Results 41 - 54 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: McGracer Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | 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 |
||||||
42 | Not subject to the Law? | Rom 3:31 | McGracer | 53828 | ||
Searcher, The Law was not abolished, Christ fulfilled it and the Christian is no longer under it. It is useful for convicting the sinner of their need for a Savior. I will post these scriptures again: Rom 6:14,15 - For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Rom 7:4,6 - Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Gal 2:4 - But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. Gal 3:24,25 - Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal 5:1,18 - It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Paul makes it abundantly clear that we are no longer under the Law, does he not? McGracer |
||||||
43 | 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 |
||||||
44 | 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 |
||||||
45 | Do we overthrow the Law? | Rom 3:31 | McGracer | 53791 | ||
Kalos, Of course we don't overthrow the Law. How could we, the creations, overthrow the morality of God, the Creator? The Law is useful if we use it correctly - to show unregenerate man that he is a sinner and needs a Savior. But Christians are called to live by faith in Christ, not by faith in the Law. What is the purpose of the Law? The Law was given to make us conscious of sin - Rom 3:20; Rom 7:7,13; Gal 3:19; 1 Tim 1:8-10. The Law was given to stir up sin - Rom 7:5,7-9; 1 Cor 15:56 The Law lets us know what God's character and morality is like. In doing so, it lets us know how sinful and unlike Him we are in our unregenerate state. The Law cannot justify us, impart life to us, make us righteous, or perfect us. - Gal 2:16,21; Gal 3:11,20,21; Heb 7:19; Heb 10:1 It can't do this before salvation and it can't do it after salvation either. Instead, the Law can only bring death. - Rom 7:10; 2 Cor 3:6,7,9; Gal 3:10,21; James 2:10 The purpose of the Law is to lead us to Christ. - Gal 3:1-3,24,25 So should we still preach the Law? To sinners, yes. The Law shows them their sinfulness and their need for a Saviour, Jesus Christ. Christ was born under, taught under, and fulfilled the Law. - Gal 4:4; Matt 5:17,18; Rom 10:4 This is important to know because much of our Lord's teaching was centered in the Law. The New Covenant did not go into effect until Christ's death, so He taught under the Old Covenant to show His listeners their need for salvation by faith, apart from works. And He completely fulfilled the Law. Christ has set us free from the Law. - Rom 6:14,15; Rom 7:1-4,6,18,19,22; Rom 8:2,13; Gal 2:4,19,20; Gal 3:13,25; Gal 4:5; Gal 5:1,18 Christians have died to the Law so that they can now be married to Christ. We are no longer married to Mr. Law. We are married to Mr. Grace. The Law includes the Ten Commandments. Some would say that we are no longer under the ceremonial Law but still under the moral Law. We do not have this option. If we are going to be under the Law, we must be under all of it - ceremonial, moral, and civil. We cannot pick and choose what parts of the Law we can be under. Let's rejoice that we are under grace! McGracer |
||||||
46 | 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 |
||||||
47 | 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 |
||||||
48 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | McGracer | 53782 | ||
Reasnerm, Yes, we are to leadly godly lives. And though it may look like the Law, it is grace. Paul wrote to Titus in 2:11,12, "For the GRACE of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age." It is God's GRACE, not the Law, that teaches us to "just say no." :) Just because the Christian is no longer under the Mosaic law does not leave Him without a moral compass. The Person of Jesus Christ is in us and as we abide in Him, He will morally take us to where the Law cannot. The Law says not to murder, Christ in us can love even our enemies. The Law says not to commit adultery. Christ in us can love our wives as He does the church. The Law says not to steal. Christ in us teaches us to give to those who have need. Some Christians hear that they are no longer under the Law and they think that they will go sin up a storm. While I don't deny that we CAN sin, I firmly believe the the Holy Spirit in us will grow us to where we WON'T WANT TO sin. We are now lead internally by God Himself instead of externally by a list of rules. Grace and peace to you. McGracer |
||||||
49 | 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 |
||||||
50 | 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 |
||||||
51 | 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 |
||||||
52 | 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 |
||||||
53 | 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 |
||||||
54 | Why do people try to disprove baptism? | John 3:5 | McGracer | 53484 | ||
Great post, New Creation - 2 Cor 5:17. As you have well-said, we obey BECAUSE we've been saved, not to achieve it. McGracer |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |