Results 201 - 220 of 268
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135147 | ||
EdB You have quoted the following verses: Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) 1 Peter 2 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. (NAS95) Would this submission to government also extend to the genocide of native American Indians or the slavely of African Americans? You seem to be operating by the supposition that these scriptures are all-inclusive, in regard to any and all laws. But then again, church-ordained marriages are not illegal. Or are you suggesting that they are? Might you find it remotely possible that the government is capable of evil? In my own case, the penalties incurred by the government could cost my bodily organs or my life. Would I be a righteous servant of God, by sacrificing my blood upon the altar of state government? Are you suggesting that I play the hero to adjust the laws of the land, by valiant and energetic effort? Such an endeavor would likely go well beyond my natural lifespan, and a battle with the government has been contra-indicated to me by medical professionals. - You stated: "Here in Florida for a pastor to legally marry someone a marriage license must exist and the Pastor must have said license in his hands and to sign such. Without that the Pastor would be breaking the law and the marriage would be nonexistent." Pastors are not prohibited from engaging in marriage ceremonies that are not state-ordained, so I view your reference to legal contract marriages as not applicable in my situation. You have offered a great deal of unpleasant possibilities, of what could happen if a marriage is not bound by legal contract, and is merely church-ordained. And I suppose they would be fully applicable when addressing an otherwise healthy marriage couple. You may consider me to be short-sighted if I overlook these possibilities, but i suggest that the immediate future is much more crucial in this particular situation. In other words, all of these scenarios that you offer would become obsolete, if I were to die within the next three years, for lack of medical provisions. Further, the weight of medical financial responsibilities would break a potential marriage partner, and would result in immediate divorce with alimony dues. - I think inparticular of my close friend who is supplied with 900,000 dollars of life-sustaining medications per year. In the next 40 years, his medications will cost close to 40 million dollars. However, if he were to get a job making more than 12,000 dollars per year, his government medical coverage would be rescinded and he would die. Or if he were to get legally married, he would again automatically die. Would his death be good for a marriage? Would the removal of my bodily organs be productive in a marriage, with the wife paying the bill? Insurance carriers do not pay for pre-existing conditions, and the government does not provide medical funding for couples, wherein one spouse is gainfully employed and the other is not. And God forbid if I should fail to fall in love with a female millionaire. What then? Shall I cut off my parents bloodline, by failing to procreate? My brother can't have kids. EdB, I understand the legal concerns that you present, but I consider them nominal when the lifeblood of others is at stake. Thanks for the prayers. Meanwhile, I'll endeavor to fulfill the following scripture, with or without your support. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
202 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135204 | ||
Searcher, That's fine if you're done with this thread. I believe that I've asked a number of valid questions and that you've been unable to answer them. That's fine. We don't all have the answers. I feel that a lot of what you've just said here is completely unfounded, but it seems that you're bowing out of this discussion. It seems to me that you did little more than ask me to back up my views, after failing to back up yours. Again, that's fine. If you decide to validate the context of the scriptures that you've offered in the future, I will be open to discuss them. Please remember that context is very important, and it falls far short to simply throw a verse or two at someone and tell them that they're wrong, and then stomp off angry, if they don't immediately see it your way. And as per your parting comment regarding Genesis chapter 2: The Law of Moses did not come into effect until God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on the mountain. Likewise, the events in Genesis did not occur under the Law of Moses (although there were other law jursidictions that came about several chapters later). The book of Genesis was not considered to be part of the legal Torah, until centuries after the events in Genesis had occured. Have a good day. :) - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
203 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135205 | ||
Doc, I apologize if we are not adequately communicating. It seems that we just have very different views. And in such case, it would likely serve well to examine the scriptures together. Since we each come from different backgrounds, it would be understandable if we interpret things differently. What is patently obvious to one of a certain religious background, may actually be quite antitethical to one of a different religious background. This is why so many varied denominations exist. I'll go through each of the verses that you've provided here, and attempt to ascertain contextual applicability with the scenario that I have presented. Then I will respond soon enough with an interpretive breakdown of each verse that you've provided. Fair enough? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
204 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135207 | ||
EdB, You stated: 1. "You said church ordained marriages are not illegal. Do you know of any church that does marriages without a marriage license?" Why yes I do. A family member of mine was joined in a homosexual marriage under church authority. Church-ordained marriages are not illegal. Does this answer your question? Perhaps you've heard of this very thing. 2. "In Florida the law clearly states a marriage license must be obtained and signed for the marriage to exist. Now if you want to call something outside this a marriage fine, but what your really after is a redefinition of marriage as defined by the law of the land." What I'm really after is a strictly scriptural definition of marriage, without secularly-derived definitions. I am not looking for a redefinition of marriage, but rather a pre-existing biblical definition of marriage. Again, all I've been provided by posters in this thread thus far are secularly-derived definitions. 3. "You said I suggest you play the hero and champion this cause but you said it could take your life time. Perhaps but if no one begins it will probably never change." I have not been called to this role of changing the laws of the land, nor do I desire to change them. I currently have other life priorities. 4. "You said no insurance polices accept existing medical conditions and that is simply not true. Many major employers have policies that cover a new employee and his family or an employees new spouse without any conditions on preexisting illness." I am aware of the insurance policies which you mention. The obstacle, however, in my obtaining such an insurance policy is that I must first work for the company which offers it. These companies do not hand out these exclusive insurance policies to individuals who do not work for them. I do not work for these companies because I am medically disabled, thereby disqualifying me for coverage. These policies are only available to the working sector. I currently work a limited number of hours for one company, but the insurance policy that you describe is only available to management personnel there. Management personnel must work full-time. I cannot work full-time, because I am handicapped. This is why government medical funding has been provided to me, so long as I am unmarried by the government. These policies which you mentioned are not available to all. Rather, they are selectively targeted. 5. "In your discussion on this every time someone has presented a valid point you add another twist to the story. Such as your brother is infertile, etc. Frankly that tells me your not looking for an answer your trying to champion your case here. That is okay too. Look your in a lousy situation, I agree. The law doesn’t seem fair. I agree." What you are overlooking is that the twists to my story are real life experiences. You may indeed find it easier to invalidate my real life experiences, by entertaining the false notion that they do not affect me, and I am simply trying to champion my cause. However, I suggest that if you cannot palate the twists of my life, then you should probably refrain from offering counsel to me in my situation, insofar as it will fall far short. In the end, however, I have ultimately requested scriptural representation for your stance, as opposed to politically-based legal definitions of marriage. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) (continued) |
||||||
205 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135208 | ||
(continued) EdB, You further stated: 6. "You keep referring to Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. As God’s ideal for marriage. If you look closely it says nothing about the any church involvement either. If that is what you consider marriage fine. But again I remind you that is a redefinition of the term marriage as defined by the law of the land. You can call it anything you want but that does not make it a marriage." Again, I've only asked for a biblical definition of marriage without secularly-based governmental references. Nonetheless, I do believe that Adam and Eve had a valid marriage, even if God did not see fit to conform to the laws of the land that you suggest, when uniting them. I am greatly saddened that you seem to overlook the example of the first marriage on earth, as provided by scripture for us, when obtaining a marriage example and/or definition. Instead, you seem to rely solely on secular sources in your definition of marriage. If I ask for a biblical reference, you attest that I am looking for a "redefinition of marriage" as you call it. 7. "You said I offered some unpleasant scenarios. I wasn’t trying to paint a bad picture what I was trying to show you without a legally recognized marriage you forfeited all rights, protections, obligations and liabilities offered to a “married couple”. In fact you and your ‘wife’ would be nothing more than two single people." Insofar as Adam and Eve did not themselves reside under your secularly-derived definition of marriage, would you also term them as two single people? Again, why not go to the bible here for your marriage definition, as opposed to extra-biblical sources? Is the bible inadequate to define marriage for us, that you should rely on the government to define marriage for you? 8. "Also know if you live together for 7 years you could be declared common law. I’m not a lawyer nor do I pretend to know all the law but I believe this can be initiated by the state should they feel your attempting to circumvent the law." That's fine. I'd have to investigate the legalities of common-law further. You seem to have already painted me as a deciever of the government, when I have broken no law. I have in no way attempted to circumvent the law, nor do I intend to, but you are free to imagine me to be a circumventer of law if you wish. I do consider it a projection, however. 9. "In a word God does not define marriage other than setting these conditions or obligations. Genesis 2:24, Proverbs 2:17, Malachi 2:14, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Mark 10:9, Luke 16:18, John 4:18, Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Corinthians 7:11, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Ephesians 5:28, Ephesians 5:31" I'll go through the verses here, and attempt to see if they have anything to do whatsoever, with the secularly-derived definition of marriage that you've elaborated on. Afterwhich, I'll get back to you, with a verse by verse analysis. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
206 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135242 | ||
EdB, I will respond to you by point. If you don't wish to respond to me, that's fine. I'll leave that up to you. If you do respond to me, however, as you have done here, I will be sure to respond back. If you do not respond, then I will not respond back. Fair enough? - 1. "Any body that marries homosexuals is not a church. they may call themselves that but I assure you there are not." I'm not quite sure what you are considering to be a church here. The government recognizes many non-Christian organizations as being churches, even granting them not-for-profit status, based on their pursuit of collective worship. If we shall define what marriage is simply by what the secular state says, should we not also define a church by what the secular state says it to be? You are choosing to adhere to one state-based definition and not another. That's assuming that we've both thrown the bible out the window here, and done away with discussing scripture for the sake of secular argument, as you've done. 2. "There is no scriptural description of marriage other than what has already been offered you. However since the Scripture repeatedly admonishes us not to violate the laws of the land we have to look to those laws for further definition of the marriage. And as long as those laws do not force us to violate God’s law we must uphold them." You are looking to extra-biblical definitions of marriage. Rather than looking to the secular state to define marriage, you would've been more biblically-based to look to the Old Testament Law of Moses. The bible does indeed speak of the legalities of marriage, and it does say volumes more than what you've offered me. These verses are contained in the Old Testament Torah. I don't see it as feasible that you would toss aside the Law of Moses, and yet quote the laws of the land, as if they were bible. 3. "You know best what God has laid on your heart. I retract that suggestion as not to upset you further." Thank you. My priorities are on medical treatments. 4. "I mentioned the insurance issue in reference to your future wife. Possibly someone you meet would have such insurance and your medical needs would be met. I didn’t mean you should get another job." That'd be a nice benefit, but God forbid I should fall in love without the right insurance policy. Then I'd have to tell God that He sent me the wrong one, and nix a love relationship over money. 5. "I understand life and it’s twists having lived it myself for 57 years. What I meant was every time a point is made you offer a counter point. It appears your intent is to debate this rather than seek advice." And have you not offered counter-points here? And most of them are secularly-based. If you wish to present a concise scripture unit, and then verify it's applicability to a specific situation, I'd be glad to hear it. Instead, however, you've told me that the bible says no more about marriage, than the verses that you've offered me. When indeed the bible has volumes more than what you've offered me. You've merely set aside what the Old Testament Law of Moses says about marriage, and have rather appealed to the secular state. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) (continued) |
||||||
207 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135243 | ||
(continued) EdB, You further stated: 6. "I too believe Adam and Eve had a valid marriage. I also think if they had lived in the United States they would have also obtained a marriage license. Again God’s criteria has been expressed here by me and others. In it God states his requirements for marriage which you can meet without a marriage license. However God also stipulates we adhere to the laws of the land as long as they do not require us to violate God’s law. With that in mind, every state requires a marriage license to be obtained before a wedding ceremony can legally be performed." This last statement is accurate. The problem is that when the laws of the land incur bodily injury to the medically-handicapped, the spirit of the law is then abandoned. For this reason, I must fall back upon the scripture, which I view to be higher than the laws of the land. And we see countless instances in scripture when the saints break the laws of the land directly in the New Testament, and whole legal systems are condemned of God in the Old Testament. I believe that you have used Romans 13:1-7 as an illegitimate basis to turn the laws of the land into a religion. If you wish to appeal to law as the basis of your religious beliefs, then why not turn to the Old Testament Law of Moses, which was directly administered through angels? Why do you instead appeal to the extra-biblical laws of man? 7. "I offered the scenarios to point out that there were legal issues that are effected by marriage. Whether you like it or not that is a fact. If you believe you can live around those issues fine. However as many homosexuals are learning there are things you can’t that is why they are fighting so hard to redefine marriage." I'm stuck with that one. I have no power there. 8. "God’s word says don’t let you good be spoken evil of Romans 14:16. Most consider it wrong to intentionally circumvent a law or situation. The laws says if your married, your benefits will cease, right or wrong that is what you claim the law says. For you to be consider yourself married and still collect those benefits puts you outside the law. While you and I may consider that law very unfair and thus wrong it remains the law. Until that law is changed and you consider yourself married in any form and you still collect your benefits your breaking that law. What else can anyone say?" So what does the Law of Moses say? You've again elevated the laws of the land above the Old Testament scriptures. If you appeal to the law to make your religious case, why not appeal to God's law as ordained in scripture, rather than appealing to the secular laws of man? 9. "Reighnskye please don’t get back to me. We both know what is right and what is wrong. We both know the answer to your question. Yes the situation as you stated it is unfair, the whole thing stinks, and the law needs to be changed. However we both know that if you live as man and wife you and consider yourself man and wife by whatever means you justify it, then your man and wife and the law says if your married you no longer qualify for disability benefits." You seem to be under a falsified impression that if you believe a certain way regarding law and morality, that others must also. But again, you shy away from using a strictly biblical basis, and conversely resort to an appeal to secular authority to make your religious claims. Rather than present to me your secularly-based definition of marriage, why not present what the bible says instead? The bible does indeed address the legalities of marriage, beyond what you are professing here. - And for the record, I will still get back to you with the verse references that you provided, as this forum is moreso intentioned for biblical discussion as opposed to secular discussion. Again, you need not respond, if you don't wish to. Just please don't find it amiss if someone doesn't interpret the scripture the same way that you do, or if they don't rely upon the secular state over the Law of Moses for the definition of marriage. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
208 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135393 | ||
Doc, I had submitted this follow-up as a new question, but I guess it was deleted, for failure to conform to one or more if the site policies. I'm not sure if it will be deleted from here as well, but here goes, I guess. This is a reproduction. I apologize if you don't interpret it as biblical, but I believe that it is. Such is not meant to be disrespectful towards your views on marriage: - I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
209 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135394 | ||
EdB, I had submitted this follow-up as a new question, but I guess it was deleted, for failure to conform to one or more if the site policies. I'm not sure if it will be deleted from here as well, but here goes, I guess. This is a reproduction. I apologize if you don't interpret it as biblical, but I believe that it is. Such is not meant to be disrespectful towards your views on marriage: - I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
210 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135645 | ||
Doc, I'm not aware of any moral "law" that exists within our universe, beyond what people write down in law books. I believe that there are divine universal "principles" which are above any of our man-made moral law systems, but these "principles" are not the same thing as "law". I am not a believer that there are any moral laws existent within the higher spiritual realms. I believe that moral laws are only existent in the lower mortal (earthly) or possibly hellish realms. I believe that when divine love and truth are cognized in the higher spiritual realms, that the lesser carnal consciousness, dominated by moral laws pertaining to sins, will fade away. Law consciousness brings sin consciousness, which plummets the soul into death. But Christ came to wash away the consciousness of sin, which acts as a destroyer of the soul. I suggest that there is no moral law in the spiritual realm. Moral law is only fit for sinners and fallen angels. - Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
211 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135663 | ||
Doc, Prohibitions are laws. Laws restrict and condemn, no? Laws concerning lying, murder, stealing, coveting and such. All these make reference to sin. Indeed, the moral law (as demonstrated in the Law of Moses and partially represented in secular government) demonstrates the justice of God upon a sinful and fallen humanity. But moral prohibitions (laws) such as lying, murder, stealing and coveting are not remotely necessary in a spiritual place where there are no sinners. The God of Law (whether it be the Law of Moses, "moral law" or secular law systems) only manifests to a fallen humanity, who live in a morally corrupt society. Conversely, the God of Love is everywhere. PS. I'm not saying that there are multiple "Gods" here. Rather, I'm saying that God appears differently in different realms. God can appear rather ugly to sinners, but sinners cannot see God's truest form. The God of justice and moral law is merely a shadow of the God of love. This veil is removed in Christ. Although legal prohibitions (moral law, secular law, Law of Moses) are necessary to keep the sinful soul in check, no such laws ever apply to a regenerate spirit. From what source shall we find our truest identity? - 1 John 4 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
212 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135670 | ||
Doc, And....? I don't quite get your point. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
213 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135712 | ||
Doc, Well, thank you for expounding this time at least. I hope you're not just attempting to amass a large quantity of posts with your overly brief answers. Some people here are focused on actual discussion. And I'm not aware that you've ever mentioned antinomianism to me before. Are you suggesting that I am secretly an antinomianist? Why don't you enlighten me? But please do so with a bit of scripture this time, if you would. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
214 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135718 | ||
Doc, You stated: "I've advised you before, and will continue to do so: You need to familiarize yourself with antinomianism. That is the theological position you are taking, although you haven't yet articulated its strongest arguments." Are you suggesting that I am a heretic? That is what the term antinomian asserts. I'm sorry if your religious schooling maybe taught you to categorize people, who believe differently from yourself, into small concise boxes. I don't believe that such befits such an intelligent person as yourself, however. Here is the definition of antinomianism. This belief system is not consistent with my own. Please don't project. - "Antinomianism in Christian theology is a pejorative term for a heresy that teaches that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. It comes from the Greek word nomos, which means law. No Christian or pseudo-Christian group calls itself "antinomian," though some Christian groups level this charge against others. Often those accused of being antinomian level the counter-charge of legalism against their accusers. The controversy arises out of the Christian doctrine of grace, the forgiveness of sins and atonement by faith in Jesus Christ. If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward of obedience? St. Paul of Tarsus, in his Epistles, mentions several times that we are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by our own good works, "lest anyone should boast." Paul also said that Christ set us free from the Law of Moses, the Torah. He invariably goes on to say that sins remain sins, and condemns by several examples the kind of behaviour that the church should not tolerate. St. James, by contrast, states that our good works are in fact necessary for salvation. There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism. The charge may represent the fear that a given theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assist him in leading a regenerate life. Doctrines that tend to erode the authority of the church and its right to prescribe religious practices for the faithful are often condemned as antinomian. The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to government and established authority. The first people accused of antinomianism were found, apparently, in Gnosticism; various aberrant and licentious acts were ascribed to these by their orthodox enemies; we have few independent records of their actual teachings. In the Book of Revelation 2:6-15, the New Testament speaks of Nicolaitans, who are traditionally identified with a Gnostic sect, in terms that suggest the charge of antinomianism might be appropriate. Roman Catholicism tends to charge Protestantism with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone, and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate sacramental liturgy of the Roman church, and its body of canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles. Charges of antinomianism have also been bandied about within the Protestant camp as well; Martin Luther accused Johannes Agricola of antinomianism and rejecting the notion of a moral law; other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. Calvinistss have also drawn charges of antinomianism. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of New England. Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical effect. - Fact-index.com financially supports the Wikimedia Foundation. Displaying this page does not burden Wikipedia hardware resources. This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." |
||||||
215 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135719 | ||
Colin, You stated: "how is God's greatest attribute not love, but holiness?" Exactly. Sounds quite a bit like personal conjecture. - 1 John 4 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
216 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135740 | ||
Colin, Thanks for your response. Actually, I'd like to hear him answer your question too, insofar as he was attempting to respond to my original question at the beginning of this thread. I appreciate your question, due to it's brevity and conciseness. It's a simple yet practical question. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
217 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135748 | ||
Doc, Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware before of where you were getting your sources. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
218 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135754 | ||
Doc, Again, thank you. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
219 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135757 | ||
Colin, Thank you for your concise biblical basis. This is what I was hoping for at the beginning of this thread. Very succinct. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
220 | Romans 2:14-15 commonly mutilated? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Reighnskye | 133425 | ||
Doc, When you say that you've never heard of the interpretation that I'm suggesting, what specifically in my statements are you referring to? I do agree with you that Paul makes it extremely clear, throughout the book of Romans, that we are all condemned. It just doesn't require a knowledge of the Law of Moses, to come to this conclusion, as per the verse reference below. - Romans 2 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; - Here we see that Gentiles sin apart from a knowledge of the Law, and that Jews sin under a knowledge of the Law. Yet every conscience stands condemned with or without the Law of Moses (consisting of the Ten Commandments and such.) I have never anywhere personally suggested that anyone has a clear conscience, but rather I have heard such a thing suggested in various church circles that I've encountered. Churches with 5000 to 20,000 plus members in Illinois. I view their doctrine as well nigh heretical. Nonetheless, the doctrine is taught by the largest Protestant congregation in the entire United States, as located in Illinois. Many other churches here have followed suit. Conversely, I am myself suggesting that Paul teaches that a knowledge of the Law of Moses is not necessary to be saved, insofar as the Gentiles of Paul's time are ignorant of the teachings of Moses anyway. What is indispensable for salvation, however, is the recieving of the Gospel of Christ. Although knowledge of the Law of Moses may have been integral for the spiritual conversion of the Jews, it was wholly unnecessary for the conversion of ignorant Gentiles. The ignorance of the Gentile is not in regards to their blemished conscience, but rather in regards to the written Ten Commandments issued by Moses. - John 1 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [14] >> |