Results 1 - 20 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: McGracer Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 53721 | ||
In the Andies, Paul makes it very clear in Romans chapter 5 that, because of Adam's sin, were are all born sinners - vs. 12, 18, 19; Eph 2:1. These are God's statements, not mine. There is plenty of scripture to support this view. However, there are virtually no scriptures that talk about what happens to babies when they die, are there? David does talk about going to be with his son that died because of David's sin. That could mean heaven or it could mean the grave, I don't know. So, we have a choice. Are we going to base our theology upon issues where the scriptures are clear? Or are we going to base it upon hypotheticals? I will have to go with what I know is clearly taught. It is clearly taught that we are born dead in trespasses and sins. It is not clearly taught what happens to babies (or the mentally handicapped, or those who have never had a chance to hear the gospel). This does not mean that I believe that babies go to hell. We have personally had two miscarriages and I don't believe that God would send these children to hell. Does He make exceptions? I don't know. If He does, He is God, that is his prerogrative. I do know that He is perfectly loving and perfectly just and I trust Him to be God in this matters where things are not black and white. As far as Rom 7:9 goes, there are 3 main views of Paul's experience: 1. He is describing his preconversion state. 2. He is describing his post-conversion state of trying to live under and be sanctified by the Law. 3. He is describing the normal Christian experience. Regardless, he has already made it clear that all are born sinners in Romans 5. What do you think he is referring to? McGracer |
||||||
2 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 53727 | ||
In the Andes, In good humor (and good faith), let's banter this about a little bit: You wrote: "Paul said, death spread to all men because ALL SINNED." Sure all sin - but why? ALL sin because ALL are sinners. You don't become a sinner when you first sin. You sin BECAUSE you are ALREADY a sinner. It is because of Adam that we are sinners, not because of our own acts. Our own sinful acts just confirm to us what we ALREADY are. It is your birth that determines what you are, not your actions. I don't become a saint when I commit my first righteous act. I do righteous acts BECAUSE Christ is in me doing them - my new birth has already made me a saint. You wrote: "Paul is very clear that "where there is no law, sin is not held against man." vs 13" He is saying the before Mt. Sinai, committed sins where not taken into account. But don't miss verse 14 - NEVERTHELESS, sin still reigned. People still died and went to hell because they were born separated from God. Only those who had faith in God were counted as righteous and when to heaven. You wrote: "Babies must of necessity have clean consciences. Or they would go straight to hell. All men will sin (because of the nature passed down from Adam) and thereby need a savior. I'm not disagreeing with you on that." So, would you agree that babies have Adam's sinful nature passed on to each and every one? If not, how do you get around it? If so, how would God allow any creature (baby or not) to go to heaven with a sinful nature in it? Again, I don't believe that babies go to hell. I believe that there is an age of accountability. I just cannot conclusively prove it from scripture. McGracer |
||||||
3 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 53728 | ||
In the Andes, Hey bro, you wrote: "Paul was refering to a time in his life when he was not spiritually separated from God. And when he understood the commandment, the nature of his flesh which was passed down from Adam arose and took advantage of the commandment and killed him. Thereby teaching him that he needed a savior." You are saying that Paul is refering to a time in his life when we WAS NOT spiritually separated from God. This means that he was spiritually joined to God - 1 Cor 6:17 (you're either in or out, right?). What do you mean that his flesh arose and killed him? The scriptures make it clear that once we are in union with God, we have "ETERNAL LIFE". How can someone who has eternal (no beginning, no end) have that life killed or taken away? Could you clarify how someone who is spiritually alive could die (knowing that ALL our sins are forgiven under the New Covenant)? Respectfully, McGracer |
||||||
4 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 53729 | ||
In the Andes, Hey bro, you wrote: "Paul was refering to a time in his life when he was not spiritually separated from God. And when he understood the commandment, the nature of his flesh which was passed down from Adam arose and took advantage of the commandment and killed him. Thereby teaching him that he needed a savior." You are saying that Paul is refering to a time in his life when we WAS NOT spiritually separated from God. This means that he was spiritually joined to God - 1 Cor 6:17 (you're either in or out, right?). What do you mean that his flesh arose and killed him? The scriptures make it clear that once we are in union with God, we have "ETERNAL LIFE". How can someone who has eternal (no beginning, no end) have that life killed or taken away? Could you clarify how someone who is spiritually alive could die (knowing that ALL our sins are forgiven under the New Covenant)? Respectfully, McGracer |
||||||
5 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 53744 | ||
In the Andes, Romans 7:9 has been hotly by some of the world's best Christian minds for centuries (all of them probably greater and more educated than mine). No doubt it will continue to be. But here are my current personal thoughts on this difficult passage (subject to change as I grow): I believe that in verses 7-13 Paul is building upon his "marriage" thoughts in verses 1-6 and specifically expanding upon how he came to know sin and what is deserves - death (verse 7). He has already drawn an analogy for us in verses 1-6 of how God wanted to joined primarily the Jew (in this passage) to Christ, for he is speaking to those who know the Law (vs 1). In short, he states the the Jew, in Paul's analogy, is married to Mr. Law. How long does this Jewish marriage last? Until death separates them. The Jews loved the Law and thought that life was found in it. Like a marriage partner, it consumed their thoughts and devotion. But under Jewish law, the rule was that marriage was until death (we know that there were exceptions, but I'm speaking of the normal standard). So Paul says that God wanted to join the Jew who was used to being married to Mr. Law to Mr. Grace - Jesus Christ (vs 4). The only legal way for that to happen is for one marriage partner to die (vs 2). Therefore, through union with Christ's death, the Jew, who had died in his relationship to Mr. Law (vs 4) could also be resurrected with Christ and joined to Him in order to bear fruit (vs 4,6). But I believe that starting in vs 9, Paul shares his personal journey in this marriage relationship. He came (in his understanding as a young Jew) as a virgin, alive and pure, to be joined to Mr. Law. He thought that this marriage would be wonderful - joined to the Law (which he knew was holy, righteous, and good). A match made in heaven. :) But during the honeymoon Paul was shocked to discovered that there was someone else in the marriage bed with him and Mr. Law - Mr. Sin! He had believed that he was alive and pure when he married Mr. Law and he KNEW Mr. Law was pure. But their marriage quickly turned into a threesome. Where did Mr. Sin come from? Not from the Law. For the Law was holy, righteous and good. Mr. Sin had, unbeknownst to Paul, been inside Paul and Paul had unwittingly brought Mr. Sin into the marriage with him! Mr. Sin had been fairly quiet in Paul until that time to "sneak" into the marriage. Now that the marriage was finalized, Mr. Sin jumped fully to life in Paul and Mr. Law revealed to Paul that Mr. Sin (who Paul had unknowingly been joined to all along since birth) and therefore Paul needed to die! Mr. Law said, "I am holy, righteous, and good. I cannot stayed married to you, Paul, because you are joined Mr. Sin and the wages of sin are death. You have to die. In fact, you are already dead!" That was how Mr. Sin planned to end Paul's relationship with Mr. Law. What a marriage wrecker! But Paul never would have been fully conscious of Mr. Sin's presence in him and of his spiritual death if he had not met Mr. Law. Why? Because Mr. Sin had deceived him and had laid dormant until the opportune time to rear his ugly head and demonstrate to Paul that he couldn't stay married to Mr. Law. Paul concludes (vs 12,13) by saying that it really wasn't Mr. Law who was to blame for his death in the marriage. It was Mr. Sin's fault. It simply took Mr. Law to point out Paul's problem. Thankfully, God, being a God of ALL THINGS, found a way to turn this whole scenario on it ear. Through Paul's death(caused by Mr. Sin), God united Paul with Christ's death, and raised Paul as a new creature to be joined, not to Mr. Law, but to Christ Himself - Mr. Grace! Well, that's my take on what Paul is saying here. The beauty of God's plan is that He can take what is meant for evil and turn it out for our good. Paul saw this. That is why he knew that it was foolish for a new creation in Christ to try to go back to a marriage to Mr. Law. The marriage was over. The believer is now joined, not to something that reflects God (the Law), but to God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. Be blessed and enjoy your new marriage, bro. McGracer |
||||||
6 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 53788 | ||
In the Andes, Sorry, I haven't read the book you mention...yet. Most of my Bible study is done inductively. Didn't intend to bury you with my book. We're way off subject of God's image anyhow. Grace and peace multiplied to you. McGracer |
||||||
7 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 54593 | ||
Hi Searcher, Sorry bro but I didn't understand your post. What I posted was my view on what I believe the image of God constitutes: a human spirit being (with body and soul) that is capable of directly worshipping and fellowshipping with God. When Adam spiritually died, he lost that direct capability. Adam passed on this fallen likeness to his son also and to the rest of us. While word study does show that animals may also have a spirit and soul, they cannot communicate or fellowship with God (as far as we know). Lastly, bro, I don't buy into Kenneth Copeland's theology. He has some very erroneous beliefs concerning the deity of Christ, what happened to Jesus on the cross, and who we are as Christians. So I have no interest in what he might have to say on this subject. Your bro in Christ, McGracer |
||||||
8 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | McGracer | 54607 | ||
Hi Searcher, Thanks for this research, bro. There is much false doctrine that abounds and TV seems to be the main medium of choice for it. I just wanted to clarify my previous post that, while I do believe that man is primarily a spirit being with soul and body, he is not created as pure spirit. God is pure Spirit. And despite all the garbage that these so-called men of God proliferate, He does not have a physical body. Christ took on one and still inhabits some form of supernatural, physical body but God, in essence, is Spirit. But man was never created as pure spirit. God created him as spirit,soul, and body and he will always be thus. Nor is he equal to God. He never was and never will be. I do not see God, in the act of creation trying to reproduce Himself. I see Him creating a subordinate creature called human that He can express Himself through, but equality with God is never man's option. The angels are also spirit beings. They seem to be able to take on physical form but it does not appear (no pun intended) that they are physical in nature. Man, on the other hand, has a physical dimension and always will. Anyone who teaches anything different in this respect is obviously a false teacher. My explanation simply refers to the functionality of man in that, through his spirit, he is designed to worship and fellowship with God. He is a unified whole. To deny his physicality is to side with Gnosticism and deny the reality of the created universe. To accentuate man's soul over his physical and spiritual components, elevates humanism to an unwarranted position of false authority and relativistic thinking. And to deny his spiritual nature is to relegate man to the status of an animal with superior intellect, hence evolution. To seek spiritual reality apart from God will lead to demonic posession or opression. Spiritual truth must come from God and His Word. We must have a proper balance of man that comes from the biblical view. One of the most obvious scriptures is 1 Thess 5:23 where Paul states the correct order of functionality - spirit, soul, and body. To deny any of these components diminishes man to less than what our Creator has intended. To put soul and body above spiritual truth becomes "flesh". The Creator and the created can be one through union in Christ but never are one is essence. We are joined to Him but we are not Him. Hope this helps. McGracer |
||||||
9 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53785 | ||
Emmaus, What we need to understand is that there is progressive revelation, even in the New Testament. Surely what Christ taught is important. But it is also important to know that He was born under and taught under Law. The New Testament (Covenant) did not go into effect until He died. You wrote: "The Gospels have primacy over all other scripture for the Christian. If we had nothing but them they would be enough. God could raise up a thousand apostles, but there is only one Jesus Christ." This simply is not true. Why? Because Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament and he said that his teachings were not his own nor was he taught them by any man. He received the "rest" of the New Testament directly from the Lord Himself. Therefore, to insist that the Gospels have primacy over the rest of NT scripture displays your ignorance (not an insult, but a lack of knowledge) that Jesus Christ is the author of the rest of the New Testament. Yes, brother, there is only one Jesus Christ and He authored ALL of the New Testament, not just the gospels. Amen? McGracer |
||||||
10 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53804 | ||
Cyclist, The measure of truth, brother, is not how long one has been on a forum nor how much content one has posted. This applies to me as well as anyone else. The measure of truth is "What does God's Word say?" Emmaus has stated that the 4 gospels have primacy over the other writings of the New Testment. He implied that the gospels are the words of Christ and that the rest of the New Testament are the words of mere apostles and men. My point is that Christ (through the Holy Spirt) is the author of ALL of the Bible - He is the Word. For anyone to claim differently shows their lack of knowledge in this particular area. So I was not calling Emmaus an ignorant person, brother, I was just stating that he lacks understanding about the authorship of the Bible. I truly hope that Emmaus researchs the authorship of the Word a little bit more. We should know what we are talking about and be able to back it up with scripture before we label someone else's view as "Bull!" (which Emmaus has done). McGracer |
||||||
11 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53823 | ||
Readers, Evidently, there is some misunderstanding of what I meant in my post to Emmaus. I will attempt to clarify my post and view: 1. I DID NOT label Emmaus as an ignorant person. What I said (check my post) was that his supposition that the 4 gospels had primacy over the other New Testament scriptures was ignorant - meaning that he lacked the knowledge that Jesus Christ is the author of ALL the scriptures, not JUST the gospels. But it is being proliferated that I believe Emmaus to be an ignorant person. This is not what I meant in my post and it is certainly not what I said. Therefore, I am NOT the one trying to cause strife between the brethren. 2. I am ignorant in many areas. There are many things that I don't know. If those who feel I am being divisive and should disqualify myself from posting because they feel that I have labeled someone as "ignorant" would read MY other postings, they would see that I am ignorant in areas. I readily admit it. But... 3. I will not compromise on the truth. If someone submits a post similar to what Emmaus has said that stipulates that the Old Testament has primacy over the New Testament because it came first or because God is greater than Jesus Christ, I will confront that belief to the best of my ability. I hope this clarifies my stance and intent. McGracer |
||||||
12 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53837 | ||
Cyclist, Thanks for the welcome, brother. I have been reading the various postings for quite a while but I am rather selective in what discussions I get involved it. I think we all tend to have certain areas where we focus our separate biblical studies. While this can be a gift for the edification of His body, it can also cause us to become rather myopic in our views. That is one of the things I enjoy about this forum. I tend to be "focused" in certain areas of theology, doctrine, and application. I can find new fresh thoughts here on the NASB Study Forum that can challenge me to grow in areas where I can be a little "lop-sided." :) This is indeed a great place to be exposed to other views. And, believe it or not, I try to keep an open mind (but most things fall out as soon as I open it). I did not mean to discredit Emmaus or his other postings. I have read some of them. And I may have misinterpreted what he said about the gospels have primacy. I, too, am thankful for the gospels. I wouldn't want to try to live the Christian life without them. Thankfully, I don't have to. At the same time, I'm thankful for all of the rest of the NT and OT alike. I could be saved by Jesus Christ simply by reading the book of Romans alone with His illuminating help, I know that. But God has, in grace, given us His complete written Word and His complete indwelling Word. :) We are truly blessed. Thanks again for the welcome, Cyclist. May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord. McGracer |
||||||
13 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53847 | ||
Emmaus, I hope that I didn't offend you with my first reply, bro. You have not responded to these postings and I hope that it is not because I have caused you offense. I'm sorry if I came across too brashly in my response. Please accept my apology. McGracer |
||||||
14 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53883 | ||
Emmaus, Thanks for your response and clarification, brother. I agree that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the foundation upon which our faith is built. There is no other name given among men whereby we can be saved and therefore the gospels MUST be central to our faith. Hank has made the excellent point the everything written in the OT points to Christ and everything written after the gospels points back to Christ. The only other thing that I would like to "gently" add is that, while the gospel narrate the earthly life of our Savior and His finished work (this is the foundation of our faith), the Pauline letters and the writings of the other authors of the NT are centered in "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Maybe this is what In the Andes was referring to, I don't know. While the gospels speak of the historical Christ in focus and content (the events and works of His earthly ministry), the rest of the NT speaks of His ministry in us. I am not attempting to elevate the creation over the Creator here. I am simply saying that the same Jesus that lived and died 2000 years ago is now alive in us. So while the gospels give us a beautiful picture of what He did then, the rest of the NT demonstrates how He lives in us now. His presence in us is as real as His earthly presence 2000 years ago. Paul affirmed this when he stated, "I have been crucified with Christ, I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me." The heartbeat of Christianity is not in imitating a God-man who lived 2000 years ago. The heartbeat of Christianity is that same God-man, Jesus Christ, now taking up residence in His earthly body today and living through us. He is our life - Col 3:4. I often see bracelets, Bible covers, and stickers that say WWJD (What Would Jesus Do). While I understand the thrust behind this "fad" is to get folks to attempt to look in the gospels to see how Jesus acted and then to imitate that, there is more to the Christian life then trying to imitate God. The message of the Christian life is Christ, not just a historical figure, but a living Savior who is very much living in the world today in His people. So my "fad", if I had one, would be - What Will Jesus Do? He said, "Apart from Me, you can do nothing." Paul said, "I can do ALL things through Christ who gives me strength." Those words are just as true today in 2002 as they were 2000 years ago. I am not a follower of Paul, Cephas, or any other man. But I certainly do recognize that God Himself wrote other books of the New Testament for our edification and growth. If the only Jesus we ever see is the one in the gospels, we will attempt to mimic Him and live a life of defeat and futility. But when we recognize that the same Jesus in the gospels still lives and works in and through us today, we can find the Christ-life to become an experience, not of imitation, but of co-operation. Paul wrote in Col 1:25-28 - Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ." Grace and peace to you, Bill Mc |
||||||
15 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53891 | ||
Amen, Hank! Thanks for your valuable, well-thoughtout input in this conversation. It's a blessing when we can have different perspectives, freely share them, develop friendships, and even reach a consensus of agreement in unity because of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Thankful for you, McGracer |
||||||
16 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53978 | ||
Andes, Thanks for the response, brother. You wrote: "Where did you get it? Studies or grace?" I'm not sure what you're asking (sorry). If you've been to my site, then you know that I study grace. :) Thanks for checking it out. Any feedback through private email would be welcome and appreciated. No, I'm not a pastor. Can we still be friends? :) I don't mind discussing babies' spirits as long you know that I generally approach issues from what scriptures DO say and they just don't say much about this subject. So I try to be firm where I believe the scriptures are firm and bend where they are pretty silent. It may be best to discuss it off the forum, but the call is yours. Nice to hear from you, Andes. McGracer |
||||||
17 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 53998 | ||
Andes, you are right, Job was not "born again". He was saved by faith (as were all OT saints), but he was not born again as we are. Born again, Jesus said, is born of the Spirit of God. God creates a new human spirit in the NT believer and indwells that spirit by His Holy Spirit - John 3 - Spirit gives birth to spirit. Job, while being saved by faith and "counted as righteous" was never regenerated by God's Holy Spirit. Because of sin, God did not dwell IN the OT believer. Because sins have been "taken away" by the Lamb of God, He does now dwell in the NT believer. McGracer |
||||||
18 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 54023 | ||
Joe, Job pleased God by his faith in Him - Heb 11:2,39 - For by it (faith) the men of old gained approval. OT saints placed their faith in God (and whatever His word was to them at the time) and their faith in God was credited to them as righteousness. Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. This is faith in Him and what He says, not faith in our efforts to keep the Law or "Christian principles." Job was ALREADY a believer in God when God said that he was blameless and upright. Because he was an OT believer, he feared God and turned away from evil. So it was Job's relationship with God, a faith relationship that allowed God to call him blameless and upright. We, as NT believers are called the same thing - Eph 1:4; Eph 5:27; Col 1:22. We are not holy and blameless because we don't sin. We are holy and blameless because we have placed our faith and turst in God and He now indwells us. McGracer |
||||||
19 | rock foundation | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 54025 | ||
Append, BTW Joe, I am not implying that OT saints were not influenced by or aware of the Holy Spirit. They very much were. I am just saying that the Holy Spirit did not indwell the average OT believer through out his (or her) whole life. The Spirit left Saul. David was very much aware that God's Spirit would leave him because of his sin. As NT believers, we should not live in that fear. Our sins have been dealt with once-and-for-all. Therefore, God re-creates us as new creatures in Him and indwells us forever - 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10; Eph 4:24. McGracer |
||||||
20 | What do the rest of you think? | Matt 7:24 | McGracer | 54042 | ||
Tim, Yes, thanks for the clarification. I believe they were made during at their resurrection. They just didn't receive it during their lifetime whereas we do through new birth. Thanks, bro. I know what I want to say but I can't always find the words, or, if I do find them, I forget where I leave them. :) McGracer |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |