x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 02:12:34 GMT, Byron Smith <***@gt.rr.com>
wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wx-no-archive: yes
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)
My OTHER point was, He didn't go house-to-house LOOKING in people's
closets and bedrooms and on their rooftops for SIN!!!
When He encountered it, when it was IN HIS FACE, He did something
about it.
True. But it would only take thirty seconds (or less!) within earshot of
the sermons of Christ to be confronted with the truth of God in all its
fullness and righteousness. I agree that He didn't go "house-to-house
LOOKING ... for SIN!!!" as you put it, but He didn't have to. All He had
to do was to proclaim God the Father and His truth, and the sin of all
that society would be apparent: hypocrisy, lying, cruelty, you name
it---Jesus probably touched on it.
Post by john wHe taught by EXAMPLE. IOW, one EXAMPLE sufficed for any point He
wished to make. study His numerous sermons/mini-sermons (some were one
sentence) RARELY repeat a theme, proving that God HATES repeating
Himself.
" I said it! If you didn't care enough to listen the 1st time, why
would I repeat myself?"
Hmmmm. Now that you mention it.. I never thought of that before.
I'll take that as a compliment. I LOVE to show open people new
scriptural truths. And if I may pat my back for just a sec, I did that
in seminary. Blew some profs minds! But they came to me after class
(privately) and thanked me--the student--for teaching the
teacher/scholar.
Not that it's one way. There are novices even in here who blow MY mind
sometimes. Like Larry. In some ways, he's truly a "babe' compared to
me. I've been born again over 50 years now. But babes, those with open
hearts and minds and ears and eyes can see things we old-timers miss
in our "ruts".
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wGod snapped Judas' neck like a toothpick and then smeared him all over
a dirt lot. "It wasn't pretty."
Moral? Don't mess with God! He punches MUCH harder!
You smack God in the nose, He smacks you a DEATH blow.
That is rather a more gruesome picture than I would use personally,
Sorry. As a combo professional writer (in my working days) and a
scholar of some study (40 + years amateur study with scholarly
guidance)
with that combination, I get VERY creative when I teach. Some
appreciate it. Others, who prefer the "old-fashioned hackneyed
approach their gray-haired Rev Wilson uses, find me disconcerting.
but
Post by Byron SmithI agree wholeheartedly. You don't mess with God. And one thing I
absolutely, positively ***HATE*** is the fact that people in general are
happy to exalt man and abase man.
My pastor preached a sermon on this,
and he called it (quite correctly) "God Abuse". Or, now that I think of
it, it was a part of a sermon.
been there, done that. The most abused pastor on the planet today is
Dr. Billy Graham, the person who led me to Christ at the vintage age
of 5.
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wI get the sneaky hunch you may have a bit of the Calvinist in you. I
abhor MUCH of his doctrine.
Jesus came to set us FREE!!
Not to sidetrack this discussion, but just in the interest of full
I confess to being a five-point Calvinist in doctrine. I'm not open
about it (for obvious reasons, as people misunderstand and abuse
accordingly) but I'm not ashamed of it either.
I thought so. And there's no reason to be ashamed, even though I
believe STRONGLY that Calvin was/you are VERY wrong on one point.
And I've asked half-a-dozen Calvinists this question and gotten the
exact same response each time.
Limited atonement (some are chosen, not all)
means something VERY ugly.
If God chooses some and not others, that means that BILLIONS of babies
are /have been conceived and born into the world DAMNED to hell
before they were ever conceived, and there's not a DAMN thing they can
do about it!
THAT is pure Calvinism, and it's a pure doctrine from hell. I say that
because you would not believe how many people I've witnessed to who
rejected Christianity out of hand over Calvin's Limited Atonement.
The argument--which you have said you reject, goes like this:
"I could decide to follow Christ tomorrow, or even this moment, and
pray the sinners prayer, and then spend the rest of my life serving
God and devoting my life to charity work.
Yet I die, and I wake up in hell. Why? I wasn't "chosen."
That is the essence of Calvin's Limited Atonement. And it's false.
That single teaching, known as "Classic Christianity" (a belief you
MUST believe to be a "Christian") has turned MILLIONS away from the
Faith of our Fathers.
And my point is that, even if the other 4 points (and I don't agree
with two others) are true, that one demonic teaching is like
sitting down with your wife to your anniversary dinner. She has
prepared all your favorite foods, and it's a spread fit for royalty.
However, into the huge glob of gravied mashed potatoes (which you
could eat by the pound), she has mixed a pinch of arsenic.
In spite of the BOUNTY of that delicious meal, that pinch of arsenic
will still leave you as dead as a doornail.
Calvin may have been right about 99 things, but his Limited Atonement
is arsenic in the mashed potatoes.
And those who so feverishly cling to Calvinism swear they believe
that, in spite of the implications.
Post by Byron SmithHowever, I did not get my "Calvinism" so-called from Calvin or Luther,
but from Scripture. I'm not really all that familiar with either Calvin
or Luther. The doctrine that bears the name Calvinism predates Calvin by
several centuries, at least, going back to Augustine, and before him,
Paul the Apostle, and before him, Jesus Christ Himself.
Not Jesus, and not Paul. Both taught tolerance.
Calvin did not.
And Jesus is the one who said, "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES shall not
perish..."
"For God did NOT send His Son into the world to CONDEMN the world; He
sent His Son so that .... the entire world... could be saved."
John 3:16-17
Paul added,
"If you will
1. confess with your mouth openly that Christ is Lord/and YOUR Lord
2. believe in your heart that God raised Him from the grave...
you shall be saved.
Calvin repudiated both Christ and Paul.
I therefore repudiate Calvin.
And I am tired of Calvinists (not you) telling me "only Calvinists
will be in heaven; they're the only real Christians."
My own ex-mother in law was alarmed when I said that I rejected
Limited Atonement. Her narrow minded response was, "But, John! It's
only by the GRACE of God that ANY are saved!"
I asked her if she believed in limited grace, or unlimited grace?
She had NO clue, and I got a blank stare.
"If God has unlimited grace (truth), then there's enough for every
man, woman, and child ever born. If there is a limit to God's grace
(demonic teaching), then He is only able to save a few.
I flatly reject a god who says, "I'll take you; I reject you!"
If God has the power to save ANY, He has the power to save all.
Calvin also taught (I don't recall the title of the teaching) that God
does the saving (sovereignty) and all we are is the "victims" of His
grace.
Rubbish. If that were true, He would not have taught us to "not resist
the Holy Spirit."
The only way we can resist the Holy Spirit is by having the free will
to tell God, "No."
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If ANY man hears my voice, and
opens that door, I WILL come in and fellowship with him."
REV 3:19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest,
and repent.
---> 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my
voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with
me. <---
That is an UNLIMITED invitation to ALL mankind, not a SELECT few.
MT 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find;
knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks
receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be
opened.
EVERYONE who asks receives. NO ONE is turned away.
Not according to Calvin!!!
To close these remarks, Calvin wanted a "the select few" / "us/them"
club. That is NOT what MY God wants.
Post by Byron SmithI'm not sure what parts of Calvinism in general or Calvin's doctrine in
particular you abhor,
I think you do now.
Sorry if my reply was a little out of place.
Post by Byron Smithso let me just say this: Spurgeon gives a good
presentation of full five-point Calvinism balancing the grace and
sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man to repent and believe,
while still giving God all the glory and redeemed man all of God's grace
in Christ.
If Spurgeon believed Limited Atonement, I reject Spurgeon's teaching.
Post by Byron SmithJesus Christ Himself said, you shall know the truth and the truth shall
set you free.
Yes, and He also said, "whoEVER seeks WILL find..."
Calvin disagreed.
Our freedom is in Him, and His grace is in us, and His
Post by Byron SmithHoly Spirit indwells us, and God the Father claims us for His own.
The Father claims WHO for His own?
And how can you be sure, for all your beliefs and good works, that yOU
are chosen?
What if you AREN'T chosen?
Apparently, Calvin was of the school that no man knows before he dies.
Rubbish.
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wYet Jesus did NOT preach "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"
(Jonathan Edwards)
unless He had openly arrogant sinners heckling Him. (the Pharisees)
Even the woman at the well--a 6-times WHORE-- He was kind and gentle
with.
She wasn't being AGRESSIVELY SINFUL "IN HIS FACE" so He wasn't
aggressive with her.
He JUDGED her, but it was GENTLE.
"Woman! You have had F I V E husbands! And the man you are [ shacked
up ] with now-- he's not your husband!"
And the conversation progressed VERY gently from there.
He wasn't out to GET HER ("Ah HAH! A filthy, slimy, SLUT!")
or to POUND her into the CONCRETE ( "Take that, wench!" Let me find
10 hypocrites to stone you!"")
and leave a GREASE spot where she had been.
No way!
What would THAT have accomplished?
He wanted to REDEEM her, and He did! THEN He used her to convert HER
ENTIRE VILLAGE!
Good points.
Thanks. I didn't think them up. They were kind of a "vision" if you
will. Which makes me believe we're in the last days,
AC 2:17 " `In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
--> Your sons and daughters will prophesy, <--
--> your young men will see visions, <--
--> your old men will dream dreams. <--
It just has to check out sculpturally. And I believe you will agree,
my thoughts do. I have been given (for me) new insights that no man
has taught me. They came directly from the Holy Spirit.
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wIn the end, every single one of those whom God
Post by Byron Smiththrows into hell will be forced to acknowledge His fairness and
rightness for doing so, and they'll have to do it while bowing the knee
and confessing with the tongue as well!
I must stop you. That is Calvinist BUNK. Jesus doesn't cast anyone
into hell. We choose that for ourselves. And Calvin had it DEAD wrong
when he taught that ONLY A FEW SELECT PERSONS can be saved.
This is a lot more than I want to go into, but let me try to clarify
NEVER should the Calvinist or any other Christian try to throw away the
"Whosoevers" of Scripture. They're in there for a reason, and if it's in
God's Word I believe it wholeheartedly.
Agreed. However, we may sincerely believe, and still be wrong. Just
keep your nose in that Book so that when you make mistakes, they're
little and inconsequential.
I do not believe for a moment
Post by Byron Smiththat God will turn away someone who sincerely repents and believes and
calls upon His name, and I never have.
Then you aren't a true Calvinist. I'm glad for that.
Post by Byron Smith1. First of all, God DOES cast people into Hell... Korah and his
rebellious lot were swallowed alive in divine judgment; Christ talks
also about being cast into Hell (who is doing the casting? why,
obviously the One who has authority and right to execute wrath, God
Himself!).
Semantics.
They refused to believe. That was the choice
THEY made. When God determined that they were not going to get with
it, He "terminated them" and they ended up where fools end up.
And I don't do "semantics". We're saying the same thing, just with
different words, and different emphasis.
Calvin taught that even if they HAD believed and repented, they might
have ended up in hell if they had not been "chosen" to begin with.
Post by Byron Smith2. Secondly, NO ONE AT ANY TIME will EVER be able to blame God for their
eternal torment in Hell.
Totally true.
And yet, what about those who have died without ever hearing?
(I have an answer)
And what about all the Old Testament Jews--the devout ones-- who died
before Messiah showed up?
(I have an answer for that one, too)
Their sin brings their judgment. God is just
Post by Byron Smithand fair, and His judgment is based purely on Truth and His own
righteousness.
Yep. No one who is roasting over an eternal spit can blame God. On
THAT we agree.
Post by Byron Smith3. Which brings me to the point, why is Hell eternal? Because God gave
the Law and the Law is good not evil (Romans 7:12-13, for one) but also
to show His own Holy standard, and to bring us to a state of full
condemnation under sin (Romans 3:10) because none are righteous, so that
the ONLY hope of righteousness and salvation are by faith in Jesus
Christ.
Correct. And the one about "there is NONE righteous, no not one."
Isn't "before Christ". Even with our beliefs, the ONLY thing that
keeps us from the fire is that Jesus loves us, and we trust Him.
No matter if we learned to walk on water tomorrow, and no matter if
our preaching leads 10 billion to Christ, if we're secretly atheists,
our fate is sealed.
(I've met SEVERAL theologians who didn't get born again until in
seminary)
One funy story I heard in fact, you might enjoy as a brief break. We
had a seminary prof preach at our church one Sunday, and he was
talking about being "bold in Jesus." And he gave us a personal
example. He said one day, it was sunny and warm, and he decided to
take his lunch break (from his seminary teaching) and eat in the park.
He was chowing down on his sandwich and coke when a young fellow asked
if he could sit by him on the bench. He said, "Sure," hoping for a
chance to minister to the young fellow.
Well, turned out the youngster was a seminary student who simply
hadn't encountered this prof at the school yet. The young man launched
into an evangelistic message, that was apparently a class assignment
(I've had a few of those assignements myself).
The prof listened patiently, and graciously for a few minutes, and
then getting just a bit weary that his lunch break was being
interrupted, and the boy was "barking up the wrong tree," the prof
said, gently, "young fellow, I guess you're a student here."
"Yes", the youth replied.
"Well," the prof continued, "I don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm
for the gospel, but I'd hate to let you waste your time when you could
be spending it MUCH more productively."
The student listened patiently, having been trained well. "What do you
mean?" he gently led the prof on.
"I mean, I've been a professor at this seminary for 20 years now!"
he said a bit too smugly.
The student was ready. He smiled, then chuckled, "Well, gosh, sir!
That's WONDERFUL! But don't let THAT stop you from being born again!"
God has ordained Jesus Christ ALONE as Lord and Saviour, there
Post by Byron Smithare no others and there is no other way. We stand totally condemned
under the law, so that we can hear the Gospel which points us to Christ
and Him alone as our hope and our salvation.
Here, you'd likely call me a heretic, but let me show you a "different
way."
Did the Old Testament Jews who died BEFORE Christ go to hell?
No.
They believed in His COMING.
Proof? Do you believe for one moment that those who wrote the Old
Testament, including David and Solomon, are in hell becuse they
preceeded Christ?
No.
Do you believe that someone who has never HEARD of Christ or Yhwh is
buringin in hell?
Why? If they've never heard.
I believe that we are responsible for the knowledge we are given. As
one major evangelist, Dr. Angel Martinez, put it, God in His wisdom,
knows our hearts. He knows who WOULD have believed if given the
opportunity.
And as I've said my entire adult life, I don't believe in a god who
would damn those who have never heard.
That is a Calvinist teaching straight out of hell.
"...How can they hear if no preacher is sent?..."
Post by Byron SmithBut without Christ, we are eternally without hope, because there is
nothing we can do to match the sinless perfect sacrifice of Jesus
Christ, which is eternally redemptive for those who believe. So outside
of Christ are the eternally doomed and hopeless, because without faith
it is impossible to please Him.
Agreed, to a point.
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wPost by Byron SmithOuch. Same as above concerning the word "tolerance" but I see where you
are coming from and I agree.
Good. I think with some "fringe" allowed, we agree.
(Hypocritically, but I agree nonetheless).
Here, you lost me. My hypocrisy, or yours?
(and I think you used the wrong word.
No, I used the right word. I was speaking of my own hypocrisy. I know to
tell the truth in love, but do not do it. However, because I agree it
should be done, and I don't do it like I should, this renders me guilty
of hypocrisy.
Ah ha! Guilty as charged! But then, I've heard for many years, only
the hypocrites will be in heaven. The perfect ones will all be in
hell.
Post by Byron SmithPost by john w"Hyper" is over-critical; "hypo" is under-critical.
Didn't know that about "hypo". Thanks. That's what I am, under-critical
of myself.
"hyper" kids are kids too full of candy who have too much energy.
"hypo" glycemia is low blood sugar, one of my ailments.
"hypo" dermic needle, goes UNDER the skin.
(easy to remember memory tricks; transfer facts you DO know to
information you don't know)
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wPost by Byron SmithHere's the thing: God gave that same law (under the old Covenant) so it
has to be righteous if its origin is God.
No. I don't recall any scripture that says the law is righteous. It
was intended as a GUIDE to righteousness.
The law can only GUIDE us to righteousness, and tell us the standard.
Romans 7:9-12 basically. The Law is a guide to righteousness because it
in and of itself is Holy. In other words, the only way to be perfectly
righteous in God's sight is to be perfectly holy, and the only way to be
perfectly holy is to follow the standard of holiness, which is the Law.
I may have to concede that point. Now who is teaching whom?
;-)
BTW, if I hadn't told you previously, I love to learn almost as much
as I love to teach.
There are many in here who say I am not teachable or correctable. You
have just seen that is not the case.
I'm merely a hard nut to crack becuase I've been at it so long.
Post by Byron SmithOf course, no one can do that, so ALL fall guilty under the Law and are
condemned. So no one can truly withstand God's justice in its purest
form.
Yep.
It would blast us all away with more force than a hydrogen bomb,
Post by Byron Smithleaving only a towering mushroom cloud of righteous wrath and
indignation behind in our place.
Now I"M saying "ouch". You are as good at metaphor as I am.
I am speaking, of course, here only of
Post by Byron Smithliving without faith in Christ, which would require perfect obedience to
the Law, which can be safely stated that no one outside of Christ has
kept, so all are guilty.
Well, Paul claimed perfection, until he met Christ.
Post by Byron SmithHowever, God Himself approves of the Law and calls it Holy because Jesus
Christ kept it perfectly and fulfilled the Law. He did not do away with
it. His righteousness is perfect and untainted with sin even in thought.
And as believers with faith in Christ His righteousness is imputed to
us, bought and paid for with His own blood. He is the substitutionary
sacrifice, who both redeems us by His righteousness, and pays the
penalty for our sins taking them upon Himself.
But like the rich young ruler who asked what he must do to be saved...
Jesus said you know the commandments (and listed certain ones, probably
the ones he could admit to have kept perhaps), keep them. He said he
did, and had since his youth. So here both of them stamp their approval
on the Law itself, and that it's of God.
Then Jesus gently nailed Him with a well-focused and revealing question.
I'm sure His tone was soft, but His request had all the delicacy of
being impaled with a six foot spike. He told him to sell all that he had
and come, follow Him. Right there the idolatry of the rich young ruler
was revealed, and his covetousness. He didn't truly desire or seek God
and the things of God.
Funny you brought it up. I was in an acting group at church a few
years ago. I happen to have had some professional acting training and
experience, so I was asked to do a special part. I was given the part
of Nicodemus, the fellow you're referring to.
"I snuck out to see Jesus late one night, since I was a member of the
Sanhedrin, and I couldn't risk being seen with him. After all, I had
my reputation to consider.
But my sneaking to see him didn't bother Jesus at all. He didn't say
one word about my overt hypocrisy.
And what He taught me that night blew me away. Here I was, one of the
leading scholars and teachers in Israel, and this itinerant preacher
became my teacher.
Here was a man who healed the sick; he restored sight to the blind!
Some say he even .... raised the dead... yet he took time for me.
And... that very night... he raised me from the dead as well.
He died for me, and now I am preapared to live for him.
etc.
Post by Byron SmithOK. I'm rambling. I'm tired and will have to give this more thought.
That is fine.
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wBy your thinking, Satan is righteous, since he originally emanated
from a righteous God. See the error?
I think so. But I'm not entirely sure. Because God created Satan, and
everything that originates from God must be good, Satan must then be
righteous...that is the reasoning, right?
Yep.
And that is one of the arguments that the skeptics use.
The answer is, Free Will. Lucifer had it, meaning the angels have the
choice. We have it, which Calvinists (you?) find a HARD pill to
swallow.
OK, if that's so, yes
Post by Byron Smithdefinitely that cannot be so, if it was so simply stated.
One of the things I have learned from
1. debating in college
2. journalism school
3. life
If you can break it down to its simplest components, you can usually
find out why it's "broken" or "how it works."
IF something you've heard doesn't work "in the extreme case", it's a
good best it's not true.
One EXCELLENT example from the real world. Communism.
When Marx and his boys invented "Pure Utopian Communism", it was
billed as the perfect society. The government owned all machinery and
industry, all utilities, and each person contributed "as best he
could" and was rewarded with an equal share of the produce, whether he
produced 1 widget a day or 5.
Communism fell apart because it's never been done successfully.
(becasuse it can't)
Communisim fell apart becasue Joe looks over at Bob, and sees Bob
taking an extra hour for his lunch brak to "goof off" because he's
going to be paid the same 5 drakmas per day whether he makes 5 widgets
or 50. Joes get's pissed off because he's producing 25 widgets to
Bob's 5, and he's getting the same 5 drakmas a day.
There ended up being too many Bobs slacking off, and too few Joes who
were conscientious.
Taken to its extreme, Communisim was obviosly doomed. And it's
Capitalism and Democracy that have feed the world and defended the
helpless for the past 200 years.
Post by Byron SmithBut notice what Scripture says. In Ezekiel 28:15, which I believe speaks
of the King of Tyrus, but I believe spiritually refers to Satan, because
the language used there is spiritual and heavily uses metaphor if merely
referring to a man alone, but I believe Scripture's purpose was to show
his (the king's) likeness to Satan. And the verse says he was perfect in
all his ways until the day that iniquity (disobedience to God;
rebellion; sin) was found in him. Satan was originally created Lucifer,
and was perfect in all his ways until his iniquity and rebellion.
Likewise, the Law is perfect and Holy and God, because it agrees with
God.
You win. I find it difficult to see the inanimate "theory" being
righteous. But God is not man, and His ways do not have to make sense.
Its origin is of God, its content from God, and its focus is God.
Post by Byron SmithThe ultimate measure of Holiness can only be God Himself. And God gave
the Law to us as a righteous standard of human worship and obedience to
God, and conduct in society and behavior to others. But it brings death
and condemnation upon us because we cannot help but fall guilty under it
and have no hope whatsoever. The law itself is good, and points out our
rebellion and iniquity against God. And it also brings crashing to the
earth every false hope and false religion because it allows no
imperfections in obedience, no forgiveness, no mercy, just perfect (and
deadly as the condemnation of hell) justice. God crushes our false hopes
and religions, so that we have no solution of our own, and then presents
His one and only solution: Jesus Christ. And He redeems us not by doing
away with the Law but fulfilling it and then crediting us with His
righteousness, and "debiting" Himself with our sins. But at no time does
He condemn the Law or trample it, but He satisfies the righteous wrath
of God, and gives us sweet mercy and grace bought and paid for with His
own blood.
Post by john wPost by Byron Smithbecause Jesus is God,
Yes. Many don't quite get that. "God in flesh."
Oops. My bad. I didn't ask the right question. Somewhere you say (I
think) that Jesus is not the Old Testament God.
Correct. Jesus is the name of the MAN who was God in flesh in theNEW
Testment. It's semantifal, but the point is, you won't find any
mention of the man "Jesus" in the OT. However, you will find NUMEROUS
references to His pre-Incarnate self, the Son, in the OT.
A hair's difference, but one that skeptics will nail us on.
However, since His Incarnation, Jesus IS now eternal, and He appears
in Revelation in the Throne Room.
But surely He is,
Post by Byron Smithbecause He says that if you've seen Him, you have seen the Father, and
also, that before Abraham was, I AM.
Again, it's a technicality. Here, he's not claiming to be merely
"Jesus." He's identifying Himself as the Father in flesh. That is,
this is a "Messiah revealed" text.
I don't think you're trying to say
Post by Byron SmithHis identity is different,
not exactly.
or deny the Trinity, right?
No no no. One cannot deny the Father/Son/Holy Spirit as One and be a
Christian.
Because though He
Post by Byron Smithis a different person, He is the same God, because there is only one God
in essence.
I get very uncomfortable discussing "what the Trinity is", becuase in
50 + years, I've heard nothing but arguments about it, even amongst
the scholars. The reason? God is not definable. We can know some
thigns, but we will never, in flesh, know Him completely.
One of those "mysteries" the Bible speaks of is the Trinity.
We can know things ABOUT the Trinity, but to know "them" INTIMATELY,
uh uh! That is like trying to put 50 gallons of pudding in a 1 oz
desert cup.
I believe Dr. Walter Martin described it best.
God is Father = Son = Holy Spirit.
he also put it mathematically.
God = 1 X 1 X 1 + 1 God.
And God cannot change: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
Post by Byron Smithtoday, and forever.
I don't find that statement in the Bible. Jesus was the name given the
baby. Christ was the title of the Messiah.
The SON is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Jesus had a DEFINITE beginning in time. The Son did not.
Do not worship "Jesus", the flesh and blood man. Worship the Son who
indwelt Him.
Does that make sense?
IOW, the Son had to take human flesh to be able to die. On the cross,
God didn't die. The MAN Jesus died. God cannot die. So don't confuse
the incarnate BODY with the incarnate God.
AGain, semantics. As of His birth, Jesus the infant was Jesus God in
flesh. And I hope you are following me. I don't have the training to
put it in "clinical terms."
God's standard of righteousness hasn't changed from
I disagree. The standard WAS the Old Testament "Pentateuch". The
Covenant of LAW.
today, we are under the New Testament, the New Covenant of Love.
A Jew came Jesusu and asked Him to PLEASE give us one or two laws we
could follow, and not make us continue to strive after HUNDREDS of
laws.
Jesus accomoodated him. "Sure! I'll give you a law! It is this. Love
God." Then He said, "I'll give you a second law. Love one another."
Then He said, "If you do these two things, you have kept the law."
some argue, He merely summarized the 10 Commandments.
Not so. The 10 Commandments include the Sabbath, and with His coming,
Sabbath was abolished.
Ex 31:16-17
Which brings me back to an old point. I believe we're MUCh harder on
ourselves than God is on us.
Luther discovered being born again, and declared, "For by GRACE are we
saved thorugh faith!" Then he said, "we are FREE in Christ."
Your Calvin didn't believe in freedomn of conscience, or "freedom."
Let me give you an example, and with that I'll close and eat dinner
(11:30 Pm)
Calvin said, "if it'snot specifically stated as OK in the Bible, it's
forbidden." That is where the Amish got rejecting all modern
conveniences. If you were a TRUE Calvinist, you wouldn't own a
computer, a phone, a cell phone, a car, a house, or having indoor
plumbing or electricity.
Luther said, on the contrary, "if it's not specificailly FORBIDDEN in
scripture, it's ok."
I'm in that respect, a Lutheran.
That is, I am free to decide for myself whether alcohol is ok or not.
I don't need a preacher to decide for me.
I'm also free to decide what day to worship, and even what church to
attend.
If anything, the judgment and vindication of His
Post by Byron Smithrighteousness is fiercer in the NT than in the OT, because He will no
longer accept animal sacrifices or the ritual law, because they pointed
to Christ who was coming, and were merely symbols of a coming and
greater reality. And He will not accept substitutes to faith in Christ
because we are condemned by His Law, and He has ordained one, namely
Jesus Christ alone, as the name above all names whereby we must be
saved. And it is fiercer because He will judge all by the Man He has
ordained, Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31). And from reading Revelation, that
judgment upon sinners is grievous.
What you are MISSING is the torn veil, which now gives ALL believers
DIRECT access to God.
Later!
jw
Post by Byron SmithPost by john wBut I agree that likely, she was arrested and dragged before Jesus,
likely by customers or former customers, MERELY to embarrass Jesus.
They couldn't IMAGINE the milktoast, pansy, pacifist Jesus ordering
her death.
I can't see Jesus as milquetoast, pansy, or pacifist (at least, purely
pacifist). I like what a friend of mine told me: Jesus is the manliest
man ever to walk the face of the earth, because only He could take on
the burden of our sins without adding any unrighteousness of His own, of
which He of course had none and never will have.
Post by john wBoy, did they miscalculate THAT one!
Amen!
Post by john wThe Lord got VERY aggressive, but did it quietly. Nor did He turn His
divine wrath on HER. But THEM.
Who knows what he wrote in the dirt?
I've heard it said that he listed all the sins being committed in that
group that day,and when they all realized that He could see inside
each of them, they were disgusted; with themselves.
As in, if He TRULY cleaned house that day, as they were demanding,
Jerusalem would have been left a ghost city, with One Resident.
And from the
Post by Byron Smithcontext of the story, they most likely would never have brought the
woman at all, if it wasn't for the fact that they were mortal enemies of
Jesus and would use any means available to trap or discredit Him
ABSOLUTELY.
(and
Post by Byron Smithhow on EARTH did they know about her activity in the first place?
;-)
How do YOU think they knew what she had been doing?
If she were a temple whore, which is likely, though not certain, (the
gentiles didn't care if the prostitutes were Jews--nor did the Jews)
it is VERY likely that half her "customers" from the night before, or
from an hour earlier, were in that crowd.
Makes
Post by Byron Smithme wonder if it wasn't one of them who initiated the adultery to start
with,
hehehehe.. Yep. We're on the same page.
but Scripture does not say so I cannot know for certain---however,
Post by Byron Smithit is interesting that Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first
stone.
Being God, He knows our innermost being. So of course He knew their
sins. Also note that He didn't choose to PUBLICLY embarrass them as
they had the woman.
But I might be reading too much into it, but certainly He was
Post by Byron Smithcorrectly accusing every single one of them of being guilty of sin in
general, if not also a particular one guilty of this specific sin).
Absolutely. Of course, none of those men could have been a temple
prostitute, unless unhappy women had arranged for men to be at the
temple, or ???
Post by Byron SmithNow, because Jesus is God, and He was present for the "sentencing",
being greater than the accusers and even the Law they judged her by, His
judgment would be supreme.
Well, most of them didn't know or care that He was God, yet He
OBVIOUSLY commanded Authority and Respect. I don't see much arguing
with Jesus AFTER He spoke with someone.
Do you see any words after, "Give Caesar his due; also give God His
due!"
How does one "one-up" that?
And nowhere in that passage that I know of
Post by Byron Smithdoes He deny the justice of God by saying that the woman is innocent or
that she does not deserve death for her sin.
Correct. He DOES allude to her sin by saying, "Go. Sin no more!"
(don't do this anymore)
He OBVIOUSLY isn't telling her to never commit another sin, since God
knows we cannot be without sin.
What He does say is that He
Post by Byron Smithdoes not accuse her of sin, and to go and sin no more. He acknowledges
both the fact of her sin and its just penalty all in a few statements,
then turns and extends her His grace in the form of divine mercy,
because He will bear her sins ultimately on the cross.
Yes.
And as I alluded earlier, you have shown me a new angle on something.
He spared her life because there was no point in her dying for her
sin. Jesus invented Double Jeopardy. She didn't have to die for her
sin, because HE had taken on that task; HE would die for her sin.
AGAIN, that show of Divine Mercy was an early example of the "New Day"
of the Kingdom come.
So Jesus is put
Post by Byron Smithto death by God for all the sins of His sheep, the Law is both fulfilled
and satisfied in Him, and grace and mercy overflow to each one of us who
are but worms and maggots in the holy sight of God.
10000000000 % correct.
One TINY nit. We WERE maggots and worms before the death of Christ.
NOW God sees us as PERFECT, since we have put on the perfection of His
Son.
OK. I have to give you that one. I was really focusing on being the
recipient of God's grace in our natural state, which as I said above,
could certainly be described as lousy. However, as you correctly point
out, that is past tense once we are believers in Christ. His
righteousness is not just freely given to us but imputed to our
account...we are completely identified by it through His grace.
Post by john wPost by Byron SmithSo now, because of Jesus, my behavior would certainly be different.
That was my point, and my hope. I am DELIGHTED to see that transition.
I have been called a "wimp" many times. I disagree.
I have simply learned a deeper meaning of God's Amazing Grace, that
saved a wretch like me.
Rebound Nit. You are no longer a wretch. You have been saved by grace.
You are made a child of God by Jesus Christ, and though we don't like to
use the word, a saint, because of His ownership and transformation of
us. We all now belong to Him.
Post by john wHere, I have to disagree. Since MUCH of our sin today is behind closed
doors, how do you regulate it?
OK. I think I see where you are coming from. There should be basic moral
standards, based on the Word of God. But for those who cannot accept the
Word of God, we can say "Love your neighbor" in whatever phraseology
they want.
I lean Libertarian in my views of government and law enforcement versus
bill of rights and states rights. But I have no other foundation than
the Bible when I preach if I'm doing it right. (which sometimes I screw
up and have to get back on track).
Post by john wAnd since so many of the "Religious Right" (of which I am one) keep
pointing at porn as being "the ultimate evil" that is ruining our
society, we need to take a 2nd look at even THAT..
Pornography is evil because it involves lust which involves covetousness
which involves idolatry. It is the final commandment of the Law that
slays us for our unrighteousness----everyone has coveted; everyone has
demanded something not rightfully theirs, at least in their hearts. And
by breaking this commandment, we are guilty of breaking all, and
bringing the whole force of the Law down upon us. I'm certainly not
without fault here specifically, without even speaking of the guilt of
covetousness in general.
Post by john wThe definition of "porn" used to be "community standards"; that is the
US Supreme Court definition; that is, it used to be.
Since the computer and the Internet have now put every imaginable form
of porn and sex club at the anonymous reach of anyone with a phone and
a credit/debit card, the "community" standard for porn now applies to
one household.
Should the Supreme Court go where God never went? Behind the closed
doors of your home?
One quibble here. Government and I cannot see into anyone else's
bedroom. Government doesn't have the right to, and neither do I, unless
of course the health of society itself is at stake (which in the case of
homosexuality, and unmarried heterosexual activity, which are both forms
of fornication) and there the issue gets tangled for me. Because, as
much as I want government to realize I am not merely a resource under
its direct control and use, I also cannot escape the righteous judgments
of God on my life. If I became guilty of adultery, for example, I would
probably suffer real-life consequences. God sees and judges every
sin---not always in this life, true, but God brings to pass a lot more
judgment in THIS life than several groups of people, my own Baptists
among them, seem willing or able to admit.
Post by john wI don't think so.
The sin we see so rampant is because the state of mankind is sin.
And the Bible says it will get worse before it gets better.
Which is kind of strange that you say that (and I agree). But to the
atheist, let's say, and to most others on the planet, it's getting
better and better, at least as far as sin and the pleasures of sin go.
Post by john wAnd it will continue to get worse until He returns. And I believe in a
Literal 2nd Coming because I see the signs.
No disagreement there. And I might add, not for your benefit but for
those reading this, He's not returning to make a second attempt at
reconciliation. He is coming back as the Judge. And there is no hope for
mercy outside of faith in Him BEFORE He returns.
Post by john wPost by Byron SmithI'm NOT a theonomist of any stripe except a spiritual one.
Sorry. You have used a word I am not familiar with. And it's not in
the online dictionary.
Define "theonomist," please.
http://www.amprpress.com/political_polytheism.htm
Theonomy means God's law and a theonomist is a person who believes in
God's law as opposed to being antinomian, that is against the law.
I am a spiritual theonomist. I am subject to God's law individually.
Christians are subject to the Law of God corporately. I do not believe
in taking the entire Law (ritual, dietary, etc.) and turning it into a
civic code for our nation (or any other) when it was very specifically
ordained by God Himself, through the prophet Moses, and very
particularly targeted Israel and Israel alone. And I do not see the
dietary and ritual laws as binding today, because of such scriptures as
Peter's vision, the finished work of Christ, and Christ's own admonition
to abide in Him, not in the Law. I'm not an antinomian either: in fact,
I believe the Holy Spirit of God and my own God-given conscience will
require more out of me than the moral law, the ten Commandments, by
themselves, because God's Spirit is inside me, He will convince me to
live by the Spirit of the Law, and not just the letter. And I'm not
perfect; I'm just a work in progress and I still sin. However, I no
longer have any excuse to sin, because I know better by knowing the Word
of God, and too, God has promised to provide a means of escape to every
temptation. I am left without excuse if I sin.
Post by john wSomethings
Post by Byron Smithtruly should be legislated against for the good of society,
Depends on the society, and on what you want to outlaw.
If you are a tee-totaler, and you want to outlaw alcoholic beverages
again, I am against you. And how would you enforce that?
No, I am not. I don't believe drinking is a sin. Drunkenness clearly is.
But I personally do not believe I have been given liberty by the Spirit
to drink, and I do not take liberty to drink alcohol, because I believe
I could not handle it without falling into drunkenness.
Post by john wif you are against certain sex practices, how do you monitor what
happens behind closed/locked doors?
I can still be against sin ("certain sex practices") without having to
be for government totalitarianism. There are some things I believe
government should enforce, such as marriage being between a man and a
woman, only. To do otherwise is to go contrary to God's Word and His
established order. We cannot establish marriage by passing a law. It has
already been ordained and is defended by God. These other types of
"marriage" are simply various forms of rebellion and insanity, which in
and of themselves are judgments of God upon our sin, and reflect the
downward spiral of sin and judgment Paul writes so eloquently concerning
in Romans chapter 1. I am amazed to say that I can see Romans 1 fleshed
out today in America before my very eyes.
Post by john wWhat would you outlaw? We cannot impose morality with laws. What we
CAN do is write laws to protect society, like from murderers, and
rapists, and bank robbers, and child stealers/misusers.
But we already have such laws, and our prisons are overflowing with
people who didn't agree with those laws. Of course, that is pathology
at its worst.
What would you like to outlaw?
I'd like to outlaw everything I dislike. Cold donuts at the donut shop.
Diet red creme soda (Blech!). Metrosexual clothing for men.
(Double-blech!!).
No, seriously, I think I would outlaw too much and fall into a
self-righteousness. But what I really want is spoken of in Ecclesiastes
8:11, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
I would like to see timely justice in the enforcement of basic moral
legislation against evil, such as lying, stealing, murdering,
kidnapping, rebellion, sedition, treason, etc. This is a topic for a
different thread, and someone else would have to do most of the talking,
because my understanding in this area is rather limited.
Post by john wbut only in
Post by Byron Smiththe ultimate perspective that God is the Final Judge, and within His
parameters we have liberty, but also moral responsibility.
Correct.
Have you yet come to the place where you have discovered real, true,
good, Christian, scriptural "situation ethics?"
I hear/read too many people (including in here) who believe that we're
all supposed to be a cookie-cutter example of what THEY consider
"Christian."
I like how Kathi Lee Gifford (yum yum) put it. God went to all the
trouble of creating each of us TOTALLY uniquely. Not one single
person, not one single Christian, is EXACTLY like anyone else. Even
the scientists admit that when they start cloning, they do NOT get an
"exact copy". ALL they have replicated is the gene pool.
So God creates each of us unique, and then we spend the rest of our
lives trying to be like somebody else, and tearing each other down for
our differences.
No! That's NOT how He meant it to be!
That is an interesting point. Yes, God seems to value uniqueness and
individuality in the Christian. Of course, we are all part of the body
of Christ as believers. And we have Him as our object of worship and
devotion. But we are members individually.
Post by john wWOW! What one can learn by simply
1. set aside a time to study
2. prayerfully study
3. OPEN yourself to LEARNING something new.
4. realize you won't learn new things if you hold onto the old with a
death grip.
5. Simply ask the Spirit to protect your "vitals" as you open
yourself,
6. and then be sure that every idea that comes into your head passes
the "filter" of scripture.
I couldn't snip this. I think that's good advice.
Post by john wCould be, though. At the least, her identity is less
Post by Byron Smithimportant than the spiritual truths revealed through her by example in
the Scriptures.
If you are familiar with the Medieval Morality Play,
"Everyman",
Only in passing reference.
Post by john wthe whore represents "EverySinner", or man himself.
She tells us all that "all have sinned; none is innocent." The wages
of [[ all spiritual whores: all mankind ]] is death.
But God doesn't spill our blood. He loves us so much He commits
suicide to rescue our mangy, maggoty carcasses from the pit.
THAT is the concept that Calvin missed and Luther grasped so firmly.
This is where I simply don't follow you fully. In the doctrine of
salvation, both were in agreement so I have heard. Both believed in the
(so-called) Limited Atonement. God died only for the elect (limited in
scope, not in power) and his sacrifice is 100% effective, as opposed to
dying for all men and saving only a few (unlimited in scope, perhaps,
but definitely limited in power). That is not to get sidetracked. Most
do not believe this doctrine, but I believe the Bible teaches it, but it
has the least scriptural support of the five points of Calvinism and is
probably not worth stressing. I'd far rather stress man's responsibility
to repent and believe in Christ, because only faith in Christ will save
from God's righteous wrath upon sin, and bring us grace through Christ.
Post by john wAnd to be sure you understand me, the ONLY issues I get feisty about
are "life and death."
When you (people) begin questioning/denying the virgin birth, when
people ridicule the Trinity, when a guy just yesterday extends his
middle finger at Yhwh, I cock my fists.
Those are life-and-death issues.
Amen. I am in full agreement. A no-tolerance personal policy on
blasphemy is a good expression of Christian faith and character. In
fact, a "Christian" who is not bothered by such is either backslidden or
still lost I would think, and ought to examine his "Christianity".
And you are right. The man was threatening to extend his middle finger
at God if God failed His "obligation" to him, but in truth, he has
already shot God the finger in his heart, and obligated Him to endorse
his personal sin to boot by saving him from judgment (apparently, from
what I skimmed of the post---didn't read it carefully and slept since then).
These are the same people who accuse God of being cruel and unfair,
which, just like Ezekiel 18:25, Scripture asks, "are not your ways
unequal?" (God's righteous judgment is to cast them into hell unless
they repent!)
Well, that's pretty much it. I am too tired to write a better response,
so you'll have to live with that.
I think we agree on most things. Our disagreements are minor in most
points. And I wasn't looking for disagreements, but I was trying to see
where you were coming from.
Man, I don't have the energy for this newsgroup!
God bless!
j w