jt: Proof texting theology? You've got to be kidding John. This verse speaks for itself.
If it did "speak for itself," there would be no further comment from you. You contradict yourself by your actions.
The prophet is addressing the Covenant people of the God who changes not.
The people of God, way back when, were identified as the Nation of Israel. Physical circumcision was their "birthmark." Today, Israel is given the same consideration as all those of the pagan world and circumcision is of the heart. We call this contrast "change."
Today we
are His Covenant people through Christ (who holds the Covenant) so what makes you think your iniquities and sin are different from theirs?
Who said anything about my sins and iniquities being different from others? Certainly not me. But now, with Christ as one who has clearly reconciled humanity with the divine, our sins and iniquities are hidden in Him. Do you deny this????? In Him, our sins are remembered NO MORE (Jere 31:31-34.)
The Cross made our spiritual destiny a reality. It expressed what God has always felt -- a willingness to even die for His creation. Kruger was discouraged with the way evangelicals used the Cross more as a negative/positive than as a blessing. While I see his point and agree with his concern, I do not see the Cross as an appeasement for the wrath of God. I see it as God, with a broken heart, doing the impossible to accomplish what had proven to be the improbable -- God, Himself, dying for a community of people who were never going to get it right apart from an unmeritorious favor from their Creator. My sin problem -- in terms of destiny is over in Christ. Apparently yours is not. You believe that the Holy Spirit supercedes your will and, walla, there is no more sin. What is the point in that teaching? Eph 4 and Romans 7 stand as stark testimony against such a teaching.
Don't let your humor put you in a ditch. I suspect that most of the whole host of biblical
comment you refer to is void of the "if's, and's and but's" (read conditions).
"Conditions," as I am now discovering, are sign posts along the Way. In the beginning, I was a babe in Christ -- knowing nothing and living a life without the full benefit of the abundance God has promised. As time goes by, we begin to respond to these "conditions."
I learned "belief," beginning in 1997 and that continues to this day. But I was "saved" in 1957. I know more about the image of God than I did five months ago and now work to be like Him in terms of my commitment to my fellow man. In the beginning, I was fascinated with the Lord. Today, I love Him and all that He is and wants to be in me. Few saints meet these "conditions" in the same order or at the same time in their spiritual lives. None are lost before the "condition" is fully "obeyed" or even mildly understood.
The blood is effective to cleanse the conscience ONLY when we go to the throne of
grace in time of need.
You test the boundries of the heretical, Judy. This is so wrong that I do not know how to respond. The idea that the continual flow of the blood of the Lamb only works for us when we ask is so out of line with biblical teaching as to be scary. Legalism? Works salvation? You bet. As a babe in Christ, your eyes will be open in time, as well and until that time, God will sustain you between those times of request.
What would make you think my belief offers no hope for addictions?
Oh, maybe it is because of this vision: I am the addict and you are the Saint and you tell me that after I receive Christ as Savior, the Holy Spirit will infill me and I will stop sinning because of it - and if I do not cease my addiction, among other things, such will be a clear sign that I am ourside the grace of God.
No one is more the pathetic loser than the fully involved Addicted. His only hope is the Continual Flow. It may be years before his ability to obey will kick in, if ever in this lifetime. And your only response to this statement is quote scriptures that speak of hell while I will continue to offer hope. I have been called a false teacher for far less noble a teaching.
I'm the one who just
spent a week in GA learning about "the more excellent way" You may call it "the doctrine of perfectionism" John and I know you equate this with legalism.
I stayed home and read about that same Excellent Way. And, I am developing some "new" strategies for my counseling ministry based, in part , on what I have learned while a member of this forum. Got to get back out there with my fellow rif-raf.
However, God does say "Be ye holy or perfect as I am holy" we are to go on into
maturity and dealing with sin is not an option.
No one on this forum denies this statement as it stands alone. But to make it a requirement for a continued relationship with God, and you do this, is where I disagree.
Nor is cutting Isa 59:2 out of your Bible and/or negating it by false doctrine.
I agree but who is doing this?
Bishop Smitty
