Results 61 - 80 of 177
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Bill Mc Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Lionstrong, who is the world? | Eph 3:6 | Bill Mc | 18255 | ||
Joe, this exactly what I mean. You take what someone says and you twist it: Here is what I said: "If you see that I have grossly misinterpreted a scripture or a passage then feel free to correct me with other SCRIPTURE." What you heard or wanted to hear was that I have a 'perceived right to write anything that you want without a response from those who will disagree with you.' This is exactly why I will not debate with you. You may claim to respect the whole counsel of God but you certainly do not respect those who would disagree with your point of view. If you did, you would not twist what they say or make self-righteous remarks like "If you hold with everything that I hold to, we can be one." Jesus had many things to say to those who were self-righteous. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
62 | Lionstrong, who is the world? | Eph 3:6 | Bill Mc | 18251 | ||
Dear Joe, this is not intended to be an insult. Please do not take it as such. It is my merely my point of view. First, my question was for Lionstrong. Though, obviously, anyone can answer questions here (this is a forum, I understand that), I would appreciate hearing from Lionstrong because my questions were in response to what he said. Secondly, I am not here to debate Calvinism, Armenism or any other ism. I want to stay with what the Word of God says. If I have opinions on the interpretation, I frequently state it as such. Thirdly, Joe, I would prefer to not debate with you and I ask that you honor that. If you see that I have grossly misinterpreted a scripture or a passage then feel free to correct me with other SCRIPTURE. I will read your responses. And if your answers are scripture, I will, obviously, consider them. But if they start, Calvinism says...then don't waste your time typing. But I will not debate with you for my own personal reasons that I will not print here. This is my choice for the sake of unity and peace. Please respect that. Your 'weaker brother' in Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
63 | Body/soul/spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18249 | ||
Steve, Yes, I believe that even unbelievers have a spirit. See James 2:26; Luke 8:55. But I believe that it is, like Adam's spirit was, dead to God - separated from Him. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
64 | Body/soul/spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18247 | ||
Steve, God did indeed say when - Gen 2:17 - "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for IN THE DAY that you eat from it you will surely die." Satan echoed this - Gen 3:5 - "For God knows that IN THE DAY you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Granted, God did not say what part. But if you re-read my post, I stated that we can come to some understanding concerning what did not die. To say that it was only physical death does not line up with the rest of scripture that says that, because of Adam's disobedience, we are born dead in trespasses and sins. CDBJ has a good explanation in this thread about what 'dead' means here. I, too, think that every man has a soul and spirit. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
65 | Body/soul/spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18237 | ||
Hi There :), I do indeed appreciate your input. You bring up some very good points. Permit me to answer your questions: 1) If the number 4 view is correct, it does not invalidate the tree of life in the garden. My reasoning is that God put His divine life in Adam, but Adam (and Eve) had to choose whether or not they would keep that forever by eating from the tree of life. I believe that by God's design, man needed to make a choice considering what 'life' he would live out of. This is pure speculation, but I think that they could have chosen to eat from the tree of life and then they would have had God as their source in them forever. Instead, they chose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and chose not to remain dependant upon God and what He said. So, if number 4 is correct, God withdrew His divine life from them and they died. In a nutshell, they, on some level, chose NOT to walk in the Spirit (with God as their source) and decided to walk in the flesh (with themselves and their souls as their source). 2) If this is true (big IF), then why doesn't God withdraw His Spirit and life from us when we sin? Because Jesus paid for the complete penalty. If view 4 is correct, Adam and Eve suffered the wages of their sin (spiritual death) the day they disobeyed God. But God has designed man in such a way that he 'runs' on God. He is not designed to be self-sufficient. Only God is self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is the lie of Satan - "You don't need God's sufficiency. Do this and you will be like Him." He preaches the same garbage even now, "Do these things and you will be more godly..." The thing that made God withdraw His Spirit is sin. (Consider Saul and David.) But Christ has dealt with our sin on an eternal basis on the cross - taking it away. So now, for the believer indwelt by God, when we sin we deserve spiritual death - separation from God. We deserve for God's Spirit to leave us. Why can't that happen as it did to Adam and Eve, Saul, David? Because Christ has taken away that penalty. He took it all. So now, even though the wages of sin is death, the gift of God is ETERNAL (you can no longer lose it) LIFE. This is why Rom 8 says that there is no more judgment (condemnation) left for the believer. Why? Because the law of the spirit of LIFE in Christ Jesus has set me free from the old law that said 'if you sin, you die'. God's Spirit will never leave me nor forsake me because the ONLY thing that could make Him do so, sin, has been taken care of at the cross. But, even as a believer indwelt by the Spirit, I can still chose to walk out of the sufficiency of Christ in me (walk by the Spirit) or walk by my own sufficiency (really, from Satan's lie) and walk in the flesh. That is why Paul urges me to walk by the Spirit and I won't fulfill the desires of my flesh. But, even if I do, at some point, choose my flesh, He doesn't leave me like He did Adam. Here's my comments on the spirit/soul thingy. I believe that the spirit is the true essence, the true identity. It is the core of our being and, once it is united with God's Spirit, we are to believe out of that resource. I believe that the spirit of the man, not his soul, is his true identity. This is the true inner man, the eternal part of him. That being said, I think that the soul is the 'personality' that the spirit maifests itself through. The spirit is the essence but it 'displays' itself through the soul - mind, will, emotions. The soul (with God's Spirit as it's source) manifests itself through the body to others. Man without the Spirit of God, can only respond to his environment and others around him out of his soul - what do I think, what do I feel, what do I want? Living out of the soul resource is fleshly. But with God's Spirit in us, God wants us to live out of His sufficiency. God does not want the Christian to live out of his soul alone. What we think, what we feel, what we want, is not only self-centered, it changes from minute to minute. God wants us to live out of our spiritual union with Christ. This involves getting past what we think, feel, and want to what God says is true - His Word, Christ in us. I'm not sure about the disembodied spirit returning to God in an unbeliever. We know that the spirit can be corrupted. There are evil spirits, spirits in Hell. So I don't think that all 'spirit' is necessarily divine and returns to God. But I'm not sure on this point and your view has considerable merit. I do see that the soul can be sent to hell. I'm not sure about the spirit. Again, thanks for your post. I agree that our new birth once again allows man to reflect the Creator. Jesus Christ was the EXACT representation of the Father. "If you've seen ME, then you have seen the Father." Would that the world could always see CHRIST IN US, the hope of glory. Blessings to you, There, Bill Mc |
||||||
66 | Body/soul/spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18198 | ||
This is a good question. Though there is not a scripture as such that says that Adam's spirit died, by the process of elimination, we can achieve some sense of what happened. It really goes back to what we believe about man's make up. Let's look at a couple of possible scenarios: 1) Man is two parts : body and soul/spirit (same thing). Now we know that Adam did not physically die the day he sinned. He lived to about 900 years as I recall. So, if one holds to a two-part man understanding, the soul/spirit would have been the only thing left to die that very day. Most biblical references to the soul show it to be the seat of intellect, emotions, and will. If this is the part of him that died, it becomes a little hard to swallow because he still had intellect, emotions, and will after the fall (as did his children). Obviously, his body did start to 'die', age and grow old. But Gen 2:17 says that 'something' in Adam died that day. In fact, whatever this 'something' is, from God's viewpoint it was Adam's identity. 'You will die', God says, not 'part of you will die.' 2) Man is two parts: body and soul/spirit (same thing). But God, at creation, imparted the Holy Spirit to Adam making him, at that point, tripartate. Then God withdrew the Holy Spirit when Adam sinned because God cannot inhabit a sinful vessel. This view has it's problems because, again, God said, "You (not God or His Spirit) will die." 3) Man is tripartate: body, soul, and spirit (his own). When Adam sinned his spirit died, leaving him still with a functional (though fallen) soul and body. In this view, some say that Adam's spirit literally died, and some believe that it was still alive (to sin) but dead to God. Adam's spirit could no longer function as designed. 4) Man is tripartate in nature but is designed to have his spirit inhabited by God's Spirit. This is the view that I personally lean to although I am open to hearing other views. This view is very similar to number 3 except that it hold's that God designed man not to be autonimous but dependent upon God's Spirit (spiritual life) in Him. When Adam sinned, God's Spirit departed from Adam and, as in view 3, Adam's human spirit died to God. God, at new birth of His creation, recreates the human spirit (alive to God) and joins it to His divine Spirit once again. So that the end result is that man is once again spiritually alive and God is in His creation as designed. Admittedly, the scriptures do not prove this. I am not 100 percent sure that this is a correct understanding. What I am sure of is that our spirits (1 per person, please) have been recreated and joined to Christ's Spirit. All that being said, if someone would like to 'gently' correct me or enlighten my understanding, I am open to it. I would like to settle this issue in my mind and, unfortunately, most of the people at my church are not interested in such 'deep':) things. Nevertheless, I know who I am in Christ and, thank God, I am no longer in Adam. As always, in Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
67 | Is 'breath' physical life or spirit life | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18066 | ||
Tim, thanks for your answer. I appreciate it. Thanks for the clarification on the original words. You're right, the passage just doesn't provide us with as much information as we'd like. The only thing that I would like to add is that I believe the Image of God is the divine life of God (call it what you will) in His creation. I don't believe that the Image was the physical body. Thank God that Jesus Christ has provided a way for man to be reunited with His Creator. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
68 | Where did our souls come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18054 | ||
Sorry, dawveed. I put my post in the wrong spot. Your perspective sounds quite similar to mine. Bill Mc |
||||||
69 | Where did our souls come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Bill Mc | 18050 | ||
Dear dawveed, The Bible does not give clear, concise definitions of soul and spirit. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. Sometimes there seems to be a distinction. So, the best we can do is to research the scriptures and decide for ourselves what we believe. Tim has a very valid view and his opinion has merit. My view is slightly different but I think that it also has merit. Here is what I believe about Gen 2:7: We know that God created the plants and animals before man. As I understand it, these animals were called creatures and had what we would call souls, Hebrew word nephesh. This means that they had intellect, will, and emotions - behavior to varying degrees depending the the complexity of the creature. God created man with an animal body and a soul (behavior) but according to Gen 2:7, I believe that God, at man's creation, breathed His divine life (Spirit) into him. This made him a 'living' - alive to God - soul. So, not only did man have a body and soul (like the animals) but God gave man His life essence so that man could respond to God with love and fellowship. The animal world does not share this attribute. They have no spirits and cannot relate to God. When man sinned, this part of him, his spirit died to God. What I mean by this is that God withdrew His divine life from man the day that Adam and Eve disobeyed and they spiritually died. Thankfully, through our Lord's life, death, burial and resurrection, God can once again restore His divine life to His creation. This is why the NT often says that we, as believers, have been made alive to God - Rom 6:11; Rom 8:10; 1 Cor 15:22; Eph 2:5 and Col 2:13 - 'When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,' This 'new man' - the new creation in Christ - is created in righteousness and holiness - Eph 4:24. So our spirits are once again united with God's Spirit and alive to God, and, per my interpretation, man can, once again, be a 'living soul' with God's Spirit and life inhabiting him. Note: this is only my opinion so I, obviously, cannot support this with specific scriptures other than what I have shared. A new creation in Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
70 | Joe, what is Paul and Hebrews 'the Law'? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17996 | ||
Joe, Ok. And don't forget to respond to this note so that you're sure to have the last word. | ||||||
71 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17985 | ||
Joe, I hope the above post is humor or at least an attempt at it. I will take it as such. (Hint: we already are one, like it or not.) In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
72 | Joe, what is Paul and Hebrews 'the Law'? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17984 | ||
Joe, my faith is demonstrated by Christ performing God's works through me. Do they reflect the moral commandments of God? More than that. His works through me reflect the true nature of God upon which His moral commands are based. The Mosaic Law would tell me to not steal. The law of Christ tells me to go beyond that and give to those in need. The life of Christ in me tells me what to give, when to give it, where to give it, and who to give it to. The Mosiac Law would tell me not to commit adultery. The law of Christ tells me to love my wife as Christ loves His church. The life of Christ in me shows me how to do that by leading me. These are two examples of how the life of Christ fulfulls the law of Christ and makes the Mosaic Law pale by comparison. Joe, no offense, brother, but if you would like to discuss this further, then click on my name and email me. I would be happy to discuss it with you one-on-one through email but I am not going to argue via this forum. I hope you understand. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
73 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17946 | ||
Dear Tim, maybe they are not divisive for you. But they are for me. I sit here trying to figure out how to get my point across to Reformer Joe rather than trying to address JohnK's questions and insecurities. I'm ashamed of myself and my actions. And, I, personally have grieved the Holy Spirit with my insensitivity. I did not come to this forum to argue 5 points of Calvinism, the eternal security issue, or anything else. I came with hopes of getting some of my questions answered and, maybe, helping a few others. Too often, I just digress into arguing with fellow believers. I'm going to sign off for a while until I've prayed about this and I'm a little more mature. Take care and God bless you, brother Tim, Bill Mc |
||||||
74 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17940 | ||
These labels indeed are convenient. They just are not scriptural. How are they edifying or unifying? Paul's remarks still stand. The followers of Apollos, Cephas, Paul, etc. would have used the same exact arguments i.e. they help others to understand whose (men's) teachings I adhere to. As for Paul, he had more teaching credentials on Old Testament Law than anyone on this forum, and he still insisted on preaching Christ and boasting solely in the Lord. Oh, well, the Lord did call us sheep...Baaaaaa! | ||||||
75 | Joe, what is Paul and Hebrews 'the Law'? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17927 | ||
Joe, here's my thoughts: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Joe, you said it yourself, Christ did fulfill it. He could not allow it to pass away UNTIL He fulfilled it. The key phrase here is not 'until heaven and earth pass away,' the key phrase is 'until all (of the Law) is accomplished.' And Christ did that. 'Then why do some try to annul God's moral commands?' I do not try to annul God's moral commands. They do serve a purpose. They show sinners God's righteous standard and how far they fall short of it. But as a Christian, you are not under the Law, you are under grace and the law of Christ. As far as dismantling the Law, I am supporting no such thing. God's moral requirements both are encapsulated in the decalogue, but also pre-date the law as well. His moral requirements for humanity extend back as far as the garden, long before Moses came down from Sinai. Paul even mentions this in Galatians: 'If God's moral requirements only exist in the form of the Mosaic Law, we not only have the question of those who pre-date the Law, but also those who lived afterward but were not under the Law of Moses (i.e. the Gentiles).' True, God's moral requirements existed before the Mosaic Law. Why? Because they are a reflection of who He is. 'Therefore, only the Jews were "under the Law" in the first place, in the Mosaic sense.' True, so if you are a Gentile, what are you doing under the Mosaic Law? 'However, we are all accountable to the moral law of God, which is seen and expressed clearly in the Law of Moses, but also is eternal.' True, and none of us can keep it perfectly. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory - Rom 3:23. 'Why do you contend that when Christ died and rose again that the moral requirements of God, which did not begin at Sinai, ended at Calvary?' I didn't. I said that we are under the law of Christ which surpasses the Mosaic law by miles. Christ fulfilled the complete moral requirements of God at Calvary. And He will continue to fulfill the law of the Spirit of life in us as we abide in Him. But this is not to acheive righteousness or sanctification. We have already been made righteous and sanctified in our spirits. We obey God's moral laws not to achieve or attain a status, but because we have already, in Christ, attained. Will Christ in you, the hope of glory, break God's moral law? I don't think so. But if you do, if you sin as a Christian, does that invalidate what Christ in you has done? I don't think so. Grace is what leads us to say no to ungodliness and live holy lives. Christ in us. 'God's covenant of grace was fulfilled at Calvary,' Not true, Joe. The New Covenant of grace was established at Calvary. New covenants were established by the shedding of blood. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant (the Law) at Calvary. 'However, all humanity, as descendants of Adam, are part of the covenant of works established by God, which has never been nullified.' I don't believe so. 'The reason I am saved is that I am in Christ, who fulfilled the covenant of works for me and all who believe.' True. He did then He took it away. No one is saved by works, ever. 'One other question that would help clear things up on your perspective for me, Bill: what can I do as a Christian to honor God in my daily life that is not expressed in the Law? If the moral law passed away with the Mosaic Law, how am I to please God without obeying the moral commands found in the Pentateuch?' Faith in what Christ has done. Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. Faith, not in yourself and how well you keep God's moral law, but faith in Christ and the fact that He will, day by day, moment by moment, fulfill God's righteous requirements in you. In fact, anything that is not of faith, including human effort to keep the Law, is sin. That is why the Pharisees were condemned. If you could live every day keeping every moral law of God, then you would, indeed, be justified. But neither you nor I nor anyone else (except Christ) can do this. So what do we do? Just keep trying? No. Rest in Christ and know that because He did it once, He will continue to do it through you. Faith in Christ alone is what pleases God. Anything else is works. 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 (the Law).' It's pretty clear, Joe. Grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord, Bill Mc |
||||||
76 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17904 | ||
Joe, thanks for your reply. Thanks for the dispensationalism definition. The OT is not all performance. My prior posts have stated that all men for all time are saved by grace. On that point I think you and I concur. I don't view the OT as entirely performance but I do feel that man has a propensity to take the Law (which Jesus said pointed to Him) and substitute it for a living relationship with God. We take the sign and worship that instead of the One to whom it points. You have to admit that by the time Jesus came along, the Jewish religious leadership felt that they had no need for Christ. They were busy worshipping the Law. Jesus told them that they searched the scriptures (OT) because they thought that that was how they would inherit eternal life - by keeping the Law. Then He said that they wouldn't come to Him, even though all the scriptures spoke about Him and Moses wrote about Him, to get true LIFE. Hebrews says that the Law couldn't impart life. It could illuminate sin but it could not redeem. Paul calls the Law the ministry of death, the ministry of condemnation BUT he says, the Law is good, righteous, and holy. The problem with the Law is not the Law but US. Man could not keep it perfectly. Paul says that the Law is good if it is used properly (to point people to their need for a Savior) and that it is not made for the righteous (saints) but for the ungodly, to show them that they are sinful. Should we still teach the Law? Yes, sinners still need to be convicted of their sin. And yes, Joe, my church does have an affinity for DTS but I disagree with my church's stance on some issues - 1 John 1:9, Pre-trib rapture, 2 natures of the believer, the significance of the Lord's Supper. My pastor, as much as I love him, will say that Christians are not under Law and then turn around and preach tithing out of Malachi. So, we are all on a journey. Please understand this about my viewpoint: I am not trying to ride two horses at the same time. But, as I see it, there are 2 main 'horses' described in the Bible. The first 'horse' was a shadow that pointed to the better 'horse' that was to come - Heb 10:1. Hebrews says that the Law could not justify anyone - it couldn't make you right with God. If it can't make you right, it can't keep you right. But people, in general, would rather ride the first 'horse' because it then appears that they are the ones doing it. 'See how well I ride, watch this, aren't I a wonderful rider?' And James said that if you fall off even one time then you are disqualified. We have all 'fallen off.' You may disbelieve it, but in riding the second 'horse', I am under tighter constraints that the first. The Law said, "Don't commit adultery." The law of Christ says, "Don't even lust." The Law said, "Don't murder." The law of Christ said, "Don't hate your brother, and when you got that down, love your enemies." So people who think that 'gracers' are not under any law are misinformed. But His law is not burdensome because, as I rest in Him, He fulfills it, not me, but Christ in me. So it is not that I am trying to ride two horses. But I do believe that there is progressive revelation in the Bible. Does what Paul wrote supercede what Jesus said? Yes, in some cases. Why? Because Paul didn't really write it. He said that what he (Paul) received, he received from the Lord Jesus Himself. He wasn't taught it, he didn't go to Peter and say, "Hey, Pete, fill me in on this Jesus guy." Paul's revelation IS Christ's revelation. To dismiss 2/3's of the NT is a travesty. Most Christians know the 10 Words, the 4 gospels, and 1 John 1:9. And that is all they know. There is much more to being a believer than trying to keep the Law, immitating Jesus, and trying to keep yourself forgiven when you inevitably fail. Christ is alive and in us. We are to live out of that relationship. Will we fulfill the Law? Yes. But we will go far beyond it as we walk in the Spirit. Grace and peace to you, Joe. Bill Mc |
||||||
77 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | Bill Mc | 17877 | ||
John, I did not take your reply as harsh. In fact, I agree with most of what you said. I never implied that only the New Testament was inspired. My play on words for the Bible being divided into Old and New Testaments was just that, a play on words. However, many Christians are ignorant (not stupid, but unknowledgeable) concerning the differences between the OT and the NT. Hence you have sects of Christianity believing that everything God promised Israel is applicable to the church and that the church existed in the Old Testament. Brother, I did read 'The Answer.' This catastrophe has affected the whole world. I think that children are the least equipped to deal with the why's of an attrocity like this. But I do not feel that God is punishing America. If you do, so be it. But I find way too many verses in the NT that say we are forgiven. The hope that we need to extend to the world is not a conditional hope that if American Christians turn from there sin, then God will heal their land. No matter how you cut it, this was written to Israel. I, personally would not pray this anymore than I would pray David's prayer, "Take not Thine Spirit from me" or the Jabez prayer. To my knowledge, God never mentions America even once in the scriptures. Our hope lies in Christ alone as we live out the gospel before our fellow man. I was not trying to be insensitive to your post. I'm sorry if it came across that way. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
78 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17863 | ||
Joe, Peter was saved by faith in what Christ said to him. Jesus told him, "The words that I speak to you are truth and life." People in the OT were saved by faith in God. Many of these people believed that God would one day send the Messiah to pay the full price for their sins. They looked forward to Christ's work on the cross, while we look back to it. Their righteousness was credited to them until Christ paid the full price of redemption. Hebrews makes it clear the Christ's sacrifice redeemed them - Heb 9:15. When that price was paided, I believe that Christ took them from Abraham's bossom to heaven. OT saints were 'saved' - delivered from the wages of sin, eternal death in Hell, but I don't think that they went to heaven until Christ's sacrifice. OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit to permanently indwell them. Often, He 'came upon' them to empower them to speak or act on God's behalf. But disobedience usually made Him leave (Saul, David). God did not indwell them. And OT saints could not go running into the Holy of Holies. They were credited forgiveness and righteousness but they were not made so. We can enter into the Holy of Holies. We are now the temple of God. The temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. Peter was saved before Christ's death by placing his faith and trust in Christ. But Christ made it very clear to His disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit. Much of what Christ taught them in His 3 years of public ministry went over their heads. They were forever asking Him what He was talking about. But Christ said that when the Holy Spirit came to them, He would cause the disciples to not only remember what Christ said, but He would explain it to them. Note: I don't believe we are righteous sinners. God calls us saints 63 times in the New Testament. As bad as the Corinthian church acted, Paul called them saints. No offense, Joe, but study the NT word sinner. It is most often used of Gentiles and unbelievers. It is never used of saints, those in Christ. James does use it but there were unbelievers in every assembly then as there are now. If one think that he is just a 'sinner saved by grace,' then one doesn't fully understand what Christ died to do. Jesus didn't come just to get men out of hell and into heaven. He came to get Himself out of heaven and into men. Peace and God bless, Bill Mc |
||||||
79 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17861 | ||
Joe, I agree that sanctification always accompanies justification. God 'sets you apart' when you are 'made right with Him.' Scripture is pretty clear on this point - 1 Cor 6:11. Yes, I agree with James - true saving faith will result (if given time) in works but they are Christ's works. But I am not Reformed, I am a new creation in Christ. God didn't reform me. He crucified my 'old man' (not my father) with Christ, and caused my spirit to be born united with Christ's Spirit. My confession has nothing to do with Westminster (that I know of). And I don't think that I am a dispensationalist. Nor am I a Calvinist or Armenian. I'm AM a little frustrated with this forum's tendency to try to stick everyone into nice, neat little boxes :) but, nonetheless, if we can get past the labels, we will find many things in common if we adhere to Christ alone and sola scriptura. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
80 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17852 | ||
Joe, I forgot question number two. Yes, we persevere until the end. But we do not do it apart from Christ and His work in us. As we have received Christ (by faith), we are to walk in Him (by faith). This is not by our works. This is by His works in us and through us. We get the privelege, as Christians, of 'working out' the salvation that God has 'worked in' us. God has predestined that we walk and persevere in the works that He has prepared for us. But we, like Christ, are not to do it in the flesh. Rather, we are to depend upon Christ as He depended upon His Father. Jesus said that He didn't do any works unless the Father told Him to. He didn't say anything unless the Father told Him to say it. And then He told us, "Apart from Me, you can do nothing." This is not a passive walk. It is an active walk relying upon Christ as our total sufficiency. Sanctification is not something we do. It is something that Christ does and continues to do in us. The end result? 1 Thess 5:23,24 - "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit, and soul and body be preserved (sealed) complete without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and HE ALSO WILL BRING IT TO PASS." He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it. He does it. He does it in us and through us, but He does it. Grow in grace, Bill Mc |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |