WHY ARE MANY OF US STILL HERE?

[marks]

could you pls just state that you no longer sin so I can move on? Ty
I don't condemn you either ok, but you are nonetheless condemned wadr

If the only way to not be condemned is to not sin, then we're all out of luck. But, Jesus came and helped us.

Much love!
Mark

 

[Dave L]

I think that is a rather harsh statement. There is a long tradition of attempts to help Christians understand what the Bible is saying. Scofield was just another in that tradition. One might as well criticize Augustine, Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther or Tyndale. Are their attempts infallible--hardly.

Dispensationalism is not based on scripture. They base it on a hypothetical gap scripture never mentions, and then go about severing prophetic scripture, most already fulfilled, and project it into the future. It is false prophecy from start to finish.

 

[Waiting on him]

If the only way to not be condemned is to not sin, then we're all out of luck. But, Jesus came and helped us.

Much love!
Mark

The flesh is crucified and profiting nothing

 

[Waiting on him]

The flesh is crucified and profiting nothing

It’s why he put it out of the way.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

They placed a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks moving the 70th week thousands of years into the future, yet to be fulfilled. In doing this they turned Jesus who fulfilled the 70th week, into Antichrist. Ignored his crucifixion that put an end to the animal sacrifice. And then they recreated the Roman Empire of Jesus' day placing it into the future. Along with many other false prophecies. The 7 year tribulation = false. The pre-trib rapture = false. The physical Millennial Kingdom = false. And more. All based on a gap scripture never mentions.

The gap was already there (see Daniel 9:24-27). Why did Daniel separate the 70 "weeks of years" into 62 weeks of years and the last 7 weeks of years? Scofield just explained the gap to his satisfaction. Others are free to explain it any way that seems right to them.

 

[Phoneman777]

Hi Phoneman777,

No need to add in perjoratives, at least, that's how it seems to me that meant in labeling me an Antinomianist. Then calling me a legalist. Um, can you be a legalist while being against "law"? Don't you need to choose?

I never said you were a legalist, but that the kind of reasoning your offering is similar to what those criticized as "legalists" are alleged to use.

Think of the husband who goes through his day, repeating over and over, I must not cheat! He sees another woman . . . Don't Cheat! He thinks of an old girlfriend . . . Don't Cheat! And so his day goes. This is the one who doesn't love his wife. Think of another husband, who spends his day dreaming of his most wonderful wife, and how he might please her.

This is the kind of twisted thinking I'm talking about that makes you guys the real legalists. Did Jesus in Gethsemane dream of how wonderful His Father was, or was His sweat as it were "great drops of blood"? By your logic, since Jesus was in the garden reasoning, You will drink the cup, You will drink the cup, He didn't love the Father.

Love is what leads us to fight temptation, but you Antinomianists have somehow convinced yourselves that once we accept Jesus as Savior and King, we're granted immunity against both temptation to sin and yielding ourselves to it...all while knowing full well that the way of escape that we might be able to bear it is provided.

Which is legalistic?

The person who claims the promises of God without accepting the conditions by which those promises are claimed.

Which husband truly loves his wife, the one who fights when the devil comes to entice him to cheat on her or the one who freely indulges infidelity while presumptuously claiming that her love will cover his indiscretions?

 

[Dave L]

The gap was already there (see Daniel 9:24-27). Why did Daniel separate the 70 "weeks of years" into 62 weeks of years and the last 7 weeks of years? Scofield just explained the gap to his satisfaction. Others are free to explain it any way that seems right to them.

That is not a gap since Jesus fulfilled the 70th week ending the sacrifice with his death in the middle of the week.

 

[bbyrd009]

'We are confident, I say,
and willing rather
to be absent from the body,
and to be present with the Lord.
Wherefore we labour,
that, whether present or absent,
we may be accepted of Him.

does not even make literal sense, and we haven't yet considered I will never leave you nor forsake you in this context. Note the wordplay @ "whether present or absent" also. Or, you might attempt to establish how you might possibly be "not present with the (Lord)" right now also, I mean who does that describe, right? Paul is poking fun at "believers" in a little riddle there I guess.

"We are cock-sure, I say, and even wish we were already dead, and partying with Jesus"
"We" used as an inclusion device there, like I might say "we believe 'eternal' means 'immortal...'" even though I do not believe that

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Hi Phoneman777,

No need to add in perjoratives, at least, that's how it seems to me that meant in labeling me an Antinomianist. Then calling me a legalist. Um, can you be a legalist while being against "law"? Don't you need to choose?

But that aside . . .

Think of the husband who goes through his day, repeating over and over, I must not cheat! He sees another woman . . . Don't Cheat! He thinks of an old girlfriend . . . Don't Cheat! And so his day goes. This is the one who doesn't love his wife.

Think of another husband, who spends his day dreaming of his most wonderful wife, and how he might please her.

Which is legalistic?

The second husband doesn't spend the day saying, You must love! He just does.

But in not saying, "Don't Cheat", he does not diminish his love. There is no need for that.

And whether or not I claim to be bound by the law of adultery is non sequitor towards whether or not I love my wife.

Much love!
Mark

Exactly! We should seek to please Him in all things--just as one who loves another, seeks to please the object of his/her love. In that case, there is no need for constant self-flagellating with the "rules". A more blessed way to live.

 

[bbyrd009]

I never said you were a legalist, but that the kind of reasoning your offering is similar to what those criticized as "legalists" are alleged to use.
This is the kind of twisted thinking I'm talking about that makes you guys the real legalists. Did Jesus in Gethsemane dream of how wonderful His Father was, or was His sweat as it were "great drops of blood"? By your logic, since Jesus was in the garden reasoning, You will drink the cup, You will drink the cup, He didn't love the Father.

Love is what leads us to fight temptation, but you Antinomianists have somehow convinced yourselves that once we accept Jesus as Savior and King, we're granted immunity against both temptation to sin and yielding ourselves to it...all while knowing full well that the way of escape that we might be able to bear it is provided.
The person who claims the promises of God without accepting the conditions by which those promises are claimed.

Which husband truly loves his wife, the one who fights when the devil comes to entice him to cheat on her or the one who freely indulges infidelity while presumptuously claiming that her love will cover his indiscretions?

Anything to avoid confession I guess, huh?

 

[marks]

Which husband truly loves his wife, the one who fights when the devil comes to entice him to cheat on her or the one who freely indulges infidelity while presumptuously claiming that her love will cover his indiscretions?

Truly loves his wife, and is truly free to do so?

The one who only wants his wife. The one who knows that he is free to only want his wife.

You talk like we have an ongoing relation to the law. We either keep it, or break it. We're dead to it.

It's like paying property taxes in Japan for property you own in Argentina. Why would you do that? Pay your taxes in Argentina.

Much love!
Mark

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

That is not a gap since Jesus fulfilled the 70th week ending the sacrifice with his death in the middle of the week.

That is reading into Scripture something that is not there--nor is it even implied. The sacrificial system was NOT ended until 70 A.D.--well after the Resurrection. You would need to spiritualize to accept your teaching. I try to avoid that.

 

[Phoneman777]

Paul longed with a painful longing . . . hm. Sounds like your words but not Paul's. I recall him saying he didn't know which he'd choose.

Leaving is better for me, in a way. Staying is better for my wife, so I can care for here. Staying is better for my church, so I may yet be able to add to their faith. Staying may be better for others, who may yet come to know Christ through me. God willing!

And if these things be so, then staying will have been actually better for me. I have all eternity to enjoy Jesus, but I have just this life to build up treasure, and increase glory. Those things come from serving, which is done here.

I don't know what is to come, but God does, so I can trust that He knows best.

Phillipians 1:21-26 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.

According to this passage the reason for Paul remaining was not the keeping of a law to which he wrote he was dead, instead, his reason was "for your furtherance and joy of faith". That is, that their trust would increase, bringing joy.

Much love!

He did say he "groaned" to be absent from the body, did he not?

 

[marks]

Exactly! We should seek to please Him in all things--just as one who loves another, seeks to please the object of his/her love. In that case, there is no need for constant self-flagellating with the "rules". A more blessed way to live.

Yes, Exactly! A more blessed way to live.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

Exactly! We should seek to please Him in all things--just as one who loves another, seeks to please the object of his/her love. In that case, there is no need for constant self-flagellating with the "rules". A more blessed way to live.

I get why you say this, but it is too easily taken as "I don't have to obey the law" wadr. The law is not adequate, but that does not mean "ignore the law," but surely more like "accept the law as the minimum standard, and supersede it when needed." Which our law even allows for now I guess

 

[Dave L]

That is reading into Scripture something that is not there--nor is it even implied. The sacrificial system was NOT ended until 70 A.D.--well after the Resurrection. You would need to spiritualize to accept your teaching. I try to avoid that.

Jesus nullified it with his death of the cross. God removed it forcefully in 70 AD along with the unbelievers and the State.

 

[bbyrd009]

He did say he "groaned" to be absent from the body, did he not?

Nope! Try Quoting it and see

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, Exactly! A more blessed way to live.

Much love!

if you cannot address the Scriptures that refute your pov, you might fool yourself and maybe some others for a while, but really where do you think you will end up? My guess is least in the kingdom wadr, you know that one? Maybe not, dunno, but in your current posture I srsly doubt you will be able to claim ignorance ok?

 

[Phoneman777]

Truly loves his wife, and is truly free to do so?

The one who only wants his wife. The one who knows that he is free to only want his wife.

You talk like we have an ongoing relation to the law. We either keep it, or break it. We're dead to it.

It's like paying property taxes in Japan for property you own in Argentina. Why would you do that? Pay your taxes in Argentina.

Much love!
Mark

You know, I'd have more respect for opinion if you'd have addressed that point I made about Jesus in the garden, which I think totally undermines it.

As I said, if you're going to go by "what I feel" instead of "thus saith the Lord", that's your business. Despite what anyone says, "I'm staying here because God wants me to" is not very convincing when it comes from these same people who say "I don't have to obey the Ten Commandments even though God wants me to."

 

[Phoneman777]

Nope! Try Quoting it and see

2 Corinthians 5:2 "For in this (earthly body) we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven (glorified body)..."

Seems to me most Christians groan at the thought of having to leave this earthly body and be clothed with that glorified body, as if they'll miss out on who'll win "The Next American Idol"