Conference yukon::christian_v7

| <<< Note 267.11 by FZOVAX::MNICHOLSON >>>




| According to Romans 7 & 8, one important difference between a Christian
| and a non Christian is that a Christian has received the Spirit of
| Christ and is controlled by that Spirit while a non Christian is still
| controlled by the sinful nature.

	This is interesting. But I need to ask, if the person who is perceived
to be a Christian sins in any way, does that mean (s)he is no longer controlled
by the Spirit? I would think if the Spirit IS in control, then that person
would not sin. This is something I never really understood.

| "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on
| what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the
| Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires." Rom 8:5

	Jimmy Swaggart too? 

| "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
| Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the SPIRIT OF LIFE set
| me free from the law of sin and death."

	But are you really free from sin?




Glen

 While we have the spirit indwelling us, we also have the sinful nature.
 Its a battle for control.  Read Romans 7 where Paul talks about this 
 battle (What I want to do I do not do, what I do not want to do, I do.)



 Jimmy Swaggert (whom many people just love to throw in the face of Christians)
 is a human just like me and anyother and capable of sin.  Unfortunately he's
 a bit more visible than you or me, and in his position should know better.
 But, nonetheless he's a human being.

 "Obedience may not be the perfection of my life, but its the direction of
 my life"  

  ....John McCarthur




Jim

>I would think if the Spirit IS in control, then that person would not sin.

This is true in its absolute.  The Spirit is only in control as much
as we allow Him to be in our lives.  God gave us each a sovereign will 
at which He will not interfere with our choices.  Why?  Because without
free will, we cannot love Him.  But, if we allow Him control, and depend
upon God when temptation comes, we do not have to sin because the Spirit 
within enables us to overcome.  "I can do all things *through Christ*
who strengthens me."  I cannot do all things by myself, neither can 
I help but sinning when I am only born of the flesh.  When I am born 
of the Spirit (regeneration), my yeilding to temptation (sin) is in
proportion to the amount of control I [am able to] give to the Spirit,
(hence the war within).  This takes into account "baby" Christians who
(like baby people) have a time of it learning to walk and use other motor
skills, and learning what is right and wrong.  As a baby grows, it is
able to exert more control over itself, and one of the great paradoxes
is that the more difficult thing to do is yield.

He who would be greatest must be servant of all.
He who is humbled will be exalted, and he who is exalted will be debased.
He who yields (loses) his life shall find it.
He who gives control to the Holy Spirit will find Him able to keep you
 from sinning.

Mark

| <<< Note 271.3 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| >I would think if the Spirit IS in control, then that person would not sin.

| This is true in its absolute.  The Spirit is only in control as much
| as we allow Him to be in our lives.  

	Does a person have the same chance of not sinning if they aren't "born
again"? Meaning, someone can do exactly the same as someone who was born again
when it comes to not sinning but hasn't been slain in the Spirit.




Glen

RE:               <<< Note 271.4 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

.	Does a person have the same chance of not sinning if they aren't "born
.again"? Meaning, someone can do exactly the same as someone who was born again
.when it comes to not sinning but hasn't been slain in the Spirit.



Glen, FYI..one receives the Holy Spirit upon receiving Jesus as Lord and
Savior.  Slaying in the Spirit is another concept altogether.  All true
Christians receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  Not all Christians
are slain in the spirit.




Jim

>	Does a person have the same chance of not sinning if they aren't "born
>again"? Meaning, someone can do exactly the same as someone who was born again
>when it comes to not sinning but hasn't been slain in the Spirit.

Slain in the spirit is not being born again.  I have been born again; I have 
not experienced what has been termed slain in the Spirit.

You need to explain a litte more of what "chance of not sinning means."

A person who does not have the Spirit of God within him will do whatever
pleases him (including charity - easing the consciences, etc).  The difference
is in focus.  I do something because it makes me feel like a better person.
Or, I do something because love rules my heart, meaning that I will put
God first and others before my own self.

On the surface, one might argue that they are one and the same.  That is,
doing something because of love makes me feel good, and indeed it does.
But the converse is not true (always): doing something because it makes
me feel like a better person does NOT always mean I do so because of love
and the spirit within.  I can do this without putting God first and others
before myself.  Therefore the two are not equal.

The person who is only born of the flesh (and after the sinful nature)
cannot help but sin.  There is no chance of not sinning.  "All have 
sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  By not punching out the
old lady before dragging her across the street, you cannot claim "I have
not sinned" because we all already stand judged sinners; breakers of God's
definition of the good; the law.

The person who is born of the flesh and of the Spirit is buffetted by 
temptation to do as they will but the Spirit within affects a change in
focus so that the desire to live in the Spirit is strong and conflicts
with the desire to yield to temptation.  Bringing experience into this,
we know that yielding to temptation at best has temporal and passing
pleasures, while resisting temptation is trying and hard.  But, the
pleasure beyond the resisting is far more rewarding, not unlike the
benefits of exercise.  

I told an illustration a while back I will summarize as best I can.
A young man was given a fifty cent piece by his father.  The boy could
either buy candy with it and spend the money, or buy a couple of pigs,
raise a litter, sell the litter and make a whole lot more money on
his investment.  By waiting and a little struggle, the boy could have 
candy coming out of his ears if he chose to after he succeeded in 
nurturing his investment.  On the one hand, the pleasure would last
for minutes; on the other, perhaps a lifetime.

The Christian is not at a loss for pleasure, but finds pleasure in the
things of the Spirit; another distinction between being born of the
flesh and born of the Spirit.  Can the born again believer sin?
Yes, they can because we can take back the throne of our hearts
at any time.  But, as long as we consciously place God on that throne,
He is able to keep us from sinning.

Mark

| <<< Note 271.6 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>





| You need to explain a litte more of what "chance of not sinning means."

	Meaning the same opportunities could be with both people (born-again &
not born again) and the same choices could be made.

| On the surface, one might argue that they are one and the same.  That is,
| doing something because of love makes me feel good, and indeed it does.
| But the converse is not true (always): doing something because it makes
| me feel like a better person does NOT always mean I do so because of love
| and the spirit within.  I can do this without putting God first and others
| before myself.  Therefore the two are not equal.

	I guess if we weren't human then this fits perfectly. But, seeing even
the born again people are human, then they still can do something that pleases
them without putting God or others first. People will make mistakes, that's
plain to see. But why is one not really talked about (born again people who put
themselves first) but the other always is? 

| The person who is only born of the flesh (and after the sinful nature)
| cannot help but sin.  There is no chance of not sinning.  
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Mark, this is a true statement. Not JUST for those born of the flesh,
but those who are born again as well. If you need proof just look at those who
have been born again who have sinned. People, period, sin. Regardless of
whether they are born again, born of the flesh. Your statement gives me the
impression that those born of the flesh will always sin regardless of what
situation they are in. I underlined the part that made me think this with ^^^^.


| The Christian is not at a loss for pleasure, but finds pleasure in the
| things of the Spirit; another distinction between being born of the
| flesh and born of the Spirit.  

	Again, you can't say this is true. While this may be something they
might want to achieve, the flesh comes into play throughout their lives. Just
because the Spirit is there doesn't put you on auto piolet to stop the flesh.
It's a constant battle that won't stop until you have gotten rid of the flesh.



Glen

    A constant battle is not the same as always sinning.  Yes, Glen, we are
    human, but those who are born of the Spirit have another citizenship.
    Saying that we are human as an excuse to sin is no excsue at all,
    but when we sin (see the topic on "When we sin"), the Spirit is
    quick to convict and the born again person listens to that prompting.
    
    To use the example of toe-stepping: if I stepped back onto your toe
    and hurt you, I would say, "I'm sorry.  I didn't know you were there."
    But if I did it again in a few minutes, I could not claim I didn't know
    you were back there, could I.  I could claim "I'm only human and prone
    to step back on your toe, so please don't stand behind me."  
    
    Rather, I should make note of where you are and determine not to step
    back onto your toes again.  Human or not, to repeat the same sins calls
    into question the sincerity of the first claim ("I'm sorry.") and
    negates the second claim ("I didn't know you were there.").
    
>| The Christian is not at a loss for pleasure, but finds pleasure in the
>| things of the Spirit; another distinction between being born of the
>| flesh and born of the Spirit.  
>
>	Again, you can't say this is true. While this may be something they
>might want to achieve, the flesh comes into play throughout their lives. Just
>because the Spirit is there doesn't put you on auto piolet to stop the flesh.
>It's a constant battle that won't stop until you have gotten rid of the flesh.
    
    I can say this is true.  Because even though the flesh comes into play, 
    God has promised - promised - sufficient grace.  When flesh overrules
    the spirit, then we are not ruled by the Spirit, are we?  When the
    Spirit overrules the flesh, then we are ruled by the Spirit.
    
    Further, make no mistake that all pleasures of the flesh and all
    pleasures of the Spirit are mutually exclusive.  One can easily enjoy a
    hot fudge sundae both in the flesh and the Spirit without conflict.
    This isn't a binary switch.  (But generally speaking, we say that the 
    pleasures of the flesh are lusts (self-gratifying).)
    
    As for something to achieve, we will grow and become better able to
    resist temptation as we learn to lean on the Spirit more and more.  If
    we suffer the yielding to the same sin over and over, how much have we
    leaned on the Spirit for our deliverance, since God promises that He
    will put NO temptation such that we cannot endure it?  The fault is not
    that we cannot help ourselves because those who are and are not spirit
    filled are human; the fault is in relying on humanity to overcome
    temptation - it cannot!  One MUST rely on the Spirit to overcome
    temptation and when that is done, we CANNOT sin because we live after
    the Spirit and NOT the flesh (even while the flesh pulls the other
    way).
    
    Mark 

    Glen,
       You look at acts not the motivation. God deals with the
    motivation not *so* much the act. Any act of sin is sin, period.
    Whether saved or not saved this fact does not change. The only
    difference, which *WE* can not see is the MOTIVATION. However, God sees
    this clearly, and it is by this metric that He judges correctly.
      To say, "Oh look there is a Christian speeding down mainstreet, he
    is sinning.", is to state a truism. We are all subject to the sinful
    nature and therefore all fall short. The only advantage a "born again"
    person has over a "born once" person is repentence and the spiritual
    desire to "do the work of the Lord." To walk a Christ like life. This
    means where there is a choice to sin or not sin, the "believer" must
    always make an attempt to make the Christ like choice and to recognize
    if and when a sin was commited, (and all that which it means),
    ask forgiveness (of the "IAM", the one who the sin was ultimately
    against), and repent (turn away and sin no more), of NON-RIGHTEOUS
    actions.
    
    So Glen, it is not a valid argument to say, look the non christian
    and the christian have sinned alike. To you maybe, to God, certainly
    not. Furthermore, as a christian, it is not *wise* to judge a non
    christian by christian values. Conversely, it *is* wise for a christian
    to (gently and encouragingly) admonish a fellow believer. To do so is
    to point out where a action was not in accordance with God's law. (and
    this only if the person does not recognize it or face it unto
    themself.)  - But a christian, Glen, would WANT to do God's will, and
    would not WANT to sin intentionally. There is another difference. These
    differences are not tangeable. But to God, they are opaque.
    
     PDM_$0.02

    
    It's not a matter of a Christian and non- Christian commiting a sin,
    but rather the Christian is not a slave to sin, whereas the
    non-christian is!                 ^^^^^
                                      |||||

| <<< Note 271.8 by JARETH::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Saying that we are human as an excuse to sin is no excsue at all,

	I agree with you on this Mark. It is NO excuse. The only thing that can
be said is <insert whoever> screwed up. Plain and simple. 

| but when we sin (see the topic on "When we sin"), the Spirit is
| quick to convict and the born again person listens to that prompting.

	Only if the person is willing to admit they did sin. The Spirit can
convict all He wants, but if no one is listening then it ain't gonna work. Look
at Jimmy Swaggert. How many times? Hmmm..... 

	I guess where I have a problem is from what you are saying I get the
impression that you may feel that those who you perceive to be Christians are 
in a different, possibly better class than those who you perceive to not be
Christians. Please clear that up for me if you would. Thanks.

| Rather, I should make note of where you are and determine not to step
| back onto your toes again.  Human or not, to repeat the same sins calls
| into question the sincerity of the first claim ("I'm sorry.") and
| negates the second claim ("I didn't know you were there.").

	As in Jimmy Swaggert? Who is to say that anyone who you may perceive to
be a non-Christian is going to keep repeating the same sin over and over again
while a Christian wouldn't? 

| I can say this is true.  Because even though the flesh comes into play,
| God has promised - promised - sufficient grace.  When flesh overrules
| the spirit, then we are not ruled by the Spirit, are we?  When the
| Spirit overrules the flesh, then we are ruled by the Spirit.

	In other words, if you sin, it's the flesh. If you don't, it's the
Spirit. IF this is the case, then explain how those you perceive to NOT be
Christians don't sin all the time. Luck?

| Further, make no mistake that all pleasures of the flesh and all
| pleasures of the Spirit are mutually exclusive.  One can easily enjoy a
| hot fudge sundae both in the flesh and the Spirit without conflict.

	Agreed. But it also doesn't mean that everytime there is something of
the flesh that we find pleasurable that it will/should be done in the Spirit.
In other words, if sex if for having babies, should it be used JUST for that
reason and not for the self gratification of the self? Also, should sex be
something at all lustful when with your wife/husband or should it just be in
and out? (no pun intended)





Glen

| <<< Note 271.9 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| To say, "Oh look there is a Christian speeding down mainstreet, he
| is sinning.", is to state a truism. We are all subject to the sinful
| nature and therefore all fall short. The only advantage a "born again"
| person has over a "born once" person is repentance and the spiritual
| desire to "do the work of the Lord." To walk a Christ like life. This
| means where there is a choice to sin or not sin, the "believer" must
| always make an attempt to make the Christ like choice and to recognize
| if and when a sin was committed, (and all that which it means),
| ask forgiveness (of the "IAM", the one who the sin was ultimately
| against), and repent (turn away and sin no more), of NON-RIGHTEOUS
| actions.

	PDM, ya make some good points. But what happens to the person who has
gone to church her/his whole life, believes in God, Jesus, prays to Them, asks
them for Their forgiveness but have never been "born-again"? I know several
people who fit this category. Are they somehow different because they are not
"born again"?

	BTW, not to rathole, but something I have wondered about. I know that
back when I was a kid I don't ever recall there being a lot of "born-again"
people. Even my parents don't really remember many when they were young and
haven't really seen many until the late 70's/early 80's. How long have the
"born again" people been around? Were numbers much lower back then? (say before
1970) I am being serious about this.

| But a Christian, Glen, would WANT to do God's will, and would not WANT to 
| sin intentionally. 

	While I agree that there are people on this earth who sin
intentionally, both Christian and non-, to say that anyone who is
NOT a Christian WANTS to sin intentionally is ludercrous. Please,
if you would, explain why those who are perceived to be non-Christians
sin intentionally.



Glen

| <<< Note 271.10 by DECLNE::YACKEL "and if not..." >>>


| It's not a matter of a Christian and non- Christian commiting a sin,
| but rather the Christian is not a slave to sin, whereas the
| non-christian is!                 ^^^^^

	How?


Glen

    
    Hi All,
    
    Some of the questions which have been bugging me as a new Christian
    are:
    
    1) If a 'born-again' Christian has been sealed by the Holy Spirit, but
       goes to sin again, will he/she loose salvation?
    
    2) Are Roman Catholics considered 'born-again' Christians? 
       They do not practise full-body immersion in their water baptism
       (as far as I am aware) which is contrary to what is taught in the
       Bible. I was told their Bible is not the standard 66 books but more
       than that. In Revelations 22:18 (NIV), the Lord clearly stated --
    
       'I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:If
        anyone adds anything to them, GOD will add to him the plagues
        described in this book.'
    
       So, my question is whether Roman Catholics have obtained Salvation
       in the first place. The above verse clearly tells us not to mess
       about with the Scriptures.
    
    3) If a Roman Catholic attends a Gospel Rally and came out for Altar
       Call to accept the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour,
       should he not go for full body-immersion Water Baptism again?
    
    Thks, Mike

>    2) Are Roman Catholics considered 'born-again' Christians?

We are all born again by baptism.  Some Catholics also have had what
evangelicals call "born-again" experiences in addition to their baptism.

>       They do not practise full-body immersion in their water baptism
>       (as far as I am aware) which is contrary to what is taught in the
>       Bible.

Immersion is permitted by their laws but not usually practiced; pouring is
the normal method.  This conference has discussed at length whether the Bible
requires immersion; there are biblical accounts of baptisms in locations
where immersion would have been impossible; this has been explained before.

Immersion is a powerful symbol, but many Christians believe that as long as
the baptism is with water and in the Name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, the necessary grace is provided.

>I was told their Bible is not the standard 66 books but more
>than that. In Revelations 22:18 (NIV), the Lord clearly stated --
>    
>       'I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:If
>        anyone adds anything to them, GOD will add to him the plagues
>        described in this book.'
>
>So, my question is whether Roman Catholics have obtained Salvation
>in the first place. The above verse clearly tells us not to mess
>about with the Scriptures.

Then you better watch out, because those extra books were in bibles for
1600 years, and were part of the King James Bible, too.  Jewish rabbis
took them out, but Christians kept them until about 400 years ago.

This conference has a topic on these disputed books. For those interested in
learning more about these books, I recommend getting a copy of the King James
translation of Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach).  You
won't find anything in it which is contradictory to other parts of the Bible,
and it provides excellent Christian moral teaching.

/john

RE:                    <<< Note 271.14 by ZPOVC::MICHAELLEE >>>

    
       
       
   . 1) If a 'born-again' Christian has been sealed by the Holy Spirit, but
   .    goes to sin again, will he/she loose salvation?
    

        No.  It is quite clear in Scripture that Christians, while not being
        slaves to sin, will sin. 1 John 1:9 says "If we confess our sins, He
        is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all
        unrighteousness" 

        1 John 2:1 says "My little children, I write these things that you
        sin not, but if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
        Christ the righteous"

        Every new Christian struggles with this, and it can cause us to lose
        the joy of our salvation rather quickly.  Confess your sins to the 
        Lord and rejoice in the fact that your sins are removed "as far as
        the east is from the west".


        May God bless you as you go..



        Jim




  

    Re 271.8 (Glen Silva)
    
>	In other words, if you sin, it's the flesh. If you don't, it's the
>Spirit. IF this is the case, then explain how those you perceive to NOT be
>Christians don't sin all the time. Luck?
    
    Glen,
    
    I do not answer to antagonize you, but I think you know the answer to
    this question as well as any of us.  Non-believers *do not have* the
    Spirit.  The Spirit of God is received at the point of salvation. 
    Every act of an unbeliever is not sinful by default, but the unbeliever
    is enslaved by sin.  Consider a slave:  is every act that a slave does
    the immidiate command of his owner?  No -- the slave may eat a meal,
    take care of personal matters, etc., without being ordered to do so by
    his master.  But, when the master beckons and commands, the slave bows
    to the command.  So is everyone that is enslaved by sin.  Now,
    consider:
         John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
             make you free.
          33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never
             in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made
             free?
          34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
             Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
          35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but
             the Son abideth ever.
          36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
             free indeed.
    When someone believes in Christ, the yoke of sin is broken.  We are no
    longer enslaved by sin.  We have the choice to obey God or obey sin.
    "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his
    servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of
    obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom 6:16)  I do not believe that a
    believer will suffer the same judgement as an unbeliever, yet if he
    tolerates sin in his life, he will suffer.  However, because of the
    work of Christ, we are no longer enslaved to our old master.  He may
    shake the chains that used to be around our necks, and try to trick us
    into obeying him, but the truth of the cross is that we can reckon
    ourselves to be dead to sin and alive to Christ.  When I beleived on
    Christ, the slave died.
    
    "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
    free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Gal 5:1)  
    
    Mark L.

  re: Glen.  - You know as well as any one in this conference. Please do
    	       not play these silly games. It is rather unbecoming.
  Glen,


!	PDM, ya make some good points. But what happens to the person who has
!gone to church her/his whole life, believes in God, Jesus, prays to Them, asks
!them for Their forgiveness but have never been "born-again"? I know several
!people who fit this category. Are they somehow different because they are not
!"born again"?
	To be born again is not a new term at all. In fact Christ used the
	very term to make a point of ones faith and spiritual orientation.
	To be "born-again" means to obey the greatest commandment and the
	second which is like unto it.


!	BTW, not to rathole, but something I have wondered about. I know that
!back when I was a kid I don't ever recall there being a lot of "born-again"
!people. Even my parents don't really remember many when they were young and
!haven't really seen many until the late 70's/early 80's. How long have the
!"born again" people been around? Were numbers much lower back then? (say before
!1970) I am being serious about this.
	They have been with us even before Christ coined the phrase.



>| But a Christian, Glen, would WANT to do God's will, and would not WANT to 
>| sin intentionally. 

>	While I agree that there are people on this earth who sin
>intentionally, both Christian and non-, to say that anyone who is
>NOT a Christian WANTS to sin intentionally is ludercrous. Please,
>if you would, explain why those who are perceived to be non-Christians
sin intentionally.
	Twisted quote alert!!! Glen where did I say a non-christian
	would WANT to sin intentionally? (First of all a non-christian
	does not know what SIN is, wrong maybe but not sin.)
	I think what you mean to say is "oh, a christain is AWARE of sin
	and a non-christian is not?"  - That would be more correct. That
	is not to say that a non-chriatian would not want to do good; But!
	bad != (does not equal) sin;  it simply == (Equals) bad.   

	Glen, be careful not to apply Christian thoughts, actions and morals
	to non-Christians. It JUST DOES NOT WORK. To be AWARE of sin and to
	make repentence for that sin to God is completely different from
        a non-christian who may be aware something socially wrong was
        committed. For the latter there is no accountability, (Except self
	conscience, which is flawed by personal biases.)

	PDM

    Re: .16 (Jim H.)
    
>        No.  It is quite clear in Scripture that Christians, while not being
>        slaves to sin, will sin.
    
    I would correct this to read:
        No.  It is quite clear in Scripture that Christians, while not being
        slaves to sin, *may* sin.
    for the very reason of the next verse you entered.
        1 John 2:1 says "My little children, I write these things that you
        sin not...."
    "...that you sin not" is not a carrot hung out to mock us, but it is a
    real possibility.  The Christian does not have to sin.  However,
    knowing the weaknesses we have, John goes on to say:  "but if any man
    sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"
    
    I do not agree with the doctrine of sinless perfection -- i.e., we
    reach a point where we are beyond sinning.  However, in disagreeing
    with that doctrine, we need to be careful not to go to another
    (potentially more dangerous) extreme and say, "Well, if you are a
    Christian, you will still sin -- all Christians do.  But it's o.k.,
    because God still loves us and we can confess out sins."  (Note:  I am
    not attributing this saying to Jim, and the saying is probably not
    literally put forth as such.  Yet I believe that this concept is
    accepted all too often.)  The important thing to see is, *sin is not
    o.k.*  Sin in the life of the believer is an awful thing.  If we see
    sin as God sees it, we will see it for the appalling, horrific,
    revolting thing that it is.
    
    Galatians 5:16 "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not
    fulfil the lust of the flesh."
    
    Mark L.

  While the term "born again" has been with us for 2000 years, it did
 seem to become the "thing to do" in the 70's with the candidacy of
 Jimmy Carter.  Everybody and his uncle was claiming to be "born again"
 to the point Billy Graham began using different terminology, to avoid
 the seemingly commercialization of the term.




 Jim

 Thanks, Markel....I had the right idea, but used the wrong words.





 Jim

Hello Mike,

Jim addressed the 'but what if I sin' scenario', .14 #1

.14 #2) Are Roman Catholics considered 'born-again' Christians? 

Being a 'born-again' Christian is not dependent upon any label, but upon a
personal experience with the LORD Jesus Christ.  A Roman Catholic can be a
'born-again' Christian, but it's not being a 'Roman Catholic' that has made
him so.  Similarly, a person can call themselves a Baptist, or a
Pentecostal, or an Anglican without being a born-again Christian.  They can 
attend the services, tithe into the offering, help in all sorts of works, 
but still not have met the LORD Who is our salvation.  I have heard of 
preachers who preached the gospel as unsaved men, were convicted by what 
they preached, and became born-again Christians.  Amazing!

It's when I ask the LORD Jesus into my heart, believing that His death on 
the cross was a work which purifeis me to enter His presence for eternity, 
that I become a born again Christian.

As Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3, "You must be born again".  Jesus 
goes on to explain that this is a birth of your spirit.  You move from
death into life, as you receive the deposit of the Holy Spirit within
(Ephesians 1:13-14).  At that point, the label that you put yourself under
isn't really relevant.  As you read the Bible, with the Holy Spirit within
to enlighten you, you may feel it's right to change your label, but the
change of label doesn't make you a Christian, or stop you from being one. 

The first step is to invite God to take command.  Then He tells you which 
way to steer.

If you're uncomfortable with here you stand outwardly, and whether it's 
consistent with what the LORD is saying inside, that's between you and the 
LORD (though respected counselors are of help).  It isn't necessarily what 
the LORD has said to everyone with your background, because He leads each 
in an individual path.  they may not have reached there yet, or He may 
have another task for them, in situ...

This applies whether your discomfort results from your perception of where 
your particualr groups stands with the canon of scripture, or from their 
way of following the accepted scripture.

.14 3) If a Roman Catholic attends a Gospel Rally and came out for Altar
       Call to accept the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour,
       should he not go for full body-immersion Water Baptism again?

Baptism follows conversion into being born-again, and is an outward public 
sign that an inward change has taken place.  The word 'baptiso' means 'to 
dip'.  Instead of translating the word, a transliteration of the Greek word 
was used, which could then be interpreted according to desire...  
It is a command, which the born-again should follow.

If the person in your example realises that he has not been baptized 
according to the LORD's command, then he should fulfil the command 
according to his revelation and according to his conscience.  However,
sometimes this can be a very knotty problem for the individual.  It is 
not a matter of salvation, but of obedience.  You must act according to 
what the LORD lays on your heart, as you understand the Word of God.  

By moving out in acceptance of the LORD Jeuss as personal Lord and Saviour, 
your allegience declared to the LORD God, our Creator.  Your obedience 
should then be to Him; not to any denomination, be it Catholic, Nazarene, 
or Strawberry-flavored Baptist ....  You'll feel more comfortable learning 
from one in particular, but you should choose that one because you feel they 
reflect the LORD; not just because they have dominated your life hitherto.
The problem comes where there is some disparity - eg, one has the doctrine 
straight, but the other has the more clear presence of the Holy Spirit 
working among them.  Then it becomes a matter of personal discernment....

						God bless
								Andrew

    Thanks, &drew.  There were I few things I wanted to go address in that
    note, but forgot to go back to it.
    
> not to any denomination, be it Catholic, Nazarene, 
> or Strawberry-flavored Baptist ....  
    
    Oh no!  Now we're not only dividing along doctrinal lines, but along
    flavors as well???  :-) :-)
    
    Mark L.

 My pastor would probably say he's a Dunkin' Donuts chocolate covered
 flavored Baptist :-)

>    1) If a 'born-again' Christian has been sealed by the Holy Spirit, but
>       goes to sin again, will he/she loose salvation?
    
    I'm impressed.  When I saw this last night, I figured a Calvinism vs.
    Armenianism rathole was forthcoming ;-)

�    Oh no!  Now we're not only dividing along doctrinal lines, but along
�    flavors as well???  :-) :-)

Yeah ... and special seats for those with the faith to act on Mark 16:18 
and take sugar in their coffee...
								&

>    1) If a 'born-again' Christian has been sealed by the Holy Spirit, but
>       goes to sin again, will he/she loose salvation?
    
    I would like to use the story of St. Peter to emphasise what has
    already been said (i.e. that our God is a merciful and loving one and
    will forgive a sin if it is *truly* regretted).
    
    St. Peter, you may remember, actually denied our Lord just before the
    crucifixion. In fact, he denied Him three times.
    
    When our Lord returned, He didn't deny St. Peter. He asked him three
    times whether St. Peter loved Him. St. Peter answered "Yes".
    
    Our Lord then told him to take care of His church. There is not a doubt
    in my mind that St. Peter was forgiven for his sin.
    
    The wisdom and mercy of our Lord is infinite.
                                       

| <<< Note 271.17 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>




| >	In other words, if you sin, it's the flesh. If you don't, it's the
| >Spirit. IF this is the case, then explain how those you perceive to NOT be
| >Christians don't sin all the time. Luck?

| I do not answer to antagonize you, but I think you know the answer to
| this question as well as any of us.  Non-believers *do not have* the
| Spirit.  The Spirit of God is received at the point of salvation.

	Would you consider someone who prays to God, asks Him to help them,
tries to do His will someone who is born again? Reason I ask is I know several
people who fit this catagory but don't think much about the born-again part.
These were the people I was refering to Mark so no, I really didn't know the
answer.

| Every act of an unbeliever is not sinful by default, but the unbeliever
| is enslaved by sin.  Consider a slave:  is every act that a slave does
| the immidiate command of his owner?  No -- the slave may eat a meal,
| take care of personal matters, etc., without being ordered to do so by
| his master.  But, when the master beckons and commands, the slave bows
| to the command.  So is everyone that is enslaved by sin. 

	Mark, if slaves can uprise and break away from their masters why can't
someone who you say is enslaved in sin. Is just having a belief in Christ all
it takes or must you fall hook line and sinker for everything?

| When someone believes in Christ, the yoke of sin is broken.  We are no
| longer enslaved by sin.  We have the choice to obey God or obey sin.

	Mark, the same choices are available to those who you perceive to be
enslaved by sin. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think unless someone believes the Bible
to be the Word of God then they are not considered saved/born-again in your
eyes regardless of whether they believe in Christ or not? 

| work of Christ, we are no longer enslaved to our old master.  He may
| shake the chains that used to be around our necks, and try to trick us
| into obeying him, but the truth of the cross is that we can reckon
| ourselves to be dead to sin and alive to Christ.  When I beleived on
| Christ, the slave died.

	This is a work of art I might say. You have justified why Christians
sin and that's ok, but the unbeliever will always sin, and that is wrong.
Sigh.....




Glen

    >Would you consider someone who prays to God, asks Him to help them,
    >tries to do His will someone who is born again? Reason I ask is I know
    >several people who fit this catagory but don't think much about the born-again
    >part. These were the people I was refering to Mark so no, I really didn't
    >know the answer.
    
    Proverbs 21:2  
    Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the
    LORD pondereth the hearts.
    
    Glen, that is why it is important to not rely on how *WE* feel, but on
    what is God's criteria.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 271.18 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>




| re: Glen.  - You know as well as any one in this conference. Please do
| not play these silly games. It is rather unbecoming.

	Again, please tell me what game I am playing. Thanks.


| To be born again is not a new term at all. In fact Christ used the
| very term to make a point of ones faith and spiritual orientation.
| To be "born-again" means to obey the greatest commandment and the
| second which is like unto it.

	If that is the case and that's all it takes, then why must we believe
the Bible to be inerrent if all we need are those two verses? 


| >| But a Christian, Glen, would WANT to do God's will, and would not WANT to
| >| sin intentionally.

| >	While I agree that there are people on this earth who sin
| >intentionally, both Christian and non-, to say that anyone who is
| >NOT a Christian WANTS to sin intentionally is ludercrous. Please,
| >if you would, explain why those who are perceived to be non-Christians
| sin intentionally.

| Twisted quote alert!!! Glen where did I say a non-christian
| would WANT to sin intentionally? (First of all a non-christian
| does not know what SIN is, wrong maybe but not sin.)

	Actually, it was something Mark Metcalfe had said. read note .7 and you
will see. Are you saying you don't agree with this statement?

| I think what you mean to say is "oh, a christain is AWARE of sin
| and a non-christian is not?"  - That would be more correct.

	Correct to you, yes. But it isn't what I was saying.




Glen

    I don't know why I bother.... :-(
    
    Re: .17 (Glen)
    
>	Would you consider someone who prays to God, asks Him to help them,
>tries to do His will someone who is born again?
    
    Glen, for the umpteenth time -- someone who is born again is someone
    who has acknowleged before God that their are a sinner, repented of
    their sins, accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the
    payment for their sins, and surrendered their life to Jesus Christ to
    be their Lord.  NO AMOUNT OF TRYING TO BE GOOD WILL EVER SUFFICE! 
    Salvation is not of works.  Salvation is not trying to clean up our
    lives.  No man can save himself (i.e., break the enslavement to sin). 
    Only Jesus Christ can bring a man or woman to freedom.
    
>	Mark, the same choices are available to those who you perceive to be
>enslaved by sin. Maybe I'm wrong,
    
    Correct.  You are wrong.  The one who is enslaved to sin has no choice
    but to continue to be a sinner, or to trust Christ.
    
>but I think unless someone believes the Bible
>to be the Word of God then they are not considered saved/born-again in your
>eyes regardless of whether they believe in Christ or not? 
    
    See initial statement of what it means to be born again.  It isn't a
    matter of "in my eyes" -- it's a matter of what "the God who cannot
    lie" has said, and who is willing to believe HIM.
    
    Mark L.

Re:   <<< Note 271.28 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
    
>| work of Christ, we are no longer enslaved to our old master.  He may
>| shake the chains that used to be around our necks, and try to trick us
>| into obeying him, but the truth of the cross is that we can reckon
>| ourselves to be dead to sin and alive to Christ.  When I beleived on
>| Christ, the slave died.
>
>	This is a work of art I might say. You have justified why Christians
>sin and that's ok, but the unbeliever will always sin, and that is wrong.
>Sigh.....

    I think you have demonstrated how carefully you are reading these
    replies, or how willing you are to accept what is being said.  If
    ANYONE can point out to me where I have "justified why Christians sin
    and that's ok", PLEASE do so!  My stand is: SIN IS ALWAYS WRONG!!
    
    Mark L.

	Warning:  Anecdotal evidence follows!!!!

	Glen,

	Just last night, I was in the company of fifth generation born-again
	Christians.  I'd say it's not a new thing to them!

	On the matter of sin (Christian vs. non-Christian):

	Before I was saved, I prayed to God often.  I also sinned often,
	and asked forgiveness often.  The problem was, I was NEVER sure
	I was forgiven, and I couldn't seem to stop sinning.  I'd sin
	the same sins over and over again, and felt as though it was
	beyond my control.  That's not to make excuses for my behavior,
	but the bottom line is that I was truly in bondage to sin.  My	
	sins caused me great pain, and yet I continued on in them.

	Since I got saved, I have ceased to sin in certain areas.  Some,
	I struggled with, others just seem to be as far away from me as
	the sun from the earth, and I can't recall any sincere effort on
	my part to stop myself from sinning in that way.  One area in particular
	that caused me much trouble has slowly been removed from me, to the
	point now where there is no longer a temptation to fall into sin.
	This is through the Grace of God, and the more I grow in Him, and
	the closer I grow to Him, the more foreign the concept of sin appears
	in certain areas.  Does this mean I never sin ? Alas, no!  However,
	it does mean that I have been liberated from sin, such that God is
	able to keep me from falling.  When I do sin, I know it is my choice,
	and I also know how it grieves God, and the need to repent from my
	sin.

	As an unbeliever, one just doesn't have the ability to overcome
	sin (one doesn't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, nor the 
	burning desire to please God in every area).  One may not even
	realize the separation from God the continued sin causes.

	As to your questions about a person who prays and tries to follow
	God's will...

	Being born-again means a death to self, a realization that the old
	man must die, and a new man take his place.  It's a desire and 
	committment to follow Jesus.  The gift of salvation is free, the
	cost is not.  One must be willing to give up the old man, to turn 
	from the sins of the past, to give up everything and anything that
	the Lord may ask.  My question would be to such a person, "What is
	holding you back from inviting Jesus into your heart, from admitting
	that there is only *one* way to salvation, from ceasing 'trying' and
	moving on to 'doing' ?"

	Personal opinion: It's self.  The fear of being asked to give up
	something they may not be willing to part with - a "favorite" sin,
	perhaps.  I know, I've been there.  The biggest stumbling block to
	my salvation was the thought that I'd have to give up all the "fun"things
	I liked to do.  When I finally realized that there was no other guarantee
	except Jesus, I let go of my fears and trusted in Him.  I've yet to
	be sorry, and doubt I ever will be.

	Finally, on the bible... Again, personal opinion: people who don't
	believe the bible to be God's word (fully and completely) fear what
	believing everything in the bible would mean to his/her lifestyle.  If
	the bible is true, then he/she may be forced to realize that they
	are living a life of sin.  If he/she can detract from the bible, to 
	make it suspect, then he/she feels (subconciously, usually), that they
	don't have to abide by it, and don't have to recognize sin for what
	it is.  I can't think of any other possible *TRUE* reason (smokescreens
	notwithstanding) that someone would invest such great effort into
	trying to find the bible to be false or flawed.

	Karen

>| re: Glen.  - You know as well as any one in this conference. Please do
>| not play these silly games. It is rather unbecoming.

>	Again, please tell me what game I am playing. Thanks.
    
    Glen, your "game" as I see it is to prove that you do not have to
    believe God's Word (Bible) as the inerrant Word. Further to be saved
    does not mean you have to be born again in Spirit. I know this game, I
    played it once. I was wrong then, and I by that experience deem it wrong
    now.
    
 >	If that is the case and that's all it takes, then why must we believe
 >      the Bible to be inerrent if all we need are those two verses? 
    In the two commandments hinge all the law and the prophets. To
    understand the two commandments one would not ask the question you
    did. Ponder the commandments. Take to task learning God's
    revelation so to strengthen faith. Gain the freedom from the
    wisdom of "self". Glen, the Bible is God's revelation to man. It is all
    that we need, (and have), to understand what salvation is, what it means
    to "be a child of God", and what is the consequence of serving ANY, (yes,
    read self here, not only Satan.), other master.
    
    
    
    
>| >| But a Christian, Glen, would WANT to do God's will, and would not WANT to
>| >| sin intentionally.

>| >	While I agree that there are people on this earth who sin
>| >intentionally, both Christian and non-, to say that anyone who is
>| >NOT a Christian WANTS to sin intentionally is ludercrous. Please,
>| >if you would, explain why those who are perceived to be non-Christians
>| sin intentionally.

>| Twisted quote alert!!! Glen where did I say a non-christian
>| would WANT to sin intentionally? (First of all a non-christian
>| does not know what SIN is, wrong maybe but not sin.)
    (above worth repeating.)
      
    >	Actually, it was something Mark Metcalfe had said. read note .7 and you
    >     will see. Are you saying you don't agree with this statement?
    
     No. Actually, I am saying you twisted what I had written. I take
    exception to being misquoted. BTW, what Mark had written in .7 did not
    conflict with what I stated.
    
    
>| I think what you mean to say is "oh, a christain is AWARE of sin
>| and a non-christian is not?"  - That would be more correct.

>	Correct to you, yes. But it isn't what I was saying.
    
    It would be the more succinct question given my assertion.
    
    
    
    Glen, what does it gain you to continue this? You do not believe the
    Bible and therefore there is no basis from which to talk of Christian
    beliefs concerning sin. You can only talk of moral sin, - that sin
    professed by society - which is subject to change.  Because you
    do not share a spiritual understanding of sin, I will be glad to engage
    you in a moral sense of sin.
    
    PDM

Note 271.11 JURAN::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       I guess where I have a problem is from what you are saying I get the
>impression that you may feel that those who you perceive to be Christians are
>in a different, possibly better class than those who you perceive to not be
>Christians. Please clear that up for me if you would. Thanks.

You must not have been reading my other notes.  I have stated before that every
one of us is guilty.  Some of us are pardoned from that guilt and will not
suffer the DESERVED consequences of that guilt because of grace and mercy. That
some are pardoned makes our ultimate state to be better than those who have
refused pardon.  But this is not to be confused with being better than another
person in any other regard.

The unpardoned person is in a worse estate, should God's mercy run out and His
measure of patience wear out.

>| I can say this is true.  Because even though the flesh comes into play,
>| God has promised - promised - sufficient grace.  When flesh overrules
>| the spirit, then we are not ruled by the Spirit, are we?  When the
>| Spirit overrules the flesh, then we are ruled by the Spirit.
>
>       In other words, if you sin, it's the flesh. If you don't, it's the
>Spirit. IF this is the case, then explain how those you perceive to NOT be
>Christians don't sin all the time. Luck?

You have missed the point altogether.  As other have pointed out, there is sin
and there are sins.  Sin is a state, where sins are acts.  Unpardoned sinners
are in a state of sin; pardoned sinners are in a state of grace.  Pardoned
sinners are not to commit acts of sin.  Unpardoned sinners cannot help
themselves.

Guilt is a condition; pardon is a gift.  A pardoned sinner is still a sinner
who no longer sins, just like a thief who no longer steals is still guilty of
*having* stolen.  A pardoned sinner has sinned and is therefore a sinner...
who has been pardoned by grace.

(I hope I have made this clear.  There are 33 replies to date, and I somehow
wonder why.)

>In other words, if sex if for having babies, should it be used JUST for that
>reason and not for the self gratification of the self? Also, should sex be
>something at all lustful when with your wife/husband or should it just be in
>and out? (no pun intended)

I have no problem with having levels (or layers) of intimacy.  The  deepest
layer of all has components of all layers.  The question is  "What makes a
thing pure and what makes a thing profane?"

Mark

| <<< Note 271.31 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>



| Glen, for the umpteenth time -- someone who is born again is someone
| who has acknowleged before God that their are a sinner, repented of
| their sins, accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the
| payment for their sins, and surrendered their life to Jesus Christ to
| be their Lord.  

	This is what I was trying to get at. Thanks. No where does it state
that one has to believe in the Bible to be "born-again".




Glen

>	This is what I was trying to get at. Thanks. No where does it state
>that one has to believe in the Bible to be "born-again".
    
    True.  It is the message of salvation that must be believed.  It may be
    from the Bible, it may be through a messenger, it may be from a tract. 
    It might even be through a vision or a dream.  However, if it is the
    true gospel, it comes from the same source.  Any guess as to WHO that
    Source is?
    
    Mark L.

RE:              <<< Note 271.36 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


.	This is what I was trying to get at. Thanks. No where does it state
.that one has to believe in the Bible to be "born-again".


 True...one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..and where is He revealed?



Jim

Note 271.19  CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        1 John 2:1 says "My little children, I write these things that you
>        sin not...."
>    "...that you sin not" is not a carrot hung out to mock us, but it is a
>    real possibility.  The Christian does not have to sin.

Y E S !!!

>However, knowing the weaknesses we have, John goes on to say:  "but if any man
>sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"

And Yes, again!

>    I do not agree with the doctrine of sinless perfection -- i.e., we
>    reach a point where we are beyond sinning.

Neither do I, by the way. (Perhaps you misunderstand the doctrine?) We cannot
come to the point where we are incapable of sinning.  However, we can reach the
point NOW not to sin NOW, like a recovering alcoholic who does not take a drink
this minute.  I know a friend who hasn't had a drink in like seven years.  He
still maintains that he is a [recovering] alcoholic, and that the temptation
still comes and goes.

Sin is like that for a believer.  To not sin, we MUST have the Spirit within
and RELY upon Him, now.  Not worrying about the next moment until the next
moment arrives.  "Give no thought for the morrow, for tomorrow has its own
troubles." (paraphrased)

Mark

    Re: .39 (Mark M.)
    
    There are those who teach a doctrine (which I have usually heard
    referred to as "sinless perfection") that says that we can (and need
    to) arrive at a point where we have "the root of sin burned out of us",
    making us incapable of further sinning.  I was trying to be clear that
    I was not taking this stance by my initial comments.  On the other
    hand, I also very much believe that God's standard for us is that we
    "sin not", and that He has given the provision for us to live up to
    that standard.
    
    I don't know if you confused my reply to be in response to something
    you entered earlier.  It wasn't.
    
    Mark L.

>| Glen, for the umpteenth time -- someone who is born again is someone
>| who has acknowleged before God that their are a sinner, repented of
>| their sins, accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the
>| payment for their sins, and surrendered their life to Jesus Christ to
>| be their Lord.  
>
>	This is what I was trying to get at. Thanks. No where does it state
>that one has to believe in the Bible to be "born-again".

Interesting [il]logic, since it was the Bible that shows the way to be
born again.  Think about it, Glen.  

MM

.40 Markel

Thanks Mark.  When the words "Christian Perfection" come up, it can be 
confused as to which doctrine is being thought of.  I agree with you
that Christians, this side of heaven, will always be capable of sinning,
*and* that we should "sin not."  This is as much defined as a doctrine
which is also known as Christian Perfection, (see note 266.*) distinctly
different from the one that says it makes one incapable of sinning.

MM

    
    Glen,
    
    You haven't a leg to stand on in any case by your own admission.  How
    can you defend anything or even suggest a knowledge of God's will and
    designs and operation in the world when you reject the only valid
    source for this information?
    
    You cannot claim to know anything much about God since you have no way
    of discovering Him.
    
    Your position (in notes anyway) is illogical in the extreme.  I wish
    you could see this, for your own benefit mostly, but also for the
    benefit of the many others whom you attempt to communicate with (in a
    way).
    
    jeff

    I see -- perhaps a difference between "Christian Perfection" and
    "sinless perfection."  Say, I have a wonderful book titled "Christian
    Perfection" -- I believe the author's last name is Fenelon.  I very
    much believe that the plan of God is to bring His people to perfection. 
    In fact, my life verse is Psalm 138:8 "The LORD will perfect that which
    concerneth me: thy mercy, O  LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the
    works of thine own hands."
    
    Mark L.

    I think this is the first time Glen's ignored me in notes.
    
    :-) :-)
    Nancy

>    I think this is the first time Glen's ignored me in notes.
    
    SHHH!!!
    
    Markel :-)

>    I see -- perhaps a difference between "Christian Perfection" and
>    "sinless perfection."  Say, I have a wonderful book titled "Christian
>    Perfection" -- I believe the author's last name is Fenelon.  I very
>    much believe that the plan of God is to bring His people to perfection. 
>    In fact, my life verse is Psalm 138:8 "The LORD will perfect that which
>    concerneth me: thy mercy, O  LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the
>    works of thine own hands."

Fenelon is quoted in 266  somewhere.

Also this:

Philippians 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:


Cheers.

| <<< Note 271.38 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| True...one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..and where is He revealed?


	Jim, He is talked about in the Bible, His acts have been happening
throughout my life and I'm sure everyone elses. When something as so beautiful,
but simple, like a sunrise happens you know it came from him. Through the birth
of a child, that miricle, it's through Him. All these things help reveal
Christ. Not just one specific item.



Glen

| <<< Note 271.41 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Interesting [il]logic, since it was the Bible that shows the way to be
| born again.  Think about it, Glen.

	Mark, go and get a car repair manual. It shows you how to fix various
things. Is it inerrant? 



Glen

| <<< Note 271.45 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| I think this is the first time Glen's ignored me in notes.


	Nancy, I would NEVER do that! :-)  What did I ignore.... er miss? ;-)



Glen

>>               <<< Note 271.49 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

>>| <<< Note 271.41 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




>>| Interesting [il]logic, since it was the Bible that shows the way to be
>>| born again.  Think about it, Glen.

>>	Mark, go and get a car repair manual. It shows you how to fix various
>>things. Is it inerrant? 

	Glen, what is your point? Sometimes I do not understand your
    questions or comments. In this case, I do not see the relevance or
    point of the question. Glen, comments like this make me perceive you
    as a fool. Now I do not wish to think you a fool, so please clarify the
    meaning of your comment.  It would appear to me that you are trying to
    compare apples and oranges. Did not you learn in school that that form
    of arithmatic does not work? Did you listen and comprehend that concept
    or do you still struggle with that too?
    
    A fool does not learn and is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

RE:               <<< Note 271.48 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>





.| True...one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..and where is He revealed?


.	Jim, He is talked about in the Bible, His acts have been happening
.throughout my life and I'm sure everyone elses. When something as so beautiful,
.but simple, like a sunrise happens you know it came from him. Through the birth
.of a child, that miricle, it's through Him. All these things help reveal
.Christ. Not just one specific item.


Glen, you just don't get it do you? I believe the hand of God is in all of these
things.  We cannot know the nature of God, however, without His Word, which 
reveals that nature to us, which reveals His plan for our salvation, which
reveals how He expects us to live which tells us how to know what is really
from Him and what is not.

 "For the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for
 they are foolishness unto Him: neither can he know them, because they
 are spiritually discerned" 1Cor 2:14)

Now, I'm sure you are going to deny this (which testifies to the truth of
the verse)..but, Glen, as pointed out earlier, you cannot possibly begin
to grasp the things of God unless and until you acknowledge that you are
a sinner, just like the rest of us, and turn from your sin and accept Christ
as Lord and Savior..Deny it all you want, but friend, its the truth.




Jim

    
    > Mark, go and get a car repair manual. It shows you how to fix
    various things. Is it inerrant?
    
    
     Wow! This is perfect Glen.  You see, if the car repair manual was
    inspired by God then it would be inerrant! Herein lies the rub, you
    dont believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore we cannot have
    an intelligent discussion based upon a common basis.
    
    Dan

Re: Note 271.48 (Glen)

>When something as so beautiful,
>but simple, like a sunrise happens you know it came from him.

    Yes, but remember, "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the
    good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."  The fact of
    "experiencing" a sun rise and recognizing Who causes it, and being
    recognized *by Him* as being among the "good" and "just", are two 
    distinct matters.  The only way He has shown to be in the latter
    category is to be obedient to His Word.
    
    John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is
        that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,
        and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
     22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou
        wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
     23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep
        my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him,
        and make our abode with him.
     
    Mark L.

      Hi,
    
        Is it possible in this life to know the love of God so deeply
        that while the free choice to choose to sin is not denied to
        us, we simply WILL NOT SIN?
    
        Can one get to a point where "The love of Christ constraineth
        us" (2 Corin 5:14) and that constraint is so motivating being
        "faith which works by love" (Gal 5:6) that when we know that love
        to the depth described by Paul in Ephesians 3, we simply will find
        it impossible to choose to sin?
    
        Is anything too hard for the Lord?
    
                                                        Tony

    .55  Tony B.
    
    Welcome back, Tony.
    
    >    Is it possible in this life to know the love of God so deeply
    >    that while the free choice to choose to sin is not denied to
    >    us, we simply WILL NOT SIN?
    
    See the note on Christian perfection.  We are close but I think we
    differ in what Mark Lovik distinguished as Christian perfection and
    sinless perfection.
    
    I do not think we will be perfected this side of heaven, but we will be
    continually perfected until we get to heaven.  During that time, we may
    be tempted, and relying on the Spirit, He has promised that we can
    endure it.
    
    Are we in agreement (since you say the "free choice to choose to sin 
    is not denied")?  Have we articulated the difference sufficiently
    between Christian perfection and sinless perfection to understand how
    we each understand the idea?
    
    Mark

I logged in last night and forgot:

Glen,
  Just when we get a glimmer of hope that perhaps you are asking a
question with the idea of listening and learning, those hopes are 
utterly dashed.  Looks like we both have a hard time learning, eh?

Mark

(Remember Daryl's warning.)

| <<< Note 271.51 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>





| >>	Mark, go and get a car repair manual. It shows you how to fix various
| >>things. Is it inerrant?

| Glen, what is your point? Sometimes I do not understand your
| questions or comments. 

	Meaning, anything can be written, it doesn't make it inerrant.

| A fool does not learn and is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

	It's being done now..... oh, sorry, that's the Christian view....



Glen

| <<< Note 271.52 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| Glen, you just don't get it do you? I believe the hand of God is in all of these
| things.  We cannot know the nature of God, however, without His Word, which
| reveals that nature to us, which reveals His plan for our salvation, which
| reveals how He expects us to live which tells us how to know what is really
| from Him and what is not.

	I know this is something you believe Jim. I don't have a problem with
that. But proving it or getting every Christian to believe the same thing is 
another thing.

| Now, I'm sure you are going to deny this (which testifies to the truth of
| the verse)..but, Glen, as pointed out earlier, you cannot possibly begin
| to grasp the things of God unless and until you acknowledge that you are
| a sinner, just like the rest of us, and turn from your sin and accept Christ
| as Lord and Savior..Deny it all you want, but friend, its the truth.

	I have no problem with this Jim. I have already done this. We just have
a different belief when it comes to the Bible.


Glen

| <<< Note 271.53 by DECLNE::YACKEL "and if not..." >>>




| Wow! This is perfect Glen.  You see, if the car repair manual was
| inspired by God then it would be inerrant! 

	Dan, please explain to me what inspired means to you. This may be where
we are having a difference.





Glen

	Mark, what is Daryl's warning?



Glen

>	Mark, what is Daryl's warning?

He warned you to get right before the Holy Spirit is offended and leaves
you forever.  The Lord is more patient than humanity, and I can be 
personally thankful for that.  But beware of presumption on God.

You come in asking about the difference between the Spirit-filled Christian
and the non-Christian, and when those questions are answered on the basis 
of what the Bible has to say about it, something you should expect in this
conference, you turn on your tape recorded "that's fine and good if you
believe the Bible."  One wonders about your motivation.  (Tape recording
#2: "It's not an agenda.")

Dan was correct to point out that we have no basis for communicating.
As I said before, it comes out like "khee ruhro rhbrge;w  dhoeuih ebh!"
when you reply to what has been said; nonsense and gobbledegook.  
You waste the time and energy of many with your persistent "tell me what
two plus two is again... it is not four."

Mark

| <<< Note 271.62 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| He warned you to get right before the Holy Spirit is offended and leaves
| you forever.  

	Isn't this an untruth? Will the Spirit get offended and leave?

| You come in asking about the difference between the Spirit-filled Christian
| and the non-Christian, and when those questions are answered on the basis
| of what the Bible has to say about it, something you should expect in this
| conference, you turn on your tape recorded "that's fine and good if you
| believe the Bible."  

	Would you rather I lie and say that I believe as you or would you
rather I tell the truth? (btw, these are the only choices... :-)

| One wonders about your motivation.  (Tape recording #2: "It's not an agenda.")

	It ain't Mark. But of course you will believe as you wish.

| "tell me what two plus two is again... it is not four."

	But it is 4 Mark....



Glen

    Glen,
      What do you believe spiritually? What is it that you worship? Where
     is the Diety of worship? How have you come to know of this Diety?
     Does your belief undergo a complete revamping every once and a while?
     Why? Because of something you do to change or is it the Diety in which
     you believe has changed?
    
      Answer these questions for me Glen. Thanks.
    
    Glen, the point I think you are missing, (if I may be so bold as to
    presume you are missing anything), is that many people, from different
    walks of life, have all *chosen* (key word), to believe with all their
    strength in a single work called the Bible. - Now you may think that
    strange and ludicrous, but face it, stranger things have happened.
    Now for these people, this book means more to them than life itself.
    They study it daily, try to unfold its inner secrets. Memorize it,
    reflect upon it daily and hold to it firmer than super glue. Glen,
    these people from others' perspective have given up everything,
    including freedom because of this book. Others perceive them to be
    closed minded, single tracked, un yielding and focused. From their
    view point, I have to agree. (BUT) From the other side of the fence,
    these people feel an amazing deal of freedom! They feel unbounded in
    thought, word and deed, but always to the fulfilling of what they
    have learned and gleamed from the book they embrace!
    
    Now in steps someone that "makes off" they accept the same
    pontifications that spew from the mouth of these people.
    
      "yea, I believe as you do."
        "Oh, how great!" "Please, share with me."
       "blah blah blah vergenfratz icmatheous blah blah god, blah blah"
        "Hmm, in all my studies, I have not heard, read or found such
         things. Can you show me where you came across such information?"
       "Yeah, sure. I found it there and some here, and at night in my
        thoughts and blah blah blah."
         "I am not familiar with these other things of which you speak.
          I have spent all my time in this one Book (thud)."
       "Oh that Book, yeah, I read that too from time to time."
         "We have little in common, as I see it. Though you share some
          intrinsics, there is little substance to what you say given
          the orientation you profess."
       "Oh, well, I wont be insulted, I believe as you do!"
          "Sorry you do not. I can share with any one in the body, but
           I find it difficult to share with you. Why?"
       "You are obviously not as learned as I. I hold a deeper meaning
        and understaning."
          "Oh, I am sorry I stand corrected. Please then, show where you
           have learned this 'higher learned' data."
       "Well, I have studied there and blah blah blah, blah."
           "But what of the Book?"
        "I discount that because it limited me."
           "You mean you did not find it freeing and exciting and
            informative?"
        "No, not always, I found it , well...er, confusing and stern
         where studies of other texts substantiated my, ...er, belief"
           "oh, I see. So you do not completely accept and resign yourself
            to the study of the One text. Then, we Do have nothing in
            common from which to work. For I accept ONLY the words of this
            One text and entertain no thought of any other."
        "You CLOSED MINDED person!"
           "Perhaps to you, but then you do not understand the fredom
            that I possess either. So I can understand where you may
            see me as close minded."
        "Then teach me, what I am missing."
            "Certainly, I would be delighted. It is actually quite simple
             you know. Most people think it is difficult, but it really
             is VERY simple.
             To understand as I do and to associate and communicate with
             all the others that believe as I do, this is what you must
             do.
             Study ONLY this book, seek to understand and orienteer your
             life to the principles and practices of ONLY this book. To
             pattern your life after the examples of ONLY this book. To
             possess and exact everything from life in relation to ONLY
             this book. - Oh, and not to stray from ONLY (reading) this
             book. One last thing, relate your reality from ONLY this
             book.
             There, now in the love that I understand from only this book
             'Go! learn. I will be glad to help you in your studies."
    	  "thank you. I will do that."
     (Months pass)
         "hello I see you are still where I left you."
            "Oh where was that?"
         "Speaking things that are different from what I have studied,
          and yet...I believe as you do."
        "Oh, how great!" "Please, share with me."
       "blah blah blah vergenfratz icmatheous blah blah god, blah blah"
        "Hmm, in all my studies, I have not heard, read or found such
         things. Can you show me where you came across such information?"
       "Yeah, sure. I found it there and some here, and at night in my
        thoughts and blah blah blah."
         "I am not familiar with these other things of which you speak.
          I have spent all my time in this one Book (thud)."
       "Oh that Book, yeah, I read that too from time to time."
         "We have little in common, as I see it. Though you share some
          intrinsics, there is little substance to what you say given
          the orientation you profess."
       "Oh, well, I wont be insulted, I believe as you do!"
          "Sorry you do not. I can share with any one in the body, but
           I find it difficult to share with you. Why?"
       "You are obviously not as learned as I. I hold a deeper meaning
        and understaning."
          "Oh, I am sorry I stand corrected. Please then, show where you
           have learned this 'higher learned' data."
       "Well, I have studied there and blah blah blah, blah."
           "But what of the Book?"
        "I discount that because it limited me."
           "You mean you did not find it freeing and exciting and
            informative?"
        "No, not always, I found it , well...er, confusing and stern
         where studies of other texts substantiated my, ...er, belief"
           "oh, I see. So you do not completely accept and resign yourself
            to the study of the One text. Then, we Do have nothing in
            common from which to work. For I accept ONLY the words of this
            One text and entertain no thought of any other."
        "You CLOSED MINDED person!"
       (and it goes on this way...)
    
    PDM
    
    

               <<< Note 271.63 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

>>| <<< Note 271.62 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



>>| He warned you to get right before the Holy Spirit is offended and leaves
>>| you forever.  

>>	Isn't this an untruth? Will the Spirit get offended and leave?
     No Glen, it is not. In all actuallity to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit
     is quite difficult. God is so patient and loving that He will take
     a great deal before letting go of the individual's soul. But Once
     he let's go, the individual is with Salvation and on the track to
    Hell. The funny part is, the person does not in all cases even
    recognize that it happened. You see, God is sooo merciful, He wants
    none to suffer. He does not take any joy in condemning a person to
    eternal damnation. Even after having let go, He will continue to speak,
    "Come back to me, my arms are open to you." The problem is that the
    person is so busy making loud clanging noises that the soft voice is
    rarely ever heard. The final fate - The Holy Spirit is offended and
    leaves.
    
           PDM

.63 GS

No [more] comment.

 RE .59



 See .66



Jim

| <<< Note 271.64 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| What do you believe spiritually? 

	In Jesus, the son of God who died for the forgiveness of our sins.

| What is it that you worship? 

	The Spirit

| Where is the Diety of worship? 

	Heaven

| How have you come to know of this Diety?

	By many methods. One if from His actions, one from a book called the
Bible, the testimonies of others and by talking with Him.

| Does your belief undergo a complete revamping every once and a while?

	No.

| Why? Because of something you do to change or is it the Diety in which
| you believe has changed?

	I said no.

| Answer these questions for me Glen. Thanks.

	I did.

| Glen, the point I think you are missing, (if I may be so bold as to
| presume you are missing anything), is that many people, from different
| walks of life, have all *chosen* (key word), to believe with all their
| strength in a single work called the Bible. 

	That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. Regardless of what I
think of these people, they can go on and believe what they want. Just don't
use that belief against anyone and expect them to believe as you do. Don't use 
this same belief to say others are wrong or that others are going to hell. If 
you want to think any of these things, fine. But seeing most can't be proven, 
please don't force it. 

| Now for these people, this book means more to them than life itself.

	This is where I think a problem might be forming. To me, anyway, a book
is a great thing. But God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are FAR more important than
a book. They are more important than life itself.

| these people from others' perspective have given up everything, including 
| freedom because of this book. 

	A book should not be what is used (IMHO). Let God do His works. Hold
Him up high and He will show you the way. True, He may choose the Bible as the
tool to give you the answer, but it seems, anyway, that people hold the book up
too often and not God.

| Others perceive them to be closed minded, single tracked, un yielding and 
| focused. 

	There will be those who will hear the word Christian and automatically
think negative things. Mostly based on past experiences, whether their own or
others. While past experiences may show what happened, it shouldn't be
applied to every Christian. People should look on an individual basis and not
as a group. Reason being? One person does not a whole group make.

| From the other side of the fence, these people feel an amazing deal of 
| freedom! They feel unbounded in thought, word and deed, but always to the 
| fulfilling of what they have learned and gleamed from the book they embrace!

	I see this in a lot of people. While you will have some who abuse this,
I really think most don't. I also believe that most actually believe in the
things they are saying, and not just saying them to belong. To me, most
Christians are sincere. It doesn't make them right, but sincere. With what you
wrote above I have as well. But not because of a book, but because of Him.

	As far as the other stuff goes, I didn't know you were a comedian.. :-)


Glen

   >>	As far as the other stuff goes, I didn't know you were a comedian.. :-)
    
      Comedian, no, but if you would like to pay me for my comments, fine.
    8^). One must always keep their sense of humor I think. 8^) Sometimes
    humor is the best way to convey a very important message, people are
    more inclined to remember it if it made them smile.

    Ya Know Glen. I think I know where you are coming from. You define God
    to be what you want Him to be. The only place to know that which He is,
    is in the Word. True faith first comes from believing that which He
    wrote about Himself. Everything comes AFTER that..
    


    You see Glen, sometimes silly presentations speak to the issue. Unless
    you are willing to give up your reality and accept by FAITH ALL that
    which is written in the Bible as God's insprired Word, you do not share
    with the whole of the body. Oh, sure there will be some that think as
    you do, but until you have a Rock on which to build, you have loose sand
    underfoot. Glen, the Rock, the unchanging Text of the WORD is the
    foundation on which a person who truly confesses Christ will put their
    trust and faith. Sure it convicts, but that is the good part, because
    by convicting, it sets you free. - A difficult concept to understand.
    
    PDM
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| How have you come to know of this Diety?

>>	By many methods. One if from His actions, one from a book called the
>>  Bible, the testimonies of others and by talking with Him.

    
    
       "blah blah blah vergenfratz icmatheous blah blah god, blah blah"
        "Hmm, in all my studies, I have not heard, read or found such
         things. Can you show me where you came across such information?"
       "Yeah, sure. I found it there and some here, and at night in my
        thoughts and blah blah blah."
         "I am not familiar with these other things of which you speak.
          I have spent all my time in this one Book (thud)."
       "Oh that Book, yeah, I read that too from time to time."
         "We have little in common, as I see it. Though you share some
          intrinsics, there is little substance to what you say given
          the orientation you profess."
       "Oh, well, I wont be insulted, I believe as you do!"
          "Sorry you do not. I can share with any one in the body, but
           I find it difficult to share with you. Why?"
       "You are obviously not as learned as I. I hold a deeper meaning
        and understaning."
          "Oh, I am sorry I stand corrected. Please then, show where you
           have learned this 'higher learned' data."
       "Well, I have studied there and blah blah blah, blah."
           "But what of the Book?"
        "I discount that because it limited me."
                                                                         

I've seen this going on here, and have been deliberately ignoring it.  I'll only
post one quote from my involvement the last time this same thing happened:

> Saying the same words over
> and over is like yelling louder to an Italian waiter who does not understand 
> english - it is not going to do anything except antagonize people. 

Paul

See also notes 30.10, 30.11, and 30.12

      re: .62,.63
    
      Just my own thoughts on the wrath of God...
    
      The Spirit NEVER 'leaves' anyone.  Romans 1 shows the wrath of
      God to be God essentially having His hands tied.  He gave us
      free will and we can reach a point of such complete rejection
      of Him that His love can no longer draw the person.  So yes
      in that sense the Spirit leaves, but .63 paints the choice to 
      leave to be God's when the truth is, God makes no such choice.  
      He leaves when He is forced to by an unwavering and unshakeable 
      rejection of Him.
    
      Agape NEVER 'decides' that enough is enough.  Agape is a love
      far greater than the concept that it gets offended and decides
      its time to leave a person for ever.
    
      God loves because He is love not because of any right or wrong
      we may do.  Conditional love is the cheap love we humans have,
      not the divine love that is God.
    
                                                   Tony

.72 Tony B.

>      The Spirit NEVER 'leaves' anyone.

Tony,
  Explain your view in light of this verse.

Matthew 12:31  Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall
be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men.

>Agape NEVER 'decides' that enough is enough.

  Explain your view in light of these these verses.

Genesis 18
 17  And the lord said, shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
 18  Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and
all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
 19  For I know him, that he will command his children and his household
after him, and they shall keep the way of the lord, to do justice and
judgment; that the lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of
him.
 20  And the lord said, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is great, and
because their sin is very grievous;

Genesis 19
 12  And the men said unto lot, hast thou here any besides? Son in law, and
thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them
out of this place:
 13  For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great
before the face of the lord; and the lord hath sent us to destroy it.

 24  Then the lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire
from the lord out of heaven;
 25  And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the
inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
 26  But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of
salt.


There are other verses, such as the  1Samuel 16:14  "But the Spirit of the
LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him."
and other verses about "enough is enough."  But perhaps I have misundertood
what you're trying to communicate.

Mark

| <<< Note 271.69 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| Ya Know Glen. I think I know where you are coming from. You define God
| to be what you want Him to be. The only place to know that which He is,
| is in the Word. True faith first comes from believing that which He
| wrote about Himself. Everything comes AFTER that..

	Phil, I can't place a book in front of Him. 

| You see Glen, sometimes silly presentations speak to the issue. Unless
| you are willing to give up your reality and accept by FAITH ALL that
| which is written in the Bible as God's insprired Word, you do not share
| with the whole of the body. 

	Something that I am still concerned about is inspired. Please explain
what you feel it is. Reason I ask is simple. The statements of the Bible is God
Breathed and inspired by God appear a lot. Most I have talked to say that the
Bible is both. Inspired means:

	1.To fill with noble or reverent emotion, exalt. 2. To stimulate to
creativity or action. 3.To elicit or create in another. 4.To inhale (I guess
Clinton wasn't inspired :-)

	None of these things means God breathed or could even be taken in that
light. So how can it be both?

| by convicting, it sets you free. - A difficult concept to understand.

	More of a difficult concept to believe. A book ahead of God. Hmmmmm




Glen

>	Phil, I can't place a book in front of Him. 

    Interesting, because *He* has.
    
      "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Ps. 138:2)
    
    Mark L.

 Deja vu all over again...



 "God breathed" is the Greek.  The closest word we have in English is
 "inspired"..but I think you've heard that before, and I think you've
 heard that the Bible and God go hand in hand.  And if we were to post
 all of the verses that testify to that, or the importance that God Himself
 places on His Word, they would elicit a response from you that says "quoting
 the Bible is no proof, please provide more proof".


 I think we are getting so used to this we can carry on discussions with you,
 without you!




 Jim

See notes 30.10-30.12

.62

>>	Isn't this an untruth? Will the Spirit get offended and leave?

Glen,
	Yes, it can happen. And it does happen. But be assured that God is not 
as impatient as we are! However, there can come a point in time when no 
repentance is possible. You know, someone just refuses to obey their
conscience and doesn't repent and continues in their transgression(s), 
eventually they find that the Spirit no longer bothers them anymore. They
think everything must be fine because they don't get bothered anymore about
their sins but in reality they are the worst off of all! Actually, it is
good practice to ask the Lord to bother us about what pleases or displeases Him.
When He touches something, we should respond. If we don't, how can we grow
spiritually? We can't. These are basic principles for all believers to follow.

Daily ask the Lord Jesus "Lord, what about this, or that?" Then follow Life
and Peace. This is the way to go on with Him.

Regards,
Ace

	

	Jim, if inspired is as close to God Breathed as we can get, then it
ain't from God cause inspired doesn't mean anything close to the words coming
out of His mouth.



Glen

 See .66






 Jim

      Hi Mark,
    
        No, I will not.
    
        There are a hundred different denominations each with different
        views on different things.  You'll show a text and I'll show a
        text, ad infinitum.
    
        There are many seeming contradictions in the Bible.  As a single
        example, God says to treat the man with fine apparel no better 
        than the man with vile clothes (James 2:2-4...the spiritual meaning
        is obvious), says to "love our enemies", says while we were enemies 
        He died for us (Rom 5:10), and then says He hates ALL workers of 
        iniquity (Psalms somewhere).
    
        I now prefer to leave a view 'on a plate' for others to consider.
        I do not prefer to go back and forth.
    
        But, I am content that I replied as I did.  After all, it is God's
        character we are discussing...
    
                                                   Tony

Note 271.81  38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                      -< Nah...Doesn't Sit Right With Me >-
>
>        No, I will not.  [explain how Tony's view squares with Scripture
                           supplied in reply .73]
>
>        There are a hundred different denominations each with different
>        views on different things....
>
>        But, I am content that I replied as I did.  After all, it is God's
>        character we are discussing...

God's character is an excellent discussion.  And different views are also fine.
However, to dismiss "seeming contradictions" is to dismiss part of God's
character from the discussion and diminish the dimensions of His character.
God indeed loves beyond our ability to understand, but God also hates, and God
also rejects.  God's character has a whole lot more depth and breadth to it
than what I believe you have portrayed. God is jealous, too, and does say
"enough is enough" even though it is NOt when we humans think enough ought to
be enough.  God is God and we are not.

Human beings are not unidimensional forces; we are complex and many things go
into our make-up.  God is far beyond us and cannot be any less complex in
nature or character than we are.  God has His full measure and is judge of
the universe, in addition to being all-encompassing love.

Mark
                 

      re: .82
    
      What has led me to believe as I do is the line of study as given
      in Isaiah: "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little,
      there a little..."
    
      This study method has revealed to me that Godly hate cannot be
      defined by our definition of hate, it must be defined by the Bible's
      definition of it.  The same goes for divine love, jealousy, etc.
      I do not imply that God does not hate, I imply that divine hate is
      not the same thing as human hate and must be examined in the light
      of the whole of the Bible.
    
      Texts like 1 Corin 13 are not (I believe) sometime aspects of God.
      They describe God as He always is.  I do not believe the text "God
      is love" means "Oh yeah, God loves, but sometimes He isn't love or
      sometimes He doesn't love, or whatever..."  If we incorporate our
      understanding of hate on God, we require that that which God hates,
      He cannot possibly also love.   There's just no way.  And there I
      see disharmony with "God is love."
    
      Romans 1 gives the most comprehensive definition of divine wrath
      and it is radically different than human wrath.  God is forced to
      give the unGodly up when the unGodly REFUSE to know Him.  Human wrath
      is quite different than this.  It then follows that to presume that
      divine hate = human hate and divine love = human love is not
      necessarily true for this reasoning nullifies the truth that divine
      wrath does not equal human wrath.  Scripture ought to help define
      divine hate, wrath, love, and all other emotions ascribed to Him and
      we ought not rely on what these emotions mean as they apply to us.
    
      The following are two examples of how scripture leads me to a
      different view than you have.
    
      The story of David and Absalom.  This is a type of the story of
      Christ and Satan and the similarities are many.  David is King.  
      Absalom is beautiful.  He desires the kingdom.  He attempts to take
      it by deception.  He deceives many and enlists them as allies.  
      There are more.  Check out how David is toward Absalom.  His heart
      ACHES over Absalom's course.  Always David loves Absalom.  Always
      Christ loves Satan.
    
      And check out how Absalom dies.  Imagine that...He is hanged!!
      "Cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree."  But, David wanted
      to deliver Absalom.  Just as Christ said to Israel...Absalom WOULD
      NOT.  The choice was always Absaloms.  And we do not see that David
      hangs Absalom.  ABSALOM HANGS HIMSELF.
    
      Check out the story of Daniel's brothers and the fiery furnace.  The
      brothers are not burned.  The Babylonian guards who didn't even 
      experience the fulness of the flames were consumed.  This is a type
      of the Mount Zion experience where all that can be shaken will be
      shaken.  God's presence is unarbitrary.  It is what it is and that
      is love.  The fire was not any different, what was different was
      the people.  There was something different between Daniel's brothers
      and the Babylonian guards.
    
      Romans 7:9 is such a critical verse.
    
      "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came,
       sin revived, and I died."
    
      The law is the love of God and when it comes, we die.  The law brings
      to view the sinfulness of sin (if we have sinful flesh regardless of
      whether or not sin resides in the heart).  This coming of the law
      is continuous with the Christian and the dying is the death of the
      cross.  
    
      The unsaved (who refused to allow the law 'to come') will  one day 
      see the law in its fulness.  That law will reveal their sin to them.
      It will activate all the destructive potential of sin and they will
      be destroyed.
    
      I see God's hate as including some of the above...the fact that God
      will consciously 'hide behind a veil no longer' and in so doing, will
      destroy the unsaved.  But, it is love that awakens the destructive 
      potential of sin and it is sin that destroys.
    
      In closing, as far as Glen is concerned.  (Hi ya Glen!!)  I prefer 
      the tack Christ used with Nicodemus.  He could have rattled off a
      hundred things Nicodemus and Israel were doing wrong, but instead 
      He showed Him the cross.  He knew that as Nicodemus surveyed the
      cross, sin would surely be revealed to Him for the cross is the
      ultimate example of the coming of the law.
    
      If showing the cross doesn't seem to work with someone, my inkling
      is that I am pretty pathetic in revealing it and to go to the Lord
      for a greater willingness to receive that I may (by His grace)
      impart a deeper revelation of the cross.  I would choose this course
      before opting for a crossless course of action.
    
      And this is not removing fear from the equation.  The most fearful 
      thing is to see God's love in its fulness (see for example Isaiah 6)
      for it is that which brings death (Rom 7:9) by revealing sin.
    
      Anyway Mark, I assure you...I am not neglecting scripture, i am
      simply defining terms as scripture defines them and not as they 
      apply to the human.  My path of understanding has led me to believe
      that God is always love (with all creatures) and thus when He hates,
      it is not a hate which is consistent with God no longer loving that
      which he hates which a human definition of hate implies.  For me,
      scripture is supplying a different definition of divine hate and
      why not?  It supplies different definitions of divine love, wrath, 
      and judgment (see Judges 2:16 for a single example).
    
      So that's why I don't want to go back and forth.  The fork in the
      road is at a pretty core place.  Its in a place where one view
      insists on defining hate and wrath and judgment WHEN APPLIED TO
      GOD in human terms rather than allowing scripture to define them
      for us.
      
                                                     Tony

Note 271.83  38110::BARBIERI 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      Scripture ought to help define
>      divine hate, wrath, love, and all other emotions ascribed to Him and
>      we ought not rely on what these emotions mean as they apply to us.

Agreed.
    
>      ...Always Christ loves Satan.

I followed you up to this point, then I got off your bus.
    
>      And check out how Absalom dies.  Imagine that...He is hanged!!

Nit: Absolom was stabbed to death while hanging from a tree by his long hair.

>      I see God's hate as including some of the above...the fact that God
>      will consciously 'hide behind a veil no longer' and in so doing, will
>      destroy the unsaved.  But, it is love that awakens the destructive 
>      potential of sin and it is sin that destroys.

This forces you to amend your previous belief that God never says, "enough is
enough" doesn't it?  

Secondly, it is not the sin that is the active part of destruction and
judgment.  If God "hides behind a veil", He does so by His action.  When God
hides "behind the veil no longer," it will be His conscious action to put an
end to sin and the unsaved.  He will destroy BECAUSE OF sin.  Sin will not do
the destruction.
    
>      Anyway Mark, I assure you...I am not neglecting scripture, i am
>      simply defining terms as scripture defines them and not as they 
>      apply to the human.  

Rather, like us all, you are simply defining terms as you think scripture
defines them.  

>      My path of understanding has led me to believe
>      that God is always love (with all creatures) and thus when He hates,
>      it is not a hate which is consistent with God no longer loving that
>      which he hates which a human definition of hate implies.

We actually agree on this, Tony.  God has a perfect hatred; we do not. But God
is always jealous with a perfect jealousy, and hates things (see note 45.*)
with a righteous and perfect hatred, and he loves with a perfect love.

>  For me, scripture is supplying a different definition of divine hate and
>      why not?  It supplies different definitions of divine love, wrath, 
>      and judgment (see Judges 2:16 for a single example).

Judges 2:16  Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out
of the hand of those that spoiled them.

Did you give the correct reference?  Did you mean verse 14 or 15?

 14  And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them
into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands
of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before
their enemies.
 15  Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for
evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were
greatly distressed.

>      So that's why I don't want to go back and forth.  The fork in the
>      road is at a pretty core place.  Its in a place where one view
>      insists on defining hate and wrath and judgment WHEN APPLIED TO
>      GOD in human terms rather than allowing scripture to define them
>      for us.
      
You have a misperception, then about how I have defined God's hate, wrath, and
judgment, for certainly, I have allowed the Scripture to speak for itself.

Mark

      Mark,
    
        I think the crux is what "enough is enough" means.  For me it means
        God's hands are tied and He can no longer draw a person to Him
        because that person's posture toward God, His rejection of Him,
        is unshakeable.
    
        Why God ultimately destroys the unsaved is something I don't want
        to bother getting into.  Our differences (i.e. eternal consciouss
        torment and all that) are too great for me to want to bother.
    
        So with that..."enough is enough!"  ;-)
    
                                                  Tony

>Our differences (i.e. eternal consciouss torment and all that) are too 
>great for me to want to bother.

All the more important a reason that we clarify what we mean when we use 
our words, especially when we use the same words to mean greatly different 
things.

ta ta 

Mark

I didn't want to let this story get lost, because it has general application:

-----
  Some years ago, when I lived in a condo, my wife wanted to stencil a chair
rail in our dining room.  She intended to do so the next day but needed me
to help her snap a chalk line on the wall, which I did.  Then we went to bed.
  The next morning, I went to work, Miranda (my firstborn) got up, and my
wife stayed in bed.  Mandy was curious about the line and rubbed it off in 
several places.  When she realized that she had removed something that was
intended to be there, she got an indellible magic marker and filled the blue
line in.
  When my wife got up and sat at the table eating hr breakfast, she noticed
that the chalk line was not straight, and closer inspection showed what
had happened.  
  Miranda was sent to her room.  When my wife cooled down (she ended up
having to sand the paint from the wall, and repainting those areas), she called
Miranda down and asked her if she knew what she did wrong.
  Mandy replied, "I drew on the wall."  "No," said Joy, "what you did wrong 
was to cover your wrong up; in essence attempting to hide it.  Now, go
back to your room and think about it."
  Mandy did.  A half hour later she was called down and asked if she knew
what she did wrong.  "I drew on the wall."  "No!" replied Joy and re-explained
the matter. One might think that after a second time, Miranda would have taken
hint and understood what she did wrong, but she was called down 4, 5, or 6
times with the same answer.  She finally said, "I tried to cover up my wrong."
and was allowed to come out of her room.
  Removing some chalk was a mistake.  Drawing on the wall was wrong.  Trying 
to make it right was a natural reaction, and one that might seem like the 
good thing to do.  But she made matters worse by doing what she thought,
(covering it up), would make it right.  She compounded the (unthinking) 
error with deliberate "fig-leaf covering." 

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        Oh...that was a real nice story by the way.  Thanks!
    
        I was just wondering if you could provide me with definitions
        of jealousy and hate.  Tell me what perfect jealousy is and
        what imperfect jealousy is and (if you would) do the same for
        hate.
    
        I'm really not sure what you mean and how exactly one would differ
        from the other.
    
        And please don't say perfect hate is 'Godly hate' because that
        wouldn't be defining hate, it would be saying why its perfect,
        but not _what_ exactly that is.
    
        Just one other thing.  You mentioned that sin does not destroy
        rather God destroys because of sin.  I agree that God is pictured
        as destroying.  No doubt He is making a consciouss choice by 
        revealing all of Himself, BUT sin seems to be that which actually
        destroys.
    
        Its in Corinthians somewhere...
       "For the sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law."
    
        Romans 7:9
       "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment
        came, sin revived, and I died."
    
        Both passages are saying the same thing.  It is the coming of
        the commandment (or the law, or Christ, same thing) that revives
        sin and thus makes provision for sin to destroy.  But, the
        destruction is intrinsic to sin.  God simply awakens that which
        is dormant.  But, it is that which was dormant that is the lethal
        blow.
    
        The sting of death is not God, it is sin.
    
                                                Tony

>        I was just wondering if you could provide me with definitions
>        of jealousy and hate.  Tell me what perfect jealousy is and
>        what imperfect jealousy is and (if you would) do the same for
>        hate.

Sure, I'll try.

Perfect hatred is hatred that is free from imperfection.  Hatred is a feeling 
of contempt and detestation.  And yes I believe God has these feelings (see 
note 45).  These feelings come out of the definition of his character of
holiness.

>        Just one other thing.  You mentioned that sin does not destroy
>        rather God destroys because of sin.  I agree that God is pictured
>        as destroying.  No doubt He is making a consciouss choice by 
>        revealing all of Himself, BUT sin seems to be that which actually
>        destroys.

When you introduce flame to gasoline soaked cloth, what destroys the cloth?
Fire or gasoline?  The cloth was not destroyed until the flame was applied.
When flame is applied, the cloth is destroyed.

We've talked over the verses you have supplied at length, too, and have 
changed nothing.  The sting of death is sin merely because with sin in our
lives, we become gasoline-soaked rags, instead of blood soaked rags (if you 
will permit this allusion).  When God reveals Himself, as you choose to
put it (of judges all men), that flame will be applied to all men and those
who are blood-soaked cloths will not burn up; those who are gasoline-soaked
cloths with ignite.  The flame destroys, and God will also.  We choose 
whether we are immersed in the blood of Christ, or in the fuel of sin.

Mark

      re: .89
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        I agree a whole lot with your illustration and so I guess
        the points of disagreement to what we discussed is semantics.
    
        As far as perfect hatred, what is the imperfection it does not
        have that makes it perfect?  Can you understand why I don't
        really see that you defined it?  What is intrinsic to imperfect
        hate or imperfect jealousy that makes it not perfect hate or
        not perfect jealousy?  How would you characterize the feelings or
        whatever in imperfect hate that differentiate it from perfect 
        hate?  If you can, make your description experiential so much as
        possible.
    
        To say something is perfect because it is not imperfect is not adding
        anything to the definition (for me).
    
                                                    Tony

>        To say something is perfect because it is not imperfect is not adding
>        anything to the definition (for me).

Stating the obvious in the negative sometimes helps, but I also went on to
clarify it thusly: 

  o Hatred is a feeling of contempt and detestation. 

To add

  o Perfection is that which is without flaw

>        As far as perfect hatred, what is the imperfection it does not
>        have that makes it perfect? 

Now you said I could not use Godly hatred to describe what perfect hatred is.
So I described it in contrasting terms.  The imperfection God does not have
is a sinful nature, for He is Holy and pure (perfectly so).  In His holiness,
purity, and perfection, God hates and is jealous, but as you know, not like
imperfect (fallen nature) humanity. 

>        How would you characterize the feelings or
>        whatever in imperfect hate that differentiate it from perfect 
>        hate? 

God, by His character defines what is right and what is wrong.  He doesn't
have to state it, it *is* because of His character, being holy, being pure, 
being perfect.  That which is wrong is detestable; an abomination.  The things
that God hates (see note 45), He does so because they are destestable, which is
defined by God's character.

In contrast, we define what is right and wrong for *us* with the personal
free choice we have been given.  When our hatred and other attitudes do not
align with that of the perfect, we are out of alignment; by definition,
we are wrong.  What we choose to hate may be defined by God as good, which
defines our hatred as imperfect - not aligned with the definition.

Now let's use the rags illustration again (for our righteousness is like
filthy rags in His sight, yet God loves us - we agree):

God defines gasoline as detestable.  Yet by our sinful nature, we have defined
it as good (we choose to sin; become immersed in the gasoline).  Soaked in
gasoline, we stand against what is defined as good, and are therefore 
destestable in His sight; but not the rag, correct?  The gasoline that
permeates the rag is what is detestable to God.  God wants us (the rag)
to be free from that which has permeated our being (the sinful nature; gas)
so that when judgment comes (fire) we will not be consumed.  If we are not
covered by something to neutralize the flammable effects of the gasoline
(or the rag for that matter), we will be consumed together with the gasoline;
the flame will not distinguish between gas and rag (leaving our differences
aside on the duration of that consumption).  That "something to neutralize
the flammable effects" is the blood of Jesus, shed for us, for those who choose
to be washed by it.

God hates the gasoline (sin) and what it has made the rag (torch material).
God loves us (the rag) and desires to rid us of the gasoline.

God will not get rid of the gasoline from us by burning, but by cleansing.
Those who are saved will be cleansed; those who are lost will be burned.

Hope this helps.

Mark

  Hi Mark,

    Thanks for your reply.  If I understand your explanation of perfect
    hate, it has something to do with hating that which ought to be
    hated and for the right reason.  I did notice that you mentioned
    God hating sin (which I believe He does) and I would have been
    more interested in an example where God hates _people_ such as
    "workers of iniquity."

    My present posture is that all emotions as ascribed to God mean some-
    thing differently than they do when ascribed to men and scripture 
    provides ample basis for this concept.  I've repeated myself 
    several times on this note by applying Paul's definition of the wrath 
    of God in Romans 1.  The picture is of One whose hands are tied and it 
    (for me) agrees well with other texts that portray God as loving His 
    enemies.  His wrath seems to describe an objective reality more than
    it does a welling up of emotions (we associate with wrath) with God.
    And in fact, were a person with whom God does have wrath to decide
    to desire to know Him (in a heart sort of a way), I do not believe
    God's posture (in terms of His feelings) are modified by the change
    of heart of the person rather God's feelings for the person were 
    unchanged (always being love) and the _change of conditions_ allowed
    for the absence of wrath.  (I don't think our God can be appeased.
    He is what He is - love.  We can tie His hands, but we cannot change
    His attitude toward us.) 

    Perhaps I'm missing something in communication, but I have yet to be
    satisfied with the contention that Godly love is the same as human
    love (except perfect), Godly wrath = human wrath (except perfect), etc.

    I do not believe it is possible for God to love someone and hate that
    same person at one time and yet I believe "God _is_ love."  In other
    words He doesn't ever stop being what He is and that is love.  (Here
    I'm assuming having to maintain that Godly hate = human hate, etc.
    With the principle I've described above, God can both love and hate a
    person.)

    So you see, Romans 1 as well as other texts introduce this principle
    which I have not seen to be shown to be in error and this principle
    harmonizes with other texts where I see lack of this principle does
    not.

    I honestly do not believe God has the emotions we associate with anger
    or hate - ever.  I don't think He has that welling up of emotion which
    is the seed of which I suppose lashing out or hitting or whatever is
    often the physical manifestation.

    My present understanding of Godly hate is the recognition that His 
    relationship with such a person He "hates" is such that God (for reasons
    that are good) will do some things that will result in their destruction -
    and what a torturous destruction it will be!  (Unless they decide to be
    changed.)

    I believe the reasons are completely associated with what the Day of
    Atonement accomplishes which is a SEALING in the minds/hearts of all
    intelligent creation.  There will come a time when they will know as they
    never knew before that righteoussness is life, sin is death, and when
    one knows God as He is, He is easy to serve - no matter what.  All alien-
    ation is gone and that is what atonement does.  It reconciles, it removes
    every iota of alienation which alienation never was God's, but is ours.

                                                  Tony

Note 271.92  38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    I would have been more interested in an example where God hates
>    _people_ such as "workers of iniquity."

    Remembering that God is NOT interested in anyone's destruction,
    there are some who so wholly reject him as to place themselves
    (their being) in opposition to God, so that there is no distinction
    between the person and the wickedness that God hates.

>    My present posture is that all emotions as ascribed to God mean some-
>    thing differently than they do when ascribed to men and scripture 
>    provides ample basis for this concept.  

    Not different, per se.  We are >images< of God, so that the feelings
    we possess, He possesses in purity and in archetype. While we cannot
    apply our attributes to His, we can apply His attributes to ours as
    as poor reflections, polluted and contaminated by our fallen nature.
    In other words, we hate some things because God has given us the
    capability to hate, though we mostly hate for the wrong reasons.
    This is imperfect hatred because it does not align with God's
    perfect, pure, archetypal hatred (of the proper things to hate).

    As for scripture providing ample basis, I am sure you think so.  A
    disagreement on what the whole of Scripture portrays indicates that
    ample isn't all there is.

>    (I don't think our God can be appeased. He is what He is - love.  We
>    can tie His hands, but we cannot change His attitude toward us.) 

    While I agree that God cannot be appeased, I am having discomfort
    over your use of the phrase that says we tie God's hands.  Perhaps
    it is just a nit, but we are really speaking about the limitations
    God places on Himself in giving and respecting our free will to
    determine our end.  And one more thing: God is love, but He is so
    much more, as well!

>    Perhaps I'm missing something in communication, but I have yet to be
>    satisfied with the contention that Godly love is the same as human
>    love (except perfect), Godly wrath = human wrath (except perfect), etc.

    See the paragraph about us images (reflections of God's nature). 
    Does this aid in communication?

>    I do not believe it is possible for God to love someone and hate that
>    same person at one time and yet I believe "God _is_ love."  

    In my opinion, this is because you do not see hatred as a righteous
    act, because you only have one context by which you judge hatred
    (human).  You cannot fathom making the human hatred so pure as to
    become righteous, and I would submit that this goes about seeking
    the definition backwards.  It is we who have taken righteous hatred
    and adulterated it.

    When you start with a few simple concepts (God is perfect.  God
    hates (some things).) because it says this about God, you can then
    ask some serious questions.  "If I only think of hatred as being
    unrighteous emotion, and God is only righteous, then perhaps it is
    my thinking about hatred that is imperfect, rather than dismissing
    the possibility that there is such a thing a a holy, righteous
    hatred, anger, wrath, [and a whole lot of other things]."

    You see, we must start with the Word, and build our hypotheses on
    what we think about God, rather than the other way around (which is
    to say, I cannot understand how God can hate and build our case
    fromthe Word).

>    In other words He doesn't ever stop being what He is and that is
>    love.  (Here I'm assuming having to maintain that Godly hate = human
>    hate, etc. With the principle I've described above, God can both
>    love and hate a person.)

    Changing the emotions for a minute: how many emotions are you
    capable of at a single instant?  Have you ever felt, happy and
    disappointed at the same time because of "bitter-sweet" news?
    The human emotional make-up is very complex so that we can be both
    happy and sad at the same time.  Being one doesn't exclude the
    other.  If we can, and we are shadows of the original, how can
    God be any less?

>    So you see, Romans 1 as well as other texts introduce this principle
>    which I have not seen to be shown to be in error and this principle
>    harmonizes with other texts where I see lack of this principle does
>    not.

    Not in error, Tony.  Only incomplete.  If you asked me how I was
    today, I could say, "I feel fine" and that would be true as far as I
    knew.  But I could add a whole lot of things (I skipped lunch today
    and feel that, too).  Not in error, just incomplete.

>    I honestly do not believe God has the emotions we associate with anger
>    or hate - ever.  I don't think He has that welling up of emotion which
>    is the seed of which I suppose lashing out or hitting or whatever is
>    often the physical manifestation.

    God does not have the selfishness we associate with our anger, nor
    the impatience of our natures to lash out.  God is neither selfish
    nor impatient; these are not characteristics of love, and we agree.
    But God does have anger, and He does have a measure where he acts,
    always with ample warning.

>    My present understanding of Godly hate is the recognition that His 
>    relationship with such a person He "hates" is such that God (for reasons
>    that are good) will do some things that will result in their destruction -
>    and what a torturous destruction it will be!  (Unless they decide to be
>    changed.)

    Yeah, we're not really all that far apart.  Whatever God hates, we
    can be assured, because He is God, that He does so with
    righteousness (which we are not capable of with our nature).

>    I believe the reasons are completely associated with what the Day of
>    Atonement accomplishes which is a SEALING in the minds/hearts of all
>    intelligent creation.  There will come a time when they will know as they
>    never knew before that righteoussness is life, sin is death, and when
>    one knows God as He is, He is easy to serve - no matter what.  All alien-
>    ation is gone and that is what atonement does.  It reconciles, it removes
>    every iota of alienation which alienation never was God's, but is ours.

    This gets more into interpretation than communication.  People will
    know (experience) what they already know (understanding) about sin
    and righteousness on the Day of Judgment.  No one will be without
    excuse, and they know it.

    Mark

To condense my 126 line reply (if I can), let me summarize the important 
point of that message, Tony.  I do not think you are wrong about God
being love, but I think you have dismissed a few facets of God because
they are "seeming contradictions" and "doesn't sit right with me" (note .81).

When the Bible says that God hates all workers of iniquity, we are not at
liberty to say God does not hate anyone because it says to love our enemies.

We are at liberty to ask:

  What does this kind of hatred mean?
  How can God hate and love at the same time?  

And in seeking after the answers, we must continually come back to the Word
for confirmantion and be especially careful not to REDEFINE by saying stuff
like "his hatred is actually love" (which I do not think you have, by the way).
Being careful, if the Word says so, not to saythat it must mean thus and such 
(stuffing the Word into our reasoning, rather than allow the Word to lead our 
reason).

Hatred is hatred and love is love, but what are these attributes that God 
possesses and experiences both within Himself?  Under what conditions are 
such things expressed?  Why are they expressed when those conditions exist?

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        There is much of what you say that I agree with, but I truly
        believe that Romans 1 is a lot of weight that permits the
        Bible being the interpretor of what God's emotions are and
        that rule of thumb saying (to me) that this emotion carries
        a _different_ meanings when applied to people in contrast with
        applied to God.  You say _incomplete_ emotions (in terms of lacking
        being perfect) when applied to man in contrast with applied to God
        and I say different.  But, I'm not throwing the Bible away as
        you infer, I am saying that the Bible is telling us that these
        things as applied to Him are different. That it carries that 
        much weight so as to be able to say this.
    
        I just don't see Romans 1 as including the emotional feelings     
        we might associate with wrath all the while Romans 1 speaks of
        God's wrath so thoroughly that I'd be surprised Paul would leave
        it out _unless it doesn't belong_.
    
        Anyway, we've dialogued this pretty much and that's good!!!
    
        If I could put in practical terms how I feel on the matter, if
        someone hung me on a cross and truly wanted the cursed death for
        me "for cursed is any man which hangs on a tree" and if my heart
        welled up with the emotions of anger, I personally feel that there
        is more maturing God can do in me.  Because better I had no such 
        feelings and rather was CONSUMED with a tender heart of a mother
        hen seeing human beings who "would not."  That is I truly see a
        more perfect experience as saturated with those feelings of concern
        so much so that those feelings of anger simply don't enter in.
    
        And that is the Savior I picture on the cross.  I don't see anger in 
        Christ's heart - all I see is loving concern - NO ROOM FOR ANGER.  
        Concern for those who persecuted them "Father forgive them...", concern
        for His mother, "Behold your son...", concern for the thief, "I tell 
        you today,..."  All the while God hangs on the cross and here in
        His hour of most supremely being offended, I see no anger. Scripture
        speaks of no anger.  The only way I can explain that, is because its
        not in His heart, and Christ is the express image of the Father.
    
        The cross exposes God's perpetual heart toward all creation and 
        there's no anger there that I can see.  (Of course I once again
        mean anger in terms of the human variety with my belief that the
        divine and the human _are different_.)
    
        I think you know what I'm trying to say.
    
    
        Two more quick points.  I believe that if one can provide even a
        single example that is not compatible with a line of reasoning
        than it must follow that such a line of reasoning may not have to
        be correct.
    
        Anyway, you're reasoning about all things being both human and
        Godly save God's is perfect and ours is imperfect because of our
        natures...
    
        What about coveting?
    
        Does God covet with a perfect covetoussness???
    
        And finally this image thing!  Mark, I have seen that text 
        applied to so very many manners of interpreting that I really 
        don't place a lot of stock in it. For one example, some people
        necessitate that God must then be both male and female and thus
        the Holy Spirit is a female!  (Why not?  Although I disagree.
        Not on the basis that their reasoning is faulty, but on the basis
        that they utilized the "made in His image" text in a manner that
        it was not intended.  I try to be careful to consider the possibility
        that we might do the same in other ways.)
        
        My own take on being created in God's image is that we are moral
        creatures having been created with the capacity to discern right 
        and wrong and we were created with a 'bent' for appreciating 
        and thus reflecting God's love (which is His image).
    
                                                   Tony

Note 271.95     38113::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        There is much of what you say that I agree with, but I truly
>        believe that Romans 1 is a lot of weight that permits the
>        Bible being the interpretor of what God's emotions are and

   You have a lot invested in this view to modify it to encompass
   what other Scripture has to say, I believe.  I know you embrace
   all of Scripture - I know you do - but I think the investment you 
   have put into your view colors the other Scriptures rather than
   vice versa.

>        that rule of thumb saying (to me) that this emotion carries
>        a _different_ meanings when applied to people in contrast with
>        applied to God.  You say _incomplete_ emotions (in terms of lacking
>        being perfect) when applied to man in contrast with applied to God
>        and I say different.  

   Different only as pure water is different than say, water from
   the tap.  yes, they are different, aren't they.  But they are
   water, both, one pure, one contaminated.

>        But, I'm not throwing the Bible away as
>        you infer, I am saying that the Bible is telling us that these
>        things as applied to Him are different. That it carries that 
>        much weight so as to be able to say this.

   I am not implying that you are throwing the Bible away.  And you 
   should not infer it.  I am saying that your view has not allowed
   the whole of Scripture to be taken at face value on this subject.

>        I just don't see Romans 1 as including the emotional feelings     
>        we might associate with wrath all the while Romans 1 speaks of
>        God's wrath so thoroughly that I'd be surprised Paul would leave
>        it out _unless it doesn't belong_.

   What does it mean that "God gave them over?"  Also, if you don't see
   association to wrath in Romans 1, where have you cross-referenced
   to understand what is meant?
    
>        If I could put in practical terms how I feel on the matter, if
         .
         .
         .
>        so much so that those feelings of anger simply don't enter in.

   Jesus hung on the cross for sinners.  Now put in Romans 1 where God
   gives sinners over to their sins.  There is a measure that God has,
   apparently.

>        And that is the Savior I picture on the cross.  I don't see anger in 
>        Christ's heart - all I see is loving concern - NO ROOM FOR ANGER.  

   I just looked up wrath in Romans 1:18.  Why does Paul use the word if there
   is no room for anger in God?  Christ and the Father are one.
   Even if you do not see anger, anger is the connotation of the word
   use of God in Romans 1:18!

>        The cross exposes God's perpetual heart toward all creation and 
>        there's no anger there that I can see.  (Of course I once again
>        mean anger in terms of the human variety with my belief that the
>        divine and the human _are different_.)

   The cross is the place of atonement and not the place of judgment.
   The place of judgment will express the wrath of God for the rejection
   of so dear a price paid for our sins.  Perhaps this explains things 
   a bit better.  The cross exposes the perpetual invitation, but when
   that is denied and denied ultimately, there is no recourse.

>        Anyway, you're reasoning about all things being both human and
>        Godly save God's is perfect and ours is imperfect because of our
>        natures...
>    
>        What about coveting?
>    
>        Does God covet with a perfect covetoussness???

    What is coveting but desiring wrongly.  God does desire, rightly
    and purely.  He does not covet wrongly.  Hatred, also is specified:
    He that hates his brother..., etc.  Right and wrong.  Rethink your
    logic, Tony.
    
>        And finally this image thing!  Mark, I have seen that text 
>        applied to so very many manners of interpreting that I really 
>        don't place a lot of stock in it. For one example, some people
>        necessitate that God must then be both male and female and thus
>        the Holy Spirit is a female!  (Why not?  Although I disagree.
>        Not on the basis that their reasoning is faulty, but on the basis
>        that they utilized the "made in His image" text in a manner that
>        it was not intended.  I try to be careful to consider the possibility
>        that we might do the same in other ways.)

    Agree or disagree with one interpretation, but do not throw out all
    interpretations based on some reasonings.  Not a very wise recourse.
  
    Because you have heard less-believable interpretations, is this other one
    guilty by association?

>        My own take on being created in God's image is that we are moral
>        creatures having been created with the capacity to discern right 
>        and wrong and we were created with a 'bent' for appreciating 
>        and thus reflecting God's love (which is His image).

    Fine.  But this is not the whole of the picture.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
         I think we understand our views pretty adequately.  To me
         God giving them over is related to a choice THEY make, not
         God makes.
    
         I'm not sure what benefit there is in saying that you think
         I'm coloring scripture, I just see the cross as an unchanging
         look into the heart of God.  And I see wrath when applied to
         God as being defined by scripture and not by Daniel Webster.
    
         That's honestly how I see it.  This need not be a surprise.
         For example, scripture says that God hardened Pharoah's heart
         and also that Pharoah hardened his own heart.  Now did God decide
         that Pharoah would be unsaved?  That's what the language taken
         as it stands would seem to be saying.  BUT, looking at the whole
         of scripture bears out something else.
    
         Anyway, I don't see it.  The emotions I associate with anger, I
         do not see God as having.  I believe those emotions are sin.
    
         Romans 1 tells me that the Bible defines wrath as applied to God
         and that (if so) this supercedes Webster.  Its as simple as that.
    
         I suppose these are strong words, but from my perspective the flip
         side of your posture that I am not looking at the whole of
         scripture, I believe you (without meaning to) are to some extent
         denying the cross.  What I mean is that to the extent that you
         say God is at certain times unlike the cross, I believe to that
         extent is a denial of what God is always like - which is the cross.
    
         God cannot deny who He is.  He is the same yesterday, today, and
         tommorow.  His heart is always consistent with the cross.  It'll
         be an unveiled revelation of who God is (including the cross)
         that'll awaken sin that'll destroy the unsaved.
    
         1 Corinthians 13 places no conditions on what agape is.  It is
         what it is no matter what we are and "God _IS_ agape."  Whether
         I'm Paul or Judas, Gabriel or Satan, "God is agape."

>         I think we understand our views pretty adequately.  To me
>         God giving them over is related to a choice THEY make, not
>         God makes.

It is a decision made by both, and not one or the other.
A person makes a choice to rebel, and God is patient,
but that patience reaches a limit where God gives them over.
Where that limit is is Whose choice?  It is God's choice to 
shut the door.  He makes that choice based on our actions
and attitudes (which we do of our choice).

>         I'm not sure what benefit there is in saying that you think
>         I'm coloring scripture,

My poor choice of words.  I mean to say that your investment in your views
have colored your perception of Scripture and not Scripture itself.
In a word, interpretation.

>         Anyway, I don't see it.  The emotions I associate with anger, I
>         do not see God as having.  I believe those emotions are sin.
    
Perhaps because your experience knows nothing but sinful emotional anger.
You can be angry and not sin, can you not?  (Ephesians 4:26)

>         Romans 1 tells me that the Bible defines wrath as applied to God
>         and that (if so) this supercedes Webster.  Its as simple as that.

...and Strong's?  I would suggest you consider how it is people use language
and agree on a definition.  Then examine how you apply a different definition
to a piece of Scripture just because you can't/won't/don't see it.

>         What I mean is that to the extent that you
>         say God is at certain times unlike the cross, I believe to that
>         extent is a denial of what God is always like - which is the cross.

All this means to me is that you have taken a monothematic view of this 
issue.  God is always like God is, and that encompasses a whole lot more
than you have presented.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        We're just repeating ourselves.  There's no further constructive- 
        ness so far as I can see.
    
        No way I see it that God's shuts the door.  If anyone is lost,
        it is 100% their choice.  The only way anyone can be lost, is
        if they reject God and God cannot reach them anymore.  70x7
        is symbolic, but not of a finite number (I believe).
    
        Anyway, this is my last reply on the matter and I appreciate 
        your willingness to discuss your view with me.
    
                                                  Thanks,
    
                                                  Tony

>        No way I see it that God's shuts the door. 

My point made entirely.  That you don't see it is that you won't.
Monothematic - one view, closed to the broader complexity of God's nature.

Till we meet again.

Mark

 

�My point made entirely.  
    
�    ***That you don't see it is that you won't.***
�Monothematic - one view, closed to the broader complexity of God's nature.

    For the life of me, I don't know why you have to keep on making
    statements like these.  You simply cannot know what is the source
    of the conviction of anyone's heart and for that reason, it is
    simply poor taste to surmise.
    
    I believe my conviction is based on the Word.

    By my understanding of the word, I do not see as truth painting God's
    character with traits I understand to be sinful.  That's what I see
    you as doing.
    
    But at least I don't enter into the area of telling you why you believe
    as you do.  (Poor taste, I think.)
    
                                                     Judge Not (Lest),

                                                     Tony

>    By my understanding of the word, I do not see as truth painting God's
>    character with traits I understand to be sinful.  That's what I see
>    you as doing.         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tony, 

  All I am saying that your conclusions are incomplete because you do
not have a complete understanding of what traits are sinful and not,
because the Word clearly states that God hates, is jealous, gets angry,
etc., all traits that you "understand to be sinful."  But if God possesses
these traits, which the Word says he does, then these trait can be
possessed without being sinful.  You say "I don't see it," and "understand
it" differently.  But there it is in black and white on the pages of
Scripture.  

  I've asked you to explain why your view doesn't see what is in black and
white, and you only fall back into "God is agape (always)" when you do not
understand or see how God could possibly possess these traits the Bible 
says He possesses because you associate the traits with sinfulness.  Rather,
I have challenged you to accept the Scripture that says that God hates,
is jealous, gets angry even without understanding how He can possess these 
traits and still be holy and without sin.  You say you accept the Scripture
then deny that God possesses these traits; that it must mean something else
(because you cannot/will not understand hate, jealousy, or anger to be
anything but sinful).  

  I contend that because of the Scriptures, there is a hatred, jealousy, and 
anger that is NOT sinful.  You have not demonstrated otherwise, and only have 
offered Scripture that shows that God also has the nature of agape.  I have 
contended that these are not mutually exclusive. You contend that they are 
because you believe that hatred, jealousy, and anger are always in a sinful 
context and never in a holy context.  And when we discuss this to this point,
you begin to accuse me of attacking you personally because I tell you that
you have not considered or accepted these Scriptures that clearly show God
as possessing these traits - and yet is still holy and agape, which is 
demonstrated by your arguments.

  As for judge not, I am aware more than some that the measure by which I judge
I will also be judged, and it is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.
Also remember to test Scripture with Scripture and to test all things.  In
testing your words with other Scripture, I judge it to be incomplete in its
view.  (I do not believe I possess the complete view, but do believe that 
Scripture clearly states that God gets angry, is a jealous God, hates some 
things, and has a measure to which he DOES say 'enough is enough.'  AND that
possessing these traits in purity and holiness, they DO NOT contradict His
agape nature.

Mark

	Mark, why is it that your view on any topic is the ONLY view? I think
Tony has presented himself very well. He is basing his response on his
interpretation of Scripture. He has explained it faultlessly. You may interpret
the book differently, but that's not Tony's fault. Why come down on him? Do you
have the inside edge on what is "the" interpretation of the Bible?



Glen

    When you study the Bible, believing totally in the inerrancy of the
    Word, ...

| <<< Note 271.104 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>

| When you study the Bible, believing totally in the inerrancy of the
| Word, ...

	and come up with TWO different versions of the same thing. 



Glen

Glen,

.105>  Title:  Why is Mark right and Tony wrong?

You don't read well, since I emphasized time and again that I did not find 
Tony's position to be wrong, but that I found it to be incomplete (I
used the word monothematic).  And this is what makes Phil's statement
more pertinent.

You say. "...and come up with TWO different versions of the same thing"
but this describes your view and mine.  Tony's view and mine are two different
interpretations of the whole of Scripture.  We wrangle over what the
text is saying, and not whether it is valid (as you do).    

So as gently as I know how to say it: butt out.  You have nothing to contribute
now, and I would have to search long and hard to find out if you ever have.

Mark

>     <<< Note 271.102 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

    I don't mean to jump into the middle of this but...
    
>  I contend that because of the Scriptures, there is a hatred, jealousy, and 
>anger that is NOT sinful.

    It is my understanding and belief that anger is NOT sinful.  How did I
    come to this?  Wasn't Jesus God's perfect (sinless) sacrifice?  Didn't
    Jesus express a considerable amount of anger towards the money changers
    in the temple?  If anger is sinful, then Jesus was something less than
    a perfect sacrifice.  This cannot be!  Our faith (mine anyway) is based
    on the fact that Jesus was THE perfect sacrifice.

    I don't know if this adds anything to what has been discussed here, but
    felt like I needed to add it.  I'm not siding up one way or the other.
    Neither am I trying to put anybody down.

    Ron

You are correct, Ron.

What we have is sinful anger or sinless anger.     
                sinful jealousy or righteous jealousy.
                sinful hatred or righteous hatred.

Each trait (anger, jealousy, and hatred) is colored by its modifier.
God is holy and therefore possesses sinless, and righteous traits, even
if these traits are most commonly (or exclusively) experienced by people 
as sinful and unrighteousness.  The exclusive experience or understanding
attempts to alter the definition to the only context experienced or 
understood, so that there is no modifier to anger, jealousy, and hatred 
- they are understood to always be bad.  I have contended that there is
a modifier, and that God possesses these traits in holiness, sinlessness,
and righteousness.  And when we weild these traits we need to learn to 
wield them properly as God does in holiness, rightousness, and sinlessly.

Mark

      Mark,
    
        Again, I ask you to make a decision to stop telling me why
        I believe as I do.
    
        From my perspective, you clearly simply cannot understand what
        I am saying.  Yes, I have said that God is agape and that all
        He does is consistent with that.  I HAVE ALSO SAID that I believe
        that the Bible has the power to give insight into its own defini-
        tions of english words it uses and those definitions may be
        different than Webster's.  I used Paul's exposition on wrath as
        an example.  Romans 1 does not speak one iota about God getting
        angry in the human understanding of the term of wrath/anger rather
        it 'defines' godly wrath in a much different light.  In fact it
        seems to define it in terms of circumstances God cannot alleviate.
    
        As an example, I also brought up the verse that says God hardened
        Pharoah's heart and also that Pharoah hardened his own heart.
        Taken as it reads, the verse that God hardened Pharoah's heart
        would lead to the simple, clear interpretation that God's supreme
        will chose Pharoah to be unsaved and that Pharoah had no choice in
        the matter.  It would also follow that every step of the way,
        Pharoah was God's 'puppet' doing all that God 'demanded' of him.
        (God hardened Pharoah's heart.)
    
        But, when one looks at all of scripture, one finds that other verse
        that says Pharoah hardened his own heart.  I happen to believe that
        the word _hardened_ as it applies to God carries a very different
        meaning than Webster might give it.  I believe that God tried to
        save Pharoah with revelations of His love and I'll bet Moses opened
        to Pharoah avenues of accepting God during the time before the
        exodus.  But, that love which softens some, hardens others. 
        Pharoah would not give in to those impulses to be softened by God's
        love and in turning away, he hardened his own heart.  But, it was 
        also spurred by revelations of who God is and in a sense God
        hardened Pharoah's heart as well.
    
        My point is this.  I have claimed that wrath, hate, etc. have 
        different MEANINGS when applied to God.  I have used the Bible as
        THE UNDERLYING BASIS FOR MY CONTENTION.  Most often using Romans 1
        (the wrath verses), but also utilizing the fact that HARDENED has
        a different meaning than Webster might expect when applied to the
        text "God hardened Pharoah's heart."  I also brought up the cross
        and stated that if there was ever a time God would manifest anger,
        it would have been then, but He does not.
    
        I am saying that the Bible AS ITS OWN INTERPRETOR is the basis for
        what I am saying here and I have provided examples.
    
        Thus your assertions that hate must carry Webster's meaning has no
        clout for me and you have never (adequately for me) even attempted
        to refute much less acknowledge my basis.
    
        But, the point of my last reply is slightly different...
    
        I am telling you WHY I BELIEVE AS I DO.  I am telling you its
        biblically based.  Whether or not you believe my rationale is
        flawed is a mute point.  The main point is, HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT
        THE BASIS FOR HOW I BELIEVE IS?  HAVE YOU WORN MY MOCCASINS?  DO
        YOU KNOW MY LIFE'S EXPERIENCES?  DO YOU KNOW MY HEART?
    
        You REPEATEDLY venture into territory that so far as I'm concerned
        is playing God.  Leave the matter of the heart to Him.  You simply
        do not know my heart and to write along the lines of assuming you
        know my heart is territory better left to He who knows my heart.
        
        Let God handle it, ok?
    
        Glen,
    
          Thanks.
    
        Phil,
    
        Do you need to bash Glenn no matter where he pops up _or_ is
        it obvious to you that I am 'throwing away' parts of the Bible
        or both?  (Are you making that conclusion as well?)
    
                                                Tony

>        Again, I ask you to make a decision to stop telling me why
>        I believe as I do.
>    
>        From my perspective, you clearly simply cannot understand what
>        I am saying.

Tony, 
  How do you put these two sentences together?  And what is the difference
between you and me when I say you are not understanding what I am saying,
(which is the essence of my remarks)?  I haven't read the rest of your note
and this strikes me as being a little unbalanced.
  You infer what I have not implied.

Mark

    Ron,
    
    Anger has two sides... Godly Anger or Righteous anger and then there is
    Unrighteous Anger.
    
    i.e.., My ex-husband was/is alcoholic and the drinking caused many an
    argument in my home and I began to be an angry wife all the time, using
    his sin as an excuse to be angry...  Now while being angry at the sin
    was okay... taking it further against the man was wrong.  The anger
    grew into a murderous anger.
    
    Also, on a lighter side a temper tantrum from a child is not righteous
    or good anger... :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

Note 271.109  38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And on to the body of your note...

>       .......................................... I happen to believe that
>       the word _hardened_ as it applies to God carries a very different
>       meaning than Webster might give it.  I believe that God tried to
>       save Pharoah with revelations of His love and I'll bet Moses opened
>       to Pharoah avenues of accepting God during the time before the
>       exodus.  

I happen to believe that Bible has said what it has meant to say and is the 
same meaning that is used in common language communication.  As for God trying
to save Pharoah, it is speculation outside of the Word.  Not wrong,
but not supportable, either. 

>       My point is this.  I have claimed that wrath, hate, etc. have 
>       different MEANINGS when applied to God. 

You tell me:  what gives you the right to judge that some of the words used in
the Bible carry "a very different meaning" than what common language usage
would suggest?  (I have maintained that they do not connote a very different
meaning, and the burden of proof lies with you because you would render an
uncommon use of the language.)

>        I have used the Bible as               
>        THE UNDERLYING BASIS FOR MY CONTENTION.

Yes, I know you have.  I contend that you have wrongly given a "very different
meaning" to some words in the Bible, thereby influencing your interpretation.
I further assert that you have no right to apply a very different meaning to
the words.

>        I am saying that the Bible AS ITS OWN INTERPRETOR is the basis for
>        what I am saying here and I have provided examples.
    
...as its own interpretor with different definitions to some of the words,
by your own statement.  You tell me where this leaves us when we can redefine
what words mean?

>        Thus your assertions that hate must carry Webster's meaning has no
>        clout for me and you have never (adequately for me) even attempted
>        to refute much less acknowledge my basis.

Not so.  I have refuted your basis of argument by calling it incomplete,
based on your redefinitions of what hate, anger, and jealousy are when used
in the Bible.  I do not refute what the Bible has said.
    
>        The main point is, HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT
>        THE BASIS FOR HOW I BELIEVE IS?  HAVE YOU WORN MY MOCCASINS?  DO
>        YOU KNOW MY LIFE'S EXPERIENCES?  DO YOU KNOW MY HEART?

I have only your own words on which to base my assertions, as you have with me. 
Based on the words you give, I can make assertions that you have an [more]
incomplete view of God's nature because you have been forced to redefine some
words based on your understanding and viewpoint.
    
>        You REPEATEDLY venture into territory that so far as I'm concerned
>        is playing God.  Leave the matter of the heart to Him.  You simply
>        do not know my heart and to write along the lines of assuming you
>        know my heart is territory better left to He who knows my heart.
>        
>        Let God handle it, ok?

You are misguided in your assertions about what I have done.  Ironic, isn't it?
You have told me that what I have done is to tell you what you have done.
Welcome to the neighborhood, Mr. Pot.

Mark

| <<< Note 271.106 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| -< Another hit-and-run from the run-off-at-the-mouth-Silva >-

	Funny, even Tony didn't see it your way Mark.

| You say. "...and come up with TWO different versions of the same thing"
| but this describes your view and mine.  Tony's view and mine are two different
| interpretations of the whole of Scripture.  We wrangle over what the
| text is saying, and not whether it is valid (as you do).

	Mark, what I said to you has nothing to do with my beliefs at all. It
was about you and Tony, not me and you. Please try and understand this. But it
never does cease to amaze me how you always bring this into any conversation
that I may have on anything. Hmmmmm.... read what is written, not what you are
thinking. We might get somewhere then. Thanks. 

	Now, as far as the interpretation goes, you both have a different view
(or interpretation, whichever tickles yer fancy) of the same part of Scripture.
If you view yours as correct, then regardless of whether you use the word
incomplete, it still equals incorrect. Tony explained it to you many times. You
don't agree with him. That's fine. Your view of that part of Scripture tells
you something different. Who in the end is right? Maybe neither. You'll never
really know until God shows the other that they are right, wrong or both are
wrong.

	So, with that in mind, why do you feel your version is the complete or
correct one and Tony's isn't? Did God show you this? If so, how? 

| So as gently as I know how to say it: butt out. You have nothing to contribute
| now, and I would have to search long and hard to find out if you ever have.

	Mark, sorry, this ain't gonna happen. I don't really care who you think
you are, but if I notice something, I will speak. If I have questions, I will
ask. It's that simple. It would appear that Tony thought at least some of what
I said applied. I guess maybe if you could get past the "Glen and Mark" thing
you might be able to see what I am writing and then answering it would be much
less stressful for you.


In Christ's love



Glen

>	Mark, what I said to you has nothing to do with my beliefs at all. It
>was about you and Tony, not me and you. Please try and understand this. But it
>never does cease to amaze me how you always bring this into any conversation
>that I may have on anything. Hmmmmm.... read what is written, not what you are
>thinking. We might get somewhere then. Thanks. 

Apparently not, Glen, for you did not Butt out.  You don't even read what you
write.

MM

Hi Guys,

Would you all mind taking this discussion about who said what to
to whom, when, how often, and what it means off line into mail ?  
I, for one, would be ever so grateful.

Thanks,

Leslie  

	I read it Mark, but I get the impression you view what I write in the
same light you view the Bible, by picking out little tidbits and going off on
the fly instead of reading the entire thing and responding to that. I could be
wrong though, but it is an opinion.


In Christ's Love


Glen

    Glen,
    
    As a moderator and participant of this notesfile, I must ask that you
    please step out of this conversation.  You are not contributing to the
    topic at hand, but instead contributing to a personality conflict.
    
    If you're notes are not towards the topic instead of the man, they will
    be set hidden.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy
    Co-mod CHRISTIAN

>I happen to believe that
>        the word _hardened_ as it applies to God carries a very different
>        meaning than Webster might give it.

The original languages don't support this idea, though I personally was hoping
to find that they did when I looked up the words.

The concept of hardening of the heart (mostly Pharaoh's) occurs 18 times in
Exodus.  10 of those are the LORD hardening the heart, 3 are Pharaoh, 5 aren't
clear (i.e. "Pharaoh's heart was hardened")

There are three different Hebrew words used.  The most frequent is "chazaq",
which means to strengthen or make firm.  That is used 12 of the 18 times, and
8 out of 10 of the times it refers to the LORD doing the hardening.  Also used
is the word "kabad", which means literally heavy or weighty, but is often
translated as honor or glorify (It's the same word used in "honor your father
and mother").  It is used in all three places that refer to Pharaoh hardening
his own heart.  The word "quashah", meaning severe, fierce, or harsh is used
once, in verse 7:3, referring to the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart.

The verb tenses used are very interesting in this context.  All 5 of the times
that just say "Pharaoh's heart was hardened" use the Qal stem to the verb,
which is the form used for simple statement of fact, and the imperfect mood,
which suggests a process or a continuing or repetitive state.  None of the
other times use the Qal form.

All three of the times it refers to Pharaoh hardening his own heart, it uses
the Hiphil stem, which suggest causative action, and most use the imperfect
mood, which again suggest a continuting or repeated process.  Remembering that
these use the verb to honor or glorify, it means that Pharaoh kept causing his
own heart to be glorified [instead of the LORD].

Most of the references to the LORD hardening Pharaoh's heart use the Piel
stem, which suggest an intentional or intensive action - the verb "he broke"
in the Piel form would mean "he smashed to pieces."  Most also use the
imperfect mood.  Twice it uses the Hiphil stem, suggesting cause.  In
referring to the Lord, there is also twice used the perfect mood, which
suggests the past carried to the present, or is also used of prophetic
speaking of the future - when the event is in the future, but is so assured
that it can be spoken of as if it is in the past.

The verses break down like this:

Verses that merely say it happened:

Verse	Verb			Tense

7:13	Strengthen, make firm	Statement of fact, continuous or repetitive
7:22	Strengthen, make firm	Statement of fact, continuous or repetitive
8:19	Strengthen, make firm	Statement of fact, continuous or repetitive
9:7	Honor, Glorify		Statement of fact, continuous or repetitive
9:35	Strengthen, make firm	Statement of fact, continuous or repetitive

Verses that say Pharaoh hardened his heart:

Verse	Verb			Tense

8:15	Honor, Glorify		Causative
8:32	Honor, Glorify		Causative, continuous or repetitive
9:34	Honor, Glorify		Causative, continuous or repetitive

Verses that say the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart:

Verse	Verb			Tense

4:21	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous
7:3	Fierce, severe, harsh	Causative, continuous or repetitive
9:12	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous
10:1	Honor, glorify		Causitive, prophetic
10:20	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous
10:27	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous
11:10	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous
14:4	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, prophetic
14:8	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous
14:17	Strengthen, make firm	Intensively or intentionally, continuous

Paul

    
    
    >       Now, as far as the interpretation goes, you both have a
    >different view (or interpretation, whichever tickles yer fancy) of the
    >same part of Scripture.
    >If you view yours as correct, then regardless of whether you use the
    >word incomplete, it still equals incorrect. Tony explained it to you 
        
    
     When words are defined incorrectly or to support a position different
    than what they were originally meant, when they are taken out of
    context, when they are not supported with the whole of scripture, when
    meaning is given that was not intended; this is how cults are started.
    
    This is why it is imperative that scripture is tested against
    scripture.  I have not followed closely this whole string and my above
    comments are not pointed directly at the topic at hand, I am merely
    offering an explaination to Glen's comment in regards to
    "interpretation." 
    
     Dan

 Mark,
    
    This is what I'm referring to...
    
�My point made entirely.  That you don't see it is that you won't.
�Monothematic - one view, closed to the broader complexity of God's nature.
    
    IS THAT YOU WON'T
    
    CLOSED TO...
    
    That is where I believe you go too far.  That's where I believe you
    judge.  You are inferring why I believe as I do.  I don't believe 
    that is a right thing to do.  By the above words, you have gone from
    discussing what scripture means to going outside of that and (from
    that perspective) discussing why I believe as I do.
    
                                              Tony

      Hi All,
    
        I feel that Glen offered a couple things that were relevent.
        He did say that he felt Mark and I both offered interpretations 
        to scripture.  I cannot see then how it can be taken to be that
        all Glen is doing is fruitless to the topic.  (And to further
        say he ought to leave.)
    
        I really feel that Glen is basically stigmatized in the 
        Conference when part of his input is obviously germaine to the
        topic and yet he is nothing but criticized.
    
        I have the audacity to define wrath as it applies to God by
        Romans 1 and yes I come up with a different definition than Webster
        does.  I have the audacity to believe that "God so loved the 
        world..." and yes this does to some extent influence how it is
        God hardened Pharoah's heart.
    
        You can bet that however the Daniel Webster of ancient Greek
        civilization defined agape, its meaning wasn't ball park close
        to its intended meaning in the sacred scriptures.
    
        The concepts given to agape (i.e. Godly love) weren't even fathomed
        by the Greeks who came up with that word - agape.
    
        To insist that we must always define according to the original
        language and not to allow scripture the weight to define it for
        us implies agape being something very different than it really is.
    
        PLEASE think about that.
    
        Honestly ask yourself if the Greeks defined agape as the word is
        defined by scripture.  God packed it with all sorts of ideas not
        known by most men until the written word!!
    
        Hmmm...
    
        That's a precedent, isn't it?
    
        Perhaps my ideas are cultish, but I for one am comfortable with
        the notion that I can rely on scripture rather than the original
        definer of the Greek word agape when looking for the definition
        of the word.
    
        That's quite a precedent.
    
        If what I am saying applies to agape, how can one insist it cannot
        apply elsewhere?
    
                                                     Tony
                        

    Re: .121
    
    Tony,
    
    I think the problem that many people have is when someone on one hand
    denies the authority and accuracy of the Bible, but then seeks to
    become involved in a matter on its interpretation.  Something just
    doesn't seem to jive there....
    
    Mark L.

�My point made entirely.  That you don't see it is that you won't.
�Monothematic - one view, closed to the broader complexity of God's nature.
 
These are my opinions, nothing more.  They are based on what is seen and not
what is unseen.  Perhaps I do accord too much of my opinion in your capacity 
to see it (but won't); perhaps you cannot.  So maybe I was wrong.

>        You can bet that however the Daniel Webster of ancient Greek
>        civilization defined agape, its meaning wasn't ball park close
>        to its intended meaning in the sacred scriptures.
 
I disagree with this opinion of yours and further state that you have no
leg to stand on, other than your own definitions.  I contend that this
is a dangerous precendent when studying Scripture and does not take
Scripture at its word.

>        Perhaps my ideas are cultish, but I for one am comfortable with
>        the notion that I can rely on scripture rather than the original
>        definer of the Greek word agape when looking for the definition
>        of the word.
>    
>        That's quite a precedent.
 
It sure is, Tony.  If you don't like what the original definer intended because
it doesn't fit your view, just redefine it, right?  And with that precedent, you 
*can* make Scripture say whatever you want it to say, rather than letting
Scripture speak for itself.  PLEASE think about that.

You get upset because I used words like "is that you won't [see it]" and
are "closed to [the broader complexity of God's nature]" yet you would
sit there and type words such as "I can rely on Scripture rather than the 
original definer of the Greek word agape" who put the word into Scripture
by God's inspiration.  You make a giant leap into saying that God intended
a meaning different than what the author and reader was recording.  Where
do you have this right to do so?  You define terms outseide of the common
language usage.  

Consider that God would make his message clear, would He not?  And that if
agape had levels of deeper meaning, they would not be contrary meanings, but
fuller meanings.  You have not presented deeper meanings, only contrary meanings
to what the common language has defined them to be.

You are wrong to redefine these terms to suit your purpose, even though your
stated beliefs are dependent upon these [new] definitions.

I'm sorry to frustrate you and anger you so.  It is not my intent in debate.
I must point out that you are guilty of what you allege in me (but I do not
have a "gripe" about it).  I only wish you to see that you have come to your
conclusions based on a redefinition of common terms.  And that if you use
the common language usage of these terms (letting the Bible speak for itself,
as I would put it), you would have to come to a more complete conclusion.

Mark

      Hi Mark L.,
    
        All right...so Glen plays it both ways as far as scripture
        goes.  (Hi Glen.  Sorry pal, but it does seem that way to
        me!)
    
        But, if his words _might_ have any credibility whatsoever
        (which I sometimes think they do) let's give him the benefit
        of the doubt.  That's what I think.
    
        As far as Glen's concerned, what would be best for him is to
        see the cross just like I'll bet Jesus painted it to Nicodemus
        and Paul painted it to the church laden in sin (Corinth), the
        legalistic church (Galatia), and every other church.
    
        If I was Glen, I would feel so ostracized.  I really would.
        My personal challenge is that if anyone doesn't display what I
        would consider to be a more sanctified lifestyle, its because
        my ability to paint the cross for that person is pathetic.  That's
        where I'd place the onus.
    
        Back to the topic at hand...
    
        Just to show that I'm trying to be neutral, I realize that the
        Word never applied agape as a characteristic of people.  I mean
        someone could come back to me with that.  They might say, "Tony,
        you're saying divine wrath is different than human wrath and you
        use agape as some weight for that assertion and yet the words for
        wrath are the same while agape never describes human love!"
    
        Yes, that is a very good point.
    
        But, the fact is...
    
        agape as used in the sacred scriptures simply does not mean the 
        same thing as agape as defined by a Greek dictionary (at least
        BEFORE the NT).
    
        All the while I am seeing this assertion that the words MUST mean
        what they mean in the original language.  And if anyone is honest,
        testing that assertion with the Greek word agape necessitates that
        that assertion cannot be universally true.  Agape is proof that
        there is at least one exception.
    
        Does anyone out there contend that the original Greek definition 
        of the word agape is identical to the scriptural definition of the 
        word agape???
    
        If not, the waters at least to some degree are grey.  Its not a 
        clear black and white issue.
    
        And again I repeat, emotions as ascribed to God (such as love) may
        not be the same thing as applied to people.  Love is definitely
        one example.  Who knows?  Maybe there wasn't more than one word
        for wrath or hate?  Maybe the same word had to be used because the
        Greek was limited in that regard.
    
        All I know is that a line upon line, precept upon precept study 
        has shown me that God treats the man with vile clothing exactly
        as He treats the man in fine garments (James somewhere).
    
        God is love and He will fill the universe with that presence of
        Himself.  It'll destroy the unsaved and I expect His heart will 
        be as it was when Jesus cried, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I
        would have gathered thee like a mother hen gathers her chicks, but
        YOU would not."
    
        And I do not believe Jesus was 'mad' in our understanding of the
        word when He cleared the temple.  Oh yes, He was zealous and yes,
        He cleansed the temple expediantly and with force.  But, in His
        heart I'll believe there was not that emotion of anger rather 
        an ache in His heart for the sinfulness of those present and an
        incredible conviction of reverence for His Father and the temple
        that was supposed to represent Him.
    
        I'd be curious to see how many people believe the word agape means
        in scripture the identical thing it meant in a Greek definition
        before the NT was written.
    
        And if it doesn't...
    
                                                     Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    God defined love for us in John 3:16
    
    For God so *loved* the world that he *gave* his only begotten son.
    
    Why complicate things with all of this higher understanding jargon?
    What more do we need to know other then God LOVED us and GAVE us His
    Son so that we could have eternal life? 
    The definition in John 3:16 is very clear; Love is giving it is an 
    action a sacrifice of one's self.
    
    There was more you wrote that I wanted to address, but can't remember
    now. %-}
    
    Nancy

    Awwww, I remembered.. :-) :-)
    
    >And I do not believe Jesus was 'mad' in our understanding of the
    >word when He cleared the temple.  Oh yes, He was zealous and
    >yes, He cleansed the temple expediantly and with force.  But, in His
    >heart I'll believe there was not that emotion of anger rather
    >an ache in His heart for the sinfulness of those present and an
    >incredible conviction of reverence for His Father and the
    >temple that was supposed to represent Him.
    
    Tony one can be righteously angry, as Christ was in the temple.  Why is
    it you insist on redifining the Word of God?  God never intended on us
    having COMPLETE understanding... otherwise FAITH would not be needed.
    
    The Bible is very clear that wisdom is the beginning of understanding,
    not the intellect.
    
    Nancy

      Mark,
    
        Thanks for writing about the topic without straying into "why
        I believe as I do."  I appreciate that.
    
        I am surprised you believe the Greek definition of love was
        equivalent to the word as it describes God.  Actually, I'm pretty
        sure the Greek considered the highest pinnacle of love to be
        a person dying for a GOOD person.  And I heard that it was termed
        'heavenly eros.'
    
        Romans 5:7,8
        For scarcely for a righteouss man will one die: yet peradventure
        for a good man some would even dare to die.
        But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were
        yet sinners, Christ died for us.
    
        I have heard it said that if one scoured the Greek civilization
        of all its stories, plays, philosophies, etc., the pinnacle 
        expression of love you can find is a story called 'Admetus and
        Alcestus.' 
    
        Admetus came to know something was wrong with him.  In wanting
        to find out what is wrong, he climbs Mount Olympus to ask the
        gods.  He is told that he is going to die unless someone is
        willing to die for him.
    
        Admetus (who was considered a very good man) then tries to find
        someone to die for him.  Alcestus (who was either his girl friend
        or wife) decides, "Admetus is such a good man.  I will die for
        Admetus!"
    
        And the Greeks said this is the greatest love there is.  And I have
        heard that they called it...heavenly eros.
    
        They didn't even use agape to describe this greatest of all loves.
    
        Notice that Admetus had to climb Mount Olympus.  He had to find
        God.  Dramatically different than a Shephard who finds the lost
        sheep.  Also note that the love was conditional on the goodness
        of its object.
    
        That is the greatest love one can find in ancient Greek civiliza-
        tion.  
    
        Agape is far, far different than that.  God took that word and
        packed it with meaning.
    
        I think we understand each other.  I am not intending to throw away
        the Bible, I am trying to elevate it.  And in elevating it, I am
        finding that it does apply different meanings to words as they
        describe God.  My basis for this is the Bible.  I could never come
        up with this basis without the Bible.
    
        Getting back to the personal thing...
    
        You said, "so maybe I was wrong."
    
        As far as I'm concerned, whether you are wrong or not is
        irrelevent.  I honestly don't think its right to discuss in a 
        public forum these kind of things rather to discuss objectively
        the merits of a position (all the while staying outside of "why
        someone believes as they do").
    
        And as far as me talking about you personally, I hope it was 
        exclusively in terms of as it was relevent to you bringing up the
        personal things about me. If I strayed to saying like things above
        and beyond as it pertained to "my gripe" (and I meant that as in
        my disagreement), I erred and I am sorry.  
    
                                                   Mr. Pot
    
                                                   Er, I mean...
    
                                                   Tony   ;-)

    re: .124
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    A question for you....
    
    When the rich young ruler couldn't accept Yeshua's explanation of
    eternal life, was that due to Yeshua's "pathetic" attempt at painting
    the picture?
    
    Further - if the rich young ruler felt "ostracized", should Yeshua have
    changed His message to make him feel more comfortable?
    
    You've got an important point in that we sometimes fail to be yielded
    to Him such that He is living His life out through us (an important
    consideration when discussing "sinful nature" - but more on that later
    perhaps).  When we're not yielded to Him, is it any wonder people
    refuse the Truth?
    
    But certainly, we can't say that the L-rd Himself failed to present the
    Truth properly to the rich young ruler.
    
    Just a point to ponder.....
    
    
    Gotta roll for now,
    
    
    Steve

      Hi Steve,
    
        Yeah, I see what you're saying.  No doubt the Lord sometimes
        spoke of fear-motivations.  BUT, my personal take on this is
        that He first utilized the constraint of divine love (Corin 5:14)
        and my departure from Jesus' ability to motivate is definitely
        more likely in the area of 'painting the cross' and not as much
        in the area of fear or reward motivations.
    
        As Paul said, "I am convinced to know anything among you save
        Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
    
                                                     Tony

    re: .125
    
    Hi Nancy,
    
      Your reply is ABSOLUTELY TREMENDOUS!!!
    
      You did EXACTLY as I have been saying in this topic.
    
    �God defined love for us in John 3:16
    
     You let the Word of God define agape RATHER THAN THE DICTIONARY.
    
     Absoloutely beautiful!!!  I couldn't agree more!!!
    
    �For God so *loved* the world that he *gave* his only begotten son.
    
    �Why complicate things with all of this higher understanding jargon?
    �What more do we need to know other then God LOVED us and GAVE us His
    �Son so that we could have eternal life?
    
     EXACTLY!!  Let a line upon line, precept upon precept study define
     God's love for us!!
    
    �The definition in John 3:16 is very clear; Love is giving it is an 
    �action a sacrifice of one's self.
    
     AMEN!!
    
     A pity you didn't follow EXACTLY the same procedure in defining 
     godly wrath.  
    
     But, when you let your own discernment show you the way, you came
     up with exactly what I have been trying to say.
    
     Just a beautiful reply!
    
                                                    Thanks!,
    
                                                    Tony

    re: .126
    
    Hi Nancy,
    
    �Tony one can be righteously angry, as Christ was in the temple.  Why is
    �it you insist on redifining the Word of God?  
    
    No sense repeating myself save to say I can only say to attempt to 
    define godly wrath in exactly the same way you so wonderfully defined
    godly love...with the Bible.
    
    �God never intended on us having COMPLETE understanding... 
    
     Yeah, I agree.
    
    �otherwise FAITH would not be needed.
    
     Hmmmm.
    
     Faith is perfected in part by comprehending the love of God (Eph 3,
     Gal. 5:5,6).  (I'm not saying we have to know _everything_.)
    
     The testimony of what perfect faith can produce (or any other faith)
     is what it produces in the absence of any apparent signs (Abraham
     on Mount Moriah, Jesus on cross, Esther in the inner room of the
     court, Jacob's night of wrestling, etc.)
    
     But it in part rests on what it already believes.  And part of that
     is knowledge.
    
     �The Bible is very clear that wisdom is the beginning of understanding,
     �not the intellect.
    
     Yes, I agree and I have an inner conviction that I am out of balance
     in this regard and need to learn to believe more so than do I need
     to acquire a greater comprehension of God's love of which faith
     works by.
    
     I believe they are both vital for the perfecting of faith and I
     believe I have a tendency to overemphasize the 'intellect' part.
    
     But, just for the sake of balancing what you said...
    
     There can be no wisdom if there is no intellect.  And God does call
     us to know.  He says we perish for lack of knowledge Hosea 5:6 and
     looks forward to the day we come to know the Lord (tying in an
     increase in knowledge with the latter rain - Hos 6:1-3) and says in 
     the latter times "knowledge shall increase" (Daniel 12:4) and He says
     "if any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he 
     ought to know" (1 Corin 8:2).
    
     We don't know one zillionth as we ought to know.  If we knew Him 
     well enough, we would catapult this earth right into the closing
     scenes where the earth would be lightened with His glory (as 
     manifested in His last day generation) (Rev 18:2).
    
     So, your point is well taken, but don't knock always wanting to know
     more!
    
                                                   Thanks,
    
                                                   Tony
                                                       
    
    Nancy

    So Tony,
    
    When ya coming back to San Jose? :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

	Thanks Tony for sticking up for me. But here is my take on the
situation. I don't need to believe anything is true to give my interpretation
on Scripture. If this is what I believe it is saying and we are discussing the
words, then where is the problem? MAYBE, if what I am writing is looked at and
not thrown into some sort of automatic pile you could save moocho band width.
In other words, spend less time telling me what I am saying and read what is
written. If there are questions, ask. It's that simple.


Glen

    .133
    
    Glen,
    
    Dearest, whilst you know I don't have any animosity towards you, I must
    admit that while you may not like the rejection of your opinion on
    scripture, it is nonetheless a bed which you have made.
    
    In your XXXX communications in here you have blasphemed the Word of God
    [in our eyes] by saying it is not God-breathed.
    
    After XXXX times of hearing this, we close the door to your opinion of
    the Word of God, because it's constant rhetoric.  Furthermore, the
    moderators of this conference will no longer tolerate personal
    character attacks in notes.  We may not be 100% in patrolling,but we
    are patrolling.
    
    Nancy

	I know Nancy, it's the pick and choose method of patroling as is some
Scripture choosing. :-)



Glen

    -1
    
    Glen,
    
    Ah do my best considering I have a very demanding *real* job. :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

      Hi Nance,
    
        My trips to San Jose are very few and far between.  But, when
        I go...you'll know!
    
      Hi Glen,
    
        I perceive I offended you by doing something wrong.  I'm a tad
        confused and I'm not discerning real well right now, but in case
        I unfairly treated you in any way, I'm sorry.
    
                                                    Tony

      Hi Glen,
    
        I think I get what you told me.  Basically, how you might believe
        about the inerrancy of scripture is irrelevent to your replies 
        here because that's not what you were talking about.  The entire
        content of your replies did not evoke anything about whether or
        not you think scripture is 100% inspired and thus for me to write
        about that is irrelevent and thus I was replying to something that
        was not about what you were saying here and so I was out of line.
    
        Is that it?
    
        Yup, if that was it...I see it!  And yeah...I really am sorry.  I
        was out of line.
    
                                                    Oh Well,
    
                                                    Tony

| <<< Note 271.138 by 38110::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>



| I think I get what you told me.  Basically, how you might believe
| about the inerrancy of scripture is irrelevent to your replies
| here because that's not what you were talking about.  

	Exactly Tony.

| The entire content of your replies did not evoke anything about whether or
| not you think scripture is 100% inspired 

	I won't say all, but most. And those that do talk about inerrancy I 
come right out and say it. I feel anyone can discuss what is written without
having to believe it. It can be done with any subject and not just with the
Bible.

| and thus for me to write about that is irrelevent and thus I was replying to 
| something that was not about what you were saying here and so I was out of 
| line.

	Tony, if you don't understand something you ask. I like that. You
figured the whole thing out perfectly. As far as you being out of line, you
really weren't. All you did was to have a different interpretation of what I
was saying. You weren't demeaning in any way, so you weren't out of line. Just
a misunderstanding. We all have those. Oh yeah, one other thing you didn't do
was to tell me what I thought or what my intensions are and then etch them in
stone. Again, I like that. :-) 

| Is that it?

	That's it! Thanks for relooking at it Tony. I really do appreciate it.

| Yup, if that was it...I see it!  And yeah...I really am sorry.  I
| was out of line.

	No apology needed Tony. Misunderstandings happen. But you kept an open
mind which I think was pretty cool.



Glen

Note 271.127  38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I could never come up with this basis without the Bible.

But you use "a story called 'Admetus and Alcestus'" to describe the difference,
essentially defining agape in terms of what it is not, and that outside of the
Bible.  What gives?

>        And as far as me talking about you personally, I hope it was 
>        exclusively in terms of as it was relevent to you bringing up the
>        personal things about me. If I strayed to saying like things above
>        and beyond as it pertained to "my gripe" (and I meant that as in
>        my disagreement), I erred and I am sorry.  

Who said what first is really the irrelevant thing.  I think that you perceive
a personal attack against you when I have not.  And mentioning that you have
used the same or similar language is only to point out that your perception is
one-sided.  If you don't take it personally, then you can re-read my words and
see that they are not personal, but an opinion as to why you have not come to a
more complete understanding of what the Bible has to say about God's character. 
To sum, your opinion is based on the redefinition of some words that are
already defined in the common language usage (either Greek, Hebrew, or
English), and that it is a stretch to come to the conclusions you have because
redefinition is an inappropriate method of study.  

================================================================================
Note 271.129 38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    -< Where I Deviate Most From Christ... >-

>        Yeah, I see what you're saying.  No doubt the Lord sometimes
>        spoke of fear-motivations.  BUT, my personal take on this is
>        that He first utilized the constraint of divine love (Corin 5:14)
>        and my departure from Jesus' ability to motivate is definitely
>        more likely in the area of 'painting the cross' and not as much
>        in the area of fear or reward motivations.

I have diffuculty understanding what you have said here.  I think you have
said: "My [apparent] departure from Jesus' ability... is [my inability to
'paint the cross'] and [my communications are not designed to give any other 
possible motivations to people than 'the cross']."

Is this what you were trying to say?  If not, then I did not understand what 
you said in that paragraph.


================================================================================
Note 271.130  38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    �God defined love for us in John 3:16
>    
>     You let the Word of God define agape RATHER THAN THE DICTIONARY.

I beg to differ; the dictionary does not disagree with definitions, it merely 
states what is commonly understood to be the meaning behind a word symbol. In
other words, the Bible definitions of words and the Dictionary definitions of
words do not stand in opposition to each other.


================================================================================
Note 271.133     DEMING::SILVA 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I don't need to believe anything is true to give my interpretation
>on Scripture. If this is what I believe it is saying and we are discussing the
>words, then where is the problem? 

Whether words are inspired or not makes a difference in discussing them.

>MAYBE, if what I am writing is looked at and not thrown into some sort of
>automatic pile you could save moocho band width. 

Your words are looked at, and they drone on the same tune, contrary to what
is set out as the standard in this conference.  It is easy to automatically 
dismiss what you say on that basis.  You'll note that you do get considered
replies, until you return to your drone again.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        I think we pretty much understand our positions.  I personally
        understand scripture's definiton of agape to be different than
        a dictionary's.  For example, the Greek dictionary never would
        have said "Faith works by agape."  That would have seemed a weird
        concept, I think.
    
        As far as the story of Admetus and Alcestus in concerned, my point
        was to try to illustrate the Greek's pinnacle expression of love
        and I in no way meant to imply that this definition of love equates
        to the biblical definition of agape.  In fact, I believe I equated
        this to eros ('heavenly eros') and not agape.
    
        Actually, this further illustrates my point.  If the Greeks
        considered 'heavenly eros' to be the greatest love there is, how
        could they not know that their own word agape is actually a
        'better' love _or_ why wouldn't the NT writers have used eros
        instead of agape?  Either the Greeks didn't know their own language
        too well or if they did, the NT writers should have then used eros.
    
        I believe they did use agape and they did pack it with a lot of
        meaning probably essentially foreign to any unconverted mind.
        1 Corinthians 13 and the Greek Daniel Webster of the day would have
        differed dramatically from each other.  You say magnified, but I
        rather think there was no magnification of some of the most
        fundamental characteristics of agape, the inspired writers
        introduced entirely new ideas.
    
                                                    Tony
    
                          

| <<< Note 271.140 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| >I don't need to believe anything is true to give my interpretation
| >on Scripture. If this is what I believe it is saying and we are discussing the
| >words, then where is the problem?

| Whether words are inspired or not makes a difference in discussing them.

	Why?

| >MAYBE, if what I am writing is looked at and not thrown into some sort of
| >automatic pile you could save moocho band width.

| Your words are looked at, and they drone on the same tune, contrary to what
| is set out as the standard in this conference.  It is easy to automatically
| dismiss what you say on that basis.  You'll note that you do get considered
| replies, until you return to your drone again.

	Uh huh..... and who is the first to imply what I am saying and what my
actions are/reasons etc? I'll let you figure it out.....



Glen

Note 271.141 38110::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        ...I personally
>        understand scripture's definiton of agape to be different than
>        a dictionary's....

>        As far as the story of Admetus and Alcestus in concerned, my point
>        was to try to illustrate the Greek's pinnacle expression of love
>        and I in no way meant to imply that this definition of love equates
>        to the biblical definition of agape.  In fact, I believe I equated
>        this to eros ('heavenly eros') and not agape.

You attempt to define what agape means, saying that it is different than  what
people think it means (common language usage).  In that attempt, you say that
you use Scripture only to define what agape means, that we can't or shouldn't
use the  common language usage of the words given in the Bible to define what
those words mean.  To illustrate a distinction between the Bible definition
and how the world defines it, you use a story outside of Scripture (in an
attempt to define by contrast).

My point is that the evidence seems to bear that you have made the definitions
and not Scripture.  Scripture doesn't attempt to define the terms, only to
express them.  The terms are expressed in common language, hatred, jealousy,
anger, wrath, love (philios, eros, and agape).  The definition of the common
language is the understanding of these words by those who both communicate them
(by authorship) and those who receive them (through reading).  If the author
communicates something commonly used and understood, but means something
different, then the author is NOT communicating.

If you hold that Scripture is God-breathed, I do not understand how it is you
can reconcile the fact that you believe the texts mean something different than
what the author is saying in the texts.  And this misunderstanding of how you
can reconcile this [seeming] disparity in logic is why I have continued this
discussion.

>        Actually, this further illustrates my point.  If the Greeks
>        considered 'heavenly eros' to be the greatest love there is, how
>        could they not know that their own word agape is actually a
>        'better' love _or_ why wouldn't the NT writers have used eros
>        instead of agape?  Either the Greeks didn't know their own language
>        too well or if they did, the NT writers should have then used eros.

And what of wrath, anger, hatred, jealousy; traits ascribed to a holy God? The
correlation you have here breaks down.  I don't buy it and think your
conclusions about what Scriptures says in this matter is incomplete, and
in some areas, just plain wrong (e.g. "different definition for terms").

Mark

Note 271.142 JURAN::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| >I don't need to believe anything is true to give my interpretation
>| >on Scripture. If this is what I believe it is saying and we are discussing 
>| >words, then where is the problem?
>
>| Whether words are inspired or not makes a difference in discussing them.
>
>       Why?

Because THIS conference (how many times must you read this?) is based on the
context of inerrant Scripture.  Without the context, there is NO communication.

>| Your words are looked at, and they drone on the same tune, contrary to what
>| is set out as the standard in this conference.  It is easy to automatically
>| dismiss what you say on that basis.  You'll note that you do get considered
>| replies, until you return to your drone again.
>
>       Uh huh..... and who is the first to imply what I am saying and what my
>actions are/reasons etc? I'll let you figure it out.....

Often it is me, because (a) I keep current with the conference, and (b) have
an extensive history with you and your patterns.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        Great Mark, I understand what you're saying and I think you
        understand what I'm saying.
    
        So what's the purpose of continuing?  Is it to repeat what's
        been said before?
    
        I've said it before and I'll say it again...the word agape
        has been defined by scripture and its definition _by scripture_
        is in ways radically different than its definition as one would
        have seen it in a Greek dictionary pre-NT times.
    
        And yes, I have defined wrath by Romans 1 among other texts.  I
        have shaped my understanding by what scripture says and scripture
        has led me to the conclusion that emotions as they describe God
        must be defined by scripture.
    
        And you believe differently and thats ok.
    
        I guess I don't see the need for continuing.  You have very 
        clearly and repeatedly and emphatically stated your opposition to
        this belief I have.  I'm not sure that Repeat #490 is quite
        necessary.
    
        I will know nothing among you save Christ and Him crucified.
        When I want to know what God is like, I look to the cross.  The
        cross is the beginning and the end of my 'religion.'  And my study
        of scripture (as it relates to this topic) is consistent with the
        perspective the cross has for me.
    
        God forbid that I glory in nothing save the cross.
    
                                          Tony

       I just have to add one point.  When you say, "scripture doesn't
       attempt to define the terms..."
    
       My own understanding is that 1 Corin 13 attempts to define the 
       term.
    
       "agape is..."
    
       "agape is..."
    
       "agape does not..."
    
       "agape does not..."
    
       If that's not defining a term, I don't know what is.

1Corinthians 13:1  Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and
have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
  2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries,
and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
  3  And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
  4  Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
  5  Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil;
  6  Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
  7  Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth
all things.
  8  Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;
whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it
shall vanish away.
  9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
 10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall
be done away.
 11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
 12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
 13  And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of
these is charity.

Note here that this does not define hatred, jealousy, nor anger.  It does say
"not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;"    This definition of agape is not
in conflict with what the common language usage says, but your definitions
of wrath, etc, are, which you base on a supposition of what agape is (that it
precludes having the trait of anger, jealousy, wrath, and hatred - which is does
not).  And this is why I keep repeating myself - because you keep repeating 
yourself and when we reach 70x7 ("#490" as you say), perhaps you will be
able to see that being in possession of agape does not preclude ALSO possessing
other traits that you have not associated with an Agape God.

Mark

 .148 and .149 have been set hidden.



 This conference is not for personal attacks or debates regarding who
 said what to whom when, how and why.


 If there is a disagreement with the premise of this conference please take
 it off line with the moderators.




 Jim Co mod.

      Hi Mark,
    
        This is my last reply.
    
        The following is what I currently believe.
    
        All of God's character can be understood by the cross.
        One cannot be love and hate.  One cannot be love and jealousy
        or love and anger.  It is impossible to hate and to love someone
        at the same time.  The unsaved are destroyed by a revelation of 
        the cross which reveals their sin which destroys them.  Yes, God 
        does remove the veil, so He is implicated, but I do not wish to 
        delve into the reasons for that.
    
        To be love is to not be able to be hate.  What I see implied
        is that God isn't love, He sometimes loves.  That's a big
        difference.  Its like, "Sometimes God doesn't love, cause 
        sometimes He hates!"
    
        The cross is the express image of the Father.  I see nothing
        more to add than that.  
    
        The above has been formed FOLLOWING my scriptural study and not
        PRECEDING so I ask you to not delve into "why I think or believe
        as I do."
    
        In my own life, the moment I am angry at anyone, love is not 
        residing in my heart at the same time toward what I am angry at. 
        I believe the reason for my anger is because I am spiritually 
        immature and not perfect in love.  When (and if) the time comes 
        (by the grace of God), I will only love.  No matter what
        anyone may do to me (including wish me accursed of God forever),
        I pray that I only repay with love.  I want no anger in my heart,
        no jealousy, no hate.  Just love.  And that's all I see in the life
        of Jesus and perhaps His main purpose was to reveal what His Father
        is really like.  To see the Father, to see all of His character,
        is to see the life of Christ.  And including the event of the
        clearing of the temple, I don't believe Christ was ever angry in
        the sense that we consider anger.
    
        I don't see your position either scripturally or in a discernment
        sort of way.  I simply do not discern the possibility that Christ
        is mad like we understand it or hates people as we understand hate
        and I don't see scripture saying so either for the reasons
        repeatedly given.
    
        I never said 1 Corin defined anything but agape.
    
        Because of my spiritual immaturity, I would probably get into this
        conference, find that you have replied, and be tempted to reply 
        some more.
    
        For that reason, I am leaving the Conference for at least a couple
        weeks.  Maybe after a few weeks I'll come back in.
    
        But not to this reply.
    
                                           See Ya and God Bless,
    
                                           Tony

    
    
    > notes hidden
    
     I dip into this conference for a quickie and I miss a good fight :-)
    
    
    Dybz

 Thanks for the reminder..

 .148-.150 have been deleted


 Jim co mod.

.152  Tony Barbieri

We disagree, fairly strenuously.  You deny that God does have these 
qualities that He says he has (such as jealousy) by redefining the
word or dismissing it altogether because you can't "discern" it.

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I
the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 34:14  For thou shalt worship no other God: for the Lord, whose name is
jealous, is a jealous God:

So look to 1 Corinthians 13 all you want, but don't let the words of
God himself color your discernments.  Take the whole of Scipture for
what it says to understand the character of God more fully and don't
make the mistake of bounding His character by what we want to believe
about Him.  (It goes for me, too.)

Mark

      "Now the works of the _flesh_ are manifest, which are these;...
    
       hatred,...,wrath,..."
    
      "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
       gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance...
       hate, wrath, anger, and jealousy: against such there is no law."
    
       Oops!  I misquoted the last part!
    
      "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
       gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such
       there is no law."
    
                                                     Tony
            

You quote the verse in isolation of the other texts, which has been my beef 
the whole time.  Look at the whole of the Bible, Tony.

People are composite beings, and God is much much MORE than people are.

And even if you took those verses in isolation, it talks of the fruit
of the Spirit, but nothing about the justice or vengeance of the Spirit.

"Vengeance belongs to God"  Dt. 32:35; 41, 43; Ps 94:1; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30

Romans 12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place
unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the
Lord.

Hebrews 10:30  For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I
will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

And many others....

      Mark,
    
        I'm looking at the whole of the Bible...I'm just seeing what
        it means to be different than what you see what it means.
    
        I do not believe there is anything God does that is contrary
        to the fruit of the Spirit.  The fruit of the Spirit is simply
        the manifestation of His character.
    
        Your understanding (I think...correct me if I am wrong ;-)  )
        is that God is more than this fruit.  So while God is vengeful,
        He is simply something other than the fruit.
    
        My understanding is that God always is the fruit and while He is
        vengeful, He is still the express image of that fruit.  And my
        understanding has led me to what I have said many times already.
    
        It doesn't do a dime's bit of good for you to show me texts that
        show that God hates, is jealous, etc.  My position embraces those
        texts, it simply believes that Godly hate .ne. human hate etc.
        etc.
    
        So you understand that vengeance is inconsistent with the fruit
        of the Spirit and thus (I suppose) that the totality of what the
        fruit of the Spirit is IS A SUBSET of the totality of what God
        is.  I on the other hand believe that the totality of God's
        character is embraced by what the fruit of the Spirit is for the
        Spirit produces ALL fruit that are of God's character.
    
                                                    Tony
    
        

    Greetings,
    
    I have a *strong* recommendation for anyone interested in learning more
    about man's sinful nature (what does *that* mean?) before becoming a
    believer, what happened to the "old man", and what it means to be a new
    creation, to check out Gilham Ministries (in Texas, I believe).  Dr.
    Bill and Anabele Gilham have many fantastic books, tapes, & videos on
    this subject.  I can get their address and post it here.  Highly
    recommended!  Though, there are a few points here and there that I
    disagree with, for the most part, I found his teaching to be an
    excellent practical view of the wonderful truth of the Scriptures
    regarding the old man and the new creation.
    
    Steve 

.158> Tony Barbieri

>        I'm looking at the whole of the Bible...I'm just seeing what
>        it means to be different than what you see what it means.
>
>        It doesn't do a dime's bit of good for you to show me texts that
>        show that God hates, is jealous, etc.  My position embraces those
>        texts, it simply believes that Godly hate .ne. human hate etc.
>        etc.

Yes, you make your point clear that you place different meaning on what 
common language usage would suggest, even though that is what the authors 
used, and what God would use to convey His concepts to us.  It is a 
dangerous presumption to make (redefinition of the common use of terms).

>        So you understand that vengeance is inconsistent with the fruit
>        of the Spirit and thus (I suppose) that the totality of what the
>        fruit of the Spirit is IS A SUBSET of the totality of what God
>        is.  I on the other hand believe that the totality of God's
>        character is embraced by what the fruit of the Spirit is for the
>        Spirit produces ALL fruit that are of God's character.

[Not] Ignoring the fact that "you are telling me what I understand,"
it is a fairly accurate assessment of our positions and certainly why
I say that your view of God's character is "incomplete." 

I have said, though, that if one has to be "incomplete" about God's
character, I would be more than happy for them to err as you have and
reduce the complexity of God to your view.

A minor correction though.  Vengeance is not inconsistent with the fruit 
of the Spirit but merely one of the other characteristics (or traits) of 
a just and fair God.  Note that the fruit of the Spirit are to be expressed
in human's lives; vengeance belongs to God - why? Because only He can weild
it in a holy just manner.  When vengeance is delivered, it is deserved.
God says He desires mercy, but is a just God and Judge, and has a measure
of patience.

God is perfect.  When he hates, it is with a holy hatred.  When he is jealous,
it is uncorrupted by human pettiness.  When vengeance is repaid, it is a just
punishment.  Though God hates, is jealous, is vengeful, we know that he is
not corrupted by human selfishness or pettiness - BUT! this is not cause for
redefinition of hatred or other terms.  It is cause for examining what is 
polluted in *our* hatred so that anything we hate, we hate with a holy hatred,
and that it is only the things that God hates (as the Psalmist said).

Instead of redefining what hate is on God's part, consider what hate is on our
part and you will find that we (hate plus self interest).  (And a lot of
other emotions can be packed into "self interest.")  Hatred by itself is 
a concept that does not need to be redefined as foreign to God or incapable
of being one of the characteristic traits of God.  Further, hatred does
not need to be redefined for humans, either - it only needs to be understood
for what it is in it purity, and in its polluted state.  God hates in purity;
we do not.  But both hate.  What we hate and the reasons we hate are often
different things, and sometimes the same thing.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        Thanks for your reply, but to be honest it was entirely 
        unnecessary because I heard it all before I think more
        than once!
    
                                            Tony

But it hasn't made a dime's bit of good.  Alas.

      Yeah, my sentiments exactly.  Alas.

    Mark,
    
    I loved your note.  I especially got a very clear picture of your
    definition of hate + self interest.  I've often tried to articulate
    [unsuccessfully] what you did so eloquently.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Tony,
    
    You know I'm very fond of you and I don't say this to hurt you, truly I
    don't.  But if I know you, [and I could be wrong], I'd say that just
    about now you are regretting the note you entered a few back.  You are
    a caring, gentle person and I have a great respect for you.  But I must
    say, if this is the new you... I liked you better the old way. :-) :-)
    
    Very fondly and with love,
    Nancy

      Hi Nance,
    
        What note??!!
    
        The "not a nickel's worth" one?  Is that the one?  If so, it is
        merely echoing exactly what Mark said.  He understands one way
        and his understanding is important to him and he says "alas"
        that somehow I was not able to see the truth in his view.
    
        I understand things another way and my understanding is important
        to me and I say "alas" that somehow Mark was not able to see the
        truth in my view.
    
        If you took affront to this particular reply, why did it come
        off as offensive when Mark's did not?  They are essentially
        identical.
    
        Or was it another reply?
    
        I'm confused!
    
                                                   Tony

      Hi Mark,
    
        I just want to clarify that I MEANT to apply the "not a nickel's
        worth" statement to MYSELF and not to YOU.  After rereading the
        reply, it is plain to me that it could easily be taken that I 
        meant to apply it to you.
    
        I just meant to say that just as (from your perspective) it did
        not seem to work out to get me to understand the validity of your
        view, it did not work out for me to get you to understand the
        validity of my view.  I was applying the inability to myself and
        the "nickel's worth" statement completely to myself.
    
        I'm sorry for any potential misinterpretations that may have seemed
        offensive.
    
                                                      Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    Thanks for clarifying the point.  I'm sorry for having taken it the
    wrong way. %-}
    
    Love you,
    Nancy

      Hi nance,
    
        That's cool.  I would have had the same thought you did if I took
        it that way and after reading it, the way you took it seemed the
        more likely way _to take it_!!!
    
        I just wish I could write better!
    
                                                    Love you too,
    
                                                    Tony

 Hi Mark,

�[Not] Ignoring the fact that "you are telling me what I understand,"

 Mark, I couldn't let this statement go without making a reply.
 Correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that you are alluding to
 my fairly recent opposition to your telling me WHY I believe as I
 do about something.

 If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I am doing
 exactly what I stated I felt was wrong to do.  If so, I suggest
 otherwise.

 So I need to clarify.

 I have no problem whatsoever with anyone stating what they think
 I believe.  In fact I welcome it because it makes communication 
 easier when we understand what we believe on things.  We under-
 stand better how well it is that we are explaining what we are trying
 to say.  I think its great if someone writes what they think I 
 believe so then I can better know if they do understand what I
 believe or if something got screwed up in the communication.

 BUT, stating WHAT someone believes and WHY someone believes what
 he believes about something are two completely different things.
 You might find me writing what I think you believe about something.
 I hope you never find me writing down why I think you believe as
 you do.  Perhaps off mail, but not in a public forum.

 Do you see the difference?

 But, if you would prefer that I never write down what it is I think
 you believe, just let me know.  And it is totally fine by me if you
 write down what it is you think I believe about something...just not
 why.  (Because that's when it gets into things like "you're ignoring
 part of the Bible" or "you're basing your belief on what you want to 
 believe and not the Bible, etc., etc." which I don't believe is
 kosher.  Because we just don't know each other's hearts.  We really
 don't know.  Its pretty subjective.

                                                Tony

Hi Mark,
    
�A minor correction though.  Vengeance is not inconsistent with the fruit 
�of the Spirit but merely one of the other characteristics (or traits) of 
�a just and fair God.  Note that the fruit of the Spirit are to be expressed
�in human's lives; vengeance belongs to God - why? 

****Because only He can weild it in a holy just manner.****  

�When vengeance is delivered, it is deserved.
�God says He desires mercy, but is a just God and Judge, and has a measure
�of patience.

�God is perfect.  When he hates, it is with a holy hatred.  When he is jealous,
�it is uncorrupted by human pettiness.  When vengeance is repaid, it is a just
�punishment.  Though God hates, is jealous, is vengeful, we know that he is
�not corrupted by human selfishness or pettiness - BUT! this is not cause for
�redefinition of hatred or other terms.  It is cause for examining what is 
�polluted in *our* hatred so that anything we hate, we hate with a holy hatred,
�and that it is only the things that God hates (as the Psalmist said).

 I just want to show you how it is I believe the above reasoning is flawed.
 And this is not to try to get you to believe otherwise on your fundamental
 position here...just to show how one plank of your argument makes no sense
 to me.

 You say that vengeance is not listed as a fruit because only God can have a 
 holy vengeance.  ("Only He can wield it in a holy manner.")  If I am to 
 continue with your logical flow, I think it would be that Godly hate is not 
 listed as a fruit because only God can hate in a holy manner and jealousy is
 not listed as a fruit because only God can be jealous in a holy manner, etc.,
 etc.

 So the basic reason these things are not fruit is because they can only 
 be done by God because only He can do so in a holy manner.

 Now think this through.  Are not all of what Christ fulfills in us holiness?
 Is not love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
 meekness consistent and requiring of holiness?

 Virtually anything that we can do that is a fruit MUST be compatible with
 holiness.  So for me to accept your reasoning requires me to conclude:

 That the fruit of the Spirit are what they are partially because they can
 be wielded apart from and external to the holiness of God.

 And I can't accept that.  Christ must be 100% of our righteoussness.  Every
 Godly thought is a miracle provided by Christ our righteoussness.  When 
 you say that we cannot have godly vengeance because it is a holy vengeance,
 it sounds like you are saying that some part of the holy character of
 Christ cannot be manifested in us OR THAT what differentiates the fruit
 from things like godly vengeance is that godly vengeance must be wielded
 in a holiness sort of way.  And this implies for the fruit the contrast
 that they NEED NOT BE wielded in a holiness sort of way.

 So anyway, I am left with the position that your position cannot satisfy 
 any basis for hate, wrath, etc. NOT being listed as a fruit of the Spirit.

                                                      Tony

.163 and ensuing notes:

Didn't bug me.


.170>  If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I am doing
 exactly what I stated I felt was wrong to do.  If so, I suggest
 otherwise.

You understood me correctly.

>Do you see the difference?

Apparently not.

> But, if you would prefer that I never write down what it is I think
> you believe, just let me know.  And it is totally fine by me if you
> write down what it is you think I believe about something...just not
> why.  (Because that's when it gets into things like "you're ignoring
> part of the Bible" or "you're basing your belief on what you want to 
> believe and not the Bible, etc., etc." which I don't believe is
> kosher.  Because we just don't know each other's hearts.  We really
> don't know.  Its pretty subjective.

Splitting hairs, methinks.

(onto .171 in my next note)

.171>

> So the basic reason these things are not fruit is because they can only 
> be done by God because only He can do so in a holy manner.

I don't know how you reasoned this from what I wrote.  (Preconceptions?)
Your perceptive reasoning of my note is flawed, and not my note.

> Now think this through.  Are not all of what Christ fulfills in us holiness?
> Is not love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> meekness consistent and requiring of holiness?

Yes.  And so is holy hatred, and holy Jealousy.  While God can only wield
holy (pure) hatred, we can also wield holy hatred by hating that which God
hates with God's Spirit within us.  When we deviate from that alignment,
we corrupt the holy hatred making it (hatred plus self-interest).

> So anyway, I am left with the position that your position cannot satisfy 
> any basis for hate, wrath, etc. NOT being listed as a fruit of the Spirit.

I'm not surprised considering how you took my note.  The fruit of the Spirit
is NOT meant to be an unabridged listing of the character traits of God.
It is meant to define the fruit of the Spirit.

Mark

    
    
    
    
    
      Hi Mark,
    
      Stating what one believes can simply be an objective written
      summary of what a person has laid out.  It can be done for
      the purpose of checking to see if one has correctly understood
      what the other person is trying to convey.
    
      Stating why one believes as one does enters into an altogether
      different realm.  This is what I believe and so I can only ask
      you to apply my perceptions as _my_ guidance for why I differentiated
      between writing what one believes and not writing why one believes as 
      one does.
    
      Actually, I'm pretty surprised you find this to be splitting hairs.
      For example, one might have a dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness.
      And one might say..."So and so doesn't believe Jesus is God."  I
      see nothing wrong with that.  BUT, if one says, "So and so doesn't
      believe Jesus is God because he chooses to reject much of what the
      Bible says, etc., etc" THAT is flat out wrong.  The real reason could 
      be that the person never studied the Bible out a whole lot.  It could
      be the power of 'tradition' where one grew up with some parenting.  It
      could be a zillion things, but the objective fact of what one
      believes is just that - objective.  The other (knowing why) is 
      subjective and knowing why can require knowing things about a person 
      that perhaps only God really knows.
    
      Mark, in this regard, what you believe to be splitting hairs I
      believe to be extremely important.
    
      If somebody thinks something is important and I do not think so, I
      would hope to treat that person according to what is important to 
      him.  (And 'judge' that person the same way.  I'm using 'judge'
      loosely here - no condemnation!  ;-)  )
    
      But, whatever.  I hope you can understand that given _my_ distinction,
      I did not do unto you that which I have said I do not want one to
      do unto me.  Do you understand this???
    
    
      Onto holy hatred...
    
      I fail to see why it is not a fruit of the Spirit.  I don't get 
      it.  I don't follow you and I'm not intelligent enough to know
      whether the problem is incorrect perception on my part or fuzzy
      communication on your part, but as you seem to be rather decisive
      as to the cause, I'll reread the past replies and see where I
      bumbled on what you said.
    
      But, again, I still don't get it.
    
      You said the fruit of the Spirit are _fruit_ and I need to get past
      the symbolism into the actual reality it represents.  Its circular
      (to me) to say that fruit is fruit.
    
      Tell me where I err:
    
      I believe fruit of the Spirit are simply components of Christ's
      righteoussness.  If there is a holy hate, I believe this is a
      component of Christ's righteoussness and thus a fruit of the Spirit.
      As it is not listed as a fruit of the Spirit, I am inclined to 
      believe that it actually is not a component of Christ's righteouss-
      ness.
    
      Maybe you could start out real basic.
    
      Such as...
    
      what exactly is the reality that the symbol _fruit_ decribes?
    
      Why is for example meekness a fruit and (assuming your view) 'holy
      hatred' is not?  (Based on your definition of what fruit is)
    
      Why would fruit of the Spirit be only an incomplete list of all
      that entails the righteoussness of God?  What exactly is it that
      divides God's righteoussness into other facets (such that some
      facets would not be fruit and others would) and what is the
      Biblical symbolism of these other attributes (that you say are not
      fruit)?  (Scripture please if possible.)
    
                                Thanks and Have a Blessed Weekend,
    
                                Tony

>      But, whatever.  I hope you can understand that given _my_ distinction,
>      I did not do unto you that which I have said I do not want one to
>      do unto me.  Do you understand this???
 
No, I don't.  What you see as a sharp distinction could simply be "making
a mountain out of a mole hill."  Sorry.

>      You said the fruit of the Spirit are _fruit_ and I need to get past
>      the symbolism into the actual reality it represents.  Its circular
>      (to me) to say that fruit is fruit.

Hint:  Is fruit all there is to the tree? 
       What are the traits of a fruit-bearing tree?  
       What are the fruit of the tree?


Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        I'm not sure where you are going with your hint, but perhaps
        we could stick to the Bible as far as its application of plants
        to explaining spiritual things.
    
        I know the Bible has called us branches and Christ a vine with
        the vine and the branches parable.  But, I still do not know of
        one single time something other than fruit is used to describe
        attributes of the righteoussness of God.  (Perhaps you can show
        me otherwise in so far as plant life is used as the symbol for
        spiritual things.)
    
        I remain believing that fruit are what the Spirit of God PRODUCES
        so far as CHARACTER TRAITS are concerned.  And there is not a
        character trait the Spirit produces that it would be a mistake
        to classify as a fruit.
    
        Actually, plants also have leaves, but they are not used in any
        parable (so far as I know) to represent anything good.  The fig 
        tree with all its leaves, but no fruit was destroyed.  The leaves
        were a pretension because no fruit was there.
    
        Perhaps you could cite with scripture whatever else it is in the
        plant that might be symbolic of what you call holy hatred, anger,
        jealousy, etc.
    
        -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
        As far as "mountain out of a mole hill", I don't think so.  I 
        hope to continue a posture of repeating what one believes for 
        the sake of clarification or whatever, but hope to abstain from 
        telling anyone why anyone believes as he does.  I don't have a 
        problem giving my two cents worth offline, but not in a public 
        forum.  Best left to God I continue to believe (or one to one).
    
                                                      Tony            

Note 271.176  LUDWIG::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        I'm not sure where you are going with your hint, but perhaps
>        we could stick to the Bible as far as its application of plants
>        to explaining spiritual things.

The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit.  Fruit is a metaphor, it being a
product of a fruit tree.  Therefore, a product of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, etc.

>But, I still do not know of one single time something other than fruit is
>used to describe attributes of the righteoussness of God.

The characteritics traits of an apple tree, for example, are not only the
apples. The leaves are green in the springtime (there is a time for
everything under the sun); the wood is hard and often gnarly; most apple
trees grow low to the ground compared to some other fruit tree (bananas,
for example); it has roots which anchor it firmly in the soil.

The characteristic traits of God are not only in His fruit.  fruit is
nourishing.  A switch made from a branch is not nourishing; it is
correctlive.  (Spare the rod and spoil the child.)

>        Perhaps you could cite with scripture whatever else it is in the
>        plant that might be symbolic of what you call holy hatred, anger,
>        jealousy, etc.

Perhaps you are [un]intentionally missing the point.

You have said the fruit of the Spirit does not include hate.

Yes, I agree.   But the fruit of the Spirit is not all there
is to God.  And the Bible is clear that God hates some things
(see note 45.*).  Perhaps you should take up this matter with 
Barry Dysert who enjoys handling "seeming" contradictions in the
Bible, for this is what you would make it.

You acknowledge the texts, for they are clearly there, but you 
redefine their meaning (as you have said in your own words).
Rather than viewing these as contradictions, I suggest expanding 
your view as to the nature and characteristics of God.

Mark

.177 My own entry...	

To follow on with a second illustration:  The first fruit of the Spirit is
love.  Does this include all love?  How about the love of money, which is 
the root of all evil?  Of course not. 

The word is agape in Galatians 5:22.  Does this mean the fruit of the 
spirit does not allow philios (it excludes feelings of friendship) and
eros (sexual love)?  Yes, it does mean this because these are not part
of the fruit.   But as character traits go, these are not exempt from 
human or divine characteristics.

And what about joy?  Does it mean joy over all things?  Rejoicing over 
wickedness?  Of course not.  It is even absurd to mention it because 
we know what Paul is saying when he says part of the fruit of the
Spirit is joy.  We understand the context and does not include joy
over wickedness.

My point is (again) that the fruit of the Spirit is not and was not meant 
to be an unabridged listing of the character traits of God.  It has a 
context.  And just as the fruit of the spirit deals with proper love,
and proper joy, there is also a context in which God exercises judgment, 
has the emotions of jealousy (please examine those things he is jealous for), 
has hatred for (see note 45.*), and other traits that MUST be seen 
in the context of a holy God, and in the context of unpolluted definition.

Mark

 Replies .179-190 have been moved to chit-chat.




 Jim Co mod.