Give Gaaawd the gloooooooowreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, Mayor!!!!
ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Give Gaaawd the gloooooooowreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, Mayor!!!!
I've a few Jan Crouch Halloween masks, and anointed handkerchiefs, from the Holy Land for you!
Turbosixx,
Sorry that I've been away for a while. I've been very busy with other things and had to set TOL aside for a bit.
Was it by following the rules or was it by believing? Was it by your flesh or by the Spirit? If it was the later that brought you to Christ then why attempt to walk according to former? Forget the former! It has been nailed to the Tree and taken away. You don't need it and it won't help you, it can only kill you. For the law kills but the Spirit gives life.
When did immorality become immoral?
When did it become wrong to be impure or greedy?
Also, do you believe that Adam had an alternative to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Could he have learned righteousness (and by extension, evil) in another way? If so, how?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Sorry that I've been away for a while. I've been very busy with other things and had to set TOL aside for a bit.
Jesus didn't change anything here! He simply explained that the Law doesn't simply judge your action but the intent of your heart. That is to say that the Law condemns BOTH your actions and the thoughts of your mind. That is not a change at all. At most, it was a clarification used to demonstrate that people are worse off spiritually than they might think.
The question here is, "How did you receive Christ?"
Was it by following the rules or was it by believing? Was it by your flesh or by the Spirit? If it was the later that brought you to Christ then why attempt to walk according to former? Forget the former! It has been nailed to the Tree and taken away. You don't need it and it won't help you, it can only kill you. For the law kills but the Spirit gives life.
There can be no love without mental understanding. They are not opposites, the one is foundational to the other.
In the context of your paradigm, your suggestion is legalism.
"To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."
Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God’s ways are not always man’s ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons" (J. W. Sanderson, Jr.). - From Principle of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford
Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God’s ways are not always man’s ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons" (J. W. Sanderson, Jr.). - From Principle of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford
This is a curious statement. I agree with it completely but I can't see how you square this statement with what you said above about how, "Loving God and loving Jesus isn’t about mental understanding..."
I have a question that may help make some progress here...
When did immorality become immoral?
When did it become wrong to be impure or greedy?
Also, do you believe that Adam had an alternative to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Could he have learned righteousness (and by extension, evil) in another way? If so, how?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Cross Reference
New member
That is terrible agenda ridden religious understanding! It stinks!! And then he puts a guilt trip on folk to support his bent!!
Who is the "he" you are you referring to, CR?
If Clete; though I haven't agreed with Clete on other things on other threads, I do agree with his above take on what he was addressing.
Titus 3:
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Cross Reference
New member
I thought it was glue :rotfl:
Cross Reference
New member
A soda pop out of Mass. back in the '30's by the product name of "Moxey" which its advertising of it went along this line: "Have you had your Moxey today"?
turbosixx
New member
Glad your back, I was getting worried when it was no longer on the front page. While you were away I went back and read my post and didn’t like it. I envy how well you’re able to put your thoughts into words.
The problem I see with your logic is you're taking proofs that we're not under the Law of Moses and using them to prove we're not under any law. You said I was taking this out of context but I've looked it over and I don't believe I am. If you believe I am, take me through the context. If we're not under law, why would he have to appear to be "as without law"?
1 Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
I agree it was a clarification of how God sees our sin but I don’t understand how you can say this isn't a change or something different than the Law of Moses (LOM). Under the LOM a man could lust greatly in his heart and begrudgingly not act upon that lust and it wouldn’t be counted as sin. Under the law of Christ (LOC), if we lust in our heart we are guilty of sin. The law was a shadow and not the very thing, since it wasn’t the real thing it needed to be changed to the real thing.
Under the shadow, violators were punished by death. Do we get a pass under the real thing?
Heb. 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
I agree this is a good question but it’s not the right question for us. Paul is talking about the LOM which is not the gospel? These people were being persuaded to add elements of the LOM. We're not nor have every been under the LOM. No one can be justified under the LOM and one can’t seek to be under the LOM and the LOC. They’re incompatible. Sinful man is High Priest under one and Christ is HP under the other. It’s Christ all the way.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. We can't apply this to prove we are not under the LOC, he's talking about the LOM.
Receiving Christ by the gospel and then trying to added elements of the LOM doesn’t mean there are no rules under the LOC.
1 Thes. 4:1 Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
2 Tim. 2:5 And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.
I agree but you can’t believe you love someone and not act on it and it really be love as I understand love found in the bible. For example, believing you love your wife and you tell her you love her but never show it.
I believe Jesus is the son of God and is God. I believe he lived as a man and died on the cross, was buried and was raised the third day. I believe his blood cleanses my sins and I’m saved by grace. In your understanding, does this make me a believer? If so, am I now free to live as good as I can but if there's a sin I really don't want to give up I can continue in?
Paul didn’t see himself as OSAS. He disciplined his body (devotion) so that he would receive the blessing (crown). I’ve asked other OSAS’ers to explain this passage but they ignore the context to make it fit their thinking.
I Cor. 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.
Why does he say “may”, shouldn’t they have already won?
25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.
He’s talking about salvation.
26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
Disqualified, not second not even last. How could he be disqualified if he understands that he is already saved and can't lose it? He then goes into the next chapter proving his point by showing them an example from the OT of those who were God's people but didn't make it to the promised land.
I agree love is essential and a great motivator but we see fear in scripture as a motivator as well.
2 Cor. 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Rom. 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?... 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
A good example of me having trouble putting thoughts in writing. I meant “only” mental acknowledgment.
I appreciate questions, I believe they cause one to really think about their position. Jesus used it a lot so it must be effective. I’ll answer these in another post.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
Since God defines it I would say always but Paul says sin hadn't "entered the world" until Adam.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
I only know what God tells me. What I understand about the garden is Adam had one rule. Do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or you will die. God didn’t put a fence around it or make it hard to get to; it was in the middle of the garden with easy access and right next to the tree of life. As long as Adam didn’t eat the forbidden fruit, even thought he might have strongly desired it, he was pleasing God and not himself. Satan perverted God’s word and said “you will not die”. To me he has perverted the truth of grace, “you will not lose your soul”.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Cross Reference
New member
Nothing I suppose you would understand that might encourage me to explain.
Sorry. Your religious commentators are "wanting". . . wanting to only protect their religious agenda. Theodore Epp comes quickly to mind.
My question to you and anyone else who has faithfully read the scriptures is, Why, if one is born again, one in which is revealed from him the hunger and thirst after righteousness and genuine love TO God by the seeking to KNOW Him, would you or anyone such as Stanford, Sanderson, Epp, and other of like persuasion irrespective of denomination, want to manufacture an incomplete doctrine of Jesus Christ from a complete one full of expression and clarity of the gospels, one in which there is no contraction as the young doctrine of MAD is?
Here is an excerpt from Sanderson's opinion based upon what he understood Paul to be saying:
Ephesians 2:4-9
His foundation for understanding is WRONG. By declaring God's Grace to be a gift and by "unmerited" favor can it only be bestowed upon those whom God chooses is, fabricated error. The man is wrong. The denomination which preaches/teaches it is, WRONG. The only thing they may be thinking of by that declaration is, "Redemption". Redemption, man had absolutely nothing to do with. Ergo, creation is/was for God; something set in Himself that could not be accomplished without man but, which demanded man's allegiance. Adam wouldn't give it. Jesus did.
Salvation is the gift that "Redemption/Reconciliation/Restoration" provides for, i.e., a new foundation upon which God is now building His new creation. The prerequisite for receiving the gifts God, by His grace is "OUR FAITH", grace being the venue through which God grants His gifts in accordance with His will and purposes for which our ability to "handle" His Glory comes into play. It is the path traversed by God and men in whom He has found favor.
Holy Spirit ><><><><>< man's reconciled human spirit.
Ever wonder why not many people with such gifts today? Ever wonder why such preaching against them being part of God's plan for His people beyond Pentecost?. . . think unbelief.
God is sovereign and sin still can't enter His presence. The Atonement has taken care of that problem for both God and man. Having said that, salvation is still something man must ask for in the prescribed way, i.e., by committing his life to the restoring plan of God.
Read your scriptures in that light. . . . and to be fair, I am open to correction but NOT from any religious[ly] programed commentary.
Last edited:
Stanford was an staunch Acts 2 Dispensationalist and HATED Mid-Acts Dispensationalism!
I don't know anything about Sanderson's doctrine. What you quoted makes me all but certain that he is/was a Calvinist.
In short, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. My quoting something that someone got right does not imply that I endorse everything they ever said or believed or taught.
If you disagree with me in regards to whether what I quoted is right or wrong then make an argument based on the point I was making, not on whatever obscure reference you can Google up from someone who isn't participating in the conversation about a topic that isn't even being discussed.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Turbosixx,
I'm very frustrated.
I intend to respond to your posts but it may be a while. I have to spend some time thinking about what is the best way to respond because you are further entrenched into your paradigm than you were when this conversation began. To respond to some of what you've said in any way that you would have any chance of accepting would require me to rehash a large percentage of what has already been said. Not that I'm unwilling to do so but that I'm not at all sure which tack to take that won't continue to push you further down a road I don't want to push you down.
Let me respond for now by asking you another question...
Just what (in your view) is the law of Christ and in what way is it different than the Law of Moses?
Please answer with Galatians 3:21 in mind.
In the mean time, I'll think through your other posts and see what I can come up with.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I'm very frustrated.
I intend to respond to your posts but it may be a while. I have to spend some time thinking about what is the best way to respond because you are further entrenched into your paradigm than you were when this conversation began. To respond to some of what you've said in any way that you would have any chance of accepting would require me to rehash a large percentage of what has already been said. Not that I'm unwilling to do so but that I'm not at all sure which tack to take that won't continue to push you further down a road I don't want to push you down.
Let me respond for now by asking you another question...
Just what (in your view) is the law of Christ and in what way is it different than the Law of Moses?
Please answer with Galatians 3:21 in mind.
In the mean time, I'll think through your other posts and see what I can come up with.
Resting in Him,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
I'm feeling the exact same way. Please, take your time. I really appreciate your time and I am trying to see it your way. I really, really want to understand truth.
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
Sanderson's commentary was my benchmark. Calvin's theology has been a bane to Christendom.