John UK wrote: Lurker, this time around I'm halfway to understanding what you are saying. We use here the expression "it's on the tip of my tongue" when we're almost there in saying something but don't quite have the words. If I'm not mistaken, your thoughts on faith would dispel the modern mistakes of easy believism and decisional regeneration. Anyhow, if you wish to elaborate and help out John Nong, I'd be glad to hear some more concerning this. Don't worry about the need to be longsuffering; that's the Lord's work in you also, cannot be attained by effort.
Hey John, Don't have time till this evening but I'd encourage sister B to continue with her thoughts which seem to line up with mine.
There are instances of "the faith of Christ" as well as "your faith in Christ". Both, I believe, are valid renderings but the latter can't imply one "puts" their faith in Christ as faith is a feminine noun, a thing, and from that thing proceeds life giving actions (verbs). Jesus doesn't need our faith. He has His own and what we have He planted in our hearts and caused to blossom to life.
Before I run out of space again, greetings brother Observer. I've thought of you often over the months and pray all is as well as can be expected with you and yours.
John UK wrote: Bro Lurker, The expression "faith of Christ" is found in the KJV. What thinkest thou?
Now that the Republican nomination process is over, I suppose I can post occasionally without concern of being piled on by political activists.
I think your preacher friend is right, not just because it shows up that way a few times in one version. Consider:
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
His righteousness (faith), He is just, He justifies (with faith). Another:
1 Tim 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Paul was speaking of the righteous attributes of Jesus Christ by which he obtained mercy, by which he was enabled to fulfill his calling. Faith and love is in Christ. In this verse "which" (ho) and "in" (en) point solely to Christ. Because of those 2 words, even the modern versions render the same meaning.
I've written before on faith. Probably the most abused word in the bible. Its a noun. We don't "put" that possession in Christ.... He puts it in us by hearing the Word (Logos aka love God & neighbor) preached.
Marcus G wrote: Hi Lurker. I do believe in justification through Christ alone (I just don't add baptism into it). Without Him our sin would still be upon us and we could not be reconciled to the Father.
I don't want to sound nit picky but words are very important. For example, one who believes in free will theism will gladly agree to "justified by faith alone" but then go on to say their faith is their own...... a faculty innate to all mankind. The RCC will agree with "saved by grace through faith" but then go on to teach prevenient grace ie: everyone has a spark of grace sufficient to overcome sin and choose God.
So I ask again: Do you agree that one is "justified by the faith of Christ alone?"
John UK wrote: Anyway, I hope Marcus is willing to talk this over, and if he is in error it may be possible to convince him over time, rather than "turn or burn" tactics.
Me too, John. I'll check in on this thread and if there is a willingness from Marcus to discuss these serious matters, I'll help out if I can. Btw, I recall Nat from Oz also seemed to espouse similar views as Marcus.
MS wrote: Greetings brother Lurker. You were on my mind as these issues came up. Glad to see you weigh in on this.
Thank you sister,
I haven't studied the NPOP/Hebrew Roots in depth but enough to know it is playing with fire.
As an old preacher, Solomon taught:
Eccl 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
The focus of "keep His commandments" must be on the means to "keep", not on the motions of the commands. How, under the first covenant of Solomon's day, did one "keep" God's commands? Paul tells us; love fulfills all the law.
Blessings to you and yours.
. . .
Agreed. Marcus is a brother but headed off in a dangerous direction. He believes he is pleasing God by exercising carnal motions of the flesh, letter of the law. But what did Jesus say to the lawyer who inquired about eternal life?
Luke 10:25-28 What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Marcus G wrote: It appears that many have taken my apostle Paul comments the wrong way. May I declare that his writings are true and correct. Yes, they can be twisted, but they are for our edification. Let's not twist them, that's all!
No disrespect intended, but in light of your other comments this comment clarifies nothing at all.
You seem to lean to some variant of the New Perspective on Paul/Hebrew Roots so for all we know you could be telling us we are the ones twisting Paul's writings if we don't sign on to your beliefs.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Why would Paul say 7 words are one word? The one word is logos..... logos is God and God is love. Love fulfills all the law.
Touch not the unclean thing (letter of the law which kills the soul) and He will receive you.
John UK wrote: Me too, brother. If it carries on like this, I expect many others will just avoid the party political broadcasters, and let them just discuss the politics between themselves. For sure, it will lead to a spiritual downgrade, indeed already is doing so; therefore if it continues, I shall depart for more spiritual spheres until the election is over.
Reading the day's comments has pretty well topped it off for me. I may drop by from time to time to say hi to the old timers but other than that, this forum no longer is a place where serious, profitable theological discussions can take place. I'll miss the fellowship but I guess its out with the old guard and in with the new. So be it.
. . .
Thanks for the bump, sister Dorcas.
Yes, its there and as expected, both JayJay and BibleSays denied they are one and the same today.
TMC wrote: Now you think BibleSays is Geff too? You are coming off as both paranoid and prideful. Irritated or not, there are such things as courtesy and respect.
You are a likeable sister and I can accept you accidently got my comment wrong but you have no idea how tiring it gets to have the same exact thing happen at every turn day after day after day spending all your time straightening out misunderstandings that you never authored.
Here's what I wrote: "Add to that, posting as BibleSays and JayJay at the same time is a little too deceptive for my taste."
So, having straightened that mess out, which, btw, has mushroomed out to others all because of your mistake.... Did I make that statement from paranoia? No, there is proof but sometimes I withhold it to see if the party will come clean.
How many people do you know who consistently misspell a simple word like "define"? 50, 20, 10, or 1.
2/27/16 5:23 PM JayJay: "But how is sin defigned? God defigns sin."
2/27/16 6:02 PM JayJay: "I'm proposing that law must be defigned by God."
3/9/16 10:20 PM BibleSays: "Otherwise, sin cannot be defigned as sin, because His law defigns sin!"
And you lecture me about courtesy and respect? How about lecturing your cohorts about honesty?
Christopher000 wrote: Sorry to speak for you, US and Lurker, but these guys are bringing the old me back to life with their nonscense.
Its alright Chris. A couple days ago I said many Christians just shouldn't discuss politics and my opinion hasn't changed. Some. not all, seem to check their brains at the door when they enter the room. I'm very tempted to just avoid all this till the election cycle is over.
BibleSays wrote: Lurker, 1) He judged those people in the past, droping fire on their heads! Fire didn't consume Sodom on the last day! What's the deal there?
2) He judges people by His law right now, today. Otherwise, sin cannot be defigned as sin, because His law defigns sin!
I'm trying to be civil here but you either refuse or are incapable of reading from the same page.
1) Did I say the example judgments were on the last day we look forward to? Wake up and think before you type. Their judgments came on the last day for them.
2) No disrespect intended but you are way over your head. There are 2 distinct judgments in the Revelation.... both take place concurrent with the first and second resurrections aka day(s) of the Lord's vengeance. According to you, there is no need for these judgments.
You are going on my ignore list, along with Geff. You simply don't know what you're talking about and I've got better things to do with my time. Add to that, posting as BibleSays and JayJay at the same time is a little too deceptive for my taste.
BibleSays wrote: Examples: Sodom & Gomorrah, Egypt, the progeny of Cain destroyed in the flood, Babylon.
None of the above examples were under the old covenant with God. Yet why did God judge those places? Because they broke God's law!
Amen! There is a difference between being under the law (presently applicable to all mankind) and being judged by the law on the last day.
Without you saying it, I can only assume you are positing for Theonomy; that is, imposing God's laws on our secular society as a rule of life. As a practical matter I don't have a problem with it. But as a theological matter, its indefensible. That has always been my position.
TMC wrote: Whether or not the Law applies to everyone IS a theological question. And it has implications far beyond this election.
I'm not going to reply without knowing what you are attempting to promote. For example, above you state: "Whether or not the Law applies to everyone....". Define "law" and tell me if you believe all mankind is: 1)presently "under law"... 2) will be judged by the law on the last day... 3) something else.
As for Geff, its his right to quote me and comment and its my right to ignore him. I'll even go the extra mile and respect his right to be wrong.
BibleSays wrote: I hope that clarifies my position on this.
I have no issue with Gill's commentary...... Jews in the law will be judged by the law, Gentiles without law will perish without law. Examples: Sodom & Gomorrah, Egypt, the progeny of Cain destroyed in the flood, Babylon.
You're problem is to establish that the law (Sinai covenant) applies to all mankind in this present age according to your claim. And just to make it clear for any who may be wondering what this is all about....... this is not a theology discussion for the sake of discussing theology but rather a feeble defense of Theonomy by Cruz supporters.
So tell me, Bible says...... how can you go on claiming the law of Moses applies to all mankind when the very commentary you quoted doesn't agree?
As I've said several times, the OT laws applied to Israel..... the people to whom belonged the promises and covenant God made to/with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. With the NC, we Gentile Christians have better promises established on a better covenant. But no matter how you cut it, neither the first or the new covenant belongs to all mankind.
BibleSays wrote: Lurker wrote: And another thing....... its a pity you refuse to see every appeal for the defense of theonomy must be dredged up from scripture given specifically to a people who were in covenant with God. That......... is scripture twisting.
The Old Covenant, aye? Then was Paul under the Old Covenant, even though he defended the law after Christ's death, and the New Covenant began? Romans 12:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Clearly you are trying hard to avoid the point. It matters not what covenant Paul was under. What matters is the Roman Empire was NOT in covenant with God. Now bring that biblical principle forward 2,000 years.
TMC wrote: @ Lurker My mention of Duty was in reference to the sentence before: "I would rather lose after doing what I felt was right- than let evil waltz by unchallenged." I assumed you were keeping it in that context when you said you were talking about political activism not a single vote and so I agreed, noting that a single vote is in principle a form of political activism. It's also worth noting that I was describing MY position and sense of responsibility- no one else's. ...
Geff wrote: People who are to lazy to choose Godly men in the primary are to blame for us being stuck with un-Godly men in the general.
If your man doesn't get the nomination, you'll stay home and pout or vote third party come November so your infallible conscience is not defiled. But those whose misguided conscience prevents them from political activism for lack of biblical warrant are lazy and will bear the blame for an un-godly president?
Double standard much? Where does the sovereignty of God come into your perspective?
Geff wrote: None of us are saying people must be involved in political activism, or "social engineering" as you wrongly put it to be Christian.
Excuse me? My post was addressed to TMC and unless I misunderstood her, she said political activism is a Christian's duty.
Please be so kind as to allow her to answer. She's a grown woman and quite able to speak her mind without your help.
As for twisting scripture, I quoted Jesus verbatim. It's your problem if you choose not to believe it applies to us in this age when His is a kingdom of born again hearts...... a kingdom in which the unjust and filthy will in no wise enter. Let them be, He said, but you say...... No.
And another thing....... its a pity you refuse to see every appeal for the defense of theonomy must be dredged up from scripture given specifically to a people who were in covenant with God. That......... is scripture twisting.