Smoke Screens?

[GodsGrace]

I am so excited I have a day off and can speak with you guys without having to just pop in during breaks and can speak with you at my leisure! There is no place I'd rather be than here with you guys.

I have a story.

A young woman, newly married, was having her mother-in-law over for dinner. She was very nervous, as she wanted the woman to like and accept her. She fussed over what she would serve. She discussed a menu for days with her husband, who kept saying, you're a wonderful cook, whatever you decide to make, my mother will love it!

The evening came, and the MIL arrived very early. This flustered the young woman, but she got the MIL a drink and sat her at the kitchen table so they could talk while she got the roast ready to put in the oven.

She got out her roasting pan, removed the meat from the wrapper, cut off the end of the roast and threw it in the trash, popped the roast in the oven and set the timer.

She sat down at the kitchen table and the MIL had a confused look on her face, and she said, dear, why did you cut off the end of the roast and throw it in the trash...? The daughter in law replied, because that's the proper way to cook a roast...

Well, a great argument ensued, with the MIL thinking the young woman made no sense and was wasting her son's hard earned money. And the young woman thought the MIL was a pushy control freak who had no idea of the correct way to cook a roast.

When the son (and husband) came home from work, he was miserable. Here were the two women he loved most in the world and he didn't know where all of the tension had come from that was between them, but it broke his heart.

After dinner, he told his mother which room they had prepared for her to sleep in but she announced that she didn't want to put them to any trouble and had got a hotel room. He said he would drive her but she said she had called a cab to come and get her.

The cab arrived, there were tense and cold pleasantries exchanged and the MIL left.

The wife immediately told her husband the whole story and fumed over the rudeness of his mother toward her.

The husband asked, well...why is the end of the roast cut off before cooking?

His wife couldn't answer that except to insist that she knew it was just the correct way to cook a roast. And then, she and her husband had tension between them and the young woman was even more distraught.

She called her mother to cry on her shoulder about the disastrous dinner and her mean MIL.

After her mother heard the whole story, she said, but dear, why did you cut off the end of the roast and throw it away...?

The daughter said...because that's the way YOU always did it so I just knew it was correct!

The mother laughed and said, oh no...I remember! When you were little, I had one roasting pan, a small one. The roast would never quite fit, so I would cut off the very tip so it would not hang over and drip juice and grease onto the bottom of the oven!

Great story!
Great themes.

Here's one: Apparently the cost of roast beef had gone up a lot in the MIL's day.

JK

Let's see.

1. We should try to be open minded.
2. We should ask and not assume things.
3. We should be kind to the younger generation.
4. We should be kind to the older generation.
5. Don't ever cut off the end of a roast!

 

[Grailhunter]

Oh. I never thought you were meaning you were to literally and physically defend God and have a crusade or anything!

I thought you were more saying it was your responsibility to defend God with doctrines.

Well I did not say anything about a crusade.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Great story!
Great themes.

Here's one: Apparently the cost of roast beef had gone a lot in the MIL's day.

JK

Let's see.

1. We should try to be open minded.
2. We should ask and not assume things.
3. We should be kind to the younger generation.
4. We should be kind to the older generation.
5. Don't ever cut off the end of a roast!

With number one, yes, we should try to be open-minded. This means, to be a bit like a child. Not assuming that another person has no wisdom to help you, even if you don't agree with something they've said.

Hah! You have made an assumption from the story that was not in the story. I never said it was a beef roast. It could have been a pork roast.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Well I did not say anything about a crusade.

Hmm...yes I know you didn't.

You said it was your job and responsibility to defend God.

I do not agree, so I asked for a verse.

You gave the example of the money changers and Jesus. But you said it was never expected for Christians to pick up weapons but to leave their defense to God.

So I thought you might mean, when you say it is your responsibility to defend God, that you have a responsibility to defend Him through doctrinal fighting...

 

[stunnedbygrace]

This came to mind:
The devil might have gloried in Jesus' death....
until the resurrection.

(the devil does not foreknow the future, like God does).

I gave this some thought. Your last sentence. I think Satan does actually know things God has said will happen in the future. He tries to muck them up.

He is in great delusion that He CAN muck them up though. Even when he works against God, God turns it to His own purposes.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hmm...yes I know you didn't.

You said it was your job and responsibility to defend God.

I do not agree, so I asked for a verse.

You gave the example of the money changers and Jesus. But you said it was never expected for Christians to pick up weapons but to leave their defense to God.

So I thought you might mean, when you say it is your responsibility to defend God, that you have a responsibility to defend Him through doctrinal fighting...

Debates...you mean?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Helen...I don't think you are understanding HR's doctrine. It's a twisting of the word. It is the belief system of the Conquistadors who raped and pillaged with impunity even while trying to get the native inhabitants of the new world "saved"...by putting their trust in the cross. They even carried a cross before them as they cut off their noses, ears, and hands to make them work harder to find gold and silver... .and to warn others what would happen to them if they didn't. All of this with the pretense of a trust in the cross of Christ and what Jesus did for them.

All of the crimes of Christianity stems from this disconnect between faith and works.We will all be judged by our works NOT our beliefs. Do you deny that?

HR claims his works of the flesh are meaningless...not chargeable to him...because of belief.

Is that what you believe, Helen? God only looks for approval of a sacrifice and doesn't care what we do with our hands and feet? God doesn't care what you do in the flesh? Really?

The truth is that the Holy Spirit makes us MORE responsible for our sins...not less as HR says.

Hr said..."Since the sin debt of those who place their faith in Jesus has been paid by God, the child is sinless before God in spirit but not the flesh." (post #34)

This is pure Gnosticism. Something the early brethren wrote entire books against and is the subject of correction in 1 John 1. It divorces a person's sins from the responsibility of these. It makes grace a license to sin without consequence. It's all paid for in advance? Utter foolishness.

Jesus made the law MORE exacting ...like even thinking evil was wrong... like lusting after a woman being the same as adultery. Why would He do that if He didn't care about what we did in these bodies we have been given on loan? So then was this done to show us that God cares LESS about sin now? He is just looking for beliefs?...religious positions? Self-gratifying doctrinal posturings?

Really? I thought you were more in tune with the purpose of God than that.

Has the word become...the soul that sins...it shall live?

Whereby we were once dead in sins are we now made alive in sins? Born again sinners?

Ask HR about this.

It's quite nauseatingly apparent that we've accepted doctrines that are twisted and we don't know it.

And we have been taught that we're supposed to defend those doctrines. And even though we have many historical examples of that being done and how it led to an awful amount of death, we still keep it going.

We murder each other in spirit. We aren't currently physically cutting off arms and noses, but we are engaged in crusades, even here in an online forum.

What makes us so stupid that we can't view history to see its bad? What will make us stop and question what we do in here, epi?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Debates...you mean?

If in a debate we have anger in our heart at our brother, and hurt pride, I guess I mean murder actually.

 

[Grailhunter]

If in a debate we have anger in our heart at our brother, and hurt pride, I guess I mean murder actually.

If this is upsetting you....count me out.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If this is upsetting you....count me out.

I'm not upset. No, I'm not upset. I'm just talking about what I have learned. I have not been upset at any point in this thread. You did seem to get a little upset at one point but you came back.

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm not upset. No, I'm not upset. I'm just talking about what I have learned. I have not been upset at any point in this thread. You did seem to get a little upset at one point but you came back.

I respect most denominations.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I respect most denominations.

I've never really gone to church so I don't have a denomination. But I'm joining a fellowship! Finally! I had tried one once before. A woman whose house I used to clean invited me. Oh my gosh, they always served good food. So good, in fact, that I remember one of the meals before bible study quite vividly. Filet mignon with a roquefort sauce. I asked if Roquefort was a kind of wine, lol.

But I would have rather had no meal and a man leading who knew God. To my shame, when I saw how bad the fellowship was, I went longer for the food. And for hoping one of them might have some work for me because most of them owned businesses.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Delete Repost

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I've never really gone to church so I don't have a denomination. But I'm joining a fellowship! Finally! I had tried one once before. A woman whose house I used to clean invited me. Oh my gosh, they always served good food. So good, in fact, that I remember one of the meals before bible study quite vividly. Filet mignon with a roquefort sauce. I asked if Roquefort was a kind of wine, lol.

But I would have rather had no meal and a man leading who knew God. To my shame, when I saw how bad the fellowship was, I went longer for the food. And for hoping one of them might have some work for me because most of them owned businesses.

On second thought, there was another reason I went for longer. I could see they didn't know God and I thought I could help them to see Him rather than be religious. But when I would try to speak and help, they just all looked confused. But polite. But then the man would say I was misunderstanding the passage or the verse, and would explain it again. About the 8th fellowship or so, they were starting a Rick warren study, so I ate and sat through it but just never went back. I remember crying in my car whenever I left the fellowship and asking God to open their eyes. But He didn't. I heard that one of them died about a month after I stopped going and I cried again.

 

[Helen]

HR claims his works of the flesh are meaningless...not chargeable to him...because of belief.

Is that what you believe, Helen? God only looks for approval of a sacrifice and doesn't care what we do with our hands and feet? God doesn't care what you do in the flesh? Really?

The truth is that the Holy Spirit makes us MORE responsible for our sins...not less as HR says.

This would be a long conversation. And we probably wont agree on all points.
You see , even HR believes that if someone ( christian) sins, if they can fall back and be lost. I do not. He believe in hell , I do not. Not as it is taught.

You wont like this , and no one else does either. But I do not believe a christian will be lost...not his initial salvation.
I have said this many many times in the last 8 years on here, and I hear all the screams that rise when I say it. But, I stand by what "I" said, and I don't ask anyone else to believe what I believe. Neither do I "push it" ...unless, as you have , someone asks. Even then, I can either ignore the post ( which often I do, depending on who the person ask and in what attitude. ) ...or I can answer, as I am now.
People can throw their verses at me, but I have 'been there, done that' over the years, and so many times ... I used to throw back my own scriptures ...but these days I will not play- " Who can out-scripture who".

Our works will be tried by fire of what sort it is...you know the verse just as well as I do. The dead works will go up as wood , hay and stubble...only the works that are kingdom inspired and directed, will remain to lay at His feet.

When people backslide ...and stay that way...they lose their position in the Kingdom to come.
As I read scripture we see The Church, The Bride, and The Overcoming Sons.

People will say that they are all one and the same......they are not.
Even Revelation 3 shows that not all get the same reward.

But that study is long and deep...not going there here.

So no, I do not believe that once saved we can totally lose our relationship with God. We can lose our overcoming sonship position, but not our salvation.

I see time and time again...almost daily on this site, people yarping on about -
"If you believe blah blah blah, you are not a christian and will not go to heaven."
Give me a break.
Some of the things I read that you write, I do not agree with. And that is fine.
My close friend of almost 20 years now @amadeus and I do NOT see eye to eye on quite a few things....but I love and trust him. He doesn't agree with things I believe, and I don't with all he believes...but, that said, for the things that MATTER, we are on the same page.

We do not "go to heaven" on doctrine. God will not check out our doctrine, but our relationship with Him.

I think I understand what @H. Richard is saying... Our works will not get us to heaven. We either believe that Jesus did what He was sent here to do...and that was to do what man had not been able to do in 4000 years. If he could, then Jesus would not have needed to come here and die.

I am either hidden in Him, or I am not.

I think I have said enough, and probably more than enough here.

Bless you, Helen

 

[Episkopos]

This would be a long conversation. And we probably wont agree on all points.
You see , even HR believes that if someone ( christian) sins, if they can fall back and be lost. I do not. He believe in hell , I do not. Not as it is taught.

You wont like this , and no one else does either. But I do not believe a christian will be lost...not his initial salvation.
I have said this many many times in the last 8 years on here, and I hear all the screams that rise when I say it. But, I stand by what "I" said, and I don't ask anyone else to believe what I believe. Neither do I "push it" ...unless like you, someone asks. I can either ignore the post ( which often I do, depending on who the person ask and in what attitude. ) ...or I can answer, as I am now.
People can throw their verses at me, but I have 'been there, done that' so many times ... I used to throw back my own scriptures ...but these days I will not play- " Who can out-scripture who".

Our works will be tried by fire of what sort it is...you know the verse just as well as I do. The dead works will go up as wood , hay and stubble...only the works that are kingdom inspired and directed, will remain to lay at His feet.

When people backslide ...and stay that way...they lose their position in the kingdom.
As I read scripture we see The Church, The Bride, and The Overcoming Sons.

People will say that they are all one and the same...they are not.
Even Revelation 3 shows that not all get the same reward.

But that study is long and deep...not going there here.

So no, I do not believe that once saved we can totally lose our relationship with God. We can lose our overcoming sonship position, but not our salvation.

I see time and time again...almost daily on this site, people yarping on about " If you believe blah blah blah, you will not go to heaven."

We do not "go to heaven" on doctrine. God will not check out our doctrine, but our relationship with Him.

I think I understand what @H. Richard is saying... Our works will not get us to heaven. We either believe that Jesus did what He was sent here to do...and that was to do what man had not been able to do in 4000 years. If he could, then Jesus would not have needed to come here and die.

I am either hidden in Him, or I am not.

I think I have said enough, and probably more than enough here.

Bless you, Helen

I'm hearing a big difference in your position as opposed to the doctrine that HR is promoting. He is saying that the ONLY sin that exists is unbelief...meaning a Christian will NOT be held responsible for his actions.

Your position is that yes he is responsible...but not to a place where it is fatal to his salvation.

I agree that this is all about relationship with God. I think HR also sees that. So we have a good starting point.

I actually think you, Helen, are somewhere in between our positions. I agree that we will have varying rewards (or not) depending on our faithfulness.

But the biggest difference is that I believe that God's people can be judged so as to suffer great loss...as it says in 1 Cor. 3. Not just a loss of rewards but a heavy eternal rejection into outer darkness as per Jude.

So the dilemma is between faith and works. Relationship and responsibility.

Hr's position is all faith (actually beliefs) ...no works. He doesn't see that we will be judged by our works. And all relationship with no responsibility...because it is only unbelief, as he sees it, that is a chargeable offense to God now that ALL sins are already paid for for the whole world.

I understand his position...and there is a certain logic to it...but it is false. It is God serving man in exchange for lip service and allegiance to God's presidency. Very political and human in thinking. Very partisan. Very much a favoritism stance.

And if God was a respecter of persons and not a righteous judge...it just might work.

 

[Helen]

I'm hearing a big difference in your position as opposed to the doctrine that HR is promoting. He is saying that the ONLY sin that exists is unbelief...meaning a Christian will NOT be held responsible for his actions.

Your position is that yes he is responsible...but not to a place where it is fatal to his salvation.

I agree that this is all about relationship with God. I think HR also sees that. So we have a good starting point.

I actually think you, Helen, are somewhere in between our positions. I agree that we will have varying rewards (or not) depending on our faithfulness.

But the biggest difference is that I believe that God's people can be judged so as to suffer great loss...as it says in 1 Cor. 3. Not just a loss of rewards but a heavy eternal rejection into outer darkness as per Jude.

So the dilemma is between faith and works. Relationship and responsibility.

Hr's position is all faith (actually beliefs) ...no works. He doesn't see that we will be judged by our works. And all relationship with no responsibility...because it is only unbelief, as he sees it, that is a chargeable offense to God now that ALL sins are already paid for for the whole world.

I understand his position...and there is a certain logic to it...but it is false. It is God serving man in exchange for lip service and allegiance to God's presidency. Very political and human in thinking. Very partisan. Very much a favoritism stance.

And if God was a respecter of persons and not a righteous judge...it just might work.

Thanks for that...I was editing my post when you posted I think.

Yes, I knew you believed that, I have seen you write it.. And skipped my usual "like".

Quite honestly, I believe that I am not 'quite' between you and HR , but slightly more weighed HR's way, over the sin issue.
I believe there is much confusion ( especially here on this site) between our condition, and I position.

Like I say...all this would be much better in a cozy room, over coffee. Seeing each other, eye to eye in a long open discussion.

It's all very involved and deep.

 

[justbyfaith]

If you still hold on to the old relationships with God, as the Jews do looking to the Law as a moral guide, you have not accepted the provisions of the New Covenant and you are not saved.

We can and must indeed look to the law as a moral guide (though not as a means of salvation). It is written in Hebrews 8:8-10 and Hebrews 10:16 that the law is written on the hearts and in the minds of those who are effectively under the New Covenant. Also the the law is a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ (Galatians 3:24). It shows us that we are sinners in need of a Saviour (Romans 3:20). It is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7). We must therefore set forth the law of the Lord as a standard of righteousness to be obeyed by all. There is no law that will condemn a man who consistently bears the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23); and this means that those who walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh will be law-abiding citizens of God's kingdom. They are not attempting to earn their salvation through obeying a set of do's and don'ts; nevertheless because of faith and the subsequent infilling of love, their actions will not be in violation of the spirit of the law of the Lord.

Furthermore, Romans 3:31 tells us that we do not make the law void through faith; rather we establish it.

Because it is the portion of the Bible that tells of the time when God’s people “ONCE” lived under the Laws of the OLD Covenants….the Old Agreements, with a very wrathful God.

the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same...the God who created us has wrath against sin, period. In the New Testament we avoid being recipients of that wrath because we accept the fact that Jesus died in our place and that therefore, God's wrath against sin was poured out on Jesus instead of us. And His perfect life, blood, and righteousness is applied to our account. This is the divine exchange or propitiation.

I have said it before but the reader should read through the 613 Mosaic Laws and determine for yourself. Would you want to read these Law and rituals into Church?

I wouldn't. In Romans 7:6 it declares that our obedience is not according to the letter but according to the spirit of what the law teaches. Nevertheless, as a schoolmaster, the letter of the law effectively shows the sinner that he is a sinner. Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48 show us that if anyone is going to seek to enter into the kingdom of heaven by being a moral paragon of virtue, they must be obedient to all 613 commandments from conception into eternity (they would have to be born wearing tefilin and tzitzit and tallit). But such is the nature of sin: it is all-pervading and the law of the Lord only reveals that to us all: it shows us that we are sinners in need of a Saviour. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

In Galatians Paul had a warning for those that seek to live under the Law or look to the Law as a moral guide. “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.”

Those who seek to obey the law, knowing that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and that there is no salvation in law-keeping, and motivated by love for the Lord rather than a need to be accepted before God, are not condemned by this scripture, although they seek to be obedient to the law as a statement of what pleases the Lord, whom we love so much.

Yeshua indirectly implies that the Mosaic Law was not His Law saying, “Even in your law it has been written…” He could have said “the law, or our law, but He did not. This is further emphasized by the fact that nowhere in the Gospel does Yeshua ever refer to “Mosaic Law or “The Law” as His Law.

The scribes and Pharisees had added many things to the law that God had given them, so it effectively became "their law' rather than God's. But it should be clear that Jesus is also the God of the Old Testament (for He is God and there is one God according to the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4); and therefore the law of God is effectively the law of Christ.

After Christ’s death and after the implementation of the New Covenant, the Apostles referenced these Laws as obsolete tutors and commandments of men.

Certainly not obsolete. The law continues to be a schoolmaster for those who have not yet come to faith in Christ. And also, the law is written on the hearts and in the minds of all those who truly live under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:16).

The doctrine of Christianity, the teachings of Christ can be found in the Bible. The doctrine of Man, false teachings cannot!

False teachings can most certainly be found in the Bible; when scriptures are taken out of their immediate and/or topical contexts to form doctrines of devils.

So why didn’t the Apostles at least site the Ten Commandments as at least a reference?

They did, in Acts of the Apostles 15:21.

Those that believe and preach legalism (The Ten Commandments and or the Mosaic Laws) are not following Christ’s teachings and are severed from the saving grace of the New Covenant. (Hebrews 10:26-31) Christ’s laws are the only Laws that govern Christians.

Again, Jesus Christ is God; and therefore His law is the law of God. He Himself told us that one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away.

Mat 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20, For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Those that follow the Law and preach the same are not following the teachings of Christ.

The above scripture is found within the context of the teachings of Christ.

The goal of Christianity is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

The end of the commandment is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Timothy 1:5).

 

[justbyfaith]

This is usually called positional sanctification. It means being set apart as a member of the family of God. It is true of every believer regardless of his or her spiritual state. Read 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 and remember the carnal condition of these believers. This positional sanctification is based on the death of Christ is clear

Positional sanctification, as they call it, is simply another name for justification. People teach this because they want to believe that they are sanctified when practically this is not the case in their lives, so that when they read verses that speak of sanctification, they do not have to feel convicted about their own lack of being sanctified. They can say, I am sanctified, only positionally and not experientially; and therefore, in doing this, they effectively put away the conviction of the Holy Spirit over whatever it is that He is trying to pinpoint in their lives by telling them that they must be sanctified in the practical sense. It is really a crying shame that some will never surrender to the Lordshio of Jesus Christ because of this doctrine.

Adoption is a particularly wonderful benefit of the New Covenant.

Adoption is defined as the redemption of the body in Romans 8:23. Later, in Galatians 4:5-7, Paul says that this is a work that has been done in the past concerning the lives of the Galatians. Verses to consider: Hebrews 9:13b-14a, Ephesians 5:30-32 w/ 1 John 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Does He spank you...you tell me.

See Hebrews 12:5-11. If He didn't spank me I would think of myself as an illegitimate child.

As far as loosing your saved state….Who can pluck us from His hand?

Amen...you got that one right!

 

[Nancy]

I'm hearing a big difference in your position as opposed to the doctrine that HR is promoting. He is saying that the ONLY sin that exists is unbelief...meaning a Christian will NOT be held responsible for his actions.

Your position is that yes he is responsible...but not to a place where it is fatal to his salvation.

I agree that this is all about relationship with God. I think HR also sees that. So we have a good starting point.

I actually think you, Helen, are somewhere in between our positions. I agree that we will have varying rewards (or not) depending on our faithfulness.

But the biggest difference is that I believe that God's people can be judged so as to suffer great loss...as it says in 1 Cor. 3. Not just a loss of rewards but a heavy eternal rejection into outer darkness as per Jude.

So the dilemma is between faith and works. Relationship and responsibility.

Hr's position is all faith (actually beliefs) ...no works. He doesn't see that we will be judged by our works. And all relationship with no responsibility...because it is only unbelief, as he sees it, that is a chargeable offense to God now that ALL sins are already paid for for the whole world.

I understand his position...and there is a certain logic to it...but it is false. It is God serving man in exchange for lip service and allegiance to God's presidency. Very political and human in thinking. Very partisan. Very much a favoritism stance.

And if God was a respecter of persons and not a righteous judge...it just might work.

Just one question here Epi.
"But the biggest difference is that I believe that God's people can be judged so as to suffer great loss...as it says in 1 Cor. 3. Not just a loss of rewards but a heavy eternal rejection into outer darkness as per Jude."
Do you see outer darkness as "Hell"? I've heard/read several different beliefs here. so, I'm like with this a bit. ♥