Results 61 - 80 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Angels | NT general | biblicalman | 229046 | ||
I suspect that the verse that you have in mind is Rev. 5.8 where the 24 heavenly elders (representing the 24 priestly courses of the Old Testament) offer the prayers of the saints to God. It is a reminder that the whole of Heaven is concerned about the welfare of God's people on earth. Are angels not ministering spirits sent to minister to the heirs od salvation (Hebrews 1.14). But we must not see them as omnipresent or omniscient. Their abilities and tasks are limited. They are angels, not divine beings. There is only One Who is always aware of all that goes on in Heaven and earth, and that is the Triune God. They are His servants to do His bidding when asnd where He says. Best wishes. |
||||||
62 | what day should the sabbath be? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229029 | ||
It should be noted that Gen 2.3 says nothing about the Sabbath. It should also be noted that there was no evening or morning on the seventh 'day'. It was a day without end. Thus the sanctifying of the seventh 'day' was not necessarily the inauguration of the Sabbath. It was rather an indication of God's blessing on the future of His creation, having finalised His creation in the previous six time periods (yom). The first actual mention of the Sabbath is in Exodus 16. Then it was fixed as the seventh day after the commencement of the manna. And it is clear that 'all the rulers' at least did not then know of the Sabbath day (verse 22). It had to be explained by Moses. And it was not based on the seventh day of creation, but on the seventh day of the gathering of the manna. It was not necessarily in line with the seventh day of creation. There is no suggestion that it was. It is true that in the ten words in Exodus 20 God related the sabbath to the seventh day of creation, but it is only used as an example. God did it thus they must do it. Scripture gives no impression that the sabbath day was observed before Exodus 16. The Sabbath thus arises out of the Mosaic Law. God blessed and sanctified the first day of the week when He raised His Son from the dead (Luke 24.1; John 20.1). This was why it changed. Was the change warranted? Certainly the early church began meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20.7). It was also the day for setting aside money for the poor (1 Cor 16.2). This would appear to suggest that it was the day on which Christians met. We must remember that while the Sabbath could be observed by Jews by special order of the Roman empire, the same was not true for Christians. Thus many Christian slaves could not observe the sabbath. Certainly by the time of Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) and the Epistle of Barnabas (135 AD) Sunday had replaced the Sabbath in many places, and even where it was observed it was not as a day of rest but as a day of doing good, following Jesus' example. But Paul had previously authorised this in Romans 14.5-6. And he had underlined it in Col 2.16. The shadow had been replaced by Christ. Thus the shadow no longer applied. After all Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2.28) and could determine how it be observed contrary to current Jewish practise. |
||||||
63 | Dreams ... Genesis-Revelation | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228993 | ||
Hi Brad Well God does sometimes communicate with people in a general way through dreams. There are a number of dreams in both Old and New Testaments which were significant (e.g. both Josephs, old and new). God spoke to Gideon through the dream of an unbeliever (Judges 7.13-15). And lower level prophets gained knowledge through dreams (Numbers 12.6). 1 Sam 28.6 appears to suggest it was sometimes an acceptable mode of learning God's will. I can therefore warn people not to take dreams too seriously, but if someone believes their dream is of God I do better to help them interpret it in a Scriptural fashion, and I am in no position to dismiss a dream out of hand especially if regularly repeated. If I do not give guidance someone else might do so to worse effect. But what I was rather saying was that she would do well, if she believes the dream to be significant, to gain a Scriptural lesson through her dream rather than seeing it as a vivid sign of the Lord's near return or a special message just for her. If a dream turns someone to considering Scriptural truth it can only be good. What I would be against would be using a dream as an excuse for doing something unusual or giving some unusual interpretation. Best wishes |
||||||
64 | who was king abijah | 2 Chr 13:1 | biblicalman | 228928 | ||
Hi Sorry not to reply earlier. I missed your post. Abijah (2 Chron 13.1), also known as Abijam (1 Kings 15.1) is described as 'walking in all the sins of his father which he had done before him' (see 1 Kings 14.23-24). 'His heart was not perfect towards YHWH his God as was the heart of David his 'father'.' (1 Kings 15.3). Thus he was not seen as a good king. On the other hand God did act on his behalf during his war with Jeroboam. Thus he was not wholly bad. Best wishes |
||||||
65 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228927 | ||
Hi Holmes You will note that all your references are to huioi theou (sons of God) not to bene elohim (sons of the elohim), and all refer to the New Testament. They are in a totally different category from references in the Old Testament to bene elohim. You have admitted yourself that all references to bene elohim (which is better translated 'sons of the elohim, spirit world' not 'sons of God') refer to angels. KJV in Psalm 8.5 translates 'elohim' as angels (which is confirmed in Hebrews 2.7). You make the mistake of thinking that elohim always means 'God'. It does not. It is also used of 'false gods' behind which are demons (Deut 32.17; 1 Cor 10.20). And it is used by the witch of Endor of spirits which arise from the earth in necromancy (1 Samuel 28.13). That was what she thought that she saw. When referred to angels bene elohim does not mean 'sons of God' it means 'sone of the nature of the elohim, the spirit world'. Satan was one of the bene elohim (Job 1.6; 2.1). He was hardly a 'son of God'. The witch of Endor thought that she saw 'elohim' arising from the earth. They would certainly not have been good angels. 'Demon' simply equates to 'evil angel' (Deut 32.17). You say the godly were destroyed by inter-marriage? Well in that case it was happening well before Genesis 6.1-4. Descendants of Seth who died in the Flood would have been up to 800 years old or more. Thus in many cases their marriages would have been 700 years before the Flood. To me the narrative reads of a fairly recent occurrence within 120 years of the Flood. And there is no suggestion of widespread polygamy. You are of course entitled to interpret as you wish. What I am saying is that the actual Hebrew usage of both the terms 'men' and 'bene elohim' point to a relationship between humans and fallen angels. Even when I may not understand it I prefer to believe what the Scripture teaches. As Satan was clearly one of the bene elohim (sons of God) are you suggesting that he was not a fallen angel? Best wishes |
||||||
66 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228912 | ||
I will only say: There are three general references to 'men' in Genesis 1-10: 'At that time 'men' began to call on the name of YHWH.' (4.25). A general usage but this clearly mainly refers to 'believers' (the godly). 'When 'men' began to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them --' (6.1). This must signify the generality of men including the above. And it is the daughters of these men who cohabited with the bene elohim (6.2). There are absolutely no grounds for this reference to 'men' as specifically referring to Cainites. If words mean anyhing it refers to the generality of men including believers. The bene elohim (sons of the elohim) are mentioned in Job 1.6; 2.1 where in both cases the reference is to heavenly beings. See also Job 38.7. 'sons of' in Hebrew signifies 'of the same character as, same likeness as ' (compare 'the sons of Belial'). Thus sons of 'the elohim (i.e. of spirit beings - see 1 Samuel 28.13) would be expected to mean 'those of the likeness of spirit beings'. In the light of this it appears to me that rather than being obvious, to make Genesis 6 1-2 refer to a contrast between a so-called godly line who are all destroyed in the Flood (apart from the Noahs), and a godless line (whose names regularly and significantly include God's name) who are destroyed in the same flood is samething like special pleading. |
||||||
67 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228890 | ||
hi John well as i think that Gen 6.1-4 does actually teach that evil angels (demons) did in some way have intercourse with women, something confirmed by Jude 6, I consider that my answer was based on Scripture. Many well accepted commentaries would confirm it. Kidner says, 'the normal meaning of the actual term 'sons of God' (bene elohim) is 'angels' and nothing has prepared the reader to assume that 'men' now means Cainites only.' He then adds 'the craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience'. He cites in support 1 Peter 3.19-20; 2 Peter 2.4-6; Jude 6; and more clearly Jewish tradition in Enoch 6.2 and Qumran Genesis Apocryphon col.II. I don't think that you can doubt Kidner's credentials as a Consevative Evangelical scholar. We may not be able to fully explain it. But it is there and quite clear. We must not hide from the difficult things in Scripture. Beside the Bible text both your and my opinions are very secondary. In the Old Testament bene elohim (those in the likeness of the elohim i.e. spirits) always refers to angels. I do not avoid diffciulties by trying to explain them away. But I have no wish to prolong the subject. It is not one of the most savoury parts of Scripture. which is why God brought about the Flood. Best wishes. |
||||||
68 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228874 | ||
Hi lionheart Not on this forum. I tried to email you but my email account did not 'recognise' your email address. Best wishes. |
||||||
69 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228815 | ||
Further to what has been said, we should note that these councils dod not start from scratch and make their decision. They sat down to ask themselves, what are the books of the New Testament which have always been accepted by the church? In the case of most of the books there was no argument. The four Gospels and Acts,and Paul's letters had never been questioned. They had always been accepted and are all found in all second century lists. 1 Peter and 1 John were also unquestioned. It is not that the others were doubted by everyone, but that they were doubted in some places. Thus the council looked at the evidence with regard to these books and then made their decision. |
||||||
70 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228791 | ||
just me thanks for your welcome advice :-)) Best wishes |
||||||
71 | Can we determine thr truth of the matter | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228779 | ||
Hi Doc Yes as a young man I sat under his ministry at Westminster Chapel on Sunday evenings for a number of years. With a group of friends we would preach at Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park, and then go on to the Chapel for spiritual sustenance. In fact I was married in Westminster Chapel. I was present when he told us that rather illuminating story. Best wishes. |
||||||
72 | Can we determine thr truth of the matter | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228768 | ||
Hi Doc, I so agree with both your recent posts. I remember Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones that great reformed Gospel preacher telling how one week he had preached a stirring and very clear and detailed message about the way of salvation. When he was standing at the door afterwards a man approached him and said 'Dr Lloyd Jones, I enjoyed your message. I was so pleased to find that you agreed with me that as long as we live a good life we have nothing to worry about.' It was a clear case of someone simply hearing what they wanted to hear. I think some people read posts in the same way. Best wishes |
||||||
73 | Can we determine thr truth of the matter | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228760 | ||
When Jesus said, 'I will guide you into ALL truth' He was speaking to His disciples. These words guarantee that the New Testament revelation is reliable. No one today is led into ALL truth (not even me lol). This is evidenced by the fact that He also said, 'But the One called alongside to help, even the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you all things AND WILL BRING TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE ALL THAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU' (John 14.26) Certainly the Holy Spirit leads us into truth today, but He is hindered by our presuppositions, church background and personal prejudice. Yes we have revelation knowledge if you mean by that the Holy Spirit illuminates the word to us. But we do not have revelation knowledge if you mean by that that we are guided in such a way that we are not in error. When Jesus thanked His Father for the revelation that He had given His disciples and followers He was not suggesting that at that stage they had been led into all truth. We know very well from what followed that they had not. What He was thanking God for was that they had appreciated the truth about Him while the great teachers were still in ignorance. |
||||||
74 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228753 | ||
Some expositors find great difficulty in what I have said. They read the account and say, ‘Paul could not possibly be describing his own life as a Christian’. But that is because they have a low view of sin (I do not mean that in any derogatory way. Most of us have a low view of sin). They see sin in terms of what we could call gross sins, the sins Paul so often lists as typical of unbelievers (Romans 1.29-32; 1 Corinthians 6.9-10; Galatians 5.19-21; and so on). But Paul had a high view of sin. He recognised that in spite of his upward climb he was not already perfect (Philippians 3.12). He still had to keep himself constantly under control (1 Corinthians 9.9.26-27). He had not yet attained to full Christ-likeness. He acknowledged that the flesh prevented him from continually loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength. He recognised that he did not always do to others what he would have them do to him (Matthew 7.12). That he came short of the full glory of God (Romans 3.23), that glory which the Holy Spirit was working to produce within him as he was being transformed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3.18). Thus he was constantly aware of the sin within that prevented him being what he wanted to be. Indeed the more holy a man becomes, and the nearer he gets to God, the more sinful that man sees himself to be. It is the testimony of holy men through the ages. We must remember that Paul lived constantly under the searchlight of God. He walked in the light, and had experiences of God of which we know nothing (2 Corinthians 12.2-4). And we should therefore recognise that he experienced God in similar ways to Job and Isaiah. He too could cry ‘now my eye sees you, wherefore I abhor myself and repent in sackcloth and ashes’ (Job 42.5-6). He too could cry, ‘Woe is me for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips -- for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts’ (Isaiah 8.5). He had no false illusions about himself. He was not just thinking of his long past when he spoke of ‘sinners of whom I am chief’ (1 Timothy 1 .15). There are few Christians who, if true revival comes, will not have to fall on their faces and cry out to God in despair. We can read the accounts for ourselves. And Paul experienced times of continual revival. His was no ordinary Christian life. Of course he did not mean that every day of his life was total failure. Indeed that is not true of anyone, even unregenerate people. He was simply saying that always he was conscious that sin was preventing him from being and doing what ultimately he should be and do. But he was presenting it in terms which would be helpful to his listeners. He wanted them to apply it to themselves. And he recognised that one day there would be an end to his sin. ‘Who will deliver me out of the body of this death (this dying body)?’. And his reply was, ‘I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord -- for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death -- God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh so that the ordinances of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit’ (7.25-8.4). They are fulfilled wholly in the fact that Christ fulfilled them wholly on our behalf, and this is resulting in our also gradually fulfilling them if we walk after the Spirit. |
||||||
75 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228752 | ||
Paul’s Self Analysis In The Light Of The Spiritual Nature Of The Law (7.14-8.4). We note that Paul now switches from the past tense, his experience of the past as an unregenerate man, to the present tense, his experience now as a regenerate man. We should note that it is a depiction of Paul as he is in himself, and especially so if he does not walk in the power of the Spirit. He recognises that he 'as he is in himself' is still fleshly, sold under sin (a slave to sin), having sin dwelling within him. In other words of himself he is helpless against sin. Left to himself he would therefore be without hope. And this in spite of being regenerate. That the description is one of a regenerate man comes out constantly. ‘I do not do what I would’ (verse 15). He wants to do good but his flesh is weak. ‘I consent to the Law that it is good’ (verse 16). He acknowledges the rightness of God’s spiritual Law. ‘It is not I who do it, but sin which dwells in me’ (verse 17). His aim is to do good, it is indwelling sin which prevents it. ‘To will is present with me’ (verse 18). His will is set on what is good. ‘I delight in the Law of God after the inward man’ (verse 22). He not only respects the Law, but like the godly Psalmist (Psalm 119.24, 35, 70, 77, 92, 97, 111, 113, 127, 143, 163, 167, 174) he rejoices in it, and he rejoices in it deep within. That Psalm is the Psalm of a regenerate man as he contrasts himself with the unregenerate. As a Pharisee Paul had respected the Law, (as interpreted by the traditions of the Elders), but it had been a burden to him. It was not something that had delighted his heart. But now deep within him he delighted in that Law. That was the difference that knowing Christ had made. Christ has given him a new view of the Law. ‘I as I am in myself serve the Law of God’ (verse 25). The problem was not that he did not want to obey God. The problem was that indwelling sin prevented it. So in this self-analysis Paul brings out the contrast between the Spirit and the flesh. On the one hand there is the Law. The Law is spiritual. It is on the side of the Spirit. It is of value to spiritual men (compare James 1.23-25). On the other there is his fleshly self. He as he is in himself is fleshly. While he delights in the Law he does not naturally respond to it. Left to himself it is a constant battle. Although thanks be to God victory is obtainable through the Lord Jesus Christ (7.25). We should note here what Paul’s purpose is. He knows that many of the Roman Christians will be struggling against sin. And having heard what he has previously said they will be saying, ‘but that is not my experience. I do constantly sin. I am constantly having to admit my sin. Although I long to be the servant of righteousness, I so often am not. I am not dead to sin. Does this mean I am not a Christian?’ Paul would have been failing in his duty if he had not dealt with this problem. But he wanted to do it gently and so he did it by describing his own experiences. I have often done the same myself, selecting experiences out of my life through which to help others. No one can accuse me of arrogance when I do that. For I am not accusing them at all. But it is my genuine hope that they will apply it to their own lives. This has caused many expositors genuine difficulties. And I will deal with that in another post. |
||||||
76 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228751 | ||
No problem. My view, and the view of most commentators, is that John is referring to the basic sin that still dwells in us as Christians. 'If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us'. We have to recognise that there is that within us which seeks to drag us down into sin. I think, however, that there is agreement among all of us that that does not mean that we need continually be defeatd by besettings sins. We can gain victory over all of them by walking after the Spirit (Romans 8.4). Indeed John makes that clear for he goes on to say that Christians, while they abide in Christ, 'do not go on sinning' (1 John 3.6). We must never make our sinful natures an excuse for sinning. If we are truly abiding in Christ we will not go on sinning. John is, of course talking about sins of which the person is aware. The Christian of long standing will see as sin what the new born babe in Christ never even considers. Nevertheless, and I gather that we all agree on this, we do nevertheless sometimes sin. We are as it were caught unawares. 'If we say that we have not sinned we make God a liar' (1 John 1.10). But it is not something we should be complacent about. If we fully walked in the Spirit we would not be caught out in this way. But the fact that sin dwells within us does explain, as you rightly say, why even at our best we know that we come short of the glory of God (Romans 3.23). We are not wholly Christ-like in every way. If we were what an amazing world this would be (although they would, of course, immediately crucify us because it would make them feel guilty. The world likes goodness in small measures). Best wishes. |
||||||
77 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228749 | ||
CONTINUATION: What then will be the cause of the victory in our new life? Firstly it will arise from the fact that grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, with the result that sin no longer reigns unto death (5.21). Secondly it arises because through Christ’s resurrection life we can walk in newness of life (6.3-5). Thirdly it is because, as a result of the fact that we have been crucified with Christ, we have put off the body of sin (chosen no longer to obey that part of our body which yielded to sin), so that we should no longer be under bondage to sin (6.6). And fourthly because we present ourselves as servants to righteousness, so that we are no longer the servants of sin (6.16). So the victory arises from the grace of God at work upon us through the Holy Spirit (5.5, 21), the life of Christ that we have received within us (6.4), our choice to put off the sinful aspect of our body so that we should no longer be under the bondage of sin (6.6), and our choice to become the servants of righteousness (6.16), that is to commit ourselves to obedience to the body of teaching that has now been given to us, so that we might be made free from sin (6.17). |
||||||
78 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228748 | ||
What Does It Mean To Be Dead To Sin? Having established the need for, and method of achieving, the accounting righteous of the sinner, Paul is now minded to refer to what it will achieve. It has brought us within the sphere of the unmerited favour of God as a result of which we are in hope of the glory of God. And he then describes the experiences of life which the sinner must go through, tribulation, etc. on the way to that goal, something which will be successful as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit as He floods our hearts with the love of God (5.1-5). Up to this point the cross, and even the resurrection (4.25), have been seen as achieving man’s acceptance with God. But now the emphasis changes. We are not only to be saved by our being accounted as righteous through Christ, but we are also to experience the power of His resurrection. ‘Much more, being now reconciled, we will be saved by His life’ (5.10). There is still a strong emphasis on being accounted as righteous through the gift of the righteousness of Christ, but there is now also an emphasis on the fact that as a consequence we will reign in life through Christ (5.17). For grace will reign through righteousness unto eternal life (5.21). So we have now seen two prongs to salvation, justification through His death (3.24-4.25), justification and salvation through His life (4.25; 5.10). We thus approach chapter 6 with the recognition that whereas sin previously reigned unto death, grace is now to reign through righteousness unto eternal life (5.21). Because we have been accounted as righteous through Christ’s death, the reign of sin has ended. Because God’s grace is now at work upon us we will, through the righteousness that God has imputed to us (compare 5.17), reign unto eternal life. The Christian life is intended to be one of victory. This now raises the question as to whether, being freely accounted as righteous by faith, we can therefore sin without restraint. Indeed, would this not result in God showing even more grace resulting in glory being given to Him (compare 3.5, 7)? Paul immediately seeks to discount this argument by demonstrating that the very method of our justification which we have enjoyed demonstrates that we are dead to sin because we died with Christ on the cross. We should note that this is not spoken to people who have a background of Paul’s teaching, but to those to whom he is as yet a stranger. Why then should he expect them to understand it? The answer can only be that it is as a result of what he has already said, that is that we are justified through faith in His blood (3.24), and that Christ was delivered for our offences (4.25). Our offences have been forgiven because He died for us. And in consequence in Him we have died, and especially have died to sin, otherwise we would still be subject to the penalty of death. Thus this is not talking about some spiritual experience that we undergo, for that has not yet been spoken of. It is not that something has happened within us that has caused us to die to sin. It is that we have died along with Christ. Thus apart from Christ we ourselves have not really died. It can only refer to the position that we find ourselves in because of His death for us. In that He died, we died. Thus in Him we have died to sin. Sin can no longer accuse us. And He will now explain that this is because we are one with Him. This is what makes His death, our death. We should note that this is not just a legal fiction. There is a real sense in which we have died, for we are one with Him. And this is true even though there is nothing in ourselves that has died. The death was His, in which we share. The experiential change comes about because we have been saved by His life (5.10). Thus our death arises from the way in which we have been justified by faith in His blood. Our ensuing life results from the fact that we have been raised with Him. Thus victory is now available because we can reckon on our death with Him, and can reckon on the life which has been given to us by God, through Jesus Christ our Lord (6.11). Thus we now know that our old man, the will to live the life that we once lived, has been crucified with Christ. And this was so that the body of sin might be done away, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin (6.6). But in what way is the body of sin done away? How could our being crucified with Christ result in the doing away of the body of sin? The answer lies in the fact that previously our bodies had been under the slavery of sin. We lived in a ‘body of sin’. But as a result of the fact that we have died with Christ on the cross, the body of sin has been done away. We have rejected that part of ourselves which served sin, so that we should no longer be in bondage to sin. Now we are living in a body which repudiates sin. Of course, it is the same body. But now it has a different direction. |
||||||
79 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228747 | ||
Hi Tim, Interestingly as you have said we both tend to come to almost to the same position by slightly different methods. I would prefer you to have said 'we are given the opportuniy to be free from the slavery of sin', because it is not in fact inevitable in the Christian for some considerable time. And while agreeing that the person is regenerate I would see him as still having sin dwelling within him, even though it may be dormant. I would also see 'dead to sin' as indicating that its dominion is potentially broken. I would therefore describe us as living in a sinful human body. Otherwise we are mainly in agreement (except on Romans 7 lol). Best wishes |
||||||
80 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228744 | ||
Hi Tim You say: First of all, I always try to start with the clear statements of Scripture, not the less clear, or even my own experience. So, I begin with Rom 6:2 'By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?' This is a clear statement. In fact, our death to sin is compared and contrasted with Christ's death on the cross. My reply: But I do not see this as 'a clear statement'. It immediately raises the question, how have I died to sin? What is certainly true is that it does not mean that we do not sin, for our whole lives are involved in sin. To sin is to come short of the glory of God, and 2 Cor 3.18 makes clear that our progress towards the glory of God is a continuous one. Thus we are all 'sinning' by coming short of it. We are told to love God with ALL our heart, soul, mind and strength, but we all fall short of that in our daily lives. It is in our sinful state impossible of achievement. Thus we are all continually coming short of Christlikeness, for He did love God with heart, sould, mind and strength. Consider how Jesus would rise 'a great while before day' in order to be in communion with His Father because He loved Him so. But He did not expect it of His disciples. He was fully aware that they still came far short of loving the Father as He did. Thus we, like the disciples, are all sinning. Do you not think that they should ALL have been arising a great while before day? Thus we must ask, what does it mean to die to sin? And the answer lies in both what has been said before, (that we have 'died to sin' because Christ died for our sins, and we died in Him) and in what he subsequently says, that we are 'drenched into His death', that we are 'united with Him in His death'. We have been made one body with Him (1 Cor 12.12-13). In consequence His death was our death. And sin can therefore no longer condemn us because in Him we have died and paid the penalty of sin. That is real, not pretence. But it does not mean that sin within us is therefore dead. We are not restored to the innocence of Adam. Our death is in no way 'contrasted' with Christ's death, nor is it 'compared' with it. Christ's death IS our death. It is because He died that we can consider (not pretend) that we have died to sin. Paul's logic is based on what has caused our justification, what has caused our being accounted as righteous in Christ. But if there is one thing that is abundantly clear, we are all still in a state of sin (that is, are still continuaslly sinning) which is why we come short of the glory of God, and is why we do not all the time love God as we should. It was because Paul knew that many of his listeners would be saying, 'but my experience is not like that. I am not dead to sin. I am very conscious of sin, Does that mean that I am not a Christian', that Paul called on his own experience in Rom 7.14-25 so as to make clear to them that all Christians, even Paul, still had sin dwelling within them. He did not articulate what those sins were because he wanted his words to apply to the condition of each of his hearers. He wanted them to be assured that, even though they might still be struggling against sin, it did not mean that they were not Christians. And he wanted them to know that there was also a way by which they could overcome their known sins through the activity of the Spirit of Christ. But be assured that all of us without exception, would, if God suddenly made Himself vividly known to us, fall on our faces in despair at our sinfulness (Job 42.5-6; Isaiah 6.5). That is one thing that happens in time of revival, a facing up to sin as never before. Indeed it would be unbearable were it not for the fact that Christ having died for us, and we having died in Him, we have assurance of forgiveness and being accounted as righteous, even though we are not. You say: When, I get to Rom. 8:11, I don't take 'reckon' or 'consider' as simply pretending that we are dead, but as a logical recognition of what Christ has done for us. My reply: Nor do any of us. We reckon on it as a fact that we are dead to sin and alive to God THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. But we do not reckon on the fact that sin is dead. We must be constantly alert to it. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |