The Way/Theosis/entire sanctification.

[Hepzibah]

Why not, considing that is exactly - exactly - what Jesus said.

Much love!

What I meant was, that an apostle knew if the person was truly repentant and could assure that God would forgive the sin.

 

[Hepzibah]

This is why I don't like being labeled. I get pegged with things I don't think. Or in this case the reverse. Yes, knowledge and life, sin and righteousness, the flesh and the Spirit, Self and Jesus.

Anyway, Once again I'm becoming the odd man out because I hold more tightly to the wording of the Scriptures. It's OK, I've become used to it.

Much love!

I am still on that roller coaster one wakes up on when one realizes they were in a narcissistic family scapegoat role and lack concentration atm. Maybe I shouldn't be here.

It is confusing when people hold to certain doctrines then deny they are in that system.

 

[Lizbeth]

Too much splicing and dicing can lead to a distorted picture, like a Picasso painting, rather than a cohesive whole to get the true picture that the Lord has painted for us in His word.

There is good reason why we want to walk in the Spirit rather than the flesh. Because sin/iniquity dwells in the flesh and always will until the flesh is destroyed at death...that is why it will die eventually, because of its corruption (even those who are alive and remain at the coming of the Lord....since it says elsewhere thou fool that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die, etc.) Paul wrote that if I do what I would not, it is no longer I who sin but sin living in me.......for I delight in the law of God after the inner man. And, In me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing.

 

[marks]

I don't think that way at all. Rather it signifies not taking the whole of scripture into consideration while using selected texts.

I hope that's not how you think I come to the Scriptures.

I also agree with a previous poster who says your views of Flesh are off and have not been able to put my finger on why as you seemed to change it. Flesh is more than damaged brain function, it is everything that is not Spirit, including the physical body if used to carry out the desires of the passions. It is the motivation behind it not meat itself.

It also includes neutral things like the will to live if it is used against the wishes of God. It is human thinking which is of no use in the spiritual realm.

Here is my question for you. Are you able to show me any passage in the New Testament that uses the word sarx, flesh, in a way that the context demonstrates it being used as you say, in a non-material sense of a "nature" not connected to the body?

This is what I mean.

Galatians 5:16-17 KJV
16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

In this example above, "flesh" is used several times in contrast to "spirit", however, there are no words related to "flesh" that specifically identify whether this is the stuff our bodies are made of, or a "nature" that is separate from our bodies.

Luke 24:39 KJV
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

In this example, "flesh" is not only contrasted to "spirit", but it is also conjoined to "bones", "flesh and bones", as though it is in fact talking about the stuff our bodies are made of.

John 6:51 KJV
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Here we see "flesh" refering to Jesus' offering, which, according to Hebrews, was specifically His body.

John 6:54 KJV
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is flesh His body? Or a sin nature? Of course it's His body.

Acts 2:31 KJV
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Jesus' body didn't rot.

Romans 2:28 KJV
28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 9:3 KJV
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

My kinsmen according to the flesh - that is, those to whom I'm physically related.

Romans 14:21 KJV
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

1 Corinthians 10:18 KJV
18) Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

1 Corinthians 15:39 KJV
39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

While there are many more I can post, hopefully these will serve to demonstrate. Each of these appears in a context that tells us clearly that the flesh being spoken of is not a disembodied "nature", properties and characteristics, that is separate from the physicality of our being, but is actually either the stuff our bodies are made of, or of things that relate to the physicality of our existence.

So here is my question.

Could you show me one single passage in Scripture that uses this word flesh in a context that clearly shows it meaning a "sin nature separate from the body"? I already know it's not there.

There are many places "flesh" is used that don't show a specific meaning by the context, that rely on you knowing what it means. And there are many places that show "flesh" being used in the way's I've said. But I know of no such place that uses "flesh" in a context that supports this other view.

So I find no authority whatsoever to define it differently than the word's normal and customary meaning and use.

This is not because I'm only focusing on my pet passages, while ignoring others. This is not because I recognize dispensational distinctions. It's not because I don't like the early commentators.

It's not because of any other reason then I've examined all uses of the word in the Bible, to see how the Bible uses the word. And this is what I see.

It's actually the opposite of "proof texting", I'm casting the widest net there is, to learn what the Bible itself says.

Of course you will see that I do not agree! I don't think it was authority to forgive as only God can do that, but rather the ability of those in Theosis to read the hearts of man and know their sincerity.

We either learn our doctrines from the words of Scripture, or we allow ourselves to be influenced by other sources.

This passage is plainly stated narrative:

John 20:21-23 KJV
21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

". . . but that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, He turned to the man and said, Arise . . ."

Jesus had authority on earth to forgive sins. "As My Father hath sent me, even so send I you", and He gave them the same authority that He had.

Am I the only one who can read this and just believe it?? That always seems incredible to me, but I'm confronted with this time and again. Plainly stated Scripture, that makes perfect sense, but I seem like the only guy who doesn't feel like he has to change it around to mean something else.

Nothing here is said about seeing someone's sincerity. And nothing is said about any other person being given this authority.

People in the OT were named as holy, and King David begged that the Holy Spirit would not be taken from him.

The Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit coming upon certain people.

1 Samuel 16:13 KJV
Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

This is different from the Holy Spirit indwelling the regenerate. We seen in Scripture the Spirit is with you, is in you, is upon you, we are filled with the Spirit, we are baptized into the Spirit, each of these have their own meaning.

If God said Job was holy I believe it.

I know Job is called perfect and upright, that he feared God and eschewed evil, that he held to his integrity. Exekiel speaks of Job's righteousness. I can't think of where Job was called holy. Regardless . . .

marks, I see you discount the early church teaching because of your theology.

Untrue, and unfair. I hold the Bible above any and all commentary regardless of when it was written and who wrote it.

I learned a long time ago that commentators from any era are all over the map, with much error in their works, at least as I compare to Scripture.

I find the Bible to contain a great deal of straightfoward communication, that makes sense to me, harmonizes across the entire book, that agrees with the very words and syntax written.

When I find things I don't understand I pray over them and God shows me answers.

I've learned a long time ago to only accept theology which agrees with the not only the broad strokes in Scripture, but the least details. I've never held back from changing my mind when I see something I didn't see before.

Probibly something to due with my autism, but I don't have emotional dogs in the fight. I'm not bothered by discovering I've been wrong about something, that shows success, nor failure!

I endeavor to learn the teachings of the Bible, and I separate that from all other - all other, not just the so called church fathers. They aren't the fathers of the church to begin with. And if we follow their teachings - in general - we will be riddled with error. Some things agree with Scripture, and a great deal doesn't.

So I endeavor to learn Scripture itself.

They were very adamant about this progressive theology we see today and stressed the 'faith which was handed down' . Dispensationalism has been on the go for about 100 years.

Again, I really hope you don't label me according to how you understand certain theologies or teachings that you don't hold, and think I do.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I am still on that roller coaster one wakes up on when one realizes they were in a narcissistic family scapegoat role and lack concentration atm. Maybe I shouldn't be here.

It is confusing when people hold to certain doctrines then deny they are in that system.

There is a lot to what many people think of as "dispensationalism" that I don't go along with. Because I see a dispensational distinction between the covenant with Israel at Mt Horeb, for instance, and the covenant of grace that no longer requires ongoing sacrifices, this does not mean I agree with the 7 dispensations outlined by Clarence Larkin or others. I've seen up to 11 dispensations named. How many dispensations will you ascribe to me based on other people's charts and lists?

For myself I recognize that when God told Abraham that he'd have innumerable descendants, and that as he believed God, God justified him, I recognize that this is different from where Paul wrote that confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in our heart that God rose Him from the dead, we will be saved.

Same faith, but different message. Dispensation, a dispensing of what is needed. God dispensed the Gospel in one form to Abraham, and in a different form to us.

I recognize that, but this doesn't mean I believe everything that those we call dispensationalist would say. So I don't really like labels. They can be misleading.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What I meant was, that an apostle knew if the person was truly repentant and could assure that God would forgive the sin.

I understand that. It's the more common interpretation of that passage, even though what it says is very different from that.

Jesus sent them with the same apostleship He had. As the Father sent me, so I send you. And He gave them the same authority as He had.

Why wouldn't we just accept it the way it's written? I cannot think of one single valid reason.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

Are you remembering I didn't do that, instead doing a word study throughout the NT of "flesh" and "body"? Regardless, obviously this is not being a fruitful discussion.

Much love!

I do remember that you did a study of the words flesh and body.
Would you care to post a couple of verses that make you (YOU) understand that we sin because our flesh moves in such a way as to make us sin?

This discussion will not be fruitful because we stick to what we understand and don't really listen.
Not that you should listen to me...but I've learned some things from these forums - nothing wrong with that.

You'd have to do a study of WHAT MAKES YOU SIN.

The OT tells us that God will put a new heart in us.
Ezekiel, Jeremiah.

Does God take out our heart and give us a new heart,
or does He transform the heart we have?

What did the heart represent in the OT anyway?
Does your HEART make you want your neighbor's goods?
Does your HEART make you tell a lie?
No. It's just a way of speaking - the way Paul spoke.

Your flesh is your skin.
It covers your body.
It can't make you sin.
It's a colloquelism.
Just like the idea of changing your heart.

It's your nature, your will, your soul that makes you sin.

But, yes, post a couple of verses that make this belief concrete for you.
Just curious, I'm not going to play verse ping pong.

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand that. It's the more common interpretation of that passage, even though what it says is very different from that.

Jesus sent them with the same apostleship He had. As the Father sent me, so I send you. And He gave them the same authority as He had.

Why wouldn't we just accept it the way it's written? I cannot think of one single valid reason.

Much love!

You and @Hepzibah are discussing the forgiving of sins in John 20:23.

I'll tell you why Protestants can't accept your simple acceptance of it...
because we'd have to admit that we need to confess our sins in order for them to be forgiven
SINCE
The Apostles then passed on their authority to the next generation....and so forth.
This is Apostolic Succession and Protestants just cannot accept it.

 

[GodsGrace]

God must put into us a pure heart as it is the only way we can walk without sin as I have done at times in the past.

But does God literally put a new heart into us?
It seems to me that some become transformed immediately into a person that more resembles the teachings of Jesus
and some just take more time and some take a lot of time....
during all this they are saved if they're aspiring to please God and not their own sinful desires.

To say that God puts a new heart in us (as is stated in the OT) does make it seem as though the change in us will be instantaneous.
I do think that you believe this putting of a new heart is a manner of speaking for changing our very soul....
But my comments remain.

Paul's comments come to mind about how he had to give milk to some because they were not yet mature.
and this explains it well...
2 Corinthians 3:18
18And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another...

We are being transformed.
Also, Romans 12:1 tells us to be transformed....as if it's not automatically done.

 

[GodsGrace]

What I meant was, that an apostle knew if the person was truly repentant and could assure that God would forgive the sin.

I used to believe this too.
I think I still do.
Not 100% sure anymore.
Why?
Because it certainly does seem that Jesus passed on His authority to the Apostles....
But only God can forgive sin...
so....??

Just an aside:
A Catholic priest will only DECLARE the sins of a persons forgiven ... it's clear in Catholic teaching that God forgives sin and not the priest.
What makes a catholic priest be able to make this declaration?
The fact that he believes the confessee (a new word?) is honestly repentant and seeking forgiveness.
But HOW could a human priest really know that a person is truly repentant?
He cannot. In some cases he can.
It's left up to the person...the confessee...the CC teaches on how to make a good confession...
being repentant is the major reason for being forgiven.

 

[uncle silas]

​

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual, but as worldly—as infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready, 3for you are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and dissension among you, are you not worldly? Paul is saying that he should have been able to address them as spiritual therefore they were, or sanctified but not entirely sanctified. All in line with ecf understanding.

I'm sure they weren't entirely sanctified, they weren't living by the spirit, they were worldly, they let a man remain in the church who was sleeping with his fathers wife, and some at least were getting drunk when they partook of communion, and ate all the food so others had to go without

 

[Behold]

So are you saying that Jesus did not come to take away our sin?
Are you saying we are not forgiven?

Do you make this stuff up because you just like to be dishonest?

let me clue you in.

The member here who has stated over and over that "The Cross is not about forgiveness", is EPISKOPOS.

He's the one you are describing..

Here is the reality..
If you read my over 300 Threads that ive written on this particular forum, or any others on all the other forums, including the one you came from......you'll find that i ONLY Give Jesus all the credit Due Him alone for saving His redeemed and keeping them saved.

I ONLY /teach, that the born again are "made free from sin"

i ONLY Teach that "God hath made Jesus to BE SIN.. for US".

I ONLY TEACH that "Jesus is the One time, Eternal Sacrifice for sin"..

You'll find plenty of people like you, who believe you have your sin, you need to confess it.. instead of understanding that Jesus is become the sin bearer for the born again, or they are not saved, yet.

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you make this stuff up because you just like to be dishonest?

Why am I being dishonest?
YOU're the one who stated that the NT is not for all of us.
I'm saying that IT IS for all of us and asked you a question to make that point.

let me clue you in.

The member here who has stated over and over that "The Cross is not about forgiveness", is EPISKOPOS.

He's the one you are describing..

Well, I've been away for quite a while and cannot remember what the other member believes...
nor do I care.

But I know what YOU believe and I don't think you're doing God a favor by washing down Christianity until it's all fluff.
Jesus was not fluff.

Here is the reality..
If you read my over 300 Threads that ive written on this particular forum, or any others on all the other forums, including the one you came from......you'll find that i ONLY Give Jesus all the credit Due Him alone for saving His redeemed and keeping them saved.

And herein is the problem Behold, my old friend from 9 years ago.....
Jesus IS NOT KEEPING YOU SAVED.
There are some that believe in monergism...you're one.

I don't see this in the NT writings.
What I DO see is synergism.

Your salvation, and that of all of us, is a combined EFFORT.
God gives you grace,
but you must use that grace.
God gives you rules,
you must keep those rules.

Those that believe will be saved....
those that do NOT OBEY will have the wrath of God on them.
John 3:36

I'm not playing verse ping pong with you.
The NT is a complete thought and not a bunch of verses.
It's message is clear.
BELIEVE IN GOD
OBEY GOD
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Yes...I know what FEAR means in this sentence.
Do YOU know what the rest of the verses I'd post mean?
No.
Because you're locked into a belief system that is not biblical and
may be causing some to lose their very salvation.

I ONLY /teach, that the born again are "made free from sin"

They're not.
Read 1 John...
Read all the warnings from all the writers in the NT.

i ONLY Teach that "God hath made Jesus to BE SIN.. for US".

Your sin is your own.
YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN sin.
God is just because He will judge you according to what you have done.
John 5:29
29...and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Romans 2:6
6..who will render to each man according to his deeds.

I haven't read anywhere that states that Jesus will do it all for you and you need not do anything.
This idea is not only unbiblical, it is anti-biblical.

It goes against everything the NT and Jesus taught.
It goes against everything that is believed to be necessary if we want to be members of the Kingdom of God (on earth).

I ONLY TEACH that "Jesus is the One time, Eternal Sacrifice for sin"..

Agreed.

You'll find plenty of people like you, who believe you have your sin, you need to confess it.. instead of understanding that Jesus is become the sin bearer for the born again, or they are not saved, yet.

So when did God go on vacation and put you in charge?
YOU know who is saved and who is not?
I suggest you worry about your own soul.

Jesus died to forgive your SIN DEBT.
To BUY YOU BACK from the evil one.

Jesus DID NOT DIE to bear your sins.
YOU must bear your own sins.

James 4:17
17So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

Are YOU failing to do...or is JESUS failing to do?

Matthew 12:36
36I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

Account for every WORD....imagine for every ACTION.

Romans 14:12
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Revelation 20:12
12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

1 John 1:9
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


There are plenty more Behold....

and let's not forget:
James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

 

[Behold]

Why am I being dishonest?
YOU're the one who stated that the NT is not for all of us.

You need to post that statement, as the NT is given by God to the World, but the discernment of it, is not given to any, but the Born again.

Well, I've been away for quite a while and cannot remember what the other member believes...
nor do I care.

He Teaches the most Cross Denying Heresy, ive ever read, that is written by someone who says they are saved 40+ Yrs, and had a "vision".

He told me that Jesus is my "Whipping Boy" and that God's Grace is "Free stuff".

He's posted at least 10X that "The Cross is not about Forgiveness".

But I know what YOU believe and I don't think you're doing God a favor by washing down Christianity until it's all fluff.
Jesus was not fluff.

You could try to explain what you just said, but i dont think you know how.

Perhaps, you are offended by the Fact that God does not accept your works to accept you to begin with, nor afterwards.

And herein is the problem Behold, my old friend from 9 years ago.....
Jesus IS NOT KEEPING YOU SAVED.

If Jesus does not keep you saved, then who does?

Who does?

You think you keep yourself saved?

And, What is that?
That is rejection of Christ, pretending to be Faith in Christ.

See, once you deny that Jesus keeps you saved, then you have to answer.......>Then who does keep you saved.. ????

And if i were you, i would not say anything else, as you've proven that you are not Trusting in Christ to keep you saved.

And He's the only SAVIOR God has provided.

So, that leaves you with a problem....

 

[GodsGrace]

You need to post that statement, as the NT is given by God to the World, but the discernment of it, is not given to any, but the Born again.



He Teaches the most Cross Denying Heresy, ive ever read, that is written by someone who says they are saved 40+ Yrs, and had a "vision".

He told me that Jesus is my "Whipping Boy" and that God's Grace is "Free stuff".

He's posted at least 10X that "The Cross is not about Forgiveness".



You could try to explain what you just said, but i dont think you know how.

Perhaps, you are offended by the Fact that God does not accept your works to accept you to begin with, nor afterwards.



If Jesus does not keep you saved, then who does?

Who does?

You think you keep yourself saved?

And, What is that?
That is rejection of Christ, pretending to be Faith in Christ.

See, once you deny that Jesus keeps you saved, then you have to answer.......>Then who does keep you saved.. ????

And if i were you, i would not say anything else, as you've proven that you are not Trusting in Christ to keep you saved.

And He's the only SAVIOR God has provided.

So, that leaves you with a problem....

OK.
I read the entire post.
Apparently you like to insult persons but do not even read what they post.
I told you who keeps you saved: YOU.

And I told you why.
So, apparently, you don't trust scripture.

And since I don't even know HOW to express myself...
it's time for you to stop posting to me.

 

[marks]

You and @Hepzibah are discussing the forgiving of sins in John 20:23.

I'll tell you why Protestants can't accept your simple acceptance of it...
because we'd have to admit that we need to confess our sins in order for them to be forgiven
SINCE
The Apostles then passed on their authority to the next generation....and so forth.
This is Apostolic Succession and Protestants just cannot accept it.

I neither see that this authority was ever given to anyone else, nor that the right to confer it was given to anyone, so I have no basis to suppose it was.

I think many people have an objection to God handing this over to men. But I'm in the habit of taking the Bible seriously, even if it seems outside my understanding. Sure, some things are allegory and such, but those are stated, and defined. And if we make sure we're harmonizing with the plain stuff, we'll stay on the right path.

This passage is plainly stated, it harmonizes, only, some people think, "it can't mean that!"

Concerning apostolic succession, that is, that an apostle can confer his office of apostleship to someone else, neither see this taught in Scripture, nor do I see it practiced. The apostles appointed deacons, and elders, and overseers. They appointed those who would appoint overseers. I can't think of any appointing apostles.

I do read, however, that Jesus gave apostles to the church. So this seems clear to me. People don't appoint apostles, in the sense of what it meant at that time. Currently we call our apostles, that we send out, missionaries.

Much love!

 

[Hepzibah]

But does God literally put a new heart into us?
It seems to me that some become transformed immediately into a person that more resembles the teachings of Jesus
and some just take more time and some take a lot of time....
during all this they are saved if they're aspiring to please God and not their own sinful desires.

To say that God puts a new heart in us (as is stated in the OT) does make it seem as though the change in us will be instantaneous.
I do think that you believe this putting of a new heart is a manner of speaking for changing our very soul....
But my comments remain.

Paul's comments come to mind about how he had to give milk to some because they were not yet mature.
and this explains it well...
2 Corinthians 3:18
18And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another...

We are being transformed.
Also, Romans 12:1 tells us to be transformed....as if it's not automatically done.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, ALL things are become new. 2 Cor 5:17.

Our heart is much more important to God than our mind:

18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person.” Matt 15:18-20.

In putting off the old and putting on the new, with a ref to new clothes, the person is transformed. ALL things cannot mean bit by bit.

Personal testimony: I had been following Christ for 17 years after an atheistic childhood (and a severely abusive one) and had known a profound 'conversion' after meeting 'born again's' for the first time at age 23. I am putting these things in apostrophes because it was how I understood it for a long time. Not now.

For three weeks I floated on clouds, knowing that God really did exist, but when I read the story of the apostles, I could not help compare myself and my reality was not theirs. I could not stop smoking for a start, nor stop getting angry at times. I did not love the Lord my God with my whole heart soul and mind. It bothered me.

I carried on with this experience of the Christian life, but joy was only an occasional thing like when I heard a good sermon, then it was back to the usual on Monday. I longed to really know Christ the way that others had from reading various testimony's and books like those by Oswald Chambers. Amongst all of the suffering of cPTSD, The longing grew and grew until one day I cried out to God.

There had been a bit of a crisis whereby something I longed for, nothing massive, just a house move where there was a beautiful view, which I knew would bring something positive into my life, was refused and my heart sank. I made the decision that I should thank God for it and as soon as I did He delivered me from the flesh and gave me a new heart that was pure and thereafter, I did not sin and was able to live as the people I had been so envious of.

When we first come to Christ, I discovered, we have the beginnings of Theosis and spiritual awakening but we must go through a purification period to get there and many do not because they fail to find anyone who can guide them. May God give revelation.

 

[Hepzibah]

I understand that. It's the more common interpretation of that passage, even though what it says is very different from that.

Jesus sent them with the same apostleship He had. As the Father sent me, so I send you. And He gave them the same authority as He had.

Why wouldn't we just accept it the way it's written? I cannot think of one single valid reason.

Much love!

The authority they had is the same as all those who have been ES'ed and who share in the energies of God and demonstrate His power but do not share in His essence so are unable to forgive. They can however, see straight into the heart of a man they speak to and know exactly what is in that heart. Even just a look from their face will sometimes convict a man for example the story about Charles Finney and the factory girl.

 

[Hepzibah]

I hope that's not how you think I come to the Scriptures.

I was describing the term and how I understand it is used, not saying you are so. I know you study deeply, and I learn from you, but you still interpret according to the idea of different dispensations which I do not and consider all spiritual truth eternal from the two laws in Eden onwards. This means for me that those in the OT could be indwelt too.

Here is my question for you. Are you able to show me any passage in the New Testament that uses the word sarx, flesh, in a way that the context demonstrates it being used as you say, in a non-material sense of a "nature" not connected to the body?

This is what I mean.

Galatians 5:16-17 KJV
16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

In this example above, "flesh" is used several times in contrast to "spirit", however, there are no words related to "flesh" that specifically identify whether this is the stuff our bodies are made of, or a "nature" that is separate from our bodies.

Luke 24:39 KJV
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

In this example, "flesh" is not only contrasted to "spirit", but it is also conjoined to "bones", "flesh and bones", as though it is in fact talking about the stuff our bodies are made of.

John 6:51 KJV
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Here we see "flesh" refering to Jesus' offering, which, according to Hebrews, was specifically His body.

John 6:54 KJV
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is flesh His body? Or a sin nature? Of course it's His body.

Acts 2:31 KJV
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Jesus' body didn't rot.

Romans 2:28 KJV
28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 9:3 KJV
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

My kinsmen according to the flesh - that is, those to whom I'm physically related.

Romans 14:21 KJV
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

1 Corinthians 10:18 KJV
18) Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

1 Corinthians 15:39 KJV
39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

While there are many more I can post, hopefully these will serve to demonstrate. Each of these appears in a context that tells us clearly that the flesh being spoken of is not a disembodied "nature", properties and characteristics, that is separate from the physicality of our being, but is actually either the stuff our bodies are made of, or of things that relate to the physicality of our existence.

So here is my question.

Could you show me one single passage in Scripture that uses this word flesh in a context that clearly shows it meaning a "sin nature separate from the body"? I already know it's not there.

There are many places "flesh" is used that don't show a specific meaning by the context, that rely on you knowing what it means. And there are many places that show "flesh" being used in the way's I've said. But I know of no such place that uses "flesh" in a context that supports this other view.

So I find no authority whatsoever to define it differently than the word's normal and customary meaning and use.

This is not because I'm only focusing on my pet passages, while ignoring others. This is not because I recognize dispensational distinctions. It's not because I don't like the early commentators.

It's not because of any other reason then I've examined all uses of the word in the Bible, to see how the Bible uses the word. And this is what I see.

It's actually the opposite of "proof texting", I'm casting the widest net there is, to learn what the Bible itself says.

We either learn our doctrines from the words of Scripture, or we allow ourselves to be influenced by other sources.

marks, I agree that flesh is sometimes used to mean the physical body, sorry if that was not clear. I see it as the result of the state of the soul, whether the whole being is coming under the law of sin and (spiritual) death or the law of life. Two opposing forces and it is one or the other. Not a bit of both.

A turning point for the believer comes when he sees that flesh does not just mean sin as he understands it, but it also means all that is of good intention in man or his natural God given instincts. It is everything that is not of the Spirit, and has no place in the kingom.

This passage is plainly stated narrative:

John 20:21-23 KJV
21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

". . . but that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, He turned to the man and said, Arise . . ."

Jesus had authority on earth to forgive sins. "As My Father hath sent me, even so send I you", and He gave them the same authority that He had.

Am I the only one who can read this and just believe it?? That always seems incredible to me, but I'm confronted with this time and again. Plainly stated Scripture, that makes perfect sense, but I seem like the only guy who doesn't feel like he has to change it around to mean something else.

Nothing here is said about seeing someone's sincerity. And nothing is said about any other person being given this authority.

marks the first century believers were in my court.

The Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit coming upon certain people.

1 Samuel 16:13 KJV
Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

This is different from the Holy Spirit indwelling the regenerate.

David would not have been asking God to not take the Holy Spirit from him if that was the case.

We seen in Scripture the Spirit is with you, is in you, is upon you, we are filled with the Spirit, we are baptized into the Spirit, each of these have their own meaning.


I know Job is called perfect and upright, that he feared God and eschewed evil, that he held to his integrity. Exekiel speaks of Job's righteousness. I can't think of where Job was called holy. Regardless . . .

Untrue, and unfair. I hold the Bible above any and all commentary regardless of when it was written and who wrote it.

marks your theology with differences, is that of differing dispensations.

I learned a long time ago that commentators from any era are all over the map, with much error in their works, at least as I compare to Scripture.

I find the Bible to contain a great deal of straightfoward communication, that makes sense to me, harmonizes across the entire book, that agrees with the very words and syntax written.

When I find things I don't understand I pray over them and God shows me answers.

I've learned a long time ago to only accept theology which agrees with the not only the broad strokes in Scripture, but the least details. I've never held back from changing my mind when I see something I didn't see before.

Probibly something to due with my autism,

Ha! I'm on the spectrum too! Maybe we should not be arguing!

but I don't have emotional dogs in the fight. I'm not bothered by discovering I've been wrong about something, that shows success, nor failure!

Me too marks I only care for the truth. And truth for me has to line up with my own experience as a believer, not this 'positional' stuff.

I endeavor to learn the teachings of the Bible, and I separate that from all other - all other, not just the so called church fathers. They aren't the fathers of the church to begin with. And if we follow their teachings - in general - we will be riddled with error. Some things agree with Scripture, and a great deal doesn't.

I must disagree with this. Some were not in Theosis but the ones who were agreed absolutely about it. They did differ on other things, (but not like in Protestantism) but that is not God's way for each of us to be a theologian who knows all truth.

So I endeavor to learn Scripture itself.


Again, I really hope you don't label me according to how you understand certain theologies or teachings that you don't hold, and think I do.

Much love!

 

[Hepzibah]

cont'
I am not wanting to label as I know that in any theological system there will be differences, but I find it extremely frustrating that people will not be upfront about which system they adhere to and all say 'well I just believe in the bible' which is impossible.

We all see through a lens. It then takes an age to work out where they are. I have been upfront from the start on who has influenced me and my theological history. Maybe my ASD coming out.