dreadknought
New member
She denied nothing........ only proclaims. Pro estore. sp?
ECT Nang's Boastful Lie
- Thread starter Doom
- Start date
dreadknought
New member
A hack, by description; and act.
dreadknought
New member
Heir isnt here......... it is someththing else.
Depends.
Besides 2 Cor 3, what passages do you have in mind?
Passages like Galatians 5 and Romans 8 talk about walking in the Spirit and being spiritually minded.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
I don't think walking in the Spirit is following a law written on our hearts. But if we walk in the Spirit then we will be fulfilling the law, because there is no law against such things.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The law seems incidental. If we have the mind of Christ and walk in His Spirit, what use do we have a law for? :idunno:
dreadknought
New member
Your arguing from oblivion, Nang speaks life.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It matters. A lot. That's why God inspired scripture, so we would know what the words mean instead of developing our own concepts of the mind (noema), which are the devices of Satan.
God isn't referred to as perfect. He doesn't have a goal and scope of life to reach, which is the opposite of sin being missing the goal and scope of life. He doesn't need to come to maturity or completeness.
And He set those in the Body for the work of ministry and the perfecting of the saints, til we all come to the perfect man. The measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
Words matter. Words have meaning. When one misses word meanings, it creates the errors of false doctrine; which is one reason there wasn't any form of Dispensationalism until the mid-1800s to espouse this even later revisionism.
Phi 3:12
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I folllow after, if that I may be apprehended that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
v15
Let us thereofore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this to you.
Eph 4:11-13
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Til we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
v15
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up (auxano - aorist subjunctive imperative) into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.
Grammar is vital, too. That's why language exists, to express and communicate clearly. Ignorance is "ignore-ance". Ignoring important factors.
When semantics and grammar are ignored for the sake of concept, it creates error and false doctrines by degree. That's what's happened here, but it would take a correction of a number of definitions and grammatical misrepresntations.
Plainly... scripture doesn't say what MADs are saying. It's a conceptual understanding that is ultimately eisegesis rather than exegesis.
For example... Matthew 5:48, which glorydaz taunted with...
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
"Be" is esomai, the future active indicative, first person singular of eimi. To be, I shall be.
It's in the future tense/middle voice. The middle voice doesn't exist in English, so it's a bit difficult to translate and most don't understand it. The middle voice indicates action one takes upon or on behalf of oneself. Shaving, for instance. I shave myself. It indicates the acting and receiving action relative to oneself.
"Be" perfect, means to employ faith-imputed righteousness as the source of becoming perfect in the future, by taking action upon oneself or on behalf of oneself."
There would be no other inner conduct of the heart resulting in outer conduct of action that could meet God's standard of character and conduct.
Just as the very definition of righteousness (justice) is God's standard for conduct from character, righeousness MUST include imputation of inner conduct of the heart along with imputation of character. Otherwise, there would be no means of "being" perfect according to teleios (perfect) in the future-middle.
What you don't realize is that by eliminating imputed conduct OF the heart, that there is no means for the imputed character of righteousness to come forth. And that means everything any professing Believers "does" would be sin. Because there wouldn't be any imputed conduct that could EVER be righteousness.
Conduct isn't "doing". Conduct begins in the heart as the bringing forth OF doing from BEING. If we are not imputed righteousness as character AND conduct, then it's only a status or label assigned to us with no functionality whatsoever. And that would leave us with conduct that would have to be according to our own standard, which is sin.
You've just made righteousness into a status, with no means of its demonstration being supplied by God; so you're left to your own standard of conduct to HAVE any conduct.
In your zeal, you don't realize you've made the Gospel into works. Because now one would have to do one's own works as conduct because alleged righteousness doesn't incude any imputation for the inner conduct of the heart to bring forth the imputed righteousness of the character into outward action.
Conduct begins in the heart, not with "doing". Man brings forth whatever is in him AS action. Without imputed righteous conduct of our hearts, outer conduct will continue to be sin, regardless of our imputed status as righteous.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The "doing" of conduct begins in the heart, not with the action. "Doing" comes from "being". We bring forth who and what we are by conduct, but that conduct is according to whatever quality is in us.
If there is no imputed conduct with the imputed character, then we have no means of ever "doing" anything righteous. And righteousness IS conduct according to God's standard.
Imputed righteousness of character without imputed righteousness of conduct would mean all our conduct still comes from the old man and would be sin. Every last action and all of them combined.
God didn't leave us with no means of bringing forth our imputed righteousness. He imputed our inner conduct with our character, and it's all His. We couldn't work for it, and we can't work FROM it, either. That would be infusing our own righteousness into God's.
Righteousness means to recognize God's claim upon our lives for every standard. Of character and conduct. For "being" and "doing".
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Our reckoned-dead old man (prosopon), with sin in the members of the soma (body) and a mind that needs to be renewed.
It's not internal, constitutionally. Our hypostasis (substance, inner man) is translated and seated in heavely places. We're in Christ, He's in us; and the Spirit in Him is in us, which is deposited in our dead (communion-ceased) human spirit for resurrection unto life.
We don't have two minds or wills. We have one mind and will that is being renewed.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What was/is the first commandment given by God . . To Adam, to Moses, to Christians?
It was/is to love God only. Love for fellow man follows.
Affections reside in the "heart" so if any of us do not possess the love of God, we cannot possibly live. We will only die.
I think it is vital to be given the ability to obey and fulfill the first Law and command of God, and that is what we are actually discussing.
oatmeal
Well-known member
I do not know much about Nang, but what is the logic behind your conclusion?
The two quotes you presented do not prove your conclusion.
Doom
New member
That is simply philosophical gobbledygook.
It's like those poor lost souls who attempt to unravel the word "day" into something to fit some convoluted evolutionary theory. When Jesus used the word "perfect", to define the Father, what matters is what we think, God thinks, that we think, when He says "perfect". If a child cannot understand the simplicity of the gospel, then it's not the gospel.
What ever perfect is, Jesus says that we are to equal it, and we have by being made it. Just as when Jesus told us that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. That is only possible if God makes us righteous, which He did when we received His life.
Doom
New member
Then you're not very bright.
musterion
Well-known member
His mind cannot be renewed. What that would imply for many, though I doubt you mean to, is that the old man can be reformed...improved...saved. No, he can't. He can only be crucified and denied.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Not in the least. And you've neglected impartation.
Right, and more. It's not just a status or label. It's ontological. It's our existence IN Christ, not just a legal declaration.
No, it just means others haven't heard the Rhema for faith, and are living in hope, which saves them.
It's not boasting at all. If anything, it's a cry and plea for others to examine more than they've ever considered. The same love that works faith is the love that abounds in epignosis knowledge (Phi 1:9).
Epignosis is a synonym for faith, and is self-directing and self-regulation. It's not the puffed-up gnosis knowledge of 1Cor 8:1. That's what I'm trying to help deflate in others so they can get on with faith to underlie their hope.
And that's why agape love is the key to it all, but few know what agape love is.
Right. So being IN Him and living this life by the faith OF the Son of God will include conduct.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that conduct is action as works. I'm speaking of the inner conduct of the heart, since no action stands alone. All "doing" must come forth from "being". If there is no imputed inner conduct WITH imputed character, there is no means of demonstrating anything but sin.
Right. And that obedience isn't just outward actions. He didn't fulfill the law as legislation, He fulfilled it by being the righteousness that was in the law.
He didn't exhaust all its tenets. He didn't have a menstrual cycle to even be unclean from, and to have to dip in a mikveh to be ceremonially able to enter the temple. He wasn't a leper to ever have to be cleansed. He never had to bring a sin sacrifice. There are many points of the law that he didn't and couldn't fulfill as legislation. But the law was a Covenant, not legislation; and it has ceased in Him because He fulfilled the Covenant. (Not to be confused with Covenantal theology.)
I don't boast. I cry out against ignorance, attempting to lay my life down for those sheep who've heard another voice and don't realize it.
I don't think I'm smart at all. I have absolute assurance and confident persusation (faith) that I know what the depths of scripture teach on this topic, because I've been led of the Spirit to examine the intricate exegesis for 17 years rather than defaulting to concepts over content.
I'm actually beginning to see this from your perspective, and I've gone back to read many posts by you and others. So I've changed my position about this, having realized all the ad hominem and strong words have predominantly been to address doctrine, etc.
So I retract my previous observation as short-sighted. I've now realized you're not examining others' behavior.
I don't worry. I already know, based on others' doctrines.
That isn't hard, because I don't think I'm all that smart.
I hear very well, and am always listening for more.
Yes, I think this is true. I've spent time revisting it all, and I agree. I don't see hate. That was likely a knee-jerk generality of overstatement.
I don't think I can judge ANY book by its cover. That's why I only preach and teach the ontological Gospel of Paul instead of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and its erroneous attempts to compensate for the lack of ontology in MAD understanding.
Thanks for your response. I've so avoided Dispensationalists that I didn't have a complete grasp on the distinctions in MAD. Now that I have a better "grid" for it, I see the errors from exegetical misunderstanding to have a better understanding of the MAD perspective in dealing with others.
Until everyone learns the difference between the hypostasis and prosopon, everyone is chasing their tails/tales. It's about understanding ontology. That's Paul's Gospel, not MAD.
Last edited:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Agreed.
The "heart" (affections) must be made right before the mind and will can be changed.
We must receive the love of God in order to spiritually live anew and inherit the Kingdom of God.
What a man loves, a man worships . .
Doom
New member
Don't want anyone to miss this important truth.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
But is it ontological?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
We are to be renewed in the spirit of OUR mind. When Phi 2:5 indicates "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus", it's not nous (mind). It's phroneo, to think; implying not only thought but also the affections, will, or moral consideration. It's most commonly applied to the actions of the will and affections. Phronema is the result OF thinking.
Having the mind (nous) of Christ (1Cor 2:16) is having the results of his thinking, affections, will, and moral consideration as our own in our own mind.