Burning Straw

[betzerg]

Guess that puts you in the Universal salvation camp (you don't have to follow the laws of G-d either).

I have no clue what you are referring to. I said that every man will judged according to his works. Those who through faith accept the atonement of Messiah and THEN strive to follow the laws of G-d as outlined in Matthew 5:17-25....will reap the rewards of obedience to G-d. Those who reject messiah and the laws of G-d will be judged also. Those who blatantly transgress the laws of G-d will reap eternal judgement. So...where is the anti-anomia in that?

Shalom

Betzer

[betzerg]

And I might add that even in judiasm there are no "sacrifices" for intentional sins. The use of animal sacrifice was a cleansing for unintential sins. This was what was offered by the High Priest. Since the beginning G-d has establish Grace in the area of REPENTENCE for the remission of sins. Since the beginning it has been faith and not works that has pleased G-d...Mercy and not sacrifice....There is more grace to be found in the old covenant scriptures than christians dare to acknowledge.

shalom

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I see what you're saying, but my point is that here on a computer screen, we make judgments on limited info. No, I'm not saying that we can blame our temperments...of course not pereynol, come on. Do I deserve this? Maybe I do. It's like those who tell me "goba, you're supposed to love people not hate them." Oh thanks for the insight. Sigh.

Well, GB, I think a little spirited debate isn't all bad. And I don't think you're unloving, for the most part. We all can be unloving at times---or at least sound that way. We could go round and round over this topic, but I think I'll stop here. I believe we've both got valid points, but I think that the opposing perspectives we've taken up should be held in balance. When one is emphasized over against the other, what happens is that the opposing side becomes in danger of being rationalized away, and that's not right.

My point is that even non Christians can "sound" more loving than a true saint.

That's a good point, GB, and we ought not to give in when faced with such false appearances. But neither should we make assumptions about people's hearts that are not always within our ability to know. I think a little more care is often in order, but there are times when we ought to be stern. I've done it myself, and I'll do it again if I think it right. Discernment and balance....

Paul once said "the Lord smite you...you whited wall." Only upon learning that it was the high priest he had laid into. And Paul did recant, because it was a technical violation of God's law to speak that way to one in THAT position in Israel.

Paul was fiesty. He got a belly full of Mark at one point. I think many members here on Tweb, would think of Paul as "unloving" if he contested them, with his posts. Paul was a very loving Christian man, but He got hot under the collar at times. "I would that they were even CUT OFF, who trouble you..." (Galatians) He wasn't gentle with them. He was angry. He may have sinned in that...who knows. He did lament that the good he wanted to do at times, ended up becoming the evil he didn't want to do(Romans 7).

My whole point is...who can contest the love of Paul for Christ and human beings? Yet the very enemies of Paul were no doubt often, silver tongued devils who made the people doubt Paul's love. Can't you just hear them "hear, hear my fellow Israelites...who is this trader amongst us? Who is this turn-coat named Saul? Look at him my beloved brethren...he has gone after the Nazarene! Have no part with him. He has even claimed to talk with this dead one who was publicly crucified before us all. Communication with the dead is a violation of our law. We have tried to reason with him, but he is like a madman and it appears that our loving efforts to help him, have failed. Let everyone lock his door at night, lest he break in upon you and kill you for rejecting the Nazarene! Just like he killed Christians before...he is sick and one that should be reported to the authorities if seen"

I think Paul was singular in many ways, and we ought to be circumspect about comparing ourselves to him. He penned inspired writings and spoke as an apostle of Christ; he was appointed to an office that we in our rightful humility would do well to acknowledge was unique. Both the Lord himself and his prophets and apostles could be brash, it's true. But these men, IMHO, had gifts we do not and discernment to a level that we do not. I think we ought to be very careful as we follow their example. They could be stern, but they also could be meek and gentle, and I believe that their reactions to people often stemmed from their spiritual gifts which gave them insight into people. We ought to be more careful.

When Peter rebuked Ananias and Saphira, for example, he did so under divine guidance, and as you said, even Paul made mistakes. I think many of our interactions here on this forum tend to reflect our all too human frustration with those who differ from us---and that we are not always operating in the spirit of a Paul when we take potshots at others. We might like to believe that what we are doing is fully within the Pauline exemplar, but I doubt that this is the case. Like I said, there's a legitimate balance to be sought. I do agree that sometimes all some people understand is a display of power and resistance (as well as the "ignore" button) and that there are times for that.

I also think that verbal sparring can be enjoyable, as can rhetoric, but I also realize that even this sort of thing can be misunderstood. You and I have been caught up in such a misunderstanding very recently---something I don't want to repeat if I can help it. Even enjoyable sparring can get out of hand. Anyway, there's a lot of room for misunderstanding in a place like this, but that doesn't mean that we can't aspire to better things. Don't you love it how analyzing something to death can almost render it unintelligible? Time to quit on this one....

[Ormly]

And I might add that even in judiasm there are no "sacrifices" for intentional sins. The use of animal sacrifice was a cleansing for unintential sins. This was what was offered by the High Priest. Since the beginning G-d has establish Grace in the area of REPENTENCE for the remission of sins. Since the beginning it has been faith and not works that has pleased G-d...Mercy and not sacrifice....There is more grace to be found in the old covenant scriptures than christians dare to acknowledge.

shalom

Amen --- good posts and accurate

[rhutchin]

Betzerg
To deny any man the possibility of making a moral decision to follow the laws of G-d is to deny the very JUSTICE of our creator. To KNOW G-d, to know the attributes of G-d, and then say that some men are "destined for hell" is saying that G-d denies himself as revealed in scripture.....a G-d of JUSTICE…

…I said that every man will judged according to his works. Those who through faith accept the atonement of Messiah and THEN strive to follow the laws of G-d as outlined in Matthew 5:17-25....will reap the rewards of obedience to G-d. Those who reject messiah and the laws of G-d will be judged also. Those who blatantly transgress the laws of G-d will reap eternal judgement. So...where is the anti-anomia in that?

Thanks for the clarification.

Both the Calvinist and the Arminian essentially say that some men are “destined for hell.” The Calvinist says that those whom God chooses not to save are destined for hell. The Arminian says that those who choose not to be saved are destined for hell. Both say that God either knows what He will do or what man will do prior to the man even being born.

So, I guess you are neither Calvinist, Arminian, or universalist. I guess since you predicate salvation on “Those who reject…the laws of G-d will be judged also,” that you are in the salvation by works camp.

[Ormly]

Thanks for the clarification.

Both the Calvinist and the Arminian essentially say that some men are “destined for hell.” The Calvinist says that those whom God chooses not to save are destined for hell. The Arminian says that those who choose not to be saved are destined for hell. Both say that God either knows what He will do or what man will do prior to the man even being born.

So, I guess you are neither Calvinist, Arminian, or universalist. I guess since you predicate salvation on “Those who reject…the laws of G-d will be judged also,” that you are in the salvation by works camp.

That's where you go astray, rhutchin, and make wrong assumptions.

[GoBahnsen]

That's where you go astray, rhutchin, and make wrong assumptions.

In what way has Rhutchin assumed wrongly. I haven't read all of this man's posts that Rhutchin has responded to, but from what I have read, he seems to be like the Jews, who going about to establish their OWN righteousness by the law, have failed to apprehend the true righteousness that comes from God to those who don't "work", but rest in God's promises, namely to believe in the Son and His work on behalf of repentant sinners.

Probably what appeals to you sir, is you are similar in your approach to Christianity as the Jew. You believe in law keeping, but from a Christianized approach. You believe if people are really saved and serious about God, they won't break His laws anymore. Their obedience will demonstrate their faith as to it's genuine-ness.

So just like the Finney folks, you believe you do hit the mark of obedience daily and this keeping of the law shows that you really have apprehended Christ who works in you to keep the law of God at all times. Am I hot, warm, cool or cold?

Therefore the real Christians are the ones who really believe God. Who really exercise their faith in such a way that it really lays hold on Christ and Christ becomes unto them/you... justification, sanctification, redemption, etc.

That leaves the rest of us, especially Calvinists, who believe that we sin everyday in word , thought and deed...as deceived sinners who have yet to really believe God. Once we get in touch with our faith in such a way as to really begin to lay hold of God's promises and really believe them, then we will begin to experience that freedom from sin, the way people like you have. We will be able to say with you and John, those who are born of God cannot sin for His seed remains in them and they cannot sin, as long as they are truly believing God. Is this what you believe or close to it?

[learning]

Reminds me of the saying "It's easier to die for Christ than to live for Him." Unless we are brought to that place where it's time to die, so there's no more time to argue over what matters, we still have to live. And we can't live right, without right doctrine. We will go astray without sound doctrine. We will teach others to go astray. We just will.

So yes learning...I suppose you and I would not deny Christ and be pleased to die side by side, if it came down to it. In the mean time, we have to live and doctrine can never be set aside (and I know you are not suggesting that it be laid aside), but then what are you suggesting?

How about this

Romans 12:1-5
" I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgement, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have same function,
so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."

[GoBahnsen]

How about this

Romans 12:1-5
" I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgement, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have same function,
so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."

Good verses. And in order to keep the peace, we should probably just quote Scripture and let everyone decide what those verses mean to them. This way we can have fellowship, because you can have your interpretation and I can have mine and neither may be correct, but we don't need that anyway. We just need to know what the words are in the verses and be able to quote them, and leave the rest up to God.

Think of what a happy Church we could all be a part of if we just stopped trying to explain the Bible and we all just believed that which we felt was right for us. No Pastor seeking to exposit the Word to the congregation, because that will only divide people. Just read the Bible and leave it alone. Christians just quoying verses to other Christians, but making sure they don't seek to agree on what they mean in context.

We could all love and serve one another as long as we didn't know what the other believed. I wonder if we can convince others to just keep quiet about their beliefs and help to feed the hungry as we wait for Jesus to return. Oppps, that's an interpretation and some Christians do think He already returned and we don't want to lose them. Sorry about slipping up so quickly.

[learning]

My goodness Goba, I thought you would be happy with that. You mentioned something about how we are to be 'living sacrifices.'
And then you go off like you have?

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to deal with this.
I was trying to give out the hand of fellowship.
I don't know what has happened to you, but you almost sound bitter or something.

The only thing I have to add in my interpretation is this.
'It is hard to be a 'living sacrifice' because we tend to roll around and fall off of the altar.' :)

[GoBahnsen]

My goodness Goba, I thought you would be happy with that. You mentioned something about how we are to be 'living sacrifices.'
And then you go off like you have?

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to deal with this.
I was trying to give out the hand of fellowship.
I don't know what has happened to you, but you almost sound bitter or something.

The only thing I have to add in my interpretation is this.
'It is hard to be a 'living sacrifice' because we tend to roll around and fall off of the altar.' :)

You don't know how to deal with what? Wouldn't you agree that we would all get along better if we didn't discuss what a verse means? We could just serve together and smile at one another in ignorant bliss. What's wrong with that? I think that is a wonderful way to keep unity and love amongst ourselves.


Can you think of a better way?

[Ormly]

You don't know how to deal with what? Wouldn't you agree that we would all get along better if we didn't discuss what a verse means? We could just serve together and smile at one another in ignorant bliss. What's wrong with that? I think that is a wonderful way to keep unity and love amongst ourselves.


Can you think of a better way?

I sure don't agree with that. I think you should learn what they mean before responding.

[GoBahnsen]

I sure don't agree with that. I think you should learn what they mean before responding.

No no no, that's too divisive...if you talk about what you think a verse means, and it means something else to another brother or sister,...well, that's not good...better we all just say that we believe the Bible is true and if your interpretation is different than mine ...hey "praise God".

I'm starting to like this approach. It's about love. Truth is important, but why not let my truth be mine and your's be yours. That way we can all get together, smile on your brother...everybody get together and love one another right now. Come on Ormly...peace man. We've gone around and around enough now don't you think? Smile on me brother...let us love one another...right now

[Ormly]

No no no, that's too divisive...if you talk about what you think a verse means, and it means something else to another brother or sister,...well, that's not good...better we all just say that we believe the Bible is true and if your interpretation is different than mine ...hey "praise God".

I'm starting to like this approach. It's about love. Truth is important, but why not let my truth be mine and your's be yours. That way we can all get together, smile on your brother...everybody get together and love one another right now. Come on Ormly...peace man. We've gone around and around enough now don't you think? Smile on me brother...let us love one another...right now

But you haven't been wanting to do that and what you now ask is a departure from what you have been advocating all along. How can there be peace when you all want to do is promote Calvin? I will agree with him WHEN I can agree with him. Not agreeing with him shouldn't brand anyone a heretic. All to often I think he was. Certainly he didn't manifest the love of God as you now wish to promote.

[GoBahnsen]

But you haven't been wanting to do that and what you now ask is a departure from what you have been advocating all along. How can there be peace when you all want to do is promote Calvin? I will agree with him WHEN I can agree with him. Not agreeing with him shouldn't brand anyone a heretic. All to often I think he was. Certainly he didn't manifest the love of God as you now wish to promote.

Right on, right on...whatever you say...