Search results

I have to believe that one's own righteousness is different than Abraham's, because Abraham's was based on God revealing Himself to Abraham, and Abraham believing, whereas "a righteousness of my own" has to do with looking at oneself--imo the difference between God's righteousness and one's own...

I don't conflate things--I still don't know if Abraham was "born again".

Christ had to send a messenger of satan to Paul, to attack his body, to keep him from boasting. It wasn't "the Cross alone" for Paul.

I meant that I don't know that Abraham was "born again", because Hebrews 11 says he was only "just', not "made perfect" by the blood of the New Covenant (which had not at the time been inaugurated).

What the two of you are saying sounds synonymous. I guess the difference is you're emphasizing what God has done for us, whereas he is emphasizing what God is doing for us on an ongoing basis (eg, Paul still had a problem with boasting, so God sent satan to attack his body, what ever that...

I have been sharing many--please feel free to interact with any thread of mine.

The reason I'd be uncertain about how to define their walk is because Abraham was said to have "steps of faith" whereby he had "glorified God" (Ro 4) : New Covenant righteousness, true righteousness, is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6). Unrighteousness has the effect of "suppressing the...

I don't claim to understand their walk--I'm too concerned about my own realities, and haven't looked into it, and admit it is puzzling to me--but it is good to see we're reading the words similarly, as just what they are, as just the plain on-its-face reality.

Though things have improved, since I've been working at it for a long time, I find it nearly impossible to keep things on topic in my threads for extended periods of time. People just itch to derail the conversation, scrawl their irrelevant religious graffiti on my threads.

So I guess we were already in agreement, and I misunderstood your position. I also see it as a shift in the standing of the men of the past (together with those of the present partakers of the New Covenant) from merely just to perfect.

Nice interacting.

Especially because it was their spirits that were "made perfect"... not their number... plus, their number wasn't "completed" by the addition of the believers back then, because many tens of millions would come later (including believers today). Anyway, thanks for giving the observation an ear.

And you wouldn't suspect that the word "perfected" refers to the way it is used elsewhere in Hebrews--ie, they were just, but were only perfected by the blood of the New Covenant, the blood of the Lamb, which had, back then (when Hebrews had been written), "just now" ("without us") been shed?

It's obvious that it is right that you say Christians can be carnal or spiritual (Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians), and I am not in a position to "correct" others, but I wouldn't want to leave you saying slightly inaccurate (not necessarily destructive) things (if they really are...

Something that is a bit troubling, in the sense that it indicates a requirement of even more carefulness in interpreting 1 John, is that John seems to be writing some of those things specifically against Gnosticism, so when you try to apply them in any and every context, the statements don't...

The early church refuted OSAS for hundreds of years where it was only taught among gnostics. Why didn't anyone in the early church recognize OSAS if that was what Scripture and the Apostles taught?

If I believed in something that the early church spent hundreds of years refuting, like the Gnostic heresy of OSAS, I would not be incurious--I'd look at Scripture to figure out why the Church fought it, and see if they were right, and change my beliefs to fit with Scripture if it turned out...

When you mentioned women needing circumcision, because I was suspecting that bro.tan (who says Christians must follow the Torah and be physically circumcised) was African, and because it sounded like you were siding with him in that conversation I was involved in with him, it immediately brought...

I guess it hurts that you are being denied your desire to be above someone by correcting them. You were either incapable of understanding, or else could have but did not understand , or else did understand but pretended not to understand the context of the conversation you involved yourself in...

You chose to ignore the context of the conversation to find fault where there was no fault. Take your own advice.