You Cannot Live the Christian Life
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
- Status
musterion
Well-known member
Because he posts random bits of data he's picked up here and there, with no logical through line, no core, no foundation. A doctrinal seed picker, a parrot not too unlike a bot, spewing an undifferentiated stew void of true understanding.
I don't remember it, no. Good Scripture Clete. Thanks.
Why would you make an accusation of heresy when you hadn't even bothered to read it?
Does that sound to you like something an honest person would do?
Are you trying to convince me that you're a lying fool whose only goal is to sow discord, confusion and stupidity?
If you aren't willing to read the posts, I invite you to leave and go find a less intellectually strenuous way to pass your time.
Clete
I believe so but I'm trying really hard to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. He's making it harder and harder by the day.
January 6th, 2019 05:46 AM
Clete
Thread: You Cannot Live the Christian Life
Either read the material or stay off my threads.
You asked me if I read it. I looked back at it after replying and I notice it is very long but I did skim it though I didn't retain much.
God bless you brother.
Shalom.
Jacob
I have been warned against things like the New Age. Something like that. How does Christ live His life in you? I don't understand. I accepted Jesus into my heart as a child, but He does not live my life for me. I still need to make decisions, even if people can say that they can see Christ in me.
I am sorry I don't see the connection. I responded to the idea in the title of the thread OP. I am sorry if I missed something. I am not trying to convince you of anything. As for intellectually strenuous I am not sure if you are saying I was lazy or if I don't have the capacity. My security rests in the finished work of Christ and the blood of Jesus. Maybe you can understand that. I have been instructed to post in other people's threads. I suppose I have not sufficiently engaged the OP, and for that I am sorry.
Shalom.
Jacob
Well, you've asked a question that Paul spent the entire book of Romans to answer, as well as the rest of his epistles for that matter.
I can offer the following as a mere beginning, a taste of the answer....
"There being no cause in the creature why Grace should be shown, the creature must be brought off from trying to give cause to God for His Grace… He has been accepted in Christ, who is his standing! He is not ‘on probation.’ As to his life past, it does not exist before God: he died at the cross, and Christ is his Life. Grace, once bestowed, is not withdrawn: for God knew all the human exigencies beforehand: His action was independent of them, not dependent upon them…
"The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:
"To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
"To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
"To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
"To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…
"Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:
"To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
"To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
"To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
"To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
"The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
"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." - Romans, Verse by Verse, Wm. R. Newell
"The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:
"To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
"To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
"To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
"To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…
"Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:
"To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
"To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
"To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
"To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
"The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
"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." - Romans, Verse by Verse, Wm. R. Newell
I strongly recommend and even urge you to please read the book linked to below. It's publish online in full and so costs nothing...
Principles of Spiritual Growth - By Miles J. Stanford
Perhaps if you had bothered to read the opening post you'd have seen it?
Ever thought of that?
People title things for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is to pique people's interest and cause them to say to themselves, "Hmm, I wonder what he could possibly mean by that?"
Those who are lazy, do not have the capacity.
As to whether you're lazy, the fact that you failed to bother reading the OP, is evidence that even children can judge.
It is the only reason you're not on my ignore list.
Instructed by whom?
If you were sorry, you'd have engaged it instead of offering this meaningless apology.
Clete
Thank you.
I feel that you are incorrect in this. I realize I have made long posts myself in the past. I don't know what the OP is saying. It was Sherman who instructed me to post on other people's threads. I genuinely am sorry feeling a debt but not knowing what to do to help or appease you. Please do not say again as you have done here that my apology is meaningless. I do know that a person can reply to only the thread title, since that is what catches people's eyes. But if I don't know what to do with an OP or like with some people a developed OP then where does that leave me. Trying but being told it is not good enough. Alas, I did not engage the OP. Because I feel that I don't know what the OP is saying, I believe I can say I am done with evaluating if I have engaged the OP.
You're partly right, and partly not.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
I can of mine own self do nothing:
What do you mean, Lord?
That as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
In other words, He is referring to the fact that because He had submitted His will to that of the Father's, His judgment was valid, because it was actually the Father's judgement through Him, Who had sent Him, to begin with.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
And no, He did not live the Christian life.
Rather, that of a Jew, under the Law.
Deuteronomy 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
In other words, He, as the Son of Man - an Israelite like unto His brethren, is reminding John as a fellow Israelite - the God of OUR fathers has required that all Israelites fulfill all that righteousness under the Law that the Law requires, suffer it be so now, as I, as the Son of Man, have come as One like unto OUR brethren.
John's issue with Him coming to submit Himself to John's Baptism was that by His submitting Himself to John's Baptism, He was identifying Himself as a sinerr, which momentarily threw John.
For He was indeed doing just that, in Israel's stead - as both their ultimate Priest on their behalf, and at the same time, the ultimate sacrifice, on their behalf.
Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore IN ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins OF MANY; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
John was simply momentarily thrown off.
Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Their submitting themselves to John's Baptism was a public admission to the God of their fathers, before all their Nation, that they and their Nation had not been right with God, as Daniel had confessed, including himself with His nation, in Daniel 9, though he is one of the greatest examples of faith towards God, under the Law, in all of Scripture.
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
His identifying Himself as a sinner with them - He Who was to come and save His People from THEIR sins, Matthew 1:21 - simply threw John for a loop.
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And He said that, not as a Christian, rather as a fellow Israelite of John's Who was therefore under THEIR Law, with them..
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; ) 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
So, you're right that in John 5 He had simply been referring to His having submitted Himself to the Father's Will, but you're off in that He was not a Christian, rather an Israelite under THEIR Law...
As for Bob Hill, apparently, he was mixing Law and Grace, like how most Acts 2 Dispys will tend to do - as in Chuck Swindoll's great book The Grace Awakening.
Bob George also comes to mind - he would mix Romans and Hebrews unaware the Grace in each differs.
Because they do not rightly divide ala Mid-Acts, rather, ala Acts 2 Dispensationalism.
The result being that there is much that is valid in their words on Grace, but only because they are reading Paul into the balance of the NT.
They're sound and yet, not.
The sound part - the Pauline part - being the valid part as to the reality of the Mystery Grace Age Believer's Enablement, NOT in himself, BUT in CHRIST, as said Grace Age Believer accesses by faith, this Grace IN Christ wherein the Believer Stands before God, both COMPLETELY Forgiven IN Him AND COMPLETELY Enabled IN Him - Romans 5 thru 8.
Such read THAT INTO the balance of the NT, which is the invalid part of their conclusions, and assertions.
Their words are beneficial where Paul is being asserted.
The book The Grace Awakening is like that - which is what makes it a great book.
And yet, rightly divided, its many references to passages throughout Paul and the balance of the NT, it is not.
Great, great book, nevertheless, and why.
Christianity is not Judeo-Christian.
Rather, Christianity is Pauline - the Lord to and through Paul concerning a Mystery Age Grace in which there is neither Jew, nor Gentile, and this, in, and through One NEW Man, in Christ, 2 Cor. 5: 16, 17; Gal. 6:15.
2 Timothy 2:15
Last edited:
You come here accusing me a heresy and then readily admit that you hadn't bothered to read the material. If you think I'm going to spare your feelings, you've got another thing coming.
You think you can throw around any accusation that pops into you vaccuous head and then fix it by simply typing the words "I'm sorry". Well, you don't! I have no reason whatsoever to think that the "I'm sorry." has any more sunstance to it than did the accusation of heresy that you began this conversation with.
Look, I don't know if you're lazy or stupid or both or just have next to no discernment at all or what but I no longer care. I'm doing my absolute level best not to make an enemy of you but you seem to be trying to push every button there is to push in order to make that impossible. I recommend you just stop and go away and leave me alone.
Clete
Great post, except I can assure you that Pastor Hill was not mixing law and grace. He was an Acts 9 Dispensationalist and was as Pauline in his preaching as anyone.
His point was simply that Jesus submited His will as a man to that of the Father and thus it was the Father's life lived through Him just as for us, if we submit our will to that of Christ, it is thereby Christ's life lived through us.
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Yup.
btw, Hill's booklet on why the rapture of the Body has to be pretribulational is still the best treatment of it I've ever seen. There's very few works I've read that I would call irrefutable, but that's one of them.
- Status