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18. the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19. the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
20. ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23. But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.
24. ‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; 25. whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening: 26. The carcass of any animal which divides the foot, but is not cloven-hoofed or does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Everyone who touches it shall be unclean. 27. And whatever goes on its paws, among all kinds of animals that go on all fours, those are unclean to you. Whoever touches any such carcass shall be unclean until evening. 28. Whoever carries any such carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. It is unclean to you.
29. ‘These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind; 30. the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31. These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32. Anything on which any of them falls, when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water. And it shall be unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. 33. Any earthen vessel into which any of them falls you shall break; and whatever is in it shall be unclean: 34. in such a vessel, any edible food upon which water falls becomes unclean, and any drink that may be drunk from it becomes unclean. 35. And everything on which a part of any such carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it is an oven or cooking stove, it shall be broken down; for they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you. 36. Nevertheless a spring or a cistern, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such carcass becomes unclean. 37. And if a part of any such carcass falls on any planting seed which is to be sown, it remains clean. 38. But if water is put on the seed, and if a part of any such carcass falls on it, it becomes unclean to you.
39. ‘And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. 40. He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.
41. ‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten. 42. Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth—these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. 43. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them. 44. For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 45. For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46. ‘This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, 47. to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.’”


The reflecting mind will consider how these creatures, given as a blessing to Noah and his sons for food, could be considered unclean and not to be eaten. Had something changed in the creatures? No, nothing was different about them. There was nothing that was any different in them at all. God simply declared, by Divine positive command, that, to the Israelites, they were forbidden as food. It was simply forbidden to them because God said so.

Notice the instruction "speak to the children of Israel". Note the repeated "you may eat", "you may not eat", "you shall regard as", "shall be an abomination to you", etc., spoken to the Israelites, and them alone.

Then Jesus came and said:

Mark 7:14-23 (New King James Version)

14. When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15. There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
17. When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18. So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19. because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20. And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22. thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”


And similarly he said:

Matthew 15:17-20 (New King James Version)

17. Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”


And Paul also spoke to the subject, proving himself to be a good student of the Master:

Romans 14:14 (New King James Version)

14. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.


Ephesians 2:13-15 (New King James Version)

13. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15. having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,


The law of commandments contained in ordinances has been abolished!
I sympathize with you. I know it is a difficult thing for you to see. Peter was also slow to grasp this truth (see Acts 10:9-15).

We have another clear, parallel case which can be cited: the Law of Divorce, and God's original intention regarding marriage:


Matthew 19:3-9 (New King James Version)

3. The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5. and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6. So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7. They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8. He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”


I think you will admit that The Law permitted divorce on gounds that were not God's original intention. This "jot and tittle" was also revoked by Jesus. As God's original intent was restored regarding foods, so it was restored regarding marriage. And thus your understanding of Matthew 5:18 falls to the ground.

Blessings, Homer

[Guest]

Allyn wrote:

Did that make you feel better?

Did "what" make me feel better?

I am sorry about my last paragraph. I don't even know where you live! Apparently, that is what you thought the jist of my communication was about?

Sorry.

Have a nice day.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn ends his devilish discouragement with "His command is to love one another." What, praytell, prohibits Sean from loving one another by trying to keep Jesus' commandments?


dmatic, Nothing prevents Sean from trying to keep Jesus's commandments and he should, but his salvation does'nt hinge on how well he does this. That's what "imputed righteousness" is , that's why we are judged by our works for rewards but our salvation depends on our sincere faith in Christ.

STEVE, we may have to discuss the meaning of salvation. You say that Sean's salvation does not hinge on how well he keeps Jesus' commandments. So, I suppose we should also define your use of the word 'hinge'. But, if I understand you, your position is that it doesn't matter in the least what a "Chrisitan" does, it only matters whether or not he/she is sincere.

Well. Besides the fact that this understanding is exactly contrary to Jesus' teaching, maybe we should start with your definition of "sincere".

One, probably, could argue that the "many" who will come before Jesus 'on that day' will be very sincere when they protest Jesus' sentence upon them for their lawless doings. (Mt. 7:22) In fact, they probably thought themselves very sincere as they presumed to call Jesus Lord, but didnot the things He said. Of course, the obvious fact that many have been deceived, does not mean that they are not sincere. By definition, they don't even realize that they are deceived, they think they are in the truth (like Allyn ) They sincerely think they are right. Many people sincerely love deception. In fact, they cry out to the prophets and teachers: "Don't prophesy hard things to us, prophesy smooth things. Things that make us feel good and tickle our ears. Tell us we're free to do what we want to do. Don't tell us we are in error! That makes us feel so uncomfortable!" They are counting on you being right about this sincerity thing. They want you to be right about being judged on their sincerity, and not on their doings.

But, what does Jesus teach? "Not every one that says to Me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven."

He appears to be saying the exact opposite of what you have said. It is a wonder that you could have said what you did in your post, in light of Jesus' sayings. But it is really no 'wonder" because it is prophesied, and it is what you have been taught from false teachers.

You say doings don't matter. Only sincerity matters.

Jesus says Only doing matters. (Those who do the will of God will enter into the kingedom of heaven) Sincerity doesn't matter (calling Him 'Lord Lord')

I am interested in your expanation. It is OK to be wrong about stuff, and then admit that. It is another thing to be wrong, but deny the fact. I hope you are one who desires to be told if he is wrong about something, having a greater love for truth than for your comfort.

Peace STEVE!

dmatic

[Guest]

Homer, I am eager to answer your post, but it will have to wait until next week, as the Library is about to close! Thanks for your patience and your conversation!

Peace, dmatic