| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 836.1 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:01 | 1 |
| Jay, you're a trouble-maker ;-)
|
| 836.2 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:18 | 7 |
| I don't have time for a full reply, but an off-the-cuff response:
While the Bible certainly is vague on some issues we might wish it was more
clear on, the Bible isn't vague at all about the things that really matter,
the things that are essential to salvation.
Paul
|
| 836.3 | well...:-) | CSC32::KUHN | | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:28 | 13 |
| No. seriously. this has *nothing* to do with 'Is the bible infallable'
or any specific doctrinal position stated by anyone here or anyone
getting into a rathole proving their position against everyone, It's
more of how do you know you are right? I do not mean to question your
belief in Christ as your saviour. Lets keep it off that subject. This
pertains (i hope) more to practices or secondary things in the church
like charismatic vs. not, women in authority, drinking or not, meeting
on sunday or not ect. On things like this, the bible is not always
clear (or i am thick). God wrote it that way for a reason. And somehow
I know it is in his plan.
(well, yes I guess I am a trouble-maker. :-) but it is NOT my intent
here.)
|
| 836.4 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Dec 20 1995 17:18 | 8 |
| > pertains (i hope) more to practices or secondary things in the church
> like charismatic vs. not, women in authority, drinking or not, meeting
> on sunday or not ect. On things like this, the bible is not always
> clear (or i am thick). God wrote it that way for a reason. And somehow
I don't believe the Bible is vague on any of these things.
Mike
|
| 836.5 | RE: .0 Why do we seek to know? | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Dec 20 1995 18:13 | 88 |
| Hi, Jay.
You said you were interested in hearing positions on why the Bible seems vague
sometimes. Since you asked, I'll state my opinion. But only after setting the
context with some Scripture. :-)
Jesus said "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,
that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world
cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him;
for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless:
I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye
see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of
my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
Judas asked "How is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the
world?"
Jesus answered "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love
him, and we will comeunto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me
not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the
Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present
with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jn 14:16-26, KJV)
Jesus also said "The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth: for He shall
not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He
will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for He shall receive of mine,
and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore
said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (Jn 16:13-15,
KJV)
The apostle John said "But ye have an unction from the Holy ONe, and ye know
all things...But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and
ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth your of
all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye
shall abide in Him." (1Jn 2:20&27, KJV)
The apostle Peter said "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the
knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as His divine power hath
given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the
knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto
us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of
the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through
lust. And besie this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and
to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly
kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that
ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and
hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." (2Pe 1:2-9, KJV)
So, what's my point/position? The written Word of God cannot be understood
apart from the indwelling Spirit of God. The Word and the Spirit together
reveal Truth to our hearts. All that we need to know in order to love God, to
become like Jesus, and to keep His commandments are (being made) known to us.
In other words, we will NEVER lack what we individually need for God to
accomplish His work in us. As concerning what I NEED TO KNOW, the Word of God
will NEVER be vague. However, problems arise whenever I by faith do not do what
I know to be true. If I seek to know in order to obey, then the Holy Spirit
will commend the truth of God's Word to my heart. If I seek only academic
knowledge, or knowledge for the sake of knowing and not necessarily doing, then
my understanding will be "vague" at best, perhaps even void.
So, if the Word of God seems vague to me, then I first check my motives in
coming to Scripture, i.e., am I desiring to know what God says in order to
establish, or perhaps change, my faith and conduct, or am I rather seeking to
support apriori thoughts and actions with Scripture? God wants our lives to
fit His Word, and will resist all efforts to make His Word fit our lives.
Who *really* knows if something should be taken literally or not? The Holy
Spirit who inspired the Word and who indwells the believer.
Why do people who pray for truth on a doctrinal position come up with different
views? To that I would answer only God sees the heart. By the way, giving
your life for your position is MUCH different than taking another life for your
position: "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for
us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren...let us not love in
word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (1Jn 3:16&18, KJV)
Bottom-line: If the Word of God seems vague, then we should be sure we're doing
what God already has made clear and ask ourselves if we really NEED TO KNOW
what's now unclear, or if something seems unclear because the Holy Spirit is
commending truth against our selfishness.
/Wayne
|
| 836.6 | Read the whole Bible through | GRANPA::BROWN | My kids call my father Granpa Brown | Wed Dec 20 1995 22:25 | 7 |
| I have taken it upon myself to read through the Bible in a year for the
past three years and it is only starting to become more familiar.
There are many rich truths to be uncovered in the Bible and there are
some things that seem to be mentioned in one or two places and other
things that are drilled into several places and even requoted. If you
want the Bible to become more clear then read the whole thing through a
few times and get a personal relationship with the Author by doing so.
|
| 836.7 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | let your light shine | Thu Dec 21 1995 10:28 | 14 |
| Jay's question is an excellent one and one that has not been adequately
addressed by the answers.
Taking the one point about Baptism alone. Some people believe that you
have to be baptised as an adult to be saved. Some people believe that
infant baptism is enough.
The are learned scholars, holy women and men that take each side of the
argument. This is not a peripheral issue. It is about how salvation
is obtained.
Why is the Bible not more clear?
Patricia
|
| 836.8 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Dec 21 1995 11:27 | 19 |
| Wayne thanks for a great reply to this question!
Re: baptism
The problem again is placing tradition over God's Word. The Greek word
for baptism is for immersion and is only done for adults. Jews didn't
baptize children. Children weren't accountable for their sin until their
bar/bat mitsvah(sp?). Jews baptized by immersion.
The history of the sprinkling tradition was born out of trying to
baptize death-bed converts who were too ill to be immersed. God's Word
doesn't support this.
As Wayne said, first you need an intimate relationship with God, you
have to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and if things are still vague,
you have to pray for spiritual wisdom. Study alone doesn't do it (but
it's good too).
Mike
|
| 836.9 | Because He loves us!!! | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Thu Dec 21 1995 11:38 | 51 |
| Hi Jay,
Interesting question, which we have discussed before, but I don't remember
where... ;-) It might have been incidental to a topic, rather than the
main subject.
Jay, what does God want in Christians?
� People who are theologically correct?
� People who use the Bible merely as a reference manual?
� People who can recite the Bible verbatim?
� People who are learning to know God through the Bible?
Obviously the Bible is useful for all the above purposes, but they are not
all the primary purpose for which God gave it. The Bible is correct, but
learning how to understand some debatable questions isn't just a matter of
following a formula (even just reading prayerfully, and really, but REALLY
_really_ caring, etc). It's a matter of walking with God, where he has to
take you (me) which may not seem at all where we thought we wanted to go...
Often, by the time you reach the answer to the original question, you
realise that it really isn't that big a deal. The things you've learned on
the way are considerably more significant, and very much less able to be
shared. This again adds up, because God isn't committed to making us into
eggheads. If He wanted spiritual supercomputers, He could have given us
auto-backup brain storage which could be called into play as photographic
memory whenever we read the Word.
Knowledge puffs up; love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1). If you want to
know *everything*, you first have to learn that you are nothing. A closer
glimpse of the God Who is perfect shows up our every flaw, and we can only
bear the shame because of His assurance that He loves us enough to suck our
poison from the wound and take the penalty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
836.3 � No. seriously. this has *nothing* to do with 'Is the bible infallable'
836.3 � or any specific doctrinal position stated by anyone here or anyone...
836.3 � It's more of how do you know you are right? ...
836.3 � pertains (i hope) more to practices or secondary things in the church
836.3 � ... On things like this, the Bible is not always clear (or i am thick).
836.3 � God wrote it that way for a reason. And somehow I know it is in his
836.3 � plan.
So ... my short answer would be - because He loves us enough to perfect us.
And that means the _best_.
So - sure, keep studying to understand the Word, for it is there above all
that we meet God undiluted. But it is His _character_ we need to learn to
reflect down here. Not His dimensions.
God bless
Andrew
|
| 836.10 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Praise His name I am free | Thu Dec 21 1995 12:23 | 27 |
|
> Jay's question is an excellent one and one that has not been adequately
> addressed by the answers.
Have you read .6? I don't think it could be any clearer than that.
> Taking the one point about Baptism alone. Some people believe that you
> have to be baptised as an adult to be saved. Some people believe that
> infant baptism is enough.
Please provide chapter and verse that demonstrates infant baptism.
> Why is the Bible not more clear?
see .6
Jim
|
| 836.11 | Is the Bible God's Word or not? | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Dec 21 1995 12:43 | 15 |
| RE: .7
You ask why is the Bible not more clear? For whatever reason you did
not hear the answers in .5 and .6, in particular. If the Bible really
is God's Word, and is accepted as such, then what we need to know in
order for God to accomplish His work in us is clear. If the Bible is
not God's Word, then not only will things be vague, but also will truth
never be CERTAINLY known!
There are various outward manifestations of heart-felt obedience. Man
looks on outward appearance, but God sees the heart. Only God can
ultimately and appropriately account faith and subsequent action for
righteousness.
/Wayne
|
| 836.12 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 21 1995 14:13 | 7 |
| >
> Please provide chapter and verse that demonstrates infant baptism.
>
We have, but you won't believe that "whole household" includes children.
/john
|
| 836.13 | not necessary | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Dec 21 1995 14:18 | 1 |
| Correct, especially without the bar/bat mitzvah.
|
| 836.14 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | let your light shine | Thu Dec 21 1995 15:43 | 17 |
| Jim,
Re .10 re .6
Yes I did read .6 throughout.
From my experience of reading and studying the Bible over the last four
years, I find that the ambiguities to be more clearly ambiguities the
more I read and study.
I liked Andrews reply, that it was more than just reading and studying,
but a walk with God. Why is it that some people in there walk with
God come up with answers that are so different than other peoples?
If two people pray for wisdom and guidance, does God only answer the
one? Or does God lead each one in the direction that God leads each
one?
|
| 836.15 | through a glass darkly? | CSC32::KUHN | | Thu Dec 21 1995 16:25 | 14 |
| re: last few.
Exactly what I am talking about. Two competent people, two different
beliefs.
Is it as Paul says, that we all 'see through a glass darkly' and have
partial understanding? And how much does our background and environment
cloud our understanding?
Note: I am *not* implying that the Word of God is not the absolute truth
nor am I trying to hint that deconstructionism (people choose
their own meaning) is valid. My questions are about human understanding
of the Divine.
|
| 836.16 | My Humble .02 | CPCOD::JOHNSON | A rare blue and gold afternoon | Thu Dec 21 1995 16:36 | 35 |
| Its an interesting puzzle, isn't it? I think there are several factors
that contribute to the multitude of interepretations on and shadings
people give to the Scriptures.
Perhaps God wants to us to learn and grow in ways that we would not if
everything was defined very tightly and precisely. We have to use our
minds and spirits, and struggle and wrestle a bit with Scripture and
with the way we think and live our lives.
Secondly, God has given us humans room to make our decisions, our own
choices. As we are all individuals with different life experiences, we
tend to look at things differently. I think we've talked before about the
differences that we have based on our various perspectives. Furthermore,
although I do think the Holy Spirit will give us wisdom and insight when
we seek it, I do not think God runs roughshod over our own will, spirit,
and mind.
I also think we have lost, at least in part, the historical/cultural
context in which the Scriptures were written. This does not make it
impossible for us to understand them, but it does make room for error on
our parts. As I have learned more about the backdrop of the times in
which these things were written, I have made some changes in my thinking.
However, the basics have remained fairly stable. Despite that the basics
have stayed the same, the impact on how I shape my life has been
significant.
Finally, more recently, I have come to think that there is room for
nuance in our understanding of God and what Scripture says. I do not think
it is all black and white, but there are colors and shades. I don't really
know how to put this, because I do believe that there is truth and
falsehood, that everything is not relative, and that there is an under-
lying concreteness and objectiveness to creation. But its bigger than we
comprehend.
Leslie
|
| 836.17 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Praise His name I am free | Thu Dec 21 1995 16:37 | 29 |
|
There is much in the Bible that I sometimes wonder about. I do not wonder
about the following:
1. Am I a sinner?
2. Do I need a savior
3. Without that saviour where will I spend eternity?
4. Is Jesus Christ the propitiation for my sins?
5. If I believe the above will I spend eternity in Heaven?
6. Is Jesus Christ coming again?
7. Are we nearing the time when #6 will be fulfilled.
8. Did my Saviour command me to share the gospel with others?
9. Does God really love *me*?
Jim
|
| 836.18 | RE: .15 | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Dec 21 1995 17:05 | 27 |
| Hi, Jay.
Two competent people, two different beliefs. To whom are you
referring? Mike Heiser and John Covert around baptism, or Patricia
Flanagan and Paul Weiss around inerrancy and infallibility of the
Bible?
Two people looking at God's Word, one accepting the Bible as God
breathed and without error, and the other regarding Scripture only as
noble but fallible human chronicling, will likely differ on many key
issues of the Christian faith. Reconciling two views deriving from
these two regards for Scripture is probably futile. However, even
skeptics have personally encountered the God of His Word when reading
the Bible for purposes of criticism. God's Word will not return void.
Two believers both holding the Bible as God's inerrant and infallible
Word to us and both sharing the Holy Spirit may differ on issues of the
faith, but reconciling their differing views is fruitful, often leading
to a fuller understanding of God, depending on the purity of their
hearts in dialog and debate.
Yes, we do see through a glass darkly, but incomplete understanding
does NOT compromise the reliability of God's Word. Nor does our
present incomprehension imply that we cannot know later. Nor does our
incomplete understanding negate God's faithfulness to do what He says.
/Wayne
|
| 836.19 | inerrancy is *not* the issue! :-) | CSC32::KUHN | | Thu Dec 21 1995 17:22 | 19 |
| re: last
>Yes, we do see through a glass darkly, but incomplete understanding
>does NOT compromise the reliability of God's Word. Nor does our
>present incomprehension imply that we cannot know later. Nor does
our >incomplete understanding negate God's faithfulness to do what He
>says.
I believe this 100%. also, I am not refering to any of the things in
.17. There is no doubt in my mind there.
When I said two [beyond] competent people I mean John and Mike. In
my mind if you doubt the virgin birth and use the historical-critical
method to write off any supernatural aspect of Christ or any event
in the bible, you are not biblically correct. And if your Jesus is
only a man who was a great teacher of universal truths and not God,
then your Jesus is a different Jesus and your Gospel is a different
Gospel. You are on your way to hell. Repent and believe the real
Gospel. Sorry if I offend anyone. I don't want to see anyone go to
hell.
|
| 836.20 | | NWD002::BAYLEY::Randall_do | | Thu Dec 21 1995 17:28 | 18 |
| It's got a lot to do with who we are as people.
If you read history, you'll know that it's easy to find a
historian who has written history that will back one's
opinion on a subject. Given a finite series of events,
and original documents, historians come up with
markedly different stories as to what really happened,
based on their bias or starting point.
Now, if this happens with events that are recent, it
makes sense that it will happen with the Bible. I'd
submit that we see through our own cultural, emotional,
historical, etc. glasses when we look at the Bible, and
that's the reason for much of the disagreements.
There's no disagreement on the basic doctrines of the church
among mainstream Christians. The disagreements fall
on the "disputable" issues.
|
| 836.21 | | CSC32::KUHN | | Thu Dec 21 1995 19:05 | 7 |
| > It's got a lot to do with who we are as people.
Thats what I'm starting to think. I think I also see this in different
worship styles and stuff. I wonder how much a factor it really is that
who we are as people that really determines the church we wind up in also.
|
| 836.22 | Satan does not desire truth | GRANPA::BROWN | My kids call my father Granpa Brown | Thu Dec 21 1995 23:26 | 5 |
| There is somebody that does not want us to know the Bible clearly and
if Christians do not spend the time getting to know God in a personal
way through his word then Satan will sprinkle his own ideas into an
interpretation of an individual. Satan loves it when we can argue over
the minute points and distract us from the will of God!
|
| 836.23 | | BIGQ::SILVA | EAT, Pappa, EAT! | Fri Dec 22 1995 09:09 | 17 |
|
Then I guess Satan has influenced every single Christian on this
planet, including the Pope. Why do I say that? Because it is doubtful that any
two people have a 100% agreement on every piece of Scripture. There is only One
who can ever have it down pat....and that isn't any human being.
I believe one reason God gave us free will was so that we could keep
Him out in the open. Think of all the discussions that happen about Him in this
world. If everything was just the same, wouldn't it feel more like going
through the motions, and not feeling Him, like we do now? We all believe in
Him. And we all fight for what we believe are the correct interpretations,
descriptions, etc. For ourselves? I would hope not. I would hope it is for Him
that we share.
Glen
|
| 836.24 | God Veiled His Word | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Dec 22 1995 09:20 | 16 |
| Hi Jay,
There is no doubt that God *purposely* veiled His word.
I think Joseph is a type of this. When he is in Egypt
and he meets his brothers, it is said that he appeared
strange and spoke roughly unto them. But, then he leaves
their presence and weeps.
Near the end of the story, it is said that they recognized
him and he spoke *kindly* unto them.
I can offer a reason or two why, but I just wanted to quickly
agree with you that yes, God indeed purposely veiled His word.
Tony
|
| 836.25 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Praise His name I am free | Fri Dec 22 1995 09:22 | 38 |
|
> Then I guess Satan has influenced every single Christian on this
>planet, including the Pope. Why do I say that? Because it is doubtful that any
>two people have a 100% agreement on every piece of Scripture. There is only One
>who can ever have it down pat....and that isn't any human being.
The Bible is quite clear on the concept of sin, salvation and how one
is to be saved. God did not leave us here to guess about how one can
enter Heaven. God did not leave us here to guess what is and what is
not sinful. God did not leave us here to guess as to how we can live
a life that is pleasing to him.
> I believe one reason God gave us free will was so that we could keep
>Him out in the open. Think of all the discussions that happen about Him in this
God gave us free will to choose or reject the salvation through Christ. He
gave us free will to choose a life of sin, or a life of Godliness.
"Choose this day whom ye will serve"
"I would that you choose life"
"There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is
destruction".
Whom do you choose to serve?
Jim
|
| 836.26 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | let your light shine | Fri Dec 22 1995 10:15 | 11 |
|
>There's no disagreement on the basic doctrines of the church
>among mainstream Christians. The disagreements fall
>on the "disputable" issues.
How about as basic doctrine of the Church the question of whether Jesus
becomes physically present in the Host and wine that is ingested or
whether Jesus' physical presence is with the participants in this act
of rememberance. Does that not count as a basic doctrine in which
mainstream Christians disagree?
|
| 836.27 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Fri Dec 22 1995 10:30 | 7 |
| I think by 'basic' what is meant is "doctrines essential to salvation." What
you believe happens to the bread and wine is not going to effect that.
Basic doctrines are Jesus as the unique and complete incarnation of God,
salvation by grace alone, etc.
Paul
|
| 836.28 | | BIGQ::SILVA | EAT, Pappa, EAT! | Fri Dec 22 1995 12:39 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 836.25 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Praise His name I am free" >>>
| The Bible is quite clear on the concept of sin, salvation and how one is to be
| saved. God did not leave us here to guess about how one can enter Heaven.
We're talking about two different things. My response was to the note
before mine.
| God gave us free will to choose or reject the salvation through Christ. He
| gave us free will to choose a life of sin, or a life of Godliness.
Jim, I said one reason, not THE reason. Big difference there.
| Whom do you choose to serve?
The same God as you.
|
| 836.29 | The Word judges our thoughts and attitides. | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Fri Dec 22 1995 13:24 | 59 |
| Jay,
Good question and my 2 cents worth, some of which has already been said in some-
what different words, so pardon my "repetition."
"The word of God is living and active.
Sharper than any double-edged sword,
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts
and attitudes of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12
You're right in that God had a reason for writing the Bible in the way He wrote
it; it was so the Word WOULD be CAPABLE of judging the thoughts and attitudes
of our hearts.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
righteousness, so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16,17
Secondly, the reason two people may have disagreements on what is a "Biblical
Truth" is that they don't take into account ALL OF SCRIPTURE. We look at our
favorite passages and turn a blind eye to the others. Even when we do this the
Word is judging the attitudes of our heart. All of the subjects you brought up
in your base note and those added to this note in subsequent replies can be
reconciled IF the entire Bible is studied to come to a conclusion.
THis is additional to what some other replies stated in that a personal
relationship with God and obedience to the Word is essential to understanding
Scripture as given by:
"I pray you may be active in sharing your faith,
*SO THAT* you will have a full understanding of
every good thing we have in Christ."
Philemon 6
"To the Jews who believed him, Jesus said, "*IF* you
hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
*THEN* you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
John 8:31,32
Emphasis added to the above two Scriptures, but you get the point.
Hope everyone has a safe and wonderful Holiday Season. See you next year.
Love in Him,
Peter
|
| 836.30 | thanks for writing that | CSC32::KUHN | | Fri Dec 22 1995 16:03 | 17 |
| re: last
excellent note. thanks for writing it. I think an excellent example of
what you are saying is an intrepretation of Mark 16:16 "He who believes
and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be
condemned". Some churches believe baptism is required for salvation.
Some churches don't. Some could say this implies works and would
contradict with the gospel (my opinion). Some would say if you read the
verse close, that the key is in the second part of the verse:(s)He who does
not BELIEVE is condemned...it does not say "he(she) who is not BAPTIZED".
Not comparing scripture with scripture and not really reading what it
is REALLY saying could cause a problem and a different belief system in
this specific case.
Merry Christmas to all of you.
jay
|
| 836.31 | I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE | DPPSYS::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Thu Dec 28 1995 07:20 | 43 |
|
Re: .27
"What you believe happens to the bread and wine is not
going to effect that" - namely salvation.
I must disagree with you Paul. Is Truth not essential for salvation?
The Truths revealed in the Bible, the Word, are those truths
revealed to us by Jesus Christ our Lord and God. What you are saying,
is that if I believe in the Holy Eucharist as Christ's Body and
Blood (because He said it is) it doesn't matter that it is or isn't
true, because it is NOT essential to my salvation. Yet Christ solemnly
said if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you do not have life
in you, I think that quite important do you not (depending on your
interpretation)?
In addition, if I refuse to believe this revealed truth, I might as
well refuse to believe anything Christ taught. To reject one Truth is
to reject the whole Truth, because you make God out to be deceitful,
which He is not.
Therefore understanding WHAT is Truth is VERY important to your
salvation in my opinion.
Getting back to the base note then, what one person perceives
as being true, another rejects, but in your eyes it doesn't really
matter as long as you agree on the "basics", then who determines what
those basics are? My set of basics might probably differ from yours,
yet I will not change (nor will you) because I (you) are defending the
Truth, how can I(you) reject that which has been given to us by Christ?
I believe in something that has been given to us by Christ, yet many
Christians take an alternative interpretation of Scripture and hence
believe differently, there are others - will that affect their
salvation? Only Christ can answer that, but if you knowingly reject a
truth that has been revealed by Christ then you are in effect rejecting
Him, therefore knowing what is Truth in my mind is extremely important,
an obvious example would be to reject the Incarnation.
Peace,
Tom
|
| 836.32 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Dec 28 1995 11:27 | 7 |
| If -1 is true, then transubstantiation also occurs during the Passover
ceremony, which is where the Lord's Supper comes from. God is the same
yesterday, today, and forever so nothing new was introduced at the
Lord's Supper. And since Passover has been celebrated for 1000s of years
as well, it contradicts the commandments against cannibalism in Leviticus.
Mike
|
| 836.33 | See http://www.electriciti.com:80/~edit/euch.html | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 28 1995 11:34 | 7 |
| re .32
Oh, no. The Passover Supper is a type of the Holy Eucharist, but not
the same thing. The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Jesus on the
night in which he was betrayed. It is a new rite.
/john
|
| 836.34 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Dec 28 1995 12:38 | 7 |
| Not true. The Lord's Supper was performed by Jesus with the Afikomen
(matzah that is hidden and brought back - a type of Himself) and the 3rd
cup during Passover. Research it for yourself if you don't believe me.
Every Messianic Haggadah mentions this fact. The whole holiday was a
foreshadowing of Messiah, His Atonement, and His Holy Communion.
Mike
|
| 836.35 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 28 1995 12:41 | 10 |
| Read http://www.electriciti.com:80/~edit/euch.html.
And read "The Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix.
And read everything written up until the last few centuries.
The idea that the Holy Eucharist is *not* a new rite instituted by
Jesus is a modern innovation, not based in scripture.
/john
|
| 836.36 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Praise His name I am free | Thu Dec 28 1995 12:46 | 12 |
|
Gentlemen, may I request that before this discussion escalates, it be
taken offline?
Thank you
Jim Co-Mod
|
| 836.37 | transubstantiation | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Dec 28 1995 13:50 | 34 |
| John, this will be my last word on this as I don't want to test the
moderators.
>Read http://www.electriciti.com:80/~edit/euch.html.
I read it and don't agree with it. You can't pick and choose metaphors
as it suits Karl Keating's theology. As Keating said, Christ also
called Himself the Door, Vine, Bread, Light, Rock, Root, and the Bright
& Morning Star. If I showed you a picture of my son and said, "This is
my son!" you obviously wouldn't literally consider the photo to be my
son.
>The idea that the Holy Eucharist is *not* a new rite instituted by
>Jesus is a modern innovation, not based in scripture.
The Book of Exodus is not modern and is very prominent in scripture.
In Levitical law, not only was blood never eaten, neither was the sin
offering to be eaten. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the RCC
views the Eucharist as a sin offering. This violates the law that
Christ said He came to fulfill.
To take this literally, you also have to literally adopt the entire
context of John 6 in that whoever receives communion will be saved.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the RCC believes communion
saves you.
In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus says, "This is my body... this is my blood."
The Greek phrase used by Jesus is "touto esti" which means "this
signifies" or "this represents." If Christ wanted us to adopt
transubstantiation, He would've used "touto gignetai" which means
"this has become or is turned into." In addition, another passage has
Christ saying "this cup is the new testament."
Mike
|
| 836.38 | Besides, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 28 1995 14:00 | 13 |
| This, too, will be my last response:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the RCC views the Eucharist as a
>sin offering.
You are both right and wrong. Christ is the sin offering; the Eucharist
is Christ.
> The Greek phrase used by Jesus is "touto esti"
No, "esti" means "_is_" not signifies or represents.
/john
|
| 836.39 | The Truth will set you free. | DPPSYS::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Fri Dec 29 1995 04:42 | 11 |
|
Why did you pick up on the Eucharist, and neglect the main point?
My point is that Truth is important, therefore it is essential that we
understand what is Truth - not just the "basics". You can't choose some
points to believe in and ignore others - if you know that they are
present in Scripture.
Peace,
Tom
|
| 836.40 | RE: .15, .19, .30 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Fri Dec 29 1995 08:50 | 31 |
| RE: 15,19 & 30
Jay,
A couple of questions with regards to a few of your replies:
1) RE: .19 - You said you were talking about John and Mike surrounding the
question of baptism of infants, ie how two competent people could get two
different beliefs (re: .15). My question is: If they both believe that baptism
isn't essential for salvation, then what does it matter if you baptize a baby,
an adult or don't get baptised at all for that matter?
2)RE: .30 - With regards to Mark 16:16, you believe "the key is in the second
part of the verse," while according to others' beliefs the key is in the first
part of the verse. My question is, if the God who inspired the frist part of
the verse is the same God who inspired the second of the verse, then why
wouldn't the key be in the ENTIRE verse, not just the first part or second part?
And to answer your question, Yes, I've had a little extra time on my hands,
with the Christmas shutdown and all. I came in just to pick up my paycheck as
I still haven't figured out how to get it directly deposited into my DCU
checking account. If there is anybody out there who can give me a clue to the
"veiled mystery" of direct deposit, please do. What I was getting at is, I
came in just to cash my check and add this reply. I won't be back until
Thursday 1/4/96. Happy New Years everyone!!
In His Love,
Peter
|
| 836.41 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 29 1995 09:05 | 8 |
| >My question is: If they both believe that baptism isn't essential for
>salvation, then what does it matter if you baptize a baby, an adult or
>don't get baptised at all for that matter?
What a strange question, considering that both John and Mike do (as far
as I know) believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation.
/john
|
| 836.42 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Fri Dec 29 1995 11:22 | 10 |
| >What a strange question, considering that both John and Mike do (as far
>as I know) believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation.
I do not believe this to be true as presented in the Bible.
Re: Direct deposit
Contact the Payroll department.
Mike
|
| 836.43 | "estin", "touto estin" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Dec 29 1995 12:53 | 68 |
| Re: .37 (Mike Heiser)
> In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus says, "This is my body... this is my blood."
> The Greek phrase used by Jesus is "touto esti" which means "this
> signifies" or "this represents." If Christ wanted us to adopt
> transubstantiation, He would've used "touto gignetai" which means
> "this has become or is turned into." In addition, another passage has
> Christ saying "this cup is the new testament."
Re: .38 (John Covert)
>No, "esti" means "_is_" not signifies or represents.
The correct inflection in Matthew 26:26-28 is "estin". It almost always means
"is", reveals my BibleSoft for Windows. Occasionally, however, it can mean
"signify" or "represent":
"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves:
This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Gal 4:24-25)
^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
"(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)" (Rev 19:8)
^^^^^^^^^
"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word..." (Luke 8:11)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what 'rising from the
dead' meant." (Mark 9:10)
^^^^^
I found the following occurrances of the phrase "touto estin":
"'With man this is impossible, but with God all thing...'" (Matt 19:26)
"'Take and eat; this is my body.'" (Matt 26:26)
"'This is my blood of the covenant...'" (Matt 26:28)
"'Take it; this is my body.'" (Mark 14:22)
"'This is my blood of the covenant...'" (Mark 14:24)
"'This is my body given for you;'" (Luke 22:19)
"'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'" (John 6:29)
"'This is the will of him who sent me...'" (John 6:39)
"'No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel...'" (Acts 2:16)
"if anyone says to you, 'this has been offered in sacrifice...'" (1Co10:28)
"'This is my body, which is for you'" (1 Cor 11:24)
"'This cup is the new covenant in my blood'" (1 Cor 11:25)
"This is a profound mystery..." (Eph 5:32)
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." (Eph 6:1)
"It is God's will that you should..." (1 Thess 4:3)
"for this is pleasing to God." (1 Tim 5:4)
"And this is the word that was preached to you..." (1 Pet 1:25)
"This is the spirit of the antichrist..." (1 John 4:3)
|
| 836.44 | | AUSSIE::CAMERON | And there shall come FORTH (Isaiah 11:1) | Tue Jan 02 1996 00:39 | 8 |
| Re: Note 836.43 by NETCAD::WIEBE
> -< "estin", "touto estin" >-
Yes, my study of greek says "estin" means a sort-of "is", and "touto
estin" means a definite "is".
James
|
| 836.45 | Motivation/God's Word Is Spirit | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jan 02 1996 11:27 | 49 |
| re: .40
Hi Peter,
You asked Jay what it mattered how (or if) one is baptized if
it is not necessary for our salvation.
Maybe it would be better to do things for other reasons then
"Well, will I lose my salvation if I don't do this thing?" or
"If I do this thing, will I be saved?"
Motivation is important. A better motivation is "The love of
Christ constrains me." Do things because you love God, not
so that you can acquire a piece of heavenly real estate.
About the body and blood of Christ.
My summary thoughts are that God's word is spirit and not flesh
and blood. The Jews were absolutely buried by not seeing the
spirit behind the words. Jesus said 'temple' and they saw a
literal bulding while He referred to His physical body and (more
important) His heart. (I believe three days to be largely symbolic
where in a sense His heart was 'destroyed' by feeling the weight
of sin and 'risen up' by overcoming the temptation to despair
by faith.)
In John 6:53, Jesus said His flesh and blood give life. Ten verses
later, He says spirit and word give life.
If a = c and b = c, it follows that a = b.
WHAT GIVES LIFE IS REVELATION.
We receive life by partaking of revelation of the love of Christ.
The High Priest, after the sacrifice, sprinkled blood on the
sanctuary. Jesus sheds abroad in our hearts revelations of His
love which when received by faith, perform the work of justifica-
tion.
When I see allusions to body and blood as ultimately physical
realities, I see Israel rehearsed over again and that is absolute
suicide.
There is no life in the physical flesh and blood of Christ. There
is life in word and spirit (that which the flesh and blood
represent).
Tony
|
| 836.46 | "estin", "touto estin" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Jan 02 1996 12:29 | 19 |
| Re: .44 (James Cameron)
>> -< "estin", "touto estin" >-
>
> Yes, my study of greek says "estin" means a sort-of "is", and "touto
> estin" means a definite "is".
At a minimum, my study (836.43) shows both Mike Heiser and John Covert to
be in error in their respective posts. "Touto estin" ("this is") does
not categorically mean "signifies" or "represents," as Mike Heiser says, and
"estin" does not categorically mean "is", in such a definite sense as John
Covert says.
I am curious as to your post, however. Do you have any basis for your
categorical claim that "estin" means "sort-of" "is" and "touto estin" means
a definite "is"? I admit that my study is based only on computer-generated
concordance searches and context.
Just curious.
|
| 836.47 | spirit and word != revelation | HPCGRP::DIEWALD | | Tue Jan 02 1996 13:13 | 22 |
| re .45
Tony -
I think I see where we are losing each other!
>Jesus says flesh and blood give life. Ten verses later He says
>spirit and word give life.
So flesh and blood equate to spirit and word. I follow so far.
But then you equate spirit and word to revelation. This I don't
follow.
It seems to me that the spirit and word bring revelation, but
by saying that they *are* revelation, you lose the concreteness of
the spirit and the word. These are concrete real things, even
if only truly visible in the spiritual realm. By ignoring their
realness, you lose a lot of their power and truth.
Jill2
|
| 836.48 | Elaboration | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jan 02 1996 15:36 | 25 |
| Hi Jill,
Oh, thanks for the correction!
I do believe that there is a Holy Spirit and that Jesus is
the word, but I also believe that 'word' and 'spirit' also
can refer to the revelation that is provided by God to the
heart of man.
BUT, I do happen to believe that the 'thing' that actually
transforms the heart is revelation. The love of Christ
constrains us. The message (revelation) of the cross is the
power of God unto salvation.
The Holy Spirit transforms hearts by revealing the character
of God. That revelation itself, if received by faith, is what
actually changes the heart.
In the parable of the sower, it is the seed (word) itself which
produces heart-change. Jesus clearly stated that the seed is
the word. He did not say the seed was Himself or the Holy Spirit.
It comes by the Spirit, yes. But, the word itself is the reve-
lation itself.
Tony
|
| 836.49 | | CHEFS::PRICE_B | Jesus Is Lord | Wed Jan 03 1996 08:26 | 27 |
| Jay
I think the reason the Bible has some areas that are seemingly "Open to
interpretation" is because it means that we have to rely on seeking God
for some of the answers not by simply following a religeous set of
rules and regulations that tell us what to think. The essentials are
obvious and cannot be argued about (i.e. salvation by faith in the
finished work of Christ on the cross) but if everything was totally
black and white we would no longer have a relationship with God, we'd
just be rule-followers.
God gave us a wonderful gift in that we have been given a free choice
(we are not robots that are programmed to think and act only in one
way). The problem with the pharisees is that they built their whole
lives around following rules and regulations to the letter, losing all
understanding of the desire of God to have a relationship with them on
a personal basis. David was a man after own heart but in human terms he
probably didn't live as 'perfect' a life as the pharisees did - but the
fact was that God had his heart.
Some people today still have this attitude of following doctrines and
creeds to the letter and they lose the reality of having a daily
relationship with God because they are not following Jesus, just a set
of rules.
Love
Ben
|
| 836.50 | Is Truth being hidden or revealed? | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jan 03 1996 10:17 | 70 |
| Tony said in .24 that "God *purposely* veiled His word." For/to whom
specifically was/is God's Word veiled?
I very much appreciated Peter's comments in .29, i.e., God is eager to
reveal Himself to the believing and obedient heart. The crux of the
matter is that "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
humble." (James 4:6b, KJV)
The disciples asked Jesus "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?"
Jesus answered "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath,
to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore
speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing
they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the
prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear and shall not
understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this
people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and
their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with
their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are
your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say
unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see
those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those
things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matthew 13:10-17, KJV)
The apostle Paul said "But it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto
us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no
man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things
that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual discerneth all things,
yet he himself is discerned of no man. For who hath known the mind of
the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."
(1 Corinthians 2:9-16, KJV)
Differing interpretation/application of God's Word must derive from the
heart of man because God desires that we know the unchanging and
eternal Truth. We look on the outward appearance while God looks on the
heart. Jesus said "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see
God." (Matthew 5:8, KJV)
I feel that we will argue in vain about why even apparently righteous
and humble people see and hear God's Word differently until the
thoughts and intents of their hearts are made clear. The bottom-line
is that a difference between godly people is NOT a reason to discredit
God's Word, nor can it be an excuse to not seek the Truth in God's Word
for ourselves, personally and individually.
I confidently hold that to the degree we serve masters other than Jesus
Christ we are unable to see and hear God's Word. Thank God that He
counts my faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness, rather than requiring
pure and perfect motives, thoughts and actions from me. We must NEVER
take our eyes off Jesus to get caught up in the differing views of men!
A great dilemma is presented to those who will not see and hear the Bible
as God's inspired, inerrant and infallible Word. Seeking God in other
places is a subjective venture at best, most likely leading only to
"natural" understanding.
/Wayne
|
| 836.51 | | CHEFS::PRICE_B | Jesus Is Lord | Thu Jan 04 1996 06:30 | 18 |
| During the prayer meeting last night I had a further thought about this
question about Gods word:
If we view prayer as simply "Getting the formula right then God has to
answer" then the Bible would be just a book of spells - "Say ther right
words and your wish will come true" - a bit like a Disney film. This
would take away our dependance on God, it would also nullify Gods
Sovereignty and the fact that He holds everyrthing together. If every
prayer prayed that appeared to be according to Gods word was answred
then there would be a big mess.
I hope this makes sense - I'm not sure I'm saying what I'm thinking!!!
Basically, we follow God not a set of rules, nor a book of magic spells
that, if we say them, automatically get answered.
Love
Ben
|
| 836.52 | Jesus Still Working For Our Salvation/Word Veiled In Love | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 09:31 | 30 |
| Hi Ben,
I guess the essentials may not be obvious to me although I am
not sure what you mean by the finished work of Christ on the
cross. I don't have faith in a work, I have faith in Christ.
And while I believe Christ's sacrificial work is finished, I
also believe He is *still* working for our salvation for Jesus
"ever lives to make intercession for us." It is the High Priest
who supplies spiritual bread for His people and without that
we are lost.
Hi Wayne,
How would you accomadate Jesus words, "I have many things to tell
you, but you can't bear them now"?
I believe that the Bible, rightly understood, contains all the
truth any group will ever know pre-second coming. I also believe
that we cannot presently bear all things. Thus, those things we
cannot bear are veiled by God. He loves us enough to veil His
full glory for no one can look into the Most Holy place and live
if he is not sinless.
We go from glory to glory and what we see is in proportion to
our willingness and our ability to bear. Thus God has veiled
His word so that which we cannot bear is not seen until we can
bear it - all the while it has been in His word the whole time.
Tony
|
| 836.53 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jan 04 1996 10:00 | 19 |
| RE: .52
Hi, Tony.
Jesus said (to his disciples in the days of His flesh) "I have yet many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12, KJV)
He went on to say "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He
will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you
things to come." (John 16:13, KJV) What do you make of that?
I understand/appreciate what you're saying, and I'm convinced that no
truth is veiled from a believing and obedient heart. All will be
accomplished in the fulness of time, i.e., according to God's plan.
There certainly is much I yet do not know, but not because it cannot be
known.
/Wayne
|
| 836.54 | Progressive Experience/Progressive Unveiling of That Whiich Is Veiled | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 10:55 | 20 |
| Hi Wayne,
I just believe that its (seeing more and more glory) is
progressive and that "God calls those things that be not
as though they exist." An example of this being where
one of your recent replies stated that we have [present
tense] the mind of Christ.
God could have shown us all of His glory at once, but He
didn't. In that sense, I believe the word is veiled. All
the glory is there, but it is veiled so that we do not see
it until we are ready to.
Joseph is a type of Christ in this sense. He appears strange
and sounds rough to his brothers when they see him in Egypt.
He then leaves and weeps (*but* not in front of them) and they
do not recognize him. Later they recognized him and he spoke
*kindly* unto them.
Tony
|
| 836.55 | Elaboration | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 11:48 | 22 |
| Hi Wayne,
Just to elaborate...
You said:
"I'm convinced that no truth is veiled from a believing and
obedient heart."
Was not Moses believing and obedient? Yet, when Moses asked to
see God, did not God prevent him from seeing his face? Why?
I believe that God's face is no more glorious than His back-
side. "Face" is simply a euphemism for seeing "behind the veil."
In love, God veils a full revelation of who He is if we are
not ready to see it. Thus, I am convinced that some truth is
veiled from a believing and obedient heart. But, really, if the
heart believes perfectly and obeys perfectly, it is then not
veiled from any truth for it is able to see it and live.
Tony
|
| 836.56 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jan 04 1996 12:06 | 8 |
| RE: .54
Tony, I agree with progressive revelation, i.e., the process of being
made perfect. What I'm not clear on is why you feel the Holy Spirit
was sent from God after the days of Christ's flesh and what His work
now is in the believer's heart.
/Wayne
|
| 836.57 | Why I Feel... | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 13:06 | 24 |
| Hi Wayne,
The psalmist said "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. 51:11).
Clearly anyone who has faith has allowed God to indwell him with
His Spirit (pre or post cross).
So how to harmonize?
I believe the harmony can be found by realizing that the Spirit's
work is to reveal and that almost anyone of faith, in OT times,
would have been unable to 'see' that God would actually be the
sacrifice for them. In that sense, the Holy Spirit was vacant
to an enormous degree. The Holy Spirit came to reveal, but there
was such a huge portion of truth they simply could not come to see.
After the cross, it is a lot easier to see that God indeed hung
for us. A huge stumbling block of blindness is lifted from our
eyes. A blindness so huge that God can say, "Now I can give you
the Holy Spirit" or to put another way, now He can really begin
to fill us with revelation because we are a people blessed with
some awareness that God Himself hung for us.
Tony
|
| 836.58 | Same As Always - To Reveal | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 13:16 | 26 |
| Hi Wayne,
I see that I only answered one thing...
"What is His work now in the believer's heart?"
It is the same thing that it has always been. His work is to
reveal the dimensions of God's agape. We can limit His work
(see as one of many examples Ps. 78:41 "Yes again and again
they tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel") and thus
delay His return for He must get a corporate body to come to
see very image.
From Adam to the present time, His corporate body has seen
'partial image.' Revelation of God yes, but insufficient to
do what Hebrews 10:1-4 speaks of - perfect the conscience.
The Holy Spirit is working to bring man and God together. To
get His people to see very image and thus be one with Him for
"when we see Him as He is, we shall be like Him."
In a sense, the Old Covenant has gone on from Adam to now and
onward. The New Covenant is that time a group sees very image.
Only very image can fully perfect the conscience.
Tony
|
| 836.59 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jan 04 1996 13:25 | 11 |
| RE: .58
Hi, Tony.
Your reply seems to suggest that you believe you're under the Old
Covenant and that the New Covenant is in effect only when a sinlessly
perfect corporate body appears.
Have I understood you correctly?
/Wayne
|
| 836.60 | New and Old | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 14:48 | 29 |
| Hi Wayne,
Anyone whose faith is not perfect, I believe, is (to that extent)
under the Old Covenant. Abraham went in unto Hagar though he was
a man of faith, but his faith was not perfect. Galatians says that
Hagar is the Old covenant.
Unbelief is the essence of the Old covenant. Belief is the essence
of the New Covenant. "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief"
characterizes my present experience and thus it is an amalgama-
tion of faith and doubt and thus of New and Old Covenant.
Because I try to be real cautious, I would say that my faith is
far from perfect and so would say that my experience is much more
Old Covenant than New. We have no idea how deep our unbelief
runs. If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet
as he ought to know it.
If you are reading the way I am intending it (!!), I hope you see
that my view is that God has always tried to produce a 100% New
Covenant experience which is the one described by Jeremiah and
Hebrews, i.e. the law (Christ's righteousness) is perfectly written
in the heart.
We tend to insist on the Old Covenant. God woos us to the New.
Anyone who still sins has, in part, an Old Covenant mindset.
Tony
|
| 836.61 | RE: .60 Old fulfilled, New established | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jan 04 1996 15:23 | 22 |
| Hi, Tony.
Given that you regard yourself as being (partially) under the Old Covenant, I
finally understand how you can say that (some of) God's Word is veiled and why
you believe the bulk of the revelation of Jesus Christ is yet to come.
As for me, the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a son of God
under the New Covenant, my faith in Jesus Christ NOW being accounted as
righteousness. I do not see myself as perfect--I agree that I am a sinner--but
I know that when Jesus Christ appears I will be like Him for I will see Him as
He is.
Yes, the Holy Spirit reveals truth. And God "hath sealed me, and given the
earnest of the Spirit in my heart." (2Co 1:22, KJV)
I rest in Christ knowing that He lived, died, was raised from the dead, and now
lives so that I NOW have eternal life.
May God bless and keep us, Tony, as the Holy Spirit reveals the Word of God to
our hearts.
/Wayne
|
| 836.62 | Is Romans 4:17 Incorporated? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 16:52 | 46 |
| Hi Wayne,
I think perhaps much of our disagreement is the meanings we
attribute to the terms.
I believe my faith is also NOW accounted to me for righteousness
and I believe the basis for this is precisely the basis as
enunciated in Romans 4.
Abraham's imperfect faith was NOW accounted to him for righteous-
ness because of what his faith BECAME. God could cultivate that
faith to the point where Abraham became fully convinced that what
God said, He could perform, "therefore it [faith] was accounted
to him for righteousness." (Rom. 4:22). This (of course) was not
the status of Abraham's faith when righteousness was first accounted
to him for after this he demonstrated several times that he was
not fully convinced that what God said He could perform.
Likewise, God accounts my faith as righteousness for the very
same reason.
Just as Abe was not the father of many nations though God said
that he was and just as God saw Abraham as perfectly righteous
though he was not, we can understand and see exampels of the
description given to God within this context. i.e. God calls
things which do not exist as though they did (Rom. 4:17).
Do you incorporate this into your understandings Wayne (the truth
that God sees things that do not exist as though they do)?
It would seem to fit beautifully that when God bears witness to
you that you are presently in a new covenant exp., He is "calling
those things that do not exist as though they did" for the
characteristic of a full New Covenant experience is exactly the
characteristic of one who is fully convinced that what God said
He can perform - complete sinlessness, i.e. the law perfectly
written in the heart.
When our heavenly High Priest cultivates faith to perfection
(Heb. 12:1-2), our faith then lays hold of the New Covenant,
"Walk before Me [behold My agape], and be thou perfect" and allows
the seed to perfectly accomplish exactly what it says.
Tony
Tony
|
| 836.63 | Revelation Demonstrated .NE. Revelation Perceived | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jan 04 1996 17:05 | 34 |
| Wayne,
Just a quick addendum...
If the old covenant was completely done away with at the cross,
why would the author of Hebrews state (several years *after*
the cross)...
Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant", He has made the first obsolete.
Now what IS BECOMING [not *is*, but *is becoming*] obsolete and
growing old is ready to vanish away.
My understanding is that the cross event made provision for the
corporate body to see very image. It finally happened. The
very image of the behind the veil exp. took place and is at our
'perceptive disposal.'
*However*, the New is not fulfilled when the revelation is
demonstrated, it is fulfilled WHEN THAT REVELATION IS PERCEIVED.
Remember, the blood is the word (John 6:53,63). AFTER the sacri-
fice the blood (word, revelation) is applied by the High Priest
to the sanctuary (hearts of the believers).
The time comes when all the blood represented by all the revelation
represented by the cross is sprinkled on the sanctuary.
That would equate to a cup's worth.
The drinking of the cup. The baptism of fire.
That is when the New is fulfilled.
Tony
|
| 836.64 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jan 04 1996 17:45 | 33 |
| RE: .62
Tony, you asked if I incorporate Ro 4:17 into my understandings. What
did I say in note 795.544?
RE: .63
Ah, your last sentence "...New is fulfilled."
I see Old established, fulfilled by Christ. I see New established by
Christ, (remnants of) Old vanishing and (results of) New appearing
(from glory to glory) until God reconciles ALL to Himself by Christ.
The beauty is that the New Covenant will be fulfilled by Christ IN US!
God promised that we who believe will be made like Christ. God said
it, I believe it, and that settles it! I reckon it to be as God said.
Take it to the bank! Done!! And nothing can stand against what God
has predestined!
Tony, my comfort comes from knowing that I do NOT have to see myself
without sin in order to stand righteous before God SHOULD I DIE EVEN AS
WE SPEAK! Furthermore, I need not see anyone else other than Jesus
Christ without sin before I can see Jesus as He is.
I regret that I cannot fully impart to you all that the Holy Spirit now
commends to my heart. I can say, though, that I'm convinced that when
I see Jesus as He is you'll be standing there with me. :-)
Peace, brother. I think we've digressed from the topic, but I trust
that someone else might see Jesus more clearly as a result of our
dialog.
/Wayne
|
| 836.65 | Hebrews 8:13 | HPCGRP::DIEWALD | | Thu Jan 04 1996 17:51 | 9 |
| Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant", He has made the first obsolete.
Now what IS BECOMING [not *is*, but *is becoming*] obsolete and
growing old is ready to vanish away.
My understanding of this verse is that "becoming" is refering to
the Jews who haven't yet accepted Christ - not to the Christians.
Jill2
|
| 836.66 | Apologies to John and ?? for John and Mike | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu Jan 04 1996 19:35 | 34 |
|
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"
>>My question is: If they both believe that baptism isn't essential for
>>salvation, then what does it matter if you baptize a baby, an adult or
>>don't get baptised at all for that matter?
>What a strange question, considering that both John and Mike do (as far
>as I know) believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation.
>/john
John,
Please forgive any presumption on my part to express your beliefs. I
didn't know where you stood on the question, hence my "IF they both
believe."
>UTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" 10 lines 29-DEC-1995 11:22
> I do not believe this to be true as presented in the Bible.
> Mike
Mike,
I now know how you believe, but why does it matter when one is baptised?
Mike and John,
How do each one of you look at Mark 16:16?
In His Love
Peter
|
| 836.67 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 04 1996 19:58 | 32 |
| re Mark 16:16:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who
does not believe will be condemned."
From the Faculty of Theology at the University of Navarre:
This verse teaches that, as a consequence of the proclamation of the Good
News, faith and Baptism are indispensable pre-requisites for attaining
salvation. Conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ should lead directly to
Baptism, which confers on us the first sanctifying grace, by which
original sin is forgiven, and which also forgives any actual sins there may
be; it remits all punishment due for these sins; it impresses on the soul
the mark of the Christian; it makes us children of God, members of the
Church and heirs to heaven, and enables us to receive the other sacraments.
Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, as we can see from these
words of the Lord. But physical impossibility of receiving the rite of
Baptism can be replaced either by martyrdom (called, therefore, "baptism of
blood") or by a perfect act of love of God and of contrition, together with
an at least implicit desire to be baptized: this is called "baptism of
desire."
I prefer to say "generally necessary" rather than "absolutely necessary"
because of the listed exceptions, as well as the possibility (which we may
not teach as a certainty, but must pray and hope for, and can believe that
God is merciful enough to grant the request) that those who, through no
fault of their own (like maybe because _we_ do a poor job of evangelizing)
do not receive the Gospel, may still through some means not revealed to us,
come to love and follow and believe in Jesus Christ.
/john
|
| 836.68 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Jan 04 1996 23:01 | 13 |
| Re: progressive revelation
The Mormons use this buzzword to justify their doctrines too.
Re: Mark 16:16
I use the Bible to interpret itself. Every other verse in the Bible
stresses repentance, salvation, then baptism out of obedience. This
verse is an anomaly that is only reconciled with the context of the
entire Bible by analyzing the original Greek. It is there that it fits
100% with the Biblical model of repentance, salvation, and then baptism.
Mike
|
| 836.69 | dikaiosis | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 04 1996 23:09 | 3 |
| Of course, what you (Mike Heiser) call "salvation", I call "justification".
/john
|
| 836.70 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 04 1996 23:25 | 47 |
| From the Encyclop�dia Britannica:
justification, in Christian theology, the act by which God moves a man from
the state of sin (injustice) to the state of grace (justice). The term is a
translation of the Greek dikaiosis (Latin justificatio), originally a
technical legal term derived from the verb "to call [someone] righteous."
The notion of justification has had importance in the history of the
church and of theology since the time of St. Paul. In his letters to the
Galatians and to the Romans, he asks, against the background of the
Pharisees' legalistic piety, how man becomes just before God. He answers
that it is not by works, nor even by obeying the commandments (the law of
God, which in itself is good). Man stands before God not as righteous but
as a sinner, entirely dependent on God's grace. It is God who calls sinful
man righteous. In human law courts, only the innocent man is justified; but
in the tribunal of God, before whom all men are sinners, it is precisely
the unjust who are declared just by God's merciful verdict. This is no
arbitrary pronouncement but is made with reference to Jesus Christ, "who
was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rom.
4:25). In this way, sinful man is acquitted from law, sin, and death, is
reconciled with God, and has peace and life in Christ through the Holy
Spirit. Thus, sinful man is not merely declared just but is truly made
just.
In response, man should accept God's merciful judgment in Christ and place
his whole trust in the Lord; in short, he should have faith. The man who
has been justified is tempted as before and therefore remains dependent
on the grace of God. His faith must not be inactive, but a "faith working
through love" (Gal. 5:6); i.e., man has to authenticate his faith by deeds
of love.
The Greek Fathers of the church did not emphasize the doctrine of
justification, but it became an important theological concept in the
thought of Augustine during his controversy with the Pelagians, a heretical
group who were teaching an ethical self-sanctification by works. The
doctrine received great stress in Martin Luther's struggle against the
superficial concept of justification by works current in the late Middle
Ages, a struggle that led to a genuine reappraisal of St. Paul's doctrine
of justification. It became a capital doctrine for the Reformers. The
Council of Trent (1545-63) defined the Roman Catholic position in terms
that reflected an anti-Protestant bias, and for the next several centuries
lines of opposition were drawn between Roman Catholics and Protestants in
their explanation of the doctrine. It has become increasingly clear,
however, that -- as John Henry Newman, a 19th-century English theologian,
suspected and as Catholic confrontation with the doctrine of justification
of Karl Barth, a 20th-century Swiss Protestant theologian, has shown --
there is no division at the confessional level between the Protestant and
Catholic doctrines of justification if both are rightly understood.
|
| 836.71 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Jan 04 1996 23:51 | 9 |
| >there is no division at the confessional level between the Protestant and
>Catholic doctrines of justification if both are rightly understood.
I sense that the writer of that article is basically stating that there
is no difference between Catholicism and Evangelicals on the doctrine
of justification. I may be missing something, but I don't agree that
is true at all.
Mike
|
| 836.72 | "If both are rightly understood" | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 05 1996 00:58 | 5 |
| >I may be missing something,
That's the point.
/john
|
| 836.73 | Poor Correlating | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 08:41 | 25 |
| re: progressive revelation
Mike,
What's your point? I didn't even know it was a buzzword, however
it is entirely scriptural for "the path of the just is like a
light that shines brighter and brighter unto the perfect day."
That is progressive revelation.
Its just the idea that God's people are eventually going to see
more about God's love than any previous people. That is
progressive and that is revelation.
The term is so generic that to take it as it may apply in one
case (Mormonism apparently) and then to (on that basis) apply it
to another case (with the same negative connotations attached)
is not very credible.
Because of how generic the term is and also because of how it
certainly has a truthful application, the correlation you make,
without any further support, is rotten.
Tony
|
| 836.74 | No Contextual Support - Thus No Basis | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 08:46 | 17 |
| re: .65
Hi Jill,
How can you substantiate your position if the context of the
book of Hebrews clearly references believers, i.e. "you have
come to need milk and not solid food" (in addition to several
other scriptures)???
Can you find a single scripture in the book of Hebrews that
suggests that the hearers of the letter are "Jews who haven't
yet accepted Christ"?
If not, what is the basis for your conclusion about how the
context of the letter implies a readership that is faithless???
Tony
|
| 836.75 | New Covenant Is Actual Writing of The Law... | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 09:07 | 65 |
| Hi Wayne,
I reread 795.544 (I think that was it). I see it the exact
same way!
I guess I include the New Covenant as one of several things
that God sees as being though it is not yet.
I see the New Covenant's fulfillment as the righteousness of
God perfectly manifested in the hearts of the priesthood of all
believers. I see God looking at the New Covenant as a 'done
deal' NOT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FULFILLED, but because He sees
things which do not exist as though they did. I see Him as
especially seeing it this way at Calvary because Christ's triumph
at Calvary IS THE GUARANTEE. The revelation which will perfect
us is in the bank so to speak. It truly is a done deal.
You mentioned our discussion straying off course from the topic
so I'll attempt to put it back on course! ;-)
One point I seem to mainly disagree with the brethren (and
sistren!!) in this Conference is the saving nature of the cross.
I believe we are saved by the message of the cross for "the
message of the cross is the power of God unto salvation" and the
"love of Christ [revealed] constraineth us" and "If I am lifted
up [revealed], I will draw all men unto me."
If the cross event took place, but its revelation was witheld
from every man, who would be saved? NO ONE.
Thus, I look also to its revelation being PERCEIVED. Salvation
includes revelation perceived by the only channel through which
it is perceived - faith.
So I look to when the message of the cross is received by the
faithful to a certain fulness, the kind of fulness that produces
the New Covenant.
The cross, outside revelation, does not write one stitch of the
law in the heart. The cross, with complete revelation perceived
by faith, writes ALL of the law in the heart.
The above is a HUGE point for me!
So why is the Bible vague? Because God knows we cannot behold
all of the glory of the cross at once. The Bible is vague exactly
in proportion to the degree to which we need it to be vague. We
see what we can bear to see and as we are able to see more, the
Bible will show us more.
To summarize, ultimately God has to shed all of the revelation
packed in the cross to the corporate body of God's faithful pre-
2nd coming. Reality is, this must be a progressive work. The
High Priest SPRINKLES [administers it progressively] the blood
[revelation] in the sanctuary [hearts]. He does not pour
[administer it all at once] the full cup on the sanctuary.
Before one can bear to be baptized with a flood of revelation, he
must first have been exposed to the dew, sprinkles, and showers.
We simply can't see it all at once and live.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 836.76 | | SHOVE::PARKER | | Fri Jan 05 1996 09:58 | 36 |
| RE: .68 & .73
Hi, Mike.
I know the term "progressive revelation" is loaded and has been misused
in ways other than what I believe Tony understands.
Tony can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand his
position to be that as we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" we come to see Him more clearly, i.e.,
God is revealing His Word to our hearts from glory to glory.
Tony and I may differ on our description of the process taking place,
but after actually meeting Tony and getting to know him a bit, I'm
convinced we confess the same Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus
Christ. Right now, I feel difference around our understanding of
"positional sanctification", i.e., that in Christ I now stand righteous
before God, even though I am a sinner. In other words, I stand perfect
(complete) in Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit, until the day God's
work is perfect (complete) in me. Then I will have been made like
Christ and will stand without sin to the glory of God.
I don't have a particular problem with Tony's belief that there will be
a group of people whom God has actually perfected as new creatures
without sin before Christ appears again. I do not agree, however, that
Christ cannot appear until that "holy nation" is actually seen in this
earthly life. That in no way diminishes my desire to be like Christ in
this earthly life. I just know that my seeing Christ as He is when He
soon appears does NOT depend on my seeing myself or anyone else other
than Christ as perfect (without sin).
Furthermore, I see no need to convince Tony that Christ can appear
before a corporate group is made sinlessly perfect in this earthly life
because his belief will NOT prevent Christ from appearing. :-)
/Wayne
|
| 836.77 | re: .74 | HPCGRP::DIEWALD | | Fri Jan 05 1996 10:24 | 54 |
| Hi Tony -
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are
perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God.
Galatians 2:15-21
15"We who are Jews by birth and not `Gentile sinners'
16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith
in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that
we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law,
because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Remember this is a letter to real people who were alive at the time
it was written concerning their faith. Its not addressed to endtime
people.
17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident
that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes
sin? Absolutely not!
See these people still sinned.
18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.
Paul says not to rebuild the law, not to partially live the old
convenent and the new one.
19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son
of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Paul says that after giving your life to Christ you are dead to the
law - the old testament. You live totally by the new testament,
by faith. Even if you can't do it perfectly.
21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Even if you still sin, this is what the grace of God is for. And
God's grace is yours through believing in Christ.
2 Cor 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength
is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather
glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Jill2
|
| 836.78 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 05 1996 11:02 | 11 |
| "Progressive revelation" seems to be a rather problematic term.
Certainly "revelation" ended with the death of the last apostle.
However, the _understanding_ of that revelation, completed in Jesus Christ
and delivered by his Apostles is progressive.
But "progressive" does not allow anything new to ever contradict that which
was revealed in the past.
/john
|
| 836.79 | Looking unto Jesus... | ROCK::PARKER | | Fri Jan 05 1996 12:14 | 40 |
| Yeah, like John said. :-)
I just hate it when we can no longer use words without something being
read into them not necessarily consistent with commonly understood
definitions from a dictionary.
From the AHD:
PROGRESSIVE - 1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps or by stages.
REVELATION - 1. Something that is revealed, esp. something surprising.
2. An act of revealing.
REVEAL - 1. To make known.
2. To display or show clearly.
There is no truth yet to be revealed which would contradict the Word of
God revealed in Jesus Christ.
I believe TonyB desires/expects NOTHING outside a full _understanding_
of Jesus Christ.
Practically speaking, when is something known by an observer/hearer?
When it is presented, or when it is perceived and understood? One test
of whether Jesus is known or not is if we who claim to see/hear Him
"look" (act and talk) like Him. Exchanging my perspective for God's is
what this is all about "that we put off...the old man...and be renewed
in the spirit of our mind; and that we put on the new man, which after
God is created in righteousness and holiness of truth." (Ep 4:22-24,
KJV)
We do not yet see/know all that God sees/knows, including what we shall
be. When we who believe see Jesus as He is, the Word of God written in
our hearts will perfectly describe Him, and, to the degree that our eyes
were fixed on Jesus and our hearts tuned to His Spirit, all different
understandings will have been reconciled in Christ, whose mind by faith
we have!
/Wayne
|
| 836.80 | God's motivational techniques | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Fri Jan 05 1996 13:12 | 71 |
| RE.45
> Maybe it would be better to do things for other reasons then
> "Well, will I lose my salvation if I don't do this thing?" or
> "If I do this thing, will I be saved?"
>
> Motivation is important. A better motivation is "The love of
> Christ constrains me." Do things because you love God, not
> so that you can acquire a piece of heavenly real estate.
********
Tony,
1) With respect to motivation, according to the following verses, what's wrong
with doing something in order to be saved? As it's God's will that ALL be saved
what's wrong with having a Salvation Motovation? That's exactly what God wants
isn't it?
1 Timothy 2:3,4
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants
all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the
truth."
2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some
understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting
anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
2) God also uses other forms of motivation himself, the most prominent one
being fear, as the following point out.
Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
and fools despise wisdom and discipline."
2 Thessalonians 1:8,9
"He will punish those who do not know God and who do not
obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They will be
punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of
his power."
1 Peter 4:17,18
"For it is time for judgement to begin with the family of
God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be
for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And,
"If it is hard for the righteous to be
saved,
what will become of the ungodly
and the sinner?""
Even Jesus in Luke 14:25-33 exhorts us to count the cost of FOLLOWING him, ie
hating father, mother, etc and using the tower-builder as an analogy, but he
also uses the fear motivation to get us to understand the cost of NOT FOLLOWING
him in the 2-kings-going-to-war analogy.
So while the love of Christ constrains me, God is well aware of other
motivational techniques and does hesitate to use them, ESPECIALLY when it comes
our salvation.
Love in Him,
Peter
|
| 836.81 | Correction to Last Reply | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Fri Jan 05 1996 14:21 | 10 |
| RE-last
God is aware of other motivation's and DOES NOT hesitate to use them
especially when it comes to our salvation.
Sorry for not proof reading my previous message.
In Him,
Peter
|
| 836.82 | Unbeliever *100%* Veiled | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:06 | 33 |
| re: .77
Hi Jill -
�2 Corinthians 4:3-4
�And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are
�perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
�so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of
�Christ, who is the image of God.
If I understand correctly what you are trying to say, you are saying
that as the gospel is veiled from unbelievers and as we are not
unbelievers, it therefore follows that the gospel is not veiled
from us.
I think this is a little bit simplistic. For example, Paul also says
that we look through a glass *darkly*. The Bible does refer to believers
who partake only of milk and not solid food. It often refers to people
of faith who neverthless are lacking quite a lot in discernment/knowing
(one big example being Laodicaea which needs eyesalve - clearly needing
eyesalve is a symptom of not seeing fully or of seeing through a veil).
So, basically, you seem to conclude that as Paul refers, in a text, to
unbelievers being veiled that believers are not veiled. Scripture is
rampant with its descriptions of faithful people who yet do not see all
there is to see.
My attempt at harmony with the above passage is that Paul is referring
to the entirety of the gospel being veiled from unbeliever's eyes, i.e.
they see nothing. People of faith have, at worst, partial sight or to
put another way, faith albeit imperfect faith.
I'll continue...
|
| 836.83 | Changing Hearts .NE. Our Good Works | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:06 | 28 |
| Continuing on...
�Galatians 2:15-21
�15"We who are Jews by birth and not `Gentile sinners'
�16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith
�in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that
�we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law,
�because by observing the law no one will be justified.
I'm not sure what your point is for offering this text. Is it based
on a notion (you might have) that I believe we are justified by obeying
the law?
I believe we are justified 100% by the grace of Christ which is received
by faith. This grace transforms the heart. This transformation of the
heart is justification. I refer not to the good works that a transformed
heart does, but rather to God's work of changing the heart.
The work of heart-change and the good works that a changed heart does
are two very different things. As an analogy, it may be natural for
horses to run. Horses run because thats how God made them. With this
analogy, God making horses is analogous to God making right hearts.
Horses running is analogous to good hearts obeying the law. Horses
running is not equivalent to the work of creating horses that run.
Hearts obeying is not equivalent to the work of creating hearts that
behave a certain way.
I'll continue...
|
| 836.84 | "All These Things Happened As Examples..." | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:06 | 17 |
| Continuing...
�Remember this is a letter to real people who were alive at the time
�it was written concerning their faith. Its not addressed to endtime
�people.
This would seem to require two beliefs with which I do not accept.
1) The early church could not possibly have facilitated the 2nd coming
of Christ. Ephesus, the early church, need not have "lost its first
love" and could have come to the point of seeing very image and thus
of bringing on the closing scenes.
2) Some things were NOT written for us and for our admonition unto whom
the end of the ages have come. This would seem to contradict 1 Corin
10:11 which says ALL these things were written for us and for our
admonition unto whom the end of the ages is come.
|
| 836.85 | IF | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:06 | 54 |
| Continuing On...
�17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident
�that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes
�sin? Absolutely not!
�See these people still sinned.
*If* does not imply that they still sinned, although I agree that they
probably did still sin. Perhaps some attained to sinless living though.
�18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.
�Paul says not to rebuild the law, not to partially live the old
�convenent and the new one.
Of course. God exhorts us all to believe. This does not imply that
upon conversion all Christians believe perfectly. "Lord I believe,
help Thou mine unbelief" characterizes any Christian who still sins
even for a moment.
�19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
�20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
�lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son
�of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
�Paul says that after giving your life to Christ you are dead to the
�law - the old testament. You live totally by the new testament,
�by faith. Even if you can't do it perfectly.
I think "through the law" refers to trying to be righteous by trying to
obey.
God did not design the scriptures so that one testament is one 'prescrip-
tion' for the sin problem and another testament is another prescription.
Always, God has been trying to save people the exact same way - by showing
them how good He is. The sacrificial system of the O.T. was a shadow
that had the advantage of offering a perspective from which the reality
of the cross could be grasped. But, we are in shadows too if we fail to
see the very image of the cross.
How do you come up with an idea that God had an entirely different method
of salvation in the O.T. What of scriptures like "Walk before Me [behold
Me] and be thou blameless"? That is the essence of the gospel. By
beholding we become changed.
One lives totally by the word of God when one has received it totally
by a perfect faith.
How can you say you live "totally by the New Testament" if you sin?
Does not the word of God, if received by a perfected faith, make
perfectly righteous?
I'll continue...
|
| 836.86 | Grace Makes Righteous | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:07 | 27 |
| Finally...
>21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
>gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Yes. We are not made righteous by trying to be righteous, we are made
righteous by beholding the cross of Christ.
>Even if you still sin, this is what the grace of God is for. And
>God's grace is yours through believing in Christ.
The grace of God is for making us righteous, however I agree that one
stands positionally perfectly righteous when one first has faith.
Jill, in terms of salvation, what else does God's grace do besides make
us righteous?
>2 Cor 12:9
>And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength
>is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather
>glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
What is the sufficiency of that grace? The context is of what it can
do even in weakness. It can transform *character*. It can perfect
the conscience.
Tony
|
| 836.87 | Appreciate Your Replies Wayne | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:14 | 13 |
| Wayne, I also wanted to reply to you (you too Peter!), but time
does not presently permit.
Wayne, I appreciate your good words spoken in my behalf and your
coming to my defense regarding the possibility that I might have
meant 'progressive revelation' in an 'OK' way!
(I did mean it in terms of what we 'see' of course and I think you
saw that.)
Thanks Again,
Tony
|
| 836.88 | | AUSSIE::CAMERON | And there shall come FORTH (Isaiah 11:1) | Fri Jan 05 1996 17:10 | 11 |
| Re: Note 836.46 by NETCAD::WIEBE
>I am curious as to your post, however. Do you have any basis for your
>categorical claim that "estin" means "sort-of" "is" and "touto estin" means
>a definite "is"?
No categorical claim, it was made based on memory at the time. I'd
have to do further research to back my claim. "toutous" or "touto" I
have seen as used as a definite-prefix.
James
|
| 836.89 | | CHEFS::PRICE_B | Jesus Is Lord | Mon Jan 08 1996 03:34 | 30 |
| Tony
I'm reading these notes at an horrendously early time in the morning,
so please forgive me if I've totally misread what you've said.
I think you said that:
1 - We are made righteous by obeying the law
2 - Some people will be perfect before Christ appears
If I've misread your comments and the above statements aren't what you
said then don't bother reading the rest 'cos it will be a waste of
time.
I believe that when Jesus preached the Sermon on the mount (Matthew
5-7) He was making it obvious to everybody that there was no chance
whatsoever of anybody ever fulfilling the law because even our thoughts
break the law. He made it clear that those who obeyed the law still
missed the mark (mainly because of their religeous pride and dependancy
on tradition and not on loving God and their neighbour). We cannot put
any confidence in our flesh, it is corrupt and worn-out and shabby and
will be shed when we see Jesus face to face. Therefore both the above
statements are inaccurate - nobody will be perfect until Jesus appears
- then we will be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye -
hallelujah.
love
Ben
|
| 836.90 | Believe That The Message of The Cross Can Perfectly Do What It Says!!! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jan 09 1996 09:58 | 30 |
| Hi Ben,
I never said we are made righteous by obeying the law. I said
our hearts are made righteous by Jesus Christ. Acts says we
are sanctified by faith.
I did say that there will be a perfected last generation.
Interesting, Ben, that you referred to the Sermon On The Mount.
I agree with you that the context is BEHAVIOR. Interesting then,
that within this context, Jesus says "Be ye therefore PERFECT
even as your Father in heaven is perfect."
In Corintians, Paul says that the love of Christ constrains
(motivates) us. He then goes on to say that a purpose of the
cross is that it causes people who used to live for themselves
to no longer live for themselves, but to live "for He who died
for them and rose again."
I have a very important and frank question for you...
How can I understand that your position does not limit the power
of the cross to perform everything it sets out to accomplish???
If its the power of the cross that changes the heart and if you
insist that the cross cannot do a perfect work of doing so, are
you not limiting the power of the cross???
Tony
|
| 836.91 | | CHEFS::PRICE_B | In 1000 years I'll be celebrating | Tue Jan 09 1996 12:23 | 23 |
| < How can I understand that your position does not limit the power
< of the cross to perform everything it sets out to accomplish???
Tony
I totally agree with you that the cross has acomplished all it was
designed to do - I know that I have been washed clean by the blood of
Jesus and that I am now the righteousness of God. Maybe our phraseology
is different (or maybe I was just too tired yesterday to take in what
you had said and to answer coherantly (sp) ).
However, I know that I still sin, to deny it would be sin!!! But I also
know that when I do sin if I confess it to God He is faithful and will
forgive me and the blood of Jesus will cleanse me. I also know that the
person I am now is nothing compared to the man I shall be when I see
Jesus face to face - my fallen flesh will be removed and replaced by a
heavenly body.
Is this what you have been saying???
Love
Ben
|
| 836.92 | It Is Fully Relevent To Character Change | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jan 09 1996 13:16 | 49 |
| re: .91
Hi Ben,
No, that is not at all what I have been saying!
Romans 4 tells us ON WHAT BASIS Abraham was accounted (declared
and considered) righteous when he first had faith. The reason
is that Abraham got to the point of being fully convinced that
what God said, He could perform.
When one has this kind of faith, one has allowed the word to
fully perform that which it says. The word that says, "You are
righteous" makes the person righteous as surely as the word that
said, "Thats a star over there" created a star out of nothing.
I take strong issue with your position (not with you of course!).
You have effectively removed the entirety of the motivating power
of the cross, even when it refers to how we live our lives, to
how we live our lives. You have completely removed the heart-
change from the gospel (from the purpose of the cross).
When Paul talks about the love of Christ motivating us and goes
on to say that Jesus was lifted up so that people who lived
selfish lives underwent a change such that they no longer lived
selfish lives, but rather lived unselfish lives for Him, he was
not referring to something declarative only (which had no relevence
to actual heart-change).
He was referring to actual change of character.
You have taken a position that removes character change from the
gospel where my position retains character change in the gospel.
God only calls us as righteous as He can make us.
He looks at the beginning of our faith on the basis of the truth
that He can finish (perfect) that same faith. Yes, it may end
short of that with many, but He must (and will) take a last
generation all the way for this very reason - His underlying
basis.
This is not a crossless gospel for it is the merits of the cross
that produces this - a revelation of that love produces the
heart-change for "the message of the cross is the power of God
unto salvation."
Tony
|