Grace vs Legalism

[CadyandZoe]

Is that what you believe being in the Spirit means? Some kind of self-induced meditative state?

No, this is my interpretation of what you believe. Walking in the Spirit isn't primarily about avoiding sin as you seem to suggest. Walking in the Spirit is more than avoiding the negative, i.e. avoiding sin; walking in the Spirit is also actively promoting the positive. Remember, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, which are not things to avoid, but things to do. It's one thing to avoid hating your brother. It's another thing to actively love your brother. Right? It's one thing to avoid hostility with your brother but it's another thing to make peace with your brother. You see? Walking in the spirit is not simply a way to avoid sin. Walking in the spirit is a way to be proactive in the good.

 

[CharismaticLady]

No, this is my interpretation of what you believe. Walking in the Spirit isn't primarily about avoiding sin as you seem to suggest. Walking in the Spirit is more than avoiding the negative, i.e. avoiding sin; walking in the Spirit is also actively promoting the positive. Remember, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, which are not things to avoid, but things to do. It's one thing to avoid hating your brother. It's another thing to actively love your brother. Right? It's one thing to avoid hostility with your brother but it's another thing to make peace with your brother. You see? Walking in the spirit is not simply a way to avoid sin. Walking in the spirit is a way to be proactive in the good.

I don't suggest any such thing. It is not about avoiding sin from a sin nature by force; it is the natural aversion to sin from the new divine nature. I focus on sin, because that is the focus of all false teachings that turn the grace of God into licentiousness.

 

[Behold]

I understand that Paul is making a point and is in the middle of an 8 chapter lesson on sin, grace and the Law of Moses. Instead of finding out what Paul is actually teaching, you are making Paul contradict himself.

You said that Paul is a false teacher.
Thats what we found out.
If you want me to post your statement again, i can do it for you.

 

[Behold]

Plus the epistles they were to share with other congregations, and were referred to as "scripture" by Peter in 2 Peter 3.

No thats not right, once again.
Can you actually even read?

Peter is talking about Paul's letters.
Not anyone else's.
Peter only refers to PAUL's letters as "scripture", as = to the Torah.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't suggest any such thing. It is not about avoiding sin from a sin nature by force; it is the natural aversion to sin from the new divine nature. I focus on sin, because that is the focus of all false teachings that turn the grace of God into licentiousness.

I take issue with your view that we once had a sin nature but now we have a divine nature. I don't find scriptural support for this concept. I've tried to find it, but no luck.

 

[Waiting on him]

I don't suggest any such thing. It is not about avoiding sin from a sin nature by force; it is the natural aversion to sin from the new divine nature. I focus on sin, because that is the focus of all false teachings that turn the grace of God into licentiousness.

1 Corinthians 7:32-36 KJV
[32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: [33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. [34] There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [35] And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. [36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
Curious as to your view on this?

 

[Behold]

I take issue with your view that we once had a sin nature but now we have a divine nature. I don't find scriptural support for this concept. I've tried to find it, but no luck.

She is just really confused by her commentaries.

What we do have is the righteousness of God, given to us as the "Gift of Righteousness"....so, we are become this.....and we exist there, as this is how we become "ONE" with God and Christ.
If we were still "sinners" we could not be IN CHRIST< and we could not be "ONE" with God.
And we all should know..its when we were a SINNER that we needed to be SAVED...
So, once we are SAVED, we have now become something that is ACCEPTED BY GOD< and that is not related to us still being a "sinner".

God IS Holy, and He came here to make us HOLY< so that He could receive us INTO Himself.
Being born again, is to be born INTO THE SPIRIT OF GOD......BY the Spirit of God.
This is our "new creation".....which is actually who we are become, as the BORN AGAIN.
charismaticlady, and justbyfaith and others here, are not able to see themselves as God sees them, so they define themselves as what they were before they were saved, while they pretend they understand the Grace of God and the "new Birth".
They do not, as reflected by their odd and deceptive theology.

 

[BarneyFife]

The first century christians only had the Hebrew Bible the way I understand it.

But I'm not a Hebrew (that I'm aware of)--I'm a 21st century, Anglo-Saxon Christian. The Modern English Bible has roughly 3/4 million words in it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

1 Corinthians 7:32-36 KJV
[32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: [33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. [34] There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [35] And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. [36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
Curious as to your view on this?

Taking in account all of Scripture, in that age of the Church, these verses have to do with spreading the Gospel of Grace quickly and without distractions, as they believed Jesus could return at any time. The Church was very young, unpopular, and illegal. They were being persecuted, just as Paul had done prior to his conversion. Those who were married care about each other and raising a family and making a homestead. Jesus, Himself, chooses those He wants to have an office in the Church, as He still does today. Ephesians 4. He may choose one of those at home to pastor a local church, or be a teacher in that church, and they are required to be married with no divorce, and with God-fearing children. Evangelists and apostles, on the other hand, are another of those offices, that I believe this is about. He knows who He gives the gift of celibacy too for this purpose. They were single men without the distractions of the opposite gender and were more able to focus on ministry and travel unencumbered. But once they got older and can't get around as before to minister, if one of those single, older evangelists or apostles doesn't want to live out his life alone, and is attracted to a virgin beyond a child bearing age herself, and not young (pedophile comes to mind, like Joseph Smith. Good for the man, unthinkable for the woman), IT IS NOT A SIN, to marry the older Christian virginal woman.

 

[CharismaticLady]

No thats not right, once again.
Can you actually even read?

Peter is talking about Paul's letters.
Not anyone else's.
Peter only refers to PAUL's letters as "scripture", as = to the Torah.

No, Peter and John's epistles are also Scripture, as were Jesus' brother's (Desposyni) epistles. But, keep your mind closed if you can't discern that Peter is just declaring more than the Hebrew text to be scripture. It just has to be God inspired. He was also showing that Paul's writing are hard to understand, because people like you want to take chapters out of the context (Romans 4) of the whole teaching (chapters 1-8, and make a false doctrine out of it. Peter calls it twisting.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You said that Paul is a false teacher.
Thats what we found out.
If you want me to post your statement again, i can do it for you.

Paul, the apostle, is not a false teacher, and I never said he was. But there is one false teacher on this forum (look in the mirror to see) that takes his words and twists them as they do the rest of Scripture. And as many times as we have tried to help you see the Truth, you are still blind.

Jesus DID NOT DIE so we can sin with nothing imputed to us. What you are not seeing is that there is a reason we are not under the Law. The Law showed us our sin nature, but Jesus took away that sin nature and gave us His Own Spirit that cannot sin. No sin, no need for the law. So no Law, still no sin.

 

[mjrhealth]

Where we are weak, God's grace, His strength and power, overshadows our natural weakness, and makes us strong.

Here again, we see that God's grace is POWER.

Its more than what you limit it too.

 

[BarneyFife]

Paul, the apostle, is not a false teacher, and I never said he was. But there is one false teacher on this forum (look in the mirror to see) that takes his words and twists them as they do the rest of Scripture. And as many times as we have tried to help you see the Truth, you are still blind.

Jesus DID NOT DIE so we can sin with nothing imputed to us. What you are not seeing is that there is a reason we are not under the Law. The Law showed us our sin nature, but Jesus took away that sin nature and gave us His Own Spirit that cannot sin. No sin, no need for the law. So no Law, still no sin.

Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone. (Hosea 4:17) Just a thought.

 

[justbyfaith]

charismaticlady, and justbyfaith and others here, are not able to see themselves as God sees them, so they define themselves as what they were before they were saved,

Evidently we are in good company with Paul (1 Timothy 1:13-15).

 

[BarneyFife]

Again, any emphasis on one facet of God's magnificence is going to result in an unbalanced hermeneutic, folks. Our God is even more than multi-faceted--He is omni-faceted.

Isaiah 46
8“Remember this, and show yourselves men;
Recall to mind, O you transgressors.
9Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Its more than what you limit it too.

Does your definition of grace change a person's nature? Or does it just let them freely sin to their evil heart's content, but God can't see the sin because the blood of Jesus covers them.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone. (Hosea 4:17) Just a thought.

Don't know what you are trying to point out.

 

[BarneyFife]

Don't know what you are trying to point out.

It's probably for the best.

 

[mjrhealth]

Does your definition of grace change a person's nature? Or does it just let them freely sin to their evil heart's content, but God can't see the sin because the blood of Jesus covers them.

1. its his definition. When did man ever not freely sin, and 3 if there is no sin than we need no grace and Christ died for nothing.
Worst off it us the legalist that always raises the 'freely sin'. People on high horses tend to fall off. Im gkad im not perfect like you.

 

[CharismaticLady]

1. its his definition. When did man ever not freely sin, and 3 if there is no sin than we need no grace and Christ died for nothing.
Worst off it us the legalist that always raises the 'freely sin'. People on high horses tend to fall off. Im gkad im not perfect like you.

I had two questions and you evaded answering either one.

1. Does your definition of grace change a person's carnal nature to the divine nature?

2. Does your definition of grace just free them from the Law, and just lets them sin to their evil heart's content, but God can't see the sin because the blood of Jesus covers them?