On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:16:03 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You slice and dice all the time, Judy. And you like using that phrase "in balance and in context" as if you actually have some kind of hermeneutic as you "study" the written word. Amazing.
jt: I have the counsel and help of the one
who "inspired" all Scripture which is even more amazing than any kind
of
hermeneutic JD - imagine that, it happens
just as Jesus said it would ..
Referencing I Jo 3:7, and while you speak of
"context" (who knows what "balance" means to you -- it
means nothing to me) , you need to allow the first chapter of this first letter
of John to play a role in establishing the context for
3:7.
jt: Manipulation won't cut it JD - You need
to allow scripture to say what the author intended - which is that mouthing
righteousness is a waste of time and means nothing. The one that does
righteousness is righteous. Why would you have a problem with this?
Makes all kinds of sense to me.
We are called to a life of holiness, without blame and
above reproach. But such is a growth process -- a
spiritual growth process -- and until you "have arrived," you
are dealing with the sin issue at some level. As I have said on
previous occasions -- before Christ, I practiced sin and committed
acts of righteousness; after Christ in my life, I practice righteousness
and commit acts of sin.
jt: The difference between us JD is that I
am not "comfortable" with sin, I hate it (whether it is in myself or in others).
Make sure you get it right JD. I hate sin. I do not hate
people.
It was Paul who said that we continue to fall
short of His glory.
jt: He said "all have" past tense JD.
Paul gives no license to continue in sin that grace may abound. No excuses. We
are supposed to be co-laborers with God, not working against Him. We are to love
what He loves and hate what He hates.
It was John who wrote the caustion in I john
1: "If you say that you are possessing no sin, you deceive yourself and
the truth is not in you.
jt: Only if we are claiming to be righteous
while we are ATST "comfortable" with sin - this is being a doubleminded
man.
It is a written fact that if we could be counted
as righteous through personal victory, salvation would be ours as a matter of
debt (Ro 4:4).
jt: Whoever wrote that was ignorant;
personal victory is only possible because of the Cross. We overcome in Jesus
name
to the glory of God the Father but we are
the ones who must take a stand for righteousness or it will not
happen.
In I Jo 3, the practice of righteousness is equated with
the "love of the brethren" (v14) and the keeping of the commandments (vv 22-24)
which are two-fold: belief in Jesus and the love of the brethren. Three
considerations in this 3rd chapter, Judy. You make the mistake of
believing that one consideration modifies the others, when, in fact, each
is a different way of saying the same thing.
jt: I agree, violating the "royal law"
(which is love) is sin; just as transgressing God's moral law is sin. I don't
have a problem with any part of 1 John. I have a problem with being
comfortable with and walking daily in sin.
If this were not true, we make John to be a liar before
he gets through with the chapter. Verse 6 says: No one who abides
in Him sins. Verse 14 says: he who does not love abides in
death. V 24 says And the one who keeps His commandments abides in
Him. (and these very commandments are presented in the preceding VERSE
: belief in His name and love of the
brethren.
jt: Amen and Amen.... It's impossible to do
the above being comfortable in sin.
John has already made it clear (chapter one) that we
continue in the sin problem, that confessing is a continual need on our part,
and that the blood of Christ is a continuing event in our lives.
jt: 1 John 1 says "IF we say that we have no sin (when we have) we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. IF we confess
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness (obviously when we continue in sin we lose our righteousness
in Christ and become unrighteous until we deal with it). IF we say that we have not sinned (when we have) we make
him a liar, and his word is not in us. This does not conflict with the
reality of 1 John 3 that the one who does righteousness is
righteous.
Paul further explains this in Eph 4.
Chapter 3 (of I John) cannot mean the opposite of chapter one.
Chapter one was written first. That is why they call it "chapter
one." It must play a vital role in the developing context of the following
passages of I John. When YOU get through with chapter three, you
have no room in your theology for the first chapter. You have, in effect,
cut it right out of your bible.
I haven't cut any of my Bible out JD
and have no idea what would make you say such a
thing. As for faith being reckoned as
righteousness. I understand this VERY WELL. Abraham demonstrated it for
us. He believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.
However, Abraham's believing was not without corresponding
action.
You understand liittle to nothing when it comes to the biblical teaching of righteousness as counted in the life of Abraham AND applied to us.
You understand liittle to nothing when it comes to the biblical teaching of righteousness as counted in the life of Abraham AND applied to us.
jt: Your opinion JD; the reality is
that I am walking it out daily - taking thoughts captive to the obedience of
Christ and examining myself to see if I am continuing in the faith. I
question your qualification to make such an accusation.
You
pretend that folks like me reject "righteousness" and pursue a doctrine of
license so that grace will abound. Such is a lie and is used to
"bias the jury."
jt: If I remember correctly you are the one
who told Terry you are "comfortable" with your sin JD.
What
folks like me believe and teach is this: God saved you while you were yet
a sinner for the purpose of good works. To say it any other way is
to get the cart before the horse, reject God's plan for saving man in Christ,
and to return to law keeping.
jt: In your mind JD. However,
righteousness is an important issue and we need to understand what God is
wanting to
communicate about it rather than what a
multitute of theological hermeneutical opinions say about it.
Abraham is used by Paul, in Romans 4 to demonstrate that we are
justified by faith APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW (God's law, by the
way).
jt: There was no Law of Moses when Abraham
believed God JD. However, Abraham acted on whatever revelation he
had
received from God and this is the example we
are to follow.
The
illustration Paul uses is taken from Gen 15:5,6. This illustrations
makes clear that rightoeusness was an accounting issue on the part of the Great
God Almighty AND NOT AN ISSUE OF OBEDIENCE.
jt: I've heard this before and believe it to be error. However,
if you will not accept "obedience" from Abraham's example, then what
about Jesus who is the one who left us an example that we should
follow "in His steps". Was His example obedience
to the Father? Didn't He always do and say what He first
saw and heard the Father doing and saying. Isn't it written
in the volume of the book "I delight to do thy will O' my
God?"
And
Paul takes that precise example, Abraham walking outside his tent, looking
to the sky, counting the stars (if indeed he could count them) and
believing -------------- and applies it to our
justification. In that specific example, ABRAHAM COULD DO NOTHING
BUT BELIEVE.
jt: Very convenient for the fearful and
unbelieving JD. So nothing is required of us other than "the
equivalent of looking up to the stars" while the devil takes the
place?
The
issue is NOT what Abraham did afterward (he certainly did not earn his
salvation) but how Paul uses the illustration in his writings. There
is no middle ground, here, Judy. Either you EARN your salvation by
practicing righteousness or you DEMONSTRATE your salvation by practicing
righteousness.
jt: Practicing righteousness is where it's at and this is
impossible to do aside from "walking after the Spirit" as per Romans 8:1,2
KJV As for Abraham he was willing to sacrifice the child of Promise
believing that God was able to raise him up again if need be and this is the
kind of faith God honors. Doctrines that don't conform anyone to righteousness
are a waste of time and breath because the doubleminded receive nothing from
God.
JD - The Bible says "For all have sinned and come shsort of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). For believers this has got to be past tense or "Shall we sin that grace may abound?" God forbid, may it never be .. is what Paul himself says about it.
JD - The Bible says "For all have sinned and come shsort of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). For believers this has got to be past tense or "Shall we sin that grace may abound?" God forbid, may it never be .. is what Paul himself says about it.
Rom 3:23 has a passed tense phrase "we have sinned" and a present tense phrase "and are falling short." You change the tense OUT OF NECESSITY, quoting one scripture to trump another. Your insistence that a mistake has been made in the writing of 3:23 is a violation of every rule of interpretation -- but , then again, you really don't have any rules. You WANT to be under the rule of law and I want to accept what Paul said sbout law -- that we are saved apart from obedience to it. I do not believe in "abounding grace" but I do believe in "abundant grace." Grace, Judy, is ONLY NEEDED BECAUSE WE CANNOT BE RIGHTEOUS ENOUGH TO BE SAVE OURSELVES. There is no other need for grace.
jt: I don't have to
have anything trumping anything else JD. All I want is understanding so
that I can do the will of God in my own life. Also I have never insisted
that mistakes are made in scripture. Theologies yes. Scriptures
no. As for the law. Like Paul I am under the law to Christ. Look at
the sermon on the Mount and try to tell me that this is not higher than the law
of Moses.
jt: Your Gk interlinear must have come from Westcott &Hort.
Actually, it is not Westcott and Hort and what do you know, really know, about that text anyway? Comfort and Brown do not use that phrase and neither does the NASV. But be that as it may; Paul defines "walking in the spirit" and "walking in the flesh" in Romans 8:5, Judy. and what does that say? That "walking in the flesh" is having YOUR MIND SET ON THINGS OF THE FLESH; "walking in the Spirit" is having YOUR MIND SET ON THINGS OF THE SPIRIT. What is inside -- your commitment, your allegiance, your hearts desire, the leading of the Spirit and not what is on the outside -- obedience to a written law; prescription salvation (take this and all will be better).
jt: I don't believe you understanding what I
am talking about even now JD because I am talking about what is inside. After
all we began with a "heart" problem. Paul wrote to Timothy that "the goal
of the instruction is love from a pure heart" and basically it is what fills the
heart and comes out of the mouth that breaks God's law. This is constantly
evident on TT and your hermeneutic does not appear to help it.
Anyway it is Romans 8:1b that I refer to and it
reads "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit. For the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin
and death." (Romans 8:1,2) What do you mean a second
nature?
The battle is between flesh and spirit. Flesh is spiritual death - Spirit is life. So the person who is busy claiming to be"in Christ" who ATST is walking after the flesh every day in sin is deceived. God's moral law will still judge them and their heart will condemn them before God. Surely you don't believe that Jesus came so that we could depart from the Law of Moses into antinomianism. The scriptures define sin as "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4) and John writes that one who is born of God can not sin (1 John 3:9) - are you going to cut these out of the Gk text also JD?
The battle is between flesh and spirit. Flesh is spiritual death - Spirit is life. So the person who is busy claiming to be"in Christ" who ATST is walking after the flesh every day in sin is deceived. God's moral law will still judge them and their heart will condemn them before God. Surely you don't believe that Jesus came so that we could depart from the Law of Moses into antinomianism. The scriptures define sin as "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4) and John writes that one who is born of God can not sin (1 John 3:9) - are you going to cut these out of the Gk text also JD?
Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets,
Judy. And because they have been fulfilled, they no longer
stand as hall marks of justification.
jt: Love fulfills the law JD.
Yes love went to the cross to pay the price for our transgression but this by
itself does not
justify ppl who are comfortable with and who
continue to knowingly walk in sin.
We are not under law. Romans 3:21 says this
"But now apart from law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being
witnesses by the Law and the Prophets. Pretty
simple. Look to verse 27 of Romans 3. What do you think Paul
is doing in that passage? He is CONTRASTING the Old Law
with the New Law. ------------ the law of works
(Moses) and the law of faith (Christ).
jt: You stop too soon JD - read on to Vs.31
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we
establish the law". Nothing about two different laws written here by Paul
- So he uses the exclamation God forbid!! in two instances relevant to the
discussion here on TT. One is sinning so that grace may abound and the
other is making void the law through faith - as you advocate above.
The Levitical law is what Peter is dealing with in Acts 15 because the Judaisers were trying to get baby believers to follow Christ under the Jewish Levitical Law. Sin is sin (lawlessness) under both covenants. As believers we are to fulfill the law through Christ - a "double minded" man get's nothing from God. (James 1).
Is "fornication" part of themoral law or the Levitical Law.? Come on Judy. You are just making up stuff in order to maintain what? That every time you sin you condemn yourself and move out from under the shelter of grace. You are a works salvation, pure and simple and in need of repsentance (a change of mind).
jt: Do fornicaters inherit the
Kingdom of God JD? (check it out) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither
fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God - and such WERE some of you"
(1 Corinthians 6:9,10) - So JD it appears
that you
are the one with the legalistic system because it is you who touts a works
salvation vs a grace salvation. I see nothing like this in the teaching of
scripture - it is tradition of man pure and
simple.
jt: JD you follow doctrines that
don't conform you to godliness and that blind you to the truth of God's
Word. Yes Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law because "cursed is
everyone who hangeth on a tree" Yes he took our punishment at Calvary and
he did that so that we could be conformed to His image. We are supposed to
walk as He walked which is in
'righteousness and holiness' You can not claim to be "in Christ" and ATST comfortable in your sin. That is major deception.
Judy, you need to go back to the top and see what I actually said. Terry (and I was writing to Terry) can keep his sin and be declared "righteous" all at the same time. I am comfortable with that. If Judy can be saved with her stubborness, then I can be saved with my -------------- well, just plug in something and it will probably work. I am not only comfortable with God saving me apart from my effort, I give him praise and glory. And all my buds at the BSF would say "Amen!"
'righteousness and holiness' You can not claim to be "in Christ" and ATST comfortable in your sin. That is major deception.
Judy, you need to go back to the top and see what I actually said. Terry (and I was writing to Terry) can keep his sin and be declared "righteous" all at the same time. I am comfortable with that. If Judy can be saved with her stubborness, then I can be saved with my -------------- well, just plug in something and it will probably work. I am not only comfortable with God saving me apart from my effort, I give him praise and glory. And all my buds at the BSF would say "Amen!"
jt: Then you are deceived JD - see (1
Corinthians 6:9,10) above and God's promises are not empty to those with
understanding. However, traditions of men make His Word of no effect.
Perfect love casts out the kind of fear
that has torment John. Don't you understand the difference between the
fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom and which causes one to depart from
evil - and the other kind of fear?
Don't you understand the difference between the two
covenants and the promise of the indwelling Spirit verses the rule of Law
and the praise worthy decision by God to "remember our sins no more?" I
don't think you do.
jt: Yes I understand the difference between the two covenants but
there has been no change in the nature and character of God and sin is anathema
under both. Jesus didn't go to the cross so that we can get away with what
they were judged for under the old covenant.
