PDA

View Full Version : Why can I fogive but God cannot?



Richard Amiel McGough
07-11-2011, 10:19 AM
The Bible commands us to forgive others:

Mark 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
I don't have to "punish" someone before I forgive them, and the Bible does not say that others have to be punished before I forgive them. So why can't God just forgive people? Indeed, one of the most popular of all Christ's parables - that of the Prodigal Son - shows the Father (God) running to his son to kiss him and forgive him without any retribution of any kind.

So what's up with this? Could God simply forgive without demanding retribution? If not, why not? And if so, why doesn't he do it? Are we greater than God when we forgive without demanding retribution?

Mike
07-11-2011, 07:22 PM
I don't understand - why do you think God can't forgive people without demanding retribution? Is there some particular thing you think God has not forgiven? How do you know what God has or has not forgiven? From my perspective, it's the people that insist on punishing each other.

As for why he insists that people repent, I assume that is because, if people are forgiven without repenting, ie, without feeling the appropriate guilt/shame/regret, they'll just keep making the same mistakes over and over...

Richard Amiel McGough
07-11-2011, 07:27 PM
I don't understand - why do you think God can't forgive people without demanding retribution? Is there some particular thing you think God has not forgiven? How do you know what God has or has not forgiven? From my perspective, it's the people that insist on punishing each other.
Hi Mike,

I guess I should have explained the context more. I was thinking about the doctrine of atonement, which states that God will forgive sinners only if they have faith in Jesus and his death on the cross. The doctrine says that's why God is able to forgive sinners - he punished Christ in their place.

Do you believe that doctrine?

Richard

Mike
07-11-2011, 08:29 PM
Hi Richard,

I'm not sure this answers your question, but, I see the requirement of having faith in Jesus as similar to the requirement in most modern courts that people act "in good faith." When a judge or lawyer accuses somebody of acting in bad faith, or failing to do something in good faith, it's a reference to the person's motive. IE, was he genuinely trying to do what he thought the judge wanted? If so, he was acting in good faith. Similarly, I think maybe when we say people must have faith in Jesus, what we mean is that people must make a genuine attempt to do what Jesus would have - or does - want them to do, in whatever the circumstances are.

Re-reading it, I don't think I just did a good job of answering your question at all :) But I might still not understand it - If God forgives sinners because he punished Christ in their place, in what way is he demanding retribution?

My thoughts are still all jumbled up on this -up until a year ago I was a devout agnostic :)


Hi Mike,

I guess I should have explained the context more. I was thinking about the doctrine of atonement, which states that God will forgive sinners only if they have faith in Jesus and his death on the cross. The doctrine says that's why God is able to forgive sinners - he punished Christ in their place.

Do you believe that doctrine?

Richard

Rose
07-11-2011, 08:31 PM
Hi Mike,

I guess I should have explained the context more. I was thinking about the doctrine of atonement, which states that God will forgive sinners only if they have faith in Jesus and his death on the cross. The doctrine says that's why God is able to forgive sinners - he punished Christ in their place.

Do you believe that doctrine?

Richard

Just think what kind of precedent that sets! Punish the innocent in place of the guilty...imagine if we acted that way with our children, punish the child that obeys the rules, so the disobedient child can be forgiven.:confused:

Was "God" unable to forgive mankind without an innocent life being taken...it does seem a bit strange for the creator of mankind. :dontknow:

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-11-2011, 10:36 PM
Just think what kind of precedent that sets! Punish the innocent in place of the guilty...imagine if we acted that way with our children, punish the child that obeys the rules, so the disobedient child can be forgiven.:confused:

Was "God" unable to forgive mankind without an innocent life being taken...it does seem a bit strange for the creator of mankind. :dontknow:

Rose
There are real philosophical and moral problems with that theory of atonement. That's why I never really felt comfortable with it. I was more inclined to think of Christ as "bearing our sins" by "entering into" our suffering rather than "paying for our sins" like some kind of economic transaction. It's unfortunate that most Christians don't understand the difference between the fact of the atonement and the various theories of the atonement that have been developed over the last 2000 years.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-11-2011, 10:40 PM
Hi Richard,

I'm not sure this answers your question, but, I see the requirement of having faith in Jesus as similar to the requirement in most modern courts that people act "in good faith." When a judge or lawyer accuses somebody of acting in bad faith, or failing to do something in good faith, it's a reference to the person's motive. IE, was he genuinely trying to do what he thought the judge wanted? If so, he was acting in good faith. Similarly, I think maybe when we say people must have faith in Jesus, what we mean is that people must make a genuine attempt to do what Jesus would have - or does - want them to do, in whatever the circumstances are.

Re-reading it, I don't think I just did a good job of answering your question at all :) But I might still not understand it - If God forgives sinners because he punished Christ in their place, in what way is he demanding retribution?

My thoughts are still all jumbled up on this -up until a year ago I was a devout agnostic :)
Hi Mike,

I understand how your thoughts could be "jumbled up." There's not a lot of clarity in some areas of Christian theology.

Here's a link (http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement) to an explanation of the most popular Protestant theory of the atonement:



Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory (http://www.theopedia.com/Satisfaction_theory). Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
Note the date it was developed - 16th century!

bonbon
07-12-2011, 06:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxeqEoDXco

I recalled this video from youtube. Funny stuff.

To the question itself.... it is a paradox I still have a hard time to fully understand.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-12-2011, 07:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxeqEoDXco

I recalled this video from youtube. Funny stuff.

To the question itself.... it is a paradox I still have a hard time to fully understand.
Yes ... that is pretty funny. It really makes it clear how weird it is that God can't just forgive like any normal person. I think this is one of those huge "hidden assumptions" in the foundation of Christianity that very few believers have ever thought about. Folks are told that sin requires "payment of a penalty" in analogy to human laws like a traffic violation or shoplifting but forget that those laws, and the punishments they prescribe, are entirely arbitrary.

joel
07-12-2011, 08:56 AM
Richard,
Have you considered that.......sin (hamartia) requires atonement (covering over).....but.....in the case of Mark 11:25.....Jesus is not talking about sin, but, offenses (paratoma,..these being primarily those offensive things man vs. man, man vs. woman, etc......not man vs. God) which require forgiveness,.......we cannot and are not to cover over those things...but must go that person offended and attempt to patch it up, before we come back to God in prayer.

So, according to Jesus, God is not going to hear your prayer if you are in conflict with your "neighbor" due to your offensives toward him (them). This seems to me to be perfectly just.

Joel

Bob May
07-12-2011, 09:34 AM
Hi Mike,

I guess I should have explained the context more. I was thinking about the doctrine of atonement, which states that God will forgive sinners only if they have faith in Jesus and his death on the cross. The doctrine says that's why God is able to forgive sinners - he punished Christ in their place.

Do you believe that doctrine?

Richard

I had a friend who said to me once that he believed what Christ stood for. He was raised Catholic and to him "what Christ stood for" was basically be a good person and you will go to heaven when you die.
But that is not what Jesus stood for in my opinion. That was what Moses stood for.

Jesus wasn't against doing good, but his "message", that which he brought, was Grace and Truth.
It was Moses who brought the message of do good, get good.. do evil, get evil.

The analogy of the first Adam and the second Adam is that as by one man all became guilty and so by one all were forgiven is appropriate.

The crossing over from a Law based idea of God to a Grace based idea of God is a great leap in our consciousness. It should color everything we think about our relationship with the Father from that point on.
Just as before we become aware of God's grace everything we believed was colored with our own unworthiness and guilt.

Jesus coming to open blind eyes and deaf ears and making the dumb speak and making lame legs walk were signs of what he came to do for all of us. These were the signs he gave to John's disciples to convince John that he was the one to come. His dying on the cross was a sign that the law was finished, the conditions were met and the Father was satisfied.

If we keep in mind the Grace that has come to us from Him via Jesus we are now able to speak with God and hear from him. The veil to the Holiest of all was rent.
But we are able to forgive only inasmuch as we know we are forgiven. And we are only able to approach the Father with an awareness of Grace because nothing that defileth shall enter heaven.
God is able to forgive us only inasmuch as we realize this Grace because we wont accept the forgiveness or forgive ourselves without this realisation.

The cross was a sign of Grace, not punishment, because the sign was for us, not Jesus. Jesus came to fulfill the law which he did on the cross. The end of one thing and the beginning of another.

David knew what Grace was. He saw it a long way off and the son of David demonstrated it for all mankind if they would accept it.
Ps 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

Ps 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

God came as a man, (Or sent His messenger as a man), to undo what man had done.
He gave signs because men judge according to appearances rather than practicing righteous judgement. A habit we are supposed to grow out of, I think.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-12-2011, 10:50 AM
I had a friend who said to me once that he believed what Christ stood for. He was raised Catholic and to him "what Christ stood for" was basically be a good person and you will go to heaven when you die.
But that is not what Jesus stood for in my opinion. That was what Moses stood for.

Jesus wasn't against doing good, but his "message", that which he brought, was Grace and Truth.
It was Moses who brought the message of do good, get good.. do evil, get evil.

I understand why you might say that, but it doesn't seem to be the teaching of the NT. I do not know any any passage that says a person will be judged according to whether or not he has faith. On the contrary, both the Old and the New Testaments declare that everyone will be judged according to their works:


Psalm 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.
Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

That seems to be a pretty uniform Biblical testimony. Jesus, Paul, and John all agree on this point.



The analogy of the first Adam and the second Adam is that as by one man all became guilty and so by one all were forgiven is appropriate.

Yes, but that doesn't actually make any sense, does it? How can Adam's guilt be "attributed" to me? Doesn't that destroy the meaning of guilt, responsibility, and righteousness?

Righteousness is defined as "the state of one who acts righteously." It is defined in terms of what an individual does. It cannot be "transferred" or "imputed" from one to another without destroying the meaning of the words.



The crossing over from a Law based idea of God to a Grace based idea of God is a great leap in our consciousness. It should color everything we think about our relationship with the Father from that point on.
Just as before we become aware of God's grace everything we believed was colored with our own unworthiness and guilt.

Yes, Grace is a great advancement over Law. But I think the two form a false dichotomy. The idea of "grace" is couched in the language of "law" as when Paul wrote:
Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Look at that constellation of words. Grace is defined in the context of an assumed pre-existing condemnation: LAW, SIN, OFFENSE, DEATH. None of those ideas should ever have entered our vocabulary of God. The Christian doctrine of grace is built on a false foundation. No one outside of the Jewish tradition would have had any idea what Paul was talking about. That's why he said:
Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
What is the "work of the law" that Paul mentioned here? The Law was a book of rules about circumcision, sabbath, diet, and whatnot. What does it mean for a Gentile to "do the things contained in the law?"



Jesus coming to open blind eyes and deaf ears and making the dumb speak and making lame legs walk were signs of what he came to do for all of us. These were the signs he gave to John's disciples to convince John that he was the one to come. His dying on the cross was a sign that the law was finished, the conditions were met and the Father was satisfied.

I agree that his death on the cross was a sign that the law was finished. That makes perfect sense within the context of the Christian story. But what it really means in light of reality? That's another question altogether.



If we keep in mind the Grace that has come to us from Him via Jesus we are now able to speak with God and hear from him. The veil to the Holiest of all was rent.
But we are able to forgive only inasmuch as we know we are forgiven. And we are only able to approach the Father with an awareness of Grace because nothing that defileth shall enter heaven.
God is able to forgive us only inasmuch as we realize this Grace because we wont accept the forgiveness or forgive ourselves without this realisation.

Where do you get the idea that "we are able to forgive only inasmuch as we know we are forgiven?" Jesus said the opposite. He said we would not be forgiven if we don't FIRST forgive!
Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
This verse says nothing about forgiveness through faith, so it must be "explained" away as not really meaning what it seems to say. I wonder how many verses in the Bible are like this? In this short post we've encountered many, such as the fact that the Bible says we will be judged by our works, not faith.

CWH
07-13-2011, 09:31 AM
I understand why you might say that, but it doesn't seem to be the teaching of the NT. I do not know any any passage that says a person will be judged according to whether or not he has faith. On the contrary, both the Old and the New Testaments declare that everyone will be judged according to their works:


Psalm 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.
Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

That seems to be a pretty uniform Biblical testimony. Jesus, Paul, and John all agree on this point.


Yes, but that doesn't actually make any sense, does it? How can Adam's guilt be "attributed" to me? Doesn't that destroy the meaning of guilt, responsibility, and righteousness?

Righteousness is defined as "the state of one who acts righteously." It is defined in terms of what an individual does. It cannot be "transferred" or "imputed" from one to another without destroying the meaning of the words.


Yes, Grace is a great advancement over Law. But I think the two form a false dichotomy. The idea of "grace" is couched in the language of "law" as when Paul wrote:
Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Look at that constellation of words. Grace is defined in the context of an assumed pre-existing condemnation: LAW, SIN, OFFENSE, DEATH. None of those ideas should ever have entered our vocabulary of God. The Christian doctrine of grace is built on a false foundation. No one outside of the Jewish tradition would have had any idea what Paul was talking about. That's why he said:
Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
What is the "work of the law" that Paul mentioned here? The Law was a book of rules about circumcision, sabbath, diet, and whatnot. What does it mean for a Gentile to "do the things contained in the law?"


I agree that his death on the cross was a sign that the law was finished. That makes perfect sense within the context of the Christian story. But what it really means in light of reality? That's another question altogether.


Where do you get the idea that "we are able to forgive only inasmuch as we know we are forgiven?" Jesus said the opposite. He said we would not be forgiven if we don't FIRST forgive!
Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
This verse says nothing about forgiveness through faith, so it must be "explained" away as not really meaning what it seems to say. I wonder how many verses in the Bible are like this? In this short post we've encountered many, such as the fact that the Bible says we will be judged by our works, not faith.

How about James 2 which seems to suggest that BOTH good works and faith are important in ensuring salvation. Buddhism and Hinduism seems to focus on good works and Christianity seems to focus on faith.... well, I believe both good works and faith in God will lead to salvation regardless of religion. BTW, Grace is from God "for all have sin and fall short of the glory of God".

James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


May God bless our Works and Faith. Amen :pray:.

Bob May
07-13-2011, 10:33 AM
I understand why you might say that, but it doesn't seem to be the teaching of the NT. I do not know any any passage that says a person will be judged according to whether or not he has faith.

That is because the person who has faith will not be judged. And the way we read the passages will bear that out. It's a glass half full, glass half empty situation. If we approach the scriptures looking for the law we find it. If, on the other hand we approach it looking for mercy and grace we will find that.
The New Testament starts out with a choice that was not there previously.
Repent. Change our minds.
Both choices are true. Both choices are reality. But only one choice is available for each person.

On the contrary, both the Old and the New Testaments declare that everyone will be judged according to their works:

Re 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Those written in the "book of life" are not judged. Those written in "the books" are. That is pretty clear.


Psalm 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

So do we stress the mercy aspect or the according to his work aspect?


Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

If God searches the hearts and tries the reins and looks at man according to his ways, then He is looking past the obvious to what motivates man.
What we do takes a back seat to why we do.

Jesus pointed out a Pharisee that tithed mint and anise and prayed in the streets to be seen of men. He said that he already had his reward. (Men saw him, that was his reward. That was what he wanted) He was apparently following the Law. Yet Jesus didn't seem to think much of his actions.

The same type thing happened when they brought him an adulteress and asked his opinion on what should be done to her. By Law she should have been stoned.


Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Immediately after this he told the Pharisees:

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

In another place he said:

Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Natural man judges according to the flesh and according to appearances. This is the Law mentality. Cause and effect. The Obvious. This includes the Gentiles who are a "law unto themselves."
We are given a choice. We can live in that law or find our way out of it and then slip back into it ..Or we can study to show ourselves approved,..workmen who needeth not to be ashamed.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

That seems to be a pretty uniform Biblical testimony. Jesus, Paul, and John all agree on this point.


Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


Yes, but that doesn't actually make any sense, does it? How can Adam's guilt be "attributed" to me? Doesn't that destroy the meaning of guilt, responsibility, and righteousness?

There is no righteousness except for imputed righteousness. The only just way that God could remove sin and guilt from man was to impute it in the first place by one, so that He could remove it by one. And just because we entered into the condition of Sin does not mean we hadn't earned condemnation by our own sins later.
God knew we would fail any covenant offered to us, so He by His mercy left us out of the covenant except as beneficiaries. So we would not "blow it."

Righteousness is defined as "the state of one who acts righteously." It is defined in terms of what an individual does. It cannot be "transferred" or "imputed" from one to another without destroying the meaning of the words.

Right standing with God is my definition. And if we are "in Christ" it is not transferred. We are.

Yes, Grace is a great advancement over Law. But I think the two form a false dichotomy. The idea of "grace" is couched in the language of "law" as when Paul wrote:
Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Look at that constellation of words. Grace is defined in the context of an assumed pre-existing condemnation: LAW, SIN, OFFENSE, DEATH. None of those ideas should ever have entered our vocabulary of God.

We go from the known to the unknown. That is how we learn, by making comparisons. Grace did not show up in a vacume.
By using the word assumed you are saying you don't believe there is a condemnation. Yet, other than sociopaths I cannot think of anyone who has gone through this life without guilt of some kind.

The Christian doctrine of grace is built on a false foundation. No one outside of the Jewish tradition would have had any idea what Paul was talking about. That's why he said:
Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

So basically Paul is saying that Gentiles and Jews are in the same boat.
The law said if you break one law you are guilty of all.
Jesus came and said "Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect."
Both statements paint us into a corner. Bottom line is we cannot keep the law. That brings us to Christ, our only hope.

What is the "work of the law" that Paul mentioned here? The Law was a book of rules about circumcision, sabbath, diet, and whatnot. What does it mean for a Gentile to "do the things contained in the law?"

The law is the first five books of the Old Testament. In it are both Old and New covenant principles. Jesus said that Moses wrote of him. Why don't we look for Jesus and his teachings concerning us in the Old testament?
Because we tend to look at the "appearance of things" instead of looking for Grace and Truth hidden there. When we begin to operate from the Grace mentality we should be looking for those things which lead to life and peace rather than stressing those things which lead to death and punishment.

You spoke about imputed righteousness. In the story of Jacob dressing like Esau and putting sheepskin on his arms to pretend he is the favored first born son is a good example. God looks at us and sees Jesus because we have been clothed upon with Christ. Just as Abraham thought that Jacob was the inheritor of the birthright.
When we begin to realize that it is not so much what we do, but what has been and will be done to us our awareness of grace grows.
I like to look at the ten commandments and the law of circumcision as promises and prophecies concerning us rather than rules and regulations to follow. They are called covenants. Thou shalt not steal, murder, commit adultery and covet can be looked at as promises from the Father that He is changing us. So, also with thou shalt be circumcised throughout your generations etc. Didn't Jesus make promises to those who would follow him in the "regeneration?"

I agree that his death on the cross was a sign that the law was finished. That makes perfect sense within the context of the Christian story. But what it really means in light of reality? That's another question altogether.

Like I said we are given a choice of which Reality to live in. Both are Reality. Which do we want to live in?
Repent for the Kingdom is at hand.


Where do you get the idea that "we are able to forgive only inasmuch as we know we are forgiven?" Jesus said the opposite. He said we would not be forgiven if we don't FIRST forgive!
Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Like I said before realizing you are under grace changes everything. It colors everything concerning our relationship with God. (Not that I do not slip back into the law mentality, but that is what we fight to prevent.That was Paul's dissappointment with the Galatians. We do forget and fall from Grace.)
There is no first this then that. That is back to the cause and effect way of thinking. How can I hold ignorance against someone when I just realized that I have just stepped out of the same ignorance? It is said that we love God because He first loved us. It is the same with Forgiveness and Grace. Undeserved favor.
Besides, I was forgiven 2000 years before I was born. It is only recently that I bacame aware of it.


This verse says nothing about forgiveness through faith, so it must be "explained" away as not really meaning what it seems to say. I wonder how many verses in the Bible are like this? In this short post we've encountered many, such as the fact that the Bible says we will be judged by our works, not faith.

Only those written "in the books."
Those written in the "book of life" are not judged.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-13-2011, 10:48 AM
How about James 2 which seems to suggest that BOTH good works and faith are important in ensuring salvation. Buddhism and Hinduism seems to focus on good works and Christianity seems to focus on faith.... well, I believe both good works and faith in God will lead to salvation regardless of religion. BTW, Grace is from God "for all have sin and fall short of the glory of God".

James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


May God bless our Works and Faith. Amen :pray:.
James 2 is very interesting. It looks like James was directly refuting Paul's statement, because he used exactly the same words as Paul but came to the opposite conclusion:

James 2:24 You see then that a man IS justified by works, and not by faith only.

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man IS NOT justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Looking more closely at those two verses:


James..a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only.
Paul.....a man is NOT justified by works, but by faith

It looks to me like James is deliberately contradicting Paul. It looks deliberate because he used exactly the same words as Paul: "dikaioutai anthropos ex ergon" (man justified by works), and he contrasts works with faith, just like Paul. The only difference is that Paul said man is NOT justified by works, whereas James said man IS justified by works.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-13-2011, 12:12 PM
I understand why you might say that, but it doesn't seem to be the teaching of the NT. I do not know any any passage that says a person will be judged according to whether or not he has faith.

That is because the person who has faith will not be judged. And the way we read the passages will bear that out. It's a glass half full, glass half empty situation. If we approach the scriptures looking for the law we find it. If, on the other hand we approach it looking for mercy and grace we will find that.
The New Testament starts out with a choice that was not there previously.
Repent. Change our minds.
Both choices are true. Both choices are reality. But only one choice is available for each person.

The Bible does not say that "the person who has faith will not be judged." On the contrary, the Bible says that everyone will be judged "according to their works." It even says it explicitly about those who have faith:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
I find it very odd that you would assert a doctrine that is not merely missing from Scripture, but that directly contradicts Scripture.





On the contrary, both the Old and the New Testaments declare that everyone will be judged according to their works:

Re 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Those written in the "book of life" are not judged. Those written in "the books" are. That is pretty clear.


No, it is not "clear" at all. The Bible does not say that "[t]hose written in the 'book of life' are not judged." You made that up. Who are in the Book of Life? Let's take a look:

Revelation 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
So we see it is works, works, works that get you in or out of the Book of Life. This is confirmed later in Revelation:

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever [B]worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
So it's works, works, works. That's what gets your name in or out of the Book of Life ... according to the Bible anyway.







Psalm 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.


So do we stress the mercy aspect or the according to his work aspect?

It doesn't matter what we "stress." The question is "What does the Bible actually teach?". And it seems to me that the Bible is contradictory on this point. In some places, it teaches that we are "saved" from judgment by our faith in Christ, but in other places it says that we ALL will be judged according to our works.





2. Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

If God searches the hearts and tries the reins and looks at man according to his ways, then He is looking past the obvious to what motivates man.
What we do takes a back seat to why we do.

Jesus pointed out a Pharisee that tithed mint and anise and prayed in the streets to be seen of men. He said that he already had his reward. (Men saw him, that was his reward. That was what he wanted) He was apparently following the Law. Yet Jesus didn't seem to think much of his actions.

The same type thing happened when they brought him an adulteress and asked his opinion on what should be done to her. By Law she should have been stoned.


I see your point. I agree that Jesus spoke a lot about the intentions of the heart and I think that is a great advancement over judging by "appearances" or "according to their works." But that's not what the Bible actually teaches. Paul said that we would be judged according to what we have done, not according to what we intended. Of course, a perfect judge would include both I guess. But this is completely irrelevant, because the point is that "faith" does not fix "bad intents." In other words, just because a person repents and believes Jesus doesn't mean he won't later INTEND to sin and so be judge for that sin. Indeed, the Bible warns about this:
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
What Christian has not willfully sinned after salvation? Have you willfully sinned? There may be a few dozen saints in the history of the world that this passage doesn't apply to, but I doubt it's much more than that. So if this passage is true, then it would appear that heaven is very sparsely populated.

Bottom line: Appealing to our "good intent" has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible teaches everyone will be judged by God according to what they have done. It doesn't help if you have "faith in Jesus" because you still have willfully sinned with bad intent and so will be judged accordingly.





Yes, but that doesn't actually make any sense, does it? How can Adam's guilt be "attributed" to me? Doesn't that destroy the meaning of guilt, responsibility, and righteousness?

There is no righteousness except for imputed righteousness. The only just way that God could remove sin and guilt from man was to impute it in the first place by one, so that He could remove it by one. And just because we entered into the condition of Sin does not mean we hadn't earned condemnation by our own sins later.
God knew we would fail any covenant offered to us, so He by His mercy left us out of the covenant except as beneficiaries. So we would not "blow it."

I find your statement that "There is no righteousness except for imputed righteousness" absolutely meaningless. Righteousness is defined by our actions:
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
This is the point I was making. The word "righteous" is a human word from a human language that applies to what humans do. When it is used in the Bible, it does not suddenly obtain a totally different and incoherent meaning. The idea of "righteousness" is defined as "the state of one who does what's right." I do not understand how righteousness be "imputed" to another. I don't even know what that could mean. But don't get me wrong - I understand perfectly the "logic" that Christian's use when talking about this topic. I just don't think it is coherent or that it has any actual meaning. That's why I said that this doctrine destroys the meaning of words like "sin" and "righteousness."



Right standing with God is my definition. And if we are "in Christ" it is not transferred. We are.

That's a very interesting way to put it. But it seems to contradict your previous statement that "righteousness is imputed."

In any case, here's the problem: Righteousness is not defined as "right standing with God." That's a theological definition that was invented long after the Bible was written. A proper dictionary will define what the words mean in the Koine Greek, not what some theologian has interpreted them to mean! This is a very common problem with Bible dictionaries, especially Strong's. A few of the more egregious examples are collected in the thread called Strong futurist bias in Strong's definitions (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1466).






Yes, Grace is a great advancement over Law. But I think the two form a false dichotomy. The idea of "grace" is couched in the language of "law" as when Paul wrote:
Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Look at that constellation of words. Grace is defined in the context of an assumed pre-existing condemnation: LAW, SIN, OFFENSE, DEATH. None of those ideas should ever have entered our vocabulary of God.


We go from the known to the unknown. That is how we learn, by making comparisons. Grace did not show up in a vacume.
By using the word assumed you are saying you don't believe there is a condemnation. Yet, other than sociopaths I cannot think of anyone who has gone through this life without guilt of some kind.

Sure, all healthy people have experienced guilt at times in their lives. But obsessive or unresolved guilt is itself an illness under which healthy people do not suffer. Christianity can really help people who are sick with guilt. But it is neither needed nor helpful for those who do not have unhealthy guilt about their own existence. That's why Christians try to make people feel guilty. It's really rather sad. Folks must first be convinced that God sees them as guilty and sin-sick so they can then be sold the "cure."

Silence
07-14-2011, 08:54 AM
I recently read a book written by James Alison titled "The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes". I am still sifting through some of the ideas he proposes, but one thought he brings up in his book is related to this thread and is something that I had previously pondered when reading up on universalism - Has God been angry with mankind ever since "the fall" and was the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross to make a "payment" to God the Father for the offensiveness of our sins? One of the books I read at Tentmaker.org pointed out the fact that the N.T. speaks of "God, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself", not "God, in Christ, reconciling Himself to the world". In other words, the problem is not animosity or wrath from God towards the world that needs to be placated, but the other way around - animosity of the world towards God. If you look back to where it all got started, it seems that getting Eve to believe that God is antagonistic towards man was the main goal of the serpent in the garden, and that if he could succeed in that the rest would follow. The serpent purposely overstated his accusation against God to get things started off in an adversarial context. He made it sound like God was against them by holding back every tree's fruit from them. When Eve refutes that claim, he concedes the point and backpedals to where he intended to make his attack all along. He could have told Eve to prove that she was allowed to eat from all of the trees that she claimed were permissible, but then she may have been distracted by enjoying their fruit. So now, instead of seeing God as withholding every tree from them, the serpent portrays Him as withholding from them the only tree that is really important. When God questions Adam about what happened, the adversarial tone comes out right away - "The woman You gave to be with me ...." . Eve confesses to being deceived, but does not say what was involved in that deception. If Eve believed God was adversarial towards man before she sinned, and if indeed that belief was any part of the reason she ate, how much more would she be tempted to feel that way after disobeying? Maybe Jesus didn't come to placate an angry God on our behalf, but instead came to do everything He could to show us that God is not angry with us, not even after we disowned, denied, and crucified Him. In other words, Jesus came to demonstrate God's forgiveness towards us, not to earn it for us from God. In his book, Alison also addresses the subject of "the wrath of God" spoken of in Romans, and points out that this wrath is described in terms of "giving up" or "giving over" people to their own delusions and transgressions. One other example I found interesting is his take on the parable of the man who was found at a wedding feast without a wedding garment on. Alison suggests that maybe the reason the man did not have on a wedding garment was because he did not believe he had been invited to celebrate a wedding but was there passing judgement on the other guests and wondering when they would be judged.

One other thing I thought I would mention - A long time ago I read an article or a commentary that was discussing the episode of the Israelites and the fiery serpents from Numbers 21. The author said it was possible that the brass serpent on a pole described there was not a "magical cure" except in the sense that it showed the only way the fiery serpents could be dealt with. There are supposedly worms found in the middle east that burrow just under the skin which cause a burning sensation, and if you try to pull them out and they break, you can end up with a fatal infection. The method that has been used to deal with these worms is to make a small incision over a spot where the worm is visible and then lift the worm up far enough to slip a slender wood rod between it and the skin. After a while you can lift the worm up a little father and move one end of the wooden rod in a circle over the top of the worm and then under it again so the worm is "wrapped around" the rod once. You continue doing this until the worm has slowly been pulled out of you and wrapped around the wooden rod. I haven't looked into whether all of this is true, but it seems to be an apt way to look at the question of the relationship between faith and works. In order to be saved from the fiery serpents, you first have to believe that the method of removing them will work. Then you have to use it. If you take this principle back to where sin first got started, the thing to be pulled out of us, little by little, is the underlying idea that God is against us and replace it with the picture Jesus gave us of the Father. In a mimetic context, any other view of God will lead to us being formed inwardly in an adversarial manner which then works it's way outward.

Bob May
07-14-2011, 10:10 AM
The Bible does not say that "the person who has faith will not be judged." On the contrary, the Bible says that everyone will be judged "according to their works." It even says it explicitly about those who have faith:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
I find it very odd that you would assert a doctrine that is not merely missing from Scripture, but that directly contradicts Scripture.

Jesus was not against good works. But I can give all that I have to the poor because Christ has changed me or because I need a tax deduction. Or to be seen of men or whatever.
I of myself am incapable of righteous works. Righteous works are what is called for as an outcome of righteousness.
If you finish Paul's thought above you will find that this righteousness is imputed.
2co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
2co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
2co 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.
2co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
2co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


So my point is that we should be looking at the goal which is to be fully persuaded that we are in him and to be constrained by the love of Christ. We have become alive from the dead and should try to remember that all of these is a gift. That is Grace. All things have become new. I look for that in scripture both Old and New Testaments.
I try to keep in mind that all of it is a gift. Without keeping that in mind my "good works" are not good works at all. Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.




Mt 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mt 25:35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mt 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mt 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mt 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mt 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mt 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mt 25:42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mt 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mt 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mt 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


No, it is not "clear" at all. The Bible does not say that "[t]hose written in the 'book of life' are not judged." You made that up.

It says the DEAD are judged. We are no longer the Dead. 2co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

If we are written in the Book of Life we are not the dead that are judged.

Who are in the Book of Life? Let's take a look:

Revelation 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
So we see it is works, works, works that get you in or out of the Book of Life. This is confirmed later in Revelation:

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever [B]worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
So it's works, works, works. That's what gets your name in or out of the Book of Life ... according to the Bible anyway.

3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

My point exactly. How had they recieved and heard? By faith through Grace. That is what we must hold on to and keep reminding ourselves of. The Galatians were "bewitched" into going back under the law.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Yes the righteous are the only ones who will enter. Those who have been by Grace through faith Changed.[/COLOR][/COLOR]


It doesn't matter what we "stress." The question is "What does the Bible actually teach?". And it seems to me that the Bible is contradictory on this point. In some places, it teaches that we are "saved" from judgment by our faith in Christ, but in other places it says that we ALL will be judged according to our works.

The word divides the soul from the spirit. The natural man operates from the soul level. As we begin to see the difference in those levels of ourselves and scripture it seems to me that it gets less contradictory.
And it does matter to both you and I what we stress. Otherwise we would not be coloring certain words and phrases as we post.

I would guess that your bible is much more marked up than mine, but I would also bet that as you re-read certain passages you underline diferent things than you did the previous reading.
That is because he makes all things new.

I see your point. I agree that Jesus spoke a lot about the intentions of the heart and I think that is a great advancement over judging by "appearances" or "according to their works." But that's not what the Bible actually teaches. Paul said that we would be judged according to what we have done, not according to what we intended. Of course, a perfect judge would include both I guess. But this is completely irrelevant, because the point is that "faith" does not fix "bad intents."

But a realization of the Grace that has been given to us changes us. If all that we have is a gift, undeserved how can we look down on others who may at any time come to the same realization?
The thief on the cross next to Jesus had his hands and feet immobile. How could he DO anything to change his life previous to those last few hours before he died? Yet he was promised a place in Paradise.

Good works are a good thing but I think not falling from Grace is much more important. Good works will follow our appreciation of what has been done for us.

Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

James seems to contradict Paul, but not really. The works are a natural outflow of gratitude and compassion. Neither of which we would have unless changed by our faith in the word.

In other words, just because a person repents and believes Jesus doesn't mean he won't later INTEND to sin and so be judge for that sin. Indeed, the Bible warns about this:
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Yes, I was told in my old church that if I sinned once after baptism I would be lsot forever and go to hell. We put it off for years and finally I came to the conclusion that I would never be able to keep the Law unless I had the Holy Spirit and so I was going to hell anyway.
So by an act of faith I was baptized.

What Christian has not willfully sinned after salvation? Have you willfully sinned? There may be a few dozen saints in the history of the world that this passage doesn't apply to, but I doubt it's much more than that. So if this passage is true, then it would appear that heaven is very sparsely populated.

Bottom line: Appealing to our "good intent" has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible teaches everyone will be judged by God according to what they have done. It doesn't help if you have "faith in Jesus" because you still have willfully sinned with bad intent and so will be judged accordingly.

I have to get ready for work right now but I would like to discuss this verse.
It is a puzzle, no arguing with that.

I find your statement that "There is no righteousness except for imputed righteousness" absolutely meaningless. Righteousness is defined by our actions:
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
This is the point I was making. The word "righteous" is a human word from a human language that applies to what humans do. When it is used in the Bible, it does not suddenly obtain a totally different and incoherent meaning. The idea of "righteousness" is defined as "the state of one who does what's right." I do not understand how righteousness be "imputed" to another. I don't even know what that could mean. But don't get me wrong - I understand perfectly the "logic" that Christian's use when talking about this topic. I just don't think it is coherent or that it has any actual meaning. That's why I said that this doctrine destroys the meaning of words like "sin" and "righteousness."


That's a very interesting way to put it. But it seems to contradict your previous statement that "righteousness is imputed."

In any case, here's the problem: Righteousness is not defined as "right standing with God." That's a theological definition that was invented long after the Bible was written. A proper dictionary will define what the words mean in the Koine Greek, not what some theologian has interpreted them to mean! This is a very common problem with Bible dictionaries, especially Strong's. A few of the more egregious examples are collected in the thread called Strong futurist bias in Strong's definitions (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1466).



Sure, all healthy people have experienced guilt at times in their lives. But obsessive or unresolved guilt is itself an illness under which healthy people do not suffer. Christianity can really help people who are sick with guilt. But it is neither needed nor helpful for those who do not have unhealthy guilt about their own existence. That's why Christians try to make people feel guilty. It's really rather sad. Folks must first be convinced that God sees them as guilty and sin-sick so they can then be sold the "cure."

joel
07-14-2011, 04:08 PM
Richard, I was just wondering.....amongst these huge, opinion filled posts, can you provide a quick, simple answer to a prior post of mine.......do you know the difference between sin, and, offense?

Joel

throwback
07-14-2011, 09:37 PM
Here's an idea that ran through my head a while ago:


My proposal is that God's creative endevour was enacted with life being the initial idea as well as the desired end result.
The above is a real 'duh' declaration until one considers who and what God is as well as considering what the necessary ramifications of creating sentient life forms with the freedom and ability to choose right or wrong would be. God had to know that sin would be a result and that because of sin much pain, many evils, and ultimately death would be the result.
With the above in mind a thinking person may wonder whether or not sentient life even deserves to exist. Can life thrive without infecting its habitation with evil? Can free sentient beings ultimately be good? Those questions are the basis for what I term The Divine Experiment. I believe God created us knowing and believing sentient and free beings were in fact worthy of being given life and that His trust was finally proven and rewarded in Jesus.


Scripture, in places like Ezekiel 18 and Romans 6 tells us that sin is the catalyst that leads to death. With that being the case, I see sin sort of like a cancer that has infected our world, our universe even, and death our universe's response to that cancer. Too me, sin brings about a sort of entropy. Consider this; sin and evil create or should I say bring entropy into whatever system it (sin) is introduced. As long as the cancer of sin survives, the system will continue to drift further and further into disorder, pain, suffering, corruption, until finally, the system will cease to be able to live. So in this real applicable way we can see just how the wages of sin is death. That even makes sense of the teaching in scripture that tells man not to love the world. The world is infected and dying and the only way to survive is to come out of it. The means by which we can be redeemed from the world (come out of it) is what I term as The Divine Gift.

I can see how sin is the sickness and death is the mechanism used to fight off the infection. Our universe combats sin by inflicting death so that sin cannot persist endlessly. Ultimately, death is intended to kill off the sin infection and once it has accomplished that task, it too will be done away with. For those who survive this world, we will ever be mindful of two things. One being the Divine Gift that redeemed us from the curse of sin and secondly, the reprocussions of sin. With these things etched in mind, the survivors will not participate in or give sin a chance to be reborn in the new habitation because they know the consequences.

Having said the above, it seems that the aim God had/has in mind for mankind is ultimately perfection, sinlessness, or the "glory of God" that we fall short of because of our sin. What we must remember is that sin is not something we are forced to do, there is always an out. Just as Jesus walked this world being tempted in all ways as we are, yet was without sin, we too have such a capability and living up to that God given potential is what we as mankind and ESPECIALLY christians who have been called out are expected to do!

Rose
07-14-2011, 09:55 PM
Here's an idea that ran through my head a while ago:

My proposal is that God's creative endevour was enacted with life being the initial idea as well as the desired end result.
The above is a real 'duh' declaration until one considers who and what God is as well as considering what the necessary ramifications of creating sentient life forms with the freedom and ability to choose right or wrong would be. God had to know that sin would be a result and that because of sin much pain, many evils, and ultimately death would be the result.
With the above in mind a thinking person may wonder whether or not sentient life even deserves to exist. Can life thrive without infecting its habitation with evil? Can free sentient beings ultimately be good? Those questions are the basis for what I term The Divine Experiment. I believe God created us knowing and believing sentient and free beings were in fact worthy of being given life and that His trust was finally proven and rewarded in Jesus. Scripture, in places like Ezekiel 18 and Romans 6 tells us that sin is the catalyst that leads to death. With that being the case, I see sin sort of like a cancer that has infected our world, our universe even, and death our universe's response to that cancer. Too me, sin brings about a sort of entropy. Consider this; sin and evil create or should I say bring entropy into whatever system it (sin) is introduced. As long as the cancer of sin survives, the system will continue to drift further and further into disorder, pain, suffering, corruption, until finally, the system will cease to be able to live. So in this real applicable way we can see just how the wages of sin is death. That even makes sense of the teaching in scripture that tells man not to love the world. The world is infected and dying and the only way to survive is to come out of it. The means by which we can be redeemed from the world (come out of it) is what I term as The Divine Gift.

I can see how sin is the sickness and death is the mechanism used to fight off the infection. Our universe combats sin by inflicting death so that sin cannot persist endlessly. Ultimately, death is intended to kill off the sin infection and once it has accomplished that task, it too will be done away with. For those who survive this world, we will ever be mindful of two things. One being the Divine Gift that redeemed us from the curse of sin and secondly, the reprocussions of sin. With these things etched in mind, the survivors will not participate in or give sin a chance to be reborn in the new habitation because they know the consequences.

Having said the above, it seems that the aim God had/has in mind for mankind is ultimately perfection, sinlessness, or the "glory of God" that we fall short of because of our sin. What we must remember is that sin is not something we are forced to do, there is always an out. Just as Jesus walked this world being tempted in all ways as we are, yet was without sin, we too have such a capability and living up to that God given potential is what we as mankind and ESPECIALLY christians who have been called out are expected to do!

I have one question. WHAT EXACTLY IS SIN?

It seems that before animals became self-aware (humans) there was no such thing as sin.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2011, 10:17 PM
Richard,
Have you considered that.......sin (hamartia) requires atonement (covering over).....but.....in the case of Mark 11:25.....Jesus is not talking about sin, but, offenses (paratoma,..these being primarily those offensive things man vs. man, man vs. woman, etc......not man vs. God) which require forgiveness,.......we cannot and are not to cover over those things...but must go that person offended and attempt to patch it up, before we come back to God in prayer.

So, according to Jesus, God is not going to hear your prayer if you are in conflict with your "neighbor" due to your offensives toward him (them). This seems to me to be perfectly just.

Joel
Hi Joel,

Sorry for my slow response to this post. It got buried by some others and I missed it.

I don't understand you comments about "paraptoma" - where did you get that information? The passage states:
Mark 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses (paraptoma). 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses (paraptoma).
God's forgiveness of our "paraptoma" is identical to God's forgiveness of our sins, which is the essence of the Gospel message. Paul says that Jesus was "delivered for our offences (paraptoma)" (Rom 4:25), and explains the entire Gospel using this word (every occurrence of paraptoma in bold):
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 ΒΆ Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
We see the same thing in 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses (paraptoma) unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
And in Ephesians, where paraptoma is translated as "sins" -
Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins (paraptoma), according to the riches of his grace;
Jesus did not say that "God would not hear our prayers" if we do not forgive, he said God would not forgive our "paraptoma" if we did not forgive others. And the forgiveness of our "paraptoma" is the essential message of the Gospel as taught by Paul in many of his epistles.

All the best,

Richard

Bob May
07-14-2011, 11:23 PM
Hi Richard,

You quoted Hebrews below.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Paul is making contrasts between the old Covenant Atonement and the Atonement of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Some of the contrasts he makes are:
That the old yearly atonement came once a year.
The new atonement came only once.
The old was merely a shadow and an image.
The new was a good thing to come.
The old never made anyone perfect, (implying that the new atonement would.)
The old did not purge sins and never removed sin from our memories or conscience.
The old was taken away by Jesus coming.
The new was established.
That the offering of Jesus body was once, for all and santified us.
That the Old Testament offerings never took away sins.
That Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins forever.
And that he perfected forever those who were sanctified (us)

I could go on, but you get the idea. He was comparing and contrasting the two atonements.
With that in mind go back to the verse you quoted.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

There "remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" because there is only one sacrifice in the New Covenant Atonement. This is as opposed to the Old where there remained another sacrifice for sins the next year and the next, and the next.Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Here is the contrast he is getting at. If under the Old Law we are liable to such a great punishment because of rejecting the shadow of things to come, How much greater the punishment can we expect if we reject Grace???
Jesus came bearing Grace and Truth. The rejection of what Jesus brought The Real Deal rather than the shadow is what Paul is warning us not to reject here.

But Paul is not telling us these things to discourage us. Not at all. Because he ends this chapter on a very positive note.

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Heb 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.


What Christian has not willfully sinned after salvation? Have you willfully sinned? There may be a few dozen saints in the history of the world that this passage doesn't apply to, but I doubt it's much more than that. So if this passage is true, then it would appear that heaven is very sparsely populated.

Bottom line: Appealing to our "good intent" has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible teaches everyone will be judged by God according to what they have done. It doesn't help if you have "faith in Jesus" because you still have willfully sinned with bad intent and so will be judged accordingly.

And what if "what we have done" is to reject Paul's statement that the atonement that was "once for all" did not work? Was that once for all time? Once for all sins? Once for all people? Or all of the above?


I find your statement that "There is no righteousness except for imputed righteousness" absolutely meaningless. Righteousness is defined by our actions:

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

This is the point I was making. The word "righteous" is a human word from a human language that applies to what humans do. When it is used in the Bible, it does not suddenly obtain a totally different and incoherent meaning. The idea of "righteousness" is defined as "the state of one who does what's right." I do not understand how righteousness be "imputed" to another. I don't even know what that could mean. But don't get me wrong - I understand perfectly the "logic" that Christian's use when talking about this topic. I just don't think it is coherent or that it has any actual meaning. That's why I said that this doctrine destroys the meaning of words like "sin" and "righteousness."

"Our righteousness" may be defined by our actions (and thoughts) but it is not our righteousness that is the goal.

John is speaking about a person who is righteous even as he (Jesus) is.
This is a growing into him and he in us. John is speaking about fruit. Fruit of righteousness. We do not become righteous by doing good works we are able to do good works because we have become righteous.

1jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1jo 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
1jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
1jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.



Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

It is the righteousness of God that is the goal. That is what is imputed.

2co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This is what I mean by imputed righteousness.

That's a very interesting way to put it. But it seems to contradict your previous statement that "righteousness is imputed."

Imputed is just a word. It is a gift. That is my point. It was not earned.

In any case, here's the problem: Righteousness is not defined as "right standing with God." That's a theological definition that was invented long after the Bible was written. A proper dictionary will define what the words mean in the Koine Greek, not what some theologian has interpreted them to mean! This is a very common problem with Bible dictionaries, especially Strong's. A few of the more egregious examples are collected in the thread called Strong futurist bias in Strong's definitions.

Again theological arguments. Too deep for me. My point here is that we are righteous in God's opinion. By His gift. That is Grace. When He forgives, He forgets, unlike us. Though, we are to grow into this same mind set.

Sure, all healthy people have experienced guilt at times in their lives. But obsessive or unresolved guilt is itself an illness under which healthy people do not suffer. Christianity can really help people who are sick with guilt. But it is neither needed nor helpful for those who do not have unhealthy guilt about their own existence. That's why Christians try to make people feel guilty. It's really rather sad. Folks must first be convinced that God sees them as guilty and sin-sick so they can then be sold the "cure."

When you say Christianity I realize you are speaking about the so called churches that teach the law and profess to be Christian. That is the problem. The law is old covenant, the church should be preaching the Gospel and the Kingdom of Heaven. Good news. There should be no guilt after realizing what happened at the Cross.
That is what the Law does. And that is how it leads us to Christ. It brings every man guilty before God. We cannot fix ourselves or keep the law and so we fall on his mercy.

I attended for fourteen years a chuch that tried to follow the laws as best we could in today's world. Atonement every year and clean and unclean foods etc. "The Law Shall Lead You To Christ." was quoted over and over.
Only after years of that did it hit me how it leads us to Christ.
We do not do it by climbing a ladder or building a tower. We do it by falling down and realizing we cannot do it.
Then Jesus lifts us up and takes away the guilt and shame.
I am no fan of churches as I've seen them today but it seems to me that it is a case of the blind leading the blind. We can skip the law and go right into Grace as the gentiles did in acts. But that was not my path.
But when I finally began to smell the coffee, I removed my children from church influence because I believed, and still do, that it was just more that they would have to unlearn.

If no one is teaching Grace, no one is learning Grace.
Some, as you say, are trying to sell something. Snake oil salesmen. Others are sincere but misled and that includes the pastors and teachers.

joel
07-15-2011, 04:58 AM
Richard, I was attempting to determine if you made a distinction between "hamartia", and "paratoma", and, if so, what is the difference. The KJV uses "sin" in many cases for each of these as if they mean the same thing.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-15-2011, 11:10 AM
Richard, I was attempting to determine if you made a distinction between "hamartia", and "paratoma", and, if so, what is the difference. The KJV uses "sin" in many cases for each of these as if they mean the same thing.

Joel
There are probably some differences in some contexts, but I don't see anything relevant to the current discussion. The words "hamartia" and "paraptoma" are synonymous when used in reference to God's forgiveness. The Gospel of God's forgiveness is expressed using either word.

throwback
07-15-2011, 01:27 PM
I have one question. WHAT EXACTLY IS SIN?

It seems that before animals became self-aware (humans) there was no such thing as sin.

Rose

Good question Rose. Before I attempt to answer I will say that it is hasty to conclude that humans were the first of God's sentient creations to sin. The scriptures do in fact speak of angels that sinned as well and we cannot be sure whether their sin was prior to or after man's sin.

As far as what sin is, it is described in scripture as lawlessness, disobedience, not doing what one knows is right, as well as other descriptions. If i had to put a bow on all these and link them via summary I'd say sin in not behaving or functioning in the manner and for the purposes in which we were designed as well as acting beyond one's God given realm of authority.

Rose
07-15-2011, 04:04 PM
Good question Rose. Before I attempt to answer I will say that it is hasty to conclude that humans were the first of God's sentient creations to sin. The scriptures do in fact speak of angels that sinned as well and we cannot be sure whether their sin was prior to or after man's sin.

As far as what sin is, it is described in scripture as lawlessness, disobedience, not doing what one knows is right, as well as other descriptions. If i had to put a bow on all these and link them via summary I'd say sin in not behaving or functioning in the manner and for the purposes in which we were designed as well as acting beyond one's God given realm of authority.

According to the Bible we are all born in sin because of the fall of Adam and Eve, so there is nothing we can do aside from the saving grace of Christ to rid ourselves of this inherited condition. I could be the most perfect human that has ever lived, but I would still require salvation because of my "sinful nature".

If that is the case then what is this thing called "sin"? Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve I am punished? It makes no sense!

All the Best,
Rose

Bob May
07-15-2011, 04:51 PM
According to the Bible we are all born in sin because of the fall of Adam and Eve, so there is nothing we can do aside from the saving grace of Christ to rid ourselves of this inherited condition. I could be the most perfect human that has ever lived, but I would still require salvation because of my "sinful nature".

If that is the case then what is this thing called "sin"? Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve I am punished? It makes no sense!

All the Best,
Rose

We were born into the condition of Sin. (Not the verb, the noun.) Because of Adam's transgression.


Sins, the verb, are thoughts and actions that transgress the law.
That is the biblical meaning of sin.
But where there is no law, there is no sin. And where is that? Here and now because the law was nailed to the tree with Jesus.
We are the children of promise if we believe the promise. And like Abraham we sin not because as he was without (outside of) the law. (the promise was given before the law.) So are we without (outside of) the law.

1jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ro 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Ro 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Ro 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
Ro 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Ro 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

I don't think it is as important to understand sin so much as it is to be fully persuaded that we have been removed from the consequence of sin. We may not even be capable of sin anymore.

1jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Rose
07-15-2011, 05:28 PM
We were born into the condition of Sin. (Not the verb, the noun.) Because of Adam's transgression.


Sins, the verb, are thoughts and actions that transgress the law.
That is the biblical meaning of sin.
But where there is no law, there is no sin. And where is that? Here and now because the law was nailed to the tree with Jesus.
We are the children of promise if we believe the promise. And like Abraham we sin not because as he was without (outside of) the law. (the promise was given before the law.) So are we without (outside of) the law.

1jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ro 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Ro 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Ro 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
Ro 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Ro 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

I don't think it is as important to understand sin so much as it is to be fully persuaded that we have been removed from the consequence of sin. We may not even be capable of sin anymore.

1jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

According to the Bible the condition of sin humanity is born into requires salvation, and those who don't receive salvation will not inherit eternal life, but rather be damned to hell!

All the Best,
Rose

Bob May
07-15-2011, 06:11 PM
According to the Bible the condition of sin humanity is born into requires salvation, and those who don't receive salvation will not inherit eternal life, but rather be damned to hell!

All the Best,
Rose


Hi Rose,
So your point is what? You don't like the biblical definition?
What could be better than it is "transgression of the law" seeing that if we believe, we are no longer under law and therefore no longer under the curse of sin?
What could be easier?

Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

What could be better? We go from faith in the laws of cause and effect,..sin and death, to the law of recieving righteousness by no effort of our own. Merely believing what has been written on the subject.

Rose
07-15-2011, 07:11 PM
Hi Rose,
So your point is what? You don't like the biblical definition?
What could be better than it is "transgression of the law" seeing that if we believe, we are no longer under law and therefore no longer under the curse of sin?
What could be easier?

Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

What could be better? We go from faith in the laws of cause and effect,..sin and death, to the law of recieving righteousness by no effort of our own. Merely believing what has been written on the subject.

My point is the question I first ask, "what exactly is sin?" Sin cannot be both "a condition we are born into" and "transgression of the law". Since according to the Bible we are all born in a sinful condition, then it matters not if one transgresses the law because we are already in need of salvation to attain eternal life.

Rose

Bob May
07-16-2011, 10:29 AM
My point is the question I first ask, "what exactly is sin?" Sin cannot be both "a condition we are born into" and "transgression of the law".
Rose

That is my view of reality. It works for me. It explains much that did not make sense before in both my life and scriptures.
Do you have an alternative viewpoint?



Since according to the Bible we are all born in a sinful condition, then it matters not if one transgresses the law because we are already in need of salvation to attain eternal life.
Rose

As far as salvation goes, I think that is pretty much true. Keeping the law (rules and regulations) saves no one and does not take away sin.

But the law is good on more than one level.
It brings every man guilty before God because we fail at keeping it. Our conscience accuses us and tells us we are not living up to God's standard.

And it is also for the ungodly in the sense that, without the law, a lot more people would be taking advantage of others. Without some form of limitation on behavior in society.
So in that sense it does matter.

Rose
07-16-2011, 11:08 AM
That is my view of reality. It works for me. It explains much that did not make sense before in both my life and scriptures.
Do you have an alternative viewpoint?

It's not so much that I need an alternative viewpoint, but rather that I see huge errors in the biblical idea and definition of sin.



As far as salvation goes, I think that is pretty much true. Keeping the law (rules and regulations) saves no one and does not take away sin.

But the law is good on more than one level.
It brings every man guilty before God because we fail at keeping it. Our conscience accuses us and tells us we are not living up to God's standard.

And it is also for the ungodly in the sense that, without the law, a lot more people would be taking advantage of others. Without some form of limitation on behavior in society.
So in that sense it does matter.

The big problem I see with "the Law" as presented in the Bible is that much of it causes people to take advantage and abuse others. For example many of the biblical laws concerning women, allow men to take total advantage of the woman by keeping her from fulfilling her intellectual capacity, and potential as a human, which is equal to that of a man. Also, many of the biblical laws promote male dominance and abuse of women, viewing women as mere vessels for reproduction, or servants of men.

All the Best,
Rose

Bob May
07-16-2011, 05:13 PM
It's not so much that I need an alternative viewpoint, but rather that I see huge errors in the biblical idea and definition of sin.
Rose

I think that might be the problem. You see errors instead of puzzles to be solved. If I read something I don't understand I know it is me that is the problem. I don't change biblical definitions to fit mine. I try to understand what I am reading but if I can't I don't worry about it. The answer will come eventually.




The big problem I see with "the Law" as presented in the Bible is that much of it causes people to take advantage and abuse others. For example many of the biblical laws concerning women, allow men to take total advantage of the woman by keeping her from fulfilling her intellectual capacity, and potential as a human, which is equal to that of a man. Also, many of the biblical laws promote male dominance and abuse of women, viewing women as mere vessels for reproduction, or servants of men.
All the Best,
Rose

That is the fault of those using it to take advantage not the bible's fault.
People wanted to stone the aduteress. They were using the biblical law to stone her. Jesus saw more to the law than they did. He called them the weightier matters of the law,.. Mercy and Judgement. He thought those things were more important than stoning the woman.
He also demonstrated by his body language that the spirit of the law was "above" (weightier) than the letter.
Bottom line was that those who were wanting to stone her were convicted in their hearts and the woman was not condemned or stoned.
We are supposed to look deeper than the surface meanings.
If something does not make sense it is a sign to look deeper.

Nuclear energy can be used to blow up a city, power a city or destroy a tumor.
Mankind will always find right and wrong ways to use power or knowledge. That doesn't mean that the knowledge the problem.

I learned a long time ago that you cannot change someone elses personality. The best we can do is try and influence the better side of people that we come into contact with.

The law in scripture and in society is there to control those who would take advantage of others. It would be much worse if we didn't have laws. There would be much more murder, rape, theft, and violence etc. without consequences for those lawless acts. Whether those consequences were spending years in prison or eternity in Hell.
But, like I said, you cannot change personalities and some will always do the crime anyway even at the risk of damnation or prison. And some because of the thrill of the risk.

We live in a screwed up world. Don't "kill the messenger." (Meaning the bible.)

Rose
07-16-2011, 06:02 PM
I think that might be the problem. You see errors instead of puzzles to be solved. If I read something I don't understand I know it is me that is the problem. I don't change biblical definitions to fit mine. I try to understand what I am reading but if I can't I don't worry about it. The answer will come eventually.

I'm not changing biblical definitions, rather I am rejecting the idea of sin as a false concept created by men.





That is the fault of those using it to take advantage not the bible's fault.
People wanted to stone the aduteress. They were using the biblical law to stone her. Jesus saw more to the law than they did. He called them the weightier matters of the law,.. Mercy and Judgement. He thought those things were more important than stoning the woman.
He also demonstrated by his body language that the spirit of the law was "above" (weightier) than the letter.
Bottom line was that those who were wanting to stone her were convicted in their hearts and the woman was not condemned or stoned.
We are supposed to look deeper than the surface meanings.
If something does not make sense it is a sign to look deeper.

Nuclear energy can be used to blow up a city, power a city or destroy a tumor.
Mankind will always find right and wrong ways to use power or knowledge. That doesn't mean that the knowledge the problem.

I learned a long time ago that you cannot change someone elses personality. The best we can do is try and influence the better side of people that we come into contact with.

The law in scripture and in society is there to control those who would take advantage of others. It would be much worse if we didn't have laws. There would be much more murder, rape, theft, and violence etc. without consequences for those lawless acts. Whether those consequences were spending years in prison or eternity in Hell.
But, like I said, you cannot change personalities and some will always do the crime anyway even at the risk of damnation or prison. And some because of the thrill of the risk.

We live in a screwed up world. Don't "kill the messenger." (Meaning the bible.)

It most definitely is the Bible's fault. Those laws which state women are the property of men, and women are to be in subjection to men are clearly written in the Bible...people just take advantage of them for their own gain.

I'm not blaming the messenger, rather I am stating that the message the messenger is carrying is WRONG.

Rose

joel
07-16-2011, 07:03 PM
O. K, Rose, we have heard the multitude of things that are wrong with the Bible.

So, I offer a challenge.................
is there one thing right with it?? (...just one).

I apologize if you have stated the answer before, and I missed it.

Joel

Rose
07-16-2011, 08:42 PM
O. K, Rose, we have heard the multitude of things that are wrong with the Bible.

So, I offer a challenge.................
is there one thing right with it?? (...just one).

I apologize if you have stated the answer before, and I missed it.

Joel

Hi Joel,

The Bible is a wonderful piece of ancient literature. It is only when men take it to be the "word of God" that problems arise. Many truths and great wisdom are found in the pages of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus...who promoted equality amongst all peoples - Jew and Gentile, male and female.

In all my writings I have been clear to say that the only flaw I have with the Bible is what it is held to be...that alone has caused good men to do wicked things all because they believe it to contain the words of the one true God compelling people to obey its commands no matter how inequitable they are.

All the Best,
Rose

Bob May
07-17-2011, 10:11 AM
I'm not changing biblical definitions, rather I am rejecting the idea of sin as a false concept created by men.
Rose

So, there is no sin? Just false concepts?



It most definitely is the Bible's fault. Those laws which state women are the property of men, and women are to be in subjection to men are clearly written in the Bible...people just take advantage of them for their own gain.

I'm not blaming the messenger, rather I am stating that the message the messenger is carrying is WRONG.

Rose

I don't see it that way.
It doesn't sound like a very useful book if the message is incorrect.

I have been married this coming November for 30 years and I can assure you that I am in just as much submission and subjection to my wife as she is to me. That is part of the cherishing of woman. The last thing I would want to do is take advantage of her. She is a gift to me and I to her.

Men take advantage of women, that is true. And others take advantage of men and children and animals and all kinds of evil things go on.

Your problems seem to be with the law of the Old Testament. Which things are allegory.Why don't you just skip it? Go straight to the New Testament/New Covenant.

Where sin is not held against us even though it still exists and people still take advantage of people and men are in submission to other men. Render to Ceasar,.. and turn the other cheek etc.
We live in a screwed up world, no doubt.

The bible teaches us how to live above it instead of within it. Both the Old and New Testaments teach us how.

The purpose of the bible is to tell us about the condition we are in. And how to change it if we so choose to.
There are two conditions that we can be in, under the law or under grace.
To move from one to the other is a free gift and changes our relationship with God, Man and the world around us.

If you search for errors you will find errors (even if they are not errors at all.)
If you seek Truth you will find that also.

I grew up with an alcoholic father. I notice that whenever my sisters bring up the subject it seems to still have an effect on their mindset even after so many years.
I used to think of it that way too but now I just see him as a victim.
It took a great change in attitude for me to forgive him.

"No one is doing anything to anyone," was a statement that helped me to see that it is our attitude that is the most important thing. Our perspective in life.

"There, but for the grace of God go I." Ignorance of God's grace is the problem. With the awareness of Grace even those who take advantage are changed.

All the best,
Bob

Beck
07-17-2011, 03:48 PM
It seems to me that an concept of inbred sin from brith would be in error, but I do see where people read into that concept.

Rose
07-17-2011, 04:57 PM
So, there is no sin? Just false concepts?

There is no sin according to the biblical concept. Yes, people do bad things to each other, but that has nothing to do with the mythological disobedience of Adam and Eve causing humankind to henceforth be born in sin requiring a savior.




I don't see it that way.
It doesn't sound like a very useful book if the message is incorrect.

I have been married this coming November for 30 years and I can assure you that I am in just as much submission and subjection to my wife as she is to me. That is part of the cherishing of woman. The last thing I would want to do is take advantage of her. She is a gift to me and I to her.

Men take advantage of women, that is true. And others take advantage of men and children and animals and all kinds of evil things go on.

Your problems seem to be with the law of the Old Testament. Which things are allegory.Why don't you just skip it? Go straight to the New Testament/New Covenant.

Where sin is not held against us even though it still exists and people still take advantage of people and men are in submission to other men. Render to Ceasar,.. and turn the other cheek etc.
We live in a screwed up world, no doubt.

The bible teaches us how to live above it instead of within it. Both the Old and New Testaments teach us how.

The purpose of the bible is to tell us about the condition we are in. And how to change it if we so choose to.
There are two conditions that we can be in, under the law or under grace.
To move from one to the other is a free gift and changes our relationship with God, Man and the world around us.

If you search for errors you will find errors (even if they are not errors at all.)
If you seek Truth you will find that also.

I grew up with an alcoholic father. I notice that whenever my sisters bring up the subject it seems to still have an effect on their mindset even after so many years.
I used to think of it that way too but now I just see him as a victim.
It took a great change in attitude for me to forgive him.

"No one is doing anything to anyone," was a statement that helped me to see that it is our attitude that is the most important thing. Our perspective in life.

"There, but for the grace of God go I." Ignorance of God's grace is the problem. With the awareness of Grace even those who take advantage are changed.

All the best,
Bob

From my in-depth research I have concluded that the content of the Bible is derived from the minds of men, thus it is not the word of God. With that in mind I realize that the Bible contains the ideas and wisdom of men and as such I can pick and choose what parts I think are beneficial to my spiritual growth.

The teachings of Jesus are very advanced for his time period, promoting equality among all people, and a love of our fellow-man.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-17-2011, 05:05 PM
It seems to me that an concept of inbred sin from brith would be in error, but I do see where people read into that concept.
I agree. One of the first threads I started after setting up this forum in 2007 was called Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13) which explained my understanding that there is no such thing as "sin nature" in the Bible. There is only flesh vs. spirit. This coheres with the explicit teachings of Scripture (.e.g Romans 8:5) and solves a host of problems, such as how Adam and Eve sinned before they had a "sin nature." I don't know exactly when the theory was invented, but I wouldn't be surprised if it originated with Augustine.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-17-2011, 05:12 PM
Your problems seem to be with the law of the Old Testament. Which things are allegory.Why don't you just skip it? Go straight to the New Testament/New Covenant.

Hi Bob,

If the Old Testament is allegory, why not the New?

And even if the OT is allegory, how does that fix the problems that Rose and I have encountered? The male bias and morally abominable commands remain.

And if we take it as allegory, what "limits" does the text put upon our interpretation? Can I legitimately interpret Christ as a symbol of "Christ consciousness?" If not, why not?

All the best,

Richard

Bob May
07-17-2011, 08:51 PM
There is no sin according to the biblical concept. Yes, people do bad things to each other, but that has nothing to do with the mythological disobedience of Adam and Eve causing humankind to henceforth be born in sin requiring a savior.

From my in-depth research I have concluded that the content of the Bible is derived from the minds of men, thus it is not the word of God. With that in mind I realize that the Bible contains the ideas and wisdom of men and as such I can pick and choose what parts I think are beneficial to my spiritual growth.

The teachings of Jesus are very advanced for his time period, promoting equality among all people, and a love of our fellow-man.

Rose

Fair enough.

Bob May
07-17-2011, 09:29 PM
Hi Bob,

If the Old Testament is allegory, why not the New?
Richard

Who said the New Testament was not allegory? The allegories were about his coming and the effect it would have on our lives. Jesus lived the allegory and saw it happening all around him...

Lu 12:24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?


..as did Paul.

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,



And even if the OT is allegory, how does that fix the problems that Rose and I have encountered? The male bias and morally abominable commands remain.
Richard

I don't have all the answers to those problems but I covered my viewpoint on the near stoning of the adulteress. Jesus used the whole law and ended up not condemning the adulteress. Those who wanted to stone her were convicted in their hearts and ended up not stoning her. They were just as guilty of adultery, murder, etc., etc. as she was because if you break one law you are guilty of all.




And if we take it as allegory, what "limits" does the text put upon our interpretation?
Richard

I know of no limits. There can be wrong interpretation of course, but there is that anyway even without allegory.




Can I legitimately interpret Christ as a symbol of "Christ consciousness?" If not, why not?
Richard

I do. If that is what it takes to come to the truth, why not. That does not mean Jesus did not live.
To me it means that he had that consciousness and we are to grow into that also.
We are told we have the mind of Christ. Jesus said "I and the Father are one."
To me that sums up Christ's consciousness.

There is a prayer in John chapter 17. I look at it as a promise.
Here is a portion of it that has always been very important to me.

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


All the best,

Bob

Richard Amiel McGough
07-17-2011, 10:03 PM
Can I legitimately interpret Christ as a symbol of "Christ consciousness?" If not, why not?
I do. If that is what it takes to come to the truth, why not. That does not mean Jesus did not live.
To me it means that he had that consciousness and we are to grow into that also.
We are told we have the mind of Christ. Jesus said "I and the Father are one."
To me that sums up Christ's consciousness.

Wow - that makes things pretty easy.

How about other religions? Can I interpret the Quran allegorically too, so as to resolve all the apparent contradictions it has with the Bible, just like I interpret the Bible allegorically to resolve all the apparent contradictions it contains within itself?

Bob May
07-18-2011, 04:46 AM
Wow - that makes things pretty easy.

How about other religions? Can I interpret the Quran allegorically too, so as to resolve all the apparent contradictions it has with the Bible, just like I interpret the Bible allegorically to resolve all the apparent contradictions it contains within itself?

Jesus actually walked this earth and lived as a flesh and blood man. He had "Christ Consciousness." That is where the term came from. It was named after him because he had that consciousness. His life was a living symbol of what he came to do. Demonstrate God's love for us.
And to make it possible for us to commune with God as he did.
So, in that sense you could look at him as an allegory while also being a flesh and blood man.

Just as I can look at your response as an allegory for sarcasm.

I believe the Old Testament was purposefully written allegorically. So did Paul as I quoted above.

Whether or not the Quran was written allegorically, I have no idea.
I've never read it. But you can certainly compare the two and try to resolve contradictions if that is what you want to do.

I also believe the world is allegorical in the sense that all of the visible things we are surrounded by, all of the situations we find ourselves in, the thoughts that come to our minds and the people we come into contact with can show us where we are in our relationship with God and whether or not we are on the right track on our way to Christ Consciousness, or off track altogether.

Words, pictures and even situations can be the visible things that reveal the invisible things. That is allegory. It is not just a tool used in literature, it is a tool used in creation.
If all of this was created by the Word of God then the tools used for creating with words were used for creating in matter. Allegory is one of those tools.

Words are simply a manifestation of an idea. We sometimes take for granted having gone through the learning process because we were so young when we learned to speak. Then we learned how to write to record those ideas. Another learning process.
Allegory is another level to this learning process. It implies that there is more than the "surface meaning" that must be learned.

Paul gave us a head start on this aspect of scripture when pointing out that the two covenants were hidden in the story of the son of the bondswoman and the son of the free woman. It is left to us to find the rest.
He also gave us a headstart on looking at the world allegorically when pointing out that the invisible things were made known by the visible things. And that the author's idea which is manifested in those visible things was/is the Gospel. The rest is left to us to find.

All the best,
Bob

Bob May
07-18-2011, 09:46 AM
Hi Bob,

And even if the OT is allegory, how does that fix the problems that Rose and I have encountered? The male bias and morally abominable commands remain.

All the best,

Richard

The law paints us into a corner. It cannot be kept. Jesus shows in the verse below that in order to keep the law of circumcision, the law of keeping the Sabath Holy was being broken. If the law of the Sabath/rest would have been kept, then the law of circumcision would have had to be broken.

Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

A choice had to be made. Which did the leaders of the people choose? They chose spilling blood over making a man whole.
Jesus chose to make a man whole.

When Joseph found out that Mary was with child, before the angel came to him;
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Didn't the law require stoning? But it also requires Mercy. He made a choice.
He chose life.

Jos 24:13 And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat.

This sounds like the New Covenant here. We recieve that for which we labored not.

Jos 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth:

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Jos 24:21 And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the LORD.
Jos 24:24 And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey.

What is it the people swore to obey? HIS VOICE.
This is what both Jesus and Joseph did when faced with the option of killing the adulteress and Mary.
They chose life over death, mercy over sacrifice and forgiveness over punishment.
The followers of Joshua swore to obey the Lord's voice.
The people in Jesus time did not hear the voice until Jesus said, "You who are without sin cast the first stone." They were pricked in their hearts and made the choice not to stone the woman. They had just heard the voice of God.

The law tests us and forces us to choose. We see the deeper meaning of the law and hopefully choose life. The Spirit verses letter. That is what Jesus was demonstrating by writing letters in the dirt and then standing and saying, "let you who are without sin cast the first stone." Then he said that he didn't condemn the woman and went back to writing letters in the dirt.
A living allegory.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2011, 09:54 AM
Jesus actually walked this earth and lived as a flesh and blood man. He had "Christ Consciousness." That is where the term came from. It was named after him because he had that consciousness. His life was a living symbol of what he came to do. Demonstrate God's love for us.
And to make it possible for us to commune with God as he did.
So, in that sense you could look at him as an allegory while also being a flesh and blood man.

Hey there Bob, :yo:

If the "allegories" are also literal historical events, then I'm still stuck with all those moral abominations in the OT attributed to God.

I don't have any problem with the Christ as a literal historical man who played a role in the revelation of higher consciousness. But I asked about this because "Christ consciousness" is not a "person" external to myself but rather a state of my own consciousness. This is a radically different concept than the traditional Christian doctrine that teaches Christ a now and always has been the "Second Person of the Godhead" who is an "agent" actively running the Universe like a Divine Bureaucrat (if you forgive my metaphor). My point is that these are radically different concepts. I'm trying to get a sense of how you understand these things even as I am trying to come to a better understanding myself.



Just as I can look at your response as an allegory for sarcasm.

Whether or not the Quran was written allegorically, I have no idea.
I've never read it. But you can certainly compare the two and try to resolve contradictions if that is what you want to do.

I did not intend it as sarcasm at all. I have seen how Christians will bend heaven and earth to "resolve" contradictions within the Bible, so I began to wonder how many "contradictions" between Christianity and Islam would be "resolved" if they put forth the same effort to resolve them. The Quran is largely a somewhat confused "copy" of the Bible. It tells the same stories of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abraham, and even Jesus and his virgin mother Mary. You really should read it. I suspect you will be greatly surprised by how similar it is to the Bible. In many ways, it says exactly the same things nearly verbatim. But it also jumbles up a lot of details and is obviously inferior to the Bible in this sense. But hey, the Bible has a bunch of jumbled confusion in it too, so whose to judge? Maybe there's a purpose to all this confusion.



I also believe the world is allegorical in the sense that all of the visible things we are surrounded by, all of the situations we find ourselves in, the thoughts that come to our minds and the people we come into contact with can show us where we are in our relationship with God and whether or not we are on the right track on our way to Christ Consciousness, or off track altogether.

I very much like that idea. I think the world could be understood best as "made out of meaning." In the beginning was the Word.

All the best, my friend,

Richard

throwback
07-18-2011, 11:35 AM
According to the Bible we are all born in sin because of the fall of Adam and Eve, so there is nothing we can do aside from the saving grace of Christ to rid ourselves of this inherited condition. I could be the most perfect human that has ever lived, but I would still require salvation because of my "sinful nature".

If that is the case then what is this thing called "sin"? Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve I am punished? It makes no sense!

All the Best,
Rose

Are you saying that you believe that doctrine of original sin is biblical? It sounds that way, if not I apologize. I do not believe that such a doctrine is in line with what the bible actually puts forth, else even Jesus would have had the "sin nature" since he did have at least one human parent.

Rose
07-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Are you saying that you believe that doctrine of original sin is biblical? It sounds that way, if not I apologize. I do not believe that such a doctrine is in line with what the bible actually puts forth, else even Jesus would have had the "sin nature" since he did have at least one human parent.

I acknowledge your point of the term "sin nature" not being in the Bible. It was an incorrect way of expressing my idea of sin...I will re-word. :winking0071:

The biblical idea is that we all die because of the "Fall" of Adam, the "Sting" of that death is called "Sin"...in that sense we all are stung by sin because of the Fall of Adam, hence we die. It is only through the victory over death by Jesus that sting of death which is sin is overcome.

Because Jesus did not have an earthly father (Adam) he escaped the sting of death which is sin, but not death itself which he gained victory over.

All the Best,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2011, 12:52 PM
Because Jesus did not have an earthly father (Adam) he escaped the sting of death which is sin, but not death itself which he gained victory over.

I am not aware of any passages that make a connection between Christ's sinlessness and his birth from a virgin. But this is a common assertion amongst those who believe that we have a "sin nature." They often teach that the sin nature is passed to the child through the father's sperm. There is no end to the things folks make up, especially those who think the Bible is the "literal Word of God."

The only reason for the virgin birth that I can find in Scripture is this:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
It seems that Luke interpreted the phrase "son of God" in a very literal manner. But the Mormon's went one step further and taught that God the Father had literal physical sexual intercourse (http://www.mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus) with Mary.

Gotta love that old time religion! :prophet:

Rose
07-18-2011, 05:37 PM
I am not aware of any passages that make a connection between Christ's sinlessness and his birth from a virgin. But this is a common assertion amongst those who believe that we have a "sin nature." They often teach that the sin nature is passed to the child through the father's sperm. There is no end to the things folks make up, especially those who think the Bible is the "literal Word of God."

The only reason for the virgin birth that I can find in Scripture is this:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
It seems that Luke interpreted the phrase "son of God" in a very literal manner. But the Mormon's went one step further and taught that God the Father had literal physical sexual intercourse (http://www.mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus) with Mary.

Gotta love that old time religion! :prophet:

You are quite right my dear...:flowers: There is actually very little said in the New Testament about the virgin birth, it's not even mentioned outside of the Gospels. We can only deduce from the little that is said why an earthly father was replaced by God.

The only difference that I'm aware of between Jesus being a sin free man and all other men was his supposed virgin birth, so there's a natural connection between the two.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2011, 06:35 PM
You are quite right my dear...:flowers: There is actually very little said in the New Testament about the virgin birth, it's not even mentioned outside of the Gospels. We can only deduce from the little that is said why an earthly father was replaced by God.

The only difference that I'm aware of between Jesus being a sin free man and all other men was his supposed virgin birth, so there's a natural connection between the two.

Rose
I understand your point since it is the standard explanation given by many commentators. But it's not self-evident because when the Bible speaks of Christ's sinlessness, it never makes any direct connection to the virgin birth. It just states the fact that he "knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21) or "did no sin" (1 Pet 2:22) without stating why that was the case. But most people say that he was sinless because he was God incarnate, and that the virgin birth was a requirement for him to be literally the "son of God" and "God incarnate" and sinless. So if that chain of reasoning is correct, then I guess your case would stand.

joel
07-19-2011, 06:18 AM
Through sin came death....and death passed into all mankind.

All humans are dying.

But Christ, not born through the agency of a man, was not dying, and could not be taken by death unless He gave Himself up to it.........while He was being judged, He bled, and His blood continued to flow until there was no more. Then, He committed His spirit unto His Father.....and entered death.

While He lived, He was not subject to corruption, and He was not mortal as we are who are separate from Him in our humanity.

He was clothed in the likeness of sin's flesh, and was tempted in all things that we are tempted with, but, He was not a victim of the temptation.

When He was put upon the cross, He became cursed of God by virtue of the written word of God spoken long ago concerning anyone hanged on a tree.

He was made to be sin for us, so that we could become the righteousness of God in Him.

Joel

Bob May
07-19-2011, 10:18 AM
Hey there Bob, :yo:

If the "allegories" are also literal historical events, then I'm still stuck with all those moral abominations in the OT attributed to God.
Richard

That is a big question. Two actually. I went to a church that studied the allegorical meanings of the bible. OT mostly.
We were also taught that Christ actually lived but did not look so much at the allegory in the New Testament, but believed (and still do) that Jesus actually lived.
So the question came up if the Old Testament characters are merely allegory, where did it stop? at David?, Abraham?
I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter. Whether the old testament characters actually lived or not does not take away from the hidden meanings being the Intent of the author who I believe was ultimately God. Was there a David? it doesn't matter because his stories teach us about growing in awareness of our present condition and in relationship to our present condition what we still have to go through to become one with God (or realize we already are and are blind to it.)

Richard said;
I don't have any problem with the Christ as a literal historical man who played a role in the revelation of higher consciousness. But I asked about this because "Christ consciousness" is not a "person" external to myself but rather a state of my own consciousness. This is a radically different concept than the traditional Christian doctrine that teaches Christ a now and always has been the "Second Person of the Godhead" who is an "agent" actively running the Universe like a Divine Bureaucrat (if you forgive my metaphor). My point is that these are radically different concepts. I'm trying to get a sense of how you understand these things even as I am trying to come to a better understanding myself.

Bob said;
I said that Paul gave us a head start in looking at the allegorical way the OT was written and the rest is up to us.
If you do not believe the bible is written allegorically you will not put in the effort to look into it. You said it was easy, it is not.
I showed that Jesus pointed out the law cannot be kept. If you try to keep it you break it. The spirit of the law is the only thing that leads to life the letter killeth.
The spirit is invisible, not apparent. Jesus "Apparently" went around breaking the Law. It reminds me of the first Star Trek movie. He told the story of how he "cheated" on the test when he was at the Academy and they made him a captain anyway. He passed the test because he cheated. But no one had passed the test before because it was an impossible test.

One of the laws you were caught on had to do with killing all of the virgin bride if there wasn't blood on the sheets. She had been promised to "An Israelite."
So let's look at the OT as our changing awareness. It is about our thoughts concerning where we are and our relationship with the Father both before and after the Cross. We are supposed to be growing from the mindset of the first Adam to that of the second Adam.
What is Israel? It was a name given to a man, Jacob, the supplanter, each time he had a direct Spiritual experience. Then his name went back to Jacob time and again until the next Spiritual experience.
So this "virgin" (woman of age of reproduction) is found to either be worthy of mating with this Israelite or not. If not she is killed.
Look at these characters as thoughts we are allowing into our community (our philosophy if you will). What will the coming together of these two produce? What will be the offspring of and Israelite (a thought from the Spirit) and a carnal desire? (say an Amorite for instance?)
It will not be a Spiritual thought. But if the blood is on the sheet the thought is seen as coming from the Spirit and so leads to life.
The sheet can be looked at as the grave cloth of Jesus. A sign that, not only he but, we have come back to life.
This story, has to do with bringing all of our thoughts into submission to Christ.
We are the vigins who have been promised to the Israelite!!!

I rebelled against the law when I realised that it had been keeping me from coming to an awareness of Grace. Much later I began to realize that it is going into detail about our relationship with Christ.
The law is perfect, enlightening the eyes.
Open thou mine eyes that I can see wonderous things out of Thy law.
Rules and regulations do not enlighten the eyes.
What wonderous things was David speaking about? And why did he need his eyes open to see them?
The letter of the law brings us to the end of ourselves.
The Spirit of the law show us what Christ has done for us and how he is changing us.
The rules and regulations become promises.



I did not intend it as sarcasm at all. I have seen how Christians will bend heaven and earth to "resolve" contradictions within the Bible, so I began to wonder how many "contradictions" between Christianity and Islam would be "resolved" if they put forth the same effort to resolve them. The Quran is largely a somewhat confused "copy" of the Bible. It tells the same stories of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abraham, and even Jesus and his virgin mother Mary. You really should read it. I suspect you will be greatly surprised by how similar it is to the Bible. In many ways, it says exactly the same things nearly verbatim. But it also jumbles up a lot of details and is obviously inferior to the Bible in this sense. But hey, the Bible has a bunch of jumbled confusion in it too, so whose to judge? Maybe there's a purpose to all this confusion.
Richard

I started out my spiritual studies with the books of Carlos Castaneda. I bacame a "sorcerer" by his definition. Which was to have gone through an experience which he called stopping the world. I am active on a forum concerning this philosophy because I have lived it and I think help others through this experience when it comes up. I point out parallels between the bible and the teachings of Don Juan.
You can learn a lot comparing different spiritual systems.

Later I joined a church that studied Qabalah and meditation and metaphysical meanings of the bible.
I have had several/many spiritual experiences that were confirmed by the bible only after I had them. In other words I could not understand the biblical references until I had experienced it. This seems to be the way it works.
So, I try not to bend things to resolve contradictions.
They resolve themselves if we turn off our Jacob and let Israel come through.
Whether we have been born into Sin or Flesh is not my point. The flesh is the way of thinking that is the result of partaking of the tree of good and evil. It is that which looks at the outer.
This outer is what we are surrounded by.

But we get glimses of something other than this. That is what we are to hold onto. That is Caleb the attack dog. Only he and Josua made it to the promised land. An attack dog grabs something and doesn't let it go no matter if you kill him. A whole generation of the children of Israel did not pass the test including Moses.
Reading the law literally will try and get us to let go of Grace.
But how much sorer punishment if we let go of Grace?
We are promised to be taught of God. And how it comes sometimes is by our own thoughts. So we test the spirits to see if they be of God or we see if the virgin measures up to the test.




I very much like that idea. I think the world could be understood best as "made out of meaning." In the beginning was the Word.
Richard

All of creation is speaking if we take the time to listen.

Job 12:7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Job 12:8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

Lu 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

We will never resolve all of the apparent contradictions in the bible. But I believe if we look at the solutions we stand a better chance of doing so.
Believe the promises and the contradictions will resolve themselves.
Look at the contradictions and you give them much more power than they deserve.
And we are as grasshoppers in their sight.


You have a great day,
Bob

kathryn
07-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Thanks Bob...this is how I see it too.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-19-2011, 02:54 PM
Through sin came death....and death passed into all mankind.

Are you saying that there was no physical death anywhere on the planet before a literal Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden? If so, doesn't that contradict the scientific facts that indicate creatures have been living and dying for millions of years on planet earth?



All humans are dying.

They must be living if they are dying. Two sides of a single coin.



But Christ, not born through the agency of a man, was not dying, and could not be taken by death unless He gave Himself up to it.........while He was being judged, He bled, and His blood continued to flow until there was no more. Then, He committed His spirit unto His Father.....and entered death.

Where did you get the idea that all the blood flowed out of Christ's body? The Bible doesn't say that.



While He lived, He was not subject to corruption, and He was not mortal as we are who are separate from Him in our humanity.

The Bible says he was "born of a women, born under the law." It also says that he "took on flesh and blood" so he could die:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

That seems to indicate that he could die like any man. He was mortal. And there are other verses. I am guessing you are thinking of this verse:

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

This passage is not talking about the physical impossibility of death, but rather that it would not have happened if he had not chosen to incarnate and let it happen. But when he chose to take on flesh, he became mortal as any man.

joel
07-20-2011, 05:57 AM
Speaking specifically about Jesus, you said;


He was mortal

Mortality describes the condition of our bodies.

This is a definitive and decisive point of difference concerning what you believe, and what I believe.

You say that Jesus, during His earthly ministry, was mortal just like us.

What do you say concerning the corruptibility of our bodies. Was His body subject to corruption before He was made subject to death?

I can see now how you believe that He was not capable of being our Saviour as He was a mere man, a good one perhaps, but human like us just the same.

Joel

Bob May
07-20-2011, 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
Through sin came death....and death passed into all mankind.


Are you saying that there was no physical death anywhere on the planet before a literal Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden? If so, doesn't that contradict the scientific facts that indicate creatures have been living and dying for millions of years on planet earth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
All humans are dying.

I believe there are two false premises here.
The first is that we think we are alive and therefore misinterpretations of what the bible means when speaking about "life" arise.

That is because we believe the lie.

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely DIE.
Ge 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye DIE.
Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely DIE:

Mt 8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Mt 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Jesus is speaking about people who are "physically" alive here as being "dead."
He is also indicating a difference between one who would follow him and the dead that are burying their relatives.
That is because it is only in following him do we begin to come back to life.

Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Regeneration is coming back to life.

We begin life on this earth as the dead. We assume we are alive because everyone around us assumes they are alive. It is relative to this Earth existence into which we have fallen. We have nothing else to compare it to.

Adam, Mankind was told he/we would die if we ate and we did. The life and death we see happening in this Earth is a shadow play of the life and death that Genesis and Jesus are speaking about. The Serpent wants us to believe that the shadow play is true and therefore not understand the Larger meaning of life and death that Jesus is speaking about.


Are you saying that there was no physical death anywhere on the planet before a literal Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden? If so, doesn't that contradict the scientific facts that indicate creatures have been living and dying for millions of years on planet earth?


This may or may not be a false premise on your part, Richard.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
But Joel quoted that death passed to all mankind. It doesn't say that there was no physical death on the earth, But it would not have touched mankind before the fall because mankind wasn't in the Earth.
Rose and I spoke about this idea that the "coats of skins" were very likely primates that were living and dying here in the Earth for millions of years before the fall.
In other words the "coats of skins" given to mankind were our spirits/souls, at some point in the distant past, "falling into" or possessing creatures already living and dying here in this Earth plane.
Science, therefore would only tell us about those primate bodies and nothing about Mankind.
I think it may be the key that unlocks the Creationist/Evolutionist argument.

Paul spoke about "Paradise" and the "Third Heaven" as a place he had been "taken up" to.

2co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Jesus spoke of the tree of life in Paradise;
Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

And, of course Genesis states that the tree of life was in the midst of the Garden.
Ge 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

These verses seem to indicate another realm is being discussed. And seems to equate the "Garden" and Paradise.
Life and death in the realm of Earth can be verified by science, but the "realm" spoken about above, as also the life and death spoken about above, by both Jesus and Genesis, cannot.
It is not within the experience or realm that science operates in.

It is also notewothy that there is no tree of the knowledge of good and evil mentioned in the verse from the book of Revelation. I think it is because it is the basis of law and that to realize this "Realm" (state of mind or awareness might be a better choice of words) we must rid ourselves of both the law and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Didn't mean to interupt, Have a great day.
Bob

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2011, 12:36 PM
Speaking specifically about Jesus, you said;



Mortality describes the condition of our bodies.

This is a definitive and decisive point of difference concerning what you believe, and what I believe.

You say that Jesus, during His earthly ministry, was mortal just like us.

What do you say concerning the corruptibility of our bodies. Was His body subject to corruption before He was made subject to death?

I can see now how you believe that He was not capable of being our Saviour as He was a mere man, a good one perhaps, but human like us just the same.

Joel
Very interesting questions Joel. But it is not a matter of a difference between what you believe and what I believe now as a "non-Christian." Though this specific issue of "corruption" did not come up when I was a Christian, so I can't say for sure how I would have answered, I suspect I probably would have answered then as I do now, namely, that physical death is not caused by sin, and so Christ was mortal in a very literal sense meaning that he would have died if some cut off his head, for example. This has nothing to do with the concept of "corruption." It's just biology coupled with the biblical teaching that Christ became one of us in every way except sin.

Part of the problem is the meaning of "corruption." That is not a "thing" in itself. It describes a process that is going on in our guts all the time. We eat food, and it gets "corrupted" as we extract energy and material from it and excrete what we could not use. The same process occurred in the body of Christ. So let me ask a rather crude question: Did Christ's shit stink? If so, it was because it was "corrupted" by digestion. If not, then Christ was not really "like us" in any meaningful way at all.

Do you recall our thread on Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1507) I formulated the question as follows:
Major Premise: Physical Death is the penalty for sin
Minor Premise: Christ removed the penalty of sin for all believers
Conclusion: No believers will physically die.

Since we know the conclusion is false, we know that either the Major or the Minor Premise is false.

So which is it?
I concluded that the Major Premise was fallacious. And if I were still a Christian, that is the point I would take. Physical death never was the penalty for sin.

CWH
07-20-2011, 04:09 PM
Very interesting questions Joel. But it is not a matter of a difference between what you believe and what I believe now as a "non-Christian." Though this specific issue of "corruption" did not come up when I was a Christian, so I can't say for sure how I would have answered, I suspect I probably would have answered then as I do now, namely, that physical death is not caused by sin, and so Christ was mortal in a very literal sense meaning that he would have died if some cut off his head, for example. This has nothing to do with the concept of "corruption." It's just biology coupled with the biblical teaching that Christ became one of us in every way except sin.

Part of the problem is the meaning of "corruption." That is not a "thing" in itself. It describes a process that is going on in our guts all the time. We eat food, and it gets "corrupted" as we extract energy and material from it and excrete what we could not use. The same process occurred in the body of Christ. So let me ask a rather crude question: Did Christ's shit stink? If so, it was because it was "corrupted" by digestion. If not, then Christ was not really "like us" in any meaningful way at all.

Do you recall our thread on Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1507) I formulated the question as follows:
Major Premise: Physical Death is the penalty for sin
Minor Premise: Christ removed the penalty of sin for all believers
Conclusion: No believers will physically die.

Since we know the conclusion is false, we know that either the Major or the Minor Premise is false.

So which is it?
I concluded that the Major Premise was fallacious. And if I were still a Christian, that is the point I would take. Physical death never was the penalty for sin.

Deductive reasoning is not always right. Taking your example:

Major Premise: Shit stinks
Minor Premise: No shit, no stink
Conclusion: So all who don't shit don't stink and all who shits stink.

I would suggest you read this article on critical thinking on religious issues:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/critiquing.htm


May God blessed us with His knowledge, Amen :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2011, 04:55 PM
Deductive reasoning is not always right. Taking your example:

Major Premise: Shit stinks
Minor Premise: No shit, no stink
Conclusion: So all who don't shit don't stink and all who shits stink.

I would suggest you read this article on critical thinking on religious issues:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/critiquing.htm


May God blessed us with His knowledge, Amen :pray:
That's both stupid and rude Cheow.

joel
07-20-2011, 05:40 PM
Very interesting questions Joel. But it is not a matter of a difference between what you believe and what I believe now as a "non-Christian." Though this specific issue of "corruption" did not come up when I was a Christian, so I can't say for sure how I would have answered, I suspect I probably would have answered then as I do now, namely, that physical death is not caused by sin, and so Christ was mortal in a very literal sense meaning that he would have died if some cut off his head, for example. This has nothing to do with the concept of "corruption." It's just biology coupled with the biblical teaching that Christ became one of us in every way except sin.


This is almost overwhelming to me.........first,....you said....."physical death is not caused by sin". Upon what do you say this?

I know that you have repudiated the statements about Adam. But, this is what I must appeal to.........Adam disobeyed God, .......sinning.....and death came through sin.

And sinning, he died.
The process of death, the dying of the body, .........began when Adam disobeyed God.......if this is not so.......then........nothing is true which is claimed within the scriptures.

Joel

CWH
07-20-2011, 05:48 PM
That's both stupid and rude Cheow.

Nothing about shit is offensive, stupid and rude in my culture. Sorry about that. To shit is a blessing and we shit everyday, don't we? What is useless to us is good for others such as flies, plants, and shit is a good fertilizer.


God Blessings to all. Amen:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2011, 07:44 PM
Nothing about shit is offensive, stupid and rude in my culture. Sorry about that. To shit is a blessing and we shit everyday, don't we? What is useless to us is good for others such as flies, plants, and shit is a good fertilizer.


God Blessings to all. Amen:pray:
I didn't say that your use of the word "shit" was stupid or rude. It was your logic that was stupid, and the way you expressed it was rude (telling me to go read an article about "critical thinking" as if you knew anything about that topic).

And what's up with your obsession with the word shit? You used it four times in four sentences.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2011, 07:56 PM
This is almost overwhelming to me.........first,....you said....."physical death is not caused by sin". Upon what do you say this?

I know that you have repudiated the statements about Adam. But, this is what I must appeal to.........Adam disobeyed God, .......sinning.....and death came through sin.

And sinning, he died.
The process of death, the dying of the body, .........began when Adam disobeyed God.......if this is not so.......then........nothing is true which is claimed within the scriptures.

Joel
I don't understand why you are acting so surprised. You participated in the thread called Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1507) so you should be familiar with the reasons for my position, and the fact that those reasons are based on what the Bible teaches.

You assertion that "if this is not so, then nothing is true which is claimed i the scriptures" has no foundation in fact. Jesus said that those who believe in him will never die - but die they do. So either he meant something other than physical death, or the Bible is false. Jesus also said "Let the dead bury the dead" which means that the so-called "dead" who do the burying of the physical dead were not themselves physically dead. So we have a mountain of evidence that the words "death" and "dead" in the Bible often do not refer to physical death.

So what did Jesus mean when he described as dead people that were physically alive?

Again, I don't know why you are acting so shocked. All this comes straight from the Bible and none of it is based on my rejection of the Christian faith. These are conclusions I came to when I still called myself a Christian.

joel
07-21-2011, 04:05 AM
Death is both a process (dying), and a state (death).

Paul taught that "in Adam" all (the sum total of humanity) are dying. We are born dying, and are continually dying all through our life until we enter the state of death.

Jesus was not dying in that way. He was not "in Adam". As the agent of creation, along with all things created, Jesus is the Word of God through Whom all things came into existence.

Adam, then, was in Jesus. And, death came into the system through Adam.

In Adam, all are dying (apothnesko), In Jesus all shall be made alive (zoopoieo).

Jesus was not subject to the process of death, nor was His body subject to the process of corruption.

At the very last moments of His "life", as He was "made to be sin for us", death lorded it over Him for a brief period of time.

But, His body did not experience corruption, and He was raised from being a corpse. Death could not hold Him any longer.

And because He was raised from the dead, we can be forgiven of our sins by the blood of the Lamb of God Who was without spot or blemish.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-21-2011, 08:15 AM
In Adam, all are dying (apothnesko), In Jesus all shall be made alive (zoopoieo).

The Bible does not say that in Adam all are "dying" but that all "die." Specifically:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This verse is translated correctly. Your interpretation is a mistranslation of this verse. The word die is the verb apothnesko in the indicative present active 3rd person plural. It is not a participle and cannot be accurately translated by a participle like "dying." Here is an example of the participle form of this verb:

2 Corinthians 6:9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;

If you look at the Greek, you will see that the form of apothnesko in this verse is different than in 1 Cor 15:22, and that's why it is translated differently. Of the seventeen versions of listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-22.htm), there is not a single one that uses the participle "dying" in 1 Cor 15:22. The Bible simply does not say what you say it says.

And why don't you respond to the fact that the Bible frequently speaks of the living as "dead?" Jesus said that those who believe in him will never die - but die they do. So obviously he meant something other than physical death. Jesus also said "Let the dead bury the dead" which means that the so-called "dead" who do the burying of the physical dead were not themselves physically dead. So we have a mountain of evidence that the words "death" and "dead" in the Bible often do not refer to physical death. It seems like you have chosen to ignore what the Bible plainly states even as you claim to base your ideas upon it. I do not understand why anyone would want to do that.

All the best.

joel
07-21-2011, 02:07 PM
RAM, if we "all die" (rather than....all are dying)........what does that mean?
The reason that I ask is.......Paul later in the chapter says that as for us (those who are in Christ), not all will be put asleep. I was wondering if you see "all die" as your interpretation that......"all die" as to mean that all humans will be eventually die?

Whereas, I see it as all humans are dying...........without exception. If we are mortal, then, death is operative within us.....hence we are dying.

Why is this not a proper way to look at it?


Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-21-2011, 04:44 PM
RAM, if we "all die" (rather than....all are dying)........what does that mean?
The reason that I ask is.......Paul later in the chapter says that as for us (those who are in Christ), not all will be put asleep. I was wondering if you see "all die" as your interpretation that......"all die" as to mean that all humans will be eventually die?

Whereas, I see it as all humans are dying...........without exception. If we are mortal, then, death is operative within us.....hence we are dying.

Why is this not a proper way to look at it?


Joel
There are lot's of verses that talk about people being "dead" when they are in fact physically alive. How you do you understand those verses?

When Paul said that "all die in Adam" it seems he must be talking about the same kind of death that Christ spoke of when he said "Let the dead bury their dead." Obviously, he was calling people "dead" when they were physically alive. What do you think he was he talking about?

joel
07-21-2011, 06:13 PM
When Paul said that "all die in Adam" it seems he must be talking about the same kind of death that Christ spoke of when he said "Let the dead bury their dead." Obviously, he was calling people "dead" when they were physically alive. What do you think he was he talking about?


There is a difference in these verses which I am trying to sort out. "all die in Adam".....the verb is apothnesko, as we have been discussing.

In the "dead bury the dead" phrase, he is using "nekros" which is a corpse.

What is the difference between the two? I think that there is a difference and I am trying to find a clearer view.

It seems to me that a process of dying describes the dissapation of life, whereas the corpse has no life at all.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-21-2011, 08:11 PM
There is a difference in these verses which I am trying to sort out. "all die in Adam".....the verb is apothnesko, as we have been discussing.

In the "dead bury the dead" phrase, he is using "nekros" which is a corpse.

What is the difference between the two? I think that there is a difference and I am trying to find a clearer view.

It seems to me that a process of dying describes the dissapation of life, whereas the corpse has no life at all.

Joel

I think you are having trouble seeing the "forest" of meaning because you are focusing on the "trees" of individual words in a language that you cannot speak.

The other passage I cited twice uses the word apothnesko:

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (apothnesko), yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (apothnesko). Believest thou this?

So what does this mean to you? How do you understand it?

joel
07-22-2011, 06:13 AM
I think you are having trouble seeing the "forest" of meaning because you are focusing on the "trees" of individual words in a language that you cannot speak.

The other passage I cited twice uses the word apothnesko:

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (apothnesko), yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (apothnesko). Believest thou this?

So what does this mean to you? How do you understand it?

Thanks be unto God that I don't have to know and speak Greek to believe His Word.

I am acquiring, however, a rudimentary understanding of the language. My knowledge, however, in comparison to your vast treasure is miniscule.........but, I have also been learning not to compare myself with you, or anyone else in these matters. The Lord is bringing me along at a pace suitable to my background, age and zeal.

As for the verses quoted, the emphasis is on the present........what occurs now has impact on the future, in the next eon.

I am to believe now.........and in believing.....even though I am dying......I shall be participating in the life to come.

However, as Jesus is the resurrection and the life now, at present this is so, even though, and in spite of the fact that I am dying.....I can be one who lives (at present), and one who believes (at present)....and in the eon that is impending I will no longer be dying.........Jesus asked..."Are you believing this?"

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-22-2011, 08:46 AM
I am to believe now.........and in believing.....even though I am dying......I shall be participating in the life to come.

However, as Jesus is the resurrection and the life now, at present this is so, even though, and in spite of the fact that I am dying.....I can be one who lives (at present), and one who believes (at present)....and in the eon that is impending I will no longer be dying.........Jesus asked..."Are you believing this?"

Joel
Where did you get the idea that your "are dying?" I have not read that in the Bible, and I don't see any reason to think that I "am dying" when in fact I "am living."

What exactly does it mean to say that a five year old child who is vibrantly living and bursting with vitality and new growth is "dying?" Where did you get that idea, and what does it even mean?

Bob May
07-22-2011, 10:31 AM
There is a difference in these verses which I am trying to sort out. "all die in Adam".....the verb is apothnesko, as we have been discussing.

In the "dead bury the dead" phrase, he is using "nekros" which is a corpse.

What is the difference between the two? I think that there is a difference and I am trying to find a clearer view.

It seems to me that a process of dying describes the dissapation of life, whereas the corpse has no life at all.

Joel

Hi Joel,

When John the Baptist was in prison he sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if he was the one that was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Lu 7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Lu 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
Lu 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

Why did he used these miracles as signs proof to John that he was the one that was prophecied?
As Richard said you have to look at the bigger picture here.
Mankind fell. As a result of the Fall we (Mankind) became blind, deaf, dead and had "bad news" (the law) preached to us instead of the good news.

When physically healing blind and raising the dead and opening deaf ears Jesus was demonstrating the Larger Miracle that he came to accomplish. That larger miracle was and is to wake us up, Spiritually. To bring us back to life and to open our ears to the Good News.

Martha believed that Lazarus would wake up from Physical death. But Jesus "pressed" her to go one step further in her thinking. He was asking her if she believed that he was the Resurrection in the Spiritual sense.
If we believe he is the Resurrection we begin to wake up and come back to life and hear and see the Gospel.
So, if we begin to see, hear and understand the Good News it is proof to us that we are coming back to life after dying in the Garden.
That is the proof to us that we have the Spirit.
That is the Greater miracle and the Larger "picture."

We all died,..We are all coming back to life. If we believe it, we see it.
So, did Martha believe it? She had to ask herself that question.

Bob

joel
07-22-2011, 12:01 PM
Bob, I understand that you hold to the teaching that in the garden......we experienced "spiritual death" when Adam disobeyed. At least that is what I am deducing by your comments.

I, however, do not believe in spiritual death, and cannot square the scriptures with those theories.

When Adam disobeyed, he became mortal, dying, subject to death that would end in entering the state of death as a corpse.

If your spirit "died", then, "being born again" must mean that we are brought back to spiritual life. I cannot support such a claim.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-22-2011, 12:30 PM
Bob, I understand that you hold to the teaching that in the garden......we experienced "spiritual death" when Adam disobeyed. At least that is what I am deducing by your comments.

I, however, do not believe in spiritual death, and cannot square the scriptures with those theories.

When Adam disobeyed, he became mortal, dying, subject to death that would end in entering the state of death as a corpse.

If your spirit "died", then, "being born again" must mean that we are brought back to spiritual life. I cannot support such a claim.

Joel
Joel,

I don't understand why you say that you "cannot square the scriptures with those theories." What "theories" are you talking about? It is the Bible that says we were "dead" in sins and that we have been "raised" to life. It is the Bible that says people are "dead" when they are physically alive. So what does that mean? What did Jesus mean when he said you "are dead?" I asked you what Jesus meant in this passage:

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (apothnesko), yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (apothnesko). Believest thou this?
And in answer to me, you wrote:

"I am to believe now.........and in believing.....even though I am dying......I shall be participating in the life to come."
Again, you changed the words to say "am dying" even though I explained to you that that is a FALSE translation! What's up with this? Why can't you accept what the Bible actually states? Why do you have to change the words? You have frequently said that we should only use the words that the Bible uses, so why don't you abide by that rule?

joel
07-22-2011, 01:16 PM
I die daily.
In Adam all die.
What exactly is the difference in the two other than the first is 1st person singular, and the other 3rd person plural?

So, I guess the question is.........are you dying?

Obviously, if we are talking about physical issues, the answer is Yes.

How about spiritually? Do you believe that there is spiritual death? If so, are you spiritually dead?
If we are "dead in our sins"..........in what sense are we "dead"? And if so, do we come back alive (spiritually?) when our sins are forgiven?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-22-2011, 04:02 PM
I die daily.
In Adam all die.
What exactly is the difference in the two other than the first is 1st person singular, and the other 3rd person plural?

The grammar is not the issue, and focusing grammatical minutia is not how we understand normal speech in either English or Greek. The most important things are the context and the meaning he was trying to communicate.

So what is the meaning of "I die daily?" Is Paul explaining that he is "continually dying" like everyone else merely because we are living in mortal bodies, or does it mean that he is suffering persecution for his testimony of Christ? I think the answer is quite obvious. Paul was not trying to teach us a fact about the nature of our mortal bodies, that they are supposedly "dying" every day, but rather, Paul is saying that he "dies" daily in service to Christ. The context makes this clear:
1 Corinthians 15:30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
This follows the pattern of his speech earlier in the same letter:
1 Corinthians 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
And we see the same message in his second letter to the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 4:8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you.
This shows the error of looking for "proof texts" for doctrines that are not actually taught in the Bible. We need to read the passages in context and see how they relate to the general overall message of the author is trying to communicate.



So, I guess the question is.........are you dying?

Obviously, if we are talking about physical issues, the answer is Yes.

Yes, some people like to talk that way, but it makes no sense to me, and I don't have any reason to think it is correct. I do not conceive of myself as "dying" merely because I am living and will die someday in the future. It does not mean I am "dying" right now. That's not what people normally mean when they use the word "dying." If someone walked up and said "My dog is dying" I would ask "Why? What happened to it? Did it get hit by a car? Is it sick?" I would think he was very strange if he answered and said "What are you talking about? Nothing happened to my dog. Why would you ask that? I said he's dying because he's alive! Everything alive is dying." That's just nutty talk. It communicates nothing of any significance.



How about spiritually? Do you believe that there is spiritual death? If so, are you spiritually dead?
If we are "dead in our sins"..........in what sense are we "dead"? And if so, do we come back alive (spiritually?) when our sins are forgiven?

I will answer with a question. What did Paul mean when he wrote this:
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
We know he did not physically die. So what does he mean when he said that he died?

Bob May
07-22-2011, 04:48 PM
Bob, I understand that you hold to the teaching that in the garden......we experienced "spiritual death" when Adam disobeyed. At least that is what I am deducing by your comments.
Joel

Yes, Joel, that is a correct deduction.



I, however, do not believe in spiritual death, and cannot square the scriptures with those theories.
Joel

That is why I am explaining my viewpoint to you.
I have found that it "squares perfectly" with Scripture. To be born again is to come to life. To come to life you must have been somewhere other than life. Otherwise you would not have to come to it.



When Adam disobeyed, he became mortal, dying, subject to death that would end in entering the state of death as a corpse.
Joel

We do experience physical death because of the Fall also. But that is only because we had no physical bodies until, as a result of that fall, we got Coats of Skins and were expelled from that Spiritual place (or "state of mind") referred to as "The Garden."
Those coats of skins are our physical bodies.



If your spirit "died", then, "being born again" must mean that we are brought back to spiritual life. I cannot support such a claim.
Joel

Nicodemus could not support such a claim either. Because he could not understand it.
He wanted to though. You can tell by his questions to Jesus that he was trying to understand. He was even risking his place in the religious community by merely coming to Jesus and asking him.

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

I really think the problem is that you will not or cannot believe that the Resurrection or "coming to life" can and does happen while we are in a physical body.
The best evidence of that being true is those times when we realize something in Scripture that we did not previously.

Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

This sounds like coming back to spiritual life to me. We cannot hear, then we can. Why would the Spirit talk to our spirit if our spirit were dead?

Have a glorious day,
Bob

joel
07-23-2011, 10:20 AM
Bob, I am need of some fresh light concerning this valuable subject.......can you supply to me (other than the Nicodemus account concerning "born again") specific scripture that speaks of "spiritual death"?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-23-2011, 12:12 PM
Bob, I am need of some fresh light concerning this valuable subject.......can you supply to me (other than the Nicodemus account concerning "born again") specific scripture that speaks of "spiritual death"?

Joel
Hey Joel,

What do you think Paul meant when he wrote this?

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
We know he did not physically die. So what does he mean when he said that he died?

gregoryfl
07-23-2011, 12:48 PM
(Isa 25:7, 8 [TS98])
And He shall swallow up on this mountain the surface of the covering which covers all people, and the veil which is spread over all nations. He shall swallow up death forever, and the Master יהוה shall wipe away tears from all faces, and take away the reproach of His people from all the earth. For יהוה has spoken.

Can this perhaps help give understanding to the truths that are contained in both views being put forth? To me it appears to be a difference of words and how those words are being defined.

Notice the Hebrew parallelisms here which define the death that would be done away with.

Ron

joel
07-23-2011, 02:41 PM
Hey Joel,

What do you think Paul meant when he wrote this?

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
We know he did not physically die. So what does he mean when he said that he died?

Richard, the context of Romans 7 concerns the law. When the woman's husband dies (in this case he becomes a corpse), then, the woman is free of the law of her husband.

In the same manner, our body with sin as its master, is like the husband. When we believe the gospel, we are free of the law of sin due to the death of our husband (in that we are included in the death of Christ in Romans 6)
and are free from the death rationing of sin described in the latter part of Romans 5.

However, when the commandment comes, sin revives and the process of the rationing of death begins anew only this time I am an unwilling participant likened to a prisoner of war.

It is sin that deceives me into thinking I can do good for God, and by the commandment causes me to be rationed death by sin once again.

Joel

Bob May
07-23-2011, 03:58 PM
Bob, I am need of some fresh light concerning this valuable subject.......can you supply to me (other than the Nicodemus account concerning "born again") specific scripture that speaks of "spiritual death"?

Joel

Hi Joel,

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God

Here John is speaking about the Word which is Light and Life. The only ones who have the power to see it see it/him are those who have recieved him. Those have been born of God. And also have recieved the power to become sons of God.

If we are sons, then heirs. and fellow heirs with Christ.
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Ro 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Ro 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

You asked for fresh Light. The best advice I can give you is to look at the promises in scripture in a fresh way. If the Spirit through our spirit tells us we are the children of God and fellow heirs with Christ Then Believe It. Look for more evidence of it.

I can look for the law and condemnation in scripture and find it. I'm very good at it, I have done it for many years. I can also look for the apparent surface meaning of scripture. It comes natural. But why would I want to?

On the other hand I can look for the New Covenant hidden in the Old.
The former way leads to death and the latter to life. The former to blindness and deafness, the latter to opening my eyes and ears to God's promises.

So 2:8 The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.
So 2:9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, showing himself through the lattice.

I just re-read your question. You also asked for,.. "...specific scripture that speaks of "spiritual death"?"

Here's one.

Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Ga 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Ga 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Here is another.

Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

But why would you want that?

joel
07-23-2011, 04:27 PM
Bob,

Thanks for the scriptures.

What I requested you did not supply but verses you think apply in an indirect way.

And, having requested the same thing many times of others on this forum (can you give specific scripture which speaks of spiritual death which is a main teaching of orthodox NT teachings?)...............there remains yet a positive answer and the appropriate necessary verses.

So.... I can only conclude that this is yet another man-made doctrine (which I call a theory) that cannot be supported by verses.

Why is this important?

Because, in my view, this erroneous teaching affects our view of salvation and the resurrection.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
07-23-2011, 05:17 PM
Richard, the context of Romans 7 concerns the law. When the woman's husband dies (in this case he becomes a corpse), then, the woman is free of the law of her husband.

In the same manner, our body with sin as its master, is like the husband. When we believe the gospel, we are free of the law of sin due to the death of our husband (in that we are included in the death of Christ in Romans 6)
and are free from the death rationing of sin described in the latter part of Romans 5.

However, when the commandment comes, sin revives and the process of the rationing of death begins anew only this time I am an unwilling participant likened to a prisoner of war.

It is sin that deceives me into thinking I can do good for God, and by the commandment causes me to be rationed death by sin once again.

Joel
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your explanation. First, I've never read anything in the Bible about a "process of rationing of death." Where did you get that idea? What does it even mean? Death is not a substance that can be "rationed."

Second, I've never seen anything in the Bible that says that we are "married to our body." On the contrary, the Bible says that we were "married to the Law" and that we died with Christ (by faith), and so are free from the Law = Husband, and so can be married to Christ = New Husband. That's why it says we became "dead to the law" -

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

"Dead to the law" means that the person is not responsive to the demands of the law. The law has no power over the person. Likewise, to be made "alive" to God means that you now are in right relation with God and responsive to His Spirit. When I read all the places that the Bible talks about living people being "dead" I understand that it is talking about our relationship to God. We are called "dead" relative to God if we are "in sin." This seems extremely plain and obvious, and it is what the Bible explicitly states:

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Everything in the Bible coheres with the plain and obvious meaning of this verse. Death is the symbol used for those who are not in right relationship with God. It is not physical death. This is why it is called "spiritual" death. When a person is in right relationship with God, he becomes "spiritually alive." That's why the Bible says that believers become "alive" when they believe, and are "dead" before they believe. I don't see any confusion about this whatsoever. It seems to be the plain and obvious teaching of the Bible.

Bob May
07-23-2011, 06:23 PM
Bob,

Thanks for the scriptures.

What I requested you did not supply but verses you think apply in an indirect way.

And, having requested the same thing many times of others on this forum (can you give specific scripture which speaks of spiritual death which is a main teaching of orthodox NT teachings?)...............there remains yet a positive answer and the appropriate necessary verses.

So.... I can only conclude that this is yet another man-made doctrine (which I call a theory) that cannot be supported by verses.

Why is this important?

Because, in my view, this erroneous teaching affects our view of salvation and the resurrection.

Joel

How can it be erroneous and at the same time "affect our view of resurrection?"
Natural man's "view of resurrection" is that we cannot come back from the dead.
If that view has been "affected" it must mean that we now believe we can come back from the dead.
So by your very answer you are saying that we were dead.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses

It cannot be more clear than that. Believe it.

joel
07-24-2011, 02:33 AM
When Jesus was crucified, all of humanity, because of sin, sins, offenses, and the flesh (characterized by its uncircumcision) was crucified together with Him.

When He died, We, all together, died.

When He became a corpse, we (plural) became a corpse.

And, in Him, we were made alive together.

The emphasis of the saving work of Christ is primarily for all of humanity as a collective unity, not as individuals.

We, however, believe it individually.

Joel

gregoryfl
07-24-2011, 07:56 AM
Take a sheet, and go into a lighted room, and cover yourself with it. You have just demonstrated the death the Adam and Eve brought into the world, pictured by the uncircumcision of the flesh.

Now, remove that sheet, and you have just demonstrated the coming to life that Yeshua brought, the forgiveness of our trespasses, pictured by the circumcision of the flesh.

This is taught in the scripture I shared as well as in the Colossians passage shared by another here, where Paul uses parallelism to define for us death and life.

Ron

Bob May
07-26-2011, 08:46 AM
When Jesus was crucified, all of humanity, because of sin, sins, offenses, and the flesh (characterized by its uncircumcision) was crucified together with Him.

When He died, We, all together, died.

When He became a corpse, we (plural) became a corpse.

And, in Him, we were made alive together.

Joel

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when COLOR="Red"]the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. [/COLOR]

Who is it that shall hear??? The Dead,..US.

We did not become a corpse, we were corpses. It is only when we hear that we become alive. It is only when we hear that we become aware of the truth that we were already dead. That is because we, humanity believed the lie. That We Did Not Die when we ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The promise came through Isaac. One who was "as good as dead." His mother and father were beyond the age for having children and he was almost sacrificed.
Isaac is hearing.
Ge 21:3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.
Ge 21:4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.
Ge 21:5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
Ge 21:6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:



The emphasis of the saving work of Christ is primarily for all of humanity as a collective unity, not as individuals.
Joel

The emphasis may be on humanity as a whole or it may not. But it applies to all who will hear.


When we perform the ceremony of water baptism we acknowlege that we have been dead and have come to life. It is a ceremony. Not the experience. The experience is an awareness, a belief that we did not have previous to having it. We were dead for our entire lives until that awareness/belief came to us.



We, however, believe it individually.
Joel

There is no other way to believe.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-26-2011, 09:16 AM
When we perform the ceremony of water baptism we acknowlege that we have been dead and have come to life. It is a ceremony. Not the experience. The experience is an awareness, a belief that we did not have previous to having it. We were dead for our entire lives until that awareness/belief came to us.

Oh my ... that has profound implications. The Gospel is nothing but a story told with words. Words do nothing but cause changes in our awareness/belief - i.e. consciousness. I was thinking of starting a thread on this idea yesterday, but here you have introduced the theme for me. Thanks!

It has always seemed to me that Christians think an "event" or "experience" happens when they come to believe the Gospel. They talk as if God has "done" something. But now it looks more like the "event" is nothing more than a change in perception, belief, and awareness. A change of consciousness.

Hummm .... very interesting ....:sCo_hmmthink:

Bob May
07-26-2011, 09:35 AM
Take a sheet, and go into a lighted room, and cover yourself with it. You have just demonstrated the death the Adam and Eve brought into the world, pictured by the uncircumcision of the flesh.

Now, remove that sheet, and you have just demonstrated the coming to life that Yeshua brought, the forgiveness of our trespasses, pictured by the circumcision of the flesh.

This is taught in the scripture I shared as well as in the Colossians passage shared by another here, where Paul uses parallelism to define for us death and life.

Ron

Hi Ron,
Ge 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Ge 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Ge 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

If you look at the "generations" from Abraham to Jesus, There are some very important changes in awareness symbolised by the lives and awarenesses of those listed in the geneology.

Abraham, belief in the unseen, Belief in the promise of dwelling in a land he knew not.
Isaac, Hearing, coming back to life from the dead.
Jacob/Israel, catching a glimse of that "land" in which we are promised we will dwell.
Joseph, being taught by God through visions, dreams and interpretation of dreams. Recieving the inheritance symbolised by the coat of many colors.
Manassah and Ephraim, wisdom and understanding.
David, realizing God does not hold our sins against us.
Babylon, watching as language, on the one hand opens up to you. And closes down to others. The dividing of the word along the line between soul and Spirit.
Christ, "I and the father are one."

These changes in awareness are the peeling away of the flesh in us. These are the "Tokens" of the true Circumcision.

2co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
2co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
2co 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

So, we have tokens in the Old Testament and the "earnest of the Spirit" in the new. These changes are a promise of a contract (Covenant) being fulfilled. Like "earnest money" when buying a house.

We are told, "Thou shalt keep my covenant,..."
We do that by watching it happen to us and believing the "tokens" as they appear.
We are watching the layers of "flesh" being peeled away by God.

Bob

gregoryfl
07-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Amen Bob,

Life is then an unveiling of that focus on the flesh, the veil which separated the outer court from the holy place, which was introduced by Adam and Eve, that death they experienced on the very day they ate of that fruit. It is a seeing once again of what always was, a coming into a new awarness, yet not really new, only new to us in our current experience. For just as the holy place existed, albeight not seen because of the curtain, in Messiah that veil has been torn in two, and we grow in greater awareness of those things hidden for so long, that life that always has been the light of all men, revealed out of the darkness of the heart, once foreskinned, covering that from which is the source of life, but now circumcised.

I say as Paul did, oh the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! :)

Ron