understanding Paul

[marks]

This is, I think, short of the reality that the human mind was made in the image of God, and despite the presence of the sin nature, can reflect upon God's word and can follow one's conscience. If Man is strictly the "mind of the flesh," then he is in "total depravity," which I do not agree with. This is strictly a Protestant concept by which one version of Predestination is conceived of.

Hi Randy,

I prefer to stick with Biblical terminology, as this is what conforms my mind most readily to Christ.

I don't find "total depravity" in the Bible.

What I DO find . . .

Romans 8
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

You are either after the flesh, or after the Spirit, and that means specifically according to the flesh, or according to the Spirit. This is further defined as being determined by whether or not the Holy Spirit lives in you. So if you are indwelt by the Spirit, you are "according to the Spirit", and otherwise, you are "according to the flesh".

The flesh mind brings death, the spirit mind brings life. The flesh mind is at war with God, and cannot fulfill God's law.

But if you are in Christ, though the body of flesh is in a state of living death, as it were, the spirit is nonetheless alive in Christ.

And Ephesians, Colossians, both speak of people dead in trespasses and sins. Colossians puts it this way, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh. Not being separated away from your flesh. To have your flesh cut off.

So rather than say we are totally depraved, I would say that we are dead in sin, in a hopelessly ruined flesh that cannot have life being God's enemy. But in Christ we are cut away from that flesh body, we are reborn not from Adam, in death, but from God, in life, specifically, the life of Christ.

Prevenient Grace allows depraved Man to receive and to obey God's word, because all men were created with the capacity to respond to God's word. The depravity of the sin nature does not prevent Man from doing what he was created to do, which is walk in the nature of God.

Prevenient Grace is also not a Biblical term. I myself think of prevenient grace as describing what God does when He presents His gospel to us, enabling us to actually make a choice whether we will act on the faith He gives, or whether we will reject Him.

But whether or not God gives a gift of grace to enable people to do certain things, still, Jesus said, unless a man be born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God. And he can't! He doesn't have the eyes.

Where is the Scripture that all are created with the capacity to walk in the nature of God? What I find is that none are righteous, all fall short.

Romans 5
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Through the offense of one the many be dead, literally, already dead. We are dead in trespasses and sins, because Adam disobeyed.
We are under condemnation not because of our own sin, but because of Adam's sin.
We do not sin because we make bad choices, we make bad choices because we are sinners, having been made sinners by Adam's sin.

And by the same token . . .

We are not alive to God because we haven't sinned, rather, because Christ didn't sin.
We are not accepted by God because we did something righteous, rather, because of Christ's righteousness.
And we don't start being righteous because we start making better choices, rather, Jesus' obedience.

We may be bound to a sin nature, whether as an unsaved pagan or as a Christian still infected with the sin nature. But we can still do good, bound by that nature, or freed from the power of that nature by the regeneration of Christ.

We can do good or bad in our own eyes according to our various temperments and upbringing. But none of this is salvific, because they are the works of dead men.

The sacrifices in the Law, and God's forebearance in general allowed mankind the opportunity to not be condemned before Christ came and died. But those things did not give life.

As Christians we are liberated from the power of sin, but still are infected by the sin nature, and limited, to some extent, by the effects of that sin nature. Though we are freed from the condemnation of that sin nature by Christ, we are still impacted by the effects of sin in our flesh. It is only that we can still do good and obtain a new nature that dominates over sin.

Be it to you according to your faith, is what I've learned.

We are born with a new nature, our Father's nature.

Ephesians 4
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Again, "after God" is, "according to God", that is, in God's pattern. In this case, righteous, and truly holy.

We are liberated from the sin nature . . . how?

It is by death and resurrection into Christ.

As such, we cannot say that anybody still impacted by the sin nature--all of us--are in the "mind of the flesh." Even as Christians we still have the sin nature, and at times have the "mind of the flesh," as Paul assumes in his exhortations *not* to be that way!

"It is no longer I that sin, but the sin that lives in me." We are not a mixture of good and evil, righteousness and depravity. Rather, we are righteous and holy child of God who lives in a corrupted and dead body of flesh which wars against us.

And that we spend our lives in a struggle and fight against that flesh, when the battle is won through faith, not effort. By believing in Jesus, His love, His power, His life in me.

Much love!

 

[marks]

We are not captive to anything more than a compulsion to sin and to live in sin

What more would there be?

But I would have to add, we are, outside of Christ, dead and condemned.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But that does not mean that men, still under the old creation, are so totally depraved that they cannot rise above the "mind of the flesh."

What would they rise to?

This is where I see prevenient grace, as God gives men faith with which they can believe the Gospel and obey it.

But until you are born again from God, what else do you have except Adam's dead humanity?

Much love!

 

[Behold]

Paul perfectly well knew and explained that those who kept the Law properly were righteous.

What you just said is deception.
Paul himself said that He kept the law perfectly, "was blameless in the law", and that trying to do this, and doing it, is "dung".
He described all self effort to keep the law, to try to make yourself righteous by law keeping, is "DUNG."
So you know this word ? You're teaching it.
Be sure to actually study Philippians 3, before you post anymore nonsense related to "Paul".

Paul understood, where you dont, that there is no righteousness found by keeping the law.
There is no righteousness for us, outside of JESUS and HIS.
All the Law does is reveal that you are unrighteous.
So, when you teach, falsely, that keeping what only reveals you to be unrighteous, is to make yourself righteous, is deceit and is terrible theology, and is in fact heresy.
Don't teach that keeping the law makes you Righteous, as noone is righteous apart from God making them Righteous, thru the blood of Jesus.
So, you wrote a Thread that has no understanding of the Topic.
Thats not a good idea.
Listen Randy, God came here because the LAW has no ability to cause righteousness or give righteousness. All it can do is define you as a LOST SINNER.
Be sure you understand this fact.

 

[marks]

Brother, I think you're missing my point. There is for a fact this ambiguity and confusion created when we read seeming contradictions here, whether as young Christians or even as older Christians not yet fully able to work out the systematic theology.
I'm just trying to help here because I've spent a few years on this.

Why thank you and I appreciate that! I too have spent some years on this.

We read in Psalm 119 that the Law is good and produces righteousness for those in covenant under that system. In the NT Paul seems to condemn the "righteousness of the Law." This has to be worked out, correct?

We need to keep in mind what the Law was really all about. It was to do a few things. Preserve Israel as a nation until Christ came. Prove to everyone that they need a savior, both by condemning what we all do, and by increasing sin by the commandment.

The righteousness under the Law was not salvific, you could not see the kingdom of God though you kept the law as fully as you could.

Any time you come across a seeming contradiction or ambiguity just keep reading, keep studying, asking your Father for answer, and they will come.

So while the Israelites would try to keep the law, and thereby not go off the deep end into sin, and so bringing their own destruction, no amount of law keeping can change your nature.

While Paul considered himself blameless under the Law - no minor claim that! - still he declared the righteousness through the Law as nothing, as waste, and that what he wanted was the righteousness of God by faith.

No, I'm not saying the Law isn't good, if used lawfully. But it never could make one righteous.

That could only be achieved by the atonement of Christ.

This is another place I like to keep to Biblical terminology. Atonement, to cover sin, was the OT, while propitiation, and remission, and freedom, these are the NT words.

In Christ, sin is not covered, it is removed.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy,

I prefer to stick with Biblical terminology, as this is what conforms my mind most readily to Christ.

I don't find "total depravity" in the Bible.

What I DO find . . .

Romans 8
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

You are either after the flesh, or after the Spirit, and that means specifically according to the flesh, or according to the Spirit. This is further defined as being determined by whether or not the Holy Spirit lives in you. So if you are indwelt by the Spirit, you are "according to the Spirit", and otherwise, you are "according to the flesh".

The flesh mind brings death, the spirit mind brings life. The flesh mind is at war with God, and cannot fulfill God's law.

But if you are in Christ, though the body of flesh is in a state of living death, as it were, the spirit is nonetheless alive in Christ.

And Ephesians, Colossians, both speak of people dead in trespasses and sins. Colossians puts it this way, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh. Not being separated away from your flesh. To have your flesh cut off.

So rather than say we are totally depraved, I would say that we are dead in sin, in a hopelessly ruined flesh that cannot have life being God's enemy. But in Christ we are cut away from that flesh body, we are reborn not from Adam, in death, but from God, in life, specifically, the life of Christ.



Prevenient Grace is also not a Biblical term. I myself think of prevenient grace as describing what God does when He presents His gospel to us, enabling us to actually make a choice whether we will act on the faith He gives, or whether we will reject Him.

But whether or not God gives a gift of grace to enable people to do certain things, still, Jesus said, unless a man be born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God. And he can't! He doesn't have the eyes.

Where is the Scripture that all are created with the capacity to walk in the nature of God? What I find is that none are righteous, all fall short.

Romans 5
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Through the offense of one the many be dead, literally, already dead. We are dead in trespasses and sins, because Adam disobeyed.
We are under condemnation not because of our own sin, but because of Adam's sin.
We do not sin because we make bad choices, we make bad choices because we are sinners, having been made sinners by Adam's sin.

And by the same token . . .

We are not alive to God because we haven't sinned, rather, because Christ didn't sin.
We are not accepted by God because we did something righteous, rather, because of Christ's righteousness.
And we don't start being righteous because we start making better choices, rather, Jesus' obedience.



We can do good or bad in our own eyes according to our various temperments and upbringing. But none of this is salvific, because they are the works of dead men.

The sacrifices in the Law, and God's forebearance in general allowed mankind the opportunity to not be condemned before Christ came and died. But those things did not give life.



Be it to you according to your faith, is what I've learned.

We are born with a new nature, our Father's nature.

Ephesians 4
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Again, "after God" is, "according to God", that is, in God's pattern. In this case, righteous, and truly holy.

We are liberated from the sin nature . . . how?

It is by death and resurrection into Christ.



"It is no longer I that sin, but the sin that lives in me." We are not a mixture of good and evil, righteousness and depravity. Rather, we are righteous and holy child of God who lives in a corrupted and dead body of flesh which wars against us.

And that we spend our lives in a struggle and fight against that flesh, when the battle is won through faith, not effort. By believing in Jesus, His love, His power, His life in me.

Much love!

I do not find that I can converse with you on this matter because you limit what you will discuss. You will only discuss the Scriptures, and only your view of them. You don't acknowledge that the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum. There is a context for the Scriptures themselves, and ignoring them we risk not understanding them properly.

In the same way, failing to apply Scriptures to current systematic theologies, philosophies, and terms runs the risk of not properly applying Scriptures to our culture, thus nullifying our ability to witness to it. I therefore choose to address both the context of the Scriptures and the things in our world that the Scriptures would apply to. Otherwise, we might as well just memorize Scriptures and repeat them verbatim every day everywhere we go. But that won't accomplish much, I assure you.

All that you're quoting has to do with *saving faith,* and nothing to do with faith and righteousness outside of Christianity, nor even under the Law. It is speaking *Christianity.* That's where Paul was. He was leaving the system of Law behind, along with paganism, but trying to speak truth into the pagan culture around him. We should do the same thing, referencing our own culture today, and understanding what Scriptures meant in Paul's day.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What more would there be?

But I would have to add, we are, outside of Christ, dead and condemned.

Much love!

Outside of bondage to sin, there is the sin nature. All have a sin nature, but not all who have a sin nature are in bondage to sin.

When we come to Christ, we are freed from the bondage to sin, but still have a sin nature. Legally, we are dead to sin because Christ died for us. But physically, we are still alive and have a sin nature.

The difference is, having come under God's covenant, and having accepted Christ's death for our sins, we have a new nature that is beyond condemnation. It achieves eternal life, as opposed to the godly nature that had been cultivated under the Law of Moses. That also had a covenant that propagated a new spiritual nature. It just could not achieve eternal life until Christ's atonement had taken place.

 

[Episkopos]

Not at all! Righteousness, for God, was always obedience to His word. And that word was given to all men from the beginning when He made men in His image, after His likeness. And so, all men could do right, whether they are pagans or not, whether they are in bondage to the sin nature or not.

Obedience under the Law was *not* the power of man. That would not be true righteousness before God! It is true that in the time of Jesus, and in times of national apostasy, Israel followed the Law artificially, and produced a modest form of righteousness, though it was overshadowed by sin. This is *not* the righteousness of the Law. And it is not even true righteousness!

God has always been interested in more than just doing right--He has been interested in a conversion of nature--a lifestyle of doing good. And so repentance is not just a matter of doing a few good things. More, it is a matter of leaving a sinful lifestyle behind, and doing right regularly, in effect overpowering sin.

The new nature that God cultivated in Israel in the OT was through the covenant of the Law. It encouraged a lifestyle of righteousness, and not just a few acts of doing right. Living properly under the Law was, therefore, true righteousness. It just couldn't, in NT terms, achieve eternal life. Only Christ's atonement could accomplish that.

People still sinned under the law. So you are exaggerating the power that the law can produce. There is NO power in the law. The law is like a voltmeter to see what power IS there. The law has no other power source then the obedience of men. The problem with the law is that men are forced to try keeping it in the own strength...before the resurrection life was available.

So you need to go back to square one and look at what Jesus says about obedience to the commandments.

OT righteousness...was an EXTERNAL obedience of not killing and not stealing.

Jesus clarified the holy nature of the law by providing the much harder standard of not even THINKING sinfully...even for a moment. And to do that was impossible before Christ.

So you are confused on what you think salvation is. Salvation is not a status. It is the power of a life over sin. A freedom from the bondage of sin. A release into fellowship with God. A God who is holy. Being holy is now possible IN Christ.

No one is finally saved before they are finished this race of faith...this life.

 

[farouk]

Outside of bondage to sin, there is the sin nature. All have a sin nature, but not all who have a sin nature are in bondage to sin.

When we come to Christ, we are freed from the bondage to sin, but still have a sin nature. Legally, we are dead to sin because Christ died for us. But physically, we are still alive and have a sin nature. The difference is, having come under God's covenant, and having accepted Christ's death for our sins, we have a new nature that is beyond condemnation. It achieves eternal life.

Romans 8 expresses it so well....

 

[Randy Kluth]

What would they rise to?

This is where I see prevenient grace, as God gives men faith with which they can believe the Gospel and obey it.

But until you are born again from God, what else do you have except Adam's dead humanity?

Much love!

What you have in Adam's dead humanity is a humanity outside of God's covenants, and in bondage to the sin nature. However, they are still able to hear and receive the word of God, and then obey it. Just as Israel, under the Law, could obey that Law, so pagans, under the Law of Conscience, were able to obey God.

Rom 2.14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

I've had an interesting life, brother. I was raised up from birth in covenant with God, knowing the new nature in Christ. I talked with God every day. I walked in His righteousness. I went to church every week.

But then one day I disobeyed God, and began to mix, in my teens, with the pagan world. I found myself, after a few years, in bondage to sin. And I only was liberated from that bondage when I decided to repent and return again to living in the new nature of Christ.

You see, no matter where I was at, in the new nature, or in bondage to sin, I was free to receive divine revelation and to choose righteousness. But unless we choose to *live in righteousness,* by adopting the new nature, we will remain in bondage to sin.

Your quotations of Scriptures are correct, and your basic understanding correct. But when the philosophy of free will enters in, your use of Scriptures to apply to this becomes murky. And it is a subject that I believe we need to address, in an age where choice means everything, and where *real* choices need proof.

We can't just rely on God to do it for us, or rely on grace to cover us. We need to know that our need is to have a nature that obeys God's word every day, as it speaks to our conscience. And we need to know we are responsible, and accountable, for what we do.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why thank you and I appreciate that! I too have spent some years on this.

I was trying not to sound arrogant, brother! I didn't mean to demean you, or to compete with you. If you know something you want to share it. You can tell me whether it is new to you or not?

I married a very young Christian after I had been a life-long Christian. She knows things now, having been a young Christian, that I'm just learning! That's because things she experienced in the Gospel went right over my head, which I failed to grasp not having gone through what she did! (We are both old Christians now!)

We need to keep in mind what the Law was really all about. It was to do a few things. Preserve Israel as a nation until Christ came. Prove to everyone that they need a savior, both by condemning what we all do, and by increasing sin by the commandment.

That is just the language of Pauline Theology, and does not decipher the things I'm addressing. Again, if all we can do is quote Paul, without fully understanding how it applies in certain places, then we're failing in our job!

There was much more about the Law that Paul barely touched on because it was not his job to harp on how wonderful the Law had been. Rather, his job was to show a need to move on, with respect to the Jews, who at that time had been the only People of God.

But in today's world, there is a need to see what Paul meant by moving on from the Law. It was not moving on from something horrible--something that just points out sin, and magnifies sin. It was rather to glorify God by expressing righteousness in men who obeyed the word of God. Paul assumed this was known by the Jews of his time, and built from that revelation to the revelation of Christ, who surpassed the Law. He added to righteousness salvation.

The righteousness under the Law was not salvific, you could not see the kingdom of God though you kept the law as fully as you could.

The problem is, many Christians today then conclude that since the Law did not save it therefore never accomplished anything, with respect to righteousness. And that is not the truth. It was simply Paul's way of saying it was worthless to *go back to* the Law!

Any time you come across a seeming contradiction or ambiguity just keep reading, keep studying, asking your Father for answer, and they will come.

So while the Israelites would try to keep the law, and thereby not go off the deep end into sin, and so bringing their own destruction, no amount of law keeping can change your nature.

I think that's untrue. God would never have given a Law simply to frustrate people, to prove they couldn't keep it. That's why I do threads like these.

While Paul considered himself blameless under the Law - no minor claim that! - still he declared the righteousness through the Law as nothing, as waste, and that what he wanted was the righteousness of God by faith.

No, I'm not saying the Law isn't good, if used lawfully. But it never could make one righteous.

Hence the problem! You say the Law is good, and yet claim it makes no one righteous. Make up your mind!

The problem is, you just quote Scripture and don't think through what I'm saying. The Law was indeed making Israel righteous. It was covenant that cultivated a new nature of righteousness in Israel, as opposed to the pagan culture of Egypt.

Paul was just expressing his "Christianese" to explain that continuing in a system that didn't achieve eternal life is ridiculous once that eternal life has been achieved by a new system! It was not that the old system was bad, but that to fail to achieve the better system makes the old system a bad substitute!

This is another place I like to keep to Biblical terminology. Atonement, to cover sin, was the OT, while propitiation, and remission, and freedom, these are the NT words.

Atonement is clearly a NT term!
Rom 3.25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

In Christ, sin is not covered, it is removed.
Much love!

To cover sin is either to temporarily remove sin or to permanently remove sin. Animal sacrifices temporarily removed sins. Christ's sacrifice permanently removed sins.

 

[Episkopos]

Outside of bondage to sin, there is the sin nature. All have a sin nature, but not all who have a sin nature are in bondage to sin.

When we come to Christ, we are freed from the bondage to sin, but still have a sin nature. Legally, we are dead to sin because Christ died for us. But physically, we are still alive and have a sin nature.

The difference is, having come under God's covenant, and having accepted Christ's death for our sins, we have a new nature that is beyond condemnation. It achieves eternal life, as opposed to the godly nature that had been cultivated under the Law of Moses. That also had a covenant that propagated a new spiritual nature. It just could not achieve eternal life until Christ's atonement had taken place.

You are playing a shell game here with too many marbles. There is NO new spiritual nature under the law. That is patently ridiculous.

Is there a game going on here of which I am not aware...as in...how do get things wrong in every possible way?

There is no achieving eternal life.

We are translated into the kingdom life by grace through faith. That is the gift of eternal life.

 

[Randy Kluth]

People still sinned under the law. So you are exaggerating the power that the law can produce. There is NO power in the law. The law is like a voltmeter to see what power IS there. The law has no other power source then the obedience of men. The problem with the law is that men are forced to try keeping it in the own strength...before the resurrection life was available.

Israel did rely on human means to observe the Law, but that did not mean they were using "the arm of the flesh." This is just Christianese for living in sin! Israel did not observe the Law to live in sin!

What the Bible is talking about is the fact Israel only had their own means to observe the Law, and to show the need for atonement. They could not, however, atone for themselves, and thus everything they did was not sufficient to atone for anybody. The priesthood itself had to be purified in order to exercise an even temporary priesthood!

The need was for Christ to do the work of permanent atonement, and that is all the Scriptures meant when they said that Israel could not, by their own works, bring about their own justification. They could only do so in a temporary way, until Christ came to make their work complete.

Thus, the Law was very powerful, because it was the word of God. It was only powerless insofar as making Israel eligible for eternal life. That could not come by the Law, which sinful men participated in. It could only come by Christ, who was sinless. Only he was eligible to do this work. And as God only he could forgive all sin. Therefore, only he could provide for final atonement.

You use this language to claim that the Law was impotent in all respects, even with respect to pleasing God? Please explain?

So you need to go back to square one and look at what Jesus says about obedience to the commandments.

OT righteousness...was an EXTERNAL obedience of not killing and not stealing.

Again, this was not an "external righteousness" in the sense it was not true righteousness. It was indeed true righteousness! It was external only in the sense it could not long remain in men since they would die. So the only way to permanently internalize this righteousness was through the hope of resurrection from the dead. Righteousness, whether under the Law or in Christ, was always meant to be internalized. It just couldn't *remain there* under the Law, because it was a temporary means of atonement. There was no means of resurrection from the dead, which is what eternal salvation is.

Jesus clarified the holy nature of the law by providing the much harder standard of not even THINKING sinfully...even for a moment. And to do that was impossible before Christ.

There is no real substantial difference between the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of Christ except for the change in covenants. Both were genuine forms of righteousness. After Christ made atonement for sins, Israel no longer had to make continuous temporary sacrifices for their sins.

So you are confused on what you think salvation is. Salvation is not a status. It is the power of a life over sin. A freedom from the bondage of sin. A release into fellowship with God. A God who is holy. Being holy is now possible IN Christ.

No one is finally saved before they are finished this race of faith...this life.

I don't agree. We are finally saved the moment we receive Christ and the nature he promised to those who accept him. But with respect to physical salvation I agree--that is future.

I also don't agree that holiness was impossible before Christ came. There were "holy men of God" well before the NT era!

 

[marks]

I do not find that I can converse with you on this matter because you limit what you will discuss. You will only discuss the Scriptures, and only your view of them. You don't acknowledge that the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum. There is a context for the Scriptures themselves, and ignoring them we risk not understanding them properly.

I'm having a hard time thinking about something I didn't want to talk about. And I thought we were discussing both of our views, but I guess I got that wrong?

Scriptures, there are different ways you can be meaning, not written in a vacuum, if you mean, making use of the writer's language and culture, yes, I understand that. Let's talk context by all means, but let's keep the words of the text paramount. Right?

In the same way, failing to apply Scriptures to current systematic theologies, philosophies, and terms runs the risk of not properly applying Scriptures to our culture, thus nullifying our ability to witness to it. I therefore choose to address both the context of the Scriptures and the things in our world that the Scriptures would apply to. Otherwise, we might as well just memorize Scriptures and repeat them verbatim every day everywhere we go. But that won't accomplish much, I assure you.

Actually, I disagree most strongly. We should all be reading the Bible so much that we just begin to remember all of it. I recommend as NT Christians begin with Paul's letters. Read them so much, with so much concentration, that you come to know the contents, all of the contents, and as you are reciting the passages, the connections will come to you, and you will understand what God is teaching us.

By being conformed to the image of Christ, which happens by the renewing of our minds, which largely happens by internalizing His Word, this is how we are relevant to others, and to our culture. What this worlds doesn't need is someone with a system, or a philosophy, or a method, it needs someone who will be as Jesus, by being conformed to His image.

I don't mind discussing systematic theologies and philosophies and all, but I don't want to let their ideas contaminate Scripture.

But one thing is for sure, you will find me more rigid than some in holding strictly to the words of the Scriptures. I am convinced that God wrote every word of the Bible, and means exactly what He says.

All that you're quoting has to do with *saving faith,* and nothing to do with faith and righteousness outside of Christianity, nor even under the Law. It is speaking *Christianity.* That's where Paul was. He was leaving the system of Law behind, along with paganism, but trying to speak truth into the pagan culture around him. We should do the same thing, referencing our own culture today, and understanding what Scriptures meant in Paul's day.

Weren't we discussing Paul? Understanding Paul?

I guess I'm not having a very good day here.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are playing a shell game here with too many marbles. There is NO new spiritual nature under the law. That is patently ridiculous.

Is there a game going on here of which I am not aware...as in...how do get things wrong in every possible way?

There is no achieving eternal life.

We are translated into the kingdom life by grace through faith. That is the gift of eternal life.

There is no "shell game," which is insulting enough. I'm quite serious. But when you suggest that I think we "achieve eternal life," you go over the top. Yes, I believe there are things we need to do to achieve eternal life, such as accept Christ and repent of our sins. But I've always said *atonement for sin* is Christ's domain alone. That should be enough for you. If you don't care to understand, just don't comment at all!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm having a hard time thinking about something I didn't want to talk about. And I thought we were discussing both of our views, but I guess I got that wrong?

You are chalk full of sarcasm, brother. Why don't you try to understand what I'm saying? Of course I'm trying to discuss both our views. The problem is, your view is that you *only want to discuss biblical language,* and I'm saying that Paul's language was not spoken in a vacuum, and requires a greater context to understand it! Unless you do that, no--we can't discuss each other's views!

Scriptures, there are different ways you can be meaning, not written in a vacuum, if you mean, making use of the writer's language and culture, yes, I understand that. Let's talk context by all means, but let's keep the words of the text paramount. Right?

The Scriptures are always paramount with me. That's why I'm trying to explain them properly, as *Paul understand his words to be understood!* There is so much "Christianese" thrown about that quotes are used to say absurd things like, "the righteousness of the Law is not true righteousness" and "the Law was given not to offer righteousness but rather to prove people couldn't be righteous."

Actually, I disagree most strongly. We should all be reading the Bible so much that we just begin to remember all of it. I recommend as NT Christians begin with Paul's letters. Read them so much, with so much concentration, that you come to know the contents, all of the contents, and as you are reciting the passages, the connections will come to you, and you will understand what God is teaching us.

I started out, back in the early 70s, memorizing Scriptures. After memorizing a few books of the Bible I stopped. Looking back, I see that it is much more important to understand them and to speak them into real situations. They can liberate if used properly.

By being conformed to the image of Christ, which happens by the renewing of our minds, which largely happens by internalizing His Word, this is how we are relevant to others, and to our culture. What this worlds doesn't need is someone with a system, or a philosophy, or a method, it needs someone who will be as Jesus, by being conformed to His image.

That's absolutely wrong-minded and selfish. God does whatever *He wants to do!* If He made a Justin Martyr, who syntheszed Christianity and philosophy, who are you to judge God for doing that? If God made the Church Fathers, who synthesized Greek language with Biblical Language, who are we to judge God for doing that?

Martin Luther was steeped in philosophy, and although that may be dangerous ground, it was important for him to break free from Catholic language, which was dogmatic and stifling. Sometimes we need to humanize the Scriptures without turning to Humanism. But religion often gets stuck in the mud, and prefers to live in a state of constant criticism and judgment. Eventually that religion, though well-meaning, turns to stone. Conservativism is good, but not when it loses touch, and stops reaching out to people. Then we will have lost touch with God too.

I don't mind discussing systematic theologies and philosophies and all, but I don't want to let their ideas contaminate Scripture.

But one thing is for sure, you will find me more rigid than some in holding strictly to the words of the Scriptures. I am convinced that God wrote every word of the Bible, and means exactly what He says.

I agree. Just don't let that become a callous, "religious" spirit! God often takes us out of our comfort zones, right? Our hearts have to be open to a fresh word every day.

Weren't we discussing Paul? Understanding Paul?

I guess I'm not having a very good day here.

Much love!

It's okay brother. I hope we get to know each other better. But as much as I disagree with you to make my points, I think your heart and head are in the right place. Let's give it time?

 

[marks]

pagans, under the Law of Conscience, were able to obey God.

Rom 2.14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Something on this . . .

We've been talking about context, I'd like to point to the context of this passage, this is part of his build up to show how we are all guilty before God. In this particular part, I see the main theme being that being a Jew does not give you the advantage into salvation over a gentile, just because you were given the Law.

Everyone has a sense of right and wrong.

An interesting thing is in the syntax of the verbs, accusing and defending.

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another



"and between one another the reasonings accusing or also defending."

While accusing is an Active Voice, defending is a Passive/Deponent verb. So what this verse is saying here, is that people know right and wrong, they accuse others, and defend themselves.

But the point I'd like to bring up is that it says when they "by nature" do the things written in the law, this is by nature, and not an act of obedience.

Now, I know that gentiles have obeyed God. It's just that this verse doesn't teach an innate ability in all people to be willingly obedient to God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But when the philosophy of free will enters in, your use of Scriptures to apply to this becomes murky. And it is a subject that I believe we need to address, in an age where choice means everything, and where *real* choices need proof.

What is your philosophy of "free will"?

Much love!

 

[marks]

There is so much "Christianese" thrown about that quotes are used to say absurd things like, "the righteousness of the Law is not true righteousness" and "the Law was given not to offer righteousness but rather to prove people couldn't be righteous."

If you look at what I said, I said the righteousness of the Law is not salvific. But Scripture says plainly . . .

Galatians 2
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

Until Christ died for all sin on the cross, the stain of sin was on all men.

And therefore, man's righteousness apart from faith in Christ is as filthy rags...

Cheap shot! I don't agree, in any respect, with humanism, which is a compromise of Christianity with paganism.

No cheaper than you saying that I am a student of Marcion.

But, humanistic philosophy teaches that man is inherently good rather than what the Bible says about the unregenerated heart in Jeremiah 17:9; and I happen to know that you reject the testimony of that verse for the concept that man has good in himself and can be righteous apart from Christ.