Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Christianity Board!
Christianity Board is a thriving forum community for registered members to share, pray, and respectfully debate about the faith in Jesus Christ. We are a nondenominational Christian forum in that we welcome the diversity of Christianity and we are not attached to any one denominational group. Join today for access to posting on the forums, chatting in the shoutbox, creating a blog, private messenger, profile features and so much more. May your time here be blessed in the name of Jesus!
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

The School of the prophets: God's rules


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Cliff note theology.

Paul, though he cites his own merit on at least two occasions (under the law a Hebrew of the Hebrews), was in fact and by his own admission the "chief of sinners." This wasn't referring to his life before he met Christ on the road to Damascus, but after. He even chose to transgress the "moral" law of God as stated in the book of Deuteronomy. You claim to have read the bible once or twice so you must have read the very short epistle of Paul called "Philemon." This letter is written as a personal request to Philemon to accept back another man, a christian brother, named Onesimus who apparently was Philemon's slave and ran away. The letter is interesting for a number of reasons, but Paul's action was a direct transgression of the law of Moses: "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. Deuteronomy 23:15

For whatever reason Paul had in mind, he obviously thought it was more important to restore relationships in the church than to obey God's law. Whatever righteousness Paul might have thought that he had under the law was wiped out entirely by that one act (if by no other) as failure in any part of the law makes one a transgressor of the law. Now, if you don't see Paul's self righteous attitude in scripture (demonstrated in confrontations with Barnabas and Peter to name only two) perhaps that is because you have an unresolved issue of your own.

Here's a little news flash for you. Every word of scripture that we have now was penned by a man who was a sinner by nature, and in some cases even by murderers and men condemned by the law itself; e.g. Moses and King David as two examples.

By the way, Paul tells us that the thorn in the flesh was to keep him from pride, not self righteousness. Did you know that the only other place we find references to thorns in the side or flesh is in the book of Joshua, and in that book the thorn represents compromise with the Canaanites who were not driven completely out of the land (as was commanded by God.) Many expositors consider the book of Joshua as being a type of the Christian life, and the thorns then become compromise with sin rather than with people, so what does this say about the "great" apostle?

Perhaps you were raised in a Roman Catholic church and were taught to revere the saints. I know that I was. It wasn't until I was saved that I could understand that all genuine born again believers are saints, and all the term really means is that God has chosen them for redemption from their sin and has made them holy with His presence and in the person of His Spirit. What does a man have except that which he has been given (or that which he has stolen?) And if all we have is a gift, what do we have to boast in of ourselves?

Perhaps you should really considering reading the bible a few more times, so you can write from real knowledge rather than what you imagine to be true.

 

You make no sense.

 

Your comparing 'righteousness' under the Law to 'righteousness' under Grace.   Paul was not under the Law to not return Onesimus.  And there was no Law under Grace that required him to return Onesimus.  He did it because it was the right thing to do, for apparently Onesimus had wronged Philemon in some way also.   (Phil. 18-19)   Paul was removing any obstacle that would cause a rift between he and Philemon and others also who knew them.  As (9) says, "Yet for love's sake"  You should appreciate that seeing how your big on 'unity'.

 

Concerning 'self-righteousness', I guess we have to go on your definition?  Which is what?  For you have 'righteousness' obtained by the Law, and 'righteousness'  obtained by faith.   what are you  calling 'self-righteous'?

 

Well, as a sinner, I am like Paul.  The worst.  Which must mean I have plenty of issues.  But, recognizing you're a sinner doesn't tend to make you 'self-righteous'.  

 

No, concerning the incident between Paul and Barnabas over Mark was not due to self-righteousness on Paul's part.  It was due to Mark not being ready, which he already proved when he abandoned them before.  

 

Stranger


  • 1

#62
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

I would simply add that there are a lot of assumptions going on in Michael's post.  First, we do not know for sure that Onesimus was a run-away.  Second, we do not know that Onesimus was unwilling to return.  It could be that after his conversion, he wanted to go back and make things right with his master.  Or, even that he did not object to this suggestion by Paul. Third, it is clear that Paul is sending Onesimus back to a Christian owner, who is likely not harsh or abusive.  There is nothing here to suggest that Paul is trying to protect Onesimus from abusive treatment, but that simply Paul wants not debts  of absence to be held to his account and desires he be treated as a beloved son rather than a slave.  Finally, it is evident that Paul is acting in brotherly love toward another Christian.  He is not wanting to deprive another brother of their goods for his own personal benefit.  Thus, the focus is not simply on Onesimus' well-being, but Paul wanting to do right by another Christian brother.  

 

If anything, this letter shows Paul's incredible kindness, love and selflessness in dealing with others.  There is nothing here that suggests Onesimus is being mistreated or mishandled by Paul.  Quite the opposite.  To say this letter reveals some sinful bent in Paul against desires of God on how to show kindness and care to others is mind-blowing to me.  If someone can see self-righteousness and lawlessness in this letter regarding the love, concern for, and payment of a slaves debt and plea for them to be accepted as ones own son...then I simply think such hermeneutics are beyond the reach of reason.


  • 1

#63
Michael V Pardo

Michael V Pardo

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 921 posts

I would simply add that there are a lot of assumptions going on in Michael's post.  First, we do not know for sure that Onesimus was a run-away.  Second, we do not know that Onesimus was unwilling to return. 

Its also clear that Paul transgressed the law willfully and that some saint worshippers have a problem with the truth.


  • 0

#64
Michael V Pardo

Michael V Pardo

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 921 posts

Concerning 'self-righteousness', I guess we have to go on your definition?  Which is what?  For you have 'righteousness' obtained by the Law, and 'righteousness'  obtained by faith.   what are you  calling 'self-righteous'?

 

I can tell you where to find a free on-line dictionary, but somehow I doubt that it would help.

My e-version Websters' defines "self-righteous":

"convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others: narrow-mindedly moralistic.

 

The two people that I've been in arguments with here unrelated to the topic or in obfuscation of the same are both perfect examples of this definition.

 

16.  "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17.  "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18.  "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19.  "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20.  "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Matthew 7:16-20

 

The Lord will judge all men according to their words, but we are what we do, not what we say.

 

35.  "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
36.  "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.
37.  "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.''
Matthew 12:35-37

 

And just in case you haven't seen it yet:

 

  So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.'' Matthew 19:17

 

These verses are not the good news, but this is: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24

 

I didn't anticipate touching on the gospel in this thread, but the verses certainly do apply to God's rules for the prophet and probably more so than any other.
 


Edited by Michael V Pardo, 09 March 2017 - 08:34 AM.

  • 0

#65
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

I can tell you where to find a free on-line dictionary, but somehow I doubt that it would help.

 

No, I need your definition. Because the dictionary is not making the distinction between which righteousness is being addressed.  And for some reason, you didn't answser either.  So, which righteousness are you speaking of?

 

Stranger


  • 0

#66
Michael V Pardo

Michael V Pardo

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 921 posts

No, I need your definition. Because the dictionary is not making the distinction between which righteousness is being addressed.  And for some reason, you didn't answser either.  So, which righteousness are you speaking of?

 

Stranger

More cliff notes theology. Only a theologian or someone as ignorant would try to redefine the meaning of words according to his faith. Good luck though with the box that you're building to live in, perhaps like Noah's ark it will keep you safe during the coming judgment.


  • 0

#67
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

More cliff notes theology. Only a theologian or someone as ignorant would try to redefine the meaning of words according to his faith. Good luck though with the box that you're building to live in, perhaps like Noah's ark it will keep you safe during the coming judgment.

 

I'm trying to operate in the box  you built.  Which is why I need your definitions.  You have used the word 'self-righteous'.  But you have abused it in your comparison with Paul.  Which is why I ask. 

 

Stranger


  • 0

#68
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

I can tell you where to find a free on-line dictionary, but somehow I doubt that it would help.

My e-version Websters' defines "self-righteous":

"convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others: narrow-mindedly moralistic.

 

The two people that I've been in arguments with here unrelated to the topic or in obfuscation of the same are both perfect examples of this definition.

 

16.  "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17.  "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18.  "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19.  "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20.  "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Matthew 7:16-20

 

The Lord will judge all men according to their words, but we are what we do, not what we say.

 

35.  "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
36.  "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.
37.  "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.''
Matthew 12:35-37

 

And just in case you haven't seen it yet:

 

  So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.'' Matthew 19:17

 

These verses are not the good news, but this is: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24

 

I didn't anticipate touching on the gospel in this thread, but the verses certainly do apply to God's rules for the prophet and probably more so than any other.
 

 

You add many verses but make no connection how they pertain to self-righteousness.   

 

Stranger


  • 0

#69
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

Its also clear that Paul transgressed the law willfully and that some saint worshippers have a problem with the truth.

 

Um, if you had read my post, you would see that this is not "clear."  This isn't about worshipping Paul.  It is about you claiming that and inspired writher of Scripture commands someone to do something that is wicked.  Apparently you feel you are a better gauge of truth right and wrong than the teaching of the NT?  Or, do you suppose the Holy Spirit inspired this to show that the Spirit of God is prone to willful transgression?  Really, how is it you determine what passages are acceptable and which are inappropriate and marred by the faults of the author?

 

How is it that "God rules" if we cannot even trust the Scriptures?  It would seem your view is that God cannot even communicate accurately due to his messengers self-righteousness and willful sin.


  • 0

#70
Michael V Pardo

Michael V Pardo

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 921 posts

Um, if you had read my post, you would see that this is not "clear."  This isn't about worshipping Paul.  It is about you claiming that and inspired writher of Scripture commands someone to do something that is wicked.  Apparently you feel you are a better gauge of truth right and wrong than the teaching of the NT?  Or, do you suppose the Holy Spirit inspired this to show that the Spirit of God is prone to willful transgression?  Really, how is it you determine what passages are acceptable and which are inappropriate and marred by the faults of the author?

 

How is it that "God rules" if we cannot even trust the Scriptures?  It would seem your view is that God cannot even communicate accurately due to his messengers self-righteousness and willful sin.

I said no such thing, what I did say is that Paul willfully disobeyed the commandment of God and if you believe that its okay to do that then you are the heretic.


  • 0

#71
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

Well, if you believe his willful disobedience is part of the inspired Word of God, then I think all of church history and orthodoxy stands with me, not you.  Can you find me a church father or prominent church teaching in history that validates your view that Paul's willful and sinful tendencies were infused into his writings in the NT?


  • 0

#72
bbyrd009

bbyrd009

    Groper

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Onesimus pretty obviously returned willingly, Paul didn't exactly drag him back in chains.


Edited by bbyrd009, 11 April 2017 - 05:03 AM.

  • 0

"Creation is continuous, and never stops."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users