Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 799 of 1198 (714713)
12-26-2013 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by Tangle
12-26-2013 5:56 PM


Re: after the Great Rising and Blessing in Gen 2&3
It's a very awkward question isn't it? That's why you keep catching yourself out.
I deal with tough questions all the time.
Tough questions to me are like left over hot dogs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2013 5:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2013 6:19 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 805 of 1198 (714733)
12-26-2013 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by Tangle
12-26-2013 6:19 PM


Re: after the Great Rising and Blessing in Gen 2&3
Tangle writes:
It's not at all tough - in fact it's very simple, but it is awkward for you guys that like to quote but not think. That's why you have to evade it like this.
You have mentioned this matter of evading a number of times. But I labored to be as clear as I could. Now my understanding could be right or it could be wrong.
No atomic bomb there.
I don't mind studying how to answer that question more. I am in no hurry. I have a number of projects that have lined up to further study.
I don't count my interpretations as infallible. I believe the Scripture is infallible. My interpretations are not infallible.
Now since you did evade replying whether you would or would not read my next sermon, I see you preach but don't practice yourself.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 800 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2013 6:19 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 811 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2013 4:36 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 806 of 1198 (714734)
12-26-2013 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by jar
12-26-2013 7:11 PM


Re: jar (note, all lower case) position
And remember, Jesus was a Jew not a Christian.
And remember this Jew was the Son of God.
Correction: This Jew IS the Son of God.
When Jesus the Jew said that the Pharisees were of their father the devil (John 8), He was remarking on the evil nature of sin from the beginning of mankind in Genesis.
This argues for the sin nature being inherited by men. Those who gave in to it in opposing the Son of God received a stronger rebuke. But the diagnosis actually includes all of descendents of Adam.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by jar, posted 12-26-2013 7:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by jar, posted 12-26-2013 10:25 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 808 of 1198 (714736)
12-26-2013 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by Phat
12-26-2013 6:27 PM


Re: jar (note, all lower case) position
If the serpant is not satan, who in the heck is the serpent, and why would the Creator of all seen and unseen need to lie while a lowly snake "told the truth" as you assert?
That seems to be basically the philosophy of some people. Its hard to dignify such warped understanding with serious consideration.
I am not sure what can be taught to recover someone's mind from being that far plunged into spiritual darkness.
Well, Jesus said that Satan was a liar from the beginning. Surely, He meant from the beginning of man as read in Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by Phat, posted 12-26-2013 6:27 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 809 of 1198 (714738)
12-26-2013 10:49 PM


If we compare two passages in early Genesis we can see that on the negative side, there is a continual downward decline of morality.
The start -
quote:
"And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. " (Gen. 1:31)
The finish -
quote:
"And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And Jehovah repented that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart." (6:5,6)

Between these two passages we read of the sliding downward from the high heights of creation to the judgment of the flood, the sin nature injected into man eating him up.
There are also high points though in Abel, Enosh, Enoch, and Noah along the way.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 810 of 1198 (714739)
12-26-2013 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 807 by jar
12-26-2013 10:25 PM


Re: jar (note, all lower case) position
jar writes:
But your posts do garner a laugh, well maybe only a chuckle.
Cheer up jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by jar, posted 12-26-2013 10:25 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 813 of 1198 (714840)
12-28-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 811 by Tangle
12-27-2013 4:36 AM


Re: after the Great Rising and Blessing in Gen 2&3
I haven't read your sermons and I'm not about to start now
You can expect then no further post of yours I'll be reading.
Enjoy your soapbox.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2013 4:36 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2013 11:55 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 815 of 1198 (714885)
12-29-2013 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 812 by ringo
12-27-2013 10:51 AM


ringo writes:
It "proves" nothing of the kind. The human master returned during the servant's lifetime. Jesus is already here during our lifetime. The foolish virgins parable reinforces the idea that those that look for Him in the future miss Him in the present.
The 10 foolish virgins parable speak of the wisdom of Christ disciples being filled with the Holy Spirit (the oil) for the second coming of Christ.
The foolish virgins had only the oil in their lamps.
The wise virgins had not only oil in their lamps but extra oil stored in their vessels with their lamps.
quote:
" At that time the kingdom of the heavens will be likened to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
And five of them were foolish and five were prudent
For the foolish, when they took their lamps, did not take oil with them; But the prudent took oil with their lamps. "

First of all they are going forth to meet the bridegroom. So the parable is about desiring the coming of the bridegroom Christ. So they ARE looking forward to the future for the coming of this most pleasant person, Christ.
Twisting the parable to make it not about expecting Christ's coming in the future is grossly incorrect. The virgins "went forth to meet the bridegroom" .
"[W]ent forth" signifies that the Christians are going out of the world to meet the coming Christ. Throughout the whole Christian life the believer should be going forth from the fallen world system to meet the coming Christ.
Oil in the Bible is very often a symbol of the Spirit of God (Isaiah 61:1; Hebrews 1:9). So while these expectant virgins go to meet the coming bridegroom, what they do with the Holy Spirit is the crucial point of the parable.
All the virgins are given a initial portion of oil. This means in their beings is the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is the presence of Jesus Christ all during the church age. The oil in the lamp is the Holy Spirit within the Christian's human spirit as a lamp (Proverbs 20:27) .
quote:
"The spirit of man is the lamp of the Jehovah, Searching all the innermost parts of the inner being." (Prov. 20:27)
So the oil in the lamps signifies the Holy Spirit in the innermost kernel of a man's being. That is the center and nucleus of the human being. The Christian is joined to the Lord in the innermost spirit (1 Cor. 6:17).
What distinguishes the wise virgins from the foolish virgins is that the wise virgins made sure they had in addition the oil in their lamps, but oil in their vessels. For brevity's sake I will only say now that that means the Holy Spirit filling up their soul and personality.
This is the difference between merely being born again and being sanctified in the personality. The human spirit of the believer is born of the Spirit (John 3:6). And if he or she is wise should go on to be transformed in the soul by the same Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17,18).
So on one hand Christ is WITH them in the form of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand they go forth to meet Christ in His physical second coming.
Five is a number representing responsibility. So five foolish and five wise does not mean half the Christians will be wise and half will be foolish. Rather it means that the responsibility as to whether a Christian will be wise or foolish is up to that Christian. We who believe into Jesus may go on after regeneration to wise concerning Christ's physical coming or we may be foolish concerning His physical coming.
Both the wise the foolish lovers of Jesus have the initial Holy Spirit in their spirit. The wise lover of Jesus will store up extra oil in the personality, the soul, the behavior, the mind and emotion and will. This relates to sanctification and transformation. It is wise, after being born of the Spirit, to further allow the Holy Spirit to be "extra" acting upon the soul.
This is a brief explanation.
This is a concise interpretation.
The main point is that Christ is with both the wise and foolish disciples as the Holy Spirit. It is a false dichotomy to teach that to expect Christ to come in the future is totally antithesis to Him being present now.
Both are true and not one or the other as ringo attempts to teach.
"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) is the reality all down through the last 2,000 plus years of church history.
That Christ is PRESENT in the believers as the Holy Spirit means He is the oil in the lamp. That He is physically coming again is the coming of the bridegroom. Because of the Triune God Christ is present with the disciples all the days until the consummation of the age (Matt. 28:20)
That Christ is also COMING in the future physically is quite testified to in chapters 24 - 25 of Matthew as well as numerous other places in the NT.
The wise thing for the lovers of Christ to do during His physical absence but His presence as the Holy Spirit, is to allow Him to fill and saturate their personality. The responsibility to allow this filling of the soul from the spirit with the oil of the Holy Spirit rests upon every believer.
jaywill writes:
It is a deliberate misunderstanding to present "another Jesus" from what is portrayed in the Gospels.
It's a deliberate reading of what is presented in the gospels, as opposed to the version that you portray, which is not in the gospels. That has been shown here repeatedly.
The interpretation above (briefly outlined) is far more consistent with the rest of the New Testament.
Peter says the normal disciples of Jesus should be going out of the world in consecration to Christ.
quote:
"And Peter said to them, Repent and each one of you be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit... And with many other words he solemnly testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this crooked generation. (Acts 2:38,40)
This corresponds to lovers of Jesus receiving initially the Holy Spirit and going forth from the crooked world on account of Jesus. They are in the world yet they are no longer of the world.
Yet Peter also says heaven must receive Jesus Christ physically until He comes again for His messianic kingdom.
1.) He has been exalted in heaven and poured out on earth the Holy Spirit.
quote:
"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear." (Acts 2:33)
2.) The believers have had their sins forgiven and been refreshed by the Lord's presence in the form of the Holy Spirit.
quote:
"Repent therefore and turn, that your sins may be wiped away. So that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that He may send the Christ, who has been previously appointed for you, Jesus." (Acts 3:19,20)
3.) Physically He is received into heaven.
quote:
"Whom heaven must indeed receive until the times of the restoration of all things, which God spoke through the mouth of His holy prophets from of old." (v.21)
4.) His being in heaven is "UNTIL" a certain time, meaning He will physically return to earth to His Holy Spirit indwelt followers.
quote:
"Whom heaven must indeed receive until the times ..."
5.) Therefore the disciples with the presence of the Lord in the form of the Holy Spirit await His physical return as the glorfied Godman as well.
quote:
" For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)
In other words on the mount of transfiguration they got a preview of the coming of the glorified Christ in splendorous majesty.
quote:
"You also be long-suffering; establish your hearts because the coming of the Lord has drawn near." (James 4:8)
He is with us believers as the Holy Spirit but He is also coming.
quote:
"For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at His coming?" (1 Thess. 2:19)
So the Lord is with the spirit of the Christians throughout the church age -
quote:
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
"The Lord be with your spirit." ( 2 Tim. 4:22a)
"Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved? (2 Cor. 13:5b)

Yet physically we await His coming and should not want to be put to shame from Him as His coming.
quote:
"And now, little children, abide in Him, so that if He is manifested, we may have boldness and not be put to shame from Him at His coming." ( 1 John 2:28)
This last passage nicely covers both aspects of the Christian experience. The Christian has Jesus Christ within and should abide with Him. It is wise to linger and abide in His presence so that when He is physically manifested from His invisible inward presence, we may be bold and not be put to shame from Him at His coming."
Now I expect that you (ringo) will not now attempt to put Matthew on one side of the universe and Acts on the other side of the universe and claim that they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
I expect you to likewise try to say Peter's epistles have absolutely nothing to do with either Matthew or Acts or First John or First or Second Thessalonians or James.
But the New Testament is clear. Christ is both with the believers until the consummation of the age (Matthew 28:20) AND He spoke of His physical coming again (chapters 24-25) and 26:29.
quote:
"But I say to you, I shall by no means drink of this product of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father."
jaywill writes:
It is important that there is distinction between His spiritual presence and His physical presence. The book of Matthew says Jesus is Immanual - meaning 'God with us."
That's what I keep saying. If He is with us, He doesn't need to come back. His physical presence is irrelevant as long as He is spiritually present (and I don't mean "spiritual" in the woo-woo sense - see the thread on the human spirit).
Totally FALSE DICHOTOMY. And your contempt for Jesus Christ is oozing over. The apostle Peter spoke of your kind of mocking contempt concerning the physical coming of Christ.
quote:
"Knowing first this, that in the last of days mockers will come with mocking, and going on according to their own lusts and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? " ( 2 Peter 3:3,4)
So we have from you not only the preaching of a heretical "another Jesus". We also have a mocking "woo-woo" heretic contemptuously ridiculing the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 812 by ringo, posted 12-27-2013 10:51 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by ringo, posted 12-29-2013 1:12 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 818 of 1198 (714944)
12-29-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 817 by ringo
12-29-2013 1:12 PM


In the parable, the bridegroom does come. It is not about anticipating a future event. It's about missing the point in the present.
You're making the same utterly false dichotomy.
Ie. If it is about the importance of the Christian life now, then it cannot have anything to do with Christ coming in the future.
jaywill writes:
The virgins "went forth to meet the bridegroom".
And they met him - past tense.
Weaker still.
Because the bridegroom in the parable represents Jesus Himself, and because Jesus knows what will happen to His followers, the climax of the parable is spoken in past tense terms.
Its a warning from One who knows how things WILL be going.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 817 by ringo, posted 12-29-2013 1:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by ringo, posted 12-30-2013 10:42 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 828 of 1198 (714978)
12-30-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by ringo
12-30-2013 10:42 AM


I didn't say it "cannot" have anything to do with Christ coming in the future. But there's no reason to think it does.
jaywill:
Its a warning from One who knows how things WILL be going.
Sez you. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes past tense is just past tense.
You are attempting to portray my analysis as over occupied with eschatology. Actually it is your considerations which are overly preoccupied with shoe horning the New Testament into conformity with your atheistic humanism.
Chapter 24 is all about Christ answering questions about His glorious coming at the end of the age. Sorry, that's just context.
Many things have to be discussed by Jesus on that subject. One is readiness of His servants -
quote:
"For this reason you also be ready, because at an hour when you do not expect it, the Son of Man is coming." (24:44)
The following parable builds exactly upon this warning - (24:45-51).
You do not like that association because your humanism wants to be only accountable to your supposedly noble self. "Why should I be influenced by any coming Lord Jesus ? I can do everything without regard to any coming of this Jesus."
So the normal Christians are suppose to feel childish because we simply heed the warnings as Christ gave them.
The real problem is that you do not know man.
You really do not know what man is.
The followers of the Lord Jesus benefit from ALL of His exhortations.
That includes both the motive of love and the incentive to not be disciplined.
It is not only one motivation that influences the Christians.
And there is no shame or hyper preoccupation with future things by taking our Lord at His word.
quote:
Blessed is that slave whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Truly I say to you that he will set him over all his possessions.
But if that evil slave says in his heart, My master delays, and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eats and drinks with the drunken, the master of that slave will come on a day he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him asunder and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 24:46-51)

Now ringo the atheistic humanist comes along boasting that he doesn't need to be concerned about any coming Master or Lord. He has within his noble self all that is required to be a proper ethical man.
Fine. You feel there is no God to be justified before through faith and no Savior to love and no Lord to serve. That is no reason to criticize the people who believe in Christ and take THIS teaching along with all His other teachings in their intended context.
You never be able to force me to analyze these two parable strictly through your atheistic / humanistic self righteous lens.
Following Christ's warning about coming upon His servants unexpectantly He elaborates much the same manner in the next parable of the ten virgins. However here the emphasis is on love and preparation rather than service and preparation. They are not opposite concepts. They are related concepts. But the emphasis is somewhat different.
He begins the parable of the ten virgins with the words - "At that time ...". One would ask "At WHAT time?"
I think the obvious answer is that time of His coming as taught in the previous parable of verses 45 through 51.
So, considering the same subject matter - the coming of the Lord at the end of the church age, Jesus now teaches about the foolish and wise virgins going forth to meet the bridegroom.
Then ringo chimes in that he doesn't at all need to consider any reference here to the second coming of Jesus. Of course he only needs to be concerned about the here and now of his noble good doing humanism.
Fine, Mr Humanist / Atheist. Don't try to condemn the believers in the Son of God for their taking it as Christ intends it - a warning to be WISE concerning His coming as opposed to being FOOLISH concerning it.
It definitely has effect on the Christians life TODAY in the here and now. For the message is not to wait to pay the price for the extra oil as the foolish virgins. Rather to cease the time TODAY to pay the price for the extra oil.
Oil symbolizes the Holy Spirit. And the parable is not about eternal salvation. It is about prepardness for that special wedding feast.
What's weak is your attempt to staple "end times" nonsense onto every passage in the Bible.
This is your exaggerated comment. I have not imposed things pertaining to the second coming of Christ "onto every passage in the Bible." Where it is relevant to discuss it I have discussed it. And chapters 24 and 25 of the Gospel of Matthew is a relevant place to discuss it.
Ringo has no case. Now the next parable of 25:14-30 begins with the words -
quote:
"For the kingdom of the heavens is just like a man about to go abroad, who called his own slaves and delivered to them his possessions. (25:14)
The most likely meaning of the man "about to go abroad" is that Jesus is about to ascend to heaven to be enthroned in which He will be physically absent from the earth for an unspecified amount of time. This matches the facts of what happened to the Son of God.
He is with the disciples in their spirit. But He also went away physically to someday return physically as He has been teaching in chapter 24.
So in the parable the man returns in the servants lifetime. That is no major problem to Christian eschatology because:
1.) Since His going away, ie. (go[ing] abroad) has a length of time unknown it is a warning to ALL disciples. Those present should be on guard and those not yet born should also be on guard.
2.) Resurrection from the dead is simply not one of the aspects being emphasized in this teaching.
The virgins sleeping in the previous parable may indeed refer to Christians DYING (or "sleeping") throughout the church age while Christ delays His return physcially.
Now the atheist / humanist chimes in. "I don't need to be careful that some master will pat me on the head when he comes. Out of my own self sufficient noble self I know how to do whatever ethical things should be done."
That's the flavor of ringo's criticism. The Christian need not impose onto every passage a meaning of Christ's coming.
"He's already HERE ! Jesus is HERE with all of us."
That would be marvelous if ringo actually believed that in the sense the New Testament teaches. Unfortunately, the Atheist / Humanist only means "Jesus is HERE" in about the same sense as Abraham Lincoln is here, or Robert Livingston is here, or Florence Nightingale is here.
He really means that there is at present some sentimental remembrance of Jesus which stirs us by example to do good. That is not indwelling life giving Holy Spirit as Christ in you that the New Testament teaches.
Ringo's "Jesus is here" does not require the resurrection. In fact if we could drag him out of the shadows we would see ringo strenuously fighting against the resurrection of Christ.
Anyway, the teaching of Matthew 25:14-30 has its promise and its warning exactly as the previous teachings - (25:1-13; 24:45-51; 24:32-44)
No ringo, I am not imposing the second coming of Christ onto every passage of the Bible. You simply are in the wrong section of Matthew's Gospel to assume His coming again is not the obvious context.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by ringo, posted 12-30-2013 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by ringo, posted 12-31-2013 11:01 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 829 of 1198 (714979)
12-30-2013 5:02 PM


Basic Structure of Matthew's
Now I am going to say something to the half a person or 1.5 person reading, about some basic matters of Matthew. This is completely relevant to all we have been discussing.
This will be concise and without much proof texts.
The term "the kingdom of the heavens" is a phrase particularly used by Matthew. A related phrase "the kingdom of God" is usually used in the other synoptics.
This is what you have to understand in order to get into Matthew's Gospel. The kingdom of the heavens has THREE different significances in this Gospel. It is used in three senses. And it is helpful to think of the three senses in this way:
1.) There is the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens.
2.) There is the appearance in the way of FACADE of the kingdom of the heavens.
3.) There is the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens.
Type 1 - the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens is POSITIVE.
Type 2 - the appearance (or facade) of the kingdom of the heavens is NEGATIVE.
Type 3 - the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens is POSITIVE.
So we have TWO positive usages of the term "the kingdom of the heavens" and ONE negative set of usages for the same term.
Now the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens is the kingdom life that the Christian lives in the church age. He presently does so secretively as a sacrifice.
Concurrently going on with this hidden reality is a facade, a pretension which is a negative false appearance of the kingdom of the heavens.
At the end of the age of the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens there will be a glorious manifestation of that kingdom as a reward. This means that those who have lived in the hidden reality will be rewarded openly in this kingdoms manifestation.
At that time those who have avoided the facade but lived in the reality will be rewarded openly to co-reign with Christ in the manifestation of that kingdom.
When reading through Matthew one has to learn to understand which aspect of "the kingdom of the heavens" Jesus is speaking about - the reality, or the appearance as a facade or the manifestation as a reward.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2013 8:47 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 851 of 1198 (715044)
12-31-2013 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2013 8:47 PM


Re: Basic Structure of Matthew's
Dawn Bertot,
I want to thank you for your encouragement. I am off to something right now but hope to digest your post more thoroughly latter.
And I may have a question for you in turn as fellowship is so useful.
thank the Lord for the last 365 days of 2013.
jaywill
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2013 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 857 of 1198 (715076)
01-01-2014 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 831 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2013 8:47 PM


Re: Basic Structure of Matthew's
Dawn Bertot writes:
A quick note, hope Im not interfering and Ill be right out of the way
Hi. This thread has been all over the map. You certainly don't seem to be interfering in this free-for-all to me.
I often call Hank H on the Bible Answer man broadcast and ask a question here or there.
I was going to make a comparison between K(C)orban and the belief that Baptism does not save you
You may find my comments to kind of steer to include the topic of "Original Sin".
Since the command to "Honor your Father and Mother" was easy to understand but easily set aside by years of Rhetoric, ideology, interpretation and contrived Hermentics,
Those hemenutics grew up along side the simple command until it was actually suplanted and replaced within the concept of Corban. If you take what you were going to give to your parents to the temple, "its Corban", you are absolved of your responsibility in that area to honor your Father or Mother
"You teach as doctrine the commandments of men", Jesus said
When approached about the necessesity of water baptism to save you, Hank will say baptism doesnt save you it sets you apart. Or its the first act of obedience
Since we have very clear indications, statements and commands that it does actually save you, is it resonable to assume a teaching, Hermenutic could grow up around the clear purposes given for water Baptism as set out in the NT, to actually suplant its simple meaning
For example he says, "Its the Main and the Plain things we need to understand in the NT, on how we are to be saved
Citing Ephesians 2:8-9, which is very true, but not any less true that Mark 16:15-16 or 1Peter 3:21
Is it possible that time distance, preconcieved ideas, ideologies and reinforced hermenutics have like Corban, replaced the simple teaching of Water Baptism?
Since there is nothing unplain, cloudy or unclear about baptisms purposes, is it resonable to assume that The main and the plain approach is just another hermenutic
IYOP, is there a clear difference between Corban and the suplanting of the teaching Baptism, or did the same thing happen all over
I believe whatever pitfalls were encountered by religious Jews in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry are dangers to Christians. Those believers in the Tanach had a strong religious tradition. Today after 2,000 plus years Christians have possibly even a more entrenched religion.
And here I do not mean the word "religion" to be that positive. What I am trying to say is that as the Jews in the Gospel time had their commandments of men growing up, the Christians of today also have the same tendencies.
Now of the verses you mentioned, I lingered long in praying and reading over First Peter 3:21. But I felt led to take in from verse 18 through about 4:4 for more context.
The "saves you" verse 21 I think is more than justification from eternal perdition. Peter preached and witnessed the baptism of thousands in the book of Acts. And he went on to exhort the people to be saved from the then contemporary crooked generation:
quote:
"And with many other words he solemnly testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this crooked generation. Those then who received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day three thousand souls." (Acts 2:40,41)
Peter's preaching goes beyond simply man's need to be saved from eternal punishment. Peter's message addresses God's need to have a people living unto God in a vibrant church life community - SAVED daily from the surrounding crooked generation.
There is no way a Christian can be saved from the surrounding crooked generation without the realization that they have been crucified, buried, and raised with Jesus Christ - which baptism testifies. We cannot make it to escape the influence of the world, even if we have eternal redemption, if we are not so identified with Christ's death and resurrection. We have to stand upon the fact, by faith, that we have been crucified to the world and the world has been crucified to us.
I try to consider that sometimes "saved" in the New Testament has nuances of meaning. You sited Ephesians 2:8,9:
quote:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works that no one should boast."
This salvation certainly meets the sinner's need to know that he or she has BEEN saved [past tense] through faith in Jesus Christ. But the very next verse speaks more of God's need to have a masterpiece - POEMA. This corporate "masterpiece" is like a grand work of art or music in a divine sense. The masterpiece of God speaks of the kind of corporate "walk" the saved people should have daily in the world. This is should be a collective testimony to the world around.
I put the passages together:
quote:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works that no one should boast.
For we are His MASTERPIECE, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand in order that we would walk in them."

I am trying to say that God's MASTERPIECE is the church consisting of the eternally saved also SAVED from the crooked society - walking in the highest standard of morality through the grace of the indwelling Christ. They who are saved from eternal judgment go on to be SAVED into the masterpiece of the normal church life testifying God's transformation power over former sinners.
My opinion is that sometimes "saved" or "saves you" or "salvation" in the New Testament includes this wider scope of God's operation.
See here that first the explicit apostolic teaching of Paul is that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus will be SAVED -
quote:
" That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be SAVED;
For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation "

To me this is clear and I would encourage any seeking person to have confidence in calling "Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus" to be SAVED from eternal separation from God.
But let's go on in that chapter. Paul then says -
quote:
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all and rich to all who call upon Him. For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (vs.11,12)
I believe the scope of being "saved" suddenly widens. We come into the riches of Christ by daily, even hourly, even moment by moment calling on His name in order to touch Him. Experience is that calling on the Lord Jesus SAVES us from our lust, our temper, our depression, our division among other Christians, our craving for the world, etc. We go on to walk daily in Christ by enjoying the riches of His grace. And one way to release those riches is by calling on His name - "O Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus".
So we are SAVED eternally by calling and confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in our hearts God has raised Him from the dead.
Then we go on to be SAVED for the sake of God's masterpiece by enjoying the riches of what and who Christ is in us. Living through His indwelling presence we are SAVED from the crooked generation around the ekklesia, the church as the called out community.
I think the larger scope of being saved is meant in Mark 16:16
quote:
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned."
Over the years I have adopted the attitude that Mark's reference to believing and being baptized is for the salvation in a larger sense - to be saved not just from the last judgment, but from the whole surrounding crooked society. Believe and be baptized to be saved by faith you have been crucified, buried and raised to new life by identification with Christ.
And this salvation is a ever deepening matter. This salvation is an ever growing and widening matter as we discover more and more things we really need to be saved from. We do not know all the matters yet from which the indwelling Christ operates to save us.
Now if we go back to First Peter 3:21, I think like Mark 16:16 the "saves you" refers to the larger scope of salvation.
Think about his analogy of the ark of Noah.
You see the ark SAVED the people from judgment.
But the WATER saved them from that current evil generation.
They eight individuals in the ark were saved from God's judgment by the ark.
But they were saved from that evil generation by the water.
You can see a relationship. And maybe you can see the nuances of the word "saves" or "saved".
quote:
"Which water, as the antitype, also now saves you, that is, baptism ... the appeal of a good conscience unto God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
When we proclaim "I have been crucified with Christ" faith in our identification with Christ's death saves us from many evil things in our fallen nature.
When we stand by faith saying "I have been buried with Christ and raised up with Christ" we release the grace of Christ into our being.
We do not trust ourselves. We do not trust any self improvement. We do not trust any self refinement. We are utterly identified with Christ in His being crucified and raised. Our history is Christ death and resurrection. And we utterly identify with being terminated with Him and raised with new life in Him.
This is the immersion into Christ that saves us in the widest sense. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Having said that, I have to add that it is not possible for me to get into the realm of arguing about modes of physical baptism -
Ie. Is forward baptism more scriptural or backward?
Should it be "in Jesus name" or "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?
Should it be by sprinkling or should your head go under the water?
Should the new believer be baptized immediately or wait for awhile?
I think when we get into fighting about the ritualistic aspect of how to baptized and what should be pronounced, we quickly fall into the hands of the enemy - into doctrinal divisions which are used by the enemy to cause Christians not to "hold fast the Head" of the living Person of Christ Himself.
This doesn't mean I have no feeling about baptism.
I think to baptized "in the name of Jesus" can be uttered.
Or "We baptize you into the death of Christ" is just a good.
Or "We baptize you into the Body of Christ" is just as scriptural.
Or "We baptize you into one Spirit" is just as biblical.
Or "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is just a scriptural.
I think we Christians are often experts at missing the point.
Any one of these prayers / proclamations in faith is from the Bible.
Of course if we baptize into the death of Christ we baptize into the one Spirit and into the Triune God's name.
So I can't be drawn into a debate about Mark 16:16 or First Peter 3:21 on purely mechanical grounds of outward stuff. It is a matter of spiritual life and faith.
Finally, the sense of salvation from the world is more apparent to me in Peter's passage by these things:
1.) the need to be saved from the list of sinful activities \[b\]4:3
quote:
"For the time which has passed is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having gone on in licentiousness, lusts, debaucheries, carousings, drinking bouts, and lawless idolaties."
2.) the need to be saved from the "flood of dissoluteness" (v.4)
3.) the need to be saved from slander (v.4) and persecution's effect of discouragement (3:17)
.
4.) the need to be saved from "the lusts of men" (4:2)
5.) the need to be saved TO "the will of God" (4:2)
So I think Peter had in mind "water" of baptism now saves the believers from the crooked generation as he also exhorted in Acts 2:40 - to be not only justified for eternal life but saved from the ways of the world which is headed for judgment.
Tell me a bit about what Hank Hanegraff would say. He's a good brother with the word.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 831 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2013 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 865 of 1198 (715124)
01-01-2014 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 861 by arachnophilia
01-01-2014 12:10 PM


Re: injustice
arach writes:
ah, okay, so you're not necessarily defending christian theology?
Speaking for myself here, I guess I am defending Christian theology.
So some comments.
(By the way, hello again).
okay, so spiritual death -- like the concept of original sin -- is a no go?
When Paul says that " ... you, though dead in your offenses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) it is not reasonable to assume this being "dead" was a death that ONLY started to happen in the New Testament age.
There is every reason to believe Paul's teaching of "dead in ... offenses and sins" reaches back down the ages all the way to the fall of Adam.
Now if you reject the New Testament's teaching then you might have some ground to argue that "spiritual death" is at least not talked about in the Old Testament. That is "might" . But Ephesians 2:1 would mean spiritual death (for he cannot mean they were physically dead) is a part of human history as long as man has been a sinner.
Then again what is death really ? Mary E. McDonough writes:
WHAT GOD MEANS BY DEATH
The scientific definition of death helps us to perceive His meaning. It is as follows: "Death is the falling out of correspondence with environment." The following illustration will help ... to better understand this subject. Here is an eye of a human being, seemingly perfect in structure, wide open, apparently able to see any object placed before it. The objects of nature, bathed in bright sunshine surround it, but there is no response from the eye. It does not see; for the optic nerve is severed. It is dead to the beauty before it.
Here is a person whose ears are completely deafened. Birds are singing, bells are ringing, voices speaking, but those ears do not respond to sound waves that are carrying melody to other ears which are open to receive the same. They are dead to the sounds.
Upon the very day of Adam and Eve's disobedience, sin severed the delicate intuitive knowledge of God in the spirit of Adam and Eve. They failed to respond to Him who was their Environing Presence. They were dead to God. Therefore we see that a human being may be moral, educated, refined, strong and vigorous in mind and body, yet dead to God. He may even know many things about God and talk about Him, preach about Him, write books about Him and still be dead to Him - without response to the voice of His Spirit. This helps us to understand the meaning of such passages as 1 Timothy 5:6; Ephesians 5:14; Romans 8:6.
... The death process established in the spirit of our first parents was quickly manifested throughout the whole of the inner man, and after a time the possibility of dissolution of the body, which had been held in abeyance while man remained obedient and dependent before the Fall, became an actuality. The bodies so wonderfully formed of the dust of the earth and which might have been glorified, now returned to dust.
[ God's Plan of Redemption, Mary E. McDonough, Living Stream Ministry, pgs. 25,26]
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 861 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2014 12:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 867 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2014 5:57 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 866 of 1198 (715131)
01-01-2014 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 863 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2014 1:58 PM


Re: injustice
Dawn, the poster said -
i think, in some regards, yahweh wants abraham to talk him out of it.
Actually, I agree with this in this sense -
God WANTED Abraham to intercede for Lot.
Why ?
Because God ... Wants ... Christ.
All the positive partriarchs and saints of the Old Testament are in one way or another pointers to the One who is central to the whole Bible - Jesus Christ the Son of God.
So we see something of Christ in Enoch.
So we see something else of Christ in Noah.
So we see some of Christ in Abraham.
So we see something of Christ in David.
We see something of Christ in Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah,
We see a little of Christ in Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Deborah, Samson even.
In positive aspects of all the heroes of the Tanach we see aspects of the final Son of God to come.
So I agree that God "needed" an intercessor for those in Sodom who were to be saved. That is why, I believe, God went down to speak with Abraham His friend as He did in chapter 18.
Now I would speak to the "arrogance" issue which I think is located in the concept that Abraham accused God.
These are the following expressions Genesis uses to portray not an accusative man assuming to condemn God, but humbly petitioning Him, knowing his own place -
Verse 27 - " Now behold, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord, though I am but dust and ashes."
Verse 30 - "Oh may the Lord not be angry if I speak."
Verse 31 - "Now behold, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord."
Verse 32 - "Oh let the Lord not be angry if I speak yet once more."
These are humble utterances. They are not consistent with a man accusing God to His face ( in that manifestation of Himself as a man ) that He is EVIL, UNJUST, and moral monster. I can't see how anyone can read that into the text.
At best, Abraham wants to assure himself that his nephew and family (who were at least believers in God themselves ) would be spared from the punishment coming on Sodom.
" Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked. Far be it from You! Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justly?" (v.25)
I don't see in this verse any accusation against God.
We latter see in the book of Jonah that God knew the count of people whom He should exempt from the judgment of Nineveh, at least 120,000 people.
quote:
"And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle? " (Joshua 3:11)
The arrogance, I think, lies in trying to place the new atheist accusations of God being the "moral monster" into the mouth of Abraham, the father of faith.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2014 1:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 868 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2014 6:08 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 870 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2014 12:59 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 875 by ringo, posted 01-02-2014 11:46 AM jaywill 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