Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Hi -
    I started at the beginning and managed to get thru Genesis and Exodus.
    I'm really a beginner here, its my first time straight thru these.  I'm using
    my good old Study Guide NIV version.  Its too hard with my KJV.  I
    am actually just trying to read straight through, not do any real
    study.  I was brought up in a Jewish home but we really didn't believe
    in anything and I never had access to a bible. I have so many questions.  
    I'm sure these have been addressed here before.  Maybe you all can show 
    me the pointers to the appropriate notes.  Heres my list so far.  
    
    How do the present day Jews (without Jesus) expect attonement since
    they don't do any of the blood sacrifies that are spelled out, what do 
    they replace them with?
    
    What are the Messianic Christians?  There seems to be a group here.
    How do they handle the detailed rules of the OT along with the 
    freedom of Jesus?  Which traditions do they keep, which don't they?
    Why? 
    
    Sabbath? What does this mean to the Christian.  Why don't they seem to
    honor it?  There was a previous note about Sat vs Sun too?  
    
    Its so depressing.  God does all these great things for the people and
    they keep forgetting and doubting Him.  Moses was only gone for 40 days
    and they lost faith and made an idol.  
    
    Whats the point in all the detailed contents of the tabernacle.  I'm
    used to freedom why did God want such items on earth?  Why be so
    specific?  Whats the point?  Is it just to test them?  There must be
    more.
    
    That enough for now.
    I warned you I was a beginner.  
    Jill2
    

>    I warned you I was a beginner.  

In the Word, maybe.  In the spirit, not at all.  Good to see you moving
toward greater balance by emphasizing that Word to balance what the Lord has
already done for you in the Spirit.  The Lord has great things in store for
you!

I'll give a shot at these later, I have to leave right now for an
appointment.  If no one does this before I get back, I'll move this note to a
new note.  Wouldn't want this discussion to get lost in chit-chat!

Paul

    Thanks Paul.  I was thinking that I was being too loud and should
    be quiet and yield to those more experienced than I.  
    
    Its wonderful having time and a space to study the Word now.  God truely
    is a God of miracles.
    
    Jill2

    Hi Jill !

    I didn't know you grew up in a Jewish home.  You're asking great 
    questions, and I've also appreciated your notes, so don't think
    you're being too "loud". Your participation is quite welcome!

    Actually, now I've forgotten your specific questions so will have
    to pull your note into my next reply to see if I can try to answer
    any of them for you.

    I do recall that you asked about the Messianic Jewish movement which
    perhaps I can help answer. My husband and I began attending a Messianic 
    Jewish synagogue about a year and a half ago after we'd already done 
    quite a bit of study on our own beginning with a book called "Our 
    Father Abraham" by Dr. Marvin Wilson. Dr. Wilson is a professor at 
    Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. We've been reading & studying 
    voraciously ever since.

    My interest had actually begun several years before that when a church
    singles group I was a part of had a Pesach (Passover) Seder. I was 
    stunned at how beautiful it was and how much of it "spoke" to me of 
    Jesus. And then my sister married a non-believing Jewish man & so I 
    wondered, well what exactly do Judaism & Christianity have in common 
    & what exactly are the differences and so on? And then we began to know
    people in the Messianic Jewish movement and so we went to services at
    Ruach Israel one Saturday & just kept on going ever since. Tomorrow, 
    during the morning Shabbat service, my husband and I will become official 
    members of our synagogue.

    Okay, enough about how I got involved in it. There has actually been some
    small (very small) portion of Jewish people who believe that Jesus (Hebrew
    name = Yeshua & means salvation in English) is the Messiah for probably 
    centuries. However the movement today probably had its real beginnings
    back in the 60's I think.  Some go back a little further & consider that
    the seed was planted when Israel was made a homeland for the Jews again
    after the Holocaust. (My husband is the real historian, I do not retain
    dates and numbers very well, so I hope what I'm telling you is accurate).

    Messianic Jewish congregations include both Jews, and non-Jews who have
    put their faith in, and yielded to the Lordship of Jesus. We believe
    that He is the Messiah. Although the term Trinity is not heard much, we 
    do recognize that there is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Ruach 
    haKodesh). At the same time, we honor the covenants with Abraham & Moses,
    see these as still in effect today, and seek to follow a Jewish lifestyle,
    observing kashrut, celebrating the holidays, remembering and keeping the 
    sabbath (shabbat), and so on. Since it is a relatively new entity, there 
    are still some areas which are not completely worked out or resolved yet.
   
    We get criticised from both sides. Other Jewish groups, Orthodox, Reform,
    Conservative, Reconstructionist, see our Jewish members as no longer 
    Jewish, as traitors and heretics because of their faith in Yeshua. There
    is also resistence and arguments against non-Jews following those things
    they feel are specifically for the Jewish people. On the other side, there
    has been such a long tradition of anti-semitism (sometimes blatant, but it
    can be very subtle) that has so long pervaded Christianity that many 
    Christians see any observance of the Torah as being "legalism" and see 
    those in movements as heretics giving up their salvation. Observance of 
    the Torah however is not for the purpose of "earning" salvation - Yeshua 
    is our Salvation. We observe Torah because its the way a redeemed people 
    ought to live. I see Isaiah 56 as part confirmation of this.

    If you're interested, I can supply a bibliography of books to read.
    And if you live in the greater Boston area, you might be interested in 
    coming to our services some Saturday morning. Services begin at 10 AM.
    Ruach Israel is in Needham, MA. There are also Messianic congregations 
    in Worcester and Springfield, MA, and in Hartford, CT.

    Leslie

    .3
    
    Leslie,
    
    Thank you for the information.  I've actually had similar questions as
    Jill and I'm not a new Christian regarding Messianic Jews.
    
    It's great to get this question answered without my asking! :-)  And as
    well, I'm looking forward to hearing more.
    
    Nancy
    

    P.S.
    
    I really sense in my spirit that Christians will soon know the
    persecution of Paul and the other pilgrims of our faith.  We know that
    Christians have suffered persecution all over this world since Christ's
    ascension, however, in this country we've had freedom to enjoy our
    faith.
    
    This freedom is slowly but surely being taken from us.  I'm not an
    alarmist mind you, I find it an exciting and thrilling fulfillment of
    prophecy... but I also see a need for the people of God to come back to
    an ACTS experience of solidifying the Brethren.  
    
    The more I hear about Messianic Jews and gentiles who are searching the
    scriptures and practicing the commandments and observances of our Lord 
    before Christ, the more I believe we are heading towards the underground
    church of believers that God will use to evangelize during the
    tribulation.
    
    With anticipation of our Lord,
    Nancy
    
    
    
    

I don't have a lot of time right now to reply, but I wanted to say a couple
of things:

>    Sabbath? What does this mean to the Christian.  Why don't they seem to
>    honor it?  There was a previous note about Sat vs Sun too?  

It probably doesn't mean nearly enough to most Christians, myself included.
There has been some over-legalism associated with Sabbath recognition through
much of history - from the nit-picking exactness in Jesus' day which He
repeatedly spoke againt, to more recent Christian debates over exactly when
it is to be observed.  But the vast majority of Christians could use a dose
of taking the Sabbath **MUCH** more seriously.  God was concerned enough
about this observance to include it as one of the ten commandments.  Would we
be so cavalier about how we observed "do not commit adultery" or "do not
murder?"  Never!  This is an area in which I'm growing.

>    Its so depressing.  God does all these great things for the people and
>    they keep forgetting and doubting Him.  Moses was only gone for 40 days
>    and they lost faith and made an idol.  
    
Isn't it though?  When I was a younger christian I was very perplexed by
this.  But I've discovered, to my dismay, that this describes *ME*.  God has
done many, many great and wondrous things in my life.  But it's all too easy
for me to fall into "So what have you done for me lately?"

Suppose you asked the following two questions to any group of Christians:

  - Have you had at least one point in your life when God was no longer a
    belief but a certainty?  Some event or experience that absolutely,
    positively beyond any doubt whatsoever proclaimed that God exists and
    loves you?

  - If you answered yes to that question, has there been at least once, since
    the experience referenced in that question, when you have questioned
    again, however briefly, whether this talk of God and salvation through
    Jesus is all just a bunch of hooey and we're all just baying at the moon?

Unfortunately, I have to put up my hand for both questions.  I think you'll
find that most Christians do.  We are a people of very short memory, for the
most part.

Paul

    Our church is starting a Friday night Shabbat service for Messianic Jews 
    in our area (there was a major need for them to have a place of worship
    without legalism in this area).  I'm looking forward to getting
    involved in it!
    
    Mike

That sounds great, Mike.

Paul

      Hi Jill2,
    
        I am one who happens to believe that God calls His people 
        to rest one day in seven on a designated day.  Not as an
        act of legalism, but simply as an act of obedience because
        of how much God loves us.
    
        *BUT*, I would much rather fellowship with Sundaykeeping
        Christians than with "Sabbathkeeping" folk who do so for
        legalistic reasons.
    
        The 7th day Sabbath is a wonderful symbol pointing out a few
        beautiful things about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    re: .3
    
    Thanks for all the replies so far but I have even more 
    questions now!
    
    Leslie -
    Thanks for the summary of a Messianic Jewish congregation.
    
    --    Observance of 
    --    the Torah however is not for the purpose of "earning" salvation -
    --    Yeshua is our Salvation. We observe Torah because its the way a 
    --    redeemed people ought to live. I see Isaiah 56 as part confirmation 
    --    of this.
    
    Please explain how Isaiah 56 fits into this - I don't see it.
    This ties in with my original question which I still don't see the
    answer to.
    The original question was: 
    
    >    How do they handle the detailed rules of the OT along with the 
    >    freedom of Jesus?  Which traditions do they keep, which don't they?
    >    Why? 
    
    
    
    
    --  If you're interested, I can supply a bibliography of books to read.
    
    I am still interested in hearing more but I don't want to get side
    tracked right now with lots of books on another subject.  After all the point
    of this note was to get me through the OT!  How about another reply with
    more details.
    
    Jill2

Amen, Tony.  Obedience out of true love of Christ resembles legalism
externally but is really completely unrelated.  It is a lovely thing. 
Legalism for the sake of following rules, or of works-righteousness, benefits
no one.

Paul

>    Thanks for all the replies so far but I have even more 
>    questions now!

To be sung, not irreverently:

99 questions about the Lord, 99 questions for Him,

He picks one out, explains it to me,

100 questions about the Lord.....


:-) :-) :-) :-)

Paul

        re .7
    
    --Unfortunately, I have to put up my hand for both questions.  I think you'll
    --find that most Christians do.  We are a people of very short memory,
    --for the most part.
    Yes you are right I have to say yes to both questions too.
    Isn't it depressing and wonderfully freeing all at the same time.
    ...theres just something about that name
    Jill2                         
    

    re .8
    
    Mike so what exactly is this church of yours I've been hearing
    so much about?  Whats its name?  What denomination?  How old?
    What are the goals? How are you managing to save so many in this
    dreary land?  See how many questions I have?  And no, I'm
    not looking for a new church, just curious.
    
    Jill2

>    Isn't it depressing and wonderfully freeing all at the same time.

     Amen!


>    ...theres just something about that name
 

 "Kings and kingdoms will all pass away
  but there's just something about that name"

    

    re .10
    
    Hi Tony -
    
    --*BUT*, I would much rather fellowship with Sundaykeeping
    --Christians than with "Sabbathkeeping" folk who do so for
    --legalistic reasons.
    
    So what exactly is a "Sundaykeeping Christian"?  What does
    that require.  Whats ok and whats not?  And why?
    
    Jill2

    re .13
    
    I'm not sure I can count that high!  :-)
    
    Jill2

>    So what exactly is a "Sundaykeeping Christian"?  

Christians who worship on Sunday - and who set aside Sunday as a true
sabbath.  Tony believes that per YHWH's command we should observe the sabbath
on Saturday.  A decision out of obedience to the Lord which I honor, though
I've had occasion to be frustrated at insistence that it's the only correct
way to observe the Sabbath.  Not to enter that discussion here, but that's
what Tony's talking about.

Paul

      Hi Jill2!,
    
        Aren't you a fun noter!!
    
        Paul answered the Sundaykeeping question quite well (I think).
        Thanks Paul!
    
        As far as whats ok and whats not and all of that...
    
        I think the big thing is personal conviction that is a byproduct
        of kneeling before the cross in faith and being guided by the word of
        God.
    
        I am thoughtful of John 3 and Romans 14.  In  John 3, Jesus could
        have given Nicodemus a scroll's worth of what Israel, especially
        the religious establishment, was up to.  But, all He told Nic was
        that he had to be born again - he had to see the cross.  Romans 14
        says, I think, that personal conviction is important.  We ought
        let God convict people and sometimes we can have a tendency to 
        point out sin at a time that is out of season for the sinner.
    
        Boy!  If we just learned how to paint the cross!
    
        Say, I want to hearken back to when you mentioned all the articles
        in the tabernacle and what their importance was.  Would you
        consider giving Hebrews 10:1-4 a read and see if it has relevance
        to your question?
    
        Tell me what it tells you!
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony
     

    re .19
    
    Yes I've heard the Sat vs Sun debate but that wasn't my primary
    question.  I still want to know what "who set aside [a day] as a true
    sabbath" means to everyone.  What do you actually do on this day?
    
    Jill2

A side item might also be this: what exactly does "honour" or "observe"
mean in this case - what would one do or not do on that day (be it
Saturday or Sunday)?

      Hi Jill2,
    
        Well, clearly we are called to rest in Christ every moment of
        our lives.  So this isn't the Sabbath rest.  Clearly, work
        in and of itself is not bad so the Sabbath is not moral law in
        the sense that the other 9 are.
    
        Its a symbol.  Just like baptism and communion and foot washing.
        Some people say we should be baptized by immersion and some say
        it doesn't matter.  The Sabbath controversy is the same way.
    
        As far as what it means to rest in the sense of the Sabbath rest,
        I believe it means to have the entire lifestyle arranged so that
        one ceases from all secular activity so much as possible (such
        as groceries, job, etc.)
    
        Its a really nice experience when the lifestyle is so adapted that
        very attentive and continuous active worship is much more possible
        because other things don't stand in the way.
    
        Hope you give Hebrews 10:1-4 a read!
    
    							Tony

 My Sundays are usually so full I don't have time to do anything that isn't
 church/worship related.




 Jim

>    Mike so what exactly is this church of yours I've been hearing
>    so much about?  Whats its name?  What denomination?  How old?
    
    We are Calvary Community Church of Phoenix, AZ.  It's a Calvary Chapel
    (affiliated with Pastor Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA. 
    He's the one with the "The Word for Today" radio program).  We're
    nondenominational, but we're getting so large in the Western U.S. that
    we might as well be our own denomination.  The one I attend is 13 years
    old, but I've only been going there 3� years.
    
>    What are the goals? How are you managing to save so many in this
>    dreary land?  See how many questions I have?  And no, I'm
>    not looking for a new church, just curious.
    
    We teach the Bible.  
    
    The commute would be long, but worth it. ;-)
    
    Mike

    This one is for Tony,  Thanks
    
    795.1 (original question)
     Whats the point in all the detailed contents of the tabernacle.  I'm
     used to freedom why did God want such items on earth?  Why be so
     specific?  Whats the point?  Is it just to test them?  There must be
     more.
    
    795.20 (tony's reply)  
     Say, I want to hearken back to when you mentioned all the articles
     in the tabernacle and what their importance was.  Would you
     consider giving Hebrews 10:1-4 a read and see if it has relevance
     to your question?
     Tell me what it tells you!
    
    Wow, 
    Without Christ detailed directions and constant reminders were
    neccesary - and even then it didn't work very well.  
    Put the law in our hearts and thats enough - and it works too.
    
    Jill2

    re: 795.25
    
    >    What are the goals? How are you managing to save so many in this
    >    dreary land?  See how many questions I have?  And no, I'm
    >    not looking for a new church, just curious.
        
        We teach the Bible.  
    
    And that says it all.  Nicely done.
    
    Jill2

    That reminds me of one Sunday when Pastor said:
      What does the bible mean to you?
    
    (Hey I know its a degression off topic but since this is my
    topic I'm going to do it anyway!)
    
    Jill2
    

      Hi Jill2,
    
        Thanks for reading, but just a little more!
    
        Hebrews 10:1-4 is saying that the earthly sacrificial system was
        insufficient.  It goes on to explain JUST WHAT the insufficiency
    	was.
    
        The worshipers still had a remembrance of sin.
    
        It gives the system another description - SHADOW.
    
        I suggest that we have moved from earthly shadow to heavenly
        shadow for if we moved to "very image", that very image would
        be such a compelling revelation of God that that 'word' would
        so cleanse our hearts that we wouldn't even remember sin anymore.
    
        Thus I suggest also that the main point of all that tabernacle
        stuff is that it is a shadow symbolic of something that is
        "very image."
    
        It remains with a last generation to come to discern the very
        image of what all these O.T. shadows represent for "the path of
        the just is a shining light that shines brighter and brighter unto
        the perfect day."
    
    							See Ya and God Bless!,
    
    							Tony

     Jill,

     I'll try and address some of the points in your original note first.

>    How do the present day Jews (without Jesus) expect attonement since
>    they don't do any of the blood sacrifies that are spelled out, what do 
>    they replace them with?

     The sacrifices of the temple period were actual of several types. 
     There were sin and guilt offerings, but there were also thank offerings.
     As I understand it, in the Jewish view today, prayer, the Yom Kippur
     liturgical service, doing mitzvot, and a contrite heart take the place 
     of the temple sacrifices. Reading through the notes in the Bagels
     file [TAVENG::BAGELS], topic 1011 should shed further light on Jewish
     people today view the question.  I am currently reading a book which gives
     different views through the ages on different topics within Judaism.
     I'll see if it has anything further to offer. Messianic Jews believe
     that Yeshua is the once for all atonement. Have you looked much at the
     kapporah in the Yom Kippur traditions? Yeshua is both our kapporah and 
     our Pesach lamb.
    
>    What are the Messianic Christians?  There seems to be a group here.
>    How do they handle the detailed rules of the OT along with the 
>    freedom of Jesus?  Which traditions do they keep, which don't they?
>    Why? 
 
    I guess I answered some of this in my previous note. But as far as the
    which traditions, why, and rules versus freedom I can add a bit more.
    We rely very much on the Torah, less on rabbinic halachic rulings and 
    the Talmud. Much of the halachic rules are rabbinic definitions and 
    clarifications of Torah, to build a fence or hedge around it, further 
    protecting it from being broken - ie if we make even more stringent rules,
    we'll be sure not accidently break or step over something we should not. 
    And so you have the debates on whether one can operate an electric 
    wheelchair on Shabbat, or how many hours you must wait before eating 
    dairy after having eaten meat, and so on. We are no where near as exacting
    as all that. Our idea is be faithful to Torah, to identify with Jewish 
    people, but not to get hung up in all the details that are often the 
    main emphasis to the exclusion of remebering God, loving Him with all 
    your strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

    Much of this is still being worked out, the Messianic Jewish movement is 
    still finding its way in this area. Things we do - we use much of the 
    liturgy - the kaddish for mourners, and much of the traditional
    liturgy for morning services. We have eruv shabbat seders. In fact I've
    got to rush home in just a few minutes to finish getting ready. We fast
    on Yom Kippur, we have a very moving Yom Hashoa service, we celebrate
    the holidays including Purim and Channuka in addition to Pesach, Shavuot,
    Rosh HaShanna, Yom Kippur, and Succoth. We don't eat pork, shellfish, 
    rabbit, etc. However, I don't have a kosher butcher near by and my husband
    and I do eat meat. I don't go through the salting exercise with it either,
    but would not eat something like "blood sausage". We don't count hours 
    between a meat and dairy meal. We travel on shabbat, but put aside our 
    jobs and most money transaction type things on Shabbat. Those are a few
    examples I can think of off the top of my head.

>    Sabbath? What does this mean to the Christian.  Why don't they seem to
>    honor it?  There was a previous note about Sat vs Sun too?  
    
    I think that a lot of Christians are very unaware of the Jewish way of
    honoring the Shabbat or how very central it is to so many things. I know
    that I had very little knowledge of what it truely meant to remember and
    keep the shabbat holy. Now I look forward to it all week long, and feel 
    a bit sad when its over. Shabbat celebrates creation, that God is our 
    provider, it celebrates the great exodus from Egypt - redemption from 
    slaverly, and it celebrates the shalom we have in Yeshua, the redemption
    we have from sin and death! When we light the candles and chant the 
    blessing over the wine and bread, time changes in an indefinable way.
    For a little while, it is like we enter the Messianic Age or the heavenly
    kingdom, or at least get a little glimpse of it. 

    Shabbat was given specifically to the Jews. I look at is kind of the 
    seal on the covenant God made with the people through His servant Moses.
    When I mentioned Isaiah 56 earlier, I was really thinking of the encourage-
    ment it seems to give all people to hold fast to God's covenant. Here it
    seems to me that observing Shabbat will bring blessing on all people who
    revere the Lord.  Note 1399 in Bagels has some discussion on this.

    Worship on Sunday sort of evolved. Some understand the change to be
    because Jesus arose on Sunday (and thus call Sunday the Lord's Day), but 
    I have begun to think it has more to do with the hostility that grew 
    between gentile converts to faith in Jesus and Jewish believers and non-
    believers. John Covert sees this differently. There is a whole note topic
    in this file devoted to the subject. Its note 382. I point you especially
    to notes 389.69, 382.71, & 382.72 (for a bibliography) (they're my notes 
    :-} by the way)

>    Whats the point in all the detailed contents of the tabernacle.  I'm
>    used to freedom why did God want such items on earth?  Why be so
>    specific?  Whats the point?  Is it just to test them?  There must be
>    more.
    
   There is more :-). Some regard the tabernacle as a map to God's court in 
   heaven. I heard a good lecture on tape about that once.  I'm trying to 
   remember who the speaker was. Perhaps I can do some research over the 
   weekend.  There are also a couple of women who have put together a study
   on the tabernacle, complete with model. I think they are willing to do
   this study for various groups, it was done as part of the women's study
   group at Ruach, but I wasn't able to attend.

   I've got to go.  "See" you all on Monday.

   Leslie    

    Re: Tabernacle
    
    Jill, you might want to read 497.44-.45 as well.
    
    Re: We Teach the Bible
    
    At the last pastors' conference Gayle Irwin related a recent
    conversation he had with a very prominent mainline pastor.  This pastor
    wanted to know why the Calvary Chapels were growing by leaps and bounds
    all over the country.  Gayle said the same thing, "We teach the Bible." 
    This prominent pastor as actually offended by that statement!
    
    Mike

    re: 29
    
    Uh this is going to take me a while....maybe 497.44-45 will help...
    I'll be back ...
    
    Jill2

    re: Sabbath
    
    I think this summarizes the answer for the Sabbath question.
    It is compiled mostly from Tony's replies.  The credit goes
    to him.
    
    ----
    
    The Sabbath is not a moral law in the sense that the other 9 Laws are.
    Its a symbol like baptism.  Like baptism it doesn't have to be
    performed immediately after becoming a believer.  Its something most
    of us need time (a lot of time!) to grow into.  Because living the
    Sabbath fully really means resting with God.  It means having your
    entire lifestyle arranged so that you can cease from all secular
    activity (such as groceries, job, etc.) so that 
    continuous uninterrupted active worship is possible.
    
    I can't even imagine this possible in this country.  I have enough
    trouble keeping my Sunday mornings free from the kid's various field
    trips.  But as God works even the impossible becomes possible. 
    
    Through Christ we have freedom.  We don't have to follow the Sabbath
    perfectly immediately.  We do have to follow God as he guides us.  He
    guides everyone differently.  He is a patient, loving, and kind God.
    We need to kneel before the cross in faith and allow ourselves to be
    guided by the word of God on this subject.
    
    ----
        
    I was looking for a simple fixed answer - I should know better by now!
    Celebrating the Sabbath seems to be one of these things that God, in
    his infinite patience and grace, gives us time to grow into.
    
    Jill2

    re: 29, 31, 32  tabernacle
    
    You are saying that all that stuff actually exists in some form in
    heaven!
    
    Hey, I want some credit here.  I actually figured this out on my
    own before reading the next few notes.  I really never heard any of
    this before.  
    
    The stuff from 497.44-45 is fasinating.  I always thought all the 
    detail was boring.  
    
    I'm not sure I actually believe any of this yet but I have enough
    references now to check it out.  And I thought I might make it 
    through Leviticus this weekend!  Now I have to go back and redo
    the last part of Exodus again - as well as all the references.  
    I think I better use the KJV this time too. But I have the time
    to do this! Praise the Lord! I like this freedom stuff!
    
    Thanks for all the help.  It will be much more fun to read this time
    through.
    
    Jill2

    re: Hebrews 10:1-16 the tabernacle yet again
    
    Let me try this again.
    
    The Earthly sacrificial system didn't work because the worshipers still
    remembered sin. Even what we have now through Jesus is only a shadow of 
    what it will be like in heaven (New Jerusalem).  There we will be so 
    full of God's presence that we won't even remember what sin is.  
    It won't exist there [Rev 21:22-27].
    
    BTW, Hebrews 9:22-28 goes with Hebrews 10:1-16 to complete the picture.
    The Rev 21:22-27 verses help a lot too.  
    
    Jill2

      Hi Jill2,
    
        As far as that stuff existing in heaven...well, in a way!!
        Does Jesus' literal blood really cleanse from sin?  (As one
        example.)
    
        I don't believe so.  The blood that cleanses from sin is the
        blood sprinkled by the High Priest in the sanctuary.  God said
        to Moses, "Build Me a sanctuary THAT I MAY DWELL AMONG THEM."
    
        The sanctuary is the heart of man.  The blood applied to the
        sanctuary has to, as its "very image" meaning, be entirely
        perceptual.  I believe its a revelation of the cross, of God's
        self-emptying love.
    
        Thats just one example.  Every physical thing has as its very
        image meaning something that is entirely conceptual.  It is 
        spirit and not flesh.
    
        BTW Jill2, I believe that as with the weekly Sabbath, God's people
        guard the edges.  They enter into that rest before the Sabbath.
        Before the sabbath millenium, God's people have already entered
        into that experience in the heart.
    
        Hebrews is an exhortation to the corporate body to enter perfectly
        into that rest.  It says Israel did not enter in and the context 
        is that the problem is that we sin.
    
        I'll cut to the chase!
    
        Hebrews speaks of an experience entered into by the church.  None
        of the context refers to an experience the church is given at some
        other time (as in after we are in heaven).
    
        Or to put another way...
    
        This side of the second coming, God's church will come to know the
        very image typified by all shadows and the image will be such an
        awesome revelation of God's love that it will perfect their 
        consciences from sin.  They won't remember sin anymore.
    
        They enter into this sinless experience before the second coming.
    
        Check out Hebrews 11:39-12:2.
    
        It speaks of a body and it speaks of what facilitates this process.
        Christ perfects its faith.  Faith believes what is unseen.  When
        we are with Christ, it is all SEEN.  It (thus) refers to a body whose
        faith is perfected before Christ is seen, i.e. before the second
        coming.
    
        Faith comes by hearing the word of God and the time comes when 
        that word that is heard is very image with not a shadow in it!!
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Can one of the monitors change the title of this note to:
    
    Frequently Asked OT Questions
    
    Thanks
    Jill2

    re: 36
    
    >This side of the second coming, God's church will come to know the
    >very image typified by all shadows and the image will be such an
    >awesome revelation of God's love that it will perfect their 
    >consciences from sin.  They won't remember sin anymore.
    
    Isn't this a rather loftly goal while living here on earth among
    the millions of unsaved and un-perfect humans?  Or is this 
    another reference to the end times which I admit I know very 
    little about - but I don't want to tackle that in the scope of 
    this note.
    
    I can see the first sentence, but the second seems impossible to 
    accomplish, didn't Saul/Paul say we have a sinful nature which we
    can't control.  Only by giving control to God can we succeed.  
    I guess that defines the first sentence.  But nowhere do I 
    see a way to totally not see or remember sin.   Unless you 
    are using "remember" in the sense that God forgives and forgets 
    our sins so He doesn't "remember" them anymore.  But sin will 
    still exist and be forgiven and forgotten so at some time in 
    this process it will be "remembered"
    
    I think the key here is that I don't see why "not remembering sin
    anymore" is so important.  When your eyes are on God sin loses its
    importance/control.  I mean this in the sense that when your eyes
    are on God, material possessions/earthly things are not important 
    anymore.  So seeing sin has no hold on you anymore so "not remembering"
    is not necessary.
    
    Jill2
    
    Is this note of some interest to anyone else or should Tony and I
    continue it off line?
                          

>    Is this note of some interest to anyone else or should Tony and I
>    continue it off line?

IMHO, I'd say keep it rollin' along here.

    I agree with Steve.
    
    Pam

    Ok, I was sort of hoping to get out of appearing quite so stupid
    in public, but they say humility is a good thing...

You don't appear stupid in the slightest.  Not knowing something yet is not
stupid.  It depends on what you do with that not-knowing.  Not knowing and
desparately desiring to know is being *HUNGRY*, and you appear, more than
anything, to be starving for the Word of God.  It's like watching someone
who's been lost in the desert sitting down to a feast and digging in, not
sure which of all the wonderful delicacies spread before them they want to
tackle first, and sometimes filling their mouth with more than they can
comfortably chew in their eagerness.  That's something we could all use
seeing (and living!) a lot more of.

Stupid is when you don't know something, and don't particularly care to know.
Really stupid is not knowing something, and telling others they shouldn't
know either.

Paul

>    Can one of the monitors change the title of this note to:
    
>    Frequently Asked OT Questions
    
 


 'tis done!

    
    Jill2,
    
    ...what Paul said.
    
    Also, remember, usually when someone asks a questions there are
    many others out there who have the same question but are afraid
    to ask.  I'm sure there are others reading this file who are
    learning much from this topic.
    
    Pam

    Thanks everyone.

    So where is Tony?  I hope he not using all this time just
    to set up another puzzle for me...

      Hi Jill,
    
        Is anything too hard for God?
    
        Check out the following (from memory so I might screw up
        a little bit)
    
        2 Corin 5:14-
        If we are beside ourselves, it is for God or if we are of
        sound mind it is for you for the love of Christ constrains 
        [motivates] us and we judge thus, that if one died for all
        then all died.  And He died for all THAT
    
        (Why did He die for all?  Well, here's one reason.)
    
        that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but
        for He who died for them and rose again.
    
        True, He needs us to get to the point of seeing the cross not
        as shadow, but as very image, BUT, if partial purpose of the
        cross is to get us to live for Him rather than for self, how
        can we possibly limit the power of the cross to do just that?
    
        Isn't saying perfection is impossible an offense against the
        power of the cross?
    
        Remember when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount?  The love
        He called for was incredible!  And He was talking a love really
        in our hearts, in our experience.  Turn the other cheek.  Love
        your enemy, etc.
    
        Do you know how that sermon ends (within the same context)?
    
        "Be ye therefore perfect EVEN
    
        (even as what?)
    
         even as your Father in heaven is perfect!"
    
        And the entirety of the context is character.
    
        It is a challenge to believe the word of God.
    
        God to Abraham:
        "Walk before me and be thou blameless (perfect)."
    
    
        Jill, the cross has that much power.  Love motivates.  It changes
        hearts that respond.  God is love and He is infinite.  When a
        group sees the very image of the sacrifice of Christ by faith,
        they simply will not have sin in their experience.
         
        If they did, what would that say about the cross?
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

      Hi Jill(2)!,
    
        Just a small comment on the Sabbath.
    
        You mentioned living the Sabbath as being the same as resting
        in Christ and I agree but just want to add something.
    
        The seventh day Sabbath SYMBOLIZES that rest, but is not that
        rest.  It couldn't be if that rest is a continuous one.  But,
        the only way to fully enter into the Sabbath rest would be
        if one were fully resting in Christ.
    
        As an analogy, the physical act of baptism could be partaken
        of by a believer or an unbeliever.  Baptism symbolizes something,
        but the physical act is not that thing it symbolizes.
    
        Hopefully, though, one would partake of the physical act while,
        in the heart, the spiritual experience which physical baptism
        represents, is taking place.  Death to the old life of self and
        life to the new life in Christ.
    
        As God looks on the heart and not the outward act, to partake
        of physical baptism 'in the right way' would be such that the
        thing which physical baptism symbolizes is a living principle
        in the heart.
    
        Seventh day Sabbath is like that.  Cessation of many things, but
        hopefully entered into with that rest in Him that we can have at
        all times.  And if we have that rest in Him as we observe the
        symbol that is the seventh day Sabbath, we can receive quite
        a blessing.
    
        Even ritual/symbol partaken of in the spirit can be a terrific
        blessing as anyone who has partaken of communion or foot washing
        or (I expect)  Messianic feast rituals knows.
    
    
    						Take Care,
    
    							Tony						

    Jill, for more Sabbath info, try 382.17-.18
    
    Mike

    ...and it comes full circle (I love when that happens) 
    I started out having to be perfect all the time then I
    learned that it was ok not to be perfect all the time 
    (which I took to the wrong extreme to mean that you 
    could not be perfect all the time) only to learn that
    its really an achievable goal to be perfect after all.
    
    But I learned of God's lovingkindness and grace and in the process
    so I am and am not at the same spot.
    
    no comment on how many years this process took!
    
    Thanks Tony, got any more?
    
    Jill2
    
    (I can't believe I asked for more...)

      Hi Jill,
    
        God is so good.  He will NEVER leave you.  He'll never stop
        loving you.  The moment you first came to faith, He looked
        at you as fully righteous as Christ Himself.  
    
        Its a nice thing that He can change our hearts, not a bad
        thing!!
    
        So also its a nice thing that He can fully change them
        before He comes.  But, we do have to see very image.
    
        And we are largely looking at shadows.
    
        An endtime transition in covenant typified by the one that
        took place in 31 AD looms!!!
    
    						Tony

      re: 794.27
    
      Say Jill,
    
        Why don't we rename this 'Jill's' topic???   ;-)
    
        I am a firm believer that the more clearly and fully we see
        God's love, the more clearly and fully we see _our_ sin 
        AND the sin that our flesh is capable of outside of the
        grace of God.
    
        James 1 has an excellent illustration of the mirror which
        is called the perfect law of liberty which is the love of
        God.  The natural man is confronted by the mirror and turns
        away.  Why?  Because it showed him a bit of who he is and
        it is painful and he won't identify with that love (respond
        by faith).
    
        The Christian beholds the same mirror and instead of turning
        away, turns away from sin (repents).
    
        That is precisely why God doesn't reveal all of Himself all
        at once.  We couldn't survive the experience.
    
        The experience of drinking in God's love is bittersweet -
        and for the last generation, its like birth pangs with one
        final resounding BITTERSWEET which is when the mirror reveals
        that we are by nature crucifiers of God and we feel to be that
        sinner.  When we overcome that temptation to despair and are
        victor over it, the resulting 'sweet' will be overwhelming.
    
        I gotta admit Jill2, I feel pretty nice that you like my
        inputs!  I like what you are writing and asking!
    
    						See Ya,
    
    		  				Tony

>The natural man is confronted by the mirror and turns
>        away.  Why?  Because it showed him a bit of who he is and
>        it is painful and he won't identify with that love (respond
>        by faith).
>        The Christian beholds the same mirror and instead of turning
>        away, turns away from sin (repents).

Spoken recently (at that church I was talking about in another note):

"When the Holy Spirit confronts your life, the sin in your life must be swept
away.  That part is not optional.  Whether you go with it is up to you."

Paul

    >Why don't we rename this 'Jill's' topic???   ;-)
    NO
    
    
    re: 52
    
    Tony-
    
    It sounds like my note of 10.227 only I was applying that to 
    unbelievers only.
    
    I've been having fun too.  Had to put to use all the puzzle
    and paradox skills I learned way back.  You might even give the
    teacher I had back then a challenge.  
    
    Sometime, *not now*, I'll start a "Endtimes for Beginners" note.
    
    Oh yea, I went to church sunday and they announced that the subject
    of the next sunday school session will be Exodus.  Rather neat, with
    my favorite teacher too.  But I was kind of looking forward to 
    Leviticus. :-) 
    
    Jill2
    
    P.S.  I really have no objection to *someone else* posting a question or
    two...   

    a total side-track ;')
    
    Jill2 - you have the priv's to rename the topic yourself, as it was
    your base-note (the title on the base note .0)...
    
    Notes> set note 795.0 /title="A brand new topic title"
    
    ex-mod Harry

      Hi Jill2,
    
        I was just being facetious.  I think its great that you have
        all these questions.
    
      Hi Paul,
    
        That principle of the mirror, I believe is so vital to an
        understanding of just what exactly condemnation is and (thus)
        what salvation is as well.
    
    						Tony

    Hey Paul -
    
    That sounded like a puzzle for you - you gonna take it?
    Support the mirror...condemnation...salvation idea with scripture
    
    Jill2

>    Hey Paul -
>   
>    That sounded like a puzzle for you - you gonna take it?
>    Support the mirror...condemnation...salvation idea with scripture

I didn't take it as a puzzle posted for me, but as further confirmation. 
Wasn't it you, Jill who posted a note a while ago about the usage of "fire"
in the Bible, noting that half the usages of fire referred to the refiner's
fire, which purifies the believers, and half the usages refer to the
unquenchable fire, which consumes unbelievers?  You noted that it is our
response to the fire which determines which it will be for us.  It's the same
thing that Tony's talking about with the mirror.

When we see Christ, when the Holy Spirit confronts us, we see that we are
much worse than we ever thought we were.  We can either run from that
confrontation, and never let the Spirit near us again, or we can stand and
let the Spirit purify us.

The first way is easier at first, but has long-term consequences that we'd
all like to avoid.

The second way is always painful and sometimes excruciating, but leads to
life.

From the song "Refiner's Fire," by Steve Green:

"Each time His purging cleanses deeper,
   I'm not sure that I'll survive.
 Yet the strength of growing weaker,
   keeps my hungry soul alive."

Paul

    
    Hi Jill,
    
    I haven't read through all of the responses to your initial questions. 
    I will advise you in this way, however.  Modern evangelicalism has
    departed a good deal from the faith of their forefathers, the
    Protestant Reformers.  While today there seems to be in evangelicalism
    a significant disconnect between the understanding and interpretation
    of the Old Testament and New Testament, this was not always the case. 
    The Reformers interpreted the Bible in light of the whole counsel of
    God, that is, viewing the Bible as a whole work with different
    emphasis.  God is one and is consistent in His attributes, holiness,
    commands and requirements of humanity.
    
    Anyway, what I want to tell you is that as one who has been raised in 
    a "Jewish" home (and who is Jewish, I assume), you will find that the
    Reformed faith will probably make much more "sense" to you reconciling
    your past, present and future.
    
    I would strongly recommend that you use a Geneva Study Bible in your
    pursuit of understanding and knowledge of God.  And I would recommend a
    Presbyterian (non-USA, sorry Paul!) Church, Reformed Baptist, or even
    an Anglican Church to help get you through a confusing period. 
    
    I'll send via e-mail a copy of the Westminster Confession which are the
    standards of the Reformed faith and describe quite well what the
    Reformed faith is about.
    
    jeff

>    Presbyterian (non-USA, sorry Paul!)

No need to apologize.  While there ARE still some Bible-believing, Christ-
following churches in the PC-USA (I'm in one of them!), I couldn't recommend
the denomination as a whole, either.

Paul

    Thanks for the info Jeff.  I haven't had time to study it yet.
    Since you all think you understand me so well, I'll throw out some
    more information which should really keep you guessing.  I'm 
    quite happy with my pentecostal church since I came to Christianity
    through years of new age and Zen readings and meditations.
    
    Jill2

Wallllll.....  I've heard some unusual ways of coming to Christianity, but 
this about beats them all!!!!  ;-) ;-) :-)

								&

    
    Jill,
    
    I don't think I understand you well at all.  Forgive me if I have
    seemed pretentious.  I responded to someone whom I thought was
    forthrightly seeking some answers.
    
    jeff

Jill,

I think I understand *some* parts of who you are *a little*.

I know that I don't really understand the people I've known and loved for
years, and I'm not always sure I even understand *myself* all that well.  So
I certainly wouldn't be claiming to understand you.

:-)

Paul

    Sorry about that last note.  I really wasn't offended by anyone.
    Especially Jeff who took it as a direct reply to him and I really
    intended it for Paul and Tony.  I'm very sorry Jeff, I should have
    phrased it better.  I'm just not used to being so open in public.
    Forgive me, I'm still learning.  The piece about my past was true
    however, I couldn't resist trying surprise these guys who have been
    so patiently teaching me here.
    
    Jill2

    Jeff-
    
    I printed all your stuff, but I need some time to do it justice.  So
    let me have tonight to study it all.  I'll get back to you tomorrow.
    
    Jill2

    Back to mirror...confrontation...salvation
    
    So my reply of 794.27 was actually on track?  I admit it
    was a total shot in the dark.  Remember when we said that
    you needed to be balanced both spiritually and scripturally?
    Well I've been more spiritual and I'm still learning to put
    names to the things that I've learned spiritually.  I really
    couldn't make any sense out of Tony's original posting, even
    after he tried to rephrase it.  But after study it *felt* like
    what I posted in 794.27.  But I was really just trying to 
    "anchor" the conversation to something that I had a grasp of.
      
    Jill2

    
    No problem, Jill.
    
    jeff

    Ok, let me ask a new question.
    
    Define these words and then explain whats
    the difference between them:
    
    redemption, deliverance, and sanctification?
    
    They all sort of lump together in my mind under
    what Jesus did on the cross.
    
    
    Jill2

 OK Jill2..should we now change the title to include the NT ;-)





 Jim

    Actually its the OT context that I have the most trouble with.

I think of sanctification as being made holy - which means to set apart or
aside for a particular use - as in set aside for the Lord. To go back to 
shabbat for instance - if your family lit the candles and chanted or sang
the blessings over bread and wine, that was one way of sanctifying time -
setting it aside for a special purpose - to enjoy rest, celebrate creation
& redemption. When people talk about sanctification in relationship to their 
lives, I think of it as process by which one does less and less what is 
ungodly, and more and more in what is in accordance with God's will. Its
becoming pure in heart, word, and deed.

Deliverence is to be freed from some terrible condition - sin and death for
instance. There are plenty of references to deliverence in the O.T.  It might
help to look at a few references together. I'll check my resources at home.

Redemption is more or less to buy back or retrieve.  God bought us back as 
His children by paying the price of the Messiah's blood. Israel was redeemed
out of Egyptian slavery. Land in Israel that was sold to pay debts was 
supposed to be redeemed by a more wealthy relative or kinsman. More later, I 
have to be going now.

Leslie

 Notes discussing the Sabbath moved to .382


 
Please continue that discussion in that topic.



 Jim Co Mod

Hi Jill,

795.75�     Define these words and then explain whats
795.75�     the difference between them:
795.75� 
795.75�     redemption, deliverance, and sanctification?
795.75� 
795.75�     They all sort of lump together in my mind under
795.75�     what Jesus did on the cross.

They are descriptions of different aspects of the work that Jesus did on 
the cross.

'Redemption' 
- is a term describing a transaction.  You 'redeem' something from a
pawnbroker (if you use such facilities!) or a hostage from captivity, by
paying a redemption value so that once again it can be recognised as under
the original ownership.  Jesus paid a redemption price so that we can be
considered His - as the original creation was His. It implies that those
who are redeemed were in a state of mortgage, but that this has been
lifted, and we are now back under correct ownership. There's lots of
references, but I chose Revelation 5:9 
   "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the
    book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast
    redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and
    people, and nation;"
  
'Deliverance'
- speaks principally of a release or liberation - from prison, from a threat 
etc.  We have been delivered principally from the certainty that our very real 
guilt will ultimately receive due judgement, because the God of Creation - 
our Creator - is righteous and perfect, and we are not.  Another aspect of 
this is that we are delivered from satan's kingdom - the kingdom of 
darkness - to live in the kingdom of light.  3 verses as examples of 
different ways in which we have been 'delivered':

   "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from
    this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father"
							Galatians 1:4 

   "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
    translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son"
							Colossians 1:13 

   "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from
    the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
							1 Thessalonians 1:10 

'Sanctification'
- is what _starts_ to happen in us as soon as we hae been saved.  It is the
perfecting work of the LORD Jesus in our lives, characters, souls...  This
work continues throughout our lives.  It is typified by Philippians 1:6 

   "He Who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until 
    the day of Christ Jesus"

Sometimes this is spoken of as complete, to denote how God sees us - His
work, as sure as if already done (eg Hebrews 10:10,14).

I hope this helps!

						God bless
								Andrew

I hope I wasn't off topic again ... I didn't reference the Old Testament.
I also see now that Leslie had already answered.  Sorry!

795.77 �    Actually its the OT context that I have the most trouble with.
Maybe we have reached a place where we can address this.  Are you concerned 
about how Jesus' sacrifice was effective for those who lived before Him?

								Andrew	

What Andrew said.  Actually, from my experience it's usually a pretty good
bet that 'what Andrew said' is right on the money.

Grateful for your presence here, Andrew!

We now return to the topic at hand. :-)

Paul

    Thanks Leslie, thanks Andrew.  That was good.

    1 John 3:2
    But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, 
    for we shall see him as he it.
    
    Jill2

Hi Jill,

That's the one I 'always' quote.  Love it.  I *nearly* included it, but was 
pressed for time... ;-}

								&

      Hi Jill2,
    
        I'm working on my reply to your question (at home).  It'll
        have a couple fundamental differences which I hope to defend
        from the word.
    
        It'll be a long set of replies, but the length will be required
        to fully explain.
    
        BTW, does a generation see Him as He is before the 2nd coming?
        Is there a certain 'seeing of Him' that is in the heart?
    
        Check out Hosea 6:1-3 which is a _progressive_ coming of Christ
        and is likened to as rain.  Does the latter rain, an even that
        is prior to the 2nd coming, correspond to that heart-seeing of
        Him?
    
    						Tony

    re: 89
    
    Tony which question were you refering to?

    Actually I was looking for a verse to summarize what I learned this
    week.  I didn't really know where to start.  Then I remembered jotting
    down a verse months ago that I couldn't see at all and that really
    bothered me at the time.  And it was this one. :-)
                                                      
    Jill2

>I hope I wasn't off topic again ... I didn't reference the Old Testament.
>I also see now that Leslie had already answered.  Sorry!

S'alright Andrew - I think your additional comments were great, and well,
redemption, deliverence, and sanctification are themes throughout the
entire Bible.

Leslie

    Ok, I guess we need to rename this note after all.
    Here are some questions which also are not OT.
    
    Tony's 382.89 (which we might consider moving here)
    
    Tony- 
    
    bittersweet...spiritual death...physical death
    This note flips back and forth between spiritual
    and physical and I can't follow it.  Sometimes you
    refer to one when it seems to me that you are talking
    about the other.
    
    >This was the bitter.  This death, the spiritual death of which
    >the physical is a mere shadow, is perhaps best described in 
    >Psalm 22.
    I see Psalm 22 talking only of the physical?  Help.
    
    Jill2 

    Since we have Andrew here and I decided to ignore the title of
    this note...  Explain this one.
    
    Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which
    the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me
    only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. 
    
                                                    2 Timothy 4:8 
    

      Hi Jill2,
    
        I referred to your question about what redemption, deliverance,
        and sanctification are.
    
        Psalm 22 is almost exclusively about a psychological struggle.
        "My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?"  Melting like wax.
        Something is going on in the heart of the Son of God.
    
        I did refer to both deaths, but tried to explain that the
        physical death was not the *real* death of the cross, but
        that the death of the cross is the death referred to in
        Roman 7:9
    
        "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
    
        If you check out the context of Romans 7, you see Paul
        describing a painful psychological struggle.  Its not physical;
        its of the mind.
    
    						Tony

Hey, Jill, why me?  There's lots more learned than I am here.  But I do
like to rise to the bait ;-) 

    Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which
    the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me
    only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. 

                                                    2 Timothy 4:8 

Now what is needing explained here ... ?  I guess, the crown.

I'm not a greek scholar, but remember the two words used for 'crown' in greek.

The 'royal' one, Diadem, doesn't occur too often, though it's what springs
to our mind when a crown is mentioned.  The more usual one applied to
people is 'stephanos' - the (usually laurel) wreath which was the reward
for winning the games.  I need to check at home that this is the actual
word used, but assuming this is the case, it is the acknowledgement that we 
*have* become like Him, completed the course and run the race (verse 7).  

The fact that it is 'laid up for me' is a reminder that the fulfillment of
the race - and acceptance into His presence - is guaranteed.  In His eyes 
it is an established fact.

The fact that it is available to 'all them also that love his appearing' is
a reminder that it is not my works or achievements that either earn me this
place or hold on to it, but His strength (which *isn't* going to fail!).
All He looks for from me is love.  The evidence of love is imitation, as I
try to be like Him - in His strength again...  Pride - the trap of the 
devil - is ruled out by the total giving in love.

Thanks for the verse, Jill .... heaps of glorious gospel there!

						God bless
								Andrew

    You silly boy.  It was *your* verse of the day!

 Say..I've got a..

 Frequently asked Snarf!

    I'm really glad you did that.  Now I can finally ask it.
    WHAT IS A SNARF?

�    You silly boy.  It was *your* verse of the day!

grins ... was that why _I_ was to talk about it?

							&

�    I'm really glad you did that.  Now I can finally ask it.
�    WHAT IS A SNARF?

	795.100 is.

Grabbing a 'special' numbered reply, regardless of any discussion going on,
and especially if Harry (or someone else) is lurking and hopiing to catch
it for himself... 

							&

    Is this found in all conferences or just here?
    
    No I must use restraint.  Its very hard but I must not
    ask WHY?

    so I see SN for special numbered but whats an arf?

�    so I see SN for special numbered but whats an arf?

'arf' is the laughing noise that accompanies it.

It happens in other conferences, but not, I believe, to anything like the 
extent it is indulged in here....

							&
					who has gone home for the night ;-)

Why? 

For no other reason that it a fun fellowship, suited particularly to the
medium of an electronic conference.

Paul

    Tony-
    
    *I* like your very-image/sabbath thread.  But I need time.  I'm 
    probably not going to have time tonight either so you'll have
    to wait until friday.  
    
    I also need to study the Hosea verse (funny your should pick that
    verse...)
    
    Don't be discouraged.  I'm still very interested.
                                                     
    Jill2

      Thanks Jill2.
    
        Paul said that ALL THESE THINGS happened as examples and
        were given for us and for our admonition unto whom the
        ends of the ages are come.
    
        Christianity has some startling similarities with Judaism.
        One is an attitude that is prevalent that we have all the
        light, that anything new God might show us is simply window
        dressing (peripherals).
    
        We'll got rocked just like Israel did and exactly in the 
        same way.
    
        We'll be confronted with fresh light.  The majority of the
        church will treat the proponents of that light as "that
        hated sect."  They'll reject it for the 'venerated' dogmas
        that have been around for centuries (but have not produced
        the character perfection which it is prophecied the message
        of the cross can produce).
    
        We'll just sit back and refer to our confessions.
    
        And we'll commit the abomination of desolation, i.e. reject
        fresh light by reason of maintenance of the status quo.
    
        But, a small group will receive that light.  Kind of like 
        those few hairs on Ezekiel's head that survived the fire.
    
        Just like Israel 2000 years ago.
    
        Only we have the benefit that the word says they were an
        example for the ends of the ages.
    
    						Tony

    Add these two to the list...
    
    justification, atonement
    

      Hi Jill2,
    
        My replies will touch on all of those.
    
        By the way, I tried to reach you offline, but your node was 
        too remote.
    
        Where're you at??!
    
    						Tony

   Jill,

   This doesn't address justification and atonement directly, but those
   words reminded me of what I am about to say :-).

   First of all, having no concordance with me, can someone refer me to
   where Yeshua says to his disciples, I will send another counselor to you?
   Yeshua is refering to the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh). The Greek
   word is paraclete - I will send another paraclete to you. Paraclete is
   actually a legal defense, one who stands alongside and offers a defense.
   Yeshua Himself is now our legal defense in the heavenly courts, and the
   Holy Spirit is our legal counselor against the Evil One here on earth.
   Probably there is some overlap. I think R.C. Sproul's book about the Holy
   Spirit may have some good information on this as well.

   The reason we are "justified by faith" is that we have this perfect legal
   defender who can stand before the Accuser, before the angels, before the
   Father and all His creation, and defend us based on His work, not ours.

   Leslie

    Hi Tony -
    
    I think I follow your sabbath stuff now.
    
    This is from 382.89
    
            The very image was that death of Romans 7, a death that Paul
            tasted while very much physically alive.  As I said in Jill2's
            topic, the experience of beholding God's love is bittersweet.
            I believe Jesus tasted it to its fulness when He ventured behind
            the veil and saw the full glory of the commandment.  "The 
            commandment came, sin revived, and I died."  
    
            This is what caused Jesus to see the full exceeding sinfulness
            of sin and to "die."
        
            This was the bitter.  This death, the spiritual death of which
            the physical is a mere shadow, is perhaps best described in 
            Psalm 22.
        
            The sweet was Jesus overcoming the awful feelings and the
            temptation to despair.
        
            This was the very image resurrection of which the physical was
            a type.
        
    He spiritually absorbed all the sins of the world which caused him to
    die - before his body died.  Can you imagine the anguish and the
    pain.  Willingly accepting all the sins of the world knowing it would
    bring death - separate him from his father's presence forever - unless
    the promises that he'd heard since the beginning of time were true.  
    But its soo hard to believe down here.  Thats what I call faith.
        
    
            The Sabbath is an endtime sign of a transition in covenant; a
            transition of a gospel from shadow to very image.
        
            Before the transition, Sunday might seem a fitting memorial to
            the resurrection.
    Because sunday was the day of the resurrection?
        
            After one begins to embrace very image rather than shadow, one
            sees that both death and resurrection took place ON THE CROSS
            before Jesus physically died.
    So choose friday(night) because that was the day of the cross?
        
            One then sees that the Sabbath, once again, commemorates a finished
            work.  This time the earthly ministry including the very image
            death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
    Your comparing God's finishing the world and then resting on the next day -
    to Christ finishing his work so rest on the next day?
    So this would make it Saturday.  But if you go the other way you
    would change the Sabath to monday which is the day after sunday?
    
    How do you know it makes sense to compare these two anyway?
    
    
    And another question, if the cross was friday and he rose 3 days later
    why is that sunday?  
    
    I'm leaving now, see you all tomorrow.
    
    Jill2
    
    try:  mpsg::diewald or hpcgrp::diewald
    

     
    > I think I follow your sabbath stuff now.
     
    Now that's a mouth full! :-) :-) :-)  It's been years and I can't
    understand them.

� can someone refer me to where Yeshua says to his disciples, I will send
� another counselor to you? 

Overnight for you, Leslie, so you've probably looked it up now, but this is
variously expressed in: 

John 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7, using Counsellor (Paraclete).

							Andrew

    Hi -
    I was gently reminded last night that I was supposed to be
    reading the OT.  So I got about half way through Leviticus.
    Its not very fun.  Lots of gory details about sacrifies 
    repeated over and over.  So, someone tell me something
    that will make it more interesting.
    
    Thanks
    Jill

    
    Ummmmmm We don't have to do it anymore!  The whole story behind
    THAT is really interesting! 8*)
    
    Other than that, I can't really help.
    
    Pam

    don't let me discourage the rest of you.  We can have more than
    one subject going on at the same time.
    
    Jill2

It *IS* hard because there are some real jewels in Leviticus, but I've often
been put to sleep by the meticulous laws, so by the time I get to the jewels
I miss their import.

One jewel off the top of my head is in Lev 16, about the day of atonement and
the 'scapegoat,' upon which all the sins of Israel are laid, and is then sent
into the desert.  What a foreshadowing of Christ!  Or Lev 25, the year of
Jubilee.

How much reading are you trying to do a day, Jill?  Because there are better
ways to go about it than just to start a Genesis and plow your way through. 
What usually happens is that people have enough early momentum to carry
through the tough parts of Leviticus and Numbers, then Deuteronomy picks up a
bit and the story of God's people continues in Joshua-Job.  The Psalms are
great, but they're better taken in smaller doses than read all together. 
Then on through the short wisdom books into the prophets, where there are
many wonderful passages, but the prophets are also wildly repetitious.  The
early momentum of wanting to read is usually weakened by that time, and
people usually bog down somewhere in there.  When I first tried it my
bookmark got stuck in the middle of Jeremiah for over a year.  :-)

Maybe we can help you with a better way of getting the Word, the Whole Word,
and nothing but the Word?  How much you are trying to read a day would help
us to know what to suggest.

Paul

    Actually I know what you say is true.  I wouldn't try to go straight
    through on my own.  What happened before was a good friend of mine
    told me that he related at a very deep level with Joshua.  So I 
    started reading Joshua.  Reading with this in in mind gave me many
    insights and was very interesting.  I had so much momentum that
    I decided to continue thru the King period.  This reading just
    happened to mesh with the set Pastor was doing on sundays on
    truth and was also very rewarding.  In fact I followed in this
    fashion all the way thru to Jeremiah where I too stopped.  But 
    now I've felt a need to get the basics which I never really got
    as a kid.  So I started at the beginning.  I really only have
    to get through 3 more books so hopefully it will work.  It helps
    too when I'm reading what I'm supposed to be reading if you know 
    what I mean.  So I totally expect that you all can make these 
    three books interesting for me!
    
    Jill2                                         

      Hi Jill2,
    
        Other replies pending, but tell me, what did Leviticus tell
        you the role of the blood was?  Was something done with the
        blood _after_ the sacrifice took place?  Who was it that
        'worked' with the blood?
    
        What is the true sanctuary that Christ ministers?  What is
        the blood that He ministers with?  What does the blood 
        accomplish?  When is it accomplished?
    
        I've just finished memorizing Hebrews 10:1-18.  VERY RELEVANT!
    
        As is Ch. 8.  Try this for when Christ performs His high priestly
        work.
    
        Hebrews 8:4                                 
        For *if He were on earth*, He would not be a priest since there
        are priests who offer the gifts according to the law.
    
        He is a priest in heaven.  Now.  Still sprinkling the blood.
        Still reconciling (atoning) human hearts back to the Father...
    
    						Tony

Hi Jill,

I usually struggle with the instructions on leprosy in Leviticus, because 
I have a tendency to be squeamish.  The mildew-on-the-walls business 
doesn't go down too well either... ;-}  But essentially I can appreciate 
them showing the detailed care God has for every aspect of our lives, and 
thaht nothing happens 'by mistake'.  They come together to make an ideal 
form of government, which leaves anything today's society has at an utter
standstill - though it requires strict adherence to attain and maintain
that level.  You can't just impose it on a Godless society, which doesn't 
understand its basis for existance.

Then the sacrifices etc of Numbers are the complementary Godward portion 
which give the laws their meaningful context, as well as pointing forward 
to the various fulfillments.  I think Mike has some good stuff on that.  I 
don't have a pointer to hand, but I'm sure someone does, to where he 
entered details of the feasts?

As you go through the Bible, things begin to add up and connect together in 
exciting ways, as names and situations point to more about the wonder of 
our God.  I find it good to have at least two reading areas at a time, so
I'm going through the Old Testament and the New Testament simultaneously.
Then a reference from the New can illuminate something from the Old, or 
something in the Old takes new life when seen in the context of the New - 
even through maybe a phrase in common which ties a link in your mind that 
wouldn't normally make any connection.

I have a list of the books of the Bible, which I check off each time
through, so that I can read them in any order, and still know that I'm
covering the complete Bible each time round.  For instance, it can be
helpful to read the sections covering parallel times, in Samuel/Kings, and 
Chronicles, putting the details together (as you click on the kings, 
without a mouse!).  The genealogies can be exciting, when you begin to 
recognise more names, and they become people instead of lists.

But now I've forgotten which three books you find difficult.  I think 
Numbers was one (yet that has the prophecy which led the Magi to Jesus!)
Jeremiah - and that has some rich stuff which is very pertinent to world 
events today!

Was Ezekiel a problem?  He can be sticky, until the prophetic stuff begins 
to come together.  but then, of course, I'm a premillenialist! ;-)

One thing I found was not to labour over difficult passages at first unless
I had a definite opening of heart to wrestle with them.  Skim them if 
you're not finding much there (and even then, you'll get gleams of light
shining out).  Don't make that a habit, but don't make it a burden.  maybe
take a bit extra from the 'alternate' passage.  Remember the 'difficult'
books, and next time round look a bit harder there for the pearls. 

That's just some of the ways I've approached Bible reading over the years.
I hope it's useful!

						God bless
								Andrew

    thanks guys.  this ought to keep me busy for a while...

    If you want to read through the whole Bible, and don't mind taking five
    years to do it, taking the Bible Bus along with Dr. McGee is not a bad
    way...
    
    /John

Four chapters a day will get through it in a year.

Paul

    Hi Jill2,

     I broke this up into three replies to make it as readble as possible.
            
    >He spiritually absorbed all the sins of the world which caused him to
    >die - before his body died.  

     Yeah, but what does it mean to be the sin burden?  What does it mean
     to 'absorb sin'?  I mean sin is a principle, its perceptual.

     To bear the sins of the world simply means to have the fulness of the
     evil of sin revealed to you and to feel to the very core of your
     being that you are that evil person.  This Jesus did by taking sinful
     flesh from whence the law of sin and death resides (Romans 7) and
     going behind the veil.  The commandment came and revealed all that
     our degenerate flesh is capable of outside of the grace of God.

     In the midst of such a struggle, the greatest temptation is simply to
     mentally cave in.  Give up.  Believe God has forsaken you.  And this is
     the perception that this experience paints.

     Anyway, the totality of this psychological drama is what Romans 7 calls
     death.  Jesus overcame this and His overcoming was, of course, in the
     perceptual realm.  This was His resurrection.

    >Can you imagine the anguish and the
    >pain.  Willingly accepting all the sins of the world knowing it would
    >bring death - separate him from his father's presence forever - unless
    >the promises that he'd heard since the beginning of time were true.  
    >But its soo hard to believe down here.  Thats what I call faith.
     
     Amen, though I have put a different spin on what it means to be the
     sin-Bearer.  Imagine also that Jesus trod the winepress ALONE.  No one
     paved the way before Him.

I'll continue...

  Continuing on...

            >The Sabbath is an endtime sign of a transition in covenant; a
            >transition of a gospel from shadow to very image.
        
            >Before the transition, Sunday might seem a fitting memorial to
            >the resurrection.
    
     >Because sunday was the day of the resurrection?
      
      Yes!  And because Sunday is meaningless in terms of very image.  When
      one refers to the physical resurrection, one is still embracing the old
      covenant which can never make the worshippers pure.  Sunday looks at
      the 1st day of the week, a time which refers not at all to the real
      resurrection.
  
            >After one begins to embrace very image rather than shadow, one
            >sees that both death and resurrection took place ON THE CROSS
            >before Jesus physically died.
    
      >So choose friday(night) because that was the day of the cross?
       
       Let me make something perfectly clear.  I do not have a great zeal
       to 'get people' to keep the seventh day.  I DO have a great zeal to
       proclaim the gospel as I understand it.

       I believe, recognize the seventh day Sabbath as a symbol of many fresh
       gospel concepts.  One is that there is a transition of covenant that is
       going to take place and the Sabbath is a sign of transition in covenant
       (from physical symbol to the very image that the symbol points to).

       Second, recognize that the Sabbath still fits as a commemoration of a
       finished work, i.e. Christ endured the cross before sundown or the
       beginning of Sabbath.  He then rested from all His work and rose to
       work again after the sacred Sabbath hours had ended.  He obeyed the
       seventh day Sabbath according to the commandment AFTER THE CROSS (when
       some say it was null and voided).

       So the Sabbath points a yet unrevealed gospel in a few ways.

I'll continue... 

  Continuing on...

         >One then sees that the Sabbath, once again, commemorates a finished
         >work.  This time the earthly ministry including the very image
         >death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    >Your comparing God's finishing the world and then resting on the next day -
    >to Christ finishing his work so rest on the next day?

     Yes.

    >So this would make it Saturday.  But if you go the other way you
    >would change the Sabath to monday which is the day after sunday?

     Well, I wouldn't 'go any other way' because Hebrews exhorts a body
     to come to look to very image which the first day simply does not.
    
    >How do you know it makes sense to compare these two anyway?
    
     I'm not sure what you mean.  I compare the Sabbath to Christ working
     because I believe creation week is a schoolmaster pointing to redemption.
     Isaiah (somewhere...I'd have to look) points to the Sabbath as symbolic
     of transition in covenant.  Hebrews points to transition in covenant
     in the endtimes as a transition of shadow to very image.

     It all fits so neatly that I cannot conceive that it is heedless 
     coincedence.
    
    >And another question, if the cross was friday and he rose 3 days later
    >why is that sunday?  
    
     Two things.  Hebrew reckoning counted any part of a day as a day.  But,
     to be fair, Jesus did say days and nights.  I am not sold that it had
     to be 72 hours because I see the Bible as so loaded with symbolism.
     Three days is huge.  Esther in the court of the King for three days
     while the death decree goes forth (sounds like the mark of the beast while
     a last generation follows their forerunner behind the veil!), Paul 
     walking the Damascus road for three days, Jonah in the belly of the 
     whale for three days, Joseph's brothers in prison for three days.  It
     gets to the point where three days mainly points to a spritual exp.

     I believe it stands for going behind the veil and seeing God's face as
     it were thus facilitating the culmination of the reality implicit in
     Romans 7:9, i.e. "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

     The last generation goes to the cross.  "Take ***MY*** cross upon
     you."  "I am crucified WITH Christ."

						God Bless,

						Tony

    Hi Tony -
    
    This is fun. 
    
    >>Amen, though I have put a different spin on what it means to be the
    >>sin-Bearer.
    - To bear the sins of the world simply means to have the fulness of the
    - evil of sin revealed to you and to feel to the very core of your
    - being that you are that evil person.
    Ok, to know you are that evil person, like in the I Am sense  
    - I see that
    
    - I believe, recognize the seventh day Sabbath as a symbol of many fresh
    - gospel concepts.  One is that there is a transition of covenant
    - that is going to take place and the Sabbath is a sign of transition in
    - covenant (from physical symbol to the very image that the symbol points
    - to).
    A transition in the sabbath covenant to reflect the shadow to very
    image.  But the neither physical sabbath observances or the day
    changed - only the spiritual meaning?  I think I lost you here.
    
    Even taking into account:
    
    >Your comparing God's finishing the world and then resting on the next
    >day - to Christ finishing his work so rest on the next day?
    
    I don't see "transition"
    
    I'll stop here because the rest is based on this so I'll wait for 
    your answer before continuing.
    
    Jill2 
    

    Tony -
    
    One more.
    
    >I'm not sure what you mean.  I compare the Sabbath to Christ working
    >because I believe creation week is a schoolmaster pointing to
    >redemption. Isaiah (somewhere...I'd have to look) points to the Sabbath 
    >as symbolic of transition in covenant.  Hebrews points to transition 
    >in covenant in the endtimes as a transition of shadow to very image.
    
    Is the "schoolmaster pointing to redemption" from the bible?  I 
    couldn't find either it or the Isaiah verse.  
    
    Sabbath in Isaiah -> 
    56:2, 56:6, 58:12, 58:13, 66:23 
    none of these seem right.
    
    Jill2

    Tony-
    
    Note 795.89
    >Does a generation see Him as He is before the 2nd coming?
    >Is there a certain 'seeing of Him' that is in the heart?
    >
    >Check out Hosea 6:1-3 which is a _progressive_ coming of Christ
    >and is likened to as rain.  Does the latter rain, an even that
    >is prior to the 2nd coming, correspond to that heart-seeing of
    >Him?
    
    I need help on this one.
    
    KJV
    1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he 
    will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. 
    
    2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise 
    us up, and we shall live in his sight. 
    
    3 Then shall we know, [if] we follow on to know the LORD: his going 
    forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the 
    rain, as the latter [and] former rain unto the earth. 
    
    NIV
    1 "Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he
    will
    heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds.
    
    2  After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore
    us,
    that we may live in his presence. 
    
    3  Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As
    surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the 
    winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth." 
    
    
    ... continued ...
    

    ... continued ...
    
    Notice the NIV loses "former" and "latter".  My study bible says it 
    means just as surely as seasonal rains fell, reviving the earth, God's
    favor would return and restore her {Israel].  This sort of loses the
    extra meaning I'm guessing your aiming for which would be to apply
    former
    and latter to shadow and real image.  Rain also has a feel of heavenly
    grace and thats probably tied in too.  But I'll admit to getting lost 
    in just the first verse which sounds like Christ but says "us".
      
    Wait a moment, I think I see it!!  The "us" is the shadow and the
    actual context of the book of Hosea since he is addressing the
    straying people.  The allusion to Christ is the real-image meaning.
    If we "live in his sight" which is the real-image of God, filled with
    all the glory and power that holds, then we will see the real image 
    of Christ which will surely come in the latter rain (as well as the 
    former rain which is the shadow part of Christ). 
    
    I don't have the _progressive_ part though.
    
    Jill2
    

    Once upon a time a pig and a chicken where strolling together down a
    dusty country road.  Comming upon a rustic little church, they noticed
    the wording on the freshly lettered sign outside: "Ham and Eggs
    Breakfast Tomorrow Morning."  
    Said the chicken to the pig:  "I have an excellent idea.  Let's both 
    go in and make a contribution."  
    Said the pig to the chicken: "Not on you life.  For you it would be a
    contirbution, but for me it would be a sacrifice."
    
    A sacrifice is a serious and costly matter.  One may make a
    contribution, without experiencing too much inconvience.  One cannot
    make a sacrifice, however, without counting the cost, either sooner or
    later.  A contribution demands only minimal involvement.  A sacrifice
    is a gift of life.
    
    From "The Heart of the Old Testament"  by Ronald Youngblood  
    Chapter 8
    
    
    Jill2

    Tony -
    
    Your concept of very-image is very similar to one I've been using.
    The concept of seeking God's face.  By this I really mean sitting at
    God's feet in his glow/power/essence/perfectness/holyness.  I think
    that your very-image is like this but it also has the "Jesus inside
    us" element to it which makes it a stronger and more powerful concept.
    
    We can, as mortals see God's face because of Christ.  Actually, lets
    look at it the other way.  As sinners we can't bear the true holyness
    of God.  It touches the sin in us and burns us.  By what Christ did on
    the cross we were redeemed and can now go directly into the holy of
    holies.
    
    But what did Christ do on the cross?  He gave his life for us.  This
    took away all our sins forever and redeemed us.  How did this happen?
    There have been other martyrs who have died for others.  Whats special
    about Christ.  He is the son of God but how does that fit in?  Why is
    his blood so special?
    
    Jill2

      Howdy Jill2,
    
        Let me tackle what I think Hosea 6:1-3 says first as that'll
        be kind of easy for me.
    
        The passage refers to a smiting and a healing of the heart.
        It refers to the coming of the Lord like the day and also
        like rain (former and latter).  It also refers to a third day
        and even to raising us up.
    
        Think of this passage from the perspective of Romans 7:9 which
        I believe is a summary masterpiece statement for how spiritual
        reality works.
    
        "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
    
        The commandment is the righteousness of God (Isaiah 51:7-8).
        I believe this is like the Lord coming.  Its all revelatory.
        Deeper and deeper revelations of the character of the Father.
    
        It has the following effect if received by faith.  Death and
        healing (it smites and binds, it tears and heals).
    
        What does this mean?  Agape is that mirror in James.  It exposes
        our sin which is painful (death in Romans 7), but this process,
        if received in the right way (by faith) leads us to repentance.
        This is healing for letting go of sin is a healing process.
    
        So Hosea pictures the process by His tearing and healing.
    
        It then mentions _three days_ which is symbolic of an endtime
        experience of seeing Christ progressively and in such a way that
        it culminates in seeing all of Him - behind the veil so to speak.
    
        After two days we are revived and we can LIVE IN HIS SIGHT!!!
    
        (Sounds like those dead bone's of Ezekiel.  This is the
        resurrection in spirit.  Not a physical resurrection, but a
        spiritual one, a resurrection of the heart).
    
        So what is this going forth like?  (This coming of the commandment.
        This progressive revelation of agape.)
    
        Its like the rain.  By the way...notice how it says to pursue 
        *knowledge*.  The word is the power!  Oh to realize how little
        we know!!
    
        So whats the rain like?  Its like the former and latter rain.
      
        Look at Deut. 32:1-3:
        Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak;
        And hear O earth, the words of My mouth
        Let My TEACHING drop as the rain,
        My speech distill as the dew.
        As raindrops on the tender herb,
        And as showers on the grass.
        For I proclaim the name of the Lord:
        Ascribe greatness to our God.
    
        The revelation of Christ to the heart both individually and
        corporately begins like dew.  It becomes showers and eventually
        is a torrent.
    
        Ezra 10 is a good link for it mentions rain, three days, and
        tremendous pain (again, remember that there is death, that the
        heart is smitten).
    
        Verse 9 mentions a people trembling because of this matter and
        because of heavy rain.  In verse 1 we can see that Israel is
        weeping very bitterly.  In verse 3 it says they tremble before
        the commandment of God.  Gee that just might be the same thing
        as the rains.  (It is.  Its a deep revelation of God's love
        which is facilitating Romans 7:9.  And all of their sin is
        exposed.)
    
        This is the woman in the wilderness whose sin is exposed.
    
        So its all there.  Progressive revelation facilitates that Romans
        7 experience.  It culminates in an experience referred to by the
        scriptural 3 days.  Its like birth pangs where the bitter/sweet
        is more frequent and intense because the revelation is coming
        at a faster and faster rate.
                                             
        Dew, rain, torrent.
    
        It ends, of course, in the flood like Noah's day.
    
    							Tony

    Hi Tony-
    
    I've been staring and staring at you progessive translation stuff.
    
    It seems to me that you are using it in 2 different dimensions.
    
    1) Each actual instance we live of Romans 7.  I mean this in the 
       sense of confessing a sin and being forgiven.  It happens
       in these three steps, so there is a progression from 1 step
       to the next.
    
    2) The concept of levels of growth.  I mean this in the sense that each
       time we read the bible it says something more.  Actually
       I mean the even stronger transition of seeing everything in a 
       new (and holier) light/view that only happens after a long
       period of growth.
    
    Each occurance of 1) gets us higher up the level ladder so after each
    ocurrance we see slightly more of the very-image of God.   An example 
    would be to say that each mistake we make in life teaches us something
    that adds to our growth.  (I don't want to imply that making mistakes
    is the only way to grow.)
    
    The rain image, which you tie to learning, shows that it starts slow
    and gets faster and faster as we learn more and more.
    
    -------
    
    -Progressive revelation facilitates that Romans 7 expaerience
    This is backwards?  Lots of experience -> growth
    
    -It culminates in an experience referred to by the scriptural 3 days.
    Finally seeing the total essence of God.
    
    -Its like birth pains where the bitter/sweet is more frequent and
    -intense because the revelation is coming faster and faster.
    bitter/sweet refers to each step of growth
    rain refers to learning and seeing more of the true essence of God,
    where as a beginning Christian it only happens once in a while but as
    you learn more and more it happens more frequently.  A rain storm
    starts gently and slowly and gets stronger and stronger until it
    becomes a full downpour.
    
    -It ends of course in the flood like Noah's day
    flood, full cleansing to finally reveal the full essence and holyness of
    God.
    
    Jill2
    
    Hey Tony -
    You owe me a reply to the sabbath question, and the blood question.
    
    Here is one for you (from sunday's sermen).  Tie Luke 8:22 to growth
    with lots of water, and ...
                            
    

Hey Jill, you've been talking with Tony so much that now I'm having trouble
following *you* :-)

Paul

      Hi Jill,
    
        Just a quickie.  
    
        I guess maybe its a bit subjective, but revelation (I think)
        includes a settling into truth both spiritually and intellectually.
        I mean, I'm sure part of it is just having a more personal knowledge
        of God.  Like He's more personal to you.  Closer to you.  That
        sort of thing.  But, I think it also includes knowledge in the
        doctrine sense.  And if it does, then we are far from having
        a complete handle on doctrinal truth for we have yet to receive
        the latter rain which is much more than anything previous (in
        magnitude).
    
        But, given the above, all I'm saying is that the more we receive
        revelation (as subjective as all that constitutes revelation may
        seem to be), the more we see our sin AND what our flesh is capable
        of outside of the grace of God.  The fact is, seeing this HURTS.
    
        And if repentance follows, healing and joy results.  It is bitter
        sweet.
    
        You are RIGHT ON in terms of your understanding my personal view
        that the rate of revelation (as time nears the end) will increase
        with frequency and magnitude and (thus) will the rate of the
        bitter/sweet experiences.  (Like those birth pangs.)
    
        It pretty much culminates like Zechariah 12:10-13.  Finally, a
        group has the sin of the cross revealed to them and hey see
        Him "whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as they mourn for
        their dearest one."
    
        I believe at this time a group is perfected and can survive the
        complete unveiling, i.e. a fountain is opened (latter rain) and
        they can bear to have the same sword (= word of God = revelation)
        that smote the Shephard smite them!!!
    
        I'll try to give you a Sabbath answer and a blood answer during
        lunchtime.
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

    Hey Paul that worries me a lot!  I'm usually the one good at
    translation.  Let me know where I confused you and I'll try
    again.
    
    Tony, yea your right about needing both spiritual and scriptural
    learning to grow.  I liked the Zechariah verse but I'm not prepared
    to go into endtimes now.  Especially not with you until I do a lot
    more reading!  As Paul says, you are not easy to follow.  Also,
    I want some more knowledge before tackling your believes on endtimes
    which are somewhat controversial.  You know, test everything against
    the word.
    
    Jill2     

      What is it people don't understand about what I am saying?
    
      I mean...do people understand what my interpretation of
      Romans 7:9 is?  "The commandment came, sin revived, and I
      died."
    
      The rest is merely the belief that this experience of Romans
      7:9 is progressive.  As we near the end, the revelation increases
      in rate and intensity.  Like birth pangs.
    
      It culminates in the endtimes in a revelation that is likened
      to going behind the veil where the full glory of God is seen
      in the heart.  This reveals all the sin man is capable and 
      facilitates the last and final bitter sweet.
    
      Whats so hard to understand?
    
      Hasn't anyone experienced the above at least in a small way?
    
      To take it a smidgeon further, the spiritual meaning of fire,
      water, sword, rain is all the same.  Its revelatory.
    
    						Oh Well,
    
    						Tony

  Hi,

    Here's part of how I link the Sabbath to the transition in covenant...

    The Sabbath, according to Ezekiel 20, is a sign of sanctification.
    According to Deuteronomy 5, it is a sign of deliverance from Egypt
    (sin).  

    People define sanctification as set aside to God.  This is true and
    this implies a setting apart from sin.  1 Thes. 4:3 describes 
    sanctification as a setting apart from sin.  (It lists a particular
    sin, but the point is made.)  1 Thes. 5:23 is a calling to be
    sanctified completely.

    Hebrews, written well after the cross, is an exhortation for a body
    to completely enter God's REST.  The whole theme of Hebrews is a
    last day transition in covenant which covenant is twice quoted
    from Jeremiah (Hebrews 8:8-13/10:16-17).  

    The law being written in the heart.

    Please note this is progressive.  We are not perfectly sanctified
    at conversion.  BUT, there is a body that is sanctified completely
    and it is that group that witnesses the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.

    Hebrews refers to this transition in covenant in several ways.  One
    example is inhabiting Mount Zion where anything that can be shaken 
    will be shaken (Heb 12).  It is the generation called Jacob which
    inhabits Mount Zion (Psalm 24:3-6) and (not coincedentally) it is 
    this generation WHICH SEEKS HIS FACE (Psalm 24:6).  This is the
    generation which sees God's face which means they see God unveiled
    which implies they are sanctified completely as 1 John 3:2-3
    suggests.

    Jeremiah looks apocalyptically at Jacob (Jeremiah 30).  We can see
    it has apocalyptic significance for it says in 30:24 "in the latter
    days you will consider it" and two verses later (31:2)

    Jeremiah 31:2
    The people who survived the sword
    Found grace in the wilderness -
    Israel when I went to give him rest.

    Jeremiah 31 is further description of this last day experience and
    it rolls right into the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

I'll continue...

Continuing on...

    By the way, something very significant takes place during the last
    day transition of covenant...

    Jeremiah 31:30
    But every one shall die for his own iniquity...

    Romans 7:9.  The sword eventually comes and smites everyone.


    But, anyway, can you see this last day sudden transition where a
    group is being completely sanctified?

    Can you see that this transition is coined a transition in covenant?

    As the transition in covenant is the term for a finished work of
    sanctification, can you see that the Sabbath is then a sign of it
    (as the Sabbath is a sign of sanctification?).

    Further evidence:
    Hebrews 4:4-5 says that God was referring to the 7th day when He
    said, "So I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter My rest!"

    How could this refer to the 7th day?

    I believe the following is why...

    God created in 6 days and tacked on a 7th day Sabbath for no arbitrary
    reason.  I won't get into why now, but He has to perfectly sanctify a
    body and hold it up to the universe as some demonstration.

    Isaiah 5 says that God already has done all that He could to perfectly
    sanctify a body (5:2 "for He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
    but it brought forth wild grapes" and 5:4 "What more could have been
    done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?")

    Thus if His coming first requires the perfection of a last day body,
    we can hasten or delay His coming (Peter says this, but I don't know 
    where).

    I believe the reason when God said, "So I swore in My wrath, they 
    shall not enter My rest", He referred to the 7th day is because
    God knew by foreknowledge that IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN.  He knew that
    Israel wasn't going to perfectly enter into that rest in Christ.

    Creation week was a 7 day week because God knew by foreknowledge that
    a body would finally perfectly rest in Him after ~6000 years.  Perfect
    rest from sin (perfect sanctification).  The 7 day week is a prophecy
    of God's work of redemption from sin.  At the end of the 6th millenium,
    a group has fully entered God's rest (for they guard the edges) and are
    ready for the Sabbath millenium of rest.

    At the tail end of the 6th day, Jesus says, "It is very good", i.e.
    perfect.  Finally, the bride is ready.

I'll continue!

Continuing on...

    Let me last add how Isaiah seems to say the lsame thing.

    Isa 53 is the cross, but is immediately preceded by the last part of
    52 which is relevant:

    "JUST AS MANY WERE ASTONISHED AT YOU so His visage was marred."  (Isa
    52:14.)

    Isaiah 54 looks apocalyptically to that time that a body's visage is
    similarly marred.  They drink the cup to its bitter dregs and survive
    the exp.  (compare with Jeremiah 30:7 "But he (Jacob) shall be saved
    out of it").  Next, the lost drink the same cup and do not survive.
    (Similarly Jeremiah refers to several nations who have the birth pangs,
    but as with Jacob, it does not say they survive.  (I'll give the
    scriptures if you would like.)

    I don't think we need to wonder what this drinking of the cup is and
    again, its apocalyptic.

    Isaiah 55 seems to say HOW this experience is facilitated (come to the
    waters/buy wine, milk, i.e. by revelation).

    Finally, with all that has just occured, Isaiah 56 begins, "THUS SAYS THE
    LORD...", i.e. continuation from what has gone before.  Its all apocalyptic
    and it mentions the Sabbath with the covenant.

    Isaiah 56:6-7
    Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
    And holds fast My covenant -
    Even them I will bring TO MY HOLY MOUNTAIN.

    It is just so interlinked.  Jacob, Mount Zion, seeing God's face, Sabbath
    as sign of sanctification, process painful, drinking of cup, birth pangs
    at time of Jacob's trouble. 

    The imagery is so consistent!

						God Bless,

						Tony

      Ya Know...
    
      This stuff is not that difficult intellectually.
    
      Its difficult in another way.  Its a paradigm shift and paradigm
      shifts are hard because they cut against strongly held preconceptions
      of the way things are.
    
      I saw something on paradigms and one example given was a guy
      fairly quickly flipped some cards and asked what suit they were.
      For some of the cards, EVERYONE incorrectly answered, "Spades."
    
      They weren't spades.  They were hearts.  But, they were black.
    
      It wouldn't have taken briliance to be able to understand that 
      they were heart-shaped, it took the ability to disenfranchise
      oneself from one paradigm (i.e. hearts have to be red and spades
      are black) to another.
    
      There is a paradigm shift looming.  Scripture calls that sort of
      thing a transition in covenant.  We should appreciate the challenge
      it must have been for Jewish people to have a religious system
      wherein for several centuries, animals were slain and sacrificial
      rites were performed by priests with the blood.  And to come to 
      terms with the fact that it served its purpose for it stood at
      a perspective from which a transition could be seen.  But, it becomes
      obsolete.
    
    
      We went from animal blood to Christ's blood.
    
      We went from a literal earthly sanctuary to a literal heavenly one.
    
      We went from animal's physical deaths to Christ's physical death.
    
      The last transition goes from Christ's blood to a blood when applied
      to the sanctuary, cleanses the conscience perfectly from sin.
    
      It goes from a literal heavenly sanctuary to the hearts of the
      faithful.  (God calls things that do not exist as though they did.
      He sees the sanctuary as if perfectly cleansed and in heaven for
      that same will of God will produce this group.)
    
      It goes from Christ's physical death to the death of Romans 7:9,
      a death one can die while remaining physically alive.
    
      This is just my own $0.02.
    
      The nonresponse from this Conference to any of this is STARTLING.
    
      It is so like Israel.  Just cling to the old covenant.  Sure its
      new relative to Israel's OT system, but it is old relative to the
      one that looms.
    
      Hebrews 8:13
      In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.
      Now what IS BECOMING OBSOLETE and growing old is ready to vanish
      away.
    
      1 Corin 10:11
      Now ALL THESE THINGS happened to them as examples, and they were
      written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.
    
      All these things.  Examples to us at the end of the ages.  Surely
      the transition of covenant must be one of those "all these things!"
    
      Look at Hebrews 10:1-4.  The new covenant is a transition from 
      shadow to very image!  What does very image produce?  Just look at
      what the word so clearly says!  It produces a conscience that has
      the following status.  Sin is not even remembered.
    
      You can consider me totally out of it.  Thats OK.  I can take it.
    
      But, this is my summary thought.
    
      The silence in this Conference is deafening.  It is hard evidence
      that Christianity will rehearse Israel's sad history to a 't'.
      Christianity will do to the impending transition in covenant just
      what Israel did.
    
      They will commit the abomination of desolation.  They will turn
      their back on fresh light in order to preserve the old.
    
      Just like Israel.
    
      All these things happened as examples.
    
    						     Tony
                                                   

    Tony, Tony, Tony, my brother, peace to you.
    
    "Be still and know that I am" 
    "Nothing is too difficult for Him"
    
    Its not up to you, just seek His face and let Him work.
    
    Thats enough
                                      
    Jill2

    In bible study sunday it was pointed out that every single
    thing that took place at the beginning of Moses's life to 
    position him for his later role, God used a woman to accomplish.
    
    The midwives refused to kill the boy babies
    his mother hid him and then built the basket and put him in the water
    his sister watched and talked to the Pharaoh's daughter
    Pharoah's daughter raised him as her own and used his mother to 
     be his nurse.  :-)
    
    Jill2

     Tony,

     I think the reason people are not responding to what you've written
     is not because God is not important to us, and not because we are 
     not looking forward to the Messiah's return. I think people are
     not responding because we cannot completely follow your train of
     thought, nor understand exactly what you are saying. I know you are
     baffled by our inability to comprehend what you write. I'm sorry.
     When I read your writing, I do not come up with anything solid to 
     hang on to, to actively agree with or disagree with in a meaningful
     dialogue. Its like we're in different universes, speaking a different
     language.

     Leslie

    
>      The nonresponse from this Conference to any of this is STARTLING.
 

    Tony, friend, I'm afraid I go along with Leslie..I have a great deal of
    trouble following what you're saying.  And I'll confess that when I see
    the word "paradigm" I lose all interest in what I'm reading



     In Christ


      Jim



   
      

      Hi Leslie,
    
        Thanks for your words.  I don't understand what the problem
        is though I tend to believe it is some combination of what
        I am saying being unconventional and my ability to write
        clearly being inadequate.
    
        Just a couple questions for you (as examples)...
    
        Is Jesus' literal blood (as in hemoglobin, plasma, etc.)
        efficacious for our redemption or is the word 'blood' a 
        metaphor for something else where that something else is
        efficacious?
    
        Given that the death in Romans 6:23 is (according to context)
        the same death as Romans 7, how do you reconcile the fact that
        Paul died that death and that he did not physically die at all?
        How, in your own words, would you describe the death of Romans
        7:9?  If a death wherein physical death need not result is that
        same death as Romans 6:23, how does this fit into your under-
        standing of how Christ's death is efficacious for our redemption?
    
        Explain how spiritual reality 'works' under the following
        conditions?
    
        1. God is seen in the heart all the way (unveiled).
           The person who sees God all the way is sinless in character.
           The person has fallen, sinful flesh.
    
        2. God is seen in the heart all the way (unveiled).
           The person who sees God all the way is entirely sinful in
           character (no faith at all).
           The person has fallen, sinful flesh.
    
        If these things haven't been considered, maybe they ought to be
        because God will perfect a body and that body will see Him face
        to face/inhabit Mount Zion.
    
        Shouldn't we understand this kind of thing?
    
    	Thanks for your candor.  I really appreciate it.
    
    							Tony

      Jim,
    
        I don't have a problem with the first part of your reply, but
        I do with the second.  Words are neither good or evil (well,
        let me exclude profanity).  Its the meaning behind them that
        counts.
    
        The KJV uses the word concupiscience and I won't let that lead
        me to lose interest.
    
        Maybe paradigm is a bigshot word and maybe it isn't.  Shift in
        paradigm is truly the most accurate and succinct phrase I can
        use to convey the idea of what transition in covenant means.
    
        Its meant to convey the idea that new light is on the horizon 
        and it will challenge our belief systems in startling ways.
    
        Israel serves as an example in all things.
    
        Surely, Israel's transition in covenant serves as an example.
    
        Jim, don't let a word do that much to you.  I don't think there
        was any impure intent in its particular use.
    
    							Tony

Hi Tony,

�      The silence in this Conference is deafening.  

No it isn't - it just means that we are occupied in the business the LORD has 
given to our hands.  If you look, there has been a general low level of input
recently, and if it's anything like my experience at the moment, it's
because we are legitimately busy! 

Several times I have extracted this note in order to examine and address
overnight certain issues you have raised which look matters of quite some
concern, but I haven't had time to go into it thoroughly, and I don't want
to give an unconsidered response.  You have put in a large volume of notes
here, and your mode of expression is often not clear!  It takes time to get
to what you mean - then to check your use of words against scripture! 

I won't manage it tonight - but I don't give up hope yet ;-)

						God bless
								Andrew

 I realize it is a word, Tony..its just one of those buzz words that bug
 the dickens out of me, regardless of the context.





 Jim

     I will extract your note to look at home & try to answer.

     Leslie

RE:                     <<< Note 795.149 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
              -< Thanks Leslie/Just A Couple Exemplary Questions >-

I wanna reply, and I just don't have time right now...

but I will..

Paul

      Say thanks you guys!
    
      I think a lot of what I am saying flows from what I believe
      Romans 7 says about how spiritual reality works.  Its quite
      a chapter.
    
      Things take place in the mind as a result of the commandment
      coming that we need to come to understand.  There comes a time
      when God *will* reveal Himself 'all the way' so to speak.
    
      What happens when this happens if you have the flesh whence
      the law of sin and death resides???  (Romans 7 again.)
    
      Well, it depends.  Is the person righteous or unrighteous?
    
      I think we need to come to some grips with how spiritual reality
      works.  If we analyzed it, we would (imo) come up with three
      very relevant components...
    
      1) How much agape has been revealed to the consciousness?
    
      2) Does the person have the flesh within which the law of sin
         and death resides?
    
      3) What is the person's character?
    
      Thats it!
                                                            
      By the way Jim.  I don't particularly like the word either!
      It just seems to *fit* absolutely perfectly!  (The meaning I
      mean.)
    
    						Tony

| <<< Note 795.152 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'd rather have Jesus" >>>


| I realize it is a word, Tony..its just one of those buzz words that bug
| the dickens out of me, regardless of the context.

	But Jim, that is where far too many unnecessary conflicts arise from.
People hear a word, a phrase, etc, and instead of finding out what the person
who said/wrote it meant, they just assume and the unnecessary conflicts start
up. Why is it so hard for people to just ask what someone means?


Glen

    What is efficacious?  Its not even in my small dictionary.

    re .157
    
    It means "Producing a desired effect."
    
    Rebecca

      re: .158
    
      Thanks Rebecca!
    
        So lets consider the blood.
    
        There are slews of OT scriptures that point to the blood as
        cleansing.  Hebrews offers some real good relevant context;
        the cleansing it refers to is an actual removal of sin from
        the consciousness.
    
        Question:
        Does anything physical have such an effect on the consciousness?
        (Here I refer to Christ's plasma/hemoglobin/leucocytes/etc.)
    
        Answer:
        NO.
    
        Conclusion:
        The blood "producing the desired effect" is not a physical
        thing.  It is in the realm of the mind.  It is spirit.
    
        This is what I mean when I use the words in Hebrews 10:1-4.
        (Very image and shadow.)
    
        Seeing physical blood is hanging out in a covenant that is
        old relative to a covenant yet future, i.e. the one that
        fully writes the law in the heart.  It is hanging out in
        a covenanant of shadows; a covenant that eventually will
        give way to a covenant that is 100% the meaning of the shadow.
    
        These things are metaphors.  Schoomasters.  Shadows.  Symbols
        of some meaning that is of the mind, that is entirely perceptual.
    
        The blood that "produces the desired effect" is a revelation 
        of God's sacrificial love.
    
        Thats why the Bible says the law also converts the soul.  That
        we are clean through the WORD.  That we are washed by the water
        of the word.
    
        Its all the same thing.
    
        By beholding we become changed.
    
        Is this getting through?                                      
    
    							Tony

    Ummm  Tony,
    
    I dunno...
    
    Ok, the Tanach pointed towards Jesus' perfect sacrifice on the tree. My
    take on it, is that his actual physical "plasma/hemoglobin/leucocytes/
    etc.)" *had* to be shed. Now, as to how God actually attributes that to
    me personally, when the actual blood and the plasma and all that are
    long dried up and turned to dust in the hills of Judea, is _His_
    problem - I just know that in some way, He does, and He has commanded
    me to trust and believe Him.
    
    I am sure that the physical blood did indeed produce "the desired
    effect". But I do also believe that this desired effect is in the
    spirit. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
    (HW-C memory paraphrase Heb9:22)
    
    There is a physical side to the event (the cross and the shedding of
    Jesus' blood on that) and a spritiual side, and where my faith (such as
    it is) comes into it, and God's Faithfulness too. Nay, God's
    Faithfulness is the whole thing, it is only through that that my faith
    had even a remote chance to 'hang on' to anything.
    
    Or perhaps I have totally missed your point?
    
    God Bless you,
    
    Harry

>| I realize it is a word, Tony..its just one of those buzz words that bug
>| the dickens out of me, regardless of the context.

>	But Jim, that is where far too many unnecessary conflicts arise from.
>People hear a word, a phrase, etc, and instead of finding out what the person
>who said/wrote it meant, they just assume and the unnecessary conflicts start
>up. Why is it so hard for people to just ask what someone means?



  Dunno Glen..btw, why didn't you just ask what I meant?




 Jim

      Hi Harry,
    
        I think you make a strong case IF the Bible is not consistent
        in its manner of communication.
    
        What I mean by this is, "Is it referring to the actual thing
        one moment and to metaphor the next?"  To use blood as an
        example, is it not possible that God's intent always was that 
        it would eventually be understood that IT IS A METAPHOR?
    
        When Jesus says He is the bread of life, must we conclude that
        He is made up of wheat, yeast, and water???
    
        I understand what your convictions are as to what you believe.
        I can only say that where I differ with you is what I see as
        an unsupported approach to scripture that absolutely requires
        that the physical sometimes must not be symbolic of some other
        meaning.
    
        An example is *blood*.  I don't follow how it is necessary that
        blood must not be symbolic.
    
        The only appeal I can give you is the Bible itself which time and
        time again uses physical imagery not because the physical imagery
        is the thing that produces the desired effect, but rather because
        it is symbolic of something else that does.
    
        Another tack (way of looking at it) is to take advantage of 
        physical terms that are said to produce the same effect (and thus
        to consider that they then stand for the same thing):
    
        John 15 says we are clean by the word.
    
        Ephesians says we are washed by the *water* of the word.
    
        Psalms says we are purged with hyssop (whatever that is).
    
        Psalms also says the law converts the soul.
    
        The Bible says we are cleansed by blood.
    
        Might not they all stand for the same thing?  And might that thing
        they stand for is revelation?  A revelation that had to include the
        cross?  And a revelation that required demonstration?
    
        Corinthians says, "The message [word in my margin] is the power of
        God unto salvation."
    
        The word is the power.
    
        Anyway, Harry, to summarize I see that you strictly adhere to the
        physical while I do not.  I think there is ample support for the
        idea that the plan of redemption will ultimately consist of things
        purely revelatory that "produce the desired effect."
    
        Again, its spirit and not "flesh and blood".
    		
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

      One other thought Harry.
    
      Might you consider looking at Romans 6:23 for context?
    
      "The wages of sin is death."
    
      What I mean is that Romans 7 goes on to elaborate.  Such
      as 7:9 which includes the words sin and death and is only
      9 verses following 6:23.
    
      "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
    
      We have all tied the death of Romans 6:23 to the death of Christ.
      Context also ties it to a death Paul is dying.
    
      Do you follow so far Harry?
    
      Include this.  Paul is still alive.  No _physical_ blood is being
      shed yet this is the death of Romans 6:23.
    
      Given the above and including the fact that the death of Romans 7
      is entirely something taking place in the mind, how do you insist
      upon the blood being shed needing to be physical?
    
      Do you see what I'm saying?  If 6:23 is the death Christ died and
      if it must require the shedding of blood (as it is the death Christ
      died) AND given that context insists that it is also the death that
      Paul is dying, we must then conclude that Paul is physically
      bleeding.
    
      Which he is not.
    
      Thus your view cannot be accomadated by Romans 6:23 which is the
      death Christ died that "produces the desired effect."
                              
    							Tony

| <<< Note 795.161 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'd rather have Jesus" >>>



| >| I realize it is a word, Tony..its just one of those buzz words that bug
| >| the dickens out of me, regardless of the context.

| >	But Jim, that is where far too many unnecessary conflicts arise from.
| >People hear a word, a phrase, etc, and instead of finding out what the person
| >who said/wrote it meant, they just assume and the unnecessary conflicts start
| >up. Why is it so hard for people to just ask what someone means?


| Dunno Glen..btw, why didn't you just ask what I meant?

	Because you stated what you meant right up front. You were very precise
about it too.


Glen

    All right, I'm finished banging my head against my desk, and I have one
    question, why must this be so complicated?
    
    I don't believe it is. Why do we want to separate things which are not
    separate? Jesus voluntarily came here, left - it's not even
    comprehensible to me what He left - *glory* to take human form, to walk
    among us, to show us the nature of the Father through the obedience of
    the Son, but above all, to die. His life in the Gospels follows a very
    specific road to the cross. If the physical shedding of His blood was
    not necessary, it would not have happened. And as in all the Bible the
    spiritual, symbolic, the physical, are all tied together in a wonderful
    mysterious whole, and it is in that whole that their meaning is to be
    found.  
    
    When Adam and Eve fell, they were told that they would die.
    And die they did. Their relationship with God was horribly damaged and
    the sinful nature took hold. They didn't fall down physically dead on
    the spot, but their spiritual separation from God was a death, and it
    is not of no consequence that physical death and decay also entered the 
    world through their disobedience. The two *are* intertwined.
    
    Romans 7 seems to me to be explaining the nature of grace, and Paul is
    explaining how law and sin interact, and why grace is ultimately
    necessary. Paul died just as Adam and Eve died, just as we all die when
    sin springs to life. We do constant battle our whole lives long between
    God's commandments and our sinful natures. It is through Christ that
    victory is won. And salvation was established through His death on the
    cross - His *whole* death.
    
    Life is rough right now, so if I'm not making any sense, please be
    lenient.  :-}
    
    Rebecca
                 

Hey everybody, slow down, I can't keep up! :-) I extracted Tony's notes & took
them home last night. I haven't had a lot of time to go through them yet (I go
to an art class on Tuesday nights), but I did start. So I don't want this
topic to get to far ahead of me before I can catch up enough to say something
meaningful. Okay?  ;-) Actually I don't want to slow you all down.

I'm not really ready yet to give a complete response, but will make one 
interjection into the conversation. Blood, for whatever reasons, was used to
ratify agreements or treaties (covenants) in O.T. times (see Genesis 15 &
Exodus 24). The letter to the Messianic Jews (Hebrews) points out that just 
as blood was shed to ratify the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so blood was 
shed to ratify the covenant in Yeshua. The difference being that the blood 
used to ratify Yeshua's covenant was His own, and not that of animals - imper-
manent, temporary beings. The Mosaid covenant depended on human ability to 
keep the responsibilities on their side of the covenant. In Yeshua's covenant,
God ensures that the covenant will not be broken by us. He writes His teaching
on our hearts through the Holy Spirit. The covenant written in Yeshua's blood 
depends completely on God. This ensures it will not be broken.

Leslie

      Hi,
    
        Just a quickie before going to lunch...
    
        "Don't think plasma, think red stuff which sustains life"
    
        Leslie, if there is a phrase which captures the essence of
        the old covenant, it would be the above phrase.
    
        The new covenant, I believe, would read like this...
    
        "Don't think physical, think spiritual, for RIGHTEOUSNESS 
         sustains life."
    
    
        Rebecca, I really enjoyed much of what you said, but also have
        a couple of places where I see things differently.
    
        1) The necessity of Christ's (physical) death.
           It can both be neccessary and yet not ultimately be the thing
           which produces what Hebrews 10:1-4 is talking about when it
           refers to shadow (symbol) and very image (the reality which 
           the shadow points to).
    
           It could be that His physical death is a neccessary school-
           master.  It could be that without this 'lesson' we could
           never 'graduate' to an understanding of some reality that
           lies beyond.  (Which I believe much of it to be the death
           of Romans 7).
    
           Or to put another way, His physical death was necessary for
           it helped produce the desired result in an indirect way.  It
           was a necessary bridge to lay hold of to prepare us to come to 
           see something else that would produce the desired result.
    
        2) Excuse me if I am wrong, but I perceived that you stated
           that wrestling over this is unimportant.  I will give you
           my own guage of what constitutes whether or not it is
           important.
    
           Hebrews 10;1-4 is my personal guage.  Until I see a group of
           people who are Christlike in character, I will continue to
           expect more revelation for the word is the power.
    
           Actually, I see Christianity as being Laodicaea which is
           pathetic.  Thus, with my incorporation of Hebrews 10:1-4,
           I conclude that the revelation that is a part of an impending
           covenant is truth that we do not yet see.
    
           The most dangerous position I can imagine is the posture that
           to ache for wisdom as for hidden treasure is a waste.  I'm just
           going to hope to wrestle more to know the truth and hope and
           pray to ache to know more.
    
           I want to literally thirst for the meaning packed into the
           phrase "very image" which is some revelation so stupendous
           that people that taste it don't even remember sin anymore.
    
           I've more, but I'll hold.
    
    							Tony
               

 Here is how I see it:



 a)  I'm a sinner

 b)  I'm condemned to Hell because of my sin

 c)  Jesus bled and died in payment for my sin penalty

 d)  My acknowledgement of my sin condition and the acceptance of the free
     gift of God, His payment for my sin, frees me of that sin penalty and
     assures me of eternal life in the presence of God.



 to me, its as simple as that!




 Jim

    Jim-
    Whats the point of being down here?
    
    Jill2

Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 


 20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: 
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 

Tony,

I see a good deal of gnosticism in your thinking - hidden spiritual steps
by which man reaches up for God, and making insignificant the physical and
objective. If it had been a matter of simply changing people's opinions, 
getting them to repent their misdeeds, Yeshua would not have had to die. 
Repentence and turning to God, faith in God, individuals already had been 
doing this for ages before Yeshua's death. The temple sacrifice would have
been enough. The High Priest's entry into the Holy of Holies would have been
sufficient.

Leslie

    Tony,
    
    Regarding your first point, I hear what you're saying. I don't really
    agree with your take on Hebrews 10:1-4. Your "could be's" are valid,
    but I cannot yet say that I regard them as revelation, so much as
    supposition. That is not an attempt to invalidate your beliefs, it is
    merely my take on the matter.
    
    Regarding your second point, I don't believe that any question with
    which a believer is wrestling is unimportant. Where we may differ, or
    not, I'm not sure, is that I believe that if I am to see people who are
    Christlike in character, it will come through obedience to Christ,
    which is simply, doing as He tells us. That includes me first and
    foremost and if I know myself as well as I think I do, ensuring my
    obedience will keep me occupied for, well, a lifetime. And though
    indeed the Word has power, it is my belief that it is through loving
    obedience to Christ that the truth of the Word is revealed and "shadow" 
    will become "very image." 
    
    Rebecca 
                              

    re: 171
    Jim -
    
    ouch that one was meant for me.  Thanks (I think) :-)
    
    Jill2

      Hi Rebecca,
    
        I first began to obey when I saw Christ hung for me.
        Or to put another way, the revelation preceded the
        obedience.
    
        I expect it will continue that way.
    
      Hi Leslie,
    
        I am not talking works.  Faith always lays hold of revelation.
        For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
        To desire to see the cross more fully in the expectation
        (which expectation I believe is declared in the scriptures)
        that "the word" which it reveals will motivate to a deeper
        experience, is not a work-based theology.  Hebrews 10:1-4 
        looks forward to an experience God wants me (us) to have.
    
        Sanctification is by faith.  It is God's work 100%.  The extent
        of sanctification, among other things, is dependent upon the
        extent to which one has beheld the cross.
    
        How is this gnostic?  Is sanctification gnostic?
    
        Do you believe that the extent to which one has been blessed
        to perceive truth is one factor in the degree to which one
        is sanctified?  If one person saw Christ hung for him and only
        'perceived' a physical death and another person saw Christ hung
        for Him and perceived to an awesome extent the inner heart-
        anguish as He hung for us...
    
        all things else being the same, do you expect any difference
        in motivation?  Doesn't how much of the word we are blessed to
        hear have an impact?  If so, does it not follow that "the path
        of the just is a light shining brighter and brighter unto the
        perfect day?"
    
        
      Hi Jim,
    
        My concern in this string is what I believe to be a concern of
        God's.  What I have been writing refers to God's desire to prepare
        a bride.  With His desire to somehow get His bride to "see Him as
        He is" and which, when He is seen as He is, will purify the bride
        even as He is pure.
    
        How is your reply relevant to this topic?  (That being mainly
        Hebrews 10:1-4 which states that when God is seen to a certain
        fullness/clarity, the worshippers have no remembrance of sin.)
    
        I guess what I am trying to say is that I think God wants us to
        consider as significant much more than you have 'put to the
        table.'
    
    						Tony

    Someone define gnostic please.
    
    Jill2

      Hi Leslie,
    
        I didn't notice it before, but I hit upon something BIG.
    
        To paraphrase...2 Corin 5 somewhere
    
        "If I am beside myself, it is for God or if I am of sound
         mind, it is for you.  
    
         For the love of Christ constraineth us and we judge thus...
    
         That if one died for all, then all died.
    
         And He died for all THAT
    
         [WHY DID HE DIE FOR ALL?]
    
         That those who live should no longer live for themselves,
         but for He who died for them and rose again.
    
         You stated that if repentance were enough, Jesus would not
         have had to die.  I think you have the cart before the horse.
    
         The Bible says that He had to die so that we could repent.
    
         Those "hidden spiritual steps" as you call them are nothing
         short of a deeper revelation of the cross.  I strongly dislike
         the word "steps" for it certainly infers the notion of salvation
         by works.
    
         Without revelation not a soul could be saved for faith comes
         by hearing (revelation) and one must have faith.
    
         We might disagree as to why Jesus had to die.  Maybe He had to
         die so that He could change our hearts.
    
         If one considers that the change of the heart is 100% God's
         work, perhaps it might enjoy the classification of not being
         some work-based program.  (Given that a work-based program is
         one wherein we have to work.)
    
         All we can give Him is our faith.
    
         And finally, people have repented before the cross, but really,
         the cross is agape unveiled.  Any "word" received which motivates
         to repentance has to be agape received.  Or to put another way,
         its just a pale revelation of the cross.
                                      
    						Tony

    
>        How is your reply relevant to this topic?  (That being mainly
>        Hebrews 10:1-4 which states that when God is seen to a certain
>        fullness/clarity, the worshippers have no remembrance of sin.)
    
 

         Rebecca suggested that the whole process was being made too complicated
         and I tried to put it in a simple form.  Having posted my reply,
         Jill asked the question (this is the FAQ topic, remember) why are
         we down here to which I responded with Matt 28:19-20.

         How has a FAQ topic become another platform for espousing teachings
         from the SDA viewpoint?


   

     Jim       
   

    Tony,
    
    I have a question. I've been sitting here reading Hebrews 10 and I
    can't figure out how the remainder of the chapter supports your
    interpretation of verses 1-4. Can you help?
    
    Rebecca

      Yeah sure!
    
        I don't have my Bible handy, but check out, for example, the
        CONTEXT of these verses.  It is an actual removal of
        sin from the heart.
    
        For the law having a shadow of the good things to come and 
        *not the very image of the things* can never with these same
        sacrifices which they offer continually year by year *make
        those who approach PERFECT*.
    	
        [Lets see what the context is referring to as perfection...]
    
        For then would they not have ceased to be offered?
        For the worshippers once purged *would have had no more conscious-
        ness of sin.*
    
         [Clearly, the context is saying that the law is a shadow of
         something better and it characterizes why that 'something better'
         is better.  The worshipers once purged would have had no more
         consciousness of sins.  No doubt as to what this refers to.]
    
       But in those sacrifices, there is a remembrance of sins every 
       year.
       For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could 
       take away sins.
    
       Note also how this context defines just what it means to "take
       away sins."  Actual removal from the heart.  The problem with
       the old covenant was that it could not produce the experience
       described as worshippers having no more consciousness of sins.
    
       On the contrary, they remembered sin every year.
    
       I see the superimposition of three covenants.  There is the
       OT.  That is clear.  There is also the covenant which produces
       the experience of worshippers, by virtue of the sacrifice, not
       having remembrance of sin.
    
       There is another covenant.  It is the one wherein we look to
       Christ our Sacrifice, but we see it as a shadow.  We lack a
       deeper 'seeing' of the cross.  That this is obvious is that
       every year the worshippers have a remembrance of sins.
    
       Thus we are under a covenant that is new with respect to the
       OT system and old with respect to a future covenant.
    
        The following is a good example of _transition_.
    
        Do you see the part where Jesus says to His Father [paraphrase],
        "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a BODY you have
         prepared for Me."  He goes on to say, "Behold I have come.  In
         the volume of the book it is written of Me to do Your will O
         God."  He repeats this, "Behold, I have come to do Your will
         O God.  HE TAKES AWAY THE FIRST THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE 
         SECOND."
    
        This is what I see.  The Father prepared a BODY for the Son.
        This body contained the "law of sin and death" which means
        that Jesus submitted to the reality implicit in Romans 7.
        Within this reality, Jesus DID HIS FATHER'S WILL.
    
        That is the transition in covenant.  Sacrifice and offering
        you did not desire!  Don't look to the physical death.  Look
        to what it meant for Jesus to be submitted to "The commandment
        came, sin revived, and I died."  Look at His heart as He hung
        on the cross and submitted to the commandment coming all the
        way.  The commandment, via sinful flesh (the body God prepared
        for Him within which the law of sin and death resides) exposes
        to His heart a full revelation of the exceeding sinfulness of
        sin.  And He feels to be that sinner.  And within the experience
        of an awful temptation to disbelieve His Father's love for Him,
        He holds on by faith.  He does His Father's will.
    
        There's your transition.
    
        Sacrifice and offering you did not desire.
    
        But a body You have prepared for Me.  I delight to do Your will
        O God.
    
        I see a superimposition of transitions of covenant.  Certainly
        there is the OT to Christ the sacrifice.  BUT, we have been here
        for 2000 years and Hebrews 10:1-4 has not occured.  By that I
        mean an experience of beholding the heart of the Son of God while
        submitted to the reality of Romans 7 because of the body prepared
        for Him and especially while the commandment came all the way and
        fully revealed to Him the evil of sin.
                                                            
        Look at His heart as He endured that and loved all the way through
        the experience!
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

      re: .177
       
      Hi Jim,
    
        These views are not SDA views by a long stretch.
    
        I believe, based on what Jill2 has written here and on what
        she has written offline to me, that she still has questions
        that specifically desire some of the kind of answers I am
        giving.
    
        Sorry, but I don't believe its too complicated.
    
    							Tony

    Tony,
    
    just a small point. You said in a reply a few (quite a few) back that I
    was staunchly of the belief that the physical was "it". (I don't have
    the note in front of me, so excuse my poor memory ;')
    
    I don;t think I strickly said that I excluded the symbolic in the
    Bible. What I was trying to say, is that *behind* the symbol, there is
    something REAL (caps for emphasis, not shouting). There is something
    behind it that is just so much more real that we can imagine.
    
    In the case of 'the Blood' (i.e. Jesus' Blood shed on the tree), the
    *reality* happened physically here, on earth, some 1950+ years ago -
    how God applies that throughout the Cosmos and Time to His People is a
    mystery (well, it certainly is to me).
    
    So, now that I think more about it - yes, I *do* believe firmly in a
    'physical' "behind" the symbol. However, my 'world-view' includes
    Heaven, and as such, there are many 'physical symbols' here on earth
    that I undertand to be mere 'shadows' of that in Heaven. (My mind fills
    with the imagery of the last section of "The Last Battle" by CS Lewis -
    you need to read it to really appreciate it ;')
    
    You made mention of a couple of other references that were symbolic.
    One was 'hyssop'. This is, I believe, a small plant (maybe a herb -
    Websters says 'a European mint used in medicine'). But in Exodus,
    during the First Passover, the Jews are told to dip some hyssop in the
    blood of the sacrificed lamb, and use the hyssop to daub the lintle and
    door-posts with that blood.
    
    So, it seems that 'hyssop' came to be used as a synonym for the
    clensing (or covering?) by the application of the blood. So, 'clense me
    with hyssop' is saying "daub me with hyssop soaked in the blood of the
    Passover sacrifice and make me spritually clean".
    
    Again, the symbol of the hyssop is backed up by the reality of the
    Passover sacrifice. The type of the Passover sacrifice is backed up by
    the reality (or should I say REALITY ?) of Jesus' death on the Cross.
    Wheels within wheels, almost ;')
    
    have I confused you yet? :')
    
    So, when I (to use some jargon) "Plead the Blood of Jesus", I don't
    physically expect to be doused in red stuff - *except* that, in the
    broader REALITY of God, perhaps I *am* doused in red stuff! As I said,
    'it is a mystery'.
    
    I know that I have received a 'revealed word' to me that says "My Grace
    is sufficient for you". So there are times when I have to admit 'I
    don't know'. The good thing about living a while, you start to realise
    just how little you really do know - *then* starts the real learning.
    
    My Brother, I look back and I think 'what a rambling mess' - sorry. It
    is not my intention to confuse you, or to muddy the waters.
    
    I pray God's blessing on you, through Jesus Christ our Lord and
    Saviour,
    
    Harry

 Tony, I apologize for the SDA comment.  That was uncalled for on
 my part.  I suppose the issue I have relates to my proclivity for
 keepings things simple.  And I have a heck of a time following
 much of what you are saying, and perhaps that is my problem.


 Peace,



  Jim

      Hi Harry,
    
        I believe I followed everything.  I presently believe that
        Christ's physical death and actual shedding of blood was
        essential, but IS NOT the revelation that some group will
        be 'caught up in' which will so warm their hearts that they
        simply will not ever choose to sin again.
    
        There was something that took place in the heart of the Son
        of God.  A death summarizied in Romans 7:9.  And if our hearts
        could tap into what was taking place in His heart as He 'died
        that death', there you would find the essence of "the love of
        Christ constraineth me."  There you would find the blood that
        truly cleanses the heart _completely_.  Shadow cleanses!  Just
        not completely.  Somehow, it doesn't motivate quite enough.
    
        This is for Leslie as well.  I am NOT downplaying the objective
        reality of the cross.  "Show me you love me" must include demon-
        stration.  What He reveals is what He actually demonstrated.
    
        Can you consider just this (to summarize)?
    
        There is a source of motivation ABOUT the experience of the cross
        that overwhelms any appreciation we could have for the actual
        physical shedding of Christ's blood.  That source is 100% what
        happened in the consciousness of Christ as He endured what the
        cross means in spirit - being the sin-Bearer.
    
        If you could distinguish the two and recognize that Rom. 7:9
        does call the spiritual exp. death as well.  THEN you could begin
        to do what I have just begun to try to do.
    
        Go from physical to spirit.
    
        Look in His heart, His spiritual one.  Thats where the blood was
        really shed.
    
    							Tony

      Hi Jim,
    
        Thanks Jim.  What a Christian thing to do.
    
        All I can say is I sure appreciated meeting you and I appreciate
        you as a person and for what you have allowed Christ to do in
        your life.
    
        I am sorry I don't explain things well.  You're not the 1st person
        to tell me that.  Perhaps ypu are #490, i.e. 7 x 70!!!
    
    						God Bless Ya,
    
    						Tony

I said I'd put something in here.  I still don't have time to write a whole
lot, but....

I agree with many (sorry, Tony) to whom it seems that what you are saying is
quite complicated and obscure.  I'm NOT saying that is a bad thing - some
things *are* complicated.  But I'm saying that at the great feasting table of
all there is to learn about the Lord, much of what you've said are condiments
and spices.  They add flavor, they may increase the enjoyment and savoring of
the feast, but they are not the nourishing part.  I think this is what Jim
was saying about simplicity.  What he posted is the main course.  While I
like spices and condiments too, they are meant to be used in small quanties
to complement the flavor of the main course.  No one wants to sit down to a
plate of spices.

I guess I look at what Jesus said and the vast majority of it is not deep
intellectual concepts, but very simple ideas that are incredibly difficult
for us to implement.  Jesus doesn't so much want to change *what* we think,
as in specific doctrines, but *how* we think - not just our intellect but who
we *are.*

Dying to self is a relatively simple concept.  Following Jesus in everything
I do is a relatively simple concept.  Being obedient regardless of the cost
to myself is a relatively simple concept.  I'm going to take a lifetime
mastering those, or more accurately letting Him master them in me, and those
are the ones that are important.  Along the way I may spend some off-hours
speculating about things like how the end times will unfold, or seeking ways
to better understand the intricacies of God's covenants.  These things *are*
a very much worth exploring.  But if I devoted my life, in great simpliticy,
of living every moment under the Lordship of Jesus, and never gave another
thought to these intricacies, that would be just fine.

Paul

    Hi there -
    Heres a new question.
    
    In my bible study on Exodus, it was said that God's original
    plan was for the Hebrews to go to all the world teaching about
    God.  But, since they were so unfaithful, that didn't work and
    only the Levites were made the priests.
    
    Can this be supported by scripture?  Show me.
    
    Thanks
    Jill2

� In Exodus, it was said that God's original plan was for the Hebrews to go
� to all the world teaching about God.  

I'd take 'God's original plan' very carefully, as it implies the 
perspective that God had to keep retrying, rather than knowing and planning 
for the cross from before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:20, Ephesians 
1:4, etc).  The opportunity was offered to Israel, but they could not fulfil 
it - any more than they could fulfil the Old Testament law, and reach salvation 
through it,  or Adam and Eve not fall....  Nevertheless, it was the 'first
route' of righteousness, and had to be offered.  As a premillenialist, I
believe in a literal millenial reign of the LORD Jesus on earth, when
Israel will fulfil this commission.

The basic appointment is specified in Exodus 19:5-6

   "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, 
    then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people:
    for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, 
    and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the 
    children of Israel.
							Exodus 19:5-6  


� But, since they were so unfaithful, that didn't work and only the Levites
� were made the priests. 

This is seen in Exodus 32, when Israel fell into sin while Moses was up Mt 
Sinai being given the Ten Commandments.  The Levites demonstraed a love for 
God and His righteousness by doing the - humanly terrible - thing of 
killing many of their relatives who were worshipping the calf.  We think 
of that as terrible, only because we don't perceive how utterly gross it is 
to turn from God and worship an idol,and how essential it was to respect 
the holiness of God, if His Name was to remain with them.

So - the Levites were set apart as the tribe of priests, instead of having 
a nation of priests, recorded in Exodus 32:29 (cf Deuteronomy 33:8)

Meanwhile, in the gosel era, we (all Christians) are the priestly 
representatives to the world - 1 Peter 2:9.

						God bless
								Andrew

      Hi Paul,
    
        Thanks for your reply.  I think it was very thoughtful.  I have
        been sidetracked as of late, but will eventually respond with
        some important ideas.
    
      Hi Andy,
    
        There is another school of thought that God's will can be
        suppressed by people both individually and corporately.  Isaiah 5
        sure seems to say this.  I am one who believes 'Israel' mainly
        refers to the body through which God's ultimate desire is allowed
        to work through it by their will. i.e. they consent to His word
        fulfilling His desire.
    
    							Tony
     

    re: 187  Thanks Andrew.
    
    Now someone define at a fairly high simplistic level what
    premillenialist means and give verses too.  I *know* there
    are whole notes on this but I need the basics first.  Please
    don't debate the issue here, I just want the definitions.
    
    Thanks 
    Jill2

    Can't give you verses but it means:
    
    Before the millenium! :-)
    
    Nancy

'The millennium' is the thousand years mentioned 6 times in Revelation 
20:2-7.  It is described as a time of peace, with Jesus reigning on the 
earth.  The three main views on prophecy centre on how this passage is 
interpretted - hence the 'millennial' tag.  The views have a lot of other 
incidentals with them too, but that's where the name comes from.

View 1 
------
Regards this as symbolic of the church age (ie now - we are living in the
millennium, according to this view.)  It takes the 'thousand' years as
merely symbolic of a long time.  As this has no literal millennium, it is 
called the AMILLENNIAL view.

View 2 
------ 
Regards Jesus' return as coming at the end of this millennium.  The
millennial idealistic state, in this view, is brought in through the
church, with Jesus' return being its climax.  I don't understand how this
is tied in with what the Bible teaches, though...  As this view has Jesus
returning at the end of the millennium, it is called the POSTMILLENNIAL
view.

I'm a bit hazy on this one.  I've been through it, and need to look it up
again.   I don't *think* there are so many of them around just now, but we
should find them here if there are! 

View 3
------
Takes as much of Biblical prophecy as possible to be literal (apart from 
obvious metaphor, and symbology explained within the Bible, etc).  This 
takes Revelation 20 to indicate that Jesus return effectively brings the 
millennium, as He deals with the antichrist etc on this physical return to 
earth.  As this view has Jesus returning before the millennium, it is 
called the PREMILLENNIAL view


Of course, this goes 'way beyond just the Revelation 20 passage....:

The position on the millennium also affects one's view of unfulfilled Old
Testament prophecy:
 - AMILLENNIALists take this to be figurative, referring to the church instead 
		of Israel.

 - POSTMILLENNIALists ... I'm not sure, but think there are significant 
		variations in this camp (as there are among the 
		AMILLENNIALists).

 - PREMILLENNIALists take this to be literal, to be fuilfilled in the time 
		leading up to Jesus' return, or during the millennium.

The position on the millennium also affects one's view of Israel, with 
respect to God's purposes today:

Generally  AMILLENNIALists and POSTMILLENNIALists, who don't have room for a 
literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, subscribe to what is called 
'replacement theology', meaning that they replace Israel with the church.  
So they do not consider the land of Israel - or the people - of any 
different significance from any other nation, unless there is some slight 
historical interest.  They do not believe that God has any special current 
or future plan for Israel.

In contrast, PREMILLENIALists see key prophecies to be fulfilled 
shortly prior to Jesus' return, specifically associated with Israel.  They 
also see Israel restored to a privileged position for the millennium.


There are minor variations within these three views, but I think this 
covers them generally.

I hope this helps!

						God bless
								Andrew

    That was helpful, thanks.
    
    So can someone explain the whole picture of the endtime like that
    as a brief overview?  Things like tribulation, rapture, millennium, ...
    I realize there is a lot of disagreement over the total answer, but
    I just want a brief overview, with pointers to scripture... like
    Andrew gave on the millenniun question.
    
    Thanks
    Jill2

I saw a cartoon the other day in a christian magazine.  It was titled
"Post-Rapture Milk Cartons."  It showed the back of a milk carton with a ton
of people on it, and the words "Have you seen these people?"

:-)

Paul

These are all out of Revelation, which is all symbolic prophecy, thus the
disagreements about what it actually all means.

Tribulation - Revelation speaks of a time of great unrest, evil, and
destruction before the end.  Rev 7:14 speaks of those who have "come out of
the great tribulation."  The opening of the seals in Rev 6, the plagues and
bowls of wrath of Rev 15 and 16, speak of terrible terror upon the earth.
God, actually acting in great mercy, gives one terrible conflagration before
the end to give people one last chance to turn back to Him, though it is also
recorded that most people will not turn.

Rapture - There are different beliefs about whether Christians will be around
during the aforementioned Tribulation or not.  There is a belief that all the
Christians will just vanish one day before the tribulation starts.  I'm not
sure if this idea comes from Revelation, or from Mt 24:36-41, that speaks
about "two will be there - one will be taken and the other left."

Paul

      A group called God's faithful finally receive the full gospel.
      This word does what it says it can do, "Walk before Me and be
      thou blameless."
    
      The group is perfected in character.  This experience causes a
      total polarization; one group is perfect in character and the
      other is perfect in apostasy.  Mark of the beast/seal of God
      movement.
    
      God permits the perfected group to drink the full cup.  Except
      for not being the Forerunner, this group essentially goes to the
      cross.  They survive the exp.  The same cup is passed onto the
      other group.  They are destroyed.
    
      God has demonstrated something.  This is the judgment which destroys
      the little horn power/crushes Satan.
    
      Its over and Jesus comes.  (Actually His coming is the cup that
      destroys the lost.)
    
      The sleeping saved and the living saved at the time of the 2nd coming
      are raised and meet Jesus in the air.  They journey to heaven and
      are there for the millenium.
    
      After the millenium, New Jerusalem descends to earth.  The lost
      are resurected and Satan and the fallen angels try to take the
      city.  God shows them His love and it destroys them.  He totally
      purifies the earth and God's throne is forever established in
      earth where His character was most fully demonstrated (the cross).
                                                 
      Thats it.
    
    							Tony

    Question: Man is created in God's Image. I believe that most people
    feel that because of this, God must be male, bipedal, basically human
    appearing. This is due to the fact that we "need" to visualize
    something and this is what we limited humans visualize. (For the most
    part) Now, my question is that since one of the definitions of image is
    a mental picture of something not present or real, might we be created
    in His Image and not look anything like Him? If God is the Purest of
    Spirit, might He not conceive of man as we look and function, because
    that is what is best for His Purpose in creating Creation? Just some
    thoughts that may be expressed elsewhere in here or in Scripture and
    the thought came to me earlier this week and it's been bugging me. I
    just haven't had time to ask it until now.
    
    Thanks in advance.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    Ok, I'm still confused.  I'll admit I should go back and reread
    Revelation again but...
    
    So millennium is 1000 years of peace
    and tribulation is I forget how many years of terror(earthquakes,war,...)
    and rapture is the living believers going up to be with Christ
    
    The amillennial, postmillennial, premillennial explanation mentioned 
      peace and Jesus's return and the question of which is first,  
      and who the "people" are, and one more which I can't see in my screen
      right now...
    
    The pre-post rapture notes talk about which comes first rapture or
      tribulation.
    
    But I don't see how you mix together a millennium of peace, rapture and 
      tribulation, and Jesus's return.
    
    

    Hi Jill,
    
    a broad outline from the Pre-millenial point of view, that combines the
    elements you asked is...
    
    Pentecost -> Rapture	- the time of the 'Church' (i.e. the tiem
    				  we are in now)
    
    Rapture			- the 'Church' is translated to Heaven
    
    Tribulation			- 7 years of 'Hell on Earth' as the
    				  anti-Christ is revealed
    
    End of Tribulation/
    Start of Millenium		- Christ returns with the 'Church' (and
    				  pre-Church era Saints (maybe)), destroys 
    				  the anti-Christ and binds satan in the 
    				  'pit' for 1000 years
    
    Millenium			- 1000 year reign of Christ from Jerusalem
    
    End of Millenium		- satan is released, and tries one last 
    				  rebellion via the children born during
    				  the millenium - this rebellion is
    				  defeated
    
    Judgement			- the final judgement
    
    New Heavens and New Earth	- 'home at last'
    
    I don't have scripture references ready for the above. I make no
    guarantees as to the complete accuracy to the above - it has been over
    a decade since I last studied escatology in a serious manner.
    
    Me? I now subscribe to the 'Pan-Millenialist' view. It will all
    'pan-out' in the end ;')
    
    GBY, Harry

    ante-snarf

 Frequently snarfed questions..

    and it only sat there for 3 hours :'}

.192 � So can someone explain the whole picture of the endtime like that
.192 � as a brief overview?  Things like tribulation, rapture, millennium, ...
.192 � I realize there is a lot of disagreement over the total answer, but
.192 � I just want a brief overview, with pointers to scripture... 

Jill, the answer you get depends on which of the three views - and
sometimes variations outside these! - are held by the person answering. 
That's why Tony's is significantly different from Harry's. 

Harry's is the premillenial view, which I would generally go along with,
but needs references to fill it out.  If you're going to look into it -
trying to decide what you personally believe we are told is going to happen
- you have to go back to the Bible and take it prayerfully and
progressively.  It's not a simplistic formula, though often people of any
view feel that what they have reached is that simple.  However, God did not
reveal or intend it that way.  He meant the truth to be reached through
Himself.

For instance, the two most significant eschatological books are Daniel and 
Revelation.  There is eschatological prophecy in most other books, and 
significant (determinative) eschatological prophecy in some, but these two 
contain the basic and structural framework.  However at the end of Daniel,
God tells Daniel that "the words are closed up and sealed until the time of
the end" Daniel 12:9, and in 1 Peter 1:10-12, that in spite of careful
study, all that the prophets were told was that they were serving a later
generation in their revelations. 

Given that, I can give you some pointers, but it has to be a matter of 
personal *Bible* study, rather than fitting the Bible to a scheme - though 
the way I'd have to represent it may well look like the latter!  If Harry 
doesn't mind, maybe I'll fill his out a little with references... 

							Andrew

PRE-MILLENIAL OUTLINE
=====================

The age which started when Jesus came and died for us - the day of grace - 
was due to finish with His return.  He spoke of this in Matthew 24, Mark 13 
and Luke 21.  These are largely parallel passages, but there is a slight 
but significant difference in Luke, which I won't go into, other than to 
say it includes a warning to Christian Jews to get out of Jerusalem when 
Rome attacked around AD 70.

These chapters warn that at the end of this age, things will deteriorate,
with wars, earthquakes, apostacy, false messiahs, and a growing intensity
of persecution (v4-13).  Note that salvation is extended to al nations 
(v14).

As world disorder grows, correlation with other prophetic passages like
Daniel 9, and 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 indicate that a
world leader will arise.  To the world, he seems a deliverer, because he
works to unite and control the world - a reversal of Babel.  However, he is
an enemy to Christians, and demonically motivated and inspired, even to do
false miracles (false, because they point away from God rather than towards
God).  He has various names and titles - the antichrist, the man of sin,
teh son of perdition (shared with Judas), the Beast etc.  A key point of
recognition is when he makes a 7-year treaty which includes Israel, but
half way through - 3� years later - he breaks it by establishing himself to
be worshipped in the Jerusalem temple - this is the desecration mentioned
in Matthew 24:15, and Daniel 9:27. 

The building of the temple is a topic in itself, but although it's not
needed in the day of grace, it fits in with the current potential
socio-political scene in the middle east, and various hints in prophecy. 

This event signals the impending climax of the era, as the opposition comes 
out in the open.  This is detailed in Revelation 13.

The rule of the antichrist is known as the tribulation.  From the Christian 
perspective this is because of the intense persecution.  There are also 
cataclysmic structural events, terrestrially and atronomically, which make 
the unsaved fear.  These are mentioned principally in Revelation.

Being demonic (Revelation 13:4 - the dragon is the devil), the antichrist
is opposed not only to Christians, but also to Jews, and world war
culminates in an attack on Jerusalem.  Most details on this come in 
Zechariah 14.  At the climax of this attack on Jerusalem, Jesus returns, 
descending from heaven with the angelic army.  The antichrist is overcome 
by Jesus' presence, and is banished to the lake of fire.

Jesus remains on earth, and calls the nations to juudgement (the 'sheep and 
goats' judgement of Matthew 25), and reigns over a restored earth for the 
millennium of peace, with the devil bound in the bottomless pit.

At the end of the thousand years, the devil is released, and gathers a vast
army from mankind, who is stil fallen.  They again return to attack 
Jerusalem, but are destroyed.

This is followed by the great White Throne (final) judgement, of Revelation
19; the coming of the New Heavens and the New Earth, and acceptance into
heaven of the saved, as recored in the last couple of chapters of Revelation. 

 =============================================================================

The only key word I think I've omitted is 'rapture'.  The event this refers to
is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, where, as Jesus returns, the saints are
caught up in the air to meet Him.  A simple point, but one which
premillenialists differ on in timing.  Many place it before the tribulation
period, as an event which is done secretly, and all the rest of the world sees
is a sudden absence of Christians.  Others see it as a facet of his overall and
generally recognised return.  Pre- and post- tribulationists ... ;-) 

 =============================================================================

I have a postscript document which summarises much of this - with references - 
in about three pages, if anyone wants it.  There's a text version too, but it's 
not so pretty ;-)

						God bless
								Andrew

� I have a postscript document which summarises much of this - with references 
� - in about three pages, if anyone wants it.  There's a text version too, but 
� it's not so pretty ;-) 

They're available as:
		ICTHUS::sys$public:end.ps
		ICTHUS::sys$public:end.txt

								Andrew

Hi PJ,

.196, rather got swamped in the welter of eschatology and snarf.

Your perception that our physical form is an ideal image for its purpose, is
one which many take subconciously to be the case, because we cannot imagine a
heavenly Being requiring the physical attributes that we have, and even less
can we imaguine Him having them if He does not need them! 

There are some other considerations, though.  One is that we were made in the
image of Jesus, Who was involved in the creation of the world, and hence in our
creation (eg Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16), though even then we have to
remember that both male and female are created in the image of God (Genesis
1:27). 

Another consideration is the use of physical parts of the body in describing
God's activities (right arm, nostrils etc).  These again are usually taken to
be picture language to clarify the meaning to the limited human brain, but I do
rather suspect that God means something rather more literal here than people
give Him credit for! ;-)  I often find that the Bible takes on an extra 
dimension of meaning and consistency when I throw away my preconceived 
inhibitions and take it literally!

1 John 3:2 is always a favorite:

   "...we now that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall 
    see Him as He is."

Now, that refers to the LORD Jesus.  In His perfection of glory, as in
Revelation 1.  And we shall - in the twinkling of an eye - then assume our
eternal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:52). 

Philosophically, I suppose you could say that the ultimate expression of God in
the physical dimension is the human form.  In that sense, at the very least, we
are made in His image, because He already occupied that form, and fashioned
creation around housing [many variations of] it. 

But perhaps we have just come full circle, to what you said in the first place!

								Andrew

      Hi,
    
        Just another thing to consider...
    
        Most of Christianity interprets the 70 weeks of Daniel to 
        NOT BE A CONTINUOUS PROPHECY.  It is believed that the 70th
        week does not occur right after the 69th week, but rather 
        there is a gap of unknown length between the two.  This gap
        is presently on the order of ~2000 years.
    
        The following is sensitive, but here goes.  The origin of the
        'gap theory' goes back to the counterreformation of Trent where
        two Jesuit scholars were given the task of pointing the 1260
        days *away* from Rome.  (At the time, almost all Protestant
        theologians believed the little horn to be the papacy and the
        1260 day time period to be 1260 years of papal persecution which
        they were living under.)
    
        The Jesuit Rivera introduced 'futurism' which is a prophetic mode
        of interpretation which places the 1260 days within the 70th 
        week of Daniel.  He then placed the 70th week far into the future.
        Purpose: placing the 1260 days within the 70th week AND placing 
        the 70th week far into the future effectively removes the papacy
        from being the little horn for the little horn (then) has not
        existed yet!!!
    
        This mode of prophetic interpretation was originally completely
        scoffed at by Protestants, but it eventually made its inroads
        primarily via the Plymouth Brethren and Darby.
    
        Today, it is almost universally accepted although very few people
        know from whence AND **WHY** it originated.  Its reason for
        existence IS EXTREMELY DUBIOUS and causes me to be extremely
        skeptical of any (resulting) prophetic scheme.
    
        Now, I believe that all time prophecies have a historicist
        application.  I believe the time element has a historicist fit.
        I do not believe the time aspect of these prophecies has an end-
        time fit.
    
        BUT, I do believe all prophecies have some ultimate endtime
        application.  There is an endtime 3 days, 40 days, 1260 days,
        70th week, etc. etc.  But, the time part doesn't fit.  There
        is a spiritual application.  A group will endure something akin
        to the 40 days of prayer in one accord.  They will know a 1260
        day time of persecution.  They will know a 3 day cross-like 
        time of trouble.  The time part won't fit, it already has its
        historical fit where a prophetic day equates to a literal year.
        But, there is some spiritual application.
    
        The above is true and I personally don't see how this gap theory
        can be given credibility given the spirit behind its inception.
    
    						Tony  

    Such gaps are implied throughout scripture.  Also, the early church
    fathers taught pre-trib before Darby made it "cool."  See 644.* for
    more details.
    
    Mike

    Thank you Andrew. Much food for thought here and of course, Scripture
    to look up. Your reply raises some more questions in my mind, but I'll
    hold off on asking until I digest all that you have to say, plus the
    Scripture you recommend. Thanks again.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

Hi Tony,

re 795.206, this note isn't to discuss the merits of the different 
interpretations, but rather to merely state what the viewpoints are.
Do you know of an existing note it would be suitable to move 795.206 to, 
or do you want it to start a new note?  
							Andrew

    Thanks Harry thats just what I was looking for.  
    Thanks Andrew for the pointers to scripture now I know where to start.
    Thanks Tony.  But I need to study the basics before I tangle with yours! 
      It might take a while...
    
    Jill2          

    I also wanted to thank everyone for getting me through (almost)
    the first 5 books.  I even learned this week why I was supposed to
    read them!  Amazing.  But I not done yet...
    
    Jill2                  

      Hi Andrew,
    
        I've nothing more to say on it.  Its historical record and
        thats just the way it is.  Basically, I feel that we all
        deviate to some extent or another from the 'letter of a topic
        title.'
    
        I have no problem with the degree of latitude (from the letter
        of this topic title) that I chose to take.
    
        A couple of screen lengths as validation/invalidation is not
        something I personally consider to be inappropriate a digression/
        too wide a latitude to take.
    
        The tenets of this Conference is the Bible and the Bible only
        (well, actually not as we all know the trinity is imposed) and
        summary validation of something is not something I'll be likely
        to ever consider too much of a digression.
    
        But, I won't discuss the subject matter of my reply in respect 
        to trying to be succinct and thus to keep digression within some
        courteous limits.
    
    							Tony

    Ok, peace Tony, Andrew.  Since this is my note I say we leave
    Tony's note alone and continue with new questions.
    
    Heres one.  What is pre-antichrist-revelation rapure?  These buz words
    are getting worst than the computer ones!  How do I parse this:
    
    pre [antichrist-revelation] rapture???
    
    So this would mean that rapture comes before the antichrist is
    revealed?
    
    Jill2

    Heres another.  No one answered my 3 day question to my stisfaction
    yet.  If Christ died on the cross on Friday and was raised 3 days
    later, why is that Sunday?  The answer I got from Tony was that
    the 3 really just means many.  But that feels kind of like the
    debate going on in the creation note where they say day doesn't
    mean 24 hours.  I'm not really happy with either.  Andrew's 
    previous note about being able to take the fact that we were
    created in God's image somewhat more literally, would also lead me to
    believe that the 3 days should be able to be taken literally too.
    I agree with Tony who says that 3 days in the bible tend to also
    denote a transition.  But it should also have a literal meaning.
    
    Ideas?
    
    Jill2 

    Jill2,
    
    Perhaps someone can elaborate on the 3 days thing but from
    my understanding, it has to do with the fact the Jews count
    the new day as beginning at dusk.  So, Friday is one day,
    Friday night to Saturday is another day, and Saturday night
    to Sunday is the third day.
    
    The text says...rose on the third day.  It does not say that
    He rose three days later.
    
    Get it?  Hope this helps.
    Pam

>                     <<< Note 795.214 by HPCGRP::DIEWALD >>>
>                           -< friday + 3 != sunday? >-

>    Heres another.  No one answered my 3 day question to my stisfaction
>    yet.  If Christ died on the cross on Friday and was raised 3 days
>    later, why is that Sunday?  The answer I got from Tony was that
>    the 3 really just means many.  But that feels kind of like the
>    debate going on in the creation note where they say day doesn't
>    mean 24 hours.  I'm not really happy with either.  Andrew's 
>    previous note about being able to take the fact that we were
>    created in God's image somewhat more literally, would also lead me to
>    believe that the 3 days should be able to be taken literally too.
>    I agree with Tony who says that 3 days in the bible tend to also
>    denote a transition.  But it should also have a literal meaning.
    
>    Jill2 

    Jill,

    I understand the three days to be "on the third day," as in Friday (1st
    day), Saturday (2nd day), and Sunday (3rd day).  Can't think of a
    scripture reference to support it right now.

    Ron

      Hi Jill,
    
        In the judgment, Gods church is described as fire proceeding 
        from it (see Joel).  Anti-Christ has always been here as 1 John
        says, but the church has not revealed him.
    
        It is light that exposes the darkness.  When the church is
        perfected, it will shine like the sun and expose the anti-
        Christ to a certain fulness.  Just as the church will be like
        Him for it shall see Him as He is (in the heart), the anti-Christ
        will be known for who he is for the lit up church will expose him
        for who he is.
    
        As Ephesians says, light makes manifest.
    
      On the 3 day thing...
    
        It is an eastern cultural thing that includes all of a time period.
        For example, if some Chinese emporor began to rule on Dec. 31 
        238 AD and dies Jan 1 240 AD, he would have served little more
        then one year.  But, because he served parts of the year 238 and
        the year 240, cultural reality is that he would be said to have
        ruled three years.
    
        I think exegesis includes factoring in the cultural reality of
        the time something was written.
    
        One thing that weakens this though is when Jesus likened the
        cross/resurrection experience to "three days AND three nights"
        which would add some strength to the idea that the time duration
        must have been ~72 hours.
    
        In lieu of the above cultural thing, the fact that three days
        is a highly symbolic number, the fact that Jonah's experience
        was 100% one of a *living* torment, the fact that I am into
        what Hebrews 10:1-4 says to me (look to "very image" for it is 
        this which will sanctify a people), my belief that "very image"
        refers to Christ's living torment and faith-victory over that
        torment, and the fact that there is no way His living torment
        was 72 hours, I am not persuaded sufficiently that Christ's
        personal comparison with Jonah insisted that the time duration
        from death to resurrection had to be 72 hours.
    
        Man, what a run-on!  I'm sorry if this is cryptic.  I'm writing
        this quickly during a real short break and need to return to
        work!
    
    							Tony

    What verse is this?
    
            One thing that weakens this though is when Jesus likened the
            cross/resurrection experience to "three days AND three nights"
            
    
    Jill2

    Ok, I answered my own question.
    
    Mat 12:40
    Johah 1:17
    
    These are very straight forward, no question of context here.
    They plainly say 3 days and 3 nights.
    
    So explain that.
    
    Jill2

      Given that I still lean toward believing the cross was from 
      Fri - Sun, I guess I can't explain to your satisfaction (and 
      thats OK)!
    
      Or maybe it really was 72 hours?
    
      I always thought He just rested on the Sabbath according to the
      commandment?
    
      My present understanding is that "three days and three nights"
      refers to the EVENT and not the time.  Heart of the earth refers
      to the pit/that Romans 7:9 dying experience.
    
      I guess I'm presently at a point where I see it as so symbolic 
      that I don't necessitate that Jesus spent 72 literal hours in 
      the ground.
    
      I don't know Jill.  Just my thoughts.
    
      And thanks for posting the scripture.  I didn't know where it
      was.
    
    						Tony
      

    I too like the fact that the 3 days includes the entire event.  Fits
    in with your favorite Romans 7 verse nicely.  But it seems that it 
    should literally be 3 days too.  
    
    How do they pin the cross to friday?  Is that actually in the Bible?
    How do they pin the rising to Sunday? Is that actually in the Bible?
    
    Jill2

>    So this would mean that rapture comes before the antichrist is
>    revealed?
    
    Jill2, yes.
    
    Mike

    So whats the difference between "tribulation" and
    "antichrist being revealed".  According to Harry's simplified
    explanation (which is about all I can handle right now!) they 
    are the same.
    
    I want a *short* answer please.
    
    Thanks
    Jill2

    Don't confuse "tribulation" with the "Great Tribulation."  The "Great
    Tribulation" can't start until the antichrist is revealed.
    
    Mike

    Maybe it was my fault for specifying *short*...I cannot follow this
    at all.  
    
    Ok, someone expand the term tribulation to show its component parts
    some of which must be "Great Tribulation" and "antichrist is revealed"?
    
    Jill2

Here's what I could find, in the most logical order I could think of:

1) Jesus said he would spend 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth 
	Matthew 12:38-40

As Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) and it is impossible for God to lie
(Hebrews 6:18) we are left with the fact that indeed Jesus did spend 3 days and
3 nights in the earth regardless of how we currently remember/celebrate this
event.  

With regards to the timing of the event, the Bible says, in decreasing order of
specificity:

1) On the first day of the week, Sunday, Christ was already risen.

	Matthew 28:1-6, vs 6 "He HAS risen"
	Mark 16:1-6, vs 6 "He HAS risen"   
	Luke 24: 1-6, vs 6 "He HAS risen"
	John 20: 1-9

The only verse that appears to say Christ rose on the first of the week is 
Mark 16:9, 
                              
	"Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first
	 appeared to Mary Magdalene,..."  

However remembering the original Greek had no punctuation this verse could 
just as easily be rendered as, 

	"Now after He had risen, early on the first day of the week He first
	 appeared to Mary Magdalene,... " 

which does not contradict any other verse and in fact supports the other
verses.

2) Jesus died on a preparation day before the Sabbath.

	Matthew 27:62
	MArk 15:42
	Luke 23:54
        John 19:31

3) There were two Sabbaths that week of Passover, one for the Passover and one
for the regular weekly Sabbath.  Jesus died on the preparation day of the
Passover Sabbath.

	John 19:14-Passover
	John 19:31-High day or SPecial Passover

Also 
Mark 16:1  	 "And when the Sabbath was over Mary Magdalene ,and Mary mother
		  of JAmes, and Salome BOUGHT spices, that they might come and 
		  annoint Him." 

Luke 23:54-24:1  "And it was the preparation day and the Sabbath was about to
		  begin.  Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee 
		  followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid.  
		  And they returned and prepared spices and perfumes.  And on 
		  the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.
		  But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came 
		  to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared."

support 2 Sabbaths.  The women bought spices AFTER the Sabbath and prepared 
them BEFORE the Sabbath. As they needed to buy spices before they could be
prepared it follows they bought them after the Passover Sabbath and prepared
them before the weekly Sabbath. 

Therefore with the Passover Sabbath falling on a Thrusday and the "normal"
weekly Sabbath on Saturday the following scenario fits ALL the Scriptures:

	1) Jesus died ~sundown Wednesday, the Preparation Day before the
	Passover Sabbath.

	2) Thursday was the PAssover SAbbath.

	3) Friday was a "normal" weekly Sabbath Preparation Day, wherein the 
	woman could buy and prepare spices. 

	4) Saturday was the "normal" weekly Sabbath.

	5) Jesus rose Saturday at ~sundown but the empty tomb was not discovered
	until the morning of the first day of the week, Sunday.

Hence Jesus spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the earth:

		1) Wed Night - Thurs Day
                2) Thurs Night - Fri Day
		3) Fri Night - Sat Day and rose ~ sundown Saturday.

What's the purpose of all this?  To be dogmatic about Wednesday being the day
Jesus died instead of Friday?  NO!!  Simply to build our faith in the Bible and
to "always be prepared to give a reason for our hope"(somewhere in 1 Peter).  

So to that end I would like to thank Jill for raising the question because I 
now have an answer and more faith in the Word.

A question I asked myself while going thru all of this is "Why didn't Jesus
show Himself on SAturday, why wait until Sunday?"  The only answer I could come
up with is if the Pharisees crucified Him for healing a man's hand on the
SAbbath, just think what they would do to Him for being raised from the dead on
the Sabbath!!!  I can hear the Pharisees now "Seven days in the week to rise 
from the dead and He HAD TO PICK THE SABBATH!" ;-))

Love in Him,

Peter (who won't be back until Thursday)

P.S. Hey Jill , why the "2" at they end of your name, "Jill2"?
 

    That's good info by Peter in -1.  I've found that "tradition" is often
    wrong when it comes to these matters (Good Friday should be Good
    Wednesday).  Here is a simple breakdown of the Final week:
    
    Fri - at Bethany 6 days before the Passover (John 12:1)
    Sat - Triumphal Entry from Bethany: a sabbath day's journey (Matthew
          21:5,12,17; Mark 11:7,11; Luke 19:28)
    Sun - The fig tree cursed (Matthew 21:18, Mark 11:12)
    Mon - Conspirators counsel (Matthew 26:2, Mark 11:20, 14:1, Luke 22:1)
    Tue - Last Supper (after 6pm) Passover "between the evening," (Matthew
          26:17, Mark 14:7,12 Luke 22:7)
    Wed - Crucifixion (John 19:14,31,42; Mark 15:42, Luke 23:17,54). 
          Preparation day for Feast of Unleavened Bread, associated with
          Passover.
    Thu - Beginning of Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:4-8); lasts
          7 days, 1st and last days are sabbaths (Matthew 27:62, Leviticus
          23:6-7).  Jewish calendar includes 7 High Sabbaths in addition to the
          Saturday Sabbaths.
    Fri - Women prepare spices.
    Sat - "and rested..." (Luke 23:56) "after the sabbaths..." (Matthew
          28:1, i.e., after 6pm)
    Sun - He is risen.  Our New Beginning symbolized in the Feast of
          Firstfruits (Matthew 28:11, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, John 20:1)

    re: .226
    
    That's how I understand it, too.  
    
    
    -steve

    Thanks everyone for the great information and verses.  So is there
    actually agreement that the cross was on Wednesday?
    
    Hey Tony according to this the sabbath should be on Thursday!
    (Sorry I couldn't resist, please don't start another sabbath war...)
    
    Jill2

From Eric Ewanco:

>     Wed - Crucifixion (John 19:14,31,42; Mark 15:42, Luke 23:17,54). 
>           Preparation day for Feast of Unleavened Bread, associated with
>           Passover.
>     Thu - Beginning of Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:4-8); lasts
>           7 days, 1st and last days are sabbaths (Matthew 27:62, Leviticus
>           23:6-7).  Jewish calendar includes 7 High Sabbaths in addition to the
>           Saturday Sabbaths.
>     Fri - Women prepare spices.
>     Sat - "and rested..." (Luke 23:56) "after the sabbaths..." (Matthew
>           28:1, i.e., after 6pm)
>     
So wait a minute here.  He says that the women prepared the spices on
Friday.  But they never went to embalm him until Sunday.  Doesn't this
sound really, really strange?  I mean, when your loved one dies, and you
want to embalm him, you don't wait 87 hours to do it.  According to
Mike's timeline, Wednesday evening and Thursday were sabbaths, so ok,
the women could not embalm on those days.  Friday evening and Saturday
were also sabbaths.  That leaves Friday morning and afternoon when they
could have embalmed him.  But they didn't.  Why, given the urgency of
embalming, especially after a 39 hour delay?  Does one really suppose
the women would have hung around idly on Friday morning and afternoon,
knowing full well that they were approaching a lengthy period of time
during which they could not embalm?

The Friday crucifixion makes a lot more sense.  Note that the women made
haste to the grave as soon as they were able to embalm him --
specifically, early Sunday morning (where they were interrupted by the
Resurrection).  If Mike's timeline is correct, why did they not embalm
him promptly on Friday morning?

Eric

# __   __                    Eric Ewanco 
# IC | XC                 [email protected]
# ---+---           Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
# NI | KA                  Littleton, Mass.

    re: .226
    
    Hi Peter -
    
    Thanks for the info.  I use Jill2 since there are two Jills
    here.  Must just be a great name...
    
    Jill2

Re: .230  (Eric Ewanco)

>So wait a minute here.  He says that the women prepared the spices on
>Friday.  But they never went to embalm him until Sunday.  Doesn't this
>sound really, really strange?  I mean, when your loved one dies, and you
>want to embalm him, you don't wait 87 hours to do it.  According to
etc. etc.

This seems like a no-brainer:

Eric Ewanco appeals to human reason, whereas the scripture clearly says 
"3 days and 3 nights."

Scripture must be right, Eric Ewanco must be wrong.

   I'm not jumping on either side of this argument. I don't have any 
   opinions on what weekday the execution of Yeshua actually happened.
   But I have read that in Biblical times, when someone said X number 
   of days, it did not necessarily have to be a full 24 hours times X, 
   but that any part of a day could constitute a day.  Again, I mention 
   this as a point of interest, not to take sides in the argument.

   Here's a new wrinkle. Something I have begun to wonder about is if the 
   women went to the tomb with the spices on Sunday morning, or if they 
   went immediately after the shabbat was over - ie after sunset on Saturday 
   evening.

   Leslie

    Re: -1
    
    isn't this where doctors and lawyers got the idea for their billing
    cycles?! ;-)

Re: .233  (Leslie Johnson)

>   But I have read that in Biblical times, when someone said X number 
>   of days, it did not necessarily have to be a full 24 hours times X, 
>   but that any part of a day could constitute a day.  

Not just biblical times, but in modern times as well.  And if it just said
"3 days", this discussion would be moot.

But in another place the scripture says "3 days and 3 nights."

"But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside
the fish three days and three nights."  (Jonah 1:17)

"He answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah
was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man
will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'" (Mat 12:39-40)

How long was Jonah in the fish?

	    3      days  and      3      nights
	<shalosh> <yom> <ve-> <shalosh> <layelah>

How long was Jesus in the earth?

           3       days    and     3     nights
	<treis> <hemaras> <kai> <treis> <nuktas>

    Ok, heres a new question.
    
    Why wasn't Moses allowed to enter the promised land?
    He did make a mistake with the rock but he was faithful
    in everything else.  He was the only prophet who saw
    God face-to-face.  He was probably on the top 5 most faithful
    list.  It seems overly picky.  It just doesn't make sense 
    to me.   Doesn't fit in with the loving God. 
    
    Jill2  

    He misrepresented God.

	To elaborate a little, he struck the rock the second time,
disobeying what God told him to do, which was to speak to the rock.

	God wanted Moses to strike the rock only once (prophesying that
Christ would be put to death only once), to start the spring of water
flowing (which represents the Holy Spirit poured out on us).  It is
enough now to ask Him (speak to the rock) for this Gift of the Holy
Spirit (spring of water).

Hi Jill,

That's one which has fascinated me too...

Numbers 20:12 tells us what the LORD said to Moses:
  "Because you did not trust in Me enough to honour Me as holy in the sight 
   of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give 
   them."

 - in this instance, Moses was told to speak to the rock only (Numbers 20:7)
He disobeyed, and not only struck the rock (twice) , but spoke to the people, 
saying:
  "Listen you rebels, must we bring water out of this rock?" (:10)
                           ^^

- taking a portion of the responsiblity and glory for himself.

Part of why he struck the rock may have been to do with a previous occasion, as 
recorded in Exodus 17:1-7, where Moses is instructed to strike a rock to get 
water.  No problem on that occasion (:6).  However, this time (Numbers 20) he 
went significantly outside his brief.  The striking of the rock is the physical 
expression of the words he used, which seem untypically violent.

Moses was the humblest of men, and Deuteronomy 34:10-12 emphasises the great 
things that God was able to use Moses for, because generally he set self aside, 
and let God be expressed.  However, in Numbers 20, Moses (however much provoked 
by the people) actually violated God's territory, from the position of 
trust/responsibility he had been given.

For us, taking someone's life, and not permitting them to achieve some temporal 
goal seems a big thing - 'overly picky', as you say.  But we have to look at it 
not only from God's point of view, but also from Moses 'now' point of view, as 
he is in heaven.

Moses was not solely - or even mainly - God's servant for his time on earth.  
Moses is a member of God's family in heaven for eternity.  And what we are for 
eternity is determined by our spiritual maturing here.  This is where temporal 
and eternal criteria clash.  Humanly speaking, we want an easy comfortable 
life.  Spiritually speaking, we learn significantly more through uncomfortable 
situations than we do through comfortable ones.  Here, we pray for healing, 
wealth, happiness.  Perhaps we should concentrate more on patience, and that 
walk with the LORD which lets us experience what's beyond mortal satisfaction.
Withstanding temptation - denying the fleshly desire for an overdose of
appetite - is one rather basic 'discomfort' we should learn to discipline and
control. 

Many tests we hit against, we fail first time round, and it's partly the shame 
of that fall which brings us to a new level of repentance before the LORD, and 
moves us to let Him deal with the fdailure within, making us more determined 
to stand firm-er! next time - in His strength.

I can just imagine, if He gave us an easy life, leaving a lot of 'self' undealt 
with under the surface, which couldn't be a part of us for eternity, we'd get 
'there', only to be disappointed in the puny-ness of our mansion, because we 
hadn't grown to be 'more' for Him, saying to Him "But why didn't you *make* me 
learn?  It would have been SO worth it, just for that brief time on earth!"

So in His infinite mercy, He plays on us like musical instruments, to finely 
tune from us the very best that we are capable of for eternity.

Moses was given immense spiritual privileges, and had, in consequence, much
asked of him.  God graciously didn't leave him a 10% safety margin, but pushed
him to the limit, to develop him to the full for eternity.  This was Moses
limit.  Not just the 'speaking to the rock', but the personal stress and
exposure etc before the people which triggered it.

God didn't whip Moses out of the scene immediately (as He could have done), He
gave him years more to serve, learn and show God's love first hand, but he
_had_ reached a limit, which was demonstrated, for instance, to his successor, 
Joshua, and to all Israel, as a witness that the holiness of God is not to be 
taken lightly, even by those who walk closely to Him.

To him who much is given, much is expected.  Or asked.  The intensity of the 
presence of the Holy Spirit in the early church meant that judgement had to be 
visited immediately on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  We aren't that close to 
Him currently, so we don't see His intervention in that way.  We should seek,
not for His hand to be withheld, but for an ever greater degree of personal
holiness opening the way for more of the Holy Spirit's within.

�    Why wasn't Moses allowed to enter the promised land?

His 'faith' potential had already been reached to the full.  There wasn't any 
point in him struggling on (and maybe following 120, his strength might have 
then started to fade some - Deuteronomy 34:7).  Heaven was his goal, and he was 
ready to go there.  I'm totally certain that he has no regrets now, about not 
organising the invasion, but leaving it to the younger man, Joshua, who he'd 
been instrumental in preparing.

� He was the only prophet who saw God face-to-face.  
� He was probably on the top 5 most faithful list.  

That's exactly why a slight slip in the area of attributing the glory to God 
was more important than it would be for someone who didn't really rate much on 
the human holiness level anyway....

� It just doesn't make sense to me.   Doesn't fit in with the loving God. 
I hope this helps, but I'm out of line quota ;-)

					God bless
							Andrew

It is a tough one, Jill.  It does seem to be such a harsh judgement for such
a 'little' slip.  Two thoughts:

As Andrew said, to whom much is given, much is expected.  Moses' earlier
slips, which seem much bigger, such as murdering an Egyptian who beat an
Israelite or arguing with God about whether he should really be the one to
save the Israelites, are not mentioned.  They are forgotten - they were
between Moses and God, they were not places in which Moses was representing
God.  When Moses was representing God to the people, his responsibility was
much greater, such that a 'little' slip was of much greater account.

Gives one pause when moving into any sort of leadership in God's name,
doesn't it?

Second, let's not forget that Moses was later considered one of the two
worthy to meet Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, as Christ prepared to
go to His crucifixion.  The consequence of Moses disobedience was paid and
was only temporary.  Eternally, he is forgiven and beloved of God.

Paul

    My perspective is a bit different.  I don't believe that Moses was
    denied the promised land.  I believe he went to THE promised land,
    heaven. :-) If you were Moses, would you want to be with those
    Israelites who eventually went back to Egypt or God himself?
    
    I think Moses was rewarded.
    
    :-)
    
    Nancy

    I don't see where it's so complicated.  He misrepresented God, plain
    and simple.
    
    Mike

    I liked all the answers and I think they all fit together
    nicely.
    
    Andrew says:
    .239
      Numbers 20:12 tells us what the LORD said to Moses:
        "Because you did not trust in Me enough to honour Me as
        holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring
        this community into the land I give them."
    
      - in this instance, Moses was told to speak to the rock only
      (Numbers 20:7) He disobeyed, and not only struck the rock
      (twice), but spoke to the people, saying: "Listen you
      rebels, must *we* bring water out of this rock?" (:10)
    
      - taking a portion of the responsiblity and glory for himself.
    
    .238
       God wanted Moses to strike the rock only once (prophesying
       that Christ would be put to death only once), to start the
       spring of water flowing (which represents the Holy Spirit
       poured out on us).  It is enough now to ask Him (speak to
       the rock) for this Gift of the Holy Spirit (spring of
       water).
    This one showed me how important it is to follow God
    completely and not, shall we say, improvise on our own.
    Something so small like whether to hit the rock or talk to
    it can actually have a very large affect on God's total
    plan.  A plan of which we can only see a small part.
    
    Mike says:
    .242
       I don't see where it's so complicated.  He misrepresented
       God.
    
    Andrew and Paul say:
    .239
       as a witness that the holiness of God is not to be 
       taken lightly, even by those who walk closely to Him.
    .240
       When Moses was representing God to the people, his
       responsibility was much greater, such that a 'little' slip
       was of much greater account.  Gives one pause when moving
       into any sort of leadership in God's name, doesn't it?
    :-)
    
    Andrew says:
    .239
       what we are for eternity is determined by our spiritual
       maturing here.
    Hebrews 12:10-11
    God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in His
    holiness.  No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but
    painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of
    righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by
    it.
    
    And then Nancy says:
    .241
       I don't believe that Moses was denied the promised land.
       I believe he went to THE promised land, heaven. :-) If you
       were Moses, would you want to be with those Israelites who
       eventually went back to Egypt or God himself?
    Can't argue with that.
    
    
    Thanks everyone
    Jill2
    

      Hi Jill2,
    
        Yes, you're absolutely right that if Jesus died on Weds.,
        some significance I have placed to the seventh day Sabbath
        (Jesus resting on it following His finished sacrificial 
        work) is destroyed.
    
        Makes sense to me!
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony -
    
    I've been learning about having a teachable heart.  God loves a 
    teachable heart.  Thanks for the last message, you made my day
    and set forth a good example.  Beautiful.  
    
    Jill2

    One more point I wanted to add.
    
    Motive.  The correct motive is always love.  
    1 Corinthians 13
    If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all
    knowledge, and if I have a faith
    that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 
    
    Even if you do the right thing, if your motive is not love its not 
    enough.  In this case Moses's motive for striking the rock was
    clearly anger.  Thats wrong.
    
    Jill2

      Hi Jill,
    
        Thanks!
    
        One of the most refreshing things is when people can say,
        "I was wrong about that and thanks for showing me more
        light!"
    
        It doesn't happen often, but once in awhile...
    
    						Tony

	Hello Jill!

	So many questions!  Anger is sometimes appropriate; even God
sometimes does things out of anger.  However, the anger of man does not
accomplish the righteousness of God.  Be angry, yet do not sin; do not
let the sun go down on your anger.  Moses inappropriately showed anger
as a leader, at God and the Israelites.  Anyway, my 2 cents... :-)

						Bob Sampson

    Ok Bob since you brought it up and I do have many questions...
    
    When is it appropriate to be angry?  
    When is it appropriate for God to be angry and 
    for men to be angry.  Bible verses please.  Whats the purpose
    of anger?
    
    We can start with these:
    Be angry, yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.
    
    Jill2

Righteous anger is triggered by unchecked sin.  There is anger because God's
created order is being degraded - and hence the Creator is desecrated, and the
temple of the Holy Spirit is turned into an abomination instead of what its
original design was for.

Jesus was righteously angry when He found the temple in Jerusalem being used
for profane profiteering over the people is was meant to bless (both times - 
at the beginning of His ministry in John 2:14-16, and at the end in the 
synoptics - eg Matthew 21:21-13).  It would have been wrong not to be angry -
not to care about such an insult to God. 

Phinehas expressed righteous anger when he killed the man who brought a Moabite
woman into the camp in rebellion against the LORD - and in his expression of
honouring the LORD above man, Phinehas brought blessing and deliverance
(Numbers 25:3-9). 

I'm not saying that we should use these methods now - but terrible as these
lengths seem, it is *more* terrible to uphold such sin as acceptable.  In this
sense, it would be sin *not* to be angry.  I'm not sure if the original can be
construed to mean that, but that was the position of Jesus and Phinehas I
quoted above. 

Righteous anger - including the expression of tears - is what is needed before
the LORD, to turn the situation to His honour - to set His glory above the
common choice of man.  It the place of all of us, to echo the response of the
Holy Spirit Who dwells within our hearts. 

btw - when 'Jesus wept' in John 11:35, was it from that same anger at the work
of the enemy, to a family he loved? 

								Andrew 

Hi Paul,

Your reply is one which I felt deserved a very thoughtful,
prayerful, and patient answer and that is precisely what I gave
it.  I wasn't sure how to answer you and I think your reply, at
a certain level, makes a lot of sense, however, the more I
thought about it in the light of God's word, the more I felt it
conveyed some basic misunderstandings.  

There are actually a few points which need thoughtful response
though perhaps all of the points must be considered from the
overall backdrop of just what constitutes a transition in
covenant.

The Bible discusses one transition in covenant in some detail. 
It has more than a few dramatic features:


1) The body of God's professed faithful is confronted with a
huge discrete amount of light.  The term "huge discrete" cannot
be underemphasized.  This was not a gradual unfolding of light. 
This was a time when, within a relatively short time period, a
tremendous amount of light came to the doors of the church.  

2) This light is not just a more surrendered experience, it
verily was fresh doctrine.  New and startling (in comparison to
what their understanding of the gospel was) light was presented
to them.

3) In some extremely fundamental ways, the pillars of the house
that made up an understanding of the gospel were replaced.  We
discussed some of this.  Animal sacrifices to Christ being the
sacrifice.  Animal blood to Christ's blood, etc.

4) Most of the 'church' including very notably, the vast
majority of the formal leadership of the church, became the
greatest enemies of the light that was shown them.  

5) Not only did the church reject the light shown them, they
insisted upon retaining the light they presently had.  This, I
believe, is the commiting of the abomination of desolation for
when the Pharisees demonstrated their rejection of the
transition in covenant by their rejection of Christ, He said to
them, "Your house is left unto you desolate."

6) The transition in covenant eventually got so big that a
subset of the larger body took off with it and the larger body
that rejected it became spiritually dead.  The group that
received the transition in covenant "turned the world upside
down" while the rejecters wallowed in spiritual death.

Will continuing...

Continuing On...

With the above in mind, one thing I think I need to try to
convey is to refer back to the last transition of covenant with
some appreciation of 'the perspective of time.'  To do that, I
have taken two people, each of whom stood at very different
perspectives, Simeon and Saul.

Luke 2:25-35 
25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was
Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the
Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And
it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not
see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 So he came by
the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the
Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law,
28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said: 29 
"Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace,
According to Your word; 30  For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31  Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, 32 
A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of
Your people Israel." 33 And Joseph and His mother marveled at
those things which were spoken of Him. 34 Then Simeon blessed
them, and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is
destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a
sign which will be spoken against 35 "(yes, a sword will pierce
through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts
may be revealed."


Simeon was a bit of a forerunner to the impending transition in
covenant.  I suspect there were others about as Joseph and Mary
brought their Child Jesus in.  What was their reaction to the
presence of He who would cause such a transition?  NOTHING! 
Absolutely nothing.

You can bet that when the latter rain falls, some will not
discern its falling and will not receive it.  Thats the way
transitions of covenant are usually perceived when the
perspective is insistence in the old.  (That is, the new is not
perceived.)

Will continue...

Continuing on...

Now, consider Saul.  The transition has largely taken place. 
This Christ had taken the nation of Israel by storm.  Saul was a
good Jew.  Standing tall for the way things have always been. 
His understanding of traditional orthodoxy perhaps rivaled by no
one else.  And yet he simply cannot see.  Transitions in
covenant can do that!

So what happens?  He has his Damascus road experience.  I happen
to believe the real shock was that Paul was probably so heavy in
heart and his intellectual understanding of the scriptures was
vast.  Suddenly, somehow, he saw the transition of covenant.  He
just got BOLTED.  Everything just came together.  All those
scriptures!

The Word is the power.

Hebrews 10:1-4 says that the law was a shadow and not very
image.  Because it was a shadow, it lacked the motivating,
transforming power to make the worshipers perfect (verse 1) or
to put another way, to give them a consciousness such that they
had no more memory of sins (verse 2) or to put another way to
take away sins (verse 4).

We are not living under that final covenant for if we were, we
would not remember sin.  Thus there are the following
transitions...


  O.T. Sacrificial  =>  Christ As Sacrifice  =>  Christ As Sacrifice
      System                  (Shadow)		    (very image)



Another thing to consider is to tie in the truth that the word
is the power, that the word is revelation and is largely
doctrinal (see Deut. 32:1-2), and to guage the extent of the
word we presently *lack* by guaging the extent to which
Christians fall short of perfection of character (which is what
the final covenant produces).

In short, one would conclude that there must be a huge resorvoir
of light awaiting us for as the word is the power and as we are
so far from perfection of character, there must be so much of
the word we have yet to see.  So much so, that a transition in
covenant, such as the transition that took place 2000 years ago,
is the only way to adequately describe it.

Will continue...

Continuing On...

With the above in mind, I just want to hit on a couple things
you said...

>Jesus doesn't so much want to change *what* we believe, but *how* 
>we believe.

Paul, have you really thought this statement through?  We have
the advantage of looking back in time to the last transition in
covenant.  So lets use that as an example.

What if Simeon told some of his fellow Jews that this Christ was
the consolation of Israel and what if he had the discernment to
know that Christ was going to the cross and the entire
sacrificial system could be discarded and he told them of this
as well?

What would you say to a sincere and faithful Jew who basically
said, "You're getting pretty fancy with your views there Simeon!
We've been doing this sacrificial bit for centuries and its our
staple.  You're giving us spices here!  Besides, its not so
important what you believe, but how you believe."

Or, better yet, contrast your statement to how Christ responded
to those walking the road to Emmaus.  They essentially said that
they thought Christ would be the redeemer, but INSTEAD He went
to the cross (funny how it is so hard to discern transitions in
covenant!).

Why not Christ take your cue and tell them, "Don't worry about
it.  Its not so important what you believe, but how you
believe."  Instead He begins "at Moses and all the Prophets and
expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning
Himself."  (Luke 24:27)  He told them all things pertaining to
the transition in covenant.

Actually, how and what we believe are extremely inter-related;
each being very dependant on the other.

Will continue...

Continuing On...

You also described it as:

>Its just spice, not nourishing part.

If you read Hebrews 5, you can catch some glimpses of the kind
of light that is a part of the future transition in covenant. 
There is something about knowing our great High Priest and
understanding His humanity and what it was like for Him in the
days of His flesh (vs 7).  Not that this is everything, but this
is certainly a part of it.

The author of Hebrews says the following about the light
characterized by the transition in covenant...

Hebrews 5:12-6:1a
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need
someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles
of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13
For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word
of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to
those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use
have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. 
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles
of Christ, let us go on to PERFECTION...


Hebrews 10:1-4 discusses a transition of covenant that leads to
perfection and (in case we might misunderstand just what the
author means by perfection), he characterizes it by saying that
the worshippers have no consciousness of sins.  They don't
remember sins.  The above verse ties into Hebrews 10 by also
discussing perfection and it ties it into the word we have
'partaken of.'

It doesn't call the word we have received that leaves us at a
point of imperfection our staple, it calls it MILK.  It doesn't
call this word not yet received 'spice', it calls it SOLID FOOD.

Will continue...

Continuing On...

>dying to self, surrendering are simple concepts.

I just want to say here that *IF* it is easier to die to self the
more fully we have beheld God's love and *AS* the solid food described
in Hebrews is linked to perfection (which is a perfect dying to self),
it thus follows that there is solid food in store for us that helps
us to die to self "for the love of Christ constraineth us..."

The more fully we comprehend God's love for us, all other things
being the same, the easier it is to surrender self for it is the
word itself which motivates.

Paul, if I could summarize your position, it is that a future
transition in covenant is sort of a peripheral thing.  The main
thing you miss is the fact that God gave us a transition in
covenant as a type to look back on as an example "for all these
things happened as examples and were given for us and for our
admonition unto whom the ends of the ages have come."  (1 Corin
10:11)

It is logical then to give the future transition in covenant the
same significance we gave the one that took place 2000 years
ago.  It serves as an example.  Its the only one we've got!

Will continue...

Continuing On...

Finally, I want to finish off by sharing John 6 which I read
last week and which thoroughly blessed me.

The chapter opens with Jesus feeding the 5000 on Passover.  He
makes them sit.  Here is foretold the group that sits with Jesus
and partakes of Passover with Him.  With fervent desire, Jesus
has desired to partake of Passover WITH us (not instead of us). 
(Luke 22:15).  "I am crucified with Christ."

After the Passover, there is a small type of the last day time
of trouble (John 6:15-21).  The disciples are in darkness, in
deep waters, there is a storm, and a great wind is blowing  All
imagery sometimes used to describe the time of trouble.  Jesus
does not seem to be with them.

But, the group comes to know Jesus is with them and all is then
peace.  The time of trouble is overcome by believing Jesus is
with you.

The rest of the chapter describes the end time transition of
covenant.  It dovetails nicely with Hebrews 10:1-4 for it speaks
of VERY IMAGE rather than shadow.  Jesus says that we must eat
His body and drink His blood in order to have life (verse 53). 
He also says that the words that he speaks to us are spirit
(very image) and give us life (verse 63).  He has just equated
His body and blood to His word.  In the transition of covenant,
His body and blood will be seen to be metaphors of some
spiritual meaning.  Its a revelation, something of the mind.


John 6:66
From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with
Him no more.


That is what is going to happen.  Some group is somehow going to
tap into the 'word' meaning implicit in all the physical
symbols.  They are going to come upon what the blood is, the
body, death, etc., etc.  All the meanings will be very image and
not shadow.

When this transition takes place, most will say "This is a hard
saying, who can understand it?" (verse 60) and most will turn
away.  This causes me to consider something else you said when you
termed some of this...

>complicated and obscure.

Those folks walking to Emmaus could see no redemption in the cross.
These folks described in John 6:60 couldn't understand Jesus and
followed Him no more.  I know its not the most well-liked term, but
paradigm shift is the most fitting one I can think of.  Its not that
its complicated, its that it strikes against much of our preconceptions,
our baggage of the way we feel the plan of redemption operates.  Much
like those folks walking to Emmaus.  The cross per se wasn't complicated;
they just couldn't fit it with their understanding of things.

The same things will challenge us just as it challenged them.

And just as then, many will reject the transition.  They will see no 
light in it. They will stick to their orthodoxy and in so doing their house
will be left to them desolate.

The abomination of desolation.  Rejection of the new covenant via persistent 
clinging to the old.

						God Bless,

						Tony

I have no time to respond now, but I read it all.  A couple of quick thoughts:

You lose me with a fair amount of it (I'll read it again later), particularly
the 'transition in covenant' stuff.  I've not encountered that concept in
other christian writings, and you seem to put very high importance on it.  I
think I was to the third note before I got a glimmer of how what you were
saying responded to my note.  That's not said to slam you, I really
appreciate the time and thought that you put into answering.  I'm just saying
that at a first pass, a lot of what you said didn't make sense to me.

I do agree with and understand your assertion that some more complicated
concepts *are* part of the christian walk.  Perhaps 'spices' was a bad
analogy, in that it implies that they are *never* really necessary.

I'll respond more another time.

Paul

      Hi Paul,
    
        Thanks!
    
        The transition in covenant idea is crucial to an understanding
        of what I am trying to say (whether you agree with it or not).
    
        Simply take all that happened 2000 years ago and apply is AS
        AN EXAMPLE to the last days.
    
        Realize that it is largely light (the word) which facilitates 
        it.  Realize that what it produces is nothing short of perfection
        of character.
    
        The idea of a transition of covenant is absolutely vital.  That is
        why the first three replies read as they did.  
    
    						Thanks Paul,
    
    						Tony

    Hi Paul and Tony -
    
    Let me try to explain what Tony just tried to explain (sorry Tony).
    
    I'm over simplifying this a bit but...
    Tony uses "transition in covenant" to show the progression we've
    been given through Christ and will be given.  I see it as three
    stages:
    
    1) The Hebrews in the OT who tried to live Godly lives using only
       the law.
    2) The current Christians who have Christ who died to put the law
       inside our hearts.
    3) The future generation/a holy nation/ which will be totally
       Christ-like.
       
    In addition Tony said:
       There is a future transition of covenant of which the prior one
       serves as an example.  The prior one refers to the change from 
       1) to 2) which already happened.  Tony is pointing out that 
       just as 1) to 2) was a very radical change whith the Jews are 
       still ignoring, so will the change be from 2) to 3).  
         
       The change to 3) will produce perfection of character.
    
    Does that help?
    
    Jill2
                                                                      

    So is "transition in covenant" the new buzzword for sanctification?
    
    Mike ;-)

 ;-)

    Hi Jill,
    
    >Let me try to explain what Tony just tried to explain (sorry Tony).
    
     No problem Jill!
    
    >1) The Hebrews in the OT who tried to live Godly lives using only
    >   the law.
    
     No, I don't see this quite this way.  Many Hebrews in the OT were
     born-again Christians.  To be born-again implies having true faith
     which then implies having had a genuine revelation of agape of which
     to respond to.  The light they had to respond to was just dimmer,
     more shadowy.   But, there was genuine divine love from which to
     respond to by genuine saving faith.
    
    >2) The current Christians who have Christ who died to put the law
    >   inside our hearts.
    
     But, still, the law was being written in the hearts of any Hebrew
     who had faith, however, in general, less of it could be written
     because it is a revelation of love that converts the heart and they
     had less of a revelation to respond to.
    
     People like Isaiah, Elijah, Moses, etc. were a lot more sanctified 
     than us, but in a corporate sense, they did not come to discern the
     light we have the oppurtunity to discern.
    
     Likewise, we do not discern so much.  There is much that awaits.
    
    >3) The future generation/a holy nation/ which will be totally
    >   Christ-like.
       
    >In addition Tony said:
    >   There is a future transition of covenant of which the prior one
    >   serves as an example.  The prior one refers to the change from 
    >   1) to 2) which already happened.  Tony is pointing out that 
    >   just as 1) to 2) was a very radical change which the Jews are 
    >   still ignoring, so will the change be from 2) to 3).  
         
    >   The change to 3) will produce perfection of character.
    
    Amen Jill!
    
    To reply to the last two, i.e. Mike asking if "transition in covenant"
    is the new buzzword for sanctification and Jim replying with a smiley,
    it caused me to be let down just a little.
    
    The reason being that it is too easy to infer from replies like those
    that *how the sanctification of a last day group is brought about*
    is being largely ignored.
    
    The word sanctification, in and of itself, is insufficient for
    suggesting what "transition in covenant suggests.  It cannot point
    us to a stupendous change that took place 2000 years ago and inform
    us that that change serves as an example.  To equate "transition in 
    covenant" to "sanctification" is to imply considering as insignificant 
    the truth that God is trying to tell us so much about how it occurs.
    
    Things that I have labored to share here such as an huge, discrete 
    amount of light confronting a people.  Things like what I posted
    in reply #.251.
    
    How can the word sanctification conjure up the thoughts in .251?  The
    truth of a transition in covenant though certainly does.
    
    Is transition too big a word by the way?  Should I use *change*?
    
    I can't use a word other than covenant.  Thats the one scripture
    uses.
    
    I really hope there are some that are willing to give this a little
    more thought than the willingness I perceived from the last two 
    replies.
    
    						Tony

    Lets talk more about anger.
    
    Andrew says: 
      Righteous anger is triggered by unchecked sin.  There is anger
      because God's created order is being degraded - and hence the
      Creator is desecrated, and the temple of the Holy Spirit is
      turned into an abomination instead of what its original design
      was for.
    Ok, but there is so much unchecked sin in the world.  If it was
    this simple we should and would be angry all the time.  This
    would justify the murders at abortion clinics and stuff like
    that.  I don't think this is what you meant to say?
    
    Are there any examples in the scriptures other than the temple
    incident we already discussed, where people insulted God in
    front of Jesus?  Or where "the Creator is desecrated, and the
    temple of the Holy Spirit is turned into an abomination" in
    front of Jesus.  How did he respond?
    
    Actually the incident at the well with the Samaritan woman with
    too many husbands.  Instead of being angry with her behavior,
    Jesus gave her salvation.  See, thats love not anger.  Of
    course she didn't reject Jesus and insult him.  But even when
    people didn't believe, Jesus didn't get angry.  Then there is
    the case of Saul who one really had good reason to be angry
    with.  He was given new life too.  What am I missing?
    
    Maybe its tied in with what Bob says:
      However, the anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness
      of God.  Be angry, yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down
      on your anger. (Ephesians 4:26)
    
    I'm really not sure what this means?  That we should, as Andrew
    said, "echo the response of the Holy Spirit Who dwells within
    our hearts" and not try to do it on our own?  The only righteous
    anger is from God?  How do you do this in real life?  You can't
    very well say, excuse me I have to go pray before I know how to
    respond to what you just said!  
    
    I'm afraid I hate anger and I tend to put up with much more
    than I should.  Its much easier for me to practice love than
    anger.  But the line that keeps getting me is:
    Do you value peace and serenity above truth?
    Where is the balance?
    
    
    Jill2
    
    P.S. Andrew, I intentionally took the first quote I used from
    you out of context.  I wanted to provoke more discussion.
    Forgive me?  :-)
    

    >So is "transition in covenant" the new buzzword for sanctification?
    Yes and no.  
    
    Yes, "transition in covenant" does refer to the sanctification of the
    last day people.
    
    No, because it also contains much more.  Looking at the scriptures in
    this way ties lots of things together and reveals a lot more insights.
    Its quite rewarding.  I've learned a lot.
    
    My question all along has been why bother with studying endtimes? 
    There is so much more that I have to learn about *now*.  However, 
    I've learned that it all goes together, so its really easier to 
    look at the whole picture and its much more powerful.  
    
    Since I can actually follow Tony now, I've offered to try to explain 
    it my way which I hope will be clearer for some.  I need to wait
    for inspiration though so it might be a while.  If I simplify it 
    too much too much content is lost which is what caused the 
    "sanctification" question.  So be patient. 
    
    Meanwhile be nice to Tony.  He has taught me so much in the last 
    few weeks.  (Wow its only been a few weeks it seems like months, 
    what a headache I get trying to follow him...Ops didn't I just
    say to be nice to him.  Sorry!  Please ignore that last part) I am 
    really quite happy.  But I still want to know more...
    
        
    Jill2

>    Since I can actually follow Tony now, I've offered to try to explain 
>    it my way which I hope will be clearer for some.  I need to wait
>    for inspiration though so it might be a while.  If I simplify it 
>    too much too much content is lost which is what caused the 
>    "sanctification" question.  So be patient. 
    
    This I'm looking forward to because it went over my head.
    
    Mike

Some definitions from Webster's New World Dictionary:

GNOSTIC   an adherent of Gnosticism, an occult salvational system, heterodox
          and syncretistic, stressing gnosis as essential, viewing matter as
          evil, and variously combining ideas derived from mythology, ancient
          Greek philosophy, ancient religions, and, eventually, from
          Christianity.

OCCULT    1 hidden; concealed
          2 secret; esoteric
          3 beyond human understanding; mysterious
          
HETERODOX   departing from or opposed to the usual beliefs or established
            doctrines, especially in religion, inclining toward heresy;
            unorthodox

SYNCRETISM  combination, reconciliation, or coalescence of varying, often
            mutually opposed beliefs, principles, or practices, especially
            those of various religions, into a new conglomerate whole
            typically marked by internal inconsistencies

GNOSIS    knowledge of spiritual things, especially an esoteric, syncretistic,
          allegedly superior spiritual knowledge gained by self-illumination
          and limited to an elite few, like the Gnostics claimed to have.

ESOTERIC  1 a) intended for or understood by only a chosen few, as an inner
               group of disciples or initiates (said of ideas, doctrines,
               literature, etc.)
            b) beyond the understanding or knowledge of most people; recondite;
               abstruse.
          2 confidential; private; withheld

RECONDITE 1 beyond the grasp of the ordinary mind or understanding; profound
          2 dealing with difficult subjects
          3 obscure or concealed

ABSTRUSE  hard to understand; deep

1 John was written to address various forms of error, particularly Certinthian
Gnosticism which denied the essential truth of the incarnation, that Christ had
come in the flesh, maintaining that matter was evil.  Reasoning:  Matter, or
flesh, is evil; therefore, God could not exist in the flesh.  Since Jesus Christ
was in the flesh, He could not have been God.  The error here, of course, is
that Jesus Christ was in fact fully (THE express image, not AN image or shadow,
of) God in the flesh.

John also combatted false mysticism that denied the reality of the sin-nature in
the Christian.  Premise:  Sinless perfection is attainable in this life.  Flesh,
or the physical, if not evil, is at most imperfect and limited; therefore,
perfection is attained in the mind and spirit through knowledge.  Since sinless
perfection is independent of physical reality, moral and practical manifestation
in the flesh is not necessary, if not impossible.  The error here, of course, is
that possession of eternal life is in fact closely connected with the manifesta-
tion of love, right conduct and sound morality in the flesh.

"See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called
 children of God; and such we are.  For this reason the world does not know us,
 because it did not know Him.  Beloved, now we are the children of God, and it
 has not appeared as yet what we shall be.  We know that, when He appears, we
 shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.  And everyone who
 has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.  Everyone who
 practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.  And you
 know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him."
(1 John 3:1-6, NAS)

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they
 are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  By
 this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ
 has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess
 Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you
 have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."
(1 John 4:1-3, NAS)

The test of complicated things is simple:  Any spirit pointing to things away
from or in addition to the written and incarnate Word of God is not of God.
Any knowledge sought outside or beyond the revelation of Jesus Christ is not
from God.

"As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would
 come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or
 time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the
 sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.  It was revealed to them that
 they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been
 announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy
 Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.  Therefore,
 gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on
 the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
(1 Peter 1:10-13)

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the
 power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His
 majesty.  For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an
 utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved
 Son with whom I am well-pleased"--and we ourselves heard this utterance made
 from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.  And so we have the
 prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a
 lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises
 in your hearts.  But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture
 is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an
 act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
(2 Peter 1:16-21)

>    Meanwhile be nice to Tony.  He has taught me so much in the last 
>    few weeks.  (Wow its only been a few weeks it seems like months, 
>    what a headache I get trying to follow him...Ops didn't I just
>    say to be nice to him.  Sorry!  Please ignore that last part) I am 
>    really quite happy.  But I still want to know more...
    
        
  I love Tony, having had the pleasure of meeting him in April.  I just
 like things simple, as I'm a fairly simple man (and prefer to remain
 just that, thank you) and at times I get a bit lost with Tony's 
 contributions.  


 Jim

 Great :-/

I am not familiar with the term "transition of covenant".  I am familiar with
the "new testament in Christ's blood shed for many", the "new" and "everlasting
covenant" mediated by Jesus and "sealed" or guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.  And
I am "confident...that He which hath begun a good work in me will perform it
until the day of Jesus Christ." (Ph 1:6, KJV)

I rest in the assurance of sanctification, i.e., the work of Christ and the Holy
Spirit to make the believer pure.

In my studied opinion, I see no suggestion in scripture that the new covenant
will change or be superseded.  However, scripture seems to show believers in
transition under the new covenant, changing "into <Christ's> image from glory to
glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2Cor 3:18)

Sanctification simply means to be made holy according to, and set apart for,
God's purpose.  Inward cleansing is shown everywhere to be the work of God.

Now, why do we make this so complicated?  Well, the Roman Catholic Church holds
that believers are wholly sanctified through baptism, rightly administered to
wash away not only guilt, but also the proclivity to sin.  Among Protestants
there is a wide difference of belief, and an even greater difference of state-
ment.  In a most general way the two leading views are:

 1) The Calvinists see sanctification as imperfect in this life.  Depravity
    is pervasive and corruption remains even in the regenerate so that during
    this life no believer is able to live without sin.

 2) The Methodists see entire sanctification in a true and scriptural sense as
    attainable in this life; and accordingly believers may arrive at a state
    of spiritual purity in which they are able to remain free from sin.

These two views agree regarding sanctification as distinct from regeneration,
the instantaneous change from the state of spiritual death to that of spiritual
life wrought by the Holy Spirit in a believer.  But they are in strong contrast
regarding spiritual purification as work that may be wrought instantaneously,
and in the present life.

The New Testament presents sanctification in three aspects:  Positional (no
more condemnation); Experiential (no more habitual sinning); and Ultimate (no
more sin).  Positional sanctification is just as complete for the weakest and
youngest believer as for the strongest and oldest, depending only upon one's
union or identification with Christ.  All believers are "saints" and are "sanc-
tified."

Only believers "in Christ" can experience actual holiness of life effected
by faith which reckons upon position "in Christ."  The believer's position is
true regardless of human reckoning, but purity becomes experientially real only
in proportion as the believer reckons it to be true.  I would regard this pro-
cess as growing in grace and knowledge, or perhaps "progressive revelation", if
you will.

Ultimate sanctification is the believer's being made perfect in Christ's like-
ness at His coming, or upon His complete revelation, if you will.

So, semantic differences aside, I would regard as more scripturally accurate
the concept of a sanctification process whereby (promise in) the new covenant
is brought to fruition versus a change in covenant, per se.  I do not see the
new covenant changing into a form to be rejected by believers "in Christ."  I
rather see the believer being transformed into Christ's form to stand pure
before God.

Debating when or how "ultimate sanctification" can occur is enlightening, but
let's not argue about the goal of our salvation in terms of its meaning and
certainty!  "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding
us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily en-
tangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing
our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before
Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand
of the throne of God.  For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sin-
ners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart."
(Heb 12:1-3, NAS)

"Not that I have already obtained <the resurrection from the dead>, or have
 already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that
 for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.  Brethren, I do not regard
 myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what
 lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the
 goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.  Let us there-
 fore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have
 a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep
 living by that same standard to which we have attained."  (Ph 3:12-16, NAS)

Can we not join our voices to praise God who has wrought and is doing a work
of sanctification and reconciliation in us impossible for us to accomplish by
ourselves?

RE: rock::parker

I'm sorry I missed your first name somewhere along the line, but did want
to let you know I think you've made a valuable contribution to this topic.
Good notes.  Thanks.

Leslie

    re> .271
    
    *Yes* that is what we're trying to say.  I liked how you split up
    salvation into three parts: Positional (no more condemnation);
    Experiential (no more habitual sinning); and Ultimate (no more
    sin).
    
    >I would regard as more scripturally accurate the concept of a
    >sanctification process whereby (promise in) the new covenant is
    >brought to fruition versus a change in covenant, per se.  I do
    >not see the new covenant changing into a form to be rejected by
    >believers "in Christ."  I rather see the believer being
    >transformed into Christ's form to stand pure before God.
    
    Of course.  Tony doesn't mean that the "change in covenant"
    would be one that conflicts with belief in Christ.  It all goes
    together.
    
    He says that when we become totally "pure before God" its the
    *fullfillment* of the covenant made possible by Christ's death
    on the cross.  But it also is a *new* state because no one is
    there yet.  Tony believes that when there is a nation of people
    who are totally pure before God, this is the "holy nation"
    mentioned in the endtimes scripture.
    
    >Debating when or how "ultimate sanctification" can occur is
    >enlightening, but let's not argue about the goal of our
    >salvation in terms of its meaning and certainty!
    
    True.  Studying how this will come about is part of what Tony's
    trying to say.  He says the "change in covenent" is necessary
    for this to occur.  This "change in covenent" just helps fullfill
    the original two covenents, it doesn't invalidate them or lessen
    them.  Just as the new covenent through Christ doesn't invalidate
    the original covenent.  It just enhances it.
    
    Is this getting clearer?
    
    Jill2
    

>    *Yes* that is what we're trying to say.  I liked how you split up
>    salvation into three parts: Positional (no more condemnation);
>    Experiential (no more habitual sinning); and Ultimate (no more
>    sin).
    
    I believe he said "sanctification" not salvation.  Salvation precedes
    the 3 phases above.
    
    >    Is this getting clearer?
    
    No.  I know Tony, in accordance with SDA, doesn't believe that the full 
    price of the atonement was paid on the cross.  This is why I'm
    confused.  I sense that Tony's view is a modification of the
    Investigative Judgment doctrine.  I believe Mr. Parker presented the
    Biblical perspective.
    
    Mike

    Oops, yes I meant "sanctification".

    Did you all miss my note on anger .264 ?

>    Did you all miss my note on anger .264 ?

No, we just can't keep up with you.  :-)

Paul

 I'm just too angry to respond..





 Jim

    How many in here are pastors or involved in an apprentice-type program
    to be a pastor?
    
    call me curious,
    Mike

    You've got to keep up, I have even more questions...
    
    You don't want me to lose faith in the great wisdom of the 
    people in this conference do you?  
    
    The Covenent Players performed some skits in my church on Sunday.
    Very interesting.  One of them really validated the searching and
    learning I've been doing here.  So I *won't* stop and you must
    keep up with me please.  Actually it was a very interesting skit 
    about the "waiting room" for the dead.  Sort of a reception
    area for the newly dead (in an earthly sense).  The receptionist
    told this man that he needed to fill out a survey about his beliefs.
    He started out trying hard to say the right things.  But as time 
    went on he got more and more flustered became less careful.  It 
    was actually a funny skit which doesn't come across in my description
    here, but you can imagine.  Right?
    
    She asked him questions like these:
    
    What is the Bible?
    He said it was a book.
    
    She asked who it was written by.
    He said some prophets and appostles
    
    She asked what it meant to him.
    He couldn't answer that.
    
    She asked what the bible was about.
    He said it had a lot of stories about heros and contained 
    the 10 commandments.
    
    She asked if he believed the stories were true.
    He said no one could take the story of Jonah and the whale seriously
    and laughed alot.
    
    She then asked what the 10 commandments were.
    He named about 5.
    
    She asked where in the bible the 10 commandments came from.
    He said from God.
    
    She asked him to name some books of the bible.
    He didn't know any names but described the subject of about 3 books.
    
    She asked what the trinity was.
    He named the three parts.
    
    She asked what the trinity meant to him.
    He couldn't answer that.  He tried to sprout the pat lines and she
    kept asking what that meant to him.  About this time he kept saying
    that no one really knows that.  You just say that you believe and
    thats enough.  He said he was too busy to read the bible or study.
    He said you didn't have to anyway.  As long as you go to church and
    say the right things its enough.
    
    She asked what God meant to him.
    He basically said that God is the one to humor because thats how you
    get into heaven. He was getting flustered by now.
    
    She then summarized for him, what God meant to her.  Basically what you
    would expect to hear from this conference.  Her love for God and her
    desire to be his loving servant.  To spend lots of time studying his
    word and learning of what He means to her.  Becoming more like Jesus.
    
    Then he walked off toward the door to hell.  
    
    
    
    Very interesting.  Can you name all 10 commandments?  Do you know where
    they come from in the bible?  Do you know what God means to you? 
    Totally?
    
    So, lets study some more...
    
    Jill2
    
    
    
    
    
    

It's not that we're giving up on you.  Far from it.  But we *do* have jobs,
too. :-)

Personally, some other stuff is going on in life and I have about 4 brain
cells firing at the moment, so my answer rate is going to be a bit slow.

Paul

>Personally, some other stuff is going on in life and I have about 4 brain
>cells firing at the moment, so my answer rate is going to be a bit slow.

That's an answer to you too, Tony.  I just can't really put together a
response to you right now.

I think you'd probably be a bit disappointed in the response that I would
make.  While I can catch a glimmer of the 'transition of covenant' that gets
you so excited, it doesn't really do anything for me.  And I just don't have
the brain-power right now to try to delve into it more deeply.

Even if I did delve into it deeply and I agreed with it, I don't think it
would change much for me.  My focus is in a different direction.  Perhaps a
better analogy of what I was talking about, instead of spices, would be from
aviation.

Suppose you want to be a pilot.  You start out with some training, some
teaching, to learn some of the basics of what it means to be a pilot.  Then
you go out to a plane and you practice, and you become a pilot through
experience.

To be the best possible pilot, you need to both practice flying, and continue
learning.  There are many things that have to be learned after you have basic
flight down - instrument flying, etc.

But the most important thing, to be a good pilot, is to fly, fly, fly.  A
pilot who has a raggedy old biplane held together with baling wire who flys 8
hours a day through all sorts of conditions is going to be a better pilot
than someone who studies all the avionics, keeps their brand-new learjet
brightly polished, knows all the physics of flight, etc, but never quite gets
around to actually flying.

Of course the best pilot is one who studies all that stuff *and* flies 8
hours a day.  But American Christianity is *WAY* overbalanced to ideas and
doctrine rather than practice.  We're like an avionics club, getting the
latest magazines, showing off our polished planes, discussing the latest
instruments.  We meet in our nice clubhouse and talk about flying, with the
big windows overlooking the airport from which few planes ever actually take
off.

We need to quit our nice avionics club, and go out and join the raggedy
pilots who are actually flying.

So while I'm not even sure I agree with your understanding of 'transition of
covenant,' even if I did I find it hard to get excited about a new esoteric
doctrine when so much of Christianity is stuck on the ground.  This
understanding may in fact be the equivalent of a wonderful new advance in
avionics, but I think I'm called to spend my time encouraging people to spend
more time getting in the pilot's seat and *flying* than in buying the latest
new instruments for the plane they never fly anyway.

I'm definitely not against new instruments, even really complex ones that
only apply to a few situations.  But lack of instrumentation is not the issue
for nearly anyone in american christianity.  Nearly everyone who calls
themselves christian (me included) in this country has plenty of 'doctrine,'
but have put so little of what they already know into practice.  And putting
it into practice is where my focus is.

I remember a story about a bunch of farmers, and there was a conference held
in town on how to be a better farmer.  Most of the farmers went, but one of
them didn't go.  When asked why not, he said "I'm not being as good a farmer
as I *already* know how to be.  Why should I go learn how to be a better
farmer when I'm still not doing what I already know I should do?"

That doesn't at all mean I don't welcome new ideas.  But I search for ideas
that change who I *AM*, not what I think.

Paul

    God never calls a man to do something before he calls him to be
    something.
    
    :-)
    

      Hi Paul,
    
        Your reply is very well taken.
    
        It is my hope that the truth of someday being confronted with
        an incredible amount of light is something that will convict
        me solemnly in many ways including in the amount of time I
        actually spend flying.
    
        I admit to being out of balance, but I also spend some time
        doing *very* basic things like visiting old people and going
        to Bible studies where (in each of these cases), it is far
        from the right thing to do to share some of these ideas (just
        yet!!).
    
    						Thank You,
    
    	     					Tony

Re: Note 795.274

 Hi Mike,

    >    Is this getting clearer?
    
    �No.  I know Tony, in accordance with SDA, doesn't believe that the full 
    �price of the atonement was paid on the cross.  This is why I'm
    �confused.  

     I know you err in your description of my view on the atonement and I
     believe you also err on your description of the SDA view.

     Presently, some SDA's believe the atonement was *finished* at the
     cross although the historical SDA view is that it was not.

     Regardless, I am pretty sure that any SDA view, of which as I said there
     is a plurality, is that the *full price of the atonement* was paid on 
     the cross.

     My personal view is that deliverance is from sin and that "the message
     [margin: word] of the cross is the power of God unto salvation."

     The full payment was that full demonstration of the word which when 
     received in the heart really and actually removes (cleanses) the heart
     from sin.

     The High Priest takes the *merits of the sacrifice* and applies 
     (sprinkles) it on the sanctuary (heart).  This application of the blood
     cleanses the heart from sin.

     I believe the atonement, rightly understood, is a reconciliation of 
     our hearts to God.  Sin is separation from God.  To the extent that
     we are sinners, we actually are separated from God.  The enmity has
     always been our hearts, not God's.

     So anyway Mike, the full payment was met at the cross.  This is the
     full source of that redemptive word which when revealed to the heart
     cleanses it from sin.

     I believe the atonement consists of the payment met at the cross which
     is the necessary provision of the redemptive love of God AND the
     application of that provision in the hearts of the corporate church.

     The payment was fully made on the cross, however, the revelation has
     not yet been fully received by the church.  As Paul says, we all behold as
     in a glass dimly.  As Proverbs says, "The path of the just is a shining
     light that shines brighter and brighter unto the perfect day."  Peter
     looks forward to a salvation *not yet revealed* (I think its Peter) until
     the last days.  The author of Hebrews speaks of very image as having such
     power that the worshippers have no memory of sins.

     It follows that we have yet to receive that very image yet.  We have yet
     to enter into that perfect rest in Christ which rest fully appropriates
     the full merits of the cross into the heart.

						Tony

  Re: Note 795.274
    
  Hi Mike,

    �I sense that Tony's view is a modification of the Investigative Judgment 
    �doctrine.  

     How so Mike?  If I have touched on the investigative judgment, I did so
     very indirectly.

    �I believe Mr. Parker presented the Biblical perspective.
    
     I read his (or her?) reply and I agreed with most of it.  One point of 
     seeing things differently was the part about transition of covenant.

     Please consider the following...

     1) The word is the power.

     2) Shadow is insufficient for it does not perfect the conscience, i.e.
        after receiving the revelation of shadow, worshippers still sin.

     3) Very image perfects.

     4) Hebrews 10:1-4 speaks of two covenants.  The O.T. and very image.

     5) We are not 'under' the O.T.  

     6) We are not under very image (as evidenced by the fact that we still
        sin).

     7) In terms of degree of sanctification, we are closer to where Israel
        was than we are to perfection.

     8) Thus the difference in light between Israel's shadowy understanding
        and ours is LESS than the difference in light between our under-
        standing and the perfected last generation.  (Basis of this is that
        the word is the power.)

     9) The last transition in covenant will occur within a relatively short
        time period.

    10) Thus as the amount of light is so large and the time duration within
        which it will be revealed is so small that it is proper to coin the
        process a final transition in covenant (from shadow to very image).

	This *IS* important!  When Paul says, *ALL* these things happened 
        as examples and when it seems real apparent that a big transition
    	in reception of light will happen *AND* when we have the experience
	of 2000 years ago as *serving as an example*, what is suggested is
   	nothing short of monolithic!

							Tony

    Tony, I hear what you're saying, but over the last year or so we've
    gone around and around on just the implications of the phrase "Paid in
    Full."  You seem to have come to a new understanding, or I never really
    understood you in the first place.
    
    Mike

re .279, Mike, just to satisfy you:  "Hi there, curious!"	;-) ;-) ;-)

Jill,
.276 � Did you all miss my note on anger .264 ?
No.  But there are other tasks around too...

.280 � You don't want me to lose faith in the great wisdom of the 
.280 � people in this conference do you?  

YES.  Don't rely on people's wisdom, when the wisdom of the LORD is at your 
disposal.  THAT's what you need.  James 1:5...  OK to discuss here - that's 
good - but we must emphasise that we need to submit the answers to the
Word, and to the LORD before accepting them.  As I believe you do, but I 
wouldn't like to give a different impression ;-).

Now .264, which I've just not had time to get to before.

.264 � P.S. Andrew, I intentionally took the first quote I used from
.264 � you out of context.  I wanted to provoke more discussion.
.264 � Forgive me?  :-)

Hmmm..... thinking about that ..... uh....  well, mayb... but then...oh, ok! ;-)
    
.264 � Andrew says: 
.264 � Righteous anger is triggered by unchecked sin.  There is anger
.264 � because God's created order is being degraded - and hence the
.264 � Creator is desecrated, and the temple of the Holy Spirit is
.264 � turned into an abomination instead of what its original design
.264 � was for.
.264 � Ok, but there is so much unchecked sin in the world.  If it was
.264 � this simple we should and would be angry all the time.  This
.264 � would justify the murders at abortion clinics and stuff like
.264 � that.  I don't think this is what you meant to say?

We are not single state machines, but living organisms, who respond and
develop.  There are at least two things which [should] affect our state of
righteous anger. 

'One' is how directly it touches God, His person, His honour.  This can be
affected both by the intent and by the responsibility of the perpetrator,
as well as by the intensity of the insult to God.  An error of ignorance
needs instruction (in the first instance) rather than reprimanding, as in
Acts 17:23.  In early Israel the altar 'to the unknown God' would have been 
a blasphemy punishable by death.  In Athens, it merely denoted their 
ignorance, and a window of acceptance to any suggestion for worship!  In 
Jerusalem, Paul would have been justified in reacting with anger.  In 
Athens, he took it as a lever into the gospel.
The Pharisees brought down particular wrath on themselves because they had
specific responsibility to represent God to the people, whereas in fact
they were concealing God from the people, and giving them burdensome laws
instead.  Matthew 23 spells this out. Especially :2 - "do what they tell
you, but don't do what they do"!  Similarly we have Jesus behaviour to the 
Pharisees when they call Him demon possessed, and attribute His miracles to 
the devil, in Matthew 12:24, John 8:48 etc.

'Two' is the fact that initial awareness brings the full reaction of the 
emotion, which is - can be - translated into action.  When you hear of an 
atrocity - be it from abortions, or Bosnia, the anger is of a different 
character from the feeling 3 weeks later, when you are relatively familiar 
with this expression of man's sinfulness.  By then it is rather sadness, 
which _may_ be translating into specific action if you feel that is God's
field for you to work in. 

One of the ways the devil tries to crush people is by attempting to burden 
them with the responsibility of all the needs and disasters in the world.
he would say, for instance: "How can you indulge in the luxury of a moments
happiness, while there is still one starving child in Ethiopia?"
Our answer is that Jesus has dealt with the source of sin, but that people 
still exercise the effects.  We have His answer to sin to offer, rather 
than trying to stop the leaks of every individual sin.  We can - must - only 
work in the task of His directing.
It is the same argument which, carried to the ultimate, says that no-one 
can enjoy heaven while there is anyone in hell!  This is clearly false, and 
based on total ignorance of the spiritual state.

.264 � Are there any examples in the scriptures other than the temple
.264 � incident we already discussed, where people insulted God in
.264 � front of Jesus?  Or where "the Creator is desecrated, and the
.264 � temple of the Holy Spirit is turned into an abomination" in
.264 � front of Jesus.  How did he respond?

Often the insult is implicit and implied, rather than open as in the temple 
case.  The attacks on Jesus out of denial of Who He is, from the Pharisees
(eg Matthew 22) did not meet a response of anger, because they were
ostensibly directed at His humanity rather than at His divinity (though in
fact the rejection of His divinity is implied before the rejection of His 
humanity).  However, Jesus replied with instruction which showed their 
duplicity and ignorance, and instructed the people around.

.264 � Actually the incident at the well with the Samaritan woman with
.264 � too many husbands.  Instead of being angry with her behavior,
.264 � Jesus gave her salvation.  See, thats love not anger.  Of
.264 � course she didn't reject Jesus and insult him.  

We don't know people's hearts; Jesus did.  Jesus knew exactly the state of 
the woman at the well; her original ignorance and bad religious teaching 
(from the Samaritan perspective, which she tries to hide behind in John 
4:20) why she had fallen into gross sin, and what would awaken her heart to 
the gospel.  The significant thing there is that there was an opening in 
her heart for the gospel - which there wasn't in the Pharisees hearts 
(generally), for instance.  ie - she had not rejected the Holy Spirit (Whom
she had not been aware of meeting, but was being introduced to, in the LORD
Jesus).  Remember Acts 17:30 - "in the past, God overlooked such ignorance,
but now He commands all people to repent." 

.264 � Then there is the case of Saul who one really had good reason to be
.264 � angry with.  He was given new life too.
In Acts 9:5, it is clear that in his heart, Saul had at least begun to 
realise that the Christians he was persecuting were demonstrating the LORD, 
in a way he had just not been able to relate to - but had to learn.  It 
took the direct confrontation on the Damascus Road to make him actually
realise what was in his own heart.  Saul was pursuing a justification by 
law at this stage, because of his understanding of the Torah.  To supersede 
this by grace is an immense psychological hurdle, and Saul's persecution of 
Christians didn't mean he had rejected Jesus, so much as never truly met 
Him.  Saul was trying to eliminate something he [mis]understood as an
attack on his gospel of law, in a human defence of God's unattainable rules 
standing on their own.  The depth of that experience and 180� turn was the 
foundation for him to write Romans...

ok - but tell that to the Christians he had killed! .....
We look at things from a temporal perspective, which is passing away.  God
looks at them from an eternal perspective, which is real and permanent. 
The Christians who suffered, glorified the LORD in their suffering, and 
reaped a greater resurrection (cf Hebrews 11:35).  They fill a greater 
place for eternity because they rose to the honour offered of confessing 
the LORD faithfully under persecution before the world.  In addition, the 
ultimate evidence of Christian character is not when we are living in
worldly acceptable circumstances, but when we are demonstrating what we 
claim - that eternal glory is worth more than earthly comfort.

.264 � What am I missing?
Nothing, sister, it's all yours too ;-)

.264 � I'm really not sure what this means?  That we should, as Andrew
.264 � said, "echo the response of the Holy Spirit Who dwells within
.264 � our hearts" and not try to do it on our own?  The only righteous
.264 � anger is from God?  How do you do this in real life?  You can't
.264 � very well say, excuse me I have to go pray before I know how to
.264 � respond to what you just said!  

Learning to respond to the Holy Spirit in your heart is not via regular
question and answer sessions, but by being so sensitive to His presence 
that His emotions *are* your emotions.  It's *His* honour you care about 
and react towards, not yours. (all right then, honor ;-).  We are (should 
be! ;-) learning to reflect His character in this world.
    
.264 � I'm afraid I hate anger and I tend to put up with much more
.264 � than I should.  Its much easier for me to practice love than
.264 � anger.  But the line that keeps getting me is:
.264 � Do you value peace and serenity above truth?
.264 � Where is the balance?
I can empathise with thet.  Even the world is beginning to realise that
more can be achieved through peaceful negotiation than through direct 
confrontation.  Make the enemy your friend, and you have both won more than 
the battle could ever have axchieved.  The one thing the world cannot have 
any concept of in the deepest sense is the enemy who is actually and really 
the evil one.

There is no negotiation with the devil.  In the rare occasion when you are
confronted with his expression of evil, it needs direct opposition.  I
believe that God gives special wisdom and understanding to deal with such a
situation, though sometimes retrospectively one feels that a firmer stand
should have been taken, which makes one more sensitive to reognise a 
recurrence...

I've 'way overrun.  Now you know why it takes a long time for me to get to
answer your notes.  I suspect it's the same for others too, but I suppose I
do tend to ramble around more ;-)  I hope there's something there to bite on!

						God bless
								Andrew

      Mark 3:5
      So when He had looked around at them with anger, 
      being grieved by the hardness of their hearts...
    
      I see the possibility that the second line is telling us what
      divine anger is.
    
      This would seem to dovetail well with Paul's exposition on the
      wrath of God (Romans 1:18-32) where we see God giving them up
      after their rejection of Him is so complete that His love can't
      draw them from sin and to Him anymore.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Mike,
    
        I'm very content to agree to disagree, but just to elaborate with
        a simple analogy.
    
        Lets say someone is dirty and needs to be cleansed, but lacks any
        means to cleanse himself.  He must consent for someone else to do
        the work.
    
        So some guy manufactures a bunch of soap.
    
        The same guy then applies the soap to the dirty person and cleans
        him.
    
        Cross = Manufacturing of the soap = the full price, the full
                merits.  Its the 'soap' that cleanses and it was all
    	 	provided 100% by the cross.
    
        High Priestly Work
    	      = The applying of the soap which makes the person clean.
    
    
        No heart is reconciled to God outside of the sprinkling of the
        blood into the heart.  John 6:53,63 tells us that the blood is
        the word or revelation.  Its the goodness of God revealed to the
        heart and received in the heart by faith, which delivers from sin.
    
        Jesus makes full provision for the revelation (the cross), then
        installs it into the heart (High Priestly work).
    
        And I know you disagree, but just so you better understand my
        position.
    
        At least I hope you can see that with my position, full payment
        was made at the cross.
    
        Reconciliation of the heart back to God (atonement) just requires
        more than payment.  The merits need to be sprinkled in the heart.
    
    							Tony

    But the High Priest was on the cross playing a dual role as
    Priest/Lamb.  God's Word says Jesus is the Mercy Seat.  He's also the
    Sacrificial Lamb who's blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat.
    
    I don't see it as 2 stages as you do.  I see it as a dual role
    completed in 1 event.
    
    Mike

      Yes, Mike, I realize your position though I don't understand it!
    
      Why?
    
      "For if He were on earth, He *would not* be a priest since there
       are priests who offer the gifts according to the law.  But NOW
       He has obtained a more excellent ministry..."  (Heb. 8:4,6).
    
      Other reasons too...                          
    
      But, at least you can understand (though disagreeing) that I still
      believe the full price was paid at the cross.
    
      I just don't believe the work of applying the merits of the cross
      (sanctuary = heart) was finished at the cross.
    
    						Tony
    
      

Semantics, i.e., saying what we mean and meaning what we say, is one of the
reasons "noting" can be problematic.  We may in fact say what we mean and mean
what we say, but our choice of words and wording may not convey our intention
to another person.

Jill2, I'll follow through on this in hopes of making myself clear.  But, before
jumping in, I see in this discussion an object lesson on the relationship
between God's Word and His Spirit.  You and I cannot "see" each other's spirit.
What we on earth know about each other is derived through reading and hearing
written and spoken words, often without observation and evaluation of physical
actions and reactions.  The Word of God became flesh.  When Christ's work in the
flesh was done and He returned to the Father, the Holy Spirit came alongside
believers so the full revelation of Jesus Christ could be grasped in the full-
ness of time.  In other words, God's own Spirit joins with the our spirit to
insure that the meaning of God's own Word is not lost.  He did not leave us
"comfortless."  The Word and the Spirit must be taken together as one lest
meaning be lost.

Because my spirit does not indwell those who read or hear my written or spoken
words, let alone those who "see" me in the flesh, my intent is often lost.  To
the degree we speak truly is the Holy Spirit who indwells us able to commend
Truth and preserve meaning.  Not until we can truly say "not my will but Thine"
as Jesus Christ did in the flesh can we expect not having to (re)iterate words
and wording, and (re)establish "common" definitions in order to communicate our
intent to each other.

Tony, I am a he and my given name is Wayne.  That said, I press on.  :-)  My
comments referenced to Jill2's reply are preceded by double asterisks.

    re> .271
    
    *Yes* that is what we're trying to say.  I liked how you split up
    salvation into three parts: Positional (no more condemnation);
    Experiential (no more habitual sinning); and Ultimate (no more
    sin).

** As Mike points out in .274, I presented sanctification, not salvation, in
   three aspects.  However, I would not choose to split hairs here.  Salvation
   rightly understood is not only deliverance from sin's penalty (death) but
   also reconciliation, regeneration and preservation.  I think we often
   toss around the term salvation much too lightly without taking time to
   appreciate its greatness!  As I said, the goal of our salvation is that we
   be like Christ.

    >I would regard as more scripturally accurate the concept of a
    >sanctification process whereby (promise in) the new covenant is
    >brought to fruition versus a change in covenant, per se.  I do
    >not see the new covenant changing into a form to be rejected by
    >believers "in Christ."  I rather see the believer being
    >transformed into Christ's form to stand pure before God.
    
    Of course.  Tony doesn't mean that the "change in covenant"
    would be one that conflicts with belief in Christ.  It all goes
    together.
    
    He says that when we become totally "pure before God" its the
    *fullfillment* of the covenant made possible by Christ's death
    on the cross.  But it also is a *new* state because no one is
    there yet.  Tony believes that when there is a nation of people
    who are totally pure before God, this is the "holy nation"
    mentioned in the endtimes scripture.

** Well, on with my first foray into "what did Tony really say and did he mean
   what I think he said?" :-)

   I perceive Tony to be suggesting three covenants, i.e., the past or "old",
   the present or "new", and the future or "very image."  If Tony is not
   suggesting three different covenants, then he certainly seems to imply that
   the "new covenant" will change form.  In .144, Tony says:

   "The silence in this conference is deafening.  It is hard evidence that
    Christianity will rehearse Israel's sad history to a 't'.  Christianity
    will do to the impending transition in covenant just what Israel did.
    They will commit the abomination of desolation.  They will turn their
    back on fresh light in order to preserve the old.  Just like Israel."

   Am I off-base in taking Tony to mean that Christians may reject the final
   "change in covenant?"  I find untenable the implication that believers "in
   Christ" might "turn their back on" the full revelation of Jesus Christ.
   If there are those who would reject Christ in the future, then they have
   rejected Him now.  In other words, they are NOT Christians.

   Too, if Tony really is suggesting three separate groups of "believers",
   i.e., Israel under the "old" testament, Christians under the "new" testa-
   ment, and "a holy nation" possessing the "very image", then I'm raising a
   red flag.  In my studied opinion, this view is not scripturally based and
   represents an incomplete understanding of Christ's finished work and the
   work of His Spirit in sanctification.

   I do see that there will be those who reject Christ in the endtime, but I
   do not see that they will be Christians who have confessed Him as their
   savior and Lord.  By virtue of Christ's sinless life, His substitutionary
   and atoning death on the cross and His resurrection, God established the
   New Covenant, insuring fruition in us by His Holy Spirit.  THE WORD AND THE
   SPIRIT WORK AS ONE to make us like Christ.

   If Tony is saying that God's Word is both a "refining fire" which burns away
   sin and THE light which totally displaces darkness, then we agree.  If he's
   saying that those now depending on God to fulfill (the promise of) the "new
   testament in Christ's blood" might later turn their backs, then we're in
   strong disagreement!  Scripture clearly presents the "new" covenant as
   "everlasting", so I see room only for fulfillment, NOT change.  That we
   are not yet sinless does not imply a change of covenant, rather our "race"
   to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ still lays
   before us.  By the way, perfect more often than not in scripture refers to
   completeness (having all that we need) versus sinlessness per se.  "In
   Christ" we are (being) made perfect.

    >Debating when or how "ultimate sanctification" can occur is
    >enlightening, but let's not argue about the goal of our
    >salvation in terms of its meaning and certainty!
    
    True.  Studying how this will come about is part of what Tony's
    trying to say.  He says the "change in covenent" is necessary
    for this to occur.  This "change in covenent" just helps fullfill
    the original two covenents, it doesn't invalidate them or lessen
    them.  Just as the new covenent through Christ doesn't invalidate
    the original covenent.  It just enhances it.
    
    Is this getting clearer?

** Yes, your meaning seems clearer, but perhaps not to the end you might
   hope.  You here, and Tony in .286, present the "change in covenant" as
   something above and beyond the new covenant.  If I were clear that you saw
   the full revelation of the Word of God (Jesus Christ) and our being made
   like Him as fulfillment of the new and everlasting covenant, then I would
   agree.

   Let me hasten to add, though, that examining Tony's perspective has forced
   me to take a fresh look at my beliefs, and in so doing my faith in Christ
   has been strengthened and my gratitude and love increased.  James would
   say "faith without works is dead" and Paul Weiss might ask "so what
   difference was made in your life as a result of the exercise?"  To the Holy
   Spirit speaking through James I say "I hear you" and to Paul I answer
   "remains to be seen, hopefully even by my family tonight."

/Wayne

    Wayne - Tony had that effect on my walk too.
    
    Hi All -  I am embarrassed to admit that I don't have time to 
    reply today.  Thanks for all the input.  I'll reply as soon as
    I have a chance to digest it all. 
    
    Jill2

>    Hi All -  I am embarrassed to admit that I don't have time to 
>    reply today. 

Hey, you can't do that!  You have to keep up with us!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Paul 

>to Paul I answer
>   "remains to be seen, hopefully even by my family tonight."

That's great Wayne.  I hope so for you, too.  I look forward to hearing how
this change affects you in the long term!

Paul

    RE: .294
    
    Nothing against Tony, but Tony's not the one who effected my
    refreshment.  As I reviewed the written Word of God, His Spirit renewed
    the joy of my salvation.
    
    So, folks, dig in there--the Word will not return void!
    
    /Wayne

      re: .293
    
      Hi Wayne,
    
        Nice thoughtful reply!  This is a tad 'off the hip' so to speak,
        but I want to get in a quickie before leaving work.  Hopefully,
        I'll provide a fuller reply later.
    
        Hebrews 10:1-4 does not even refer to the present status of the
        church.  It refers to two.  The body of believers in the covenant
        referred to as 'the blood of bulls and goats' and 'those sacrifices'
        which we (of course) know to be the O.T. system. 
    
        The other status of the church it refers to is the one relying
        exclusively on the very image of the cross of Christ.  It describes
        these worshippers as no longer remembering sin.  The theme of
        Hebrews definitely also points to the finality of this transition
        as yet future, i.e. it exhorts us to corporately enter into that
        rest, to eat solid food and not milk, and to inhabit Mount Zion
        (all future experiences).
    
        This tells me at least two things...
    
        1) The readers of the Hebrew epistle could have lived during the
           2nd coming of Christ.  If, as Hebrews explicitly states,
           perfection is a characteristic of the church (and by perfection
           I mean a conscious that no longer remembers sin) just prior to
           the 2nd advent, Isaiah 5 becomes very pertinent.
           Isaiah 5 describes God as having done all that He can do to
     	   produce good grapes in the corporate church and yet wild grapes
     	   resulted.  This must mean that we can hasten or delay the
           production of good fruit which symbolizies righteousness.
           Which then means we can hasten or delay His coming by delaying
    	   the character perfection He longs to and must produce.
    
        2) We do not have the status described in Hebrews.  We fall far
    	   short of perfection.  The transition from O.T. shadow to cross
    	   very image was aborted and (actually) an apostasy took place.
           Ephesus, the early church, lost her first love.
    
        3) The word is the power.  Word, among other things, is doctrine
    	   (see Deut. 32:1-2 for one example of many).
    
        4) I suggest that the extent to which the sanctification of the
    	   corporate church today DIFFERS from the corporate church that
    	   sees very image (sinlessness) is vast.  More so than the extent
    	   to which the corporate sanctification of O.T. Israel differs
    	   from our own (presently).
    
    	5) I also suggest there is a rough proportionality between the
    	   increment in light (i.e. word) between O.T. sacrificial and
           us (cross shadow) and the difference in our sanctification.
           Also there is the same proportionality between our status
           and the last day group and the light they have and we have.
    
        6) If you figure this all in, it then follows that MOST OF THE
    	   TRANSITION HAS YET TO TAKE PLACE!  Or to put another way, the
    	   amount of light yet unseen far surpasses the difference in 
    	   light between us and the O.T. faithful.
    
        7) If the final scenes are rapid ones, it then follows that 
    	   there will be a vast amount of light received by the last day
    	   church in a very short time period (read: latter rain).
    
        8) This vast amount of light in such a short time period is such
    	   that it can accurately be coined a transition in covenant 
    	   although it is really a finishing of the transition from O.T.
    	   shadow to cross very image (which was aborted).
    
        9) If this is true, we can look back on the transition 2000 years
    	   ago as an example to us.  We can look at Israel's response, at
    	   the small subgroup that accepted the light, at the large masses
    	   that rejected it, at the persistence to adhere to the old
    	   covenant and thereby reject the new.  At the eventual
    	   persecution.
           It all serves as an example as Paul said (1 Corin 10:11).
    
       Thats enough though there is more I can say!
    
       Great to hear from ya Wayne!
    
    						Tony
           

    I've always wanted to ask this...

    Why snarf?

>           Isaiah 5 describes God as having done all that He can do to
>     	   produce good grapes in the corporate church and yet wild grapes
>     	   resulted.  This must mean that we can hasten or delay the
>           production of good fruit which symbolizies righteousness.
    >      Which then means we can hasten or delay His coming by delaying
    >           the character perfection He longs to and must produce.
    
    What leads you to believe that Isaiah is talking about the church?  Paul 
    said the church is a "mystery" in the O.T.  
    
    >           Ephesus, the early church, lost her first love.
    
    Philadelphia didn't.
    
>    	5) I also suggest there is a rough proportionality between the
>    	   increment in light (i.e. word) between O.T. sacrificial and
>           us (cross shadow) and the difference in our sanctification.
>           Also there is the same proportionality between our status
>           and the last day group and the light they have and we have.
    
    Pure speculation.  There is no scripture to support this nor do you
    have a way of measuring it.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        My first impulse was to consider a thoughtful reply, but now
        I have reconsidered.  
    
        Perhaps you can help me...
    
        Being brothers in Christ, I like to think that we can respond
        to each other in a loving light.  Perhaps you could have gleaned
        one or two things that you might have some agreement with...that
        kind of thing.
    
        However, in contrast, your reply seems to me (and I know I'm only
        human and I could certainly discern incorrectly) that a reply back
        to you with attempts to support is really not relevant to where
        you are coming from.  You seem implacable and basically want to
        slam what you can.
    
        If thats where you're coming from, just let me know and I'll
        refrain from any response (to you) pertaining to why I believe 
        as I do.
    
        And Mike, the reason I discern as I do is because of the balance
        (actually lack of).  The lack of the presence of anything that
        could have been gleaned that we could both embrace, that sort of
        thing.
    
        It seemed instead to be an attempt to disagree with no attempt to
        strive for anything of which to agree with.
    
        Phrases like "pure speculation" don't tend to have an edifying
        influence rather their influence is one of tearing down rather than
        building up.
    
        Do you really want me to attempt support or should I just let your
        reply go?
        
    							Tony

      re: .268
    
      I really meant to get back to you *much* sooner.
    
      I love you too Jim!  Thank God He can even save people like
      me!  May your 'simplicity' rub off on me.
    
      I am glad for the chance we had to meet and for the dialogue
      we had over the passing of someone we both once admired in
      former days.  We have things in common, most notably faith
      in One who hung for us!
    
    						Love and God Bless Ya,
    
    						Tony

    Hi, Tony.
    
    I've not met you, but we're both based in HLO, so we likely shall meet
    soon.
    
    From your response to Mike, I sense in you a tender, caring heart. 
    Your written words in that heartfelt response spoke more to me of your
    spirit than the volumes before.
    
    The issue here is that your "transition of covenant" seems, i.e., as
    perceived by me, to fly in the face who I, and others, understand
    Christ to be in terms of His person and work.  This is not an issue to
    be taken lightly.
    
    My desire is to speak the truth in love.  But, I can come across as
    bluntly and harshly as anyone when I perceive foundational doctrine to be
    questioned, especially doctrine with which I'm "at home" through
    commendation of the Holy Spirit.
    
    I'm resting in Christ and counting on God's faithfulness to finish His
    "good work" in me.
    
    That said, please take my next "thoughtful" reply as my attempt to
    clarify my understanding.  We seem to have significant disagreement,
    though, so my note is not warm and fuzzy.
    
    May God's grace and peace by multiplied to you, Tony.  And may our love
    for Him be increased as we bang heads! :-)
    
    /Wayne

|       Hebrews 10:1-4 does not even refer to the present status of the
|       church.  It refers to two.  The body of believers in the covenant
|       referred to as 'the blood of bulls and goats' and 'those sacrifices'
|       which we (of course) know to be the O.T. system.
    
|       The other status of the church it refers to is the one relying
|       exclusively on the very image of the cross of Christ.  It describes
|       these worshippers as no longer remembering sin.  The theme of
|       Hebrews definitely also points to the finality of this transition
|       as yet future, i.e. it exhorts us to corporately enter into that
|       rest, to eat solid food and not milk, and to inhabit Mount Zion
|       (all future experiences).

** IMO, you focus on Heb 10:1-4 without sufficient regard for the context.  I
   know you maintain that the rest of chapter 10 supports the conclusions you've
   drawn from the first four verses, but I think not, especially given ch. 9
   before.

   The major thrust of vs. 1-4 is that the Law, or first and "old" covenant,
   having only a shadow of things to come, could not take away sins.  Specifi-
   cally, the sacrifices (blood of bulls and goats) indicated, but did not
   actually accomplish, expiation for sin.

   Therefore, according to vs. 5-9 (NAS), Christ comes into the world "to do
   <holy God's> will" and "takes away the first in order to establish the
   second."  I take the first to be the old covenant and the second to be the
   new covenant based on the rest of ch. 10.  "By this will we have been
   sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
   (v. 10)  "For by one offering He HAS PERFECTED FOR ALL TIME those who are
   sanctified." (v. 14)

   Vs. 19-25 go on to say "we have confidence to enter the holy place by the
   blood of Jesus, by a NEW and LIVING way which <Christ> inaugurated for us
   through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great high priest
   over the house of God, let us draw near...hold fast...and consider how to
   stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own
   assembling together...but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you
   see the day drawing near."

   Anyway, inferring a "transition of covenant" from v. 1 in light of ch. 9
   preceding and the rest of ch. 10 following seems far-fetched, if not entirely
   off-base.

|       This tells me at least two things...
    
|       1) The readers of the Hebrew epistle could have lived during the
|          2nd coming of Christ.  If, as Hebrews explicitly states,
|          perfection is a characteristic of the church (and by perfection
|          I mean a conscious that no longer remembers sin) just prior to
|          the 2nd advent, Isaiah 5 becomes very pertinent.
|          Isaiah 5 describes God as having done all that He can do to
|    	   produce good grapes in the corporate church and yet wild grapes
|    	   resulted.  This must mean that we can hasten or delay the
|          production of good fruit which symbolizies righteousness.
|          Which then means we can hasten or delay His coming by delaying
|   	   the character perfection He longs to and must produce.

** I believe Isaiah 5 is referring to Israel under the old covenant (v. 7 says
   "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel").  But, the
   judgments against "them that call evil good, and good evil; that put dark-
   ness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
   for bitter" certainly seem timelessly applicable.
    
|       2) We do not have the status described in Hebrews.  We fall far
|   	   short of perfection.  The transition from O.T. shadow to cross
|   	   very image was aborted and (actually) an apostasy took place.
|          Ephesus, the early church, lost her first love.

** Only if we must accept your definition of perfection. If, on the other hand,
   perfection is a state of completeness rather than sinlessness--the Greek
   word teleios translated as perfect in v. 1 does mean complete, by the way--
   then "consciousness of sin" is a felt need for expiation versus general
   awareness of sin.  The Greek word suneidesis translated consciousness in v.
   1 is the word for (moral) conscience and carries the sense of guilt (as
   translated in the NIV).  We are, in fact, complete "in Christ" in terms of
   atonement for sin, confessed sins being forgiven (see 1Jn 1:9) and having
   light in/by which to walk, the means to root out sin, if you will, and be
   cleansed from all unrighteousness.  As I understand Hebrews 9 and 10, we who
   are members of Christ's body, His church, stand complete and guiltless "in
   Christ", eagerly awaiting the promise of being made like Him.

|       3) The word is the power.  Word, among other things, is doctrine
|   	   (see Deut. 32:1-2 for one example of many).

** More precisely "the word (logos: essence, reason or cause) of the cross
   is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it
   is the power of God." (1Cor 1:18)

   And "the gospel...is the power of God for salvation to everyone who
   believes" (Ro 1:16)
    
|       4) I suggest that the extent to which the sanctification of the
|   	   corporate church today DIFFERS from the corporate church that
|   	   sees very image (sinlessness) is vast.  More so than the extent
|   	   to which the corporate sanctification of O.T. Israel differs
|   	   from our own (presently).

** There is a difference between our experiential sanctification (no more
   habitual sinning) and our ultimate sanctification (no more sin).  But, a
   bigger difference than between the old covenant under which sins could not
   be taken away and the new covenant under which sins are remissible and
   forgettable?  I might conclude that you do not fully appreciate what Christ's
   life, death, burial and resurrection mean.  Be sure that you're making
   judgments from God's perspective, not your own.
    
|   	5) I also suggest there is a rough proportionality between the
|   	   increment in light (i.e. word) between O.T. sacrificial and
|          us (cross shadow) and the difference in our sanctification.
|          Also there is the same proportionality between our status
|          and the last day group and the light they have and we have.

** On what scriptural basis do you see the cross as shadow?  1Cor 1:18 says
   logos of the cross (on which the Logos of God suffered and died) is the power
   of God.  The Law was shadow whereas "in <Christ> was life, and the life was
   the light of men." (Jn 1:4)  "The Law was given through Moses; grace and
   truth were realized through Jesus Christ." (Jn 1:17)

   I see no basis for implying that "Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith"
   will become more knowable in the future than He is now.  Moreover, are you
   suggesting that "the last day group" by reason of their sinless perfection
   is acceptable to God while we who died and live (past, present and future)
   "in Christ" might not be?  I believe scripture clearly shows believers "in
   Christ" to be "saints" based on Christ's merit, not our own.
    
|       6) If you figure this all in, it then follows that MOST OF THE
|   	   TRANSITION HAS YET TO TAKE PLACE!  Or to put another way, the
|   	   amount of light yet unseen far surpasses the difference in 
|   	   light between us and the O.T. faithful.

** "Beloved, NOW WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD, and it has not appeared as yet
   what we shall be.  We KNOW that, when He appears, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM,
   because we shall see Him just as He is." (1Jn 3:2)

   "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things
    not seen.  For by it the men of old gained approval." (Heb 11:1,2)

   "We walk by faith, not by sight." (2Cor 5:7)

   By the way, how does 2Cor 5 fit with your "transition of covenant?"
    
|       7) If the final scenes are rapid ones, it then follows that 
|   	   there will be a vast amount of light received by the last day
|   	   church in a very short time period (read: latter rain).
    
|       8) This vast amount of light in such a short time period is such
|   	   that it can accurately be coined a transition in covenant 
|   	   although it is really a finishing of the transition from O.T.
|   	   shadow to cross very image (which was aborted).

** Tell me again when, where, why and by whom "cross very image" was aborted.
    
|       9) If this is true, we can look back on the transition 2000 years
|   	   ago as an example to us.  We can look at Israel's response, at
|   	   the small subgroup that accepted the light, at the large masses
|   	   that rejected it, at the persistence to adhere to the old
|   	   covenant and thereby reject the new.  At the eventual
|   	   persecution.
|          It all serves as an example as Paul said (1 Corin 10:11).

** I take 1Cor 10:1-12 as referring to Israel under the old covenant, or Law
   having only shadow of good things to come.  I clearly see that "these
   things happened to them as an example" to the end that we avoid their
   mistakes.  But how can you say that Christ's life, death and resurrection
   were only example?  I believe your answer might be "because we're obviously
   not sinlessly perfect yet; therefore, there's more light to be revealed."
   I submit that you've come to your position via a logical flow from a faulty
   presupposition.  I cannot see support for your "transition of covenant"
   deriving from a careful study of scripture seeking to reconcile the literal
   and the symbolic.
    
|      Thats enough though there is more I can say!

** I not sure saying more is prudent if we can't hold that Jesus Christ was
   the full revelation of God in the flesh AND that His life, death and
   resurrection are in fact the "new and living way" by which we are made
   holy.  In other words, His perfection, not ours, is the basis for our
   acceptablility to Holy God, and, being found acceptable "in Christ", we are
   being made holy.
    
|      Great to hear from ya Wayne!

** Still feel that way? :-)  I believe we are in strong disagreement around a
   key premise, i.e., that Jesus Christ fully revealed God in the flesh and
   that the Holy Spirit now is making us like Him.

   The irony here is that you're cautioning against a mindset that would pre-
   clude our accepting a greater (amount of) light, i.e., "transition of
   covenant", in the future, whereas I would submit that by expecting, even
   requiring, a significantly greater amount of light to effect sinless
   perfection you are pulling the shade on the large picture window of God's
   Word who became flesh to reconcile the physical and spiritual.  In other
   words, you may be missing the light already shining while looking for some-
   thing more or different.

   To the degree that we're fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter
   of faith, we're in agreement.

/Wayne           

    Wayne and Tony -
    
    You both left me behind again...but will the help of my Lord and
    the beautiful Spirit I may catch up yet.  
    
    I only followed this to a certain level and now I really need to
    go back and reread huge portions of the Word because they are new 
    and different again. I followed Tony up to the point of what a
    truely holy nation would be like.  But how it gets there requires
    much more study and insight.  I need to consider your two views
    and back them with the Word.  Maybe this weekend...
    
    
    One thing I learned that is very meaningful for me is this picture.
    First there is God the almightly who is light and love - pure 
    holyness.  Then there is Jesus who kept saying if you know me you 
    know my Father.  Then there is us who have Jesus within us.  So 
    if you know us you see Jesus.  Its a nice 3 sequence and what a 
    message!  
    
    Jill 

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Boy, I really appreciate .304!  Thanks!
    
        And let me just add that as you prefaced .305 in .304 and
        stated that there might be stark disagreement, I took the
        liberty of deleting your entry!!!
    
        Just kidding!   hahaha
    
        I haven't the time to read it now, but I've extracted it and
        will give it a thorough read.
    
        BUT, lets get together since we're both in HLO.  That'd be 
        great!
    
    						Thanks Again,
    
    						Tony

    I think recent replies from Wayne, Tony, and myself belong in 551.*
    
    Tony, you and I have talk about this before in here and offline.  I
    know I have told you that I lack patience for discussing non-Biblical
    doctrine.  However, my last reply to you was not one of frustration
    towards you.  I think correct and sound doctrine will not have any
    holes in it.  My purpose to you in my last reply is to demonstrate that
    "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."  I pointed out a few things
    that are questionable in the scheme of your big picture.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Does that mean you would like me to attempt to offer support?
    
    						Tony

    Sure, and as I recall, I still owe you one, but we should take it to
    551.

      Is that Ok Jill?  I only say this because I think Jill has
      expressed some interest in ideas relevant to 551 and asy they
      have relevance to Jill, they have relevance here as well.
    
      Whatever, it doesn't matter to me.
    
      551 is sort of a home away from home!
    
    						Tony

    DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE OVER 200 RELIES IN NOTE 551!!!
    
    And they are all long!
    I spend way too long and only got though the first fifty!
    It does seem like the same subject.  Maybe we should move the
    notes about Tony's particular views there and leave this one
    for other subjects.  The only problem is that they are all 
    interconnected...I don't know.  I have to go home...you 
    decide.
    
    Jill
      

    RE: .306
    
    Jill2, if my involvement in Christian notes impels you to get into
    God's Word with a hunger and thirst for righteousness, then I would be
    very happy.  Getting you or anyone else to accept "my view" is
    secondary to helping people gain God's perspective.  Anyway, the Holy
    Spirit who indwells you will commend Truth.  God is not the author of
    confusion, so press on with the knowledge that God wants to reveal
    Himself to you more than you want to know Him.
    
    RE: .308
    
    Mike, I haven't met you either, but my sense is that you're a serious
    student of God's Word; therefore, you already know what's meant when I
    say:  Someday you'll be like Jesus, not like Wayne! :-)
    
    Seriously, nothing could make me happier than you or anyone else
    catching even a small glimpse of Jesus in me.
    
    
    Moderator(s), if you want to move my notes to 551, that's your call.
    Being new to this conference, I haven't even read through 551.  Not
    sure if I want to--it has taken me about three good reading-throughs
    for each of Tony's notes in this topic to even begin understanding what
    he's trying to say! :-)  And, to make matters worse, I went and broke
    your rules by entering a reply well over 100 lines.  Sorry! :-)
    
    /Wayne
    
    P.S.  Just to be clear: I did not compose my reply during work hours. 
    I created the file in the wee hours last night, averaging about a line
    per minute.  I just posted the file during work hours.  Just wanted you
    to know that. :-)  Reading your notes for a couple minutes during the
    work day is a breath of fresh air, though.  Thanks.

    Wayne,
    
    as an ex-mod, re: the "100 line limit". This was introduced when Notes
    on DECwindows was in its' early days, and anything with a large number
    of lines caused the process to "hang" until it retrieved all the lines
    in the reply. 
    
    This was aprticularly annoying when you weren't all that interested in
    the discussion thatwas happening, and it might take 5 minutes (some of
    us are on the end of a very long piece of string ;') to retrieve a note
    that you are going to 'next unseen' anyway.
    
    The 100 line "guideline" was introduced as a not unreasonable self
    imposed limit to stop that annoyance.
    
    Since then, I gather that DECnotes has matured a little, and it doesn't
    grab all the extra lines in one hit.
    
    But, still, you should be able to break your reply into chuncks, which
    allow readers a chance to take a 'breather'.
    
    God Bless,
    
    H

    Firstly, let me apologize to both moderators of this conference and
    readers of this topic.  I've not read entirely through topic 551 (done
    only about 60%), but I've seen enough to know that I'll likely be
    unable to add more of value to the discussion.  I'm humbled, and that's
    good.  I developed .305 before perusing 551; therefore, old ground was
    covered out of ignorance.
    
    Secondly, further discussion with Tony on my part will be off-line.  I
    believe I've identified a foundational difference, and the tone of 551
    leads me to conclude that we'll likely continue to disagree.  But, I
    also see in Tony a burning desire to be holy as God is holy.
    
    Thanks, all, for your patience!
    
    By the way, I still don't get the concept of "snarf."  Is this some
    kind of code for experienced Christian noters' use?  Is it derogatory,
    meant to provide targeted levity, or what?  I just don't want to miss
    cues in the future. :-)

No problem Wayne. Most topics get covered at least once in most versions of 
CHRISTIAN ;-) (you've seen the archives on ATLANA::CHrIOSTIAN_Vn where 
n=1-6

And 'snarf' is just a game.  Seizing a note or reply with a significant 
number value (eg ending in '00').  Sometimes as a result of a race.


							Andrew

> we'll likely continue to disagree.  But, I
>    also see in Tony a burning desire to be holy as God is holy.

Bingo.  This is where I am with Tony, also. (Yes, you, Tony :-).  I'm willing
to overlook nearly any differences with someone who has that burning desire
to know the Lord and follow Him.

I'm glad the Lord said "I, the Lord, judge the heart" and not "I, the Lord,
judge the mind."  I imagine our standing before the Lord is determined much
more by how our hearts are turned to Him and how we have molded our lives to
be more in line with Him than by how correct our doctrine is.

Paul

    I wuv Tony too, even if he does exasperate me! :-)
    
    I had the pleasure of having Tony in my home a bit ago, as he was out
    here on training. And I can certainly vouch for his desire to EAT the
    word of God.  He certainly has the hunger and thirst that I see spoken
    of in God's word!
    
    Nancy

      Gee, you guys are getting too mushy!!!
    
      May we all learn to believe more fully that which we 
      presently know and come to know that which we presently
      do not know.
    
      By beholding we become changed is (to me) the essence of
      the gospel.  Seeing God hung for you, responding to that
      revelation by faith and (as a result) undergoing a trans-
      formation whereby the heart is changed from selfish to 
      selfless - just like the heart of God!
    
      Nance, I'll have to get to your house soon so that your
      boys aren't so big that they can beat me in basketball!!
      (Nance has two nice sons I had the pleasure to meet.)
    
    					Exasperatingly Yours,
    
    					Tony

    Men!  They love me for my sons!

      Woah there Nance!  Wait a second!  I recall having a decent meal
      too!!!
    
      ;-)

So you don't love Nancy for her sons, but for her food?

I'd be quiet now, Tony, before you dig this hole any deeper....  :-)

Paul

    Jill2, thanks for sharing your learning.  What a message indeed!  The
    apostle Paul said in Colossians 1:25-28 (NAS) that he was made a
    minister to "fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is
    the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations;
    but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make
    known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
    Gentiles, WHICH IS CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY.  And we proclaim
    Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that
    we may present every man COMPLETE IN CHRIST."
    
    Consider also 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 (NAS):  "Therefore if any man is
    in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold,
    new things have come.  Now all these things are from God, who
    reconciled us to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,
    and HE HAS COMMITTED TO US THE WORD OF RECONCILIATION.  Therefore, we
    are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us;
    we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."
    
    From my youth I remember the following phrase:  "God's purpose in
    Christ was not to get man off earth into heaven, rather to get God out
    of heaven into man."  What do you, or any other reader of this note,
    think of that?
    
    /Wayne

    $ set tongue/in=cheek
    
    >      (Nance has two nice sons I had the pleasure to meet.)
    
    gee Nancy, which two are these? I've only heard of Matthew and Clayton
    
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha {plop}
    
    * Harry laughs so hard his head falls off :')

    .325/me sticks out tongue at Harry!

Wayne,

�    From my youth I remember the following phrase:  "God's purpose in
�    Christ was not to get man off earth into heaven, rather to get God out
�    of heaven into man."  What do you, or any other reader of this note,
�    think of that?

To some degree it's semantics, which can be useful in a sermon to get 
people to see the same things from a different perspective.  Like 
'Only bad people go to heaven' [with the corollary: - those who think
they're good enough have to make do with hell.] 

But to look a little closer at the catch phrase,
   "God's purpose in Christ was not to get man off earth into heaven, rather
    to get God out of heaven into man."

Depends significantly on your contextual definitions of 'earth' and 'heaven'.

The ultimate purpose in Jesus coming to earth was not so much His life, as His
death.  This was the work that reversed the fall, making many sinners righteous
(Romans 5:19).  So this removed sin [the world] from hearts, so that they could 
be occupied by God [heaven].  It is significant to remember that salvation is 
not merely wiping the slate clean and leaving it empty.  We also have positive 
righteousness attributed to our account (Romans 5:17).

The quote refers to individual salvation, rather than the incarnation.

Where God is, there is heaven.  Not so much a 'getting God out of heaven', as
getting God (complete with heaven - ie the presence of His glory) into men. And
- it is important not to overlook the very necessary removal of sin from man's
heart first - you can't full a bucket that's already full without emptying it
first. 

So your phrase can be useful as a starting point for a sermon, but like most
such phrases only focuses on one particular detail of the gospel.  It could be
useful in emphasising sanctification (God in you...), but to my mind plays down
the cleansing-from-sin aspect of salvation rather much to be useful in an
evangelistic context.  

I was listening to a tape on evangelism recently, which focussed on the
'repentance' leading to salvation.  If there is no significant awareness of sin
and guilt before a Holy God moitivating the desire for salvation, need, one
cannot really be clear on one's need for salvation at all.  That was good
tape... ;-) 

								Andrew 

    RE: .327
    
    Hi, Andrew.
    
    Good points!  I've found that little phrase useful to spur some serious
    thought, recognizing it is a "catch phrase" not at all adequate to
    comprehend God's work in/through Christ.
    
    The phrase came from Major W. Ian Thomas, author of "The Saving Life of
    Christ."  Heard of him?
    
    He said:  "To be in Christ--that is redemption; but for Christ to be in
    you--that is sanctification!  To be in Christ--that makes you fit for
    heaven; but for Christ to be in you--that makes you fit for earth!  To
    be in Christ--that changes your destination; but for Christ to be in
    you--that changes your destiny!  The one makes heaven your home--the
    other makes this world His workshop." (pg. 19)
    
    /Wayne

Hello Wayne,

Sure - I've heard of him from way back.  Very good!  

								Andrew

    Hi Wayne,
    I like it too.  How come its easier to say than to do?
    
    Jill2

    RE: .330
    
    Well, Jill2, the flesh and the spirit do battle--it isn't easy!  But, I
    do know the final outcome.  God can use even my mistakes to make me
    more like Jesus.
    
    My mother-in-law is near death, and I and my wife have been spending as
    much time as possible by her bedside.  I've been praying with mom and
    reading scripture when she's awake.  Just yesterday, in the back of her
    Bible I noticed the following phrase in her handwriting:
    
    	"Choose Truth, not feelings."
    
    We must rest in God's Word!
    
    There is something I've found helpful, though, Jill.  When I'm sorely
    tempted or find myself to have miserably failed, I pray for others. 
    Seems our Enemy doesn't particularly like to see our occasions for
    sinning turned to motivating prayer.  Try it by God's grace, and let me
    know if it helps make things "easier" sometimes.
    
    /Wayne

    
    	Thanks for that, Wayne - It goes marvelously well with the
    	past month's teachings by Pastor Dan (my pastor ;-) ).
    
    	Karen
    

    Yes, yes, yes
    Thanks Wayne
    
    Jill

    Tony Barbieri and I just spent an hour and a half together eating
    lunch.  I very much enjoyed meeting a brother in Christ, one whose
    enthusiasm for knowing/seeing God is both humbling and encouraging.
    
    Oh, by the way, we spent about 15 minutes actually eating food, the
    rest of the time was spent discussing the Bread of Life.  Tony and I do
    disagree on the purpose of the cross in terms of why it was "needed",
    but we are in complete agreement on the goal of our salvation.
    
    There's no doubt in my mind that Tony's eyes are fixed on Jesus Christ,
    the author and finisher of faith.
    
    Anyone committed to memorizing the book of Hebrews in its entirety
    deserves more than just my respect! :-)  The sincerity and integrity of
    Tony's heart that I sensed in some of his responses was refreshing when
    I actually got to "see" it in person.
    
    My awe for God was increased by Tony's sharing his view of His
    goodness!
    
    /Wayne

    ha!  He fooled you, didn't he? :-) :-)

      Nance,
    
        I think you 'bettered' my last response in this topic by far 
        more than a country mile!
    
        I can say likewise that I was very blessed by lunch with 
        Wayne.  First of all, anyone willing to *listen* as much as
        he listened can't be all bad!!  (I listened too though!)
    
        It was a privelage to break bread with someone who is obviously
        a serious and committed Christian and who wants to be like Jesus.
        I came out of our lunch with a sense of the inner presence of
        the Spirit that I don't often come away with.
    
        There truly is something about breaking bread together.
    
        I have much to learn from Wayne Parker.
    
    						Tony

    RE: .335
    
    As he did you, Nancy! :-)

    Yeah, but I'm a sucker for a pretty face! :-)

    Heres another Sabbath question.
    
    My bible study teacher said last night that God doesn't rest
    on the sabbath.  This greatly surprised me.  In the beginning
    in Genesis He rested on the seventh day.  She was using the 
    John 5:16-17
    16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews
    persecuted him. 
    17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very
    day, and I, too, am working." 
    
    Is this obvious and I just missed it?  Are there other scriptures
    supporting this?  Why did He rest on the seventh day and then stop?
    Why do we rest on the sabbath?  I'm very confused now.
    
    Jill2   

Re: .339 (Jill2)
    
>    Is this obvious and I just missed it?  Are there other scriptures
>    supporting this?  Why did He rest on the seventh day and then stop?
>    Why do we rest on the sabbath?  I'm very confused now.
    
Jill,

It may help you to read Hebrews 3:7 through 4:11.  The principle of the
sabbath/rest is explained there.  

         HEB 3:7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
     
       "Today, if you hear his voice,
     
         HEB 3:8 do not harden your hearts
       as you did in the rebellion,
         during the time of testing in the desert,
     
       HEB 3:9 where your fathers tested and tried me
         and for forty years saw what I did.
     
       HEB 3:10 That is why I was angry with that generation,
         and I said, `Their hearts are always going astray,
         and they have not known my ways.'
     
       HEB 3:11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
         `They shall never enter my rest.' "*
     
         HEB 3:12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful,
     unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. [13] But
     encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that
     none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. [14] We have come
     to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we
     had at first. [15] As has just been said:
     
       "Today, if you hear his voice,
         do not harden your hearts
       as you did in the rebellion."*
     
         HEB 3:16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all
     those Moses led out of Egypt? [17] And with whom was he angry for
     forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in
     the desert? [18] And to whom did God swear that they would never enter
     his rest if not to those who disobeyed*? [19] So we see that they
     were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.
     
     HEB 4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still
     stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen
     short of it. [2] For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just
     as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them,
     because those who heard did not combine it with faith.* [3] Now we
     who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
     
       "So I declared on oath in my anger,
         `They shall never enter my rest.' "*
     
     And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.
     [4] For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words:
     "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."* [5] And
     again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
     
         HEB 4:6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those
     who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of
     their disobedience. [7] Therefore God again set a certain day, calling
     it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said
     before:
     
       "Today, if you hear his voice,
         do not harden your hearts."*
     
     HEB 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken
     later about another day. [9] There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for
     the people of God; [10] for anyone who enters God's rest also rests
     from his own work, just as God did from his. [11] Let us, therefore,
     make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by
     following their example of disobedience.

    I need more help.

Jill, I think the key to your question might be Mark 2:27

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

The Sabbath is for *us*.  For human beings.  Not for God.  God created the
Sabbath for us humans for at least two purposes:

One, to spend a significant portion of our time focused on our Creator.  This
isn't to replace daily devotion, but in addition to it.  God knew that we
needed this time set apart to focus on Him.  

   God doesn't need that.  He already is Himself.

Two, we need the rest.  People break down if they work every day without a
break.  One day in seven is a Creator-designed resting period which we need. 

   God doesn't get tired, He doesn't need to rest.

It's worth considering that God rested on the seventh day of creation not
because He really needed rest, but for our sakes, to model for us the Sabbath
that He wanted us to follow.

Paul

  Hi Jill,

    Lets start with a couple things we all agree on...

  1) God calls all His children to rest in Christ every moment of
     our lives.  "To him who works not, but believes on Him who
     justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

  2) God rested on the seventh day from all His works.

  3) God placed the Sabbath commandment inside what is generally 
     considered perpetual moral law and He did so for two reasons:
     "I am the Lord who created you and everything else" and "I am
     the Lord who sanctifies you."

  Now, why did God use the Sabbath commandment as the memorial of
  these things?

  The Sabbath is loaded with gospel principles that we can largely 
  unearth as we study the gospel in the light of the Sabbath.

  1) The Sabbath tells us that it is He who redeems us by telling us
     that it is He who created us.

  2) The Sabbath tells us that the work is accomplished by His word.

  3) The Sabbath tells us that after His work is done, it is very
     good (or perfect).

  4) The Sabbath tells us that after 6 days His work was perfect.


  In the passage Garth quoted, there was a very interesting part.  It
  said that God referred to the 7th day when He said, "They shall not
  enter My rest."  How was God referring to the 7th day when He said
  this?

  If you check out 2 Peter ch. 3, you will see references to the last
  days, to the word of creation, to a day being as a thousand years to
  the Lord, and to a last day fiery judgment preceding the 2nd coming
  of Christ.

  In the last days, when God is unveiled to a people (fire), that people
  will have perfectly entered His rest.  The same word which created is
  a type of that full word which sanctifies in the last days.  Just as
  God could say after six days, "It is very good", He will look upon His
  faithful after 6000 years and say, "It is very good."  They are perfectly
  sanctified.  They are a holy nation.

  This is why God could refer to the 7th day when saying, "They shall
  not enter My rest."  He knew by foreknowledge that no group would perfectly
  enter His rest until after 6000 years.  He is echoing a prophecy known
  by God via His omniscience.


  All right, to summarize this with your questions...

  Jesus, I believe, kept the Sabbath day according to the commandment, but
  His understanding of what constitutes true Sabbath-keeping differed from
  the Pharisees who were not a discerning people as evidenced by their
  crucifixion of Messiah.  Thus they felt he broke the Sabbath.

  Jesus (God) also rested in faith every moment of His earthly life, however
  I believe God is actually quite busy on the Sabbath in ministry to us
  which is what we should especially be doing on the sacred Sabbath hours.

  The 7th day Sabbath serves as a symbol pointing to the experience of
  perfect rest in Christ which it points to in the ways mentioned above
  (and in others).

  Just as physical baptism and communion are outward symbols we are called
  to partake of which point to spiritual realities God wants us to understand,
  the Sabbath is a physical symbol He has called His children to 'obey' as we 
  contemplate the things it points to.

						Tony

I NEVER would have guessed that you Tony, of all people, would respond to
this question.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

Paul

      Yeah Paul, sometimes I really surprise people!!!
    
      My unpredictability amazes even me sometimes!!
    
      ;-)

Re: .342  (Jill2)

>    I need more help.

Read the Hebrews passage that I cited a few more times.  It's the sort
of thing that takes a little while to sink in.

Hi, Jill2.

I'm taking a risk here in trying to give you a "simple" answer from my heart to
a question and plea that I perceived from your heart.  The risk is that by not
providing a formal reply in terms of detailed scriptural backing I leave myself
open for criticism.  But, I'm trying to answer you, not others right now.

If my answer rings true, then be assured that mine is a studied opinion for
which I will gladly provide formal support should you require.  That said, I
move on.

You asked if there were other scriptures supporting this.  By "this" I'm assum-
ing you mean your teacher's assertion that God doesn't rest on the Sabbath.

Well, I would encourage you to look through the accounts of Christ's life to see
what He did on the Sabbath and how He regarded the Sabbath.  I think you'll find
at least implication that Jesus "kept the Sabbath" according to Jewish custom,
or the Law, if you will.  BUT, Christ was always careful to point out our
propensity for missing the spirit of the Law while keeping the letter of the
Law.  Jesus did, in fact, work miracles of healing on the Sabbath.

For what end did He work?  He ministered to our broken, fallen, corrupt condi-
tion.  Jesus said that man was not made for the Sabbath, rather the Sabbath was
made for man.  God made the Sabbath.  He is Lord of the Sabbath.  In the
Hebrews passages Garth presented notice that man enters into God's rest.  I sub-
mit that the spirit of the Sabbath is our entering into His rest.  What does God
mean by rest?  He demonstrated by ceasing His creative activity on the seventh
day, i.e., He stopped working.

Was He instructing us to cease working every seventh day?  Or was He rather
showing us how to rest?  I submit that He showed us HOW to rest, not WHEN to
rest.  If we focus on when to rest, then we've missed the point of the Sabbath.

I think scripture clearly shows that God doesn't rest on the Sabbath.  But, for
each passage I might quote, someone probably could quote another passage to
show that we should "keep the Sabbath" by ceasing at least our secular activity
for at least one day in seven.  Notice in the Hebrews passages Garth presented
that Today becomes the focus.  We are to enter into God's rest Today!  Was the
Sabbath done away?  No, but when to rest seems to be associated with Today
rather than a given Sabbath day, per se.

Why do we rest on the Sabbath?  I'll ask another question:  Why do we not enter
God's rest Today?  When I put aside "normal" secular activity and devote time to
worship God, and even physically rest, I do so not from a conviction that God
requires it, rather because I want to honor the Lord of Sabbath, recognizing
that He intended for me to rest.  In other words, my resting on one day in seven
is just a periodic outward manifestation of a continuing inner reality, i.e.,
I'm resting in Christ.  My work is vain, His work is on-going to make me like
Him.  My view of the Sabbath:

	The Law says remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
	The Spirit says rest today in the Lord of the Sabbath who has made
	and is making you holy.

/Wayne

      Hi Jill and Wayne,
    
        I agree with Wayne's reply perhaps 99% with the exception that
        I believe scripture clearly tells us that some outward rites are 
        asked of us by God as an aid for contemplating spiritual realities.
    
        I submitted to God's will and chose to be baptized after I became
        a Christian even though it is merely an outward act pointing to
        something spiritual.  Likewise, I submit to God's will when I
        partake of foot washing and communion service.   They point to 
        spiritual themes as well.
    
        In the exact same way, I submit to God's will when I cease from
        secular activity on the seventh day Sabbath.  By doing so, I am
        not denying that the rest in Hebrews is "today" (present tense
        no matter when it is!) nor that it is the continuous rest God
        longs for us to have in Christ.  
    
        When I observe the Sabbath day according to the commandment, it
        is for the same reasons I was baptized, perform foot washing, and
        communion services.  I partake of an outward physical rite so as
        to be aided in my contemplation of the spiritual themes which they
        point to.
    
        I can see why some might have a different view on the seventh day
        Sabbath, i.e. it is no more as it prefigures the continuous rest.
        What I can't see is how one might do so *and* decide to partake in
        other things such as baptism/foot washing/communion.  There is
        obviously an inconsistency (a contradiction) there.
    
        Although its once a week, it really falls in the same category.
        It is a type of observance that is an aide in considering spiritual
        themes and that is something God declared He would have His
        children observe (for that reason - read the commandment!).
    
        It is a subtle error, imo, to conclude any physical rite is some- 
        thing God has really not asked us to observe *on the basis* that
        it is not the spiritual reality and is 'only' a teaching aide 
        helping us to see what is the spiritual reality.
    
        Water baptism, foot washing, and communion service are obvious
        examples which demonstrate otherwise.                     
    
        If the above is agreed to, the question then becomes "Is the
        seventh day Sabbath an observance God wills for His faithful
        'post-Calvary' or is it in the category of circumcision and other
        observances that were ended at the cross?"
    
    							Tony

    Hi, Tony.
    
    Just to be clear, I do "rest" one day in seven.  I believe that the
    outward practice is both appropriate and meaningful, but only if the
    act is done with the underlying spiritual reality in mind.
    
    Please note that I did NOT say that the Sabbath was done away.  My hope
    in answering Jill was to show that Christ emphasized the spirit of the
    Sabbath.  To say that Christ invalidated the Sabbath would indeed be a
    serious error.
    
    I'm at a bit of a loss to see the "major point that seems to be missed"
    in my answer to Jill.  If you consider my conclusion that the spirit of
    the Sabbath does not require observance on the seventh day as
    erroneous, then I see how you might say I've missed a major point. 
    But, if that's the major point you feel I've missed, then I would say
    you've missed a major point and we should talk. :-)
    
    Again, I did not say outward rites were invalid, unhelpful or otherwise
    meaningless.  I did mean that outward rites without the inner spiritual
    reality are empty, though.
    
    WE LOVE HIM BECAUSE HE FIRST LOVED US.
    
    /Wayne

      Oh, OK Wayne.
    
      So you believe God calls His children to rest one day in seven.
    
      Your present understanding is that we choose any day in seven
      and as we rest on that day, it is to us *a* Sabbath.
    
      My present understanding is that God chose the seventh day and
      He made it the Sabbath by blessing and sanctifying the seventh
      day (Genesis 2:3) and nothing we do can change what God did.
    
      Just for clarification.
    
    						Tony

    Hi Wayne and Tony -
    
    So what I hear is that (using one of Tony's favorite verses) 
    "these things were done as examples" explains why God rested
    on the seventh day after creating the world.  He didn't have
    to rest.  He did it as an example for us.
    
    I also hear that the motive behind the Sabbath is as important
    if not more so than the physical resting.  The motive is (like
    always) love for God. 
    
    There is some disagreement about whether the physical action of
    resting is necessary.  But it seems to me that while we are down here
    on earth, when we couple the physical and the spiritual into a
    complete whole (holyness) it is more powerful.
    
    
    Anyone up to explaining what "resting in Him" means to you?
    Scriptures too.
    
    Jill2

      Hi Jill,
    
        Yes, I think that Wayne, myself, you, and most others embrace
        the idea that entering into the spiritual rest in Christ is much 
        more important than what we may believe regarding whether or not
        (and when) God may call us to rest physically and from secular
        things.
    
        I believe to rest in Christ means to abandon completely any
        methodology whereby one may attempt to be made righteous and
        cling our souls 100% on Christ's grace by faith.
    
    							Tony

    
    >>Anyone up to explaining what "resting in Him" means to you?
    >>Scriptures too.
    
    
    I will not attempt to explain what "resting in Him" means to me
    because any explaination for it that the mind can comprehend
    will in no way touch the one area that His Rest is for, which is
    the heart.
    
    However once the heart has entered and knows His Rest the mind is
    transformed by the image of Christ, which is the image of Love, 
    and God's peace keeps both the heart and the mind.
    
    A scripture that you may wish to read is:
    
    Be anxious for nothing but in everything, by prayer and supplication
    with thanksgiving make your request known unto God, and the peace of
    God that passes all understanding will keep your hearts and minds
    through Jesus Christ.
    
    The Lord is soveriegn.  All things both good and evil are by the will
    of God.  Although this is rejected by most it is true.  When we allow
    our hearts to accept that all things are the will of God we are free
    to stop from trying to understand God and simply receive Him.
    
    The human thing to do is to Understand.  If we cannot understand we
    reject until it can be shown to our understanding and it will make 
    sense to our minds.  But this is not faith and the only WAY to Rest
    in Him is by faith.  When the revelation, and I speak of the revelation
    to the heart and not revelations of knowledge, comes to our heart
    faith becomes the only way to walk that remains.  
    
    The peace and the Rest of God passes all understanding. It comes by
    revelation to the heart and that by the will of God.  Man can not will
    the revelation to himself.  If the Lord does make it clear to ones
    heart that desire for the revelation that is God's will.  However there
    is this Hope that when the desire is made known and the hunger for the
    "Rest" of God is prevalent in the heart then all that God says is to
    ask and believe.
    
    We cannot enter God's Rest with our minds.  The mind's law says if I
    am baptised, or keep the Sabbath, or keep the rituals I will please God
    by my obedience.  But there is a fine line between obedience and
    sacrifice, the same fine line that seperates the mind and the heart.
    
    The Lord desires obedience and not sacrifice.  We can not please God by
    what we do but what pleases Him is Faith in Him.  Faith is the
    substance of things hoped for...  Look at the hope in you and ask where
    does it come from, where does my hope dwell.  You will find that it is
    in the heart that hope lives.  So then for the substance of faith,
    which is what pleases God and is what is in true obedience to Him, to
    be made manifest, we must face the hope that is in us and not allow the
    mind to cloud the purity of what our hearts are saying.  
    
    Jesus is the Hope that is in our hearts.  Faith is known in the heart
    and comes forth in obedience to who we see there.  Who do we see there,
    we see Love, who is God and the image of Love who is Christ Jesus.
    
    Every word that I speak here I speak from my heart. I must do this by
    faith no matter what others may say or do.  When we Sit with Christ we 
    will be what the Father is and do what the Father does.  This is being
    in His Rest. Others will disagree with the Rest that you are in for
    they will not understand how you can do this or that and still say that
    Christ is in you.  But there is the Truth which goes beyond all human
    understanding, the Truth will keep your heart and mind in the peace,
    in the Rest of God.
    
    Here is the truth in word.  
    
    Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
    
    You can only know Him in your heart.  

    >not allow the mind to cloud the purity of what our hearts are saying.  
    
    By what do you justify that the heart is pure?

    Thanks Bob.
    
    I didn't realize that was what matched with the words "resting in Him".
    Now explain Jesus.
    
        Jesus is the Hope that is in our hearts.  Faith is known in the
        heart and comes forth in obedience to who we see there.  Who do we see
        there, we see Love, who is God and the image of Love who is Christ 
        Jesus.
    
    
    Jill2

      Hi Bob,
    
        Let me preface this by stating that I really want to more fully
        understand what you are saying because I usually find much blessing
        in your words.
    
        How do you define mind and how do you define heart?
    
        The reason I ask this is because I believe it is impossible to
        have 'heart' without having 'mind.'  You kind of speak as though
        intelligence or understanding is an encumbrance to the experience
        that is the cultivation of faith and yet it is impossible to have
        faith without being creatures capable of rational thought.
    
        Intelligence/understanding, at least to some extent, are necessary
        capabilities for there to be any heart response.
    
        'Mind' is necessary in order to understand anything which is
        a prerequisite to heart-response.
    
        Anyway, how do you define mind and how do you define heart?
    
    						Thanks!,
    
    						Tony

    
    >>By what do you justify that the heart is pure?
    
    
    	By the faith in the Word of God that is in my heart.
    
    	Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.
    
    	To the pure all things are pure.....
    
    	When one believes on Jesus Christ they must believe His Word.
    
    	Believing the Word of Christ is not with the mind but with the
    	heart.  So if one believes in their heart that Christ has made
    	them pure of heart then they have received the revelation that
    	their heart is pure.  Purified by Christ and pure to see God.
    
    	If one does not believe that Christ Jesus has purified their 
    	heart then their heart is not pure.  According to your faith
    	be it unto you.
    
    	

RE:                     <<< Note 795.356 by HPCGRP::DIEWALD >>>

    
>        Jesus is the Hope that is in our hearts.  Faith is known in the
>        heart and comes forth in obedience to who we see there.  Who do we see
>        there, we see Love, who is God and the image of Love who is Christ 
>        Jesus.
    
    Are these your words, or something you quoted from Bob's note ?  I 
    didn't go back and check.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure what is meant by the above, but if I had to explain
    Jesus, as part of that explanation, I would have to say that He is a
    real, historical, flesh and blood person, who also in some miraculous way
    is an incarnation of the One Holy God. He interacted with real people,
    died a real death, and was resurrected back to life as the "proof" that
    those who hope in Him will also be resurrected back to life. He lives
    today. Yeshua is also the proof that God loves us deeply. Yeshua teaches 
    us how to love in response to the love He has for us. What is in our hearts 
    is that which God fills believers with - the love, hope, joy, peace, 
    strength, and confidence that we are truly safe with Him. Although God is 
    known to us as Father, Son, and Spirit, I see God more as unity and don't
    always make distinctions between Father, Son, & Spirit.

    Also, I would not define God in terms of love, but would define love in
    terms of God. Ie. if you want to know what real love is get to know God.
    But studying the emotion or feeling of love will not necessarily show God 
    to you. I don't see the reason for seeing the distinction made in the 
    above quote:

                           Love is God
                           The Image of Love is Jesus

    Again, I would say that God defines love, put another way, God is love.
    But not "Love is God." 

    I also have to interject into this conversation that I do not
    see faith as an either or thing. It is not that you have to 
    use your heart and not your mind, but that you need both in 
    order to grow and walk with the Lord in faith.

    In fact we may understand the word heart differently than the
    Biblical writers meant it. Heart was a metaphor for knowing.
    One knew things through one's heart. That's why the Word of the
    Lord was hidden in the heart, written on the heart and so on.
    The bowels were the seat of the emotions, and the head was the 
    source of life. But today we know with our minds, feel with our 
    hearts, and try not to think about our bowels ;-}.

    Leslie

      Hey Tony, 

      Something we agree on!

      Leslie

    
    >>Let me preface this by stating that I really want to more fully
    >>understand what you are saying because I usually find much blessing
    >>in your words.
    
    	I know that you desire to fully understand what is being said
    	and I truly desire for you to receive all that is being said.
    
    	And you may receive it for that is the will of God for everyone
    who asks.  The Lord prepares us for revelation.  This is much
    different then the process of learning and being taught.  There is a 
    place for learning and it is good for at the appointed time, when the
    revelation has come he will bring all things to your rememberance that
    He has taught you.  But there comes a day, by the grace and mercy of
    God, when the revelation of Christ comes to your heart.  Then on that
    day you have no need that any man teach you for you have an unction
    from the Holy One and know all things.  But this knowing is fluid and
    does not permit the strength of man but is marked in the heart by
    humility and weakness.
    
    	>>How do you define mind and how do you define heart?
    	>>The reason I ask this is because I believe it is impossible to
        >>have 'heart' without having 'mind.'
        >>You kind of speak as though intelligence or understanding is an
        >>encumbrance to the experience that is the cultivation of faith
        >>and yet it is impossible to have faith without being creatures
        >>capable of rational thought.
    
    
    	Jesus spent three and a half years with His disciples.  Those
    things which He did surpassed their understanding, challenged their
    intelligence and thier rational thoughts, shattered their
    understandings of their own experiences.  They walked in thier minds
    but He in His heart with the Father. 
    
    >>Intelligence/understanding, at least to some extent, are necessary
    >>capabilities for there to be any heart response.
    
    >>Mind' is necessary in order to understand anything which is
    >>a prerequisite to heart-response.
    
    	The mind grapples, it struggles to understand God but it can not.
    It can faintly understand the creation of God.  
    
    	The heart is that which God brings to surrender.  The heart is
    from which the child in us lives.  It is meek and helpless and wants
    the Father.  Jesus said "Except you become as little children you shall
    in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."  But we learn to follow
    our minds and refuse to listen to our hearts and become hard hearted.  
    
    It is safer to follow our minds because it is safe and rational and
    we are in control.  We can understand the Bible in our minds and follow
    it and convince ourselves that we know the truth.  But all we may know
    is about the truth.
    
    When the revelation of the Son of God comes to the heart the Word is
    written on your heart and you no longer follow it you are it.  Sin hath
    no more dominion over you.....
    
    No one that will read the words I write will understand them with their
    minds but will only respond within their hearts and know they are
    Truth.
    
    I write for those who have been prepared for the revelation, even if it
    is for one whom God has chosen. 

    Bob,
    
    How do things get into the mind?

RE: <<< Note 795.362 by SOLVIT::POLAND >>>

>>    When the revelation of the Son of God comes to the heart the Word is
>>    written on your heart and you no longer follow it you are it.  Sin hath
>>    no more dominion over you.....
    
        Bob, I know that what you say is true, but if any of us reach this
        point, this perfect revelation, then would we not be perfectly
        sinless from that point on, as Jesus is? We would never be
        distracted by the things of this world, never violate Sabbath, we
        would observe the feasts, we would do all the things Jesus did, and
        do them perfectly, as He did, without all the legalistic baggage
        that was added on by the traditions of men.  We know that Jesus did
        all these things, and that He was perfect in all.  If He had
        violated any of these things, He would've sinned, thereby not even
        been capable of atoning for His own sin, let alone ours.  Consider
        the following from Jesus Matthew 5:19

	  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
	  and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
	  kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
	  same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

	From this we know that Jesus kept all of the commandments as
	required by His Father and was perfectly sinless. 

        The Spirit of the Law is to obey with gladness, out of awe and love
        for God our redeemer.  The letter of the law can only suggest what
        the spirit thereof requires.  Consider these verses from Matthew 5
        where Jesus clearly differentiates between the letter of the law
        and the spirit of the law.

	  21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
	  not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
	  judgement:
	  22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
	  without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement

	  27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
	  not commit adultery:
	  28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
	  after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

	  40 And if any man sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,
	  let him have thy cloak also.
	  41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him
	  twain.

	From verses like these, I believe in my heart that the spirit of
	the law evokes glad obedience and overabundant compliance.  One who
	has achieved the perfection of Christ would understand this
	completely and live it completely.

	Love and regards,
		TonyC
		

    .364
    
    :-) :-) :-)  Amen!!!

    Had a rather interesting revelation/thought as a result of a family
    devotion I had with my children.
    
    God says "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are
    passed away and all things become new."
    
    I've heard the testimonies of the alcoholics, and drug addicts whom say
    that the INSTANT they received Christ as Savior, they no longer had
    desire to drink or do drugs.
    
    And then I've heard of the testimonies of those same ones who receive
    Christ as Savior, but struggle in letting go of their addictions.
    
    What makes the difference between the two???
    
    I'm not sure I have a complete answer, but this is one I'm knocking
    around at this time.
    
    Jesus said, "Abide in the vine. For I am the vine and you are the
    branches."
    
    Compare the two scriptures;  If any man be *in* Christ; Abide *in* the
    vine.
    
    Can one be in Christ not abide?  Does salvation = being *in* Christ or
    *of* Christ?
    
      6  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
    withered;and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are 
    burned.
      7  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye
    will, and it shall be done unto you.
      8  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall
    ye be my disciples.
      9  As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in
    my love.
     10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I
    have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
    
    

    I don't get to look at this conference very often. By contract, I'm not
    permitted to access it from my regular account which is at another
    site. I am, however, permitted to exchange mail and can be reached at
    CLT::EDSDS6::GLEASON, should anyone wish to correspond. Thankfully, I'm
    told that there are no such restrictions from my present account,
    though I am able to log in here only infrequently.
    
    But this morning, the Lord impressed upon me that I should log in to
    read a few notes in this topic, and now He tells me to write. I have no
    idea what I am about to write, so please bear with me! :-)
    
    What the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross is a truly awesome thing,
    and I have only a glimpse of its power and far-reaching effects. It is
    at least partially clear to me why the apostle Paul resolved to know
    nothing but Christ, and Him crucified, because our entire existence
    revolves around that single incident, what He did for us, and what it
    means.
    
    When Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to the mountain and was
    transfigured, Moses and Elijah appeared with Him briefly and were
    talking with Him. Luke 9:31 says that they spoke about His departure,
    which He was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Peter and the
    others were sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw His
    glory and the two men standing with Him. It was as the men were
    leaving that Peter asked whether they should put up three shelters for
    them. While he was still speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them,
    and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. Then a voice came from
    the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, Whom I have chosen; listen to Him."
    Then they found themselves alone with Jesus.
    
    There is much to be learned from these verses, and I certainly don't
    have the full revelation of what they mean. But this is part of what
    the Lord has shown me so far: Moses represents the Law, and Elijah
    represents the Prophets. The disciples were sleepy at first, but the
    Lord awakened them so that they might see and experience what was about
    to transpire. Moses and Elijah were speaking about Jesus' departure
    because it was through His death and resurrection that His Spirit would
    be poured out upon the elect, by which they might have a direct
    relationship with the Father as brothers and sisters of Jesus. Peter
    didn't understand at this time, as he asked whether shelters should be
    erected for all three. But as the cloud came, and God spoke to the
    disciples revealing that Jesus was His Son and that they should listen
    to Him, Moses and Elijah left, and only Jesus remained.
    
    This is how it is with us today. The Law and the Prophets have passed
    away, having served their purpose for the designated time. Only Jesus
    remains. By His sacrifice (and not by any of ours!), we, if we have
    accepted that sacrifice in our hearts, are now free from the law of sin
    and death. And as Paul said later, now *all* things are permissible;
    however, not all things are beneficial. All things are permissible, but
    he would be mastered by nothing. We are now living in New Testament
    times, for the Old Testament has been fulfilled. We are no longer under
    the law, but under grace. Jesus came not to judge, but to save. There
    will come a time when He will come again and bring judgment, but that
    time is not yet here.
    
    If we would follow biblical principles and blindly apply them to every
    situation we happen to be in at the moment, then we are still following
    the law and have not experienced God's grace and been set free. The
    Bible is not meant to guide our behavior. In fact, it was given to us
    to show that there is nothing that we can do to master our behavior;
    apart from Him, we can do *nothing*. Period. Instead, the Bible was
    given to us to show us that it is possible to have a direct
    relationship with the Father through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
    This is what He wants more than anything! Through Him, we can do all
    things. We can not do this by obeying biblical principles. We can only
    do this by letting go of our mind's understanding, even of those
    principles, and coming to Jesus with open hearts as children, receiving
    by faith His sacrifice for our sins as complete atonement in the eyes
    of the Father.
    
    Once we do this, He begins to work in our lives to set us free from the
    laws by which we live, both consciously and unconsciously, in our minds
    and in our hearts. His yoke is easy and his burden light, and He wishes
    to heal us and to set us free from the laws that bind us and prevent us
    from having His abundant life. He does not do this by showing us how to
    live in our minds, for it is our minds that are farthest from Him. He
    wants us to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength,
    and there is reason for that order. The heart must come first, then the
    soul, then the mind. Then we will be able to love Him with all of our
    strength.
    
    It is the mind that makes excuses for not facing the truth about
    ourselves in our hearts. We are *sinners* by natural birth, and we are
    naturally *evil*! Our minds would have us believe otherwise, almost to
    the exclusion of all other beliefs. We have a *need* to believe that we
    are not evil in our hearts. But the truth is that we are, and it is
    only when we begin to face that truth that we can begin to truly
    receive the sacrifice Jesus made for us. This must come first! And it
    is not a one-time process, because once we have received His sacrifice,
    He goes about in our hearts rooting out all of the old evil associated
    with our old nature. This is not so that we may change our own behavior
    by avoiding our evil tendencies or influences, but rather so that we
    may continue to face the truth about ourselves, confess it to him and
    to a trusted friend (James 5:16), and the believe by faith that He
    Himself is faithful to forgive us our sin and purify us from all
    unrighteousness. As we do this, we will be cleansed. This is the only
    way to be truly free from sin -- not by our control of our own
    behavior, but by receiving by revelation of the Truth His mercy and
    forgiveness and being set free in our hearts and minds. It is only the
    Truth that sets us free.
    
    He is faithful, and He Who began a good work in us will be faithful to
    complete it until the day of the Lord Jesus. Apart from Him, we can do
    nothing. In all things, He works for the good of those who love Him,
    who have been called according to His purpose. So trust in the Lord
    with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your
    ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.
    
    With love in Christ,
    
    -- Daryl

    Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
    Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art--
    Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
    Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.
    
    Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
    I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
    Thou my great Father, I Thy true son,
    Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.

    Hi Daryl,
    
    I'm not surprised to find you taking up this subject, at least not
    after your visit out here recently! :-)
    
    You know we disagree ever-so-slightly on this issue.  I asked a
    question of Bob, which I received no answer.  So now I'll ask a
    question of you:
    
    When you refer to the heart to what are you referring?
    
    Nancy

      Hi,
    
        I haven't read the last few replies, but I just want to interject
        what *I* mean by mind and heart.
    
        Mind is equivalent to conscious existence.
    
        Heart is a subset of mind.  It is conscious existence that relates
        to morality.
    
        For example, I might have to determine what 2 + 2 is.  My mind is
        at work.  My 'heart' is passively hanging around (hopefully) for
        whatever is not of faith is sin.  But, my conscious existence is
        grappling with something of a nonmoral level.  This isn't bad, this
        is just the way it is.
    
        Anytime, my mind processes anything whatsoever that is of a moral
        type thing, you could say that is my heart doing it.  If the
        realm is of right and wrong, it is realm of heart which is a sub-
        set of realm of mind.
    
        Now, I am not here to say that Bob Poland is wrong, I am simply
        here to recognize that Bob is using mind and heart in different
        ways.
    
        I believe that what Bob is doing is using the term MIND in the 
        following sense.
    
        He is using mind within the realm of morality and he means use
        of mind in such a way that there is no faith, no submission.  If
        thats the case, rational thought itself is an idol.  It is a God.
    
        A good case in point is Mary Magdelene.  No church board would
        ever have decided for her to 'use up' a year's worth of wages
        for a bottle of precious ointment to break and pour over Christ's
        head and feet.  Mind alone could not do this thing (here I use 
        mind as Bob uses it).  The heart has to be connected to God in 
        order to be convicted of doing that which seems to be utterly
        irrational.
    
        This is all very important to me right now because I think its
        about time God's people are willing to leave their comfort zones
        and do God's will no matter how much the mind (rational thought)
        might rebel against the idea.  It made no sense for Gideon to
        fight that army with 300 persons; each with bugle, pitcher, and 
        lantern.
    
        No sense at all.
    
        I kind of think this is where Bob is coming from so far as some
        of his meaning of the terms 'mind' and 'heart' is concerned.
    
        When the heart surrenders, the mind (rational thought) is sometimes
        crucified.  Actually, in a way its not, we just need to learn that
        if God is with us, who can beat us even if we're sent down to
        conquer entire armies with nothing but bugle, lantern, and pitcher?
    
        Well, you know what I mean.  
    
    							Tony
        

>    Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
>    Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art--
>    Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
>    Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.
>    
>    Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
>    I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
>    Thou my great Father, I Thy true son,
>    Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.
    
    Phil Keaggy does this on his latest CD.
    
    Mike
    

    I think the heart is the soul: mind, will, and emotions.

     <<< Note 795.363 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"
    >>>Bob,
    >>>How do things get into the mind?
    
    	There are two ways by which things enter our minds. One is by the 
    physical senses, wether directly or by compilation of data arriving by
    subtle unconscious input.  The other way is by direct revelation.
    
    Direct revelation comes in two ways. One is by objective revelation
    which is the Lord revealing himself in a physical way to the senses and 
    conscious understanding.  The other is to the heart by the Holy Spirit.
    
    Objective revelation though appearing wonderful does little to change
    to the heart but is used by the Lord to reach the mind for later heart
    revelation.  Heart revelation is transforming.  It is the Holy Spirit
    revealing that Love is of God, and anyone that loves is born of God and 
    knows God.
    
    The mind cannot know God.  It can only know of Him.  The dangerous
    thing about the mind is that it is programmable.  It functions
    with parameters, with filters, with set memory and experience records. 
    When one walks the truth in ones heart they do not forsake there mind
    but they do not follow what is in their mind.  The mind is blind to the
    Spirit of God.  God requires a hearts response and obedience in the
    heart not a head's understanding.  
    
       

RE: .367 Daryl

>>    This is how it is with us today. The Law and the Prophets have passed
>>    away, having served their purpose for the designated time.

	Matthew 5:17
	Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am
	not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

	Fulfil does not equal Annul.  Look it up.

	Matthew 5:18
	For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
	one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be
	fulfilled.

	2nd Peter 3:10
	But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
	which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the
	elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works
	that are therein shall be burned up.

	Has all been fulfilled?

	Have we had the Great Tribulation?

	Have we seen the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord?

	Has the thousand-year reign of Messiah passed?

	Have heaven and earth passed away?

        I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we can do any good
        works on our own power, but that the Holy Ghost, pointing to the
        perfection of Christ, leads us to quit smoking, quit drinking,
        dress more modestly, eschew popular culture, share one anothers'
        burdens, pray without ceasing, provoke one another to good works,
        love one another as Christ loves us, love God, and obey His
        commandments.
	
	God's peace to all,
		Tony
		

    Re: .366  
    
    Hi Nance,
    
      You asked about why some people are delivered immediately and
      others gradually.  I think there's a few possibilities.
    
      Paul spoke of a thorn in his flesh of which he asked God to 
      remove it.  God didn't and said, "My strength is made perfect
      in weakness."
    
      But, apparently, for others, God does remove the thorn.
    
      Paul went on to say that the thorn was a weakness, a propensity.
      It, in and of itself, was not sin, but it was a *susceptibility*
      toward a certain sin.  Something of which Paul was especially
      weak toward.
    
      I think God sometimes removes the thorn completely.  Thus the
      deliverance is really not so much heart-transformation, but rather
      is a removal of the weakness so that the person is not so tempted.
    
      Sometimes God does not remove the thorn.  In this case, I think
      deliverance is typically gradual.  It is righteousness by faith.
      Gradually seeing the glory of God and allowing more abounding grace
      in the heart which is what motivates a person to do what is right
      as opposed to giving in to whatever thorn is his/hers.
    
      However, I suppose, even if God allows the continued presence of the
      thorn, some people may have occurances of submitting to the
      constraining love of Christ so fully in such a short period of time
      that they overcome the practise of sinning rather quickly - all the
      while the thorn is still there.
    
      I'm in the middle category with a particular thorn.  I am gaining
      the victory slowly, over a long period of time.  Partially because
      God saw fit to allow my particular weakness to remain and partially
      because I am a spiritual blockhead and (somehow) I am resistant 
      to a lot more surrender within a much shorter timeframe.
    
      Oh well...
    
      ;-)
    
    						Tony
                                  

    II Timothy 3:16, 17
    
    Anybody got an online to put these in?

2Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness: 

 17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good 
works. 

        Hi Daryll,
    
        A little more on the transfiguration on the Mount...
    
        Luke records the matter to be "after *about* eight days..."
        Matthew is more exact saying, "after six days..."
    
        Mention is made of ascending a mountain.  Mention is also
        made of Elijah and Moses being with Jesus and of Jesus
        being transfigured before them.  Also, Peter, James, and
        John are sleeping and they are awakened.
    
        A day is like a thousand years to the Lord.  Recall, the
        Sabbath thing I mentioned about after 6000 years, God will
        look upon a sanctified group and say, "It is very good
        (perfect)".   After six days is pointing to something taking
        place after 6000 years (from the sin problem on earth).
    
        Revelation depicts two prophets.  These have power so that 
        no rain falls in the days of their prophecy.  They prophecy
        1260 days (see Rev 11).  James says that during the time of
        Elijah, there was no rain 1260 days (James 5:17).  Indeed,
        Elijah said to Ahab, "There will not be any rain except at
        my WORD."
    
        It is the word of Elijah which brings the rain.  In fact
        Malachi refers to the coming of Elijah the prophet in the
        great and terrible day of the Lord.
    
        These prophets also have power to turn waters to blood and
        to strike the earth with all plagues (Rev 11:6).  The 144,000
        are mentioned in the context of these two witnesses and are
        later mentioned as singing a song (Rev 14:30).  The same group,
        I believe, is described as singing the song of Moses (Rev 15:3).
    
        I suggest that the two prophets in Revelation describe the
        proceeding forth of an apocayptic message that when received,
        seals the 144,000 and readies them for the 2nd coming.  These
        prophets are Moses and Elijah or (to put another way), Moses
        and Elijah had messages/testimonies which are a type of messages
        which will be given in the last days which will usher in the
        preparation of God's remnant.
    
        The transfiguration mentioned mountain.  Ascending a high mountain
        is symbolic of being sanctified (see for example Psalm 24:3-6/
        Hebrews 12 though the allusion is rampant in the scriptures).  It
        is a last day body who ascends the mountain.
    
        Christ is transfigured before them.  This is not a picture of
        revelation given (the cross), it is rather a picture of revelation
        RECEIVED.  This does not take place until the last days when a
        group is on Mount Zion.  The faith is so perfected that it SEES
        the cross to a certain completeness.   Here is the salvation yet
        to be revealed.
    
        Finally, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins figures in.
        They are all asleep and this is an apocalyptic application.  It
        is the message of Moses and Elijah which awakes the saints.
        (See Ezekiel 37 as one of several examples.)
    
        When one does a line upon line study of the scriptures and looks
        for thematic parallels, images, etc., one finds that the transfi-
        guration of Christ is a parable that does not refer to the cross,
        but rather refers to a remnant's HEART-SEEING OF THE CROSS.
    
        So much so that they are risen and are like Him for they see Him
        as He is (1 John 3:2).
    
        It refers to the last days Daryll.  Virtually every image refers
        to that application!
    
    				       		God Bless,
    	
    						Tony
        

    re: .375
    
    Tony-
          I think God sometimes removes the thorn completely.  Thus the
          deliverance is really not so much heart-transformation, but
          rather is a removal of the weakness so that the person is not so
          tempted.
    What effect do you think "removal of the weakness" will have on the
    heart?  Think about it.  If the weakness is suddenly removed how would
    you feel in your heart?  Who is to say which came first the removal or
    the heart change?
    
    
    Jill2                         
    

      Well, Jill, actually I believe it would have no effect on the
      heart so far as transformation is considered.  Certainly, the
      heart might *feel* better.
    
      As a rough analogy, consider a weight lifter struggling to press
      200 lbs.  Consider the struggle to be the struggle of faith and
      the weight to symbolize the pull of the flesh.
    
      Were someone to remove 100 lbs, did the heart change?  I think 
      not.  A pull drawing against the constraint of divine love was
      lessened.
    
      As far as I'm concerned, to assume your view is correct could be
      likened to assuming the weightlifter would get just as strong 
      pressing 100 lbs as he would pressing 200 lbs.
    
      Fiery trials test, refine, and perfect our faith.  Remove a fiery
      trial does not imply the faith had just undergone some refining.
      It actually lacked refining and thus lacked development.
    
      I think God removes some thorns perhaps because He knows that such
      thorns at certain stages of our immaturity could shipwreck our faith.
    
    						Tony
                                                                       

          As a rough analogy, consider a weight lifter struggling to press
          200 lbs.  Consider the struggle to be the struggle of faith and
          the weight to symbolize the pull of the flesh.
        
          Were someone to remove 100 lbs, did the heart change?  
    What if that "someone" was God?
    
    
    Jill2

      Doesn't matter Jill.  What was modified was a removal of a
      certain 'pull' to sin and *not* a faith made more mature 
      such that it could resist that greater pull were it to still 
      be there.
    
      The change took place in the realm of temptation (having it be
      lessened) and not in the realm of the perfecting of our faith.
    
    						Tony

    Re: .369: 

    Hi, Nancy. In response to your question, I would ask you: from where within
    yourself do you know, recognize, and receive love?


    Re: .374, Tony C.

    Hi again, Tony.

    What I'm about to say is not meant to offend, especially since I can feel
    in your heart the zeal and devotion you have for the Lord Jesus and also an
    intense pain with which I can identify very well. If offense is taken,
    please accept my heartfelt apology in advance. 

    *Sigh* I can think of no delicate way to say this. Scripture verses quoted
    from the head, regardless of how they got there, are easily recognized as
    such. Please be careful with the Bible, for it is a two-edged sword and has
    been used to wound many, perhaps even yourself. In addition to the verses
    you mentioned and the many others that apply, Ephesians 2:14-16 were
    notably not included, which in the NIV read as follows (capitalization
    mine):

        For He Himself is our peace, Who has made the two one and has destroyed
        the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in His flesh
        the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to
        create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in
        this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by
        which He put to death their hostility.

    So how can the law be both fulfilled and abolished? The key is in these
    verses, and actually in the whole of Ephesians 2. My personal prayer for
    you, and for all who love the Lord as you do, is said by the apostle Paul
    better than I could say it: Ephesians 1:17-21. And my personal caution for
    all of us is from I Corinthians 8:2-3.


    Re: .378, Tony B.

    Hi, Tony.

    As you pointed out, your application of the transfiguration differs from
    mine. I cannot bear witness to the distance in time of your application,
    because the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now. These are the end times. We
    are already seated with Christ in heavenly places. The Lord Jesus is alive,
    is here at this very moment, and is just waiting for us to be willing for
    our hearts to be emptied so that He may fill them with His. In the Father's
    eyes, we are already made perfect through His perfect sacrifice. And we are
    free to have the same relationship with Him that Jesus had when He was here
    in the flesh.  All we need do is ask and receive, seek and find, knock and
    go in through the open door. And all we need to do to actuate this is to
    believe it by faith as a child would. 

    This is a process that is not without considerable pain, for the revelation
    of the depth of sin in our hearts is a very painful thing that requires
    much strength of character to face. It requires a willingess to face the
    truth about oneself at all costs. There is no substitute, for we cannot get
    to the Father apart from Jesus, Who is the Truth. In this process will be
    much confession and repentance, and many tears will be shed. But the
    increasing joy of becoming one with the Truth will far outweigh all of the
    pain that is faced. In fact, the pain itself becomes a blessing from the
    Lord, and is a continued witness of the Lord's love for us as described in
    James 1:2-4.

    Tony, we must forsake our attempts to understand God and simply ask from
    our hearts that He would reveal Himself to us. He is the only one Who can,
    and we must be patient and wait for His timing and for the revelations of
    His choosing. If we are willing to do this, and to believe with the faith
    of a child in His promise to reward those that diligently seek Him, we will
    find what we are seeking.

    In His love,

    -- Daryl

My heart is how and where I am convinced or convicted of Truth.

As I've stated in other notes, I feel man is tripartite (body, soul and spirit),
created in God's own image.  We carry God's imprint, if you will.  I regard
God's imprint as God consciousness, the capacity to see creation, including our-
selves, and conclude that God is.  This "light" is given to all men.  Why some
accept while others reject God's Grace (both desire and power to know/obey Him)
only He knows.  The bottom-line, though, is that we are accountable and respon-
sible for our choices in light of The Light we are given.

I regard my heart as the intersection of my spirit and soul (mind, will and
emotions).  My non-physical heart is analogous to my physical brain wherein my
mind, including sensory translation, resides, i.e., the intersection of my body
and soul, if you will.  In other words, my mind is my soul's physical input/out-
put processor, whereas my heart is my soul's spiritual input/output processor.

I believe God gave us control over our input/output channels with volition, the
ability to make choices and decisions, or implement filters and screens, if you
will.  What would happen if we chose to make our heart input-only from the Holy
Spirit who has come alongside our spirit, and we chose to configure our mind as
content addressable memory (CAM) programmed by our heart?  CAM operation basic-
ally is match = store/keep, no match = ignore/discard.  Concurrently, we can
saturate our mind with objective Truth, the written Word of God which forever
stands as the Touchstone.  The Holy Spirit always imparts the meaning and
establishes the intent, i.e., testifies or bears witness, of God's Word.

This personalization works for me.  But, analogies are limited; therefore, I do
not present my notion of heart as the definitive answer to the question "what is
the heart?"  However, if my analogy is helpful, then thank God.  If my analogy
doesn't "work" for you, then by all means discard/ignore! :-)

My understanding of the heart resonates with Bob Poland's answer in .373--in
other words, for what my opinion is worth, I agree! :-)  To what end?  "You
shall love the Lord your God with all your HEART, and with all your SOUL, and
with all your MIND."  (Matthew 22:37, NAS)  Love flows inside out!
    
    /Wayne

      re: .383
    
      Hi Daryl,
    
        Might you consider incorporating Romans 4 in your understanding
        of the gospel?  ;-)
    
        You refer to Ephesians where it is stated that we *are* (present
        tense) seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.  However, lets
        let Romans 4 help us in interpretation.
    
        In Romans 4, Paul is explaing the BASIS for Abraham being
        accounted righteous when he first had faith.  Paul says the reason
        is what Abe's faith became, i.e. he became fully convinced that
        what God said He could perform and THEREFORE it (faith) was 
        accounted to him for righteousness.
    
        In Romans 4, Paul cites an analogy God used.  This analogy is
        Abe being the father of many nations.  In Romans 4, Abe is said
        to already be (past tense) the father of many nations.  It also
        says he became [future tense] the father of many nations.
    
        Genesis 17 shows the same thing.  I have made you [past tense] the
        father of many nations (verse 5).  I will make [future tense]
        nations of you (verse 6).  So shall (future tense) your descendants
        be (verse 15:5).
    
        Romans 4 even clarifies what God is doing.  God who calls those
        things which do not exist as though they did (verse 17).
    
        The scriptural evidence is overwhelming that the transfiguration
        sheds light on an endtime occurance; a fulness of the manifestation
        of Christ in His believers which is the finishing of the mystery
        (Rev 10) which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Colossians).
    
        Incorporating Romans 4 into our understanding reconciles the
        seeming quandary which you mentioned.
    
        I don't disagree that the fulness of the glory (character) of
        God was manifested on the cross, *but* there is a world of 
        difference between glory manifested by God and that same glory
        seen to a certain fulness in the heart by faith by His people.
    
        That has not happened yet.  If it had, we would be like Jesus
        for we would see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).
    
    						Tony

      Hi Daryll,
      
        I reread your recent reply and I want to suggest something.
    
        You mentioned to TonyC that he was quoting the word of God
        from his head and not his heart.  You mentioned to me the
        idea that we ought not try to understand God.
    
        First off, in the case of TonyC, I did not discern that he
        was quoting with his head.  Secondly, I am trying to under-
        stand God of course for Jesus calls us to know Him.
    
        The important thing is *heart-motive*.  If TonyC is quoting
        from his head in the way you mean it, his heart-motive is wrong.
        If I am trying to understand God in some presumptuous way, my
        heart-motive is wrong.
    
        I happen to believe that people's heart-motives ought to be
        addressed offline.  Don't make a public forum the place for
        such things.
    
        					Tony

As Daryl and Bob are so strongly proclaiming, we as human beings are not
steamships or diesel-powered self-propelled ocean vessels.  We are most
certainly sailboats - totally subject to the power of the wind to move.  We
can do nothing on our own, we can move only as the wind of the spirit
propells us.  Attempts to get anywhere on our own strength are futile.  I
absolutely agree with both of them about this.

But we are not flotsam.  We are sailboats, provided by the Lord with a keel
and rudder.  The Holy Spirit is not the only wind that blows, there are other
spirits and self that blow also.  If we neglect the rudder of Scripture that
the Lord has provided us, eventually we will be pushed the wrong way by the
wind and will wind up crashing to pieces on the rocks.

Scripture can't be fully understood by the head, it must sink into the heart.
And certainly God can't be understood with the head.  Attempts to understand
with the head only provide dull and dead legalism.  We can't pull the rudder
off and use it as a paddle and expect to get anywhere.

But cutting loose from the head completely and letting the heart go wherever
it will is a recipe for disaster.  We were given a keel and rudder for a
purpose.  God will not lead us in ways contrary to how He has revealed
Himself in Scripture.  He would not have given us the Scriptures in the first
place if He didn't want us to use them.

History has shown that when people cut loose from the rudder, at first they
usually seem to deepen in faith and grow much closer to God.  Living by faith
does that to us.  But what nearly always happens next is that a wind blows in
from the wrong direction, and people start to drift off course.  There is no
longer a keel to keep them straight or a rudder to steer, and there is no
longer anything to prevent them from being blown about by every wind that
passes by.  Eventually the ship is destroyed.

I hear your call, Daryl and Bob, to cut the rudder loose, toss it overboard,
and trust to the wind.  Sorry, I will not.  The Lord provided this rudder,
and I will not reject that which the Lord has provided.  And I fear for you,
that what has begun as something beautiful may end up as something else.

Paul

    .387
    
    Paul,  I must say you have just articulated what I've been feeling in
    my heart as well.  Thanks for putting it down in here for me.
    
    Nancy

      Hi Paul,
    
        EXCELLENT OBJECT LESSON.
    
        One that I will extract, printout, read often, and share with
        others.
    
        Paul, God gace some to be teachers.  Are you one?  If not, may
        I suggest you be one?
    
        Well, actually you are as you've taught me...
    
    						Tony

RE: <<< Note 795.383 by EDSCLU::GLEASON "Daryl Gleason, IBM I/C Support" >>>

        No, offense taken, brother.  It is always good for iron to sharpen
        iron.  As for using my head, my parents never accused me of such
        folly. ;-)

	Now, let's see what Paul himself has to say about the law.

	  Romans 3:31
	  Do we then make void the law through faith?  God forbid: yea, we
	  establish the law.

	This seems to seriously contradict the passage in Eph 2:14-16.
	Let's have another look at Eph 2:14-16, from the KJV, and in its
	context, from Eph 2:11-19

	  Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the
	  flesh, who are called the Uncircumcision by that which is called
	  the circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

	  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
	  commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
	  promise, having no hope, and withoug God in the world:

	  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made
	  nigh by the blood of Christ.
	  
	  For he is our peace, who hath made both one and hath broken down
	  the middle wall of partition [between us];
	  
	  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of
	  commandments contained on ordinances; for to make in himself of
	  twain one new man, [so] making peace;
	  
	  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the
	  cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

	  And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to
	  them that were nigh.

	  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the
	  Father.

	  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
	  fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

        When you read this text in context, you learn that the author is
        not talking about the abolition of the commandments as you perceive
        them, but the commandments and ordinances giving the covenant of
        the promise to the commonwealth (Nation) of Israel *ALONE*.  The
        enmity between the covenant of the promise and the gentile nations
        is torn down by Christ.

	Incidentally, the passage also points out, as does Romans 2:28-ff,
	that we are fellow Israelites with the prophets and saints of God.
	We are become sons and daughters of Abraham, and heirs to the
	promise (Gal 3:29 and Heb 6:17).

        When Jesus says, "If you love me keep my commandments" in John
        14:15, what commandments is he talking about?  When we read in 1st
        John 5:3, "And this is the love of God, that we keep his
        commandments" what commandments is John talking about?  In Heb 12:8
	we read, "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are
	partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons".  For what things
	will we be chastised if there are no laws to break?

	God's peace to you all,
		Tony
		

RE: <<< Note 795.387 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

	Truly remarkable, Paul.  Good insight and direction.

        If the churches are really going to turn this world upside down, we
        are going to have to get beyond the Salvation Message and become
        disciples of Jesus, living the truths in the Bible and obeying
	God's commandments in the sight of men.  

	  Matthew 28:19-20
	  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
	  name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

	  TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMANDED
	  YOU, and. lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the
	  world.  Amen.

	The first part of the Great Commision is to win souls.  The second
	part is to teach them to observe God's commandments, and our walk
	teaches better than our talk.

    
    Paul,
    
    It is become obvious to me by what you have written here and with
    Nancy's Amen to it that you have not grasped anything that I have 
    said in this conference.  It is true you have assembled a mental
    understanding according to your present state of being that addresses
    parts of the revelation of the heart I am speaking of, and it is also
    true that, at the risk of sounding arrogant, haughty and proud, you
    can not express any other understanding at this time because of where
    you are at with the Lord.
    
    I was where you are now and I have seen and understood as you presently
    do so I fully appreciate all that you are saying and why you are saying
    it.  
    
    There are very few words that I can speak that will even begin to help
    you to understand, I have said almost all that I can say.
    
    The greatest help that I would be to you is for you to come and live
    with me, however you must give up all things and be willing to face 
    suffering that you might learn the obedience of Christ.
    
    Now I will address your words:
    
    >>As Daryl and Bob are so strongly proclaiming, we as human beings are
    >>not steamships or diesel-powered self-propelled ocean vessels.  We are 
    >>most certainly sailboats - totally subject to the power of the wind 
    >>to move. We can do nothing on our own, we can move only as the wind 
    >>of the spirit propells us.  Attempts to get anywhere on our own 
    >>strength are futile. I absolutely agree with both of them about this.
    
    	Though one might understand this with the mind it is only known in
    the Spirit.  One will know the Spirit of God when they are born of the
    Spirit. It is one thing to speak of the meaning of the Spirit it is
    another to know the Holy Spirit within ones heart.  That knowing is 
    intimate. The understandings of the scripture by the mind is nothing
    in comparision to knowing the Word of God within ones heart.
    
    >>But we are not flotsam.  We are sailboats, provided by the Lord 
    >>with a keel and rudder.  The Holy Spirit is not the only wind that blows, 
    >>there are other spirits and self that blow also.  If we neglect the 
    >>rudder of Scripture that the Lord has provided us, eventually we will 
    >>be pushed the wrong way by the wind and will wind up crashing to 
    >>pieces on the rocks.  
    
    	It is true that the Holy Spirit is not the only wind that blows.
    Evil spirits and self's wind blow also.  But I have seen Satan and 
    there is shame in him.  He will attempt to deceive your minds and that
    through fear and pride but the Truth of Christ in your hearts, knowing
    Jesus intimately through the Holy Spirit in your heart by faith, is
    power beyond all the enemy is.  He must depart at your very word.  But
    if there is doubt in the heart then Satan knows just how to manipulate
    and tempt you.  He is the father of lies and there is no greater lie
    that someone is in then to not know what is in their heart.  Jesus is
    the breast plate of righteousness and that breast plate protects the
    heart from Satans fiery darts.  We are not protected by following the 
    law according to our own understanding.  Our hearts are protected by
    Jesus and His righteousness and not our own.  
    
    If you face what is in your heart and receive the revelation that God
    will give to you you will not be deceived nor pushed by any other wind
    and you will not crash to pieces on the rocks.  
    
    No where in my words have I said to reject the scriptures, but the lie
    has been promulgated and implied that this is what I say.  What I say
    is that you can not obey the scriptures unless it is from the heart for
    anything else is of your own strength.  
    
    >>Scripture can't be fully understood by the head, it must sink into the
    >>heart. And certainly God can't be understood with the head.  
    >>Attempts to understand
    >>with the head only provide dull and dead legalism.  We can't pull the
    >>rudder off and use it as a paddle and expect to get anywhere.
    
    	It is far more subtle and destructive than even that.  Our mind can
    convince us that we are truly hearing from the Lord.  It is far worse
    than just dull and dead legalism that no one in here would admit to
    being.  Our minds will convince us that what we know is right and that
    we are alright.  But the truth is we are viciously evil and corrupt and 
    need the Saviour.  Our minds will do whatever it takes to convince us
    that we MUST know the Lord because if we do not then there will be pain
    beyond words.  But this is the pain that must be faced.  I do not know
    God, I am lost, my mind is blind and I am without hope for there is no
    salvation that I can get for myself.  This is death.  You have no
    strength to save yourself.  You must die.
    
    The problem is that the mind of itself will in no wise let you come to
    this point.  It will protect your life to its last breath.  But because
    the Lord loves us He died and has shown us that we must die also. 
    The revelation of Jesus Christ to the heart is the resurrection of
    eternal life in Christ.  Not for just a future event but for right now.
    
    Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. 
    
    >>But cutting loose from the head completely and letting the heart go
    >>wherever it will is a recipe for disaster.  
    
    	The problem is not to cut loose from the head but rather that the
    head comes to accept that there is a heart and it is there that the 
    Lord lives.  The head will not release one to this without the
    revelation from the Lord Jesus.  The head will hold on for control and
    dominance.  As long as the head has dominance, obedience to the Holy
    Spirit will be minimal at best and most definitely skewed.  When the
    head surrenders to the Lordship of Christ the heart is from which the
    Holy Spirit clearly speaks and their is no longer doubt.  It is the
    mind that doubts and the heart that has faith.  
    
    	The disaster is to never know ones own heart, nor Christ that
    resides there.  For one will know both when the heart is faced in
    truth. You can not know one without finding the other.
    
    >>We were given a keel 
    >>and rudder for a purpose.  God will not lead us in ways contrary 
    >>to how He has revealed Himself in Scripture.  He would not have given 
    >>us the Scriptures in the first place if He didn't want us to use them.
    
      The scripture is speaking from the heart of God.  You cannot know
    the scripture without knowing His heart.  Apart from Him you can do 
    nothing.  I am not saying for you to disobey the scripture.  It is a
    shame that I must say that so plainly but it is apparent that without
    being so plain you can not understand.
    
    What does the Lord want from you?  He wants your heart.  You may follow
    the scriptures all that you want but if He does not have your heart
    then He does not know you and you do not know Him.  
    
    Can you understand that I am not saying these words to accuse you of
    these things but rather for you to humble yourself to the Lord and
    ask Him "Is this true of me Lord, show me the Truth in my heart."
    
    >>History has shown that when people cut loose from the rudder, at first
    >>they usually seem to deepen in faith and grow much closer to God.  
    >>Living by faith does that to us.  But what nearly always happens next 
    >>is that a wind blows in from the wrong direction, and people start to 
    >>drift off course.  There is no longer a keel to keep them straight or 
    >>a rudder to steer, and there is no
    >>longer anything to prevent them from being blown about by every wind
    >>that passes by.  Eventually the ship is destroyed.
    
    	Where have I said to cut loose from anything, including the Written
    Word of God. You are behaving according to the denial of your heart. 
    When the heart is not known then the behavoir of people is according to
    the mind with all of its defenses, behaviour patterns, preconcieved
    ideas, preconceptions, filters, etc.  It is quite irratic and will
    react in ways that clearly show that the individual does not yet know
    who they are. These behaviours are based upon what the mind has
    learned, been taught forcefully or subetly, self protection
    programming, safety valves, territorial dominance and other human
    responses.  
    
    The mind doesn't want to be shown it is wrong.  Therefore the heart is
    quitely and continually calling out and when we receive Christ then
    that calling, some call conviction, becomes even more powerful.  It is
    a painful thing for the mind to surrender to the heart but it is
    necessary if one is to hear the Truth that the Spirit of God is
    speaking.  Anything else is head knowledge and is the empty vessels of
    virgins.
    
      There is no fear in Love.  Perfect Love drives out all fear.  The
    words of crashing and destruction though appearing to be wise and
    prudent are more so the reasoning of the mind which is manipulated by fear.
    
    >>I hear your call, Daryl and Bob, to cut the rudder loose, toss it
    >>overboard, and trust to the wind.  Sorry, I will not.  The Lord 
    >>provided this rudder, and I will not reject that which the Lord has 
    >>provided.  And I fear for you,
    >>that what has begun as something beautiful may end up as something
    >>else.
    
    	This is not what I nor Daryl have said at all.  It appears this way
    because we are speaking from the heart.  The mind's reaction to the
    words of the heart is that it is irrational and dangerous and it is to
    one that remains living in their mind.  It is a very small place to live, but
    the heart is filled with Him who is infinite.
    
    	It must also be said that you can do nothing.  You do not have the
    choice to wether you cut the rudder loose, hold onto the rudder with
    all you might or never see a rudder at all.  It is not even for you to
    be able to see the wind let alone trust the wind to carry you.  Only
    the Lord and His mercy would be able to make it so.  You are blind and
    naked and destitute as we all are and only the Lord can make you see,
    cloth you and provide all your needs.  You are powerless and helpless
    and until you see this your mind will make every attempt to hold onto
    your life.  I do not fear for you though for my Trust is in the One who
    holds all things together and you are in His hands.

    Bob,
    
    I am truly saddened by what you have written here.  The contradictions
    are everywhere, yet at the same time I understand the paradox of our
    spirituality.
    
    My concern is that when you trust in your heart, unless it is filled
    with the Word of God, it is deceitful and wicked.  Do you truly believe
    that you know God's Word well enough to give your entire spirituality
    over to heart's directives?
    
    This is a question to which I don't expect an answer here.
    
    Nancy

    I needed to add some other thoughts to this.
    
    What happens when the voice in one's heart contradicts scripture?  Do
    we then rationalize that scripture has been misinterpreted by "others"
    and now through your heart YOU have the correct one?  
    
    One of the other thoughts that go hand in hand is the different
    versions of the Bible our there... I can see this becoming an ever more
    increasing problem as Christian begin to use all these multiple
    versions.  The NIV versus the KJV and quite frankly based on
    discrepancies in the texts I see more and more the entire framework of
    Christianity being undermined!
    
    I am a KJV loyal reader and recommend this version versus any of the
    others.  Why?  Because I am familiar with it?  No, becaues I "trust"
    it.  I believe that that the KJV was offered to us by our Lord.  There
    is no other version of the Bible that as the cost associated with its
    making as the writers of the KJV.  People gave their lives for it.  I
    believe God honored those who risked everything for putting His word in
    the hand of His creation.
    
    Nancy

    
    >>I am truly saddened by what you have written here.
    
    	Why?
    
    >>The contradictions are everywhere, yet at the same time I 
    >>understand the paradox of our spirituality.
    
    	I would ask that you point out the contradictions that 
    appear everywhere in what I have written.
    
    	Please explain what paradoxes of spirituality you are
    refering to?
    
    >> My concern is that when you trust in your heart, 
    >> unless it is filled with the Word of God, it is deceitful and wicked.
    >> Do you truly believe that you know God's Word 
    >>well enough to give your entire spirituality
    >>over to heart's directives?
    
    >>This is a question to which I don't expect an answer here.
    
    	By know the Word are you speaking of a head knowledge,
    	chapter and verse, quote memory verses type knowing.  Or are
    	you speaking of the intimate knowing of the Truth that is a 
    	person and not a principle, that person being the Word of
    	God, Jesus Christ.  
    
    	I surrender my entire being to Christ and do not rely upon my
    	own understanding of the Written Word for I have found my
    	understanding, no matter how revelatory and profound it to be
    	no better than dung.  My own study and research and knowledge 
    	brought me no closer to the Lord no matter what it was I was 
    	shown, even by the Lord.  All that it did was exasperate my mind
    	and leave my heart longing for the oneness with the Lord.
    
    	Here is the truth.  When the Lord reveals your heart to you you
    	will find only one Directive.  I repeat, one and only one directive
    	will permeate your entire life and all other things will become
    	irrelevant.  You WILL Love the Lord with all your heart and soul
    	and mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself.  You will know
    	it experientially.  The Lord and you will be intimate and you will
    	know Him.  
        
    
    	I have been asked many questions and now the Lord has 
    	said that I am to ask questions now and these are they:
    
    	
    	Do you believe that Jesus Christ dwells in you by the
    	Holy Spirit? If you do then is He not the Word of God?
    	Do you believe that He will reveal Himself to you?
    	Will you surrender and be led to death so that He might
    	raise you from the dead? Will you face the pain that is
    	in your heart and not rely upon your mind to be free
    	from that pain through justification, manipulation and
    	escape?
    	Will you release all things that you have in this world
    	and the world of your mind that you seek comfort in and
    	only seek the comfort of the comforter, the Holy Spirit?
    
    	These are not questions that you need to answer to me
    	but someday you will need to face them and answer them
    	with the Lord.
    
    	Bob 

    
    I have gone aside to pray and as I did the
    Lord spoke to my heart and said,
    
    "Be Gentle with them"
    
    So I apologize for my lack of being gentle and ask
    your forgiveness.  May the Lord grant me the heart
    knowing to obey Him in being gentle with you.
    
    

RE: <<< Note 795.395 by SOLVIT::POLAND >>>

        Bob, you have revealed many things to us, and we are edified by
        much of what you say, but why do you think that nobody has been
        confronted with these questions before?  I pray that I will answer
        them truthfully from my heart.

>>    	Do you believe that Jesus Christ dwells in you by the
>>    	Holy Spirit?

	Yes.

>>	If you do then is He not the Word of God?

	Yes, He is the Living Word of God.

>>    	Do you believe that He will reveal Himself to you?

	I believe that He has and does and will reveal Himself to me, as
	often as I can get myself off the throne and in my heart be
	prostrate before Him.

>>    	Will you surrender and be led to death so that He might
>>    	raise you from the dead?

        I made this commitment the day I gave my life over to Him.  I know
        that I am *NOT* perfect in keeping this covenant with my Lord, and
        I find myself every morning asking His forgiveness and direction.

>>      Will you face the pain that is in your heart and not rely upon your
>>      mind to be free from that pain through justification, manipulation
>>      and escape?

	I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.  Please rephrase.

>>    	Will you release all things that you have in this world
>>    	and the world of your mind that you seek comfort in and
>>    	only seek the comfort of the comforter, the Holy Spirit?

	I believe that I have done this, though it is not a constant state
	with me, yet. 

>>    	These are not questions that you need to answer to me
>>    	but someday you will need to face them and answer them
>>    	with the Lord.
    
        I am not answering these questions to you, but I have faced them,
	and I do answer them with the Lord, as He reminds me daily of my
	shortcomings.
	
        I have read of the martyrs who gave their lives for the Truth of
        God.  They were burned, drowned (the "Third Baptism"), beheaded,
        shot through with arrows.  I have seen real live people today
        who've martyred their own interests on behalf of their neigbors' or
        their Savior's.
	
        When I received the gift of Salvation, it was explained to me that
        Jesus would be my Lord, that I would have to listen for His voice
        always, that I would give up many things in this world, that I
        would change many things in my life, and in how I relate to others. 
        I did not really believe that this would be so.  Over the five
        short years since I met my Saviour, however, these things have come
        to pass, and I expect there is more in the offing.  Indeed, there
	are times when, in the flesh, I take a step or two backwards, but
	God is faithful and just.

	In peace,
		TonyC
		
	

I don't think there's much more for me to say, Bob.

I am not passing judgement on you, I pray for you that the course you are
following keeps you in the Lord's will.  I fear for you that it may not.

I keep trying to affirm that I agree with *nearly* everything you say.  The
turning of the heart to the Lord, the trusting Him in everything, the
listening to His Word in our hearts and following it.  Yet you keep coming
back with "you have not grasped anything that I have said."

The *only* thing I disagree with is the exclusivity of listening to the
heart.  We must be guided by the still small voice that says "This is the
way, walk in it" (Is 30).  I absolutely agree, and am living by that in ways
that I don't share in this conference.  But we must heed that we are not led
out of the boundaries laid by the Word.  Not in legalism, but in loving
obedience.

>you must give up all things and be willing to face 
>    suffering that you might learn the obedience of Christ

If only you knew.  Really, Bob, you ought not to make such condescending
statements when you really know nothing about me.

Paul

    
    Tony C.
    
    >>Bob, you have revealed many things to us, and we are edified by
    >>much of what you say, but why do you think that nobody has been
    >>confronted with these questions before?  I pray that I will
    >>answer them truthfully from my heart.
    
    	As I asked the questions it never occurred to me that anyone
    	who reads them have not been confronted by these questions
    	before.  They are simple questions and most likely everyone 
    	has considered them and has arrived at answers according to
    	what is in their heart.  To bring the dynamic of Belief into
    	questions one can ask with words will come forth in belief
    	to the revelation that is within the one who hears and asks
    	for themself.
    
    	I believe that your answers were from your heart and trust
    	the Lord for you in all things.  He is worthy of our trust
    	for He will not leave us nor forsake us.
    
    

Snarf?

    The heart is the small still voice, it is Jesus who is the Word, it is
    the Comforter and the Father.  If you go astray your not following 
    this heart.  
    
    I liked the sailboat image too.  But I don't think that Bob and Daryl 
    were saying to abandon the keel or the rudder, they are saying to
    throw the self/mind overboard and to fully count on the keel and rudder
    to guide the boat.  
    
    I like hearing from Bob and Daryl (and Wayne too who has been awfully
    quiet today).  The Lord used some of their teachings to talk to me.  
    I grew an emormous amount this weekend.  Praise God.  This latest 
    strand has been speaking to me also.
    
    Now there is a place for gentleness.  Actually the line I've been
    hearing lately, which is related, is "Please don't lead my sheep astray."
    
    Jill2

      Bob,
    
        Just wondering.  Have you gone behind the veil yet?  Have
        you seen the "very image" that is referred to in Hebrews 
        10:1-4 (specifically verse 1)?
    
        If so, what effect did it produce in you?
    
    						Thanks,
    
    						Tony

    
    Paul,
    
    >>I am not passing judgement on you, I pray for you that the course you
    >>are following keeps you in the Lord's will.  I fear for you that it 
    >>may not.
    
    	I know that you are not passing judgement upon me.  I also know
    	why you and I have had what could be called the most intense
    	confrontation.  You and I are much alike.  Your personality and
    	mine are very similar, more than you know.  
    
    	It has been 20 years that I have seeked for the Lord Jesus. 20
    years ago the Lord revealled Himself to me and has not forsaken me
    since.  I have suffered many things because of Him and have done many
    things that He has called me to do.  Through it all I found that I was 
    indeed in the will of God and though I thought it possible and most
    probable that I was not in in will I have found that it is now not
    possible for me to not be in His will.  I have no fear of where the
    Lord will lead me or what HE will require of me.  Perfect Love drives
    out all fear. I am made perfect in Love.  All things work together for
    good to them that love the Lord , to them that are the called according
    to His purpose.  To whom else shall I go, for only Jesus has the Words
    of eternal life.  Do not fear for me, but pray for me that I may know
    Him and see Him as He is.  For my desire is to be joined with Him as 
    His bride, to be made one with Him.  To Love Him with the infinite,
    eternal Love He gives to me.
    
    >>I keep trying to affirm that I agree with *nearly* everything you say. 
    >>The turning of the heart to the Lord, the trusting Him in everything, 
    >>the listening to His Word in our hearts and following it.  Yet you keep
    >>coming back with "you have not grasped anything that I have said." 
    
    	I hear your affirmations and I appreciate them.  But I am searching
    deeper, into your heart for Paul and Christ in Him.  Shall I walk away?
    Shall I cease to find Paul?  Shall I stop seeking for the truth that is
    in your heart?  I am willing to be rejected and reprimanded by you if
    it means that I hear what is really in your heart and perhaps you hear
    it as well in the process.  That is what friendship truly is.  This is
    what Jesus did with His disciples.  He challenged them to face who they
    were by facing who He was.
    
    >>The *only* thing I disagree with is the exclusivity of listening to the
    >>heart.  We must be guided by the still small voice that says "This is
    >>the way, walk in it" (Is 30).  I absolutely agree, and am living by that in
    >>ways that I don't share in this conference.  But we must heed that we are
    >>not led out of the boundaries laid by the Word.  Not in legalism, but in 
    >>loving obedience.  
    
    	The heart is where the still small voice of God speaks from.  That
    still small voice will never tell you to sin.  But the Lord may lead
    you down a treacherous and seemingly contradictory road and then at
    His time, His moment say, Stop for I have provided a ram in the
    thicket.  Even as Abraham would offer up Issac.  He had to travel that
    road and go through that process.  Even though everything would say 
    "This is not the God I know that would require me to sacrifice my only 
    son.  This is not something the God I know would even ask"  But the
    Lord will ask you and He will deliever you as He did Issac and Abraham.
    
    >>you must give up all things and be willing to face
    >>suffering that you might learn the obedience of Christ
    
    >If only you knew.  Really, Bob, you ought not to make such
    >condescending statements when you really know nothing about me.
    
    	I know your pain and I also know the pain you will face soon and
    I know that pain better than you do right now.  My prayer is that pain
    will bring you to a state of being that is helpless and broken and
    weak, unable to stand upon your own two feet or lean on your own
    understanding any longer.  This is the mercy of the Lord to bring you
    to this for He loves you and has chosen you to know the revelation of
    which I speak.  As you face the trial you are about to face which is
    more than a continuation of what you have already been facing, it will
    bring out more pain than what you have presently known, it is all by
    the hand of God, He has ordained it though it appear to be sin to you.
    
    Obedience is learned by suffering and the Lord has been preparing you
    through the suffering you have faced.  Now here is the hard word.  Do
    not judge that one that has brought such great pain to you for it is
    by the will of God that this is come.  The Lord desires you Paul Weiss
    and there is nothing that will stand in His way.  You will know your
    heart through this great pain and you will understand all the words
    that I have said in this conference.
    
    

    Bob,
    
    I want to say to you, Praise be to God if you are at a place in your
    walk where you feel oneness with God.  If you can now say that you have
    been perfected to be able to totally rely on your heart for direction,
    KNOWING that God is speaking and that you know the counterfeit when
    presented to you, then you have by far outgrown most of us.
    
    I believe in the Bible there is a scripture that says something to the
    effect of "quit shoving hamburgers in my baby's mouth!" :-)  BTW, I
    could have spoken to my child on the joys of using the potty versus a
    diaper but until he is ready to use the potty, it didn't do much good.  
    
    Do you understand how condescending it sounds for you to say the Lord
    told you to be gentle with us???? :-)  Anyway, if in fact He did say
    this and you have outgrown us then I hope you will remember that
    shoving hamburger down a baby's throat only chokes them.
    
    Nancy

    Jill,
    
    Yes, in fact Jesus is the Word.  But by what do you know this to be
    true?

    He told me so.

    How did he tell you?

It is difficult for me that I cannot participate more frequently in this
conversation, but I am content and thankful that it is going just as the Lord
directs. Bob is serving very well as the Lord's mouthpiece, and I am thankful
to the Lord for that also. I do wish to tie up a few loose ends so that there
will be no misconceptions (hopefully), but in doing so, I wish to emphasize
that I will not enter into an intellectual discussion. Such discussions are
without fruit, because knowledge gained from such discussions puffs one up, and
I am much more interested in building you all up with love. I have neither a
need nor a desire to prove myself "right". I do not know anything as I ought
anyway, and neither does anyone else (please forgive me if this is hard to
receive, but it is the truth). I will speak and listen only from my heart, so
that you will know from where I am coming.

Re: .385, Tony B.

Tony, dear brother, I do not discount Romans 4 or any part of the Bible. On the
contrary, God is in the process of writing it ever more completely and
indelibly on my heart just as I have asked in faithful, believing prayer, in
accordance with Proverbs 2:1-11 and 3:1-6. And it is all, in its entirety,
summed up in the loving of God with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength
and in the loving of my neighbor as myself. This is only possible through
personally knowing and becoming united with the Lord Jesus, Who is my Savior.
And believe me, He has shown me something of just how much I need a Savior...
Dying is a very painful and humbling process.

In response to your suggestion to look at Romans 4, rather than to debate
Scripture with you, I am led to suggest in turn that you look at Romans 3 and
then look at Romans 4 in that light. Lean not on your own present
understanding. A man is justified by faith in the present, for faith is
believing in what we hope for and being certain of what we do not see. It is
what I do by faith now that pleases God, not what I believe will happen when
Christ returns. I say to you that it is entirely possible to live a life on
this earth very close to that led by the Lord Jesus Himself, a life of unity
with the Father. In fact, you will see this happen. Please forgive these hard
words, but they must be said: at that time, you will have a choice whether or
not to continue pursuing God from your own understanding or reject that
understanding and receive this new revelation of Him in your heart with the
faith of a child. My heartfelt prayer is that you will do the latter, because I
can feel that your heart longs for Him greatly.

Re: .386, Tony B. again,

Please be assured that I was not questioning Tony C.'s heart-motive, as you put
it. Quoting Scripture from one's head is no reflection of the state of the
heart. It simply indicates that they have not yet been connected with their
heart by the revelation of Jesus and have not learned to speak its language
(which is entirely different from the language of the head). On the contrary, I
was saying that in spite of that I perceive the beauty of the depth of Tony
C.'s love for the Lord from his heart and am thankful to God for it. My prayer
is that the Lord would grant the connection!

Re: .387, Paul,

To Bob's replies, I have only one question to add. Do you believe that the Lord
God Almighty is truly sovereign? To believe this is to believe that He has
permitted, for His wonderful purposes, every single thing that has happened in
all of Creation, ever. Is He truly God?

Re: .390, Tony, C.

I'm glad that there was no offense taken! I hope that this continues to be the
case. :-)

And I'm also very glad that you brought up the context of Ephesians 2:14-16! I
almost did that myself in my previous response but was led not to, and now I
see why. Praise God!

Ephesians 2 speaks of much more than just the present disposition of the law,
as you pointed out. It also speaks of the uniting of the Gentiles with the Jews
in the sacrificed body of Jesus. The Lord has shown me that we are each two
people that are at war with each other inside of ourselves -- thus the Romans 7
struggle. The unruly, rebellious, sinful side represents the Gentiles, and the
gentle, loving side represents the Jews. This is the harsh reality that we must
face in our hearts if we are to truly see Jesus, for it is by His sacrifice
that the two are reconciled and united in Him and presented before the Father
as holy and blameless even though we are as yet imperfect. He no longer sees us
that way. This is part of how He sets us free from the law of sin and death. It
is by grace through faith, both of which are gifts from God so that no one can
boast.

If I claim to follow the law, then I will be judged by it. If I break the least
of them, I stand irredeemably condemned. But by God's mercy, I am now set free
from the consequences of my sin and may experience a greater and greater level
of unity with Jesus. As that unity increases, so will my obedience to the law,
not because I seek to obey the law, but because I love Jesus. Jesus within me
is the fulfillment of the law, so obedience to the law will become increasingly
natural for me. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light!

Re: .394, Nancy,

In answer to your question, one trusts that God is sovereign and will work in
all things for the good of those that love Him, just as He promised. We may
have some hard lessons to learn, and it may be that the only way to learn them
is by going through them the hard way. God knows and is faithful; He will never
abandon us but will encourage us to keep our eyes on Him each step of the way.
He Who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete it. He directs all
of our steps regardless of our will.

Also, please remember that even the KJV is a translation. The Holy Spirit wrote
the Bible, and the Bible cannot be understood, in any translation, apart from
His inspiration and revelation. However, *with* His inspiration, any version
can be used to lead a person to Him. Even the NWT is not totally successful in
denying the deity of Jesus Christ. So while trusting in the KJV is good,
trusting in the author of the Bible is better, because the establishment of
that trust is the purpose for which the Bible was given to us. That is what all
whom God called righteous did who lived before the Bible was written. God is
the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Re: .401 et. al., Jill

Thank you, dear sister, for your notes. I hear your heart, and it is beautiful.

Re: .407, Nancy,

I wouldn't presume to speak for Jill, but if I may answer your question for
myself, would you consider reading Romans 10:9-10?

In His love,

-- Daryl

RE: <<< Note 795.408 by EDSCLU::GLEASON "Daryl Gleason, IBM I/C Support" >>>

>> If I claim to follow the law, then I will be judged by it. If I break the
>> least of them, I stand irredeemably condemned. But by God's mercy, I am
>> now set free from the consequences of my sin and may experience a greater
>> and greater level of unity with Jesus. As that unity increases, so will my
>> obedience to the law, not because I seek to obey the law, but because I
>> love Jesus. Jesus within me is the fulfillment of the law, so obedience to
>> the law will become increasingly natural for me. His yoke is easy, and His
>> burden is light!

        Daryl, on this I agree with you 100%.  However, I disagree that
        God's law has been abolished.  Else, what commandments are we
        to obey?  And how are we to be convicted of sin?

        I cannot of my own strength obey the law. The law helps me identify
        sin in my life, as revealed to me one step at a time by faithful
        and gentle Holy Ghost.  Without the law, there would be no sin.
        While we are set free from the eternal consequences of our sin
        (eternal separation from God), God through Holy Ghost reveals our
        sin to us in order that we may change our walk to more closely
        match that of Jesus, who is perfect in all His ways.

        We also agree that revelation is brought to the believer only
        through Holy Ghost speaking to the believer's heart, and not
        through any head knowledge picked up from reading the Word. Let me
        assure you, that the convictions I am living today are based on
        both direct revelation in prayer, and God speaking to my heart
        through His holy Scripture. Almost all of the things I have
        forsaken or new things I am doing, I have done after first
        resisting the leading of the Spirit of God. Most of the things I
        count as dung today were things I cherished in the past. Most of
        the things I do now I once thought were foolish or unnecessary.

        In submission to His will in these matters, there was peace, and
        beyond peace, there was blessing. I believe that I was led by Holy
        Ghost, from time to time, to share some of these convictions and
        blessings with my brothers and sisters. Not all my postings have
	been edifying, nor have all of them been posted without inflicting
	some pain.  But, faithful are the wounds of a friend, dear brother.

	God's peace to you,
		TonyC
		

    
    <<< Note 795.402 by YIELD::BARBIERI >
    -< A Question for Bob Poland >-
    
    >>Bob,
    >>Just wondering.  Have you gone behind the veil yet?  Have
    >>you seen the "very image" that is referred to in Hebrews
    >>10:1-4 (specifically verse 1)?
    
    First may I say that based on some of the things that are
    being said people are assuming that I am saying that I am
    perfected in totality.  This is not the case in the way that
    the mind can understand.  The mind wants uniformity and 
    compartmentilization.  It can be extreme in its correlation
    of information. Black or white is its best options.  Do or
    don't, right or wrong, good or bad, etc.   Therefore perfection
    either is or it isn't based upon the mind's perspective.  
    
    This is walking by sight but the heart is designed to be 
    fulfilled in walking by faith and there is great joy and
    the abundant life in the hearts freedo to do so.
    
    The answer to your question is Yes.
    
    The specific verse you are refering to reads:
    
    For the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the 
    very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which
    they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto
    perfect. Heb 10:1
    
    To answer with scripture, that not only have I seen the very image
    but it is for all to enter in to see the very image of God.  He will
    not hold himself back from any who seek Him when they come with
    a true heart.
    
    Having therefore, bretheren, boldness to enter into the holiest
    by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath 
    consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh;
    And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near
    with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
    sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with
    pure water.  Heb 10:19-22
    
        And so, dear brothers, now we may walk right into the very
    	holy of holies where God is, because of the blood of Jesus.
    	This is the fresh, new, life-giving way which Christ has
    	opened up for us by tearing the curtain -His human body- to
    	let us into the Holy presense of God.
    	And since the great High Priest of ours rules over God's
    	household, let us go right in, to God himself, with true 
    	hearts fully trusting him to receive us, because we have 
    	been sprinkled with Christ's blood to make us clean, and 
    	because our bodies have been washed with pure water.
    	Now we can look forward to the salvation God has promised 
    	us.  There is no longer any room for doubt, and we can tell
    	others that salvation is ours, for there is no question that
    	he will do what He says.
    	
    This is not just words it is to be known and experienced Today
    in your hearts.  That sin which so easily besets us is put aside
    for:   
    
    	From Romans 6
    
    	For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under
    the law, but under grace.  
    
    	We must die.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.  
    
    	There is only one place all of this can be known and that is in
    the heart.  You must believe with your heart.
    
    	But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have 
    obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
    
        That form of doctrine is the Gospel which is what I have spoken of
    in this conference. The good news that Jesus died and was resurrected
    from the dead.  And you also may die and be resurrected to that newness
    of life.  That newness of life is in your hearts by faith.
    
    
    	>>If so, what effect did it produce in you?
    
    	Entering the Holy of Holies and seeing the Lord is to die and
    	be resurrected again.  The effect it produced in me was one of awe
    	and wonder with many other emotions and feeling and thoughts.  But 
    	if what you are asking is what Affect it produced in me that would 
    	be described in the limited words of free from sin and free to love. 
    	No ulterior motives from the mind, just pure obedience, which is
    	to obey His commandment to Love from the heart without having to do 
    	it, because, one becomes it.  It is no longer I that live but Christ 
    	that lives in me.
    
    	Walking in the Spirit is not a doing, it is a becoming.  
    
    	This is for all that would come to Him with a true heart.  A true
    	heart is one that is faced with all that is within it.  

Thanks, Bob.  I hear and understand much of what you are saying, more than
perhaps it has seemed that I have understood.  For example, you say this:

>it is all by
>    the hand of God, He has ordained it though it appear to be sin to you. 

I've always understood this.  I've always understood that the Lord may allow
some things that are clearly sinful in order to accomplish a greater purpose.
When Joseph talked to his brothers after the family's restoration, he said
"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good."  (Gen 50:20) I note
that he doesn't say "You intended to harm me, but God used that situation for
good."  No, Joseph says that God *intended* this situation.  God didn't just
let Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery, God *intended* that this would
happen.  I very much understand that in my current life situation this is
also true.

>Now here is the hard word.  Do
>    not judge that one that has brought such great pain to you for it is
>    by the will of God that this is come.

Just because "God has ordained it" doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't
sin.  Joseph's brothers still sinned by doing what they did, even though it
fit into the larger picture of God's will.  They still intended it for evil,
and are accountable for that intent.  God did not drive them to it - He does
not tempt or drive anyone to sin (James 1:13).  But God may very well
withdraw His strength and support in certain situations, causing collapse
into sin when that collapse serves a greater purpose in His plan.  I've
experienced that in my own life.  Of course Jesus forgave his brothers,
partly because he understood that God had intended this to happen.

So the fact that things which appear very much to be outside His will may in
fact be within his larger will, I am very much with you on.  I don't really
think you and I are in 'intense confrontation.'  I think we are mostly very
much in agreement.  But the place where I must continue to speak against what
you say is this:

>I have found that it is now not possible for me to not be in His will.

There are simply too many warnings from the lips of Jesus himself, and
throughout the rest of the New Testament, against being taken in by deception
and led away from the truth for me to go with you here, to claiming that it
is impossible to be outside God's will.  The Word is *FILLED* with such
warnings, it would take pages and pages just to list them all.  Choosing just
one, from 1John 1:8: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and
the truth is not in us."

It is most certainly possible for us to be out of His will.  His Word
proclaims that if we try to deny this, "we make Him out to be a liar" 
(1John 1:10)

If we continue to turn to Him and seek Him, He will fully reveal Himself to
us, He will mold us into His likeness, He will cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.  But to begin to believe that we cannot be OUT of his will
any longer simply is not in accord with the Word.

Paul

>I have found that it is now not possible for me to not be in His will.

	Bob, by this, do you mean that even when you do sin, you do so
	because God permits it, and it fits into His design?

	TonyC
	

From Wayne "who has been awfully quiet today":

Hi, Jill.  I have always been comfortable with silence, particularly my own,
ever since I can remember.  My silence has proven conducive to my best hearing.
I've benefitted greatly from scripture's directive to be "slow to speak and
quick to listen."

I'm not impelled to address either Bob's or Daryl's statements in terms of
affirmation or criticism.  Much of what they say rings true.  I have been
challenged to reconsider what "walking by faith" really means.

My difficulty in relating to Bob's and Daryl's words is that they elicit an
image somewhat removed from my experience of life and Godliness.  I see myself
as not having yet attained the ultimate goal of my salvation, but very much
excited about running the race set before me.  My present understanding is that
only Jesus Christ lived (or could live) in the flesh without sin.  He is able to
succor us because He understands, verily identifies with, our infirmities.  I
know He understands because I've seen His strength perfected in my weakness,
and through His Holy Spirit I've been privileged to catch at least a glimpse of
His suffering on the cross.  I've been brought to tears on several occasions
just trying to contemplate what Christ felt when, not knowing sin, He actually
became my sin to endure God's wrath.  I long for the day when my faith becomes
(physical) sight, when I can look Jesus in the eyes and ask "why did you die
for me?", hear Him answer "because I love you", then to fully grasp His work in
me and to embrace Him with unbounded gratitude and reciprocated love, and then
hear Him say "well done thou good and faithful servant."  What joy shall fill my
heart!  And then to be able to share His joy as He presents me to our Father
without fault or blemish!

I just cannot completely identify with Bob or Daryl yet.  I can validate most,
but not all, of their words with my experience.  I still struggle with sinning,
but the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit, in my heart, if you will, that
I will be like Christ when my faith becomes sight to see Him as He is.  That is
the hope which now purifies me.

I've yet to meet anyone in whom I've seen Jesus more clearly than their flesh,
but that might be because of the company I keep! :-)  But, I have met folks
through whom Jesus has clearly and powerfully revealed His love to me and
others, and that doesn't happen unless they're new creatures in Christ.  I've
not had the privilege to meet either Bob or Daryl.  The beauty of their words is
compelling, but their words present a work of God's grace that I've yet to
experience, i.e., untouched by sinning.  I stipulate, though, that my present
experience may be limited by my not expecting to see sinless perfection in
another creature like me until Christ Himself appears "as He is."

As for me, I still rely on the written Word of God as the Touchstone for Truth.
My present conscious awareness says I use my mind to correlate reality with the
Word of God, and the Holy Spirit commends truth in my heart.  I hear the "still,
small voice" to sometimes test my experience in lieu of a specific verse or
passage of scripture coming immediately to mind, but the Holy Spirit always
testifies of the Word of God; therefore, the voice "heard" in my heart when my
experience if fully reconciled must never contradict the written Word.  I've
learned to trust my heart to the degree my perceptions and experience have been
verified, often in retrospect, using the written Word of God.  Of course, the
power of memorizing scripture is evident--I don't have to wait for ex post facto
verification!

What gives me pause in Bob's and Daryl's words is my belief that if I've chosen
to place my faith in Christ and reckon His Holy Spirit to indwell me, then I
can in fact sanctify Christ in my heart by obeying His voice without having to
concurrently understand it.  In other words, God will honor my obedience by
faith apart from my ability to make rational sense, shortcircuiting the mind,
if you will.  The faith is depending on God to know my heart and to lead me in
the paths of righteousness, using even my mistakes to accomplish His will.

I guess the crux of my struggle is why did God give us a mind if not to be used?
I think I heard Bob and Daryl say that faith precedes sight, i.e., that leading
can happen before understanding.  I need to ponder these things.

I continue to hold that as the Spirit and the Word must be taken as one, so our
heart and soul and mind are to be one.  What to do as we're being wholly
sanctified, though?  My comfort comes the assurance that as long as I'm worrying
about this stuff and yearning to be like Christ, then Christ is indeed at work
in me.  I may not feel perfect, but God says I will be, not by my works but
according to His.  And, my mind is part of me and, as such, is also being
sanctified--God will NOT waste my mind!

/Wayne

P.S.  I think the answer Nancy wanted is that God's written Word, objective
Truth, if you will, says that Jesus is the Word.  The written Word also says
that the Holy Spirit bears witness of the Word.  The Word and the Spirit must
be taken as one.  The Word without the Spirit cannot be understood, and the
Spirit without the Word cannot be known.

    
    >>Thanks, Bob.  I hear and understand much of what you are saying, more
    >>than perhaps it has seemed that I have understood.
    
    	I do not doubt that you understand these things.  You are an
    intelligent person who has a good capacity to read and understand 
    the bible and to learn from the study and experience of others that
    is shared with you through teaching and preaching and other forms
    of communication as well as revelations of knowledge that the Lord
    gives to you directly.  All of this is good and useful but there is
    more.  The question becomes that no matter what we have are we 
    ready to surrender all of that for Christ. 
    
    >>Now here is the hard word.  Do
    >>not judge that one that has brought such great pain to you for it
    >>is by the will of God that this is come.
    
    >Just because "God has ordained it" doesn't necessarily mean that it
    >isn't sin.  Joseph's brothers still sinned by doing what they did, 
    >even though it fit into the larger picture of God's will.  
    >They still intended it for evil, and are accountable for that intent.  
    >God did not drive them to it - He does not tempt or drive anyone to 
    >sin (James 1:13).  But God may very well
    >withdraw His strength and support in certain situations, causing
    >collapse into sin when that collapse serves a greater purpose in 
    >His plan.  I've experienced that in my own life.  Of course Jesus 
    >forgave his brothers, partly because he understood that God had 
    >intended this to happen.
    
    	It is true that because God has ordained it and it is His
    sovereign will it will provide no escape for those who have done
    evil and are in sin.  All will be held accountable for all that they
    have thought and said and done.  There will be no exceptions.
    
    We are but clay pots and are subject totally to the potter.  Some are
    vessels of glory and some are vessels fit for destruction.  So it is
    not him that willeth nor him that runneth but God who shows mercy.
    
    But in my words I am not speaking of the sin of others but that you
    not judge for it is God who will repay.  He is the judge and you are
    commanded to judge not.  
    
    >>So the fact that things which appear very much to be outside His will
    >>may in fact be within his larger will, I am very much with you on.  
    >>I don't really think you and I are in 'intense confrontation.'  
    >>I think we are mostly very much in agreement.   
    
    	All things are His Will for He is God and there is no other.  All
    that He does is pure and there is no sin in it nor in Him.  
    
    	I also do not believe that we are in 'intense confrontation'.  What
    	I said was:
    
    	>>>I also know why you and I have had what could be called the most 
    	>>>intense confrontation.
    
    	I said this because others have seen it this way in other notes, it
    	could be described as this because I sense it as the most intense
    	of anyone else I have communicated with in this conference thus it
    	could be called this.  However one may chose to call it other
    	things as well.  Let me assure you I do not feel that I am in
    	confrontation with you.  I am simply speaking what the Lord gives
    	me to give and have no agenda nor ulterior motives nor do I seek
    	anything for myself.
    
    	But let me be honest I have received, though you have agreed with 
    	much of what I have said, there is resistance coming from you and
    	that is intense.  It is expressed in the following:
    
    >>But the place where I must continue to speak against what
    >>you say is this:
    
    >>>I have found that it is now not possible for me to not be in His will.
    
      >>There are simply too many warnings from the lips of Jesus himself,
    >>and throughout the rest of the New Testament, against being taken in 
    >>by deception and led away from the truth for me to go with you here, 
    >>to claiming that it is impossible to be outside God's will.  The Word 
    >>is *FILLED* with such warnings, it would take pages and pages just to 
    >>list them all. Choosing just one, from 1John 1:8: "If we claim to be 
    >>without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
    
      Do you believe that Jesus would have fallen into deceptions and led
    from the truth.  Do you believe that the Apostles would have or Paul, 
    would he.  I do not believe that any of them would have because they
    knew the truth of Jesus Christ in thier hearts.  They were transformed
    in the inner man.  The bible was written for all people wherever they
    are in their life with God.   It is written to the carnal man.
    The man that has heard of Christ and wants to believe but is still
    locked in his mind and is struggling with the flesh and the dominance
    of sin. It is written to the spiritual man who knows Christ for he has
    died and has the enlightenment of the heart, the eyes of his
    understanding have been enlightened.  The spiritual man is not decieved
    nor led from the truth because his heart and the truth are one.
    
    Now the natural man has no revelation concerning Christ.  He is a brute
    beast and follows his instincts.  But the carnal man, having a
    knowledge of Christ but not a knowledge that connects to his own heart.
    He will seek to know God by his own strength and by the law.  He is
    tossed about with every wind of doctrine.  Is it good then that he
    cling with all of his might to what little he can grasp of the
    scripture.  But he is locked in to trying to fulfill the law.  There
    is more from God.  The spiritual man is free, set free by the truth
    that Jesus gives to the heart.  Then the written word becomes more than
    the law, more than just words, it is the confirmation of the prophets
    and the affirmation that the same Holy Spirit that was in them is
    indeed in you and confirms to you that what was written was not the
    words of men but the testimony of God by His Spirit.  You are no longer
    outside the Word you and the Word become one by that self same Spirit.
    
    I John 1:8 is written to one who rejects that they are a sinner, it is
    written to one who refuses to face the truth in their heart that they
    are evil and corrupt and do not need the saviour.
    
    But I John 1:9 is written to one that submits thier heart to God and 
    confesses that without Christ they are lost and they are a sinner.  If 
    one comes to this and confesses then He is faithful and forgives and
    cleanses us from all unrighteousness.  We are cleansed and forgiven.  
    We must believe we are cleansed and made righteous in Christ.
    
    The Lord does not desire that we continue in sin and He provides
    the way of death that we not continue in sin.  The resurrection is
    to come into the light of Christ and to be free from sin.
    
    	And ye know that He was manifested to take away our
    	sins; and in Him is no sin.
    	Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth
    	hath not seen him, neither known Him.
    	
    	I John 3:5-6
    
    	But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
    	we have fellowship one with another, and the blood
    	of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
    
    	I John 1:7
    
    	I have sinned but now I am cleansed from my sin
    	by the blood of Jesus Christ and am made righteous
    	by His righteousness.
    
    >>It is most certainly possible for us to be out of His will.  His Word
    >>proclaims that if we try to deny this, "we make Him out to be a liar"
    >>(1John 1:10) 	
    
    	The vessels of wrath are in God's will as well as the prophets, the
    	saints and those that fear the name of the Lord.
    
    	They are lost and are without the salvation of Christ. But they are
    	fulfilling the Will of God.  God's will does not mean that there
    will not be those who do not have the word in them and who do not lie
    against the truth.  You are equating God's Will with the actions and
    direction of people's lives.  God wills some to perish and some to 
    have eternal life, it is by His mercy only that any are saved.
    
    The difference that I speak of is as day and night, light and darkness.
    
    Are we in the light or are we in darkness?  Are we cleansed from sin
    or are we liars.  Every man is accountable to Christ.  But all is in
    the will of the Almighty God.
    
    I would ask that you show me in the scriptures that anything that is
    described therein is stated to be out of the will of God.
    
    And consider these scriptures as well:
    
    Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of
    Israel.
    - I Chronicles 21:1
    
    Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He incited
    David
    against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
    - II Samuel 24:1
    
    	All things are by the will of God for He is soveriegn.
    
    To surrender to Him and die to self is to know that all things are
    His will and there is comfort from the Holy Ghost for the struggle 
    against the inevitable is ended. You enter into His Rest.

    >P.S.  I think the answer Nancy wanted is that God's written Word,
    >objective Truth, if you will, says that Jesus is the Word.  The written 
    >Word also says that the Holy Spirit bears witness of the Word.  The Word 
    >and the Spirit must be taken as one.  The Word without the Spirit cannot 
    >be understood, and the Spirit without the Word cannot be known.
    
    Bingo!
    
    

    Wayne,
    
    I think you have written my heart on this subject.  Every word in your
    note rings as my own thoughts.
    
    I do not mind being challenged to "deepen" my relationship with the
    Lord, but I do rebel against being told that my current status is
    lesser than where someone else is.  It may very well be, but I am not
    being encouraged by being told I'm cerebral and no heart.
    
    

    Hi Nancy -
    
    > the Word and the spirit must be taken as one.
    
    I thought I said this many notes back when I said to throw the
    mind/self overboard and to fully rely on the rudder and kneel.
    If I remember correctly (its been a long day) one was the Word
    and the other was the Spirit.
    
    Actually I thought you were asking the more interesting question of
    how can one *know* when its really the Spirit, when its really God?
    
    Jill2

Re: Note 795.408

>Re: .385, Tony B.

>Tony, dear brother, I do not discount Romans 4 or any part of the Bible. 

 Well, in the spirit of a scripture you quoted, 1 Corin 8:2 "If any man
 thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know", I
 support a posture that we all discount all of the Bible to one extent
 or another because as we look at it, we look through a glass darkly.

>In response to your suggestion to look at Romans 4, rather than to debate
>Scripture with you, I am led to suggest in turn that you look at Romans 3 and
>then look at Romans 4 in that light. Lean not on your own present
>understanding. A man is justified by faith in the present, for faith is
>believing in what we hope for and being certain of what we do not see. 


 I'll just offer my own understanding which I happen to believe I have come
 to via surrender to His will and His word.

 God tells us we are sanctified, clean, reconciled, perfect.

 He also calls us to be sanctified, cleansed, reconciled, and perfected.

 He looks at us as though we are as perfect in character as Christ Himself
 on the basis that the righteousness God imputes, He can impart.  Romans 3
 says we are *being* justified (vs 24, present continuous tense) and that
 this (justification by faith) establishes the law.  Of course it does for
 to be justified is to be made righteous.  "The doers of the law shall be
 justified."  (Tony Camuso might like this verse!  Paul quotes it at least
 twice from Habbakuk.)

 Romans 4 is as clear as a bell.  God told Abraham he was something which
 he was not.  He told him he was the father of many nations.  But, the
 word itself made Abe a father of many nations.  God calls those things
 which be not as though they are.

 The word that said, "Walk before Me and be thou blameless [perfect]" is the
 same word that made Abe blameless.  All Abe had to do was allow His faith
 to be perfected so that he would allow that word to fully accomplish its
 desired work.

>It is what I do by faith now that pleases God, not what I believe will 
>happen when Christ returns. 

 Whoah Daryll!  

 1) What I have stated does not in any way necessitate the idea that anything
    that anyone does by faith now is not pleasing to God!!!

 2) I am not talking about what happens when Christ returns, I am talking
    about the generation called Jacob that will have the experience of
    Jeremiah 30/Psalm 24:3-6 which takes place before the Lord comes.

>I say to you that it is entirely possible to live a life on this earth very 
>close to that led by the Lord Jesus Himself, a life of unity with the Father. 
>In fact, you will see this happen. 

 I say to you that it is entirely possible to live a life on this earth 
 EXACTLY as that led by the Lord Jesus Himself, a life of unity with the
 Father.  I believe I will see it happen.

>Please forgive these hard
>words, but they must be said: at that time, you will have a choice whether or
>not to continue pursuing God from your own understanding or reject that
>understanding and receive this new revelation of Him in your heart with the
>faith of a child. 

 What is this "new revelation" Daryll?  That it is entirely possible to live
 a life very close to Jesus' own life?  I already believe it is entirely 
 possible TO LIVE HIS LIFE, i.e. "Here are they who keep the commandments 
 of God and have the faith OF Jesus."  I prefer that revelation to yours.

 Daryll, I feel between a rock and a hard place.  Let me explain.

 This exchange began by my sharing some ideas on the transfiguration.  I 
 have come to believe through the word and via personal experience that
 the word is the power.  Isaiah 28 is a recipe for studying scripture.  Line
 upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.

 My study of the transfiguration was one wherein I was all alone in meditation
 and prayer.  I opened His word and studied as my Lord bid me (Isaiah 28).  I
 saw the 6 day pattern, the Elijah pattern, the Moses pattern, the going up
 a mountain pattern, the being asleep and being revived pattern.

 THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE WAS GLORIOUS!!!

 I was in 7th heaven.  My heart just cried, "AMEN."  The Spirit felt so
 powerful within me.

 And now you're going to sit here and tell me that as I had this experience,
 "I was pursuing God from my own understanding"???

 When I see messages like yours and compare it against the Standard and my 
 own testimony of His Standard worked out in my life, what was once confusion
 is now as clear as a bell.

 There is some beautiful truth in your words.

 There is also ERROR.

 My own experience with the Word itself as contrasted with your assessment
 of that experience is all the testimony I need.

>My heartfelt prayer is that you will do the latter, because I
>can feel that your heart longs for Him greatly.

 God can play a videotape of my life and let me know when I really began to
 long for Him greatly.  I truly prefer a low estimation of myself so if I
 err, I do so on the side of caution.

 But, thanks.  ;-)

						God Bless,

						Tony

Re: Note 795.410

  Hi Bob,

    >>Bob,
    >>Just wondering.  Have you gone behind the veil yet?  Have
    >>you seen the "very image" that is referred to in Hebrews
    >>10:1-4 (specifically verse 1)?
    
    >The answer to your question is Yes.

    The answer is no.

    "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died."  Were you to
    see the very image of Hebrews 10:1, you would have seen, in fulness,
    the glory of God.  This would have revealed to you, via sinful 
    flesh wherein the law of sin and death resides, a full revelation
    of the sinfulness of sin.  You would have felt to be that sinner
    and in your present state (not sinless perfection), you would have
    despaired a despair so great that you would have been destroyed.

    The above is the fulness of the cross experience, the full tasting
    of the cup.

    Only a sealed generation will be prepared to behold God's face
    (euphemism for very image/totally unveiled).

    Isaiah 28:14b,15a,17,18a
    Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?  Who among us shall
    dwell with everlasting burnings?
    He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly
    He will dwell on high; His place of defense will be the fortress of
    rocks; bread will be given him, his water will be sure.

    Your eyes will see the King in His beauty;
    They will see the land that is very far off.
    Your heart will meditate *on terror*.


    I anticipated your answer.  It was a bit of a litmus test for me.
    You are sharing some wonderful truth.

    So also a little bit of error.

    Sounds a bit like me!	;-)

						God Bless,

						Tony

    
    
    <<< Note 795.419 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
         -< Was A Litmus Test >-
    
    
    As I have written in another place and as the Lord
    has clearly given me.  
    
    I will not resist evil.
    
    

    Hi, Nancy.
    
    I'm pleased that our Lord might use me to express heart-felt words
    other than my own.  My response was very much from my heart, as I
    understand my heart. :-)
    
    The response was rather spontaneous in that I did not take a lot of
    time to verify strict doctrinal compliance or to even check spelling
    and wording.  For example, I wrote "the voice 'heard' in my heart when
    my experience if fully reconciled..." but meant to say "when my
    experience IS fully reconciled..."  And I wrote "my comfort comes the
    assurance..." but meant "comes FROM the assurance..."
    
    The struggle now is my mind saying "see, you should have thought about
    things more before you said them!" :-)
    
    Boy, am I glad the Lord meets us where we are, loving us while we were
    yet sinners, and takes what we are (no more, no less) to reproduce
    Christ's likeness.  I know I am a sinner.  I know I sin.  But I also
    know I'm in The Light and The Light is in me because I'm able to con-
    fess my sin before both man and God.  Even my mind has ceased
    struggling to say that I'm not really a sinner, even though I still
    find myself rationalizing or justifying sin in my life.  But, again,
    even that struggle indicates that Christ is at work in my life, i.e.,
    I certainly have no peace when I'm making excuses for my sin!
    
    Anyway, my initial reaction to Bob's and Daryl's words was "you've got
    to be kidding me!  These guys have no clue about real life, or at least
    my life."  As I committed to listen, though, I started to glimpse what
    more God might want to do in my life.  The crux of my hangup was that
    Bob's and Daryl's words seemed to posture them as apart from sin and my
    present understanding and experience, even my heart, said "something's
    not right here."  But, I believe the Holy Spirit has used their words
    to help me come to grips with what the apostle Paul meant in saying:
    "nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ..."  Oh to be like Thee,
    dear Lord I pray!
    
    May God's Word dwell in us richly.
    
    /Wayne

    Hi, Jill2.
    
    I think Nancy *was* asking "the more interesting question of how can one
    *know* when it's really the Spirit."  The answer is the Spirit and the
    Word agree.  The written Word of God can be used to verify what we see,
    hear and "feel."
    
    On the other hand--correct me if I'm wrong--you are convinced that if
    the Holy Spirit in fact indwells you, then He will allow you to be
    comfortable with nothing but Truth.  Nancy asked "how did He tell you"
    that Jesus is the Word?  The obvious answer is the written Word of God.
    You're pointing out that you *know* that Jesus is the Word because His
    Spirit has given you peace, or has made you "at home", with Jesus as
    the Word.
    
    Nancy--correct me if I'm wrong--wants to know how you became aware that
    Jesus is the Word and how that awareness became FACT in your heart and
    mind.
    
    I think the right question has been asked and I think the right answer
    has been given.  But, I'm neither the asker nor the answerer.  If more
    remains to be said, then there's learning and bonding to yet take place
    between you and Nancy, perhaps off-line.
    
    /Wayne

We're in quite a circle, Bob.  And I think I'm about ready to recognize that
we won't get out, and so agree to stop going around and around and around.

I dealt on the head/intellect level exclusively until about 3� years ago.  At
that time, the Lord began to work in me to get me to let go of that and move
in faith and understanding.  There have been several notable instances within
that span where He has taken new steps with me in that direction, and He
continues that work.  There was one powerful instance where the Lord was
clearly replacing my mind with His own.  But nearly everything I've learned
in the past year has had nothing to do with intellectual learning, but has
had solely to do with surrendering all to Christ.  So again I'm mostly with
you.

But you keep saying that once you're 'spiritual' you can't be deceived, but
that statement doesn't ring true with the Word nor does it ring true in life.
In fact the opposite is true.  The Word proclaims repeatedly that many who
believe they are following Christ will be deceived, Mt 24:24 suggests that
even the 'elect' might be deceived.  And life shows again and again that
those who begin to believe they cannot be deceived soon *ARE* deceived.

I have to balance your word of your 'revelation' that you can no longer be
deceived, and that those who follow your path may attain the same freedom
from being deceived, against The Word and against Life.  You say one thing,
The Word and Life say the opposite.  Sorry, Bob, poor unenlightened person
though it may make me, I have to side with The Word and with Life.

>    I would ask that you show me in the scriptures that anything that is
>    described therein is stated to be out of the will of God.

2Pet 3:9 [The Lord] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but
everyone to come to repentance.

It is the Lord's desire that all be saved.  The Word is clear that this is
not the case.  You may make a distinction between the Lord's desire and the
Lord's will, but I don't.  It's the Lord's Will that all be saved, and all
are not saved.

Unless something in your next response really leaps out at me, Bob, I'm going
to step out of this loop.

Paul

    
    Paul,
    
    I have already stepped out of the loop, as you describe it.
    
    The Lord had me begin here with entering into His Rest and
    completed with that.  He has also completed here with Not 
    resisting evil which began in another place.  At this time
    what He has directed me to do I have done.  Now I leave you.
    
    

    I love it, yup Wayne you hit the nail on the head!!! :-)

      Hi Paul,
    
        From a *truth* level, one of the main things Brother Bob shared
        that I am convicted is contrary to the Word (and thus contrary
        to the revelation of the indwelling Spirit) is the idea that
        everything God wills comes to pass.
    
        He longs that all be saved.  This will not come to pass.  Oh
        how Christ would have gathered Israel in as a mother hen gathers
        her chicks, but Israel (not God) was not willing.  Christ showed
        how willing He was.
    
        Thus my quandary in this string has not been so much the particular
        content, but that messages seemed to be proclaimed as if their
        source is prophetic all the while they have proven to not be
        infallible.
    
        Still, I found much light with which to rejoice in and I am
        thankful for that.
    
    							Tony

      re: .413/.422
    
      Boy, *excellent* replies Wayne!
    
      I am sure glad you participate in this conference!
    
    						Tony

Yo bro Tony.  Did you read my .423?  It sounds like your .426 is addressed to
me, but it's saying the same thing I said, as if I didn't say it.

Or were you just agreeing?  :-)

Paul

    RE: .426
    
    Human discussion of God's will seems unusually affected by semantics,
    assumptions and definitions.  The bottom-line might be the answer to
    the question "is God *really* sovereign?"
    
    Of the following I'm convinced:  What God wills to do, He will do.
                                     Nothing can stand against Him.
    
    I ponder the following:  Is God responsible for all that is done, or
                             is He rather able to use whatever is done to
                             accomplish His will in those He has chosen?
    
    I submit a premise:  FOREORDINATION is an ACT of God.
                         FOREKNOWLEDGE is an ATTRIBUTE of God and does not
                         necessarily imply action by God.
                         God has, however, PREDESTINED certain results
                         based on His FOREKNOWLEDGE.
    
    I could not in good conscience deem a person fallible who says
    "everything God wills comes to pass" without getting lucid answers for
    my pondering above and seriously discussing the premise above.
    
    May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    
    /Wayne

    the neat exciting part of this process is that each new learning is
    new and wonderful and that there is always MORE!
    
    Jill2

    and the next part is even neater and more wonderful and then there
    is even MORE.

    too bad we're not near a snarf I could do this for a while...

      Hi Paul,
    
        Yeah, its addressed to you and it does read just a tad weird
        as (somehow) I didn't mention that you previously agreed with
        the idea that not all that God wills comes to pass (sorry
        Wayne, we can just agree to disagree on this one!).
    
        I just took it a step further as my main concern in this string
        from the beginning has been what I perceived to be the posture
        that 100% of the messages given were 100% inspired of God, i.e. 
        prophetic in nature.
    
    						Tony

Just to clear up any misconceptions about what Bob said regarding what's
coming up in my life personally.  I have shared pretty extensively with Daryl
regarding my current life situation (which is a fair mess), and given that
Daryl and Bob are close friends I believe that Bob received the information
of what is going on in my life from Daryl, not from a direct connect with
God.  Could you confirm that, Bob?

Not that I don't agree pretty closely with Bob's assessment, but it has come
to my attention that people's perception was that Bob was giving a prophecy
for me from a position of not knowing about my life situation in the natural.

Paul

    Just to be clear, my answer to the question "Is God *really*
    sovereign?" is:
    
    	ABSOLUTELY YES!
    
    I'm also convinced that God is bigger than I now think He is, and that
    His sovereignty and love extend beyond my comprehension.  IMO, we get
    in trouble when the Enemy would seek to have us misinterpret or other-
    wise regard God's good actions as evil, or Satan's evil actions as
    good, based on our limited understanding of God's "will."
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .433
    
    Hi, Tony.
    
    Before I agree to disagree, I want to be certain on what we disagree.
    
    In making the blanket statement that "not all God wills comes to pass",
    are you in fact saying that "some of what God wills to be done may not
    be done?"
    
    Also, I would NOT say that 100% of the messages given in this topic
    were 100% inspired of God.  I neither said nor meant to imply that.
    
    What has transpired between Paul and Bob I do not need to know.  If you
    have more insight into that particular situation, then your judgments
    would seem more valid than mine.  However, I really wasn't addressing
    what has gone on between Bob and Paul, rather I was saying that I would
    not deem a person fallible just because he said that all God wills
    comes to pass.  I'd have to understand the context and underlying
    assumptions.  On the other hand, I do assume we are all fallible
    because I believe God says we are.  And I don't just assume I'm
    fallible, I *know* I am.
    
    You and Paul seem to have more salient information than I, and based on
    what I know, I would not argue should you deem any creature, especially
    me, fallible.  I was just questioning this particular criterion.
    
    /Wayne

    Re: .409, Tony C.,
    
    I feel that now we are getting close to the heart and thank you for
    your patience and perseverance thus far. In no way would I wish to
    diminish the work that the Lord has done in, with, and through you! The
    depth of your commitment and your heart to obey shine through very
    brightly. What I have felt led to do is to reach deeper and not let
    anything stop me. However, after this note, if you wish for me to stop,
    I will honor that.
    
    You ask, "Else, what commandments are we to obey?" To that I would
    respond with Jesus' words, as have been said before, that we are to
    love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength,
    and also to love our neighbor as ourselves. All of the Law and the
    Prophets are summed up in these commands.
    
    I would add to this that not only can we not obey the commands in our
    own strength, but we also do not have what it takes to obey the
    commands in God's strength. In short, we simply cannot do it; it is
    totally beyond us. That is why we must die. When we are born again,
    then we have become a new creation, and it is not we that live but
    Christ in us. He is the only one Who is capable of obeying the
    commands. This is how we can do all things: through Him Who gives us
    strength. But we cannot operate in that strength until we have first
    died.
    
    You also ask, "How are we to be convicted of sin?" I find that the
    process of dying renders one increasingly sensitive to His Word and
    also increasingly hungry to study the Bible. The Word gets written into
    our hearts in much deeper ways and much more rapidly than before. As we
    continually face the truth about the sin therein, we learn to listen to
    the "still small voice" and to recognize when the Spirit is grieved.
    This causes such pain and sadness that we can but turn to the Lord and
    ask His forgiveness from the heart. Having asked for His forgiveness,
    we are empowered to receive that forgiveness by faith in His promise to
    forgive our sin and purify us from all unrighteousness. This is all
    because the law has been and is being written into our hearts. 
    
    Christ was made perfect through suffering. We too must go through that
    same fire. This is not an option for us. What is an option, at least
    from our point of view, is whether we choose to go through it willingly
    or whether we shrink back and resist.
    
    I do believe that you have been and are led by the Holy Spirit. What I
    am ultimately asking is this: Are you willing to take the next step and
    leave everything behind, including your concepts of what commandments
    to obey and how they may be obeyed, take up your cross, and follow
    after Jesus, even if it means your life? Because it does.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    Re: .416, Nancy,
    
    Thank you for saying that. I am beginning to hear from your heart, not
    in your affirmation of Wayne's words (though I'm thankful for that),
    but in the feelings you have begun to share. When you tell the honest
    truth about how you are feeling, that is a very important step in
    beginning to face the truth in your heart. I regret that it took pain
    to bring this about, but as Tony C. said, faithful are the wounds of a
    friend. I do ask your forgiveness for the pain my words have caused you.
    
    Of course, I do not suggest that we go any deeper into this in this
    medium! But if you feel so led (and are not too angry with me!), we can
    continue this off-line.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    Re: .418, Tony B.
    
    It seems that I have wounded you too, and for that I am sorry and ask
    your forgiveness. And yet, as with Nancy, I am beginning to hear your
    heart too, and for that I praise God.
    
    I must confess that it has been difficult responding to your notes. If
    I have misunderstood you, I ask forgiveness for that too. We have many
    differences in our understanding of Scripture, and some of my words
    have been written entirely from faith. I did not know where they would
    lead or what effect they would have on you; I only wrote what I heard
    the Father saying, and it took me a considerable amount of time and a
    lot of prayer to do that. So if there is a disconnect between what you
    wrote and my response to that, this is why. I was given only to
    understand that it was not the words themselves that were important in
    this case but rather the place to where they would bring us, which is
    here.
    
    Tony, I would not in any way discredit or denounce your experiences
    with God. How could I? To do so would probably hurt me more than it
    would hurt you, and I mean that. It hurts that you would even think
    that of me, but then I can understand why you would, not really knowing
    me.
    
    That we have so many differences in our understanding is not really
    important to me. I am more interested in your heart than in your
    understanding; it is your heart that I have been seeking.
    
    I don't know where to go from here, or even if there is any place to
    go. The Lord leads me only to express what I have expressed here and to
    leave it at that, with one final question for now:
    
    Have you experienced the joy of being in the presence of the Father and
    having Him show you what He is doing and saying so that you may have
    the privilege of doing likewise?
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    Re: Wayne and Jill2,
    
    Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your words and your
    honesty. If I'm discerning correctly, I believe that both of you are on
    the path that I have been describing. If there is anything with which
    you think I may be able to help, please do feel free to contact me
    off-line. Thanks so much for your notes!
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    .437
    
    In reading this note, the question come to mind what comes first the
    chicken or the egg?
    
    Daryl by what method did you reach your current conclusion regarding
    the heart?
    
    :-)

    .438
    
    Daryl,
    
    Uhm, I hate to break this to you, but I speak from my heart most all of
    the time.  I think my notes in hear bear witness of this.  I don't say
    this to puff myself up, in many ways, speaking from one's heart can be
    rather risky especially in a forum like this.  Because of speaking from
    my heart, I've had my employment with this company threatened.
    
    A woman with whom I work, followed this conference and others and then
    extracted my notes to give to my manager.  Her purpose was to get me
    fired. She not only did this herself, but gathered a few co-horts and
    peers of mine who take issue with my Christian convictions to justify
    her behavior.  You know when your gonna do something AGAINST another,
    its always nice to have someone else tell you you're doing right.
    
    However, I only know what I know, which is to be less then honest with
    one's self destroys the soul.  But to reject someone's communication
    because YOU discern its not from their heart is pompous and
    judgemental. [The you is generic for anyone].
    
    It is better to talk to the person offline, then to announce it in
    a public forum for all to see.  If you believe that your understanding
    of the heart would benefit all those who read this forum, then starting
    a note on the heart and drawing that discussion deeper through a
    general discussion would be better received.
    
    I'm not saying you don't have anything valid to say here, I'm just
    saying the approach used in bringing this topic to light was less than
    humble imo, it was downright offensive.
    
    Now back to the topic.  If you answer the question I asked in my
    previous note, I will have more to contribute.  
    
    Nancy

      Hi Daryl,
    
        First, let me say that I truly appreciate so much of what you
        are saying.  I have prayed several times, including a couple 
        times this morning about this dialogue.  The main thing I 
        have prayed about is whether or not what you and Bob are sharing
        comes straight from God (prophecy) or comes from God not as 
        prophecy, but through the 'less than perfect faith' of erring
        children of God which we all are.  (And if the second is true,
        I am still very open to the possibility that you and Bob are far 
        more sanctified than I presently am.  Not that this is important
        to you.)
        
        I sense a huge disconnect in this dialogue.  Basically, to
        summarize, in tangible terms, I see the rudder being neglected to
        'some' extent.  Oh I know you guys profess to be allowing the
        rudder to be doing exactly as it needs to be doing, but in tangible
        terms, I see this as missing.
    
        I'll just offer one example...
    
        I am acquainted with the experience of a faithful group who spent
        entire nights in the study of God's word.  They pored over it.
        They had that Concordance open and they did word studies, word
        studies, word studies.  
    
        I had the similar experience with the transfiguration study.  I
        *KNOW* its application is endtimes.  It speaks of the manifestation
        of Christ in the remnant, the finishing of the mystery of God 
        which is a certain completion of the manifestation of Christ in
        you, the hope of glory.  It speaks of what a group perceives in
        the heart and not of what One demonstrated on 31 AD.
    
        That was 98% of the content of the reply I wrote to you.  Now, I
        believe the word is the power.  A people will just drink it in.
        They will mine it like mining for gold.  This process will require
        the faith of a child *AND* much diligent thought. (The ability to
        think and to exercise thought is not a bad thing, it is a gift from
        God.  Though within the 'ethereal' train of this dialogue. it can
        quite easily be taken to be a BAD thing!)
    
        I feel like what you guys are saying is mostly glorious.  Oh yes,
        you are echoing a POWERFUL truth summarized in Romans 7:9, "The
        commandment came, sin revived, and I died."  The moment we become
        Christians, we begin to go to the cross.  We taste the death of
        the cross.  And as the path of the just is a shining light that 
        shines brighter and brighter unto the perfect day, a remnant will
        drink the cup to its dregs (Isaiah 50).
    
        But, there is an etherealness to this dialogue.  If one presents
        a mound of scriptural support for a position, they (upon reading
        and *IF* accepting this dialogue) *should* feel like they are
        intellectualizing/believing with the head and not the heart.
    
        This is just plain wrong.
    
        I hope to better experience the process of surrendering all to my
        Lord, of being willing to die, of being willing to yoke up with
        Him on Calvary.  The vila delerosa is the only path to righteous- 
        ness.  Praise the Lord for this contribution you have made here!
        I say "AMEN!" to that!!!
    
        But, prophetic utterance implies truth of scripture and God giving
        one an 'inside look' at another's heart (if it is indeed one's 
        heart that one is 'prophetically' uttering about).  
    
        Within the FRAMEWORK of my reply which was ~98% on the transfigura-
        tion, you 'discerned' that it was largely head and not heart and
        that I had the wrong scriptural understanding.
    
        You were WRONG.  Period.
    
        I know that so much of my overall experience is head and not heart.
        May I learn to allow Christ to give me more of a heart-experience.
        But, with the framework of your reply, I can only answer:
    
        1) You said some wonderful things.
    
        2) What was said was not prophetic.  It was mostly wonderful
           counsel that was not prophetic and (as you are not presently
           infallible) had some error.
    
        I hope the day comes that you can discern this truth.
    
    
    						Tony

  Hi Wayne,

    I just want to interject my thoughts on God's will.

    I believe that God is love and that love, on the basis of what
    it is, does not coerce rather it draws.  Part of God's act of
    love included creating such that His intelligent creation has
    the capacity to be responsive to His love.  This implies the
    giving of the freedom to CHOOSE.  We have been given the freedom
    to make choices, some of which can be independant of God's will.

    In short, to some extent, because God is love, He has elected to
    relinquish the sovereignty of His will.  If God's will were sovereign,
    Lucifer would not have elected to sin.  God did not 'will for 
    Lucifer' to become full of pride.

    The following is in Hebrews ch. 6...

    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have
    tasted the heavenly gift and the powers of the age to come, and have
    tasted of the good word of God; if they should fall away to renew 
    them again to repentance since they crucify again for themselves the 
    Son of God and put Him to an open shame.
    For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it and
    bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives 
    blessings from God.  But if it brings forth thorns and briers, it
    is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

    When I try to follow your logical attempt to explain the sovereignty
    of Gods will, it seems too 'high tech' for me!

    I also know that when I sin, God's will for me is not sovereign at
    least regarding some particulars for he *would* that I never choose
    to place myself outside His grace and sin.

    To accomadate the sovereignty of God's will in such a way that it
    accepts the idea that in particulars such as the choice to sin, God's
    will is not sovereign is really to not accomadate the sovereignty of
    the will of God.  It is a variant that is really no variant at all.

    Because God is love, He emptied Himself of the sovereignty of His will.
    Because God is love, He *chose* to create an order of being that 
    is drawn and not coerced or 'programmed on the basis of creative design'
    to have to do His will.

    In other words, because God is love, He emptied Himself of the 
    sovereignty of His will by giving us the capacity to make our own 
    choices for ourselves; even if they conflict with His own desire (will).

						Tony

    Anyone ever have this experience when your truely in His presence?  
    You feel overwelming joy and peace and His total LOVE and immense 
    presence.  You feel joy and LOVE at the enormous privilege of being 
    his servant and precious child.  At this time if Satan comes to pester 
    you, all you have to do is threaten to apply the love to him and he 
    runs in terror.  Offer to give him a hug.  Its so simple, pure love.  
    Normally you have to use Lord Jesus' blood and scripture against Satan.  
    Its much more mechanical, you must use the right words, the right 
    motivation.  
    
    When in His presence there is fullness of joy and everything else fades 
    in the light of Him...it becomes so simple. (Too bad it happens far too 
    rarely for me!)
    
    Jill2

Hoo, boy - yes!  Isn't it awesome?

Don't expect to get it figured out so you expect you know all about what God
is like, though.  God's Love is the center of His nature, but remember, God
is infinite.  Just when you think you have Him figured out, He'll show you
another side of Himself.  Like just a tiny peek at how much He hates sin.  Or
a glimpse of how He grieves for the lost.  So you might find yourself one day
in His presence, and instead of basking in His love, you might be on your
face before Him as you realize the enormity of what He has forgiven you out
of His Love, or sobbing in grief over how much He loves those who will not
let Him forgive them.

And more, of course.  He's infinite, remember?  :-)

Paul

    and then theres even MORE...(what number are we up to?   Too bad I'll 
    have to wait, I hate waiting...)

      Hi Jill,
    
        That sounds wonderful.                      
    
        Another experience is the one found in Psalm 22.  Thats the one
        where you are bereft of any 'good feeling.'  Its the one where
        everything tells you that you are the most evil creature alive.
    
        Jesus had that experience and all He could do was recount, in
        His memory, the times He knew His Father was with Him.
    
        All He could do was resort to the Word and to personal testimony 
        of His past.
    
        The Psalm 22 experience is the one which takes perfect faith.
        Its the one where the only thing left is the word and memory
        because real nice feelings are totally absent.
    
        This is the one God wants to prepare us for,
    
    						Tony

    RE: .444
    
    My "logical attempt" to explain God's will becomes quite illogical to
    some when a difficulty is encountered.  My bottom-line is that if I
    have a problem comprehending God, then God must be bigger than I
    thought.  The problem then becomes opportunity, or the "kicker", if you
    will, to grow is the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
    
    Do you see what I'm saying?  I stretch to know God, then break, then
    God reveals Himself to be more than I'd ever imagined.  This may not
    make sense to you, but it "works" for me.  This to me is part of
    "casting down reasonings and every high thing that exalteth itself
    against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
    thought to the obedience of Christ."  (2Co 10:5, KJV)
    
    And I see the process as God giving me "the spirit of wisdom and
    revelation in the knowledge of Him: The eyes of my understanding being
    enlightened; that I may know what is the hope of His calling, and what
    the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is
    the exceeding greatness of His power to I who believes, according to
    the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He
    raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the
    heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and
    dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but
    also in that which is to come." (Eph 2:17b-21, KJV, personalized for
    me)
    
    "Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we
    ask or think, according to the power than worketh in us, unto Him be
    glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without
    end.  Amen." (Eph 3:20,21, KJV)
    
    I wholeheartedly agree that God's love draws and does not coerce.  You
    suggest, however, that God must have "relinquished the sovereignty of
    His will" in order to accommodate our freedom to make choices.  I'm
    suggesting that God is bigger than that, i.e., He is still sovereign
    even though we make choices.  He knows the end from the beginning and
    can know the result of our choices, before we make them and without His
    manipulating us.  He has already told us the result of our "choosing to
    follow Jesus"--we will be like Him when He appears as He is!
    
    In my opinion, you err in assuming God must have limited the
    sovereignty of His will because Lucifer chose to sin.  Do you know the
    mind of God well enough to say with certainty "God did not 'will for
    Lucifer' to become full of pride?"  I would not be so bold, but I'm
    just confessing a lack of specific knowledge in that area. :-)
    
    Again, all I'm saying is that you saw a "problem" with the sovereignty
    of God's will because Lucifer sinned, and solved that problem by
    assuming God must have relinquished some sovereignty in order to
    accommodate Lucifer's choice, while I feel God remained sovereign in
    Lucifer's choice and is able to use that independent choice to
    accomplish His will in us.
    
    I would challenge you to ponder these things.
    
    May we be "swift to hear, slow to speak."
    
    /Wayne

    RE: more to .444
    
    Yes, we are very much in disagreement if you feel God's love compelled
    Him to empty Himself of any sovereignty.
    
    In my opinion, you limit God's work in us by implying that in choosing
    to sin we place ourselves "outside His grace."  If I were to choose to
    sin and felt peaceful or comfortable while sinning, then I might say I
    had a problem!
    
    A "working" definition of grace is the desire and power God gives
    freely so that we can obey Him.  The indwelling Holy Spirit will not
    allow us to be comfortable with sinning, even though we might choose to
    sin.  My view of sanctification is that we should find ourselves
    choosing to sin less and less, and choosing life more and more.  God
    keeps drawing us back to Himself, making us uncomfortable with sin, and
    forgiving our sin as we confess what He brings to light.
    
    /Wayne

    Well, I was hoping to have time to write tonight, but it's too late for
    me. So I'm just writing to say that I won't have time to write tonight.
    :-) Hopefully tomorrow night.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Yeah, I am "so bold" as to say that God relinquished some of
        the sovereignty of His will!
    
        I believe God desires that I never sin.  Sometimes I do.  Thus
        He did not force me to obey.  He did not force _His will_ on
        me rather He allowed me to make my own choice.
    
        In all honesty, I rather doubt that I will ever believe otherwise,
        but as you said as God is so much bigger than we can fathom, 
        perhaps I err and someday will be shown the error of my thinking.
       
        Just one small note though!  The fact that God is so much bigger
        does nothing to prefer one position over the other (so far as I
        can tell)!  What it does is admonish us to place a low estimation
        of some of our beliefs where it seems clear the waters being tread
        on are quite deep (on that basis of the potential unreachable
        depths of those waters).
    
        I guess if I could summarize my present view, it is that (to me)
        the Bible often points to man having the permission to exercise his
        will even though it sometimes be in opposition to God's (although
        I don't understand Romans 9) and my own understanding of what agape
        is suggests God gave up some of the sovereignty of His will by
        reason of who He is (agape).
    
        *But*, I haven't reconciled free will versus foreknowledge.   The
        waters are deep.  God is much greater than I.  This truth does not
        bias the above (my present belief), but may it cause me to kneel
        prostrate before my Father and be open to the possibility there is
        so much He can unfold that if unfolded to my heart may cause me to
        undergo a change in conviction on the matter.
    
    						Tony
                                    

Hi, Tony.
    
|       Yeah, I am "so bold" as to say that God relinquished some of
|       the sovereignty of His will!

** Wow!  Well, I understand your view, and I now agree to disagree. :-)
    
|       I believe God desires that I never sin.  Sometimes I do.  Thus
|       He did not force me to obey.  He did not force _His will_ on
|       me rather He allowed me to make my own choice.

** No problem here--we're 100% in agreement.
    
|       In all honesty, I rather doubt that I will ever believe otherwise,
|       but as you said as God is so much bigger than we can fathom, 
|       perhaps I err and someday will be shown the error of my thinking.
       
|       Just one small note though!  The fact that God is so much bigger
|       does nothing to prefer one position over the other (so far as I
|       can tell)!  What it does is admonish us to place a low estimation
|       of some of our beliefs where it seems clear the waters being tread
|       on are quite deep (on that basis of the potential unreachable
|       depths of those waters).
    
|       I guess if I could summarize my present view, it is that (to me)
|       the Bible often points to man having the permission to exercise his
|       will even though it sometimes be in opposition to God's (although
|       I don't understand Romans 9) and my own understanding of what agape
|       is suggests God gave up some of the sovereignty of His will by
|       reason of who He is (agape).

** Understood.  My present (limited) understanding of who God is suggests that
   God makes choices, too, and when and where He chooses to act, or intervene,
   nothing can stand against Him.  I also think that when and where He chooses
   not to directly intervene, even then nothing takes Him by surprise and all
   remains comprehended in His plan for creation.  If nothing else, God is
   infinite and can thus deal with the (seemingly to us) infinite possibilites
   implied by our ability to make choices.
    
|       *But*, I haven't reconciled free will versus foreknowledge.   The
|       waters are deep.  God is much greater than I.  This truth does not
|       bias the above (my present belief), but may it cause me to kneel
|       prostrate before my Father and be open to the possibility there is
|       so much He can unfold that if unfolded to my heart may cause me to
|       undergo a change in conviction on the matter.

** Amen.  Me, too!  I don't think we need to comprehend the dynamics of how
   God's attributes and actions tie together in order for us to obey Him.  I
   am convinced He withholds nothing we need in order to be reconciled to Him
   and be in fellowship with Him.  We must come to God in faith and He rewards
   those who diligently seek Him.

   I apologize both to you and other readers if my attempt to broach the sub-
   ject of God's sovereignty has been confusing, offensive or otherwise
   counterproductive.  The Holy Spirit commends Truth in our hearts, and I
   would expect you to throw away anything I've said which the Spirit and the
   Word of God might show to be worthless.

   Again, I'm humbled.

/Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Just a quick note which needs to be said...
    
        It is clear that we are attributing different *meanings* to the
        term "sovereignty of the will of God" for my meaning is such that
        His will always must come to pass.  Thus, I could not embrace the
        idea that God's will is sovereign on the basis that sometimes my
        choices (will) go contrary to His.
    
        As you...
    
        1) Agree that sometimes my will is contrary to God's
    
    and
    
        2) Still believe God's will is sovereign,
    
        It must follow that we attribute different meanings to the term
        "sovereignty of the will of God."
    
        Thus we may be in perfect (or very close) agreement!
    
        Which (to quote Bill Murray from Caddyshack)
    
        ish nish!!   (is nice)
    
    
    						Take Care Brother,
    
    						Tony

    My intention was to say no more, but I'm impelled to document a couple
    more things.
    
    First, as much as possible, I try to use words carefully with the
    meanings attributed to them by an English language dictionary available
    to anyone.
    
    As a side note here to Nancy and all others who "prefer" the KJV, I have
    found MUCH value in looking up some of the harder-to-understand old or
    original English language words in the dictionary and coming to
    understand original meanings as the translators might have understood
    them.  The meaning of words has changed, particularly in our American
    culture, often for the worse!  My motto: "If in doubt, look it up!" :-)
    Many of those "strange" words in the KJV are in fact very powerful, and
    sometimes attempts to recast them in "modern English" fall short of
    what the translators understood in their heart.  Maybe this is obvious
    to most and, as such, is common practice.  Often a good dictionary is a
    wonderful concordance for the KJV.
    
    Second, some definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary:
    
     SOVEREIGNTY 1. Supremacy of authority or rule.
                 2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
                 3. Complete independence and self-government.
    
     WILL  n.    1. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or
                    decides upon a course of action; volition.
                 2. An instance of the exercising of the will; choice.
                 3. Self-control; self-discipline.
                 4. Something desired or decided upon, especially by a
                    person of authority.
                 5. Deliberate intention or wish.
                 6. Strong purpose; determination.
                 7. Bearing or attitude toward others; disposition.
    
           v.    1. To bring about, attempt to effect, or decide upon by an
                    act of the will; determine.
                 2. To decree; ordain.
                 3. To legally grant; bequeath.
    
    Third, my reasoning:  Neither God's authority nor His ability to effect
    results in His creation *depends* on my choices.  Therein He has
    relinquished none of His independence or supremacy.  If I reserve the
    right to make choices, decisions or otherwise "make things happen", or
    even to take no action despite my desire or because of my knowledge,
    then certainly God retains that right ultimately and always.
    
    Last, my application:  Romans 8 with the conclusion "For I am persuaded,
    that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers,
    nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any
    other creature (including myself), shall be able to separate me from
    the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (vs. 38 and 39,
    KJV with personalization by me)
    
    In God's sovereignty lays my security.  God will use even my mistakes,
    wrong choices, if you will, to conform me to the image of His Son.  He
    neither has to be responsible for nor does He have to disallow my
    independent choices, even my sinning, in order to use all for my
    sanctification redounding--a good KJV word to look up--to His glory.
    
    I am "confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good
    work in me will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Ph 1:6, KJV
    wherein my margin note says "finish it")
    
    /Wayne

    .455
    
    Wayne,
    
    A very dear man to me who has gone on to be with Jesus, used to tell me
    the same thing regarding the KJV and using dictionaries.  As you are,
    so was he, right on.  Yes, it means we must STUDY, and it takes effort,
    but the result outweighs the cost.
    
    Nancy

    RE: .446
    
    Amen, Paul!
    
    Mind boggling, to me at least, that in Jesus Christ was the glorious-
    ness of Love AND the suffering wrought by the heinousness of sin.  Oh,
    beautiful Savior!
    
    /Wayne

    I am frequently asked why I snarf 58 numbers. :-)

Ha!  Excellent one, Nanc!  Hee, hee

Paul

    .458
    
    Nancy,
    
    For the uninitiated, why do you snarf .58's?
    

Hey!  The Frequency just went up by 1!

    .460
    
    If Nancy answers, then the question will cease to be frequently asked
    and the game is ruined.  :-)

	Well, Hebrews is the 58th book of the Bible.  Maybe there's a clue
	in there ...  8-q
	

    .463
    
    Thanks for the hint!  :)
    

      re: .463
    
      I should have known that!
    
      Wonderful book!
    
      For if *perfection* were through the Levitical priesthood...
    
      						Tony

 I think the x58 thing refers to Nancy's age, but I'm not sure

    .466
    
    Sure glad I didn't say that! :)

>     <<< Note 795.466 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>
>
>
>
>
> I think the x58 thing refers to Nancy's age, but I'm not sure
>
    ...yeah, and I bet Jim is sorry he said that (or, rather, he soon will
    be ;')
    
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha {plop}
    
    * Harry laughs *so* hard his head falls off :')

 ;-)

    Jim might be on to something.  Perhaps '58 is Nancy's birthday--that
    won't change.  But if 58 is her age, then she'll cease snarfing 58's by
    next year. :-)

    Bingo!  I just cross-referenced 21.11 entered by Nancy in 1993.  The
    age under discussion was 42.  Nancy said "I'll let you know in about 7
    years."  1993 + 7 - 42 = 1958.
    
    Am I in trouble now?! :-)

    Too slow for those who wait,
    Too swift for those who fear,
    Too long for those who grieve,
    Too short for those who rejoice;
    but for those who Love,
    TIME IS ETERNAL.

    I am laughing so hard I can't hardly stand it!!!!
    
    I was born in 58!!!
    
    And Jimbo, you'se in trouble now, honey!

    Ah, good.  My curiosity killed Jim, not me. :-)

>    Ah, good.  My curiosity killed Jim, not me. :-)

Ha!  I got more of a laugh out of this one than any other in the entire
string!

Paul

RE: <<< Note 795.447 by HPCGRP::DIEWALD >>>

	Snarf minus 24 and counting ....

	":^)
	

Snarf minus 23 and counting

      snarf + 20 and counting...

hee, hee.  Good one, Tony

    I apologize for taking so long to respond. This will probably be my
    last set of responses, because I'm sensing that after this my work here
    is done for now.
    
    Please know that though I love you all, I did not come into this topic
    to be received. I was not hoping that anyone would be able to hear what
    I have been saying. I did not take any particular approach or tone
    based on emotions or from a need to prove anything to anyone. In other
    words, I have no agenda.
    
    On the contrary: I have only said what I have heard my Father saying,
    exactly as I heard Him saying it. I do not in any way claim to be
    without flaw, but I do very strongly proclaim that everything He does
    through me, and through everyone else, is without flaw. All is just as
    it should be.
    
    If some have taken offense to my words or perceived attitude, I
    apologize for the offense, but I can not apologize for the words or the
    manner in which they were expressed. I am only the messenger. I would
    request with all sincerity that anyone who was offended by my words, or
    by Bob's for that matter, examine their own hearts with honesty and
    with open eyes and take the matter before Him Who sent the message.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    Re: .441, Nancy
    
    With regard to the chicken and egg syndrome, with God there is no such
    question. There is only the revelation of God, given as He sees fit,
    and in response to our faithful requests for wisdom and understanding.
    
    How I came to understand the difference between being in one's head and
    being in one's heart is an interesting little story; thanks for asking!
    
    For background, as I believe I have mentioned elsewhere, I am divorced,
    and my 12-year-old daughter, Kira, lives with her mother. I see her
    just about every other weekend. The Lord gave me the privilege of
    leading both Kira and my ex-wife to Him a couple of years ago, but due
    to various worldly concerns and internal pressures, neither has gone
    very far with their faith yet. Both are struggling with many issues,
    and occasionally there are conflicts at home.
    
    One Friday afternoon about 2-3 months ago, I picked Kira up for her
    weekend with me, and we had just picked up some dinner and were eating
    and talking, or rather, she was talking and I was listening. As I was
    listening to the things about which she was talking, it suddenly
    occurred to me that she was avoiding something in her heart. Now,
    because I have gone somewhat deep into my own heart, I can usually see
    into other people's hearts, but this flash of insight came as a
    surprise to me, because it was totally clear and undeniable. I knew
    with a knowledge beyond my own (which is of little worth).
    
    So I began to talk to her about it by asking her questions, and she
    began very quickly to deny it and got rather vehemently defensive. Then
    I could see even more clearly that I was on the right track. Now, I am
    a firm believer in asking for and receiving God's wisdom, to the point
    where I now do it almost constantly and for almost every situation.
    This was no exception. 
    
    In about five minutes of asking her questions and showing her my love
    for her, she was able to make the transition from being "stuck in her
    head", as I call it, to facing the pain in her heart. She cried many
    tears as she told me what was really on her heart, and when it was
    over, she was the most loving and gentle that I had ever seen her. It
    practically moves me to tears just writing about it.
    
    Since then, we've had many sessions like that, and in some cases there
    was actual demonic resistance. But love, persistance, the Truth, and
    the authority of Jesus Christ were more than enough each time. To God
    be the glory!
    
    I've also seen this same type of thing with other people -- in fact,
    with almost all other people. It is not a shameful thing to be stuck in
    one's head -- it is what has allowed survival up to this point. But the
    Truth must be faced in one's heart if one is to see God and really get
    to know Him personally. Love and grace can be experienced apart from
    this, but He cannot be known personally except in one's heart.
    Otherwise there is only the law and perpetual unrest in the heart, and
    life is reduced to few brief and sporadic moments of distraction from
    pain.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    Re: .442, Nancy
    
    I for one would never say anything to diminish intentionally one word
    of testimony that you have written here. Your notes have been beautiful
    and have been used by the Lord to touch many.
    
    What I am seeking is something even deeper than that. I am seeking that
    in your heart which was angered and offended by my words. That is where
    the truth can be found. I am seeking the path into your heart which
    begins by finding the answer to the question, "Why were you angered and
    offended by my words, honestly?"
    
    In no way do I expect this kind of subject to be explored in this
    conference! Nor do I expect you to answer me; I did not ask that
    question for that purpose. My hope is that you will humbly consider the
    question and take it before the Lord to seek His input. This is, of
    course, your choice. But your feelings were exposed here for a reason,
    and I am hoping that you will ask the Lord for the strength to face the
    fear of pain and follow the path down into your heart, because there,
    in facing the truth, you will see God.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    RE: .443, Tony B.
    
    Tony, I am concerned for you, though I know that you are in the Lord's
    hands, and I can rest in that.
    
    You have confessed here before all that you think you "*KNOW*"
    something. I Corinthians 8:2 categorically disagrees with you. This is
    the truth that the Lord wished to be revealed by our discussion, and it
    shows that you are in a very dangerous place.
    
    This does not necessarily indicate that your revelation of the
    transfiguration is entirely wrong. It is just incomplete at best. Have
    you considered the question of why the Father would have bothered to
    testify before Peter, James, and John that Jesus is His Son and urge
    them to listen to Him if this whole incident were only for the end
    times? Again, I don't expect an answer here, because I don't expect to
    respond further; this question is just for you to take before the Lord
    if you see fit.
    
    God is in control of absolutely everything that transpires. If proof of
    this is needed, I offer the following example verses which seemingly
    conflict with each other: I Chronicles 21:1 and II Samuel 24:1.
    
    Please take special care that your knowledge of the Word does not
    result in becoming puffed up. I Corinthians 8:2 is well-stated, as is
    Galatians 5:6b, "The only thing that matters is faith expressing itself
    through love." That about sums it up for me.
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

    Daryl,
    
    I hope you see this.  I have several things that I wish to add to this
    string and your notes.
    
    First, the description of your interaction with Kira is heart rendering
    :-)!  And this I can understand.  I've said for years that most folks
    live on the surface of life and fear going deeper past their prejudice,
    insecurities and addictions.  What you have described does not at all
    diminish the law, but is merely a fulfillment of what each of us must
    do at the point of salvation, which is to have a proper view of one's 
    self [or in your terms know your heart] so that you can have a proper
    view of God.
    
    But as Christians, we often times get caught up in "looking Christian"
    versus being Christian, and I believe this is to what you have been
    referring.  And if this is true, then we wholeheartedly are in
    agreement.  However, I would be very careful with this not to approach
    people with "you are speaking from your head" statements, even if you
    feel it to be true.  Instead, asking your questions and helping a
    person reach inside themselves would have the least resistence and imo,
    would have more success with people whom you are not the most intimate.
    
    My anger was at the condescension of the words, the air in which they
    were spoken.  The spirit in which I believe Bob was writing and perhaps
    wasn't even intended, was not humble, but had elevated himself and then
    you above the rest of us.  This caused me great unrest...and also the
    fear inside of me that you had stepped into a doctrine of "do anything"
    and its okay.  This concerned me greatly for you and for any reader
    in this conference who has grown to respect you.
    
    I am careful to speak honestly ... and when I sense there is more
    within me, then to ask God to reveal it to me so that I can know Him
    better. :-)
    
    With love in Him,
    
    
    

      Hi Daryl,
    
        I have considered 1 Corin 8:2 in the light of strong personal
        conviction.
    
        For example, am I to consider that perhaps Jesus is not God
        on the basis of 1 Corin 8:2?  I think not.
    
        Somehow, there must be coharmony between having strong convictions
        about certain things and yet having 1 Corin 8:2 be a working
        principle in the heart, i.e. the humility of a child and the
        realization that we hardly know anything about anything.
    
        I do not know how you could tell me I had a wrong understanding
        of the transfiguration except that you then be convinced of the
        true interpretation and thus be subject to the correction of
        1 Corin 8:2 as applies to your own sense of knowing.
    
        Kind of a paradox, isn't it?
    
        The truth must be that we can be strongly convicted (and yes, 
        knowing) of certain things and yet the principle of 1 Corin 8:2
        is a working principle in the heart.
    
        I really haven't much more to say on this matter.  My main point
        still stands.  You guys don't really embrace us from the level
        that 1 Corin 8:2 probably mainly refers to, "Take heed that ye
        fall."  The whole tone is one of spiritual giants trying to lead
        a bunch of babies to deeper waters.
    
        You could have still led us without the tone.  Daniel does just
        that in ch.  9 where he prays "WE have done this, etc."  In other
        words, it is a corporate prayer.
    
        Paul Weiss mentioned how Bob Poland knew about his pain via Paul's
        divulging his situation to you and you and Bob being close.  Bob's
        reply read like he knew about Paul's pain via prophecy - totally
        read that way to me (and to others).  I'm still waiting for clarity
        from Bob.
    
        Bottom line for me is that your words don't bear perhaps the
        biggest imprint I expect from a prophet; a corporate brotherhood
        with the rest of the church.  A sense that from a spiritual 
        standpoint we are equals - even if we're not.
    
        I believe you guys have really good things to say.  I believe
        you guys think it is 100% infallible truth, received via prophecy.
        I believe it is not 100% infallible truth and is not prophecy.
    
    						Tony
    
        

      Just a couple quickies...
    
      I do believe the transfiguration has more than one application,
      but believe the endtime one is the primary one.
    
      Nance, I don't think Bob or Daryl were advocating anything
      remotely close to "you can do whatever you want" (or however
      you put it in your last reply).
    
    						Tony

    .486
    
    >Nance, I don't think Bob or Daryl were advocating anything
    >      remotely close to "you can do whatever you want" (or however
    >      you put it in your last reply).
    
    Tony, I beg to differ.  One of the things that has been stated is that
    "if I choose to sin", God is in it... because our lives have already
    been predestined.  Couple that with Romans 8, where "all things" work
    together for good to them that love the Lord, you can come up with
    quite a doctrine.
    
    When someone says to you, I know this is wrong, but even if I choose to
    do it, God will honor me in the long run, because he knew I'd choose to
    do it already.
    
    This is exactly what Bob and Daryl are espousing.
    
    The cognitive word is here is "I KNOW its wrong.  I've been warned by
    others that its wrong, but I WILL do it!!!"  And I'll be the better for
    it for its already in God's plan and I don't need to even worry whether
    I do it or not."
    
    IMHO, its extremely dangerous for a Christian to believe that there is
    some sense of holiness in unholy choices.
    
    Nancy
    

	Nancy, if one believes in predestination, then it's clear as to why one
would think like that. If you believe God knows which choice we will make
before we make it, then predestination makes perfect sense. Do you believe that
God knows everything, or do you believe He has limits?


Glen

    Glen,
    
    _sure_ God has limits. He has imposed on Himself many limits. e.g. not
    destroying this evil and wicked world right now for the things humanity
    sees 'fit' to inflict upon oneanother. and the rest of creation (well,
    that bit that is within mankind's grasp, anyway).

    RE: .487
    
    Hi, Nancy.
    
    I didn't take Bob or Daryl to say "you can do whatever you want",
    either.
    
    But I will confess that ferreting out exactly what they were saying was
    difficult at times. :-)
    
    As I've tried to say in previous notes, there's a BIG difference
    between God being responsible for our choices, i.e., somehow causing us
    to make certain decisions and take certain actions inconsistent with
    His work of sanctification in us, and His being able to use my mistakes
    to accomplish His purpose in me and others.  In my opinion, God does
    not have to drive all our decisions in order to make us like Jesus.
    
    I'm making myself vulnerable here:  I've made choices that I *knew*
    were wrong, BUT I could not go on as if nothing were wrong.  I take
    comfort and security in *knowing* that my messing up will not thwart
    God's goal in my life.
    
    God doesn't honor me when I choose wrongly.  But, as I confess my sin,
    He's faithful to forgive and cleanse, so as to honor Himself through
    His work of grace in me.
    
    The gist of resting in Christ for me is by faith counting on Him to
    keep on doing what I cannot do for myself.  Out of that rest comes love
    manifested by obedience, not from "have to" but rather from "want to."
    
    I agree that an attitude of "sinning is okay because God already knew
    about it" is more than dangerous, it does not come from God.  We've
    been given freedom NOT TO SIN, not licence to sin.  Apart from Christ,
    we have no choice--we sin because we're sinners.  In Christ, we have a
    choice--we find ourselves not sinning even though we're sinners.
    
    Hope this made sense.  I'm encouraged by not being comfortable with
    sinning, even though I do--that discomfort indicates that the Holy
    Spirit is in me "taking care of business."
    
    /Wayne

    >I agree that an attitude of "sinning is okay because God already knew
    >about it" is more than dangerous, it does not come from God.  We've
    >been given freedom NOT TO SIN, not licence to sin.  Apart from Christ,
    >we have no choice--we sin because we're sinners.  In Christ, we
    >have a choice--we find ourselves not sinning even though we're sinners.
        
    Yes, you just re-stated what I was *trying* to say.  The above is what
    they were talking about.  The idea that even if I choose to sin, its
    holy, because God knew about it.    
    

| <<< Note 795.489 by BBQ::WOODWARDC "...but words can break my heart" >>>

| _sure_ God has limits. He has imposed on Himself many limits. e.g. not
| destroying this evil and wicked world right now for the things humanity
| sees 'fit' to inflict upon oneanother. and the rest of creation (well,
| that bit that is within mankind's grasp, anyway).

	He IS going to destroy the evil and wicked of the world. When He wants
to. He hasn't put any limits on Himself, He just hasn't gotten around to doing
it yet.


Glen

A scripture verse that I'd never noticed before leapt out at me this weekend
in connection with this topic.  (Isn't it funny how often that happens?)

It's in Genesis, in the very early days of human life.  Cain has just killed
his brother Abel, and God is speaking to Cain:

 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?  And if you do not
  do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you
  must master it."
							Gen 4:7

"You must master it."  It is one of the earliest commands of the Lord.  Sin's
desire is for us, but we must master it to stay in union with the Lord. 
Really, it is the PRIMARY condition of our lives.  If you think about the
original condition of human beings, God *deliberately* put a restriction -
one restriction - on the people He created.  Obedience to Him and resistance
to sin was an essential part of us as His creations.  He could easily have
not put that tree in the garden, and not required obedience of His created
people.

But He did, from the very beginning.  And he told us "You must master it."

I don't want to attack you, Bob or Daryl, if you're still reading.  But from
the very beginning, it was Satan's voice that said "You don't really have to
do what God said."

I for one will continue to listen to the voice that said "You must master it."

Paul

>	He IS going to destroy the evil and wicked of the world. When He wants
>to. He hasn't put any limits on Himself, He just hasn't gotten around to doing
>it yet.


Let's see what 2peter 3:9 has to say:

2Peter 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count 
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

RE: <<< Note 795.494 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

	Amen Paul!
	

    In exodus God kept telling Moses that He would harden Pharoh's 
    heart so that he would not let them go.
    
    A debate occurred in bible study over this one.  Some said that this
    meant that God removed Pharoh's free will here.  He could not choose
    to let the people go.
    
    Pharoh didn't want to let them go.  They were his slaves.  They did
    everything for the Egypian people.  To live without all the slaves for
    even three days was unthinkable - no helpers, lose money, etc.
    
    I saw it this way, God removed his Spirit from Pharoh at that time and
    left him totally on his own.  In this state, his human nature surfaced
    even stronger so of course he would not let them go.  Without the
    helper, us trying to be holy or sinless is impossible.  

    Reading through those verses about the plagues, you find that the
    first few times, Pharoah, hardened his own heart. Only after that,
    does it say that God hardened Pharoah's heart. I would take that
    to mean that God confirmed Pharoah in the direction his own heart
    & will were already set. The narative also explains that this was
    done so the children of Israel would know that it was God who brought
    them out of Egypt and slavery.

    Leslie

    RE: .497
    
    Think about hardening of the heart as twisting a braided rope.  Extra
    pressure applied in the same direction as the braid causes the rope to
    become VERY hard.  The rope is still a rope, nothing removed, only
    pressure applied.
    
    /Wayne

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\
               ~  \__U_/  ~

    I just about cracked up when I saw that!!!!!

 ;-)

 Borrowed from Mr. Metcalfe

    Ok heres a new question.  My 8 year old daughter asked this
    and I was stumped.  If you plant a mustard seed what grows?
    A mustard plant?  Where is the mustard?  Does it have jars
    growing on its leaves?  :-)
    
    Jill2
    

    
    8*) cute!

    Uhm Jill2 I don't know the answer for sure, but I think mustard is
    ground up seed???? anybody know fer sure?

    she wants details too like how big a plant is it?  Can we grow one
    inside?  That might be a fun project.  What color leaves, stuff like
    that so we can picture what it looks like.

I'd look it up in an encyclopedia or plant book. My dictionary at the office 
has a little bit of information:

 "1. A plant of the genus Brassica, native to Eurasia, having four-petaled 
     yellow flowers and slender pds, esp B. nigra and B. alba, which are 
     cultivated for their pungent seeds.
                  .
                  .
                  .
  2b.A condiment made from powdered mustard seeds."

She could draw a picture of the plant, the leaves, the flowers, the pod,
Together you could look up references to mustard in the Bible. Make something
with powdered mustard. Check all the different kinds of prepared mustard in
the grocery store. Maybe try growing it at home if you can find seed or root
or something to start from through one of the seed catalogues or plant 
nurseries.

Leslie

Growing 'mustard and cress' is a frequent amusement for children here.  
The seeds are planted on wet cotton wool, or something like that, on a 
windowsill.  They grow up like a little clover lawn in a few weeks, and are 
used as salad plants.

There are forms of mustard which are much larger plants, and used in parables.

							Andrew

Oops, "slender pds" in 795.507 should really read "slender pods".

Leslie

      re: .497
    
      Hi Jill,
    
      On God hardening Pharoah's heart.  There is one instance where it
      says that Pharoah hardened his own heart.  How to reconcile?
    
      I heard someone give the following analogy.  If you put a stick 
      of butter and a roll in an oven and warmed it up to perhaps 150 deg.
      What happens?  The roll hardens and the butter melts.
    
      In this analogy, the heat is a revelation of the love of God.  Butter
      represents the faithful heart, the heart that responds to that reve-
      lation by faith.  The roll represents the unbelieving heart, the
      heart that responds to that love by unbelief.
    
      In either case, it was LOVE that facilitated the process.  If that
      love was rejected, the heart hardens and becomes an implacable enemy
      of Christ.  If the heart softens, it is melted to the very image of
      Christ Himself.
    
      I see God echoing foreknowledge.  Moses came as a type of Christ.  He
      was a meek and lowly shephard.  Genesis, I think (might be Exodus)
      says that Egypt would loath shephards.  Why?  Shephards are a type of
      Christ and rely totally upon God.  Egypt relies upon her chariots and
      swords.  There you have the showdown between the two gospels; justifi-
      cation by works versus justification by faith.
    
      God knew that when Moses reflected the love of Christ that Pharoah
      would respond to that love the way he did.
    
      Check out Hebrews 3 and 4.  They could not enter in because of 
      unbelief (3:19) so God said in His wrath, "They shall not enter My
      rest" (3:11,18).  And nested in this is an exhortation to enter His
      rest, "Today, IF YOU WILL HEAR HIS VOICE, do not harden your hearts
      as in the rebellion." (3:7,8).
    
      Also factor in the many times God says He is no respecter of persons.
      There is no partiality with God.  He gives the sun and rain to the
      just and the unjust.
    
      It was the same word, Pharoah just responded to that word in a way
      God foreknew and thus knew that a revelation of His goodness would
      harden Pharoah's heart.
    
      The sharper the sword (word), the harder it is to sit on the fence.
      You've got to go one of two ways.
                          
    							Tony

Nice analogy, Tony.

Egypt disliking shepherds is in Genesis 46:34, when Joseph introduces a 
selection of his brothers to Pharaoh.  I wonder who he chose... ;-)

							Andrew

    Lets look at this.  It takes us (many notes back) to resting in Him.
    Interpretations?
    
    Matthew 11:28-30
    28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you
    rest.
    29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble
    in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
    30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." 
    
    yoke
    n.
    1. a crossbar with two U-shaped pieces which encircle the necks of a
    pair 
    of draft animals.
    2. pl. yoke. A pair of draft animals joined by a yoke. 
    3. A frame carried across a person's shoulders with equal loads
       suspended from each end.
    4. A clamp or vise which holds two parts together.  
    5. a fitted part of a garment, esp. at the shoulders, to which another
       part is attached.
    6. something which connects or joins; bond: the yoke of matrimony.
    7. subjugation; bondage.  
    v. yoked, yoking. 
    1. to fit or join with or as if with a yoke.  
    2. To harness a draft animal to.  
    3. To connect, join, or bind together.
    

      Jesus helps us go to the cross.
    
      There is peace in obedience, in love.  In our sinful humanity,
      ultimate peace can only be found on the cross.
    
      Thus Christ bids us to go to Calvary.  He will help us yoke up 
      with Him there.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .512
    
    Seems clear (to me, anyway) that we are joined together with Christ.  I
    think of the yoke as faith.
    
    The imagery is very powerful.  For instance, when two animals are yoked
    together, the stronger bears the burden for the weaker.  I see Christ
    as bidding us take His yoke, knowing that we are weak.  He has
    committed to do the work as we gain strength (learning from Him as we
    see Him work alongside us) to the point our faith becomes sight and we
    are like Him when we see Him as He is.
    
    Resting, as I've said before, to me means counting on God to do what He
    said He will do.  We render our obedience out of love and gratitude.
    Therein lay the easy yoke and light burden.
    
    That's my interpretation and personalization, for what it's worth.
    
    Thanks for sharing the challenge.
    
    /Wayne

    I think it simply means that if we place our faith in Yeshua, and 
    are obedient to His will, we will find that we are not overburdened,
    and that our way in life will be good even if the circumstances are
    not. Yeshua will not be harsh taskmaster, but will enable us to do
    His will.

    Leslie

    Hmm,
    
    there are basically 2 ways that an animal can be used to pull a load.
    One is with a rope around its' neck, which, if it pulls too hard, all
    the force is concentrated on that relatively small area, and can end up
    choking the animal (not every one could afford to buy...) A yoke, on
    the other hand takes the same burden, and spreads it evenly across the
    'shoulders' of the beast. It takes the force away from the sensitive
    throat area. It removes that choking feeling.
    
    The burden is 'the same', in the sense that it is still the same mass
    being dragged around. But the pressure is greatly reduced on the animal
    in any one spot.
    
    I know with Jesus, my problems haven't all just magically disappeared.
    They're all still there. But when I allow Jesus to take the thick old
    rope from my neck, that is choking the life out of me, and hitch me up
    to His yoke, I can carry that burden. It's still there, but I can carry
    it now, because the force is spread out. And somehow, I think that is
    more beneficial for me, than Him taking the burden away completely.

    RE: .516
    
    Excellent point!
    
    Jesus said "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and
    take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24, KJV)
    
    Being yoked with/to Jesus means we will not fall under the weight
    because He always shall stand.

    On a farm, If you actually yoke two animals together and one is very srong and the
    other is very weak and you try to make them work, do they fall over or
    does the strong one just take most of the burden?

    RE: .518
    
    Now, Jill2, is this a rhetorical question? :-)

    No, I've really never seen this.  I'm a suburban girl.

    Oh, okay.  I was not raised a farmer, but I was a rural kind of guy,
    i.e., there were many more farm animals than people in my community.
    I would provide an answer, but someone might see me as biased.
    
    I have observed animals yoked and I know how things work.  Without
    giving away my answer, I would encourage "suburban" kind of people to
    watch a horse or ox pull in a local fair as opportunity avails.
    
    I guarantee enlightenment around the analogy under discussion. :-)

    By the way, young beasts of burden are often trained by being yoked to
    "mature" beasts of burden.
    
    'Nuff said.  As I said, this particular imagery is very powerful and
    rich.

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I reread your reply on the three stages of sanctification and
        I agree with the whole thing. (I don't remember where the reply
        was as I got it from a reply you deleted in the perfection topic).
    
        This means that so far as a transition in covenant is concerned,
        I was wrong and you were right.  PRAISE THE LORD!!!  (Its good to
        be wrong sometimes.)
    
        Heb 10:1-4 definitely speaks of ONE transition - from shadow to
        very image.
                                                                          
        I do happen to believe that we are very largely in shadow and that
        (thus) most of the transition has not yet taken place!
    
    						Thanks and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Its probably very foolish for me to ask, but, Tony can you
    summarize what you learned?  In a way that I can follow?
    
    Thanks
    Jill2

    RE: .523
    
    My reply in note 827.19 directed you to note .271 in this topic.
    
    Tony, I shared my understanding.  I don't regard our dialog as an
    exercise to find out who of us is right or wrong, rather as oppor-
    tunity to (re)search the Word of God for Truth that satisfies our
    souls.
    
    God bless you, too, brother.  Thanks for helping me "sanctify the Lord
    God in my heart: and be ready always to give an answer to every man
    that asketh me a reason of the hope that is in me with meekness and
    reverence..." (1 Peter 3:15, KJV)
    
    Yes indeed, much lays ahead in terms of our being conformed to the
    image of Christ.  And I look forward (by faith) to the joyful day when
    our faith finally and forever becomes sight!
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Jill,
    
        Will do later (time permitting).
    
      Hi Wayne,
    
        Yeah, I hear ya.  I'm not one to say "I'm right, you're wrong."
        I might think it, but in dialogue try to phrase things in a
        much more harmonious style.
    
        But, I don't mind saying, "I'm wrong, you're right" as I think
        its a healthy thing to be able to do.
    
    						Tony

  Re: .524
    
  Hi Jill,

    Here's my explanation on how I saw agreement with Wayne (and I assume
    this has to do with regarding the covenants).  Wayne said there is only
    one transition and I was saying there are two.  I believe Wayne is 
    correct; there is only one.

    Hebrews 10:1-4
    For the law having a shadow of the good things to come and not the very
    image of the things can never, with these same sacrifices which they offer
    continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
    For then would they not have ceased to be offered?  For the worshippers
    once purged would have had no more consciousness of sins.  But in those
    sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins every year.

    One can think of the transition just as Hebrews paints it - from shadow 
    to very image.

    The way I see it is that redemption is the making righteous of the heart.
    God's revelation, if received by faith, transforms the heart.  The whole
    process is one of dying and living.  Experiencing the pain of seeing one's
    sin, of crucifying the flesh with all its lusts, and of rising to a new 
    life in Christ Jesus.  This whole experience is the cross, our taste of
    it is just very incomplete.  The experience culminates by going behind 
    the veil or to put another way, by beholding very image.

    Hebrews 4:12-13
    For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged
    sword piercing even to the division of soul and spirit and of bone and
    marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked
    and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

    When we behold very image, the sword has pierced to its depths, revealing
    all the sin we are capable of by nature.  This is the cross.

    Anyway, God knew that man could not survive this experience all at once.
    Thus when Adam and Eve sinned, He provided a veil.  He then showed them
    just a little bit of His goodness - a shadow of very image.  And they
    died just as He said they would, "on that very day."

    So, God has been laboring to produce a transition in covenant since the
    day man sinned.  Shadow began when Adam first sinned and very image 
    replaces shadow when the corporate church of God's faithful are able to
    survive the experience.

    I happen to believe that our behavior is much more like Noah's (actually,
    most likely far less sanctified than Noah's as an example) and thus we
    must be beholding shadow much as Noah did.  Whatever very image is, it
    must be a lot different than the shadow that we presently behold.

    There comes a time when Christ's sacrifice, as a Substitute, ceases.  This
    is a sacrifice beheld as a shadow and (as such) we are reminded of sins
    every year.  If perception of Christ's sacrifice isn't complete, it is 
    shadow just as the animal sacrifices are.  The revelation produces a
    cleansing of heart, but it can't finish the work.

    A group sees the sacrifice as very image.  They follow their Forerunner
    behind the veil.  It is here that one bears his own sin as Jeremiah pro-
    phecies as an introduction to the new covenant:

    Jeremiah 31:30a
    But everyone shall die for his own iniquity

    Anyway, there is only one transition and it is from shadow to very image.
    The transition is revelatory.  Most of that transition is yet future or
    to put another way, most of the revelation is something not yet beheld
    for eye has not seen nor ear heard the things God has in store for the
    remnant!

							Tony

    Hi Tony -
    
    Ok I think I follow you mostly.
    
    Please explain the paragraph about Noah.  I don't understand what you
    are refering to.
    
    So your saying that there is 
    
      1 transition (the death of Jesus on the cross) which is still taking 
      place (still working to sanctify our hearts) 
    
      as apposed to 
    
      1 transition which is still taking place and cannot be complete until 
      the 2nd transition?
    
    And the transition will be complete when there is a perfected-holy 
    nation. 
    
    How'd I do?
    
    Jill2   

      Hi,
    
        I am saying there is only one transition.  Period.  Always, God
        is striving to reveal Himself to His people.  Except for the end
        of time, He is revealing *less* than very image.  Anything less 
        than very image is (then) shadow.
    
        The cross was a necessary event.  For where there is a testament
        [revelation], there must also of necessity be the death of the 
        testator.  For a testament is in force after men are dead since 
        it has no power at all while the testator lives.  (Heb. 10)
    
        The cross' sole purpose (I believe and I realize I'm in a decided
        minority) is revelatory, but it is still a shadow until its very 
        image is seen.  Calvary is necessary in order to pave the way for
        the church's seeing of very image to happen, but in the strictest
        sense, no change of covenant took place in 31 AD.
    
        Hebrews does not define transition in covenant in terms of the
        revelation that is given, it defines it in terms of the revelation
        that the church *sees*.  The transition did not take place when 
        Christ went into the Most Holy, it takes place when His bride
        goes into the Most Holy.  Going into the Most Holy has to do with
        what the church perceives.  The fact that the church at the time
        of 31 AD did not attain to the characteristic of a consciousness
        that has no remembrance of sin is proof that they did not see very
        image for that is what very image produces.
    
        The part about Noah was meant to take a person whom I think any of 
        us would consider a man of faith, to equate him to us in terms of
        the fact that neither Noah or us has attained to what beholding
        very image produces, and to suggest that in terms of departure from
        seeing very image, we are perhaps very near to where Noah was at.
    
        In other words, the magnitude at which we behold shadow and not
        very image is pretty vast and there is so much more for us to see.
       
        Our heart-seeing of the cross is extremely shadowy.
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony -
    
    I'm sorry this note sounds sort of like an attack, I really 
    didn't mean that, I just need more information, I'm still 
    interested...
    
    
    Now I'm really confused.  Lets go back to basics.  Where does the 
    term transition come from?  I couldn't find it in a bible search.
    
    The line you often quote, Hebrews 10:9
      He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 
    Refers to convenent not transition. Hebrews 9:15.
    
        Hebrews does not define transition in covenant in terms of the
        revelation that is given, it defines it in terms of the revelation
        that the church *sees*.  The transition did not take place when 
        Christ went into the Most Holy, it takes place when His bride
        goes into the Most Holy. 
    Hebrews 10:19-20
    Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the
    blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for
    us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
    
    We can go into the most holy now, even though we are not totally
    sactified or free from sin.  Thats the beautiful gift that Christ gave
    us.
    
    You seem to be tieing transition to the last days when there will be a
    perfected bride for Christ.  Since I don't see the scriptural context
    for transition I can't follow further.
    
        The fact that the church at the time
        of 31 AD did not attain to the characteristic of a consciousness
        that has no remembrance of sin is proof that they did not see very
        image for that is what very image produces.
    This is the paradox that a believer is totally sactified and yet still
    needs to be totally sanctified.  Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:19-20.
    
    I guess the bottom line is that I seek no biblical usage of the idea
    of transition.  You'll have to show me that or reformat you
    explanation to use "covenent" and other biblical terms instead.
    
    Jill2
    
    
    

    Hi Tony -
    
    I still don't follow the Noah example.  This is a bible study
    question, not really related to the transition issue.  What
    did Noah do wrong?  What says that he wasn't perfect?
    
    Jill2

Reply: Note 795.530

  Hi Jill,

    This reply will hit on two fairly major ways that I see things
    differently than a lot of other folks do.
    
    >Now I'm really confused.  Lets go back to basics.  Where does the 
    >term transition come from?  I couldn't find it in a bible search.
    
    Oh, I have no problem if the word isn't in the Bible so long as its
    meaning is in the Bible.  A transition is a change.  Hebrews 10:1-4
    speaks of shadow not perfecting, but very image perfecting.

    2 Corinthians 2:18 (one of my favorite texts)
    But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory 
    of the Lord, are being transformed [changed] into the same image 
    from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

    1 John says we will be like Him when we see Him *as He is* (very image).

    >The line you often quote, Hebrews 10:9
    >He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 
    >Refers to convenent not transition. Hebrews 9:15.
    
     Isn't that a change?

    Hebrews 10:19-20
    Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the
    blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for
    us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
    
    >We can go into the most holy now, even though we are not totally
    >sactified or free from sin.  Thats the beautiful gift that Christ gave
    >us.

    This is one of the two things I alluded to in the beginning of this reply.
    
    Will Christ force us to see revelation that we cannot survive?  Do you
    recall Christ saying to the disciples that He had many things to tell
    them, but they couldn't bear it?  Do you recall Him asking them if they 
    could be baptized with His baptism and drink of the cup He would drink?

    Hebrews is an exhortation to enter into the experience of beholding very
    image.  One way of exhortation is the scripture you brought up.  It also
    uses rest and inhabiting Mount Zion as examples.  Have you read Hebrews 12?
    Are you ready for that kind of revelation?

    It is my belief (STRONG conviction) that no sinner can behold very image
    and live.  Its not a coincedence, then, that another exhortation in Hebrews
    (which as I said is all really the same exhortation) is to "go on unto
    perfection."

  I'll continue...

  Continuing on...

    >You seem to be tieing transition to the last days when there will be a
    >perfected bride for Christ.  Since I don't see the scriptural context
    >for transition I can't follow further.

    Transition = change.  Change in the magnitude of glory we behold.  Change
    ultimately from beholding shadow to beholding very image.  Hebrews 
    delineates the covenants in one way - one is a beholding of shadow and
    the other is a beholding of very image.  This then implies a transition
    (or change if you will) in beholding which is precisely what the change
    in covenant is.

    Recall, *after the cross* that the author of Hebrews says, "Now what is
    becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."  The cross
    happened and yet the old covenant had not yet become obsolete, but was
    becoming obsolete.  

    How would you explain this?  (Unless its not delineated by the cross event,
    but rather by when a group sees the very image of the cross.)

        The fact that the church at the time
        of 31 AD did not attain to the characteristic of a consciousness
        that has no remembrance of sin is proof that they did not see very
        image for that is what very image produces.

    >This is the paradox that a believer is totally sactified and yet still
    >needs to be totally sanctified.  Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:19-20.
    
    Jill, of all people, you should be aware of my understanding of Romans 4
    and of the importance I give it.  This is one of the two things I alluded
    to in the beginnning of this reply.

    God called Abraham the father of many nations though he was not.  God calls
    those things which do not exist as though they did.  Might you consider
    incorporating this into the above?  I.e. God is calling *you* something
    you are not (totally sanctified) as though you are.

    He is not calling you something *you are* as though you are, He is calling
    you something *you are NOT* as though you are.

    >I guess the bottom line is that I seek no biblical usage of the idea
    >of transition.  You'll have to show me that or reformat you
    >explanation to use "covenent" and other biblical terms instead.
    
    In this case, I wouldn't have thought I would have had to given that a
    transition is just a change and going from beholding shadow to very image
    (old covenant to new covenant) is a change.

							Tony

    Hi Tony -
    
    Be patient with me, I think your proceeding past my current knowledge
    again so I need to catch up.  Its a great study, don't give up on me.
    
    I need to study some more but here are some questions for everyone.
    
    Hebrews 8:7-13 Contains things like:
      11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his
       brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least 
       to the greatest. 
     
      This seems to clearly say that the new covenant is not yet 
      made? in total effect?  
    
      So what is the new covenent, I go looking at Hebrews 9
    
    15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by
      means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were 
      under the first testament, they which are called
      might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 
    16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death
      of the testator. 
    17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no
      strength at all while the testator liveth. 
     
    Ok, this says that the new testament/covenent is in force after
    Christ's death.  But not finished?  This does seem to agree with
    that Tony is saying.  This is change/transition.  
    
    So there is a new testament/covenant that came into force when Christ
    died but hasn't totally vanished the first covenent yet (Hebrews 8:13)?
    
    How does this tie into Tony's claim that if we enter the Holy of Holies
    now (being not totally pure) we would be unable to stand the light?  
    I have trouble with this claim.  
    
    Any takers?  (Hello Wayne :-))
    
    Jill
                                 

      Hi Jill,
    
        Excuse my impatience!  I'm through a bit of a wringer right
        now!
    
        Is it possible that when it says that Jesus is the Mediator of
        the new covenant, that it is recognizing that the cross enables
        Christ our High Priest to be just that - the Mediator of the
        new covenant?  
    
        The new covenant is described in Hebrews twice and in Jeremiah
        once (or is it twice), "I will write my laws in your hearts."
        Did Jesus accomplish this when He died on the cross?
    
        Some questions to consider...
    
        After the high priest takes the shed blood, what does he do with
        it?  (Leviticus 16:19 as an example)
    
        What does this 'activity' produce?  (Hebrews 9:13-14,19-22/10:22/
        1 Peter 1:2).
    
        What is the blood?  (John 6:53,63)
    
        What is the sanctuary symbolic of?  (1 Corin 3:10-17)
    
        And please keep Romans 4 in mind as well as the following...
    
        Isaiah 33:17-18a
        You eyes will see the King in His beauty;
        They will see a land that is very far off.
        Your heart will meditate on terror.
    
        Isaiah 28:16-20
        Therefore thus says the Lord God:
       "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
        A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
        Whoever believes will not act hastily.
        Also I will make justice the measuring line, 
        And righteousness the plummet;
        The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
        And the waters will overflow the hiding place,
        Your covenant with death will be anulled,
        And your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
        When the overflowing scourge passes through,
        Then you will be trampled down by it.
        As often as it goes out it will take you;
        For morning by morning it will pass over,
        And by day and by night;
        It will be a terror just to understand the report."
    
        For the bed is too short for a man to stretch out on,
        And the covering so narrow that he cannot wrap himself in it.
    
    
        When one sees behind the veil, he looks at fire and he is without
        a covering.  Such a person will meditate on terror and it will
        be a terror just to understand the report.  Why?  For the word
        of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword
        and it reveals all that we are capable of outside of the grace of God.
    
        One cannot be a sinner and be able to survive the reading of such 
        a report.  It would be too terrifying.
    
        
        And do you know what?  I have seen enough of a report about me
        and have been through the wringer enough to know that to have
        the mind awakened to the full report...
    
        I couldn't survive it.  Not now.
    
        Not until my faith is perfected (Heb 12:1-2).
    
    							Tony
        
         

    But Christ is our Mediator - so through His
    mediation/protection/veiling we are able to be there now?  Even though
    we are not perfect if we believe in Him enough?
    
    Jill2                                   

    Your reply reminded me that Jesus is actively working even now on
    out behalf.
    
    Jill2

  Hi Jill,

  Reply Note 795.536

    >But Christ is our Mediator - so through His
    >***mediation/protection/veiling*** 
    >we are able to be there now?  Even though
    >we are not perfect if we believe in Him enough?

  I guess it all goes back to what it means to "be there."

  I believe that to be behind the veil means that He *is not* veiling.
  My take is that you have stated a contradiction of terms.

  Its like you're saying Christ enables us to be somewhere by having
  us not be there!  Behind the veil is just that...behind the veil.

  If Christ is still mediating, He has not quite yet completed His work
  of bringing the Father and the church together.  The church still cannot
  see the full glory of God.  If Christ is still protecting, the church
  is being protected from seeing the full glory of God.  If Christ is still
  veiling, what He is veiling is a full revelation of the full glory of
  God because the church is not ready to see the full glory of God.

  Maybe you can tell me how it makes sense to you that Christ enables us
  to be behind the veil by veiling what is behind the veil.  The totality
  of what it means to be behind the veil is to see/perceive what is behind
  the veil.  There is no other significance.  Its all revelatory.  Take the
  revelatory part away and you take the whole thing away.

  That to me is a contradiction.

  As to your other reply, oh yes, most definitely, Jesus is doing something
  now.  He continually sprinkles the hearts of His children with revelation
  of the cross hoping to get a group willing and able to be sprinkled with
  the full cup.

         						Tony

    Hi  Tony -
    
    
    Here is the longer thought out reply...
    
            Excuse my impatience!  I'm through a bit of a wringer right
            now!
    I thought I was the impatient one?
        
            Is it possible that when it says that Jesus is the Mediator of
            the new covenant, that it is recognizing that the cross enables
            Christ our High Priest to be just that - the Mediator of the
            new covenant?  
        
            The new covenant is described in Hebrews twice and in Jeremiah
            once (or is it twice), "I will write my laws in your hearts."
            Did Jesus accomplish this when He died on the cross?
    
    It was written in our hearts when we first believed, but us being of
    sinful flesh still sin.  This is what we need Jesus the Mediator to
    cleanse and forgive us of.  This is what Jesus is still actively doing
    as High Priest.  But now that the laws are in our hearts we
    (ourselves) hurt and grief when we sin.  As opposed to the non
    believers who don't really notice.  This is because Jesus is in us and
    we are in Him.  This is the process of total sanctification, the
    Romans 7:9 verse.
    
    I agree that we cannot stand total cleansing all at once.  So its a
    process.  I think where I differ from you is that I can go into the
    Holy of Holies because of Jesus.  Notice that the High Priests of
    Israel after lots of attoining blood and cleansing entered the Holy of
    Holies once a year.  They were not perfect either.  But the cleansing
    blood protected them.  We are the new holy nation a royal priesthood.
    We also can enter the Holy of Holies by Jesus's blood now.  Even when
    we are still sinners by the same reasoning.
        
            Some questions to consider...
        
            After the high priest takes the shed blood, what does he do
            with
            it?  (Leviticus 16:19 as an example)
        
            What does this 'activity' produce?  (Hebrews
            9:13-14,19-22/10:22/
            1 Peter 1:2).
        
            What is the blood?  (John 6:53,63)
        
            What is the sanctuary symbolic of?  (1 Corin 3:10-17)
        
            And please keep Romans 4 in mind as well as the following...
        
            Isaiah 28:16-20
            Therefore thus says the Lord God:
           "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
            A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
            Whoever believes will not act hastily.
            Also I will make justice the measuring line, 
            And righteousness the plummet;
            The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
            ...
    This one is talking about those who refuse to follow God.  So I'm
    ignoring it as a reasonable example.
        
            Isaiah 33:17-18a
            You eyes will see the King in His beauty;
            They will see a land that is very far off.
            Your heart will meditate on terror.
    This one I think is referring to the holy fear of God that all
    believers have.  It is a good example of seeing the full very-image.
    
    
            When one sees behind the veil, he looks at fire and he is 
            without a covering.  Such a person will meditate on terror 
            and it will be a terror just to understand the report.  Why?  
            For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than 
            any two-edged sword and it reveals all that we are capable 
            of outside of the grace of God.  One cannot be a sinner and 
            be able to survive the reading of such a report.  It would 
            be too terrifying.
    I believe that Jesus is our covering, so I don't agree that we would
    be hurt.  Jesus would only let us see what we were able to handle.
        
                
            And do you know what?  I have seen enough of a report about me
            and have been through the wringer enough to know that to have
            the mind awakened to the full report...
            I couldn't survive it.  Not now.
    He would never show you more than you could bear.  1 Cor 10:13 
    
    
    Jill2   

      Hi Jill,
    
        I don't think this covers everything, but I think it applies
        to most of our disconnect.
    
        I basically don't see you applying my understanding of Romans 4
        to any of your understandings.
    
        I don't mean this in a bad way, I just want to cut to the chase.
      
        Do you believe that where God calling us righteous is concerned,
        that He is calling us something that does not exist as though
        it does?
    
        If you don't believe this (and thats OK), so far as I see it, you
        have to come up with some kind of theology that really doesn't 
        hold water, i.e. we are sanctified though we are not perfectly
        sanctified, we are in the most holy though we cannot bear to be
        in the most holy, we are perfect though we are being perfected.
    
        The common thread I see in so far as encompassing the vast majority
        of our differences in understanding is that I apply my understanding
        of the basis for right standing as expounded on in Romans 4 to 
        several things and I don't see you applying it to *anything*.
    
        And thats OK!  I just don't want to go around and around and around
        unless you come back to me on Romans 4 as well as how it is we
        can be behind the veil and yet it is veiled and what significance
        you attribute to being behind the veil outside of revelation.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Jill,                                                         
    
        Can you support the idea that the law is completely written
        in the heart when we first believed?
    
        If Hebrews is consistent, why wouldn't the law being written
        in the heart be just one of many different ways the author is
        saying the same thing?  And, if it is, the author is addressing
        Christians, but exhorting them to a higher state of maturity -
        that state being perfection.
    
        By Christians, I allude to the fact that they already have faith.
        And yet the covenant is stated to them as a future tense thing.
    
    						Thanks,
    
    						Tony

      Hi Jill,
    
        I'll check out that Isaiah verse in more detail.
    
        What do you think the High Priest going into the Holy of Holies
        once a year typified?
    
        I think it typifies the future experience I am talking about!
    
    						Tony

    Ok, I'll go study Romans 4 tonight.  Give me some time...
    I might need some help too.
    
    Jill
    

    RE: .534
    
    Hi, Jill2.
    
    Sorry, not going to take the bait. :-)
    
    But, I will restate my understanding:
    
    I have confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus, i.e., agreed with God on
    who Jesus was/is, what He did and why, and believe in my heart that God
    raised Him from the dead; therefore, I have been, am being and will be
    saved.  By faith I am (being made) the righteousness of God.
    
    If I were to die tonight, then I will continue to live eternally with
    God.  I will see Jesus as He is and I will be like Him.  God who has
    predestined that I will be like Christ, now calls me righteous because
    He sees what I will be.  I have been sealed in the new covenant by
    Christ's blood and I have been given the Holy Spirit as guarantee.  He
    bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God.
    
    By faith I reckon that God has done, is doing and will do what He says.
    I rest in Christ, knowing that God sees me in Christ and Christ in me,
    until my faith becomes sight.  Then I shall know even as I am known and
    dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
    
    I do not see myself as perfect.  Others do not see me as perfect.  All
    that means is that He is not finished with me yet!  I do not need to
    see perfection in myself or others in order to be convinced that I will
    be (made) perfect because I see/feel enough to know that God is
    faithful and true.
    
    May the peace of God, which goes beyond seeing, keep our hearts and
    minds through Christ Jesus.
    
    /Wayne

 Amen.

      Hi Wayne,
    
        It was neat (for me) reading your reply and having it be in
        perfect harmony with Romans 4, "He calls those things that 
        do not exist as though they did."  I.e. we are not presently
        righteous.
    
        I appreciated your reply.
    
    						Tony

    Back in note .540 Tony asked me these questions:
    
    1) explain right standing as expounded on in Romans 4
    
    2) whats the purpose of being behind the veil
    
    
    I have two questions also (I think these are related):
    
    1) can we be perfect before death? (I mean a physical death - 
                                        actual death of our body)
            (By perfect I mean totally sanctified, no sin)
    
    2) what is the purpose of entering the Holy of Holies?
    
    
    
    I find it interesting that near the beginning of this note, I learned
    that it was a desirable goal to be perfect.  Now we are back again to
    the same subject.  :-)  See there is some organization in this note?!
    
    Ok, I'll try to answer these, but I'm not totally happy with these
    answers yet.
    
    1) Can we be perfect before death?
    No.  But His grace is suffiencient for me.  I rest in Him.  I'm
    at peace until death when I will be pure again.  When I'll be what 
    I was created to be.  When I'll be outside the laws of sin and death.  
    Home again.  
    
    So I can't be perfect while in this sinful flesh, but I can (at
    the same time) be perfect while in Jesus.  This is what I take
    Romans 4:17 to mean.  The God who gives life to the dead and calls 
    things that are not as though they were.  He gives us life, even 
    though we are sinful flesh and therefore dead, through Jesus.  So we 
    are alive in Jesus but dead in flesh.  "things that are not as through 
    they were".  Now, not at some later day.
    
    2) Whats the point in entering the Holy of Holies?
    Seek the source.  Worship Him.  Thats the point, all the rest, like
    revelation and healing and growth, is just caused from this.  The 
    cause is being near to Him, the effect is fruit.  Simple.  We must do
    this now to grow, not wait until we are already totally sactified.
    
    Jill
    
    
    
    

      Hi Jill,
    
        This will be awhile as I have a couple other commitments
        (including offline correspondence with someone).
    
        But, I hope to not go easy on you!!   ;-)
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony -
    
    Ok, I'll try to be patient.
    
    Jill

    Heres a new question.  Why pray out loud as opposed to silently
    when alone?  Is there scriptural backing for this?
    
    Jill2

 I don't think there is scriptural guidelines.  I find I prefer to pray
 aloud most of the time as I find it easier to stay focused on what I
 want to say.  However during times at church when there is a time of
 prayer, I'll pray silently unless praying aloud is called for.




 Jim

795.550 � Why pray out loud as opposed to silently when alone?  
795.550 � Is there scriptural backing for this?
    
I rather think the prayer in Nehemiah 2:4 was silent .. .as well as not 
being alone ... ;-)

Like Jim, I do not believe that there is any precedent for private prayer 
to be aloud.  The directive in Matthew 6:5... on private prayer emphasises 
the state of the heart (:14-15) rather than the form.  However, as privacy 
is important - you are praying to God, not for men to hear - silent prayer 
might well seem appropriate.Daniel's prayer in Daniel 6:10 seems to have 
been spoken, otherwise it may not have been recognised as prayer (though he 
_was_ kneeling).  King David's prayer in 2 Samuel 7:18.. was apparently out 
loud, while sitting.

I think that this indicates that whatever you feel reverently comfortable
with, and seems most appropriate to the occasion, is ok.


								Andrew

    
    Words when spoken are more than audible to human ears.  They
    are spiritual in nature and therefore have power. The sounds 
    may be recorded or the image captured in writing but the power
    of the word is in its spiritual nature.
    
    That spiritual nature is as the wind and as oil. 
    
    The prayer in the heart that is silent is to the Lord. But the
    prayer that is spoken is heard by all worlds,  Spiritual and 
    Physical. 
    
    It is Life and death. For life and death are in the power of the
    tongue.  The power of the tongue is the spoken word.
    
    >>Why pray out loud as opposed to silently when alone?
    
    	We are never alone.
    
    Bob

� >> Why pray out loud as opposed to silently when alone?
    
� 	We are never alone.
    
Those who are with us when no mortal is around can hear the thoughts
prayed, and do not need it to be spoken out loud.  However, there *is* a 
significance in speaking the words out loud.  I find it particular good to 
do at least a part of my daily Bible reading out loud, even where there 
are no ears in sight.

							Andrew

    I can't follow this line:
    
    That spiritual nature is as the wind and as oil.
    
    
    Jill2 

    
    >>That spiritual nature is as the wind and as oil.
    
    	And when he had taken the book, the four and twenty
    	elders fell down before the lamb, having every one 
    	of them harps, and golden vials full of odours,
    	which are the prayers of the saints.
    
    	Rev.5:8
    
    	The odours or incense is as the oil in the 
    	golden vials. Rev 8:3 shows it will be offered
    	upon an altar and its smoke will ascend up
    	before God. 
    
    	The odours rides as the wind as does the smoke.
    
    	There is much more that can be seeked.

    Thats beautiful, thank you.
    

    In the closing moments of this age, the Lord will  have a people whose
    purpose for living is to please God with their lives.  In them, God
    finds His own reward for creating man.  They are His worshippers.  They
    are on earth only to please God, and when He is pleased, they also are
    pleased.  The Lord takes them farther and through more pain and
    conflicts than other men.  Outwardly, they often seem smitten of God
    and afflicted.  
    
    Yet to God, they are His beloved.  When they are crushed, 
    like the petals of a flower, they exude a worship, the
    fragrance of which is so beautiful and rare that angels weep in quiet
    awe at their surrender.  They are the Lord's purpose for creation.
    
    "The three Battlegrounds" by Francis Frangipane. page 72

  *** good ***

  					thanks Jill
							Andrew

    re: 795.547
    
    Hi Tony, Wayne, and everyone else
    
    After lots of thought and study I've learned that the way I used
    "sinful flesh" in note 795.547 was wrong.  Since Jesus came in the
    form of flesh but without sin, linking the two words together is
    wrong.  Sure our nature, which was inherited from Adam, tends to allow
    us to be drawn into sin.  But its a choice, not an inherent
    inrefutable property of our flesh.
    
    After saying this, I wish to rewite the first part of my note 
    # 795.547 to reflect this change.
    
    
    1) Can we be perfect before death?
    
    Sure.  Nothing is too difficult for Him.  Its a great goal.  Jesus was
    perfect.  However, even Paul the apostle didn't think he was perfect
    (Phil 3:12).  But it didn't worry Paul, "For I know whom I have
    believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have
    committed unto Him against that day" (2Ti 1:12).
    
    His grace is sufficient for me.  I rest in Him.  I'm at peace until
    Christ appears and our faith becomes sight in seeing Him as He is and
    ourselves like Him (1 John 3:2).  Then I'll be what I was created to
    be.  Then I'll be outside the laws of sin and death.  Home again.
    
    So while I'm currently not perfect I can (at the same time) be perfect
    while in Jesus.  This is what I take Romans 4:17 to mean.  The God who
    gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they
    were.  He gives us life through Jesus, even though we are sinners and
    therefore dead.  So we are alive in Jesus but dead in flesh.  "things
    that are not as though they were".  Now, not at some later day.
    
    
    
    Jill2
    

    While I'm waiting for a reply about .547 and .560 on perfection,
    it occurred to me that perhaps a summary (you know in English  :-)) 
    of what I think the answer is to the praying out loud question might
    be helpful.  Let me know if anyone wants to see one.
    
    Jill2

    .561
    
    I don't recall the question on perfection, but I've been doing a study
    on James 3 and 4 and I do believe you can find a lot regarding
    perfection there.

    So no one wants to see my summary of praying out loud???
    Come on someone humor me and ask...

 Anybody in here have a summary about praying out loud? I'd love to 
 see it.




 Jim 

    Yeah, I was wondering the same thing as Jim.  I wonder if anyone has a
    summary about praying, particularly out loud? :-)
    
    /Wayne

    I'm glad you asked.  :-)  
    
    re: .550-558
    
    Let the tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2:11).
    
    Even when there are no other humans around, we are always surrounded
    by other powers and principalities both of good and evil.  By praying
    out loud all can hear and witness our love and faith.  It is part of the
    final battle, a collecting of our prayers, eventually there will be
    enough to tip the balance.  They also are pleasurable and pleasing to
    God.  Prayer is described like incense rising.  It relates back to
    the tabernacle.  The alter of incense, the burnt offerings, all
    cleansing and pleasing fragrances offered up to God.  And of course
    God listens to our prayers and works for the good of His people.  When
    prayers are out loud there is more power because He can then use them
    as a witness before all of our faith and love.
    
    "Let them be as incense rising onto you
     Lord how I long to be near to you"
    
    
    Jill2

    Hi, Jill2.
    
    Thanks again for sharing your learning.
    
    A couple more things for your consideration: "O Israel, return unto the
    Lord thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you
    words, and turn to the Lord: say unto Him, Take away all iniquity, and
    give good graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips." (Hosea
    14:1&2, KJV)
    
    "By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
    continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to His name."
    (Hebrews 13:15, KJV)
    
    We can indeed offer the sacrifice of praise to God by actually praying
    aloud.  The attitude of our heart to offer (sanctify, if you will) our
    lips (and tongue) in praise rises as "an odour of a sweet smell, a
    sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God." (Phillipians 4:18b, KJV)
    
    In other words, I believe choosing to speak/mouth the words of the
    spirit is one way to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
    acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service." (Romans 12:1b,
    KJV)
    
    I would encourage anyone who struggles with praying aloud, particularly
    in public, to try regarding the fruit of their lips as a sacrifice to
    God.
    
    /Wayne
          

Thanks Jill,

�    it occurred to me that perhaps a summary (you know in English  :-)) 
�    of what I think the answer is to the praying out loud question might
�    be helpful.  Let me know if anyone wants to see one.

When I first read 795.561, my first impulse was to rush off to my nearest 
book store and buy a copy (well, you know...;-) 'by HPCGRP::DIEWALD', but 
then I skimmed back and forth (as James [Cameron] might not say), and
extracted a chunk of 795 replies to take home and catch up on, as I felt I
should familiarise myself with the contextual discussion more, and maybe 
even contribute, but I got so enmeshed in this that I never got to say:
please-can-I-have-a-copy-of-the-answer-to-the-praying-out-loud-question

But I figured masses of people would be asking anyway, so you'd post it 
unless it was book-length, when we'd get a pointer, publisher, etc.

I hesitated about the 'in English'.  Does it lose anything in translation?
I would be interested in seeing it in the original as well.  Even if it's
in tongues (Pens?  Keyboards?).  But the English does fine for a start.
Just so long as it isn't a paraphrase. 

							;-)
								Andrew

Jill, I would add a little in agreement to .566 

Jesus' teaching on prayer concentrates more on the content, state 
of the heart and confidence in an answer, than the manner of prayer
 - eg Matthew 6:5-14, Luke 11:1-12 etc.  If anything, these emphasise the 
importance of private prayer rather than public prayer, because in 
public we can too easily regard the human hearers as the audience, and 
let that colour what we pray, instead of focussing entirely on the LORD,
and opening our hearts to Him.  People are often initially reluctant to
pray out loud in a prayer meeting, because they are too aware of the other 
people there, instead of being aware of the LORD being there.  And, yes, 
the spiritual angelic forces, good and evil, too.

The Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:10-14 both apparently prayed out 
loud, and that did not affect the fact that the prayers of one were self 
centred and dead, while the prayers of the other were sincere, honest -
and answered.

								Andrew

    Andrew, do you have much experience with group prayer?
    It is hard to get used to but once thats learned its amazing.
    My bible study last year went through Evelyn Christenson's 
    book "What Happens when Women Pray".  We read the book and 
    then did each chapter.  It was a wonderful experience and 
    taught me a whole new dimension to prayer.  Speaking of fast
    growth.  That period was truly amazing.  Actually the whole 
    last two years have been but that was a more memorable part! 
    
    Jill2
    
    P.S. You embarrass me with your praise!  I'll have to go back and
    use one of Wayne's lines.  Its not me who speaks.  Praise Him.

�    Andrew, do you have much experience with group prayer?

If you mean praying in small groups, with Bible reading and personal
sharing - yes, I appreciate that a lot, and for a number of years have met
with different groups of friends for that purpose. 

� Evelyn Christenson's book "What Happens when Women Pray".  

I read her first three books many years ago, and went to a mass seminar in 
London which she led.  It was like a personal / interactive session, with 
about 500 people present... ;-)

Sorry if I embarrassed you ... but I know Who gives it to you ;-)

[leaving now  - it's UK close-down time]
							Andrew

    A friend asked the Lord to explain why the laws were needed.  She
    shared this picture with me.
    
    The laws are like the fence of a corral.  They protect the prized
    horses from the dangers outside.  Being inside the corral gives safety
    and peace and love.  But if you have a prize filly you can't just let
    her run wild.  That would be wrong and wasteful.  So you must train
    her just as God teaches us and trains us and disciplines us.  It is
    because we are so important to Him, like a prized filly.  He loves us
    and cares for us and cherishes us.  But just as a horse will fight
    against being broken, so do we.  But once its over and the horse can
    now be ridden and joined with a rider, the horse is happy for this is
    what she was meant to be and what she really enjoys most in her heart.
    
    The laws are the corral.  Outside is sin and death but inside is
    safety and protection in faith, hope and love.
    
    
    Jill

    re:  571
    
    >and went to a mass seminar in 
    >London which she led.  It was like a personal / interactive session,
    >with about 500 people present... ;-)
    Cool.  Its fun seeing these people you just read about in
    person!!  :-) !!!  When are you coming to the states?
    
    >If you mean praying in small groups, with Bible reading and personal
    >sharing
    Yes thats what I meant.
    
    I find that praying out loud, even when I'm not with other people, now
    is the only way to go.  It goes with what Wayne said a few notes back.
    
    
    Jill

re .573 

� When are you coming to the states?
I've been 8 times so far, but the last was in 1987, and I don't see any 
likelihood of another opportunity!  Sorry...
    
� I find that praying out loud, even when I'm not with other people, now
� is the only way to go.
OK, so long as there is a modicum of privacy.  It can be a little awkward
to totally open your heart when other people are around who aren't 
participating.

							Andrew

    I didn't mean in the middle of a room!  I meant when possible, praying
    out loud is the only way to go.
    
    Hmm, he must really think I am crazy!
    
    
    Jill

�    Hmm, he must really think I am crazy!

Why is she the exception....?

� I didn't mean in the middle of a room!  
�	I meant when possible, praying out loud is the only way to go.

			And what a way to go!!!!!

When the home is a shared facility, sometimes there isn't privacy of that 
sort.  Though I have found a noisy machine room useful in its time ... ;-)

							&

      re: .560
    
      Hi Jill2,
    
        Just a couple quick points...
    
        The Bible itself joined the words "sinful" and "flesh" in
        Romans 8:3 so it can't be wrong to join them.  BUT, I am
        certain that having sinful flesh does not mean that such 
        a person must sin.  I think it just refers to a flesh which
        tempts in ways incorruptible flesh never would.
    
        Second, you mentioned being perfect in Christ.  What does
        this mean to you?  I think in Christ refers to how He looks
        at us and is based on what the merits of the cross can produce
        in us.
    
        As an example, when Abraham survived the symbolic three day
        experience, God said...
    
        Genesis 22:16-18
        and said, "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you 
        have done this thing, and have not witheld your son, your 
        only son,
        in blessing I will bless you and in multiplying I will multiply
        your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand
        which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the
        gate of their enemies.
        In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
        BECAUSE YOU HAVE OBEYED MY VOICE.
    
        Now, lets see what the blessing is...
    
        Galatians 3:8
        And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the nations
        by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying,
        "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
    
        It follows that *what allows for the preaching of the gospel*
        is the fact that Abraham obeyed God's voice.
    
        THIS IS CRUCIAL.  DO YOU SEE THIS?
    
        It is because Abraham survived the three day experience ("because
        you have done this thing") that ALL OF ABRAHAM'S SEED SHALL BE
        BLESSED.
    
        And that blessing is nothing short of the gospel which is the
        message of the cross.
    
        If I could summarize what I think the crux of our difference is,
        it is this...
    
        You see us as perfect based on the finished work of the cross
        IN SOME WAY that is not inclusive of what the cross can produce
        in so far as heart-change is concerned.
    
        Could you elaborate on what your "some way" is?  On what basis
        does the finished work of the cross enable God to look upon 
        person's of faith as perfect?
    
        Now please, appreciate how dramatic a contrast this is with the
        following...
    
        I believe we are seen as perfect on the basis of the finished
        work of the cross 100% BECAUSE OF WHAT THE MERITS OF THE CROSS
        CAN PRODUCE IN SO FAR AS ACTUAL HEART-CHANGE IS CONCERNED.	
    
        Try as people might to remove heart-change as being the efficacy
        of the cross, but the reason Abraham was accounted righteous
        when he first had faith is because God could actually make him
        righteous.
    
        And that is 100% of the reason why and how the cross saves.
    
        The message of the cross is able to fully transform the heart.
    
        When Romans 4 refers to Abraham and his being accounted righteous,
        it does so on the basis that Abraham's faith was cultivated to
        the point that he obeyed God's voice.
    
        You simply cannot wrest perfection outside of our hearts actually
        being made right.  There is no other perspective than that.
    
        					Tony
                    

    Hi Tony -
    
           Just a couple quick points...
    Ha!  It will take me a while to digest this.  Be patient.
    
    Jill2