• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,383
6,295
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I can see we have a different take on what flesh is in the sense that for you is it more than refers to the physical. For me it is refers to the body of man that God formed from the ground, the physical or material part of man opposite the spiritual part. But for you, it seems there is more to it than that. And I am not sure what it being the body in which the human spirit dwells makes a difference.

Tong
R1814
I believe that concept originated with Plato or Aristotle... Or maybe both, I can't remember. But whoever, it is rooted in greek philosophy and I don't think it has a place in Christian theology... Except for something to avoid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randy Kluth

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe that concept originated with Plato or Aristotle... Or maybe both, I can't remember. But whoever, it is rooted in greek philosophy and I don't think it has a place in Christian theology... Except for something to avoid.

You're right. The ancient Greeks sometimes formed the same kind of pagan dualism that other religions in the East had, producing a kind of righteousness either by denying that material things matter, ie Hedonism, or by claiming that self-denial of material things produces virtue. It could be sexual abstinence or deprivation of food--things God destined for man to be received with proper use.

Man wanted to create his own rules so that in performing them he could feel self-satisfied that he was good, and met the need of his inner conscience to be a "good person." It also gained points with other people, who didn't feel so gifted in self-denial.

The Apostle Paul said that we should deny our "flesh." In saying this he was not saying we should deny material things, such as food and sexual relations. On the contrary, Paul consigned such legalistic restrictions to demonic religion.

1 Tim 4.he Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

No, Paul meant by "denying our flesh" a rejection of a fallen spiritual nature, in which the spirit rebels or veers away from the word of God, resisting partnership with God. The fallen spirit pursues its own bodily interests, being guiding by its own senses, rather than by what God's word tells him about living in the image of God for which he was created.

The "flesh" simply refers to the fallen nature of man that pursues his own selfish bodily interests, as opposed to serving the word of God that created him. The "flesh" is thus more than just the material part of man, but more, the sinful spirit of man choosing to be guided more by his own physical interests than by the interests of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brakelite

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,383
6,295
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You're right. The ancient Greeks sometimes formed the same kind of pagan dualism that other religions in the East had, producing a kind of righteousness either by denying that material things matter, ie Hedonism, or by claiming that self-denial of material things produces virtue. It could be sexual abstinence or deprivation of food--things God destined for man to be received with proper use.

Man wanted to create his own rules so that in performing them he could feel self-satisfied that he was good, and met the need of his inner conscience to be a "good person." It also gained points with other people, who didn't feel so gifted in self-denial.

The Apostle Paul said that we should deny our "flesh." In saying this he was not saying we should deny material things, such as food and sexual relations. On the contrary, Paul consigned such legalistic restrictions to demonic religion.

1 Tim 4.he Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

No, man meant by "denying our flesh" a rejection of a fallen spiritual nature, in which the spirit rebels or veers away from the word of God, resisting partnership with God. The fallen spirit pursues its own bodily interests, being guiding by its own senses, rather than by what God's word tells him about living in the image of God for which he was created.

The "flesh" simply refers to the fallen nature of man that pursues his own selfish bodily interests, as opposed to serving the word of God that created him. The "flesh" is thus more than just the material part of man, but more, the sinful spirit of man choosing to be guided more by his own physical interests than by the interests of God.
What Paul declared was an essential daily exercise... To die... Could not possibly be physical for obvious reasons. And it can't be spiritual either because we have no power. Thus it can only mean surrender. Similar to the death we submit ourselves to in baptism. A voluntary submission on our part to the will of God who only has the power and the righteousness to grant us those things we need... And take from us those things we don't.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What Paul declared was an essential daily exercise... To die... Could not possibly be physical for obvious reasons. And it can't be spiritual either because we have no power. Thus it can only mean surrender. Similar to the death we submit ourselves to in baptism. A voluntary submission on our part to the will of God who only has the power and the righteousness to grant us those things we need... And take from us those things we don't.

I personally wouldn't go so far as to say God grants us only things we need. As a good Father He delights in satisfying us with 100 fold, or a multiplicity of blessings. It sometimes doesn't seem like it in this life because we are entering the Kingdom through tribulations caused by sin and through persecutions of those who are righteous. But there is plenty of evidence that God is a good God and wishes to bless us with an abundance of good things, both needs and desires.

You know that I'm not big on the requirement of water baptism, although I believe it was the recommended initiation ritual when entering into Christianity from paganism. Having been raised in the church from birth, I do not see the need for a conversion ritual. But being that we all need to die to ourselves, as you suggested, I think that water baptism is good for all, saved or unsaved, when they personally commit themselves to the Christian life. I had baptism done for me when I was a child brought up in church. Later, when I personally committed myself to Christ, and returned from backsliding, I got baptized by friends in a lake.

I agree that we can't deny things just because they have physical properties, and are viewed by some as "materialistic." But I can't agree that we have no spirituality. The moment we place our faith in Christ we are choosing to put into motion a spirituality that comes with the presentation of God's word to our souls. God's word comes to us, and in responding we exercise a latent spirituality that we were created to use on just this kind of occasion.

But perhaps I'm getting beyond the point that we do agree on. Legalism is not our righteousness. Denying ourselves material things is a form of legalism, in which we are creating our own laws. True denial of the "flesh" is a denial of going our own way, an insistence on choosing to do things by our own mind in accordance with our bodily desires. To follow God is to obey His word to our conscience, which requires that we forfeit what we desire to do apart from God's will. We do not get more "spiritual" when we deny ourselves "things!" It is how we use "things" that makes us spiritual or not, depending on whether we live in partnership with God's Spirit or not.
 
Last edited:

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,383
6,295
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I personally wouldn't go so far as to say God grants us only things we need. As a good Father He delights in satisfying us with 100 fold, or a multiplicity of blessings. It sometimes doesn't seem like it in this life because we are entering the Kingdom through tribulations caused by sin and through persecutions of those who are righteous. But there is plenty of evidence that God is a good God and wishes to bless us with an abundance of good things, both needs and desires.

You know that I'm not big on the requirement of water baptism, although I believe it was the recommended initiation ritual when entering into Christianity from paganism. Having been raised in the church from birth, I do not see the need for a conversion ritual. But being that we all need to die to ourselves, as you suggested, I think that water baptism is good for all, saved or unsaved, when they personally commit themselves to the Christian life. I had baptism done for me when I was a child brought up in church. Later, when I personally committed myself to Christ, and returned from backsliding, I got baptized by friends in a lake.

I agree that we can't deny things just because they have physical properties, and are viewed by some as "materialistic." But I can't agree that we have no spirituality. The moment we place our faith in Christ we are choosing to put into motion a spirituality that comes with the presentation of God's word to our souls. God's word comes to us, and in responding we exercise a latent spirituality that we were created to use on just this kind of occasion.

But perhaps I'm getting beyond the point that we do agree on. Legalism is not our righteousness. Denying ourselves material things is a form of legalism, in which we are creating our own laws. True denial of the "flesh" is a denial of going our own way, an insistence on choosing to do things by our own mind in accordance with our bodily desires. To follow God is to obey His word to our conscience, which requires that we forfeit what we desire to do apart from God's will. We do not get more "spiritual" when we deny ourselves "things!" It is how we use "things" that makes us spiritual or not, depending on whether we live in partnership with God's Spirit or not.
I think we could advance this a step further by stating the necessity to overcome appetite. I mean appetite in the sense of lust. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness all three times in relation to appetite. The fruit of the spirit named as temperance is the victory over appetite, indulgence, or ungodly pleasure seeking. I do agree with you however that God certainly desires that we be happy and blessed. The ultimate realisation of those blessings come in the form of service to others... Not self indulgence or narcissistic covetousness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim B

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think we could advance this a step further by stating the necessity to overcome appetite. I mean appetite in the sense of lust. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness all three times in relation to appetite. The fruit of the spirit named as temperance is the victory over appetite, indulgence, or ungodly pleasure seeking. I do agree with you however that God certainly desires that we be happy and blessed. The ultimate realisation of those blessings come in the form of service to others... Not self indulgence or narcissistic covetousness.

Yes. However, just as important as good works are, rest is important to God. Look at how many Sabbath days God gave Israel during their work year--3 long feasts a year, at least once a lifetime 2 years of no serious farming work, every week a day off, the assurance of restoration of what was lost every 7 years. God was against stress and anxiety, and not for the pressures of production and the pride of accomplishment. He simply wanted us to produce and to feel good about it. And he didn't mind if we went fishing or slept in a hammock on our time off. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brakelite

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
On my part, it is God who saves us, not faith. Again, I am not arguing, but just wanting to point that out.
This is an example of the semantics problem that results from failing to understand words in context, which is another way of describing a "shortcut word." You can say the word without the context if the context is already understood.

It is a semantics problem to say that "faith does not save us." The context you are using depicts faith as a kind of human work, trying to get to heaven without Christ. But in another context, "faith does save us," if you speak in the context of faith focused on the works of Christ that do save us. You are having trouble over "words!" :) Welcome to the World of Internet Forums!
It is important for me to be clear and explicit, to not put the burden on the reading public, the need to study the context for them to understand our statements, as much as possible, especially statements that may lead them away from the truth.

Tong2020 said:
Not exactly like that. Faith is devoid of works. It has nothing to do with works. Now don’t get me wrong. So let me clear on that. The matter of faith producing works or faith being shown by works is a different matter, when I say faith is devoid of works. I am talking about what faith is and not about whether what is dead faith or living faith.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, and the very thing causing the confusion. You can't use a word like "faith" without understanding the context in which it is being used. Otherwise, it will be misunderstood.

Yes, faith as an OT work did not achieve Salvation. But yes, faith is a kind of human work when it is a work of faith, and though it did not achieve Salvation in the OT era, it certainly achieved righteousness at that time, and of a kind that ultimately qualified for eternal life.

When saints are asked to have faith, they are not being asked to do a work apart from faith, or apart from God. Rather, they are being asked to comply with the word of God, both by believing in it and also by obeying it, or complying with it. Faith is both an attitude and a response. As such, it is a kind of "work." The word "work" itself requires context for it to be properly understood in this discussion.
<<<Yes, faith as an OT work did not achieve Salvation.>>>

Faith isn’t work, at least as how I understand what faith is.

<<<But yes, faith is a kind of human work when it is a work of faith...>>>

As, I said, I don’t take faith as work.

<<<Faith is both an attitude and a response.>>>

Faith isn’t any of that, at least in my view. I take faith as I take hope and love. Faith, is spirit and is of the spirit or spiritual. It is not work in any context.

Tong2020 said:
That there is a covenant between God and Israel means faith is a given. That God wanted for Israel to be righteous in all that they do, is also a given. Even before God gave law, He was in covenant with Abraham. And He too wanted for Abraham and his descendants to be righteous in all that they do. (And I must point out as a side, that what deeds they do God take it to be righteous only because and when it is done in faith). So, in my view, the law was given not really for that reason. He added it as their covenant obligation. And He added it for reasons written out in the OT scriptures and clearly revealed in the NT scriptures.
You seem to be saying 2 contradictory things! 1st, you rightly state that God's word to Abraham and His word to Israel through the Law made them righteous. And then it seems you state these things were not done for the purpose of making them righteous?

In my view, I agree with the 1st part of what you said. These things, ie the word of God to Abraham and to Israel, made them righteous. But I disagree that these things were not intended to make them righteous.

Again, you're using the doctrine of "eternal righteousness" in confused opposition to a sense of "temporary righteousness." No, Abraham and Israel did not obtain *eternal righteousness* by obeying the word of God. But inasmuch as it did make them righteous they were able to latch onto the promise and the assurance of ultimate redemption at the atonement of Christ.
<<<1st, you rightly state that God's word to Abraham and His word to Israel through the Law made them righteous.>>>

I did not state that and did not mean to say that in what I said in my post in the quote box.

<<<Again, you're using the doctrine of "eternal righteousness" in confused opposition to a sense of "temporary righteousness." >>>

Not using any of those.

Tong2020 said:
<<<You would think that nobody in Israel made it into the Kingdom of Heaven by your argument that Israel was never righteous, and nobody could ever do good works and be considered righteous?>>>

I was not arguing at all with that end. For there clearly were men and women who were said to be righteous, though not because they have not transgressed any of the commandments in the law, or because of their works, but because of faith in God. It was so with Abraham, and it is so with anybody who are of faith.
That is a contradiction. They were righteous because of their works of faith. That is, their faith translated into works of obedience to the word of God spoken to them. Their faith was the operating attitude that results in obedience. And the works were evidence of their obedience, rendering them "righteous."
<<<They were righteous because of their works of faith.>>>

They were righteous on account of faith. The works they do is not what makes them righteous. Perhaps in the eyes of man, the works they do is what makes them righteous, but that is not so with God.

Tong2020 said:
While I agree that the works of the law should be done in faith, I don’t think the works of the law could properly be said as works of faith. I know you will object to that.
Yes, I do object to that. I think you're arguing doctrine, like so many others do. Understood in the long version (unabbreviated), Paul was saying not that the Law could not be done in faith, but only that as long as this kind of faith was in operation, faith for Salvation had not yet come. And that's because the works of the Law, though pleasing to God and though producing righteousness, only proved that Man still needed a Redeemer.
I am not arguing doctrine.

Of course Paul was not saying that the Law could not be done in faith. Else, what then becomes of those who does things in faith? But Paul was saying in the positive that the law is of works in contrast to faith. He was not saying of the works of the law that they are works of faith either. Whether the law or the works of the law, are done in faith or not, does not make of the law to be of faith.

Tong2020 said:
But let me try to explain or show the sense by which I say that. When I look at the works of faith in Hebrews 11, nothing was mentioned any work that pertains to the works of the law. Besides that, one difference I see that makes me think that the works of the law could not properly be said as works of faith, is that, the works of the law, like to not steal, to not murder, to not lie, to not commit adultery, to not covet others goods, to not eat blood or certain animals, to not do this, etc., are not works done as a prompting of faith but done as covenant obligation.This sense of obligation is clearly shown with the fact that even those who do not have faith in God, if they are within the gates of Israel, they are to do the works of the law. I hope you get what I mean.
Yes, the Law was a covenant obligation that prohibited Man from obtaining Salvation apart from the redemption of Christ. The walls of partition around and in the temple, and the laws of sacrifice, all showed that Man could not directly approach God without a proper atonement.

Animal sacrifices were temporary and unsatisfactory as far as eternal salvation. But they did provide a temporary relationship with God and temporal blessings in this life. This covenant was meant to lead into the final covenant of Christ, in which all these things could obtain eternal status.
<<<Yes, the Law was a covenant obligation that prohibited Man from obtaining Salvation apart from the redemption of Christ.>>>

The law, in my view, is not something that prohibits man from obtaining salvation. The law simply was not given for that purpose. Also, salvation is by grace through faith, not works.

Tong
R1815
 
Last edited:

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
If ever there were men and women saved during the time of Moses and Christ, it is not by the law, but still is by faith.
Yes, but what does that mean? Does that just mean people believe God exists? Does it mean that people accept some of what God says, and accept the word of other gods as well? No, it means we have an attitude of *receiving* the word of God in our heart when we hear it. That causes us to do works of faith, which in turn make us righteous.

In the OT this righteousness was real, but could not yet achieve eternal status. In the NT the righteousness of faith qualifies all who have ever had faith to achieve the atonement of Christ. And that's because the word of God in the OT is the same God in the NT who now brings salvation to those who trusted in Him.
The point in what I said in the quote box, is that salvation is through faith (not works).

Tong2020 said:
So, it seems that now we agree that the law was not given by God to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation.
You don't seem to understand what I mean by that? The Law was in fact said to be central to prohibiting Israel from acquiring eternal salvation. It's provisions gave Israel temporary status with God that was designed to lead to eternal status with God. But until Christ atoned for their sin, the Law was in effect and prevented Man from obtaining Salvation until Christ rose from the dead.

The Law set up barricades between God and Israel, and went to great lengths to show that Israel was too unholy to achieve permanent status with God. Their covenant with God came through many regulations. Nothing gave Israel unbridled access to God--not even the High Priest had free access to God.

The purpose was not to stop fellowship between God and Man, nor between God and Israel. It was only to show the necessity of modeling the proper way to do this, separating out all who do not properly embrace Christ as the only way.
I understand what you meant by that. It just seemed to me that you changed your mind in saying that. But apparently you did not and still say that the law was given by God to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation.

I have already given my argument against that and will not repeat it here. I will only say here, the law was not given to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation, but to the contrary, was given to bring them to Christ, the Savior. I don’t see the law as an obstacle at all.

Tong
R1816
 
Last edited:

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
Perhaps you find it a problem for me. Perhaps because we see differently the context. Or we may be taking a word in a broader context not obvious to the other.

Not that I don’t mention that matter, means I don’t take a word you use in context to what you are saying.

Yes, I get what you are saying concerning hope when you recently informed me that you are actually speaking about sin nature in the “legal” sense. But in my view, that did not made any much of an effect on my argument. To be clear on context, all that I said from the start of our discussion, is in the context of faith, per my take on what faith is, and in the context of faith in God.

So, with regards hope, in that context, I told you what hope is. That hope that is seen is not hope (I borrowed the words of Paul here). So hope is about things not seen, so that hope concerns things not seen, whether the things hoped for actually exist already or will yet have to exist. So, I pointed out this “ Now of things not seen that we hope for, this is what the writer of Hebrews say in relation to that. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now, Abraham have faith as we have faith.” I know you know what the Hebrews writer says there what faith is with regards the object of our hope.

Christians already have eternal life and do experience it even now. Yet christians hope for eternal life too.
Well, I think we already have eternal life. We hope for immortality. But when it comes it ceases to be a hope, right? But we are told hope is eternal. Therefore, even after we obtain one thing we hope for--immortality--we continue to hope for more things on into eternity. Each time we realize things we hope for, but hope continues.

In the matter of Salvation we have all of these nuances to deal with. We have eternal life, and yet we don't yet have immortality. And in the OT men had faith, but did not yet have eternal life *legally.* They certainly had the assurance that it would come, but they did not have the Spirit yet given, adopting them as children of God with full rights as heirs. We do have the Spirit as a permanent gift now, but even now we still don't have the full inheritance of the Kingdom.
<<<Well, I think we already have eternal life. We hope for immortality.>>>

Why, don’t you believe the Christians already have eternal life, so you say you think? Or is it when you say you think, you meant to say you believe?

Immortality of what do you hope for? And are you hoping it because it is sure or wishing that it is what will happen?

<<<We have eternal life, and yet we don't yet have immortality. >>>

If one sees that to be contradictory, it only means he is most likely taking eternal life to mean what it does not, at least, not according to what scriptures says about eternal life.

Tong2020 said:
When scriptures says that the Christian already have eternal life, is that in the legal sense only and not in the real and actual sense? In my view, it is both.
We do not have it in terms of immortality. We do have the Spirit as a down payment on our inheritance. We own the property even though we haven't completely moved in.
<<<We do not have it in terms of immortality.>>>

What immortality? Can you be clear, and qualify it? If you refer to the body, then that only tells us that eternal life is not about immortality of the body.

<<<We own the property even though we haven't completely moved in.>>>

Are you suggesting by that, that the Christian have (own) eternal life, but just don’t actually possess it? If that’s what you mean, I am sorry to differ.

Tong2020 said:
So if there is any difference between those saved at the time before Christ and the Christians, regarding eternal life, is in the legal sense only, the former as not having it in the legal sense, but do have it in the real sense.
You have to define what "the real sense" is?
Actually have eternal life, as actually living it: real sense.

Tong2020 said:
And I think you can only really get and understand what I am saying there, if and when you take what eternal life is, as I do. Not in any way forcing you to though. For one, eternal life for me, is life that has nothing to do with the flesh or body (the body we now have, that is, of the dust of the earth), but have everything to do with the spirit of man.
That is called "blurring the distinctions." Sorry!
Not blurring the distinctions Randy, but perhaps bringing out the distinction.

Tong
R1817
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
I can see we have a different take on what flesh is in the sense that for you is it more than refers to the physical. For me it is refers to the body of man that God formed from the ground, the physical or material part of man opposite the spiritual part. But for you, it seems there is more to it than that. And I am not sure what it being the body in which the human spirit dwells makes a difference.
The difference is that the A view is that the flesh is just the material body, and the B view is that the material body is being used by a rebellious spirit, opposed to divine control over it. Otherwise, you're left with a material/spiritual duality, which is often used by false religions and cults to signify that self-denial is righteousness, and self-indulgence is evil.

This creates a false "works" mentality in which a person exercises restraint and yet maintains independent control over his will, still remaining unwilling to yield to God as Lord. True righteousness is not denial of physical things, nor even denial of bodily desires or needs.

This false religion considers the body evil and the spirit good. To do good one must shun the material nature, and thus focus on spiritual virtue. This is a false dichotomy and a false spirituality. The body is not evil. It is the tainted spirit of man that has become sinful, and chooses to be driven by bodily interests other than how God leads him to operate his bodily interests.

True righteousness is using our material bodies and our material wants and needs for the glory of God. We do that by consulting with God in everything we do, forming a partnership with Him, so that everything we do is done through the virtue of God's Spirit.

Sometimes we do need to deny ourselves. But true works is a matter of maintaining our partnership with God, and not purely denying ourselves things, as some Hindus do. Self-denial does not produce righteousness--working together with God does. In this we deny any self-interest opposed to God's word, and do not deny ourselves things purely because they belong to physical things that we consider "evil."

John 15.5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

So, what is your take of the body of man, that is, the flesh? Is it A view or B view or both?

You said “The "flesh," therefore, is not just the physical body, but technically, the body in which a sinful human spirit dwells.”

That the flesh is the body in which a sinful human spirit dwells, what does that have to do with the nature of the flesh, as being material or physical?

Tong
R1818
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
I can see we have a different take on what flesh is in the sense that for you is it more than refers to the physical. For me it is refers to the body of man that God formed from the ground, the physical or material part of man opposite the spiritual part. But for you, it seems there is more to it than that. And I am not sure what it being the body in which the human spirit dwells makes a difference.
I believe that concept originated with Plato or Aristotle... Or maybe both, I can't remember. But whoever, it is rooted in greek philosophy and I don't think it has a place in Christian theology... Except for something to avoid.
What concept are you referring to?

Tong
R1819
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, what is your take of the body of man, that is, the flesh? Is it A view or B view or both?

You said “The "flesh," therefore, is not just the physical body, but technically, the body in which a sinful human spirit dwells.”

That the flesh is the body in which a sinful human spirit dwells, what does that have to do with the nature of the flesh, as being material or physical?

Tong
R1818

Of course you can have "A" definition or "B" definition. In the Dictionary, it would be definitions #1 and #2. For our purposes, in biblical context, we are using, I believe, definition "B." It is not just our physical body, but the body indwelt by and controlled by the sinful spirit.

When we chose to live by our sinful spirit, and do not force our spirit to submit to God's word, we are then led not by the Spirit of God, but rather, by our bodies--what we see and like, what we hear and like, what we feel and taste and like. These things inspire us to do whatever our independent spirit wants to do without regard for what God's word is telling us is right.

That's how the "flesh" comes into it. It is either restraint by our choice to make our spirit submit to God's word, or we let our spirit indulgence in our senses as we please.

This is the whole problem with not recognizing Paul's use of "shortcut" words. On the face of it, the "flesh" only refers to our physical body. But in context, Paul is talking about un unbridled spirit being led by its physical senses, by the lusts of the flesh and by covetousness.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
<<<Well, I think we already have eternal life. We hope for immortality.>>>
Why, don’t you believe the Christians already have eternal life, so you say you think? Or is it when you say you think, you meant to say you believe?

I didn't say Christians don't already have eternal life. I said, "We have eternal life, and yet we don't yet have immortality." We do not yet have glorified bodies. Our transformation will take place at Christ's 2nd Coming.

Immortality of what do you hope for? And are you hoping it because it is sure or wishing that it is what will happen?

As I said, there are 2 definitions for "hope," and both are biblical. We should not confuse them. One is wishful thinking, and the other is our present guarantee of a future certainty that we don't yet have.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The point in what I said in the quote box, is that salvation is through faith (not works).


I understand what you meant by that. It just seemed to me that you changed your mind in saying that. But apparently you did not and still say that the law was given by God to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation.

I have already given my argument against that and will not repeat it here. I will only say here, the law was not given to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation, but to the contrary, was given to bring them to Christ, the Savior. I don’t see the law as an obstacle at all.

Tong
R1816

Tong, you have semantics difficulties. And I know biblical truth is rife with them. That's one reason I spend time on forums, to reason through these things, and hopefully learn how to say and understand things properly.

The Law led men to Christ, and it prohibited them from having eternal life. Both are true. The Law was like the cherubim placed in the garden of Eden to keep Man from returning to the Tree of Life. It was to lead them to Christ, whose atonement alone lets them return to the tree of life. It was to prevent them from returning to the tree of life by *any other means!*
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is important for me to be clear and explicit, to not put the burden on the reading public, the need to study the context for them to understand our statements, as much as possible, especially statements that may lead them away from the truth.

<<<Yes, faith as an OT work did not achieve Salvation.>>>

Faith isn’t work, at least as how I understand what faith is.

Faith is an attitude which when focused on the word of God leads to deeds. James said Faith produces Deeds. I call them Works of Faith, not to be confused with Works of the Law or with Works apart from the word of Christ.

<<<1st, you rightly state that God's word to Abraham and His word to Israel through the Law made them righteous.>>>

I did not state that and did not mean to say that in what I said in my post in the quote box.

You said: "That there is a covenant between God and Israel means faith is a given. That God wanted for Israel to be righteous in all that they do, is also a given. Even before God gave law, He was in covenant with Abraham. And He too wanted for Abraham and his descendants to be righteous in all that they do."

If Abraham and Israel were righteous and under covenant with God, they were righteous by virtue of their response to God's word given to them through His covenants. For Abraham it was a covenant of promise, later requiring circumcision. For Israel it was the Law of Moses. Faith preceded their obedience to the requirements of these covenants, but their righteousness, being based on faith, continued to be demonstrated in their obedience under provisions of these covenants.

They were righteous on account of faith. The works they do is not what makes them righteous. Perhaps in the eyes of man, the works they do is what makes them righteous, but that is not so with God.

Do you even hear yourself? I think you're just arguing what you think the Bible says. The Bible does say something similar to that, but you don't understand it. The Bible obviously is not saying that obeying God's word is not righteousness! Obeying circumcision or the requirements of the Law did indeed make Israel righteous. And it was only because faith preceded their obedience. Their works did in fact make them righteous. The "Works" Paul talks about in another place is defined as "works apart from faith."

Of course Paul was not saying that the Law could not be done in faith. Else, what then becomes of those who does things in faith? But Paul was saying in the positive that the law is of works in contrast to faith. He was not saying of the works of the law that they are works of faith either. Whether the law or the works of the law, are done in faith or not, does not make of the law to be of faith.

You are just arguing what you think the Bible is saying. On the one hand you say that the Law could be kept by faith, and on the other hand you say that the works of obedience to the Law did not make righteous. This is a complete contradiction. If faith makes righteous, then faith used to keep the Law made Israel righteous.

I respect your wish to "believe the Bible," but believing in its literal statements "on the face" is not the same thing as trusting in what it really "says." Unless you understand what Paul's use of these words mean "in context," you will not be doing anything other than proclaiming empty doctrines, concocted from what it "sounds" like Paul is saying.

I know--I've been battling this for years, particularly because so many teachers have gotten it wrong and therefore teach us wrong. We need to determine what Paul means "in context," and we won't be misled by what things "sound like."
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Of course you can have "A" definition or "B" definition. In the Dictionary, it would be definitions #1 and #2. For our purposes, in biblical context, we are using, I believe, definition "B." It is not just our physical body, but the body indwelt by and controlled by the sinful spirit.

When we chose to live by our sinful spirit, and do not force our spirit to submit to God's word, we are then led not by the Spirit of God, but rather, by our bodies--what we see and like, what we hear and like, what we feel and taste and like. These things inspire us to do whatever our independent spirit wants to do without regard for what God's word is telling us is right.

That's how the "flesh" comes into it. It is either restraint by our choice to make our spirit submit to God's word, or we let our spirit indulgence in our senses as we please.

This is the whole problem with not recognizing Paul's use of "shortcut" words. On the face of it, the "flesh" only refers to our physical body. But in context, Paul is talking about un unbridled spirit being led by its physical senses, by the lusts of the flesh and by covetousness.
This discussion pertains to scriptures. We understand then that when we have questions like what the flesh is, we are not referring to what the Bible say it is.

Now, man have material or physical part and have a spiritual part. That is coming from Genesis. I know you know that. But then you seem to make the flesh as more than the physical part. Then what is the nature of the flesh? Partly physical and partly spiritual?

Paul said “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells”. When he said “in my flesh” are you suggesting that the flesh there is B view? I don’t see ot that way. Paul, before saying that said “But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” Where do you suppose Paul is referring to where in sin dwells in him? Is it not in his flesh? Or is it in his spirit. Well, it could not be in his spirit, right?

Tong
R1820
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
I didn't say Christians don't already have eternal life. I said, "We have eternal life, and yet we don't yet have immortality." We do not yet have glorified bodies. Our transformation will take place at Christ's 2nd Coming.
And you did not say they already have eternal life, but said you think they already have eternal life. That’s why I was clarifying if by saying that, you actually mean you believe that they already have eternal life.

As I said, there are 2 definitions for "hope," and both are biblical. We should not confuse them. One is wishful thinking, and the other is our present guarantee of a future certainty that we don't yet have.
What I am asking to clarify is what immortality are you hoping for. And which sense of the 2 definitions for hope you are using in your statement.

Tong
R1821
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
The point in what I said in the quote box, is that salvation is through faith (not works).

I understand what you meant by that. It just seemed to me that you changed your mind in saying that. But apparently you did not and still say that the law was given by God to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation.

I have already given my argument against that and will not repeat it here. I will only say here, the law was not given to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation, but to the contrary, was given to bring them to Christ, the Savior. I don’t see the law as an obstacle at all.
Tong, you have semantics difficulties. And I know biblical truth is rife with them. That's one reason I spend time on forums, to reason through these things, and hopefully learn how to say and understand things properly.

The Law led men to Christ, and it prohibited them from having eternal life. Both are true. The Law was like the cherubim placed in the garden of Eden to keep Man from returning to the Tree of Life. It was to lead them to Christ, whose atonement alone lets them return to the tree of life. It was to prevent them from returning to the tree of life by *any other means!*
While perhaps both are true, both were not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the Law, why God added it in covenant was to bring Israel to Christ, and not to prohibit them or be an obstacle to salvation.

Tong
R1822
 
Last edited:

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
It is important for me to be clear and explicit, to not put the burden on the reading public, the need to study the context for them to understand our statements, as much as possible, especially statements that may lead them away from the truth.

<<<Yes, faith as an OT work did not achieve Salvation.>>>

Faith isn’t work, at least as how I understand what faith is.
Faith is an attitude which when focused on the word of God leads to deeds. James said Faith produces Deeds. I call them Works of Faith, not to be confused with Works of the Law or with Works apart from the word of Christ.
You told me that already. And it does not make faith to be work. Yes, faith produces deeds, but that does not make faith to be work.

Tong2020 said:
<<<1st, you rightly state that God's word to Abraham and His word to Israel through the Law made them righteous.>>>

I did not state that and did not mean to say that in what I said in my post in the quote box.
You said: "That there is a covenant between God and Israel means faith is a given. That God wanted for Israel to be righteous in all that they do, is also a given. Even before God gave law, He was in covenant with Abraham. And He too wanted for Abraham and his descendants to be righteous in all that they do."

If Abraham and Israel were righteous and under covenant with God, they were righteous by virtue of their response to God's word given to them through His covenants. For Abraham it was a covenant of promise, later requiring circumcision. For Israel it was the Law of Moses. Faith preceded their obedience to the requirements of these covenants, but their righteousness, being based on faith, continued to be demonstrated in their obedience under provisions of these covenants.
Check out those in bold font in the quote box, which says “to be righteous”. So you seem to be reading wrongly what I was saying. For what I said is not that God made them righteous, but that God wanted for them to be righteous.

<<<Faith preceded their obedience to the requirements of these covenants, but their righteousness, being based on faith>>>

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. A seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. Clearly, it’s about the righteousness of faith, apart from works. We know Abraham. He was a man of faith. We know that his observing and keeping what God had commanded him to do, he did in faith. God gave him commandments, not to make him righteous, for he was already righteous in the sight of God, bit not on account of works, but of faith. Now, God’s commandments are righteous and good. So it goes without saying that the works Abraham did were righteous and good. So that, his works showed men that he was righteous. So that, when one does the works of the commandments of God, he is said and seen as righteous, which is a righteousness of works, different from the righteousness of faith. Remember, the commandments came after he was justified by God. So obviously, they have nothing at all to do with his justification, that was by faith, and that was apart from works. And obviously then, the commandments were not for that purpose, but for another.

In the case of Israel, the difference is that, they (collectively) had no faith as that of Abraham, which was demonstrated in Sinai, after God took them out of Egypt, for they had broken the covenant they had with God in only a matter of days. They were a stiff-necked people and were unlike Abraham. Of course, needless to say, they were not justified as was Abraham. Moses pleaded with the Lord not to destroy them and God heard the prayer of Moses and so renewed the covenant with them. This time, the Law was added as a written code because of transgressions, that they are to observe at all times and keep to the letter. God’s purpose being that the Law would keep them on guard until He sends the Messiah, and to bring them to Christ, that whosoever believes in Him, having faith like Abraham, will be justified. There is much really to say about this, but I think this would be enough for now.

Tong2020 said:
They were righteous on account of faith. The works they do is not what makes them righteous. Perhaps in the eyes of man, the works they do is what makes them righteous, but that is not so with God.
Do you even hear yourself? I think you're just arguing what you think the Bible says. The Bible does say something similar to that, but you don't understand it. The Bible obviously is not saying that obeying God's word is not righteousness! Obeying circumcision or the requirements of the Law did indeed make Israel righteous. And it was only because faith preceded their obedience. Their works did in fact make them righteous. The "Works" Paul talks about in another place is defined as "works apart from faith."

<<<The Bible obviously is not saying that obeying God's word is not righteousness!>>>

And I am not at all saying that. What I am saying is to emphasize that righteousness is on account of faith. Yes there is another righteousness, that is the righteousness of works, apart from faith. But such is not that which pleases God.

Tong2020 said:
Of course Paul was not saying that the Law could not be done in faith. Else, what then becomes of those who does things in faith? But Paul was saying in the positive that the law is of works in contrast to faith. He was not saying of the works of the law that they are works of faith either. Whether the law or the works of the law, are done in faith or not, does not make of the law to be of faith.
You are just arguing what you think the Bible is saying. On the one hand you say that the Law could be kept by faith, and on the other hand you say that the works of obedience to the Law did not make righteous. This is a complete contradiction. If faith makes righteous, then faith used to keep the Law made Israel righteous.

I respect your wish to "believe the Bible," but believing in its literal statements "on the face" is not the same thing as trusting in what it really "says." Unless you understand what Paul's use of these words mean "in context," you will not be doing anything other than proclaiming empty doctrines, concocted from what it "sounds" like Paul is saying.

I know--I've been battling this for years, particularly because so many teachers have gotten it wrong and therefore teach us wrong. We need to determine what Paul means "in context," and we won't be misled by what things "sound like."
<<<You are just arguing what you think the Bible is saying.>>>

I argue what I believe the Bible is saying and I think so do you.

<<<On the one hand you say that the Law could be kept by faith, and on the other hand you say that the works of obedience to the Law did not make righteous. This is a complete contradiction.>>>

Then you don’t understand what I am saying. Try to understand what I said “Whether the law or the works of the law, are done in faith or not, does not make of the law to be of faith.”

The rest of what you say there goes to both of us.

Tong
R1823