Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have You Ever Read Ephesians?
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 301 of 383 (692380)
03-02-2013 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Jazzns
02-11-2013 12:12 PM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
So, its not JUST that Paul in Ephesians fails to condemn slavery.
Its that he fails to do so given the fact that he had in the past, in a most superior manner, consistent with the behavior of the early church.
If I understand you this time better, you are saying that Paul explicitly condemned slavery in other epsitles, but you hold him to the fire based upon what he does NOT say about slavery in Ephesians.
WOW.
If that doesn't explain my point to you without spelling it out, more discussion willnly confuse you further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Jazzns, posted 02-11-2013 12:12 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 11:47 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 302 of 383 (692382)
03-02-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Richh
02-20-2013 2:43 PM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
hope Jazzns is not offended if I do not consider you offensive. You bring out some of the exact points that I have mentioned in previous posts - that there are underlying issues and that these issues are still present today whether or not we have an institution of slavery.
Not that I don't condemn the slave trade and the practices of slavery in this country in the past. Kidnapping and inhumane treatment of fellow human beings is wrong at all times and in all places. But I think the same tendencies to racial discrimination and bias exist today that existed 150 years. I call that evil. The Bible calls it sin (and visa versa).
It is hard to maintain the balance between labor and 'management', between entitlement programs and a 'work ethic', and things like that.
You paraphrase what Paul actually said, while Jazzn has attacked Paul as inconsistent because he explicitly opposed the idea of slaves, but failed in Ephesians to re-state his view explicitly again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Richh, posted 02-20-2013 2:43 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Richh, posted 03-02-2013 7:21 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 303 of 383 (692417)
03-02-2013 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by kofh2u
03-02-2013 10:18 AM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
quote:
You paraphrase what Paul actually said, while Jazzn has attacked Paul as inconsistent because he explicitly opposed the idea of slaves, but failed in Ephesians to re-state his view explicitly again.
I don't think Paul ever opposed slavery. I believe in his eyes there was something worse than human slavery - an evil slave, and something worse than being a master - being an evil master. This does not mean that many morally reprehensible things have not been done by masters (or by slaves for that matter).
What do you think about Paul?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by kofh2u, posted 03-02-2013 10:18 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 304 of 383 (692428)
03-02-2013 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Jazzns
03-01-2013 9:54 AM


Re: What did Paul expect of Philemon?
quote:
Just poking around the internet I can see that I am not alone.
...and I don't really feel like getting in a reference war over this.
It just seems to me, that reading the book of Philemon, as a whole, that you cannot rationally come away from it with the notion that Paul is not asking for Onesimus' freedom. I cannot fathom, not only how you read it otherwise, but to what purpose you could possibly desire to.
I agree - no need to get into a reference war. But as you find you are not alone, so I find that I am not alone either (and I'm sure I could provide references).
I mentioned some of the following in previous posts and others have posted some similar thoughts:
1. There is a freedom that transcends our earthly lot. (Even Steven Covey mentions this in Seven Habits of Highly Successful People from some work of Viktor Frankl. I haven't found the source of the quote but I read at least one interesting book of his.)
2. There is a brotherhood that transcends our earthly status (witness the phrase 'a beloved brother' of Philemon in that book).
3. Ending slavery did not end the moral evils that allowed slavery to begin in the first place. (I am not saying that the end of slavery was not a great thing in this country. It improved the situation with respect to that issue).
4. There is Paul's teaching in several epistles that:
a. There is something worse than to be a slave - to be an evil slave.
b. There is something worse than to be a master - to be an evil master.
Edited by Richh, : Fixed a number

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 9:54 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 10:32 AM Richh has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 305 of 383 (692508)
03-04-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Richh
03-02-2013 11:32 PM


Paul, the uninspired
I keep going back to Acts and I don't think anyone has adequately responded to this point.
The apostles were absolutely not shy about how bold they were in asking people to do things, to change their lives dramatically.
Acts 2 writes:
Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.
Acts 3 writes:
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Even in my apostasy, even though I do not think this is inspired in the same sense that others do, this is still very much inspiring. And more than that it is a reflection of just how unparochial, uncommon, and revolutionary the Christian faith was in its early days (at least as it is idealized in Acts).
And to go back to Philemon:
Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother-especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Again, how inspiring is this to take the plain reading. You can certainly pick who's opinion you use for support but I fundamentally feel that it takes significant intellectual effort in order to dumb this down into meaning something less than what the words actually say; that Onesimus should be "no longer as a slave". It becomes outrageously LESS inspiring to presume that all Paul is doing here is to save his friend from maltreatment as he is returning him into slavery; to his Christian master.
And finally:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
3. There is Paul's teaching in several epistles that:
a. There is something worse than to be a slave - to be an evil slave.
b. There is something worse than to be a master - to be an evil master.
How impressively uninspiring!
How contrary to the idealization of the original sentiment of salvation and brotherhood as it is expressed in Acts!
And for what? To protect the legacy of those who were deceived by the fraud? Why when there is so much potential good to hold on to in these other writings?
To hold the entire Bible in esteem just because some bishops much much later (who unless you are Catholic you have already abandoned their legacy of apostolic authority) decided it would be the way it is.
If there is anything holy in the Bible, if there is anything remaining to be inspired by, it is certainly tainted by the admission of these works such as Ephesians.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Richh, posted 03-02-2013 11:32 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Richh, posted 05-01-2013 6:18 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 306 of 383 (692513)
03-04-2013 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by purpledawn
03-02-2013 6:55 AM


Re: Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
First of all, thank you sincerely for making a substantial reply instead of just dismissing me.
But looking back at your posts, you aren't dealing with the author's intent.
I think that I have dealt with the intent and meaning. How is it possible to speak about differences between Ephesians and Acts or Ephesians and Philemon without reference to their intent and meaning? This criticism seems particularly vacuous but you perhaps make up for it when you quote me below.
Also, I think there are two kinds of intent here. First what did the author intend with the particular words he wrote (perhaps limiting it to the verses that are causing the most controversy). Second, what did the author intend by lying about who he was. I believe that throughout this thread I have discussed both, more on this below.
Show evidence of the author's intent to begin with. Show evidence that the author's intent was to evolve Paul's theology as opposed to it evolving through the early church fathers or teachers.
Proving intent is hard. That why I think this does belong in the Bible study forum. But what I have said I believe is compelling. I should be careful because it is possible that the author wasn't doing any evolving on purpose. So consider this a mea-culpa based on your criticism. To "prove" that the author intended to evolve Paul's theology I would need to know a lot more about the author. Allow me to explain my reasoning for saying what I did.
I have made this point before but I don't mind repeating it. There is a change in theology throughout the Bible as you move from the books that were written in the early, expectant, oppressed, apocalyptic beginnings of Christianity to the formal, "authorized", combative with heresies, less expectant, ordered, hierarchical church of orthodoxy.
What we do know about the author of Ephesians is that he was probably familiar with Paul's legitimate works because he copies quirks and language from those in order to raise the believability of his deception. I see two possibilities, that his intent was pious, that he really thought Paul believed as he did and was simply using the deception to sell this books which is somewhat of a summary of what he believed came from Paul. Alternatively, he use the deception to intentionally change the message from Paul. The intent of the author was to express what was written but the theology is in fact evolved as reflected in the writing of Ephesians and that fact is relevant to its meaning. We have in this thread a disagreement THAT the theology is even evolved.
Given the timeframe, I would say the writing was influenced by the current teachings instead of the other way around.
Current teachings yes. Current as in after Paul though. With a more sophisticated idea of salvation and with more emphasis on the parochial.
If a poster claims that the book supports having slaves today, they are wrong. That has nothing to do with the intent of the author. That has nothing to do with the book being a forgery or a lie.
I don't recall anyone having claimed that the books supports having slavery today. It has been used in the past to support slavery among other verses. The fact of its advice on slavery is not at issue here. It is the discrepancy about its advice about slavery that speaks to differences with the other parts of the bible. It seems obvious that the intent of the author was not to change the structural/authority relationships between christian masters and christian slaves if words on the page are to mean anything.
So squawking forgery and deception, doesn't really make a difference in what the book says or its place in Christianity. Squawking forgery and deception doesn't show how someone is misinterpreting the teachings of the time.
Once again I'll refer you to my point that the fact of the forgery matters to how people accept or interpret the meaning of this book. The author intended to lie in order to raise the status of his words. The author went through a lot of effort to make it look like Paul rather than simply attributed to him, which entrenches the notion that this was intended as deception. Whether the author did that because he knew he was deviating from Paul or not is not necessarily relevant but it certainly would be an explanation for it. I don't mind giving the author the benefit of the doubt that he really believed that this is what Paul would have said.
Why that is relevant to meaning seems very clear to me. People trust what is claimed to have written by Paul because they believe Paul was authorized by God to deliver his message. These writings represent the only temporally durable legacy of Paul. To learn that someone used Paul's name to express a different message is vitally important to accepting that message AND, more importantly, for properly understanding the things that Paul really did write.
There's a difference between the original author's intent and today's use of the writing.
Absolutely. What we see on display in this thread is an attempt to massage this writing with others into a single coherent and durably relevant theology. That is how it is used today by some, perhaps even many. I believe that the best way to disabuse people of what I feel to be an erroneous interpretation is to point out that that Bible as a whole was never constructed to be a single coherent and durably relevant thing. These books not only have their own history but that history is sometimes in partial if not whole opposition to other books. They may or may not have even been written with knowledge of each other.
I believe that the history of the Bible is relevant to its meaning and I hope that other people would think so to regardless of the status of their faith.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by purpledawn, posted 03-02-2013 6:55 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 307 of 383 (692515)
03-04-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by kofh2u
03-02-2013 9:58 AM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
If I understand you this time better, you are saying that Paul explicitly condemned slavery in other epsitles, but you hold him to the fire based upon what he does NOT say about slavery in Ephesians.
Yea. But I should have expressed my point better. It really is about what he did choose to say. He is going out of his way to talk about how Christians slave owners shouldn't abuse their Christian slaves and I happen to think it is really weird that Paul all of a sudden forgot that it was not okay for Christians to own other Christians.
If that doesn't explain my point to you without spelling it out, more discussion willnly confuse you further.
The only confusion I have is why you think your political points are relevant.
In total, the real Paul's ideas applied to modernity are even stupider simply because he never believed that today would ever exist. So, uh, yea horray for him for being slightly enlightened while he waited for the impending doom of his barely civilized world.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by kofh2u, posted 03-02-2013 9:58 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 308 of 383 (692530)
03-04-2013 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by jaywill
03-02-2013 8:55 AM


Paul versus John
"To Walk in Newness of Life" means in the church age.
Respectfully, no it doesn't. Paul is talking about the future here. There was no such thing as the church age in Paul's time. The church age is an invention of Christians more modern than Paul.
To Grow Together with Him in Death and Resurrection means in the church age
I don't know you can so readily ignore the next part of that verse:
For if we have grown together with Him in the likeness of His death, indeed we will also be in the likeness of His resurrection.
Paul distinctly seperates the death and the resurrection in that verse, it is because he believes one has happened for us via baptism and the other has yet to come.
"No Longer Serve Sin as Slaves" in the present age
Again no. Paul's concept of sin was primordial. That is why the real Paul preached so vehemently against the works of the law. Paul knew and spoke quite a lot about how it was impossible to serve the day to day agenda of the law. He goes as far to call it foolhardy. Galatians is an epic testament to this.
Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life ..." (John 11:25a)
Again, I don't know what you mean to prove about Paul's thoughts by appealing to non-Paulean and post-Paulean theology. John, the entire concept of the Logos, the high Christology is all post Paul.
I am not disagreeing with you that these are interpretations that people made as Christianity evolved. But you can't quote John to me and expect that to be relevant to the interpretation of Romans. Some people believe that these two disparate theologies are connected as a matter of their faith. I do not.
Moreover, as I explained to PD, the reason I do not make connections between, for example John and Romans, is that I have decided to incorporate the history of the bible and the early church in to my interpretation. When you look at the Christian timeline, you easily see that Paul had a fundamentally different conception of Jesus than what is expressed in John. Paul battled his entire life AGAINST other Christian sects using "his gospel" and he would not have fit in with what Christianity became even half a century after he was no longer there to fight.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by jaywill, posted 03-02-2013 8:55 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2013 4:03 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 310 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2013 4:59 PM Jazzns has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 309 of 383 (692537)
03-04-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Jazzns
03-04-2013 2:04 PM


Re: Paul versus John
jw:
"To Walk in Newness of Life" means in the church age.
Jz:
Respectfully, no it doesn't. Paul is talking about the future here. There was no such thing as the church age in Paul's time. The church age is an invention of Christians more modern than Paul.
The church was mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 16 and 18.
Matthew 16:18 - " And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens ..."
Jesus prophesies then that He will have His church - "My church".
Closely related to the Lord's church is the opening of the kingdom of the heavens. The [plural] "keys" were given to Peter. One key he used to let the Jews into the kingdom of the heavens at Pentecost (Acts 2). And the other key was used in Pater's message in Acts 10 to let the Gentiles into the kingdom of the heavens.
Both "keys" relate to Jews and Gentiles coming into the church. And what Saul persecuted was the church (Acts 8:1,3)
The church and the kingdom of the heavens are very closely related.
Paul, as a representative normal Christian (if not average Christian) served God during the church age. Paul said that they served in newness of spirit, during the church age. This is in Paul's basic outline of the Christian Gospel - Romans.
"But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Romans 7:6)
The serving in newness of spirit is also walking in newness of divine life. It is also the result of being a new creation through being placed in Christ. And it is before the physical resurrection. It is before the second coming of Christ that Paul serves in newness of spirit.
To walk in newness of life is the result of one taking advantage of being in Christ through the church age salvation. Because if anyone is in Christ "there is a new creation". There can be a new walk because there is a new creation -
"So then if anyone is in Christ, [he is] a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold they have become new." (2 Cor. 5:17)
Being a new creation, one can now walk in newness of life. It is utterly wrong to teach that the Christians can only walk in newness of life after the resurrection of the body following the church age.
It after the birth of the church in Jerusalem that the angel told the Apostles to go to the temple and speak all the words of this new divine life they had received -
"Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life." (Acts 5:20)
This was not after any physical resurrection of the apostle. The phrase "this life" refers to them having received Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Having new life in Christ they can walk in newness of life in Christ. It is the same today.
Those then who had the new life - "this life" were people "added to the Lord" (Acts 2:27) and were also "added together" (Acts 2:47) . That is added together to the multitude, the church. It consisted only of those who were being saved -
"And the Lord added together day by day those who were being saved." (2:37)
1.) To receive the Lord was to receive the divine life.
2.) To receive the Lord was to be added to the Lord.
3.) To receive the Lord was to partake of "this life".
4.) To be added to the Lord was to become a new creation.
5.) All those who became a new creation could go on to walk in newness of life, the divine life by which they were born again.
6.) All those walking in newnesss of life could serve God in newness of spirit.
The church either as a local expression or as a universal entity was not the invention of latter generations of Christians. Both aspects, the local and the universal church, were predicted by the prophesy of Christ. And the prophecy began to be fulfilled as soon as men could receive Christ into them via the Holy Spirit.
jw:
To Grow Together with Him in Death and Resurrection means in the church age
Jz:
I don't know you can so readily ignore the next part of that verse:
For if we have grown together with Him in the likeness of His death, indeed we will also be in the likeness of His resurrection.
Paul distinctly seperates the death and the resurrection in that verse, it is because he believes one has happened for us via baptism and the other has yet to come.
But your explanation is not strong enough to indicate that the walk in newness of life can only commence after the physical resurrection. Since growth and maturity is something Paul was in as well as all the other believers, he can speak of future growing in the likeness of His resurrection.
You are saying that the walking in newness of life can ONLY commence following the physical resurrection. But this would contradict too much else what Paul wrote about the living victoriously in Christ during the church age.
Resurrection begins within in the human spirit. Resurrection should commence as a power transforming the soul. Eventually resurrection is a power moving from center to circumference and reaching the outermost part of man - the physical body.
The passage highlight the conditional - IF we have grown together in the likeness of His death we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection. This speaks of our cooperation with His terminating power that we may benefit from His germinating power. And this exchange is not relagated only to the physical resurrection.
"So also reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:11)
That is in the church age "living to God in Christ Jesus". Of course living to God in Christ Jesus will continue after His second coming in the resurrection and rapture of the saints. But Paul has no intention that the Christians only wait to be living to God in Christ Jesus after the last advent. He totally means get started living to God in Christ Jesus immediately following salvation and baptism.
The believes embark upon a life long process of sanctification. Paul was not completed in this process. And so he includes himself in humility - "WE ... might walk in newness of life ... WE ... will also be [in the likeness] of His resurrection".
In the church age the believers are to walk in Christ, walk in newness of life, serve God in newness of spirit where the Spirit of Jesus is - "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
It will not be only after the physical resurrection that Paul serves God in his regenerated spirit. Rather in the church age he serves God in his regenerated spirit -
"For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of His Son ..." (Rom. 1:1)
The time for the apostle to serve God in his Christ indwelt spirit for the Gospel is in this age. That is "whom I SERVE [presently, in the now] in my spirit."
I must continue latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 2:04 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 310 of 383 (692539)
03-04-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Jazzns
03-04-2013 2:04 PM


Re: Paul versus John
"No Longer Serve Sin as Slaves" in the present age
Again no. Paul's concept of sin was primordial. That is why the real Paul preached so vehemently against the works of the law. Paul knew and spoke quite a lot about how it was impossible to serve the day to day agenda of the law. He goes as far to call it foolhardy. Galatians is an epic testament to this.
So you are saying that the one who believes in Christ is expected to throw up his hands and continue to live under the power of sin ?
You are saying then that there should be no difference in living in the believer until after the resurrection of the physical body ?
Are you saying receiving Christ should result in no difference in the degree under which one is compelled to commit sins ?
If you teach this way I would have to regard this as Crackpot Theology. This would be Christian Quackery.
I wrote before and you apparently got no benefit from it.
"That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those who are accroding to the spirit, the things of the Spirit." (Rom. 8:4,5)
I admit that I am probably not being very kind to you here. But it would be Crackpot Christian teaching to suggest -
1.) Christians should only mind the things of the Spirit AFTER the resurrection of the body.
2.) Christians should walk according to the regenerated spirit only after the resurrection of the physical body.
3.) Christians should should only be concerned for the righteous living after the resurrection of the physical body.
4.) Christians should desire that no righeous requirement of the law be fulfilled in them until after the physical resurrection.
5.) Being under grace means living the same kind of life as before one became a Christian - assuming no change is to occur until after the physical resurrection.
6.) Regard that the benefit of the Holy Spirit is meaningless to the believer until the resurrection of the physical body.
These are all crackpot concepts of a theological quackery which doesn't at all understand the New Testament.
I am really sorry to put it this way. But I'll bear the responsibility before God for saying so in this way. What you propose makes no sense.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 2:04 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 6:25 PM jaywill has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 311 of 383 (692544)
03-04-2013 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by jaywill
03-04-2013 4:59 PM


Re: Paul versus John
1.) Christians should only mind the things of the Spirit AFTER the resurrection of the body.
2.) Christians should walk according to the regenerated spirit only after the resurrection of the physical body.
3.) Christians should should only be concerned for the righteous living after the resurrection of the physical body.
4.) Christians should desire that no righeous requirement of the law be fulfilled in them until after the physical resurrection.
5.) Being under grace means living the same kind of life as before one became a Christian - assuming no change is to occur until after the physical resurrection.
6.) Regard that the benefit of the Holy Spirit is meaningless to the believer until the resurrection of the physical body.
That is a list of nonsense that I have never claimed.
The issue with primordial sin was not to excuse common day sin, but to respond to the notion that the sin that Paul was talking about was anything other than the legacy of sin given by Adam.
Paul's notion was that there is nothing you can act upon today to relieve yourself of that sin. Your are completely misinterpreting the concept of how believers should "no longer serve sin as slaves". It was not an exhortation for believers to be as if they were blameless under the law. Nor was it to serve the law as if they were Jews. If there was such a thing as a main theme throughout Pauls work it was exactly that although even that changed over time. He certainly softened his stance against the law by the time he got to writing Romans, likely his final writing.
I am sorry jaywill, I am trying here but I get the feeling that instead of trying to have a conversation here, you read one thing in my post, saw red, and went on a tirade against a strawman.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2013 4:59 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2013 11:12 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 312 of 383 (692557)
03-04-2013 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by purpledawn
02-26-2013 11:09 AM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
quote:
I don't agree with his conclusion here. There is an interplay of the pronouns 'you' and 'we', and words like 'both', etc. in chapters 1 - 3 that clearly indicate to me that the writer (Paul I say...) had two groups in mind - the Jews and the Gentiles, and that he grouped himself with the Jews. I think quotes like the following clinch it that the writer is Jewish. The pronouns would have been different if the writer was speaking as a Gentile.
I disagree. I feel the writer is being neutral.
IMO, Ephesians 2:15 is a good reason not to accept that Ephesians was written by Paul. In the writings considered to be authentically Paul, Paul does not support that God's laws in the Old Testament were abolished. His point was that they were not a means to salvation. He did argue that the Gentile Christian converts should not be burdened with all the laws of Judaism.
How about these verses in Epheisans 3 (my bold):
NAS Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; 3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. 4 And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
I can't imagine anyone but a Jewish person writing like this about the Gentiles. These verses are 'Jew first' verses just like many in Romans. I grew up in the Midwest and did not even know any Jews until I was in college. I became a Christian when I was in college and neither before or after that event did I ever consider the 'revealed mystery' to be 'the Gentiles are fellow heirs.' If I thought at all I wondered where Jews could fit in. I was all 'Gentile first'. Ephesians, as Romans, was written by a Jew, by an early apostle. I can't see how it could be otherwise. Who else would have a 'Jew first' vision like that. After the temple was destroyed in AD 70, after the early days, this 'joining of Jew and Gentile' ceased to be a central issue.
Regarding the interpretation of 2:15, I have been thinking about that too, probably even since our discussions in the 'Christian Laws' forum topic. The words regarding the law used in this verse sound pretty categorical. Two of the three words are used in Romans 7:12.
NAS Romans 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
The third word in ‘dogma’ in Greek. The word dogma (ordinance) in the New Testament never means anything else than statute, decree, ordinance.’ Word Studies in the Greek New Testament by Wuest. Alford translates it: ‘having done away with the law of decretory commandments.’ So it is hard to take it in any way than referring to the whole law.
I think this is one of the many divine paradoxes in the Bible, like God's soverignty and man's free will (both of which I believe exist) and I think it can be expalined.
I like Wuest’s note on the meaning of ‘done away’ or ‘abolished.’
The word abolished is karargeo, to render inoperative. Expositors says: Farther statement of the way in which Christ by His death on the Cross removed the separation and the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile, namely by abrogating the dividing law itself. The law is now introduced, and the term 'the law' is to be taken in its full sense, not the ceremonial law only, but the Mosaic law as a whole, according to the stated use of the phrase. This law is abolished in the sense of being rendered inoperative.
I think some verses in Romans and Galatians show this same thought. There are phrases like 'not under law', 'freed from the law', 'dead to the law', 'discharged from the law', 'the end of the law' and 'the things which I have destroyed.' Romans 7:6 uses the same word karargo. So, I believe the concept is the same in Romans and Galatians, and Romans even uses the same Greek word in chapter 7. We are freed from the law as the principle by which righteousness is obtained, but its 'righteous requirement' is still fulfilled in us 'who walk not according to the flesh, but accoring to the spirit.' That is the message of Romans 6 - 8.
RcV Romans 6:14 For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace. 6:15 What then? Should we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? Absolutely not!
7:1 Or are you ignorant, brothers (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law lords it over the man as long as he lives? 7:2 For the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. 7:3 So then if, while the husband is living, she is joined to another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 7:4 So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God. 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions for sins, which acted through the law, operated in our members to bear fruit to death. 7:6 But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.
8:3 For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 8:4 That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
10:4 For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 2:15 We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 2:16 And knowing that a man is not justified out of works of law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed into Christ Jesus that we might be justified out of faith in Christ and not out of the works of law, because out of the works of law no flesh will be justified. 2:17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also have been found sinners, is then Christ a minister of sin? Absolutely not! 2:18 For if I build again the things which I have destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 2:19 For I through law have died to law that I might live to God. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ has died for nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by purpledawn, posted 02-26-2013 11:09 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2013 9:23 AM Richh has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 313 of 383 (692559)
03-04-2013 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Jazzns
03-04-2013 6:25 PM


Re: Paul versus John
The issue with primordial sin was not to excuse common day sin, but to respond to the notion that the sin that Paul was talking about was anything other than the legacy of sin given by Adam.
What "issue with primordial sin" ?
Define your phrase "primordial sin" please ?
Paul's notion was that there is nothing you can act upon today to relieve yourself of that sin.
There is nothing we can do. Christ has done something on our behalf. We can receive this Christ and benefit from His indwelling presence and His work.
"There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:1)
At the time Paul is writing, in the church age, before the resurrection the saints, the apostle writes that the law of the Spirit of life HAS FREED him from the law of sin and of death.
He does not say that in the future he will be freed. Today, he experiences the freedom from the law of sin and death because of the stronger law within him - the law of the Spirit of Christ's life.
When Paul writes - For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death" do you regard him to be speaking of a future liberation ? I regard this properly. It is the present day liberation of a mature Christian disciple.
He is writing to help lead other believers into the same enjoyment of liberation in Christ in the church age. There is no other way Romans 8:1 should be understood.
"There is NOW ... NOW ... NOW ... no condemnation to those who are [NOW] in Christ Jesus" (8:1) He does not say that there WILL BE THEN no condemnation. He says there is no condemnation NOW.
It is the normal Christian life that the believer be freed from the self condemnation which Paul previously spoke of in the immediately preceeding verse (7:24) -
"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death ?" ( 7:24)
He answers his own desperate question - "Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ! (7:25a) This is the Jesus Christ in whom he is NOW in union with, indwelt with, mingled with in his innermost spirit.
Now look at the entire verse 25 - "Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin."
Do not be fooled. This does not mean that there is no liberation from the sinning power to the Christian before resurrection. What must take place to enjoy the freedom is elaborated on in chapter 8, namely to set the mind on the regenerated human spirit where the Spirit of life - the Spirit of Christ resides.
Here is where Paul says the Spirit of Christ lives in the human spirit of the one born of God -
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." (8:16)
In the church age, the Spirit of Christ Who is the Spirit of life, bears witness within the believer that he is in an organic family relationship with the living God. That is Romans 8:16.
Before verse 16 Paul exhorts the believer to WALK by this born again human spirit by setting the mind upon the regenerated spirit -
"That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do nit walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those who are according to the spirit, [mind] the things of the Spirit.
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace." (8:4-6)
The sin nature is still in man. But its power is nullified by the regenerated person learning to set his or her mind on the innermost kernel of our spiritual being where the Spirit of Christ bears witness with the human spirit that God is the Christian's dear Father.
This only makes sense if one is born of the Holy Spirit.
This only makes sense if one has received Christ.
For only to those who receive Christ does God grant theauthority to become children of God.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who beleive into His name, to who were begotten ...God. " (See John 1:12,13)
1.) Christ has risen from the dead.
2.) Christ can be RECEIVED.
3.) To receive Christ is to believe into His name, ie. believe into His Person.
4.) All who believe into His name receive Him.
5.) To receive Him is a matter of a spiritual BIRTH - "who were begotten ... of God".
6.) In being begotten of God, ie. born of God, is to be given by God authority to become children of God.
7.) The Holy Spirit bears witness with the human spirit of those born of God that they are indeed children of God.
BIRTH of course is the initiation of life.
BIRTH is not the conclusion of this new life but its beginning.
The maturing of this life involves learning to set the mind upon the regenerated spirit step by step. That is to walk according to the Spirit in the born again human spirit. That is in more and more and more areas of living to live according to the indwelling presence of Christ.
This frees the man from self condemnation.
This frees the man in the church age.
This frees the man from the feeing of wretchedness of not being able to live righteously as the law demands.
This liberates because there is a stronger One living within the believer who has His own law of His life. He simply overcomes temptation and sinning PERIOD.
No Christian is spontaneously fully mature upon becomming a Christian. But Paul says that we Christians would grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head - Christ. That is a process of gowth in the church age.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.
And the process of successive levels of liberation is the transformation of the believer into the image of Christ -
"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.
As the Spirit of the Lord enters chamber after chamber of our heart ( mind, emotion, will and conscience) He brings freedom to more and more of our soul from all that opposes God in us.
" ... where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. " .
There is a setting of the mind upon the regenerated spirit where the Lord Spirit is. Then there is the migrating of the Spirit of Christ out from the nucleus of our being into the soul and personality. As He spreads, as He permeates, as He migrates from center to circumference He transforms in a kind of "metabolic" way, our being into the image of Christ.
"But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:18)
As the Christian logs more time "beholding and reflecting" the glorious Christ indwelling him, he is transformed through time. That is he moves from one degree of expressing Christ, to another degree of expressing Christ, to another degree. to another degree - from glory to glory.
From glory to glory. From glory to glory. From one degree of reflecting Jesus to another degree of reflecting Jesus. From one level to another level - from glory to glory to glory. This is transformation. And as we are being tranformed we are also experiencing deeper and deeper liberation from the sin nature.
The spiritual birth, the receiving, the beholding, the witnessing, the setting the mind upon the spirit where the Spirit of Jesus is are all activities during the church age. It is abnormal if the Christian is not in the enjoyment of these matters.
Your are completely misinterpreting the concept of how believers should "no longer serve sin as slaves".
No I am not. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. The idea is that the Spirit of the Lord should invade more and more areas of one's heart bringing freedom, bringing liberation from the sin nature.
It was not an exhortation for believers to be as if they were blameless under the law.
It IS an exhoration to keep the conscience void of offense and to experience life and peace. I may not be aware of in what way I sinned today. As I grow the inner light encreases. What seemed alright before I now must confess as sin and believe Chist's cleansing blood.
In this cycle of confession and light growth takes place. No man knows all of his sinning when he first believes. He is justified forever in Christ's eternal redemption. But then he is to grow in expression. And in growth he becomes aware of those areas in which Christ needs to move into his soul.
There is a blamelessness related to conscience which is related to one's relative growth and sensativity. Paul said that he exercised himself to have a conscience void of offense before God and man.
Acts 24:16 - "Because of this I also exercise myself to always have a conscience void of offense before God and man."
Paul walked by the Spirit until he was aware of no offense between him and God or between him and any man. His conscience was exercised to remain clear and clean.
This is not a matter of him being blameless in an absolute sense that he might be justified. He has been justified by Christ positionally forever. In his daily walk he matures to be aware of no offense to his knowledge in his conscience.
This cleaness of conscience in his daily life deepens as he grows spiritually. No Christian is aware of all the areas in which he may still offend God. He is aware of some areas. Those he confesses and seeks to walk instead by the Spirit.
In this way of growth he is to keep a conscience aware of not area in which he offends God or man. This is a life long matter of growth and maturity. This is not justification by living righteously. This is having been justified before God forever in position, he grows in disposition to be aware of not area of offending God in living.
The righteous requirement being fulfilled by walking according to the Spirit is not for eternal redemption. It is for growth in expression once one has become a child of God.
Obviously, just being BORN is not an end in itself.
Neither is just being eternally justified an end in itself.
The man born of God needs to grow to express Christ and grow up into Him in all things. This is a life long process of maturity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 6:25 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Jazzns, posted 03-05-2013 8:56 AM jaywill has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 314 of 383 (692574)
03-05-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by jaywill
03-04-2013 11:12 PM


Re: Paul versus John
What "issue with primordial sin" ?
Define your phrase "primordial sin" please ?
Sin as an inherent property of the universe as he talks about at length.
Romans 5 writes:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.
This sin is reflected in our actions which is why we received the law. Which is why Paul often talks about proper behavior for a believer.
Paul obviously does NOT believe that people will be free from sin in their day to day lives but that they should try to be perfect. Otherwise he would not go through the trouble of detailing the minutia of proper Christian living. The sin that they are no longer slaves to is the primordial sin from Adam. That is the point I was making.
You even say so yourself:
The sin nature is still in man. But its power is nullified by the regenerated person learning to set his or her mind on the innermost kernel of our spiritual being where the Spirit of Christ bears witness with the human spirit that God is the Christian's dear Father.
I agree. But salvation and resurrection are different things to Paul here. Resurrection is the fulfillment of salvation which is why this does not jive with Ephesians. Lets remember where this discussion started.
Ephesians 2 writes:
You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christby grace you have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
This would have upset Paul dearly. This in fact even upset OTHER FORGERS of Paul's works who were still trying to push back against the tempest of modern resurrection that was happening throughout the church. Look no further than 2 Thessalonians for proof of that.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2013 11:12 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2013 12:23 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 315 of 383 (692596)
03-05-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Jazzns
03-05-2013 8:56 AM


Re: Paul versus John
Paul obviously does NOT believe that people will be free from sin in their day to day lives but that they should try to be perfect. Otherwise he would not go through the trouble of detailing the minutia of proper Christian living. The sin that they are no longer slaves to is the primordial sin from Adam. That is the point I was making.
Not only Paul knows that Christ can free men from sin in their day to day lives. Jesus Christ taught that the Son shall set the believers free and that they shall be free indeed.
"Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. And the slave does not abide in the house forever, the son does abide forever. If therefore the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:35,36)
Now I must speak of my personal experience as a disciple of Jesus. For over thirty years I have been in the process of being freed from sin. I do not dare boast the God is finished with me. I do not say that I can no longer commit sin.
But I would be not honest if I did not inform you that, according to the teaching of the New Testament, I am in the process of sanctification. I am being freed from sinning - bit by bit as the ongoing life long sanctification of the Holy Spirit is working in me.
Christ and his apostles radiantly taught this and expect this. And you should expect no less if you receive Christ as your Lord.
Do not complain now that I am preaching. You should expect that Christ can make you free indeed. This is the normal Christian life. It may not be the average Christian life. But there are those who overcome and are not above the standard of normality. They are rather simply AT the standard of normality.
If you do not believe that Christ can set the sinner free from sinning at least as an ongoing process of His ever deepening enfluence, then you do not believe in sanctification. Then you do not believe in transformation.
But both are clearly teachings of the New Testament -
"And do not be fashioned according to this age. but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:2 my emphasis)
" ... For just as you presented your members as slaves to uncleaness and lawlessness unto lawlessness, so NOW present your memvers as slaves of righteousness unto SANCTIFICATION." (Rom. 6:19 my emphasis)
The normal Christian life is to be born again, baptized embarking on the life long process of sanctification and transformation. And this is certainly a entering into freedom from the power of sin.
I beg you. If you have been taught otherwise, you need to stop and start studying the New Testament all over again. You have been taught wrongly.
Have you ever read "The Normal Christian Life" by Watchman Nee ? You should take two months to read through this signal and monumental work on the normal (if not average) Christian experience.
You even say so yourself:
The sin nature is still in man.
Yes. The nature of the fallen sinful man is still with the Christian. But we are able to nullify its effect and overcome by abiding in Christ. That is what you missed me adding.
Continuing the quote I wrote:
But its power is nullified by the regenerated person learning to set his or her mind on the innermost kernel of our spiritual being where the Spirit of Christ bears witness with the human spirit that God is the Christian's dear Father.
This is not my invention. This is Romans 5 through 8. This is elaborated on elsewhere also in the New Testament.
Consider Paul as a PRIONEER in the Christian experience. He is one of many such pioneers and writers of the New Testament.
It is not a matter of Paul reaching a sinless state of perfection. He has no such boast. But he forgets his past experiences both good and bad and he stretches forth to gain Christ more and more.
" ... be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is out of the law, but that which is through faith in CHrist, the righteousness which is out of God and based on faith ... Not that I have already obtained or am already perfected, but I persue, if even I may lay hold of that for which I also have been laid hold of by Christ.
Brothers, I do not account myself to have laid hold; but one thing I do: Forgetting the things which are behind and stretching forward to the things which are before,
I persue towards the goal for the prize to which God in Christ Jesus has called me upward. Let therefore, as many as are fullgrown have this mind ..." (See Phil. 3:11-15a)
The mature Christian attitude is to keep growing. It is to continue in the daily process of sanctification. We do not account ourselves to be finished or perfected. We continually stretch forward to gain more and more of the experience of Jesus Christ. We are in the process of being found in Him. We are found in a rightouesness which is not based upon law keeping but rather is based upon faith that Christ can be all and all within us.
The past is under the blood of Jesus. Yesterday with both its failures and successes is gone. Today I stretch forward to gain more of Christ - to be found in Him in more and more areas of my living.
This was in the middle of Paul's life. Towards the end he says that he has kept the faith and expects a reward from the Righteous Judge Jesus Christ. Look carefully at Paul's attitude as he knows he approaches the end of his life's course -
" I have fought the good fight; I have finished the course; I have kept the faith.
Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, with which the Lord, the righteous JUdge, will recompense me in that day, and not only me but also all those who have loved His appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7,8)
Important Facts:
1.) This is not speaking of the gift of eternal redemption or eternal life.
2.) This passage is speaking of RECOMPENSE or REWARD. This is not Paul saying that he will be eternally saved because he kept the faith and ran the race. This is Paul saying he will receive a reward in the coming kingdom because he endured, kept the faith, and learned by faith to live righteously before God.
3.) The CROWN here is not a crown of Grace. Nor is it a crown of Mercy. It is a "crown of RIGHTEOUSNESS" . In addition to positional justification by faith Paul expects the recompense of a crown of righteousness for subjective RIGHTEOUS LIVING.
4.) The Giver of the reward of a crown of RIGHTEOUSNESS is not the Merciful Savior. It is not given by the Gracious Savior.
Do not misunderstand me. Of course Christ is merciful and Christ is gracious. But here Paul says the recompense is awarded to him by "the righteous Judge".
Christ who has saved Him forever has also wrought His divine nature into Paul's living. By Paul's cooperation Paul has undergone sanctification dispositionally. Paul expects from the "righteous Judge" a reward of the crown of righteousness for his practical, daily, righteous living. That is his righteous deeds done in faith in the righteous indwelling Lord within him.
"Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, with which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will recompense me in that day..."
I agree. But salvation and resurrection are different things to Paul here. Resurrection is the fulfillment of salvation which is why this does not jive with Ephesians. Lets remember where this discussion started.
It has been a given and will remain a given to me that Paul is the author of Romans and Ephesians. I will continue to remark quite spontaneously that there is no suspicion in me whatsoever against that evidence that the Apostle Paul has given the church both letters.
I have left the argument concerning authorship.
But my main point here is that the process of sanctification frees one from sinning.
This is not to teach that sinless perfection as the hyper holiness teachers is abtainable. It IS to teach that the normal experience is to continue to be freed more and more as we forget the things behind and stretch forth to gain Christ.
Peter said that the believers in Christ have become "partakers of the divine nature" . And what do you suppose the believer is to DO with his or her particpating in the divine nature ? Of course, by faith, he learns its liberating power.
"Seeing His divine power has granted to us all things which relate to life and godliness, through the full knowledge of Him who has called us by His own glory and virtue,
Through which He has granted to us precious and exceedingly great promises that through these YOU MIGHT BECOME PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Pet. 1:3,4 excuse the shouting)
The Christian has become not just a spectator of the divine nature.
He is not just an admirer of the divine nature.
She is not just a worshipper or witness to the divine nature in God far away.
The Christians is a PARTICIPANT, a PARTAKER of this divine nature. And that so that one may be liberated from the curruption that is in the world through sinful lusts of all kinds.
Man is born again to become a partaker of the divine nature. The power of the divine nature can nullify the sinful lusts of the fallen Adamic nature. And living as a partaker of the divine nature to ever encreasing, ever deepening, ever expanding and growing degrees the believer is sanctified. The crown of righteousness from the Lord, the righteous Judge will be recompensed to such a normal overcoming follower of Jesus.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Jazzns, posted 03-05-2013 8:56 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024