understanding Paul

[Randy Kluth]

That was my first thought but you didn't seem too receptive of that, and so I suggest you find out for yourself. You've studied a long time, and you insist that Atonement is what Jesus did. So what can I say?
Much love!

What you can do is back up your claims with facts from your own study, rather than dispatch my own claims by referring me to "more study."

 

[CharismaticLady]

I'm just saying the heart is deceiptful and desparately wicked, and who can know it?

And to me that sounds an awful lot like what I think when I hear the words, total depravity. If your heart is deceiptful, without cure, and you can't know it, what does that sound like to you?

Am I Calvinist? That's an entirely different question. I don't believe in limited atonement, or unconditional election, for instance.

Much love!

Good, they don't believe one can turn to Christ because of total depravity. They believe you must be born again FIRST, before you CAN turn to Christ.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I'm not sure what that means. How do we "live in atonement?" If you mean that once we repent and accept Jesus we live in *his righteousness," in "his new nature," I agree. We are saved because we have chosen to live with him, in him, and through him. Thanks.

William Tyndale termed the phrase, atonement. Before him, the word didn't exist. It means "at one ment." Like abiding in Christ, and He is us." That is why, 1 John 3:5 ends with there is no sin in Christ. Not as a theory, but a reality.

 

[marks]

This unmistakably indicates that under the Law God desired that Israel give up their sinful attitudes and adopt a new nature. This was a return to righteousness from a state of backsliding. In Jesus' time, Israel was in a state of backsliding, and Jesus was preparing to offer them a permanent new nature, the new life in Christ. This is salvation.

Are you talking about a "temporary new nature" under the Law?

 

[marks]

Good, they don't believe one can turn to Christ because of total depravity. They believe you must be born again FIRST, before you CAN turn to Christ.

I believe that God give "prevenient grace", that is, God gives each the faith required to believe IF We Want To. If we choose to believe, we are justified, reborn, and alive in Christ. If we do not choose to believe, then the Gospel does us no good, since we did not mix it with the faith God gave us.

But in me, that is, in my flesh, NOTHING good dwells.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'd say this is an assumption that may apply to some but not to others. Minds work in all sorts of ways. "we in the western world think" is overgeneralized.

No, it isn't. I'm referring to the specific problem normally found in the Western world that I wish to address. It is well-known that philosophy and religion has had a regular interplay throughout NT history.

The areas I wish to deal with is where theology had bled over into philosophical conclusions, such as Total Depravity means material man and all his works are incapable of good choices and good works. This has nothing to do with works that lead to eternal life, which include repentance and acceptance of Christ's atonement.

We do not do works of eternal atonement--Christ alone did that. But Man can indeed make the choice to do good, to repent, and to embrace Christ's new nature, despite the presence of sin in our lives.

We must avoid the philosophical conclusion that led to gnostic dualism. Since it had no sense of a new righteous nature, Gnosticism assumed that evil is removed not by spiritual change but rather, by avoiding material realities, denying one's self, abstinence, etc. Christianity teaches man has both good and evil, and is indeed capable of redemption by choice for change, including both a change for good works and a choice to embrace Christ's atonement.

True, there is the righteousness that is of the law, and the righteousness of God by faith. One is considered worthless by Paul for salvation, the other, the righteousness of God, that's what saves us.

. . . not to say that bad men can't do good things. But we need to think through what those good things mean, and are. Good works are good, of course, but good works don't save.

Thank you. We are in agreement then. I'm glad you're not into Gnostic Dualism!

I don't really find Paul all that difficult to understand when I just accept what he wrote, and apply myself to understanding it. I do find you rather difficult to understand though!

Well, you must be doing better than Peter then, who did say that Paul was somewhat difficult. Don't you believe the Bible?

For instance I don't know why you said this . . .

"It's a matter of straightening out messes when our secular world disturbs the message of religious truth."

You raise an interesting point. Righteousness apart from salvation.

Then I'm not so difficult to understand after all? That's what I've been talking about. I've been trying to expose Gnostic Dualism, and its attempt to negate positive human choices, whether for good works or for Christ himself.

"I reject God, but I help ladies cross the street." Is that truly righteousness?

One is not good, and one is. Not difficult. People are mixed.

That is what God sought to avoid in us from the beginning, the knowledge of *both* good and evil. He didn't want *any evil* in us! That's why we need Christ to make atonement for our sins, so that we choose *only the good.*

The righteousness that is by the Law. If Paul declared this worthless, what does that tell you? Is righteousness apart from faith in God righteous?

This just brings us back to my original point, that Paul used "shortcut" words to explain things in brevity, lest things get too long-winded and confused. He was referring to the righteousness that leads to salvation. His burden was not, in all cases, to expose Gnostic Dualism, as mine is here.

The Bible does expose Gnostic Dualism in other places. Paul does in Colossians. And the Apostle John does in 1 John.

But where Paul deals with "righteousness" his focus is on "saving righteousness." He has less interest in preserving righteousness that really is righteousness but does not save, although he does recommend, generally, good behavior in all. For example, he recommended serving the governing authorities so that they could serve well.

But Paul wanted to save his Jewish brethren from simple righteousness that did not actually save. That was their entire problem. And so, Paul focused on the need for *saving righteousness,* and not simply "good behavior."

Did the righteous acts of the Jews save them? I don't think so! I think is was trusting in God as they saw their own unrighteousness. Looking for His mercy.
Much love!

I rest my case!

 

[CharismaticLady]

I believe that God give "prevenient grace", that is, God gives each the faith required to believe IF We Want To. If we choose to believe, we are justified, reborn, and alive in Christ. If we do not choose to believe, then the Gospel does us no good, since we did not mix it with the faith God gave us.

But in me, that is, in my flesh, NOTHING good dwells.

Much love!

Prevenient grace is a Catholic term. Romans 12 shows that God gives all a "measure" of faith. I think that is what you mean.

 

[marks]

You're saying that atonement always means to "cover" in the OT, and always means to "remove" in the NT.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Atonement is a word used to translate 'cover', 'to sound forth', in honesty I don't recall which other words right now. But the thing is this. We say atonement for the OT concept that the blood of an animal would provide a covering for sin, not that the sin is removed, not that the sin is forgiven, the sin is still there, but covered, so long as the sacrifices continued. Now, to be sure, it wasn't the death of the animal that helped the people. Many peoples kill animals hoping to appease their god. But these were trusting that God would accept the offering, and their trust was what God was looking for. But in the OT theology, sin is not dealt with in any permanent manner, and we call this atonement.

In the New Testament, there is no more animal sacrifice, the offering made by Jesus satisfies. Behold the Lamb of God Who carries away the sin of the world.

Rather than giving a covering for those sins specified, and for the Jews only, Jesus removed - not covers - removed the sins of the world. Again their are various words used, such as send away, loose, free, sins are not covered, they are gone.

When we talk about the atoning of sin in the OT, and the atoning of sin by Jesus, though using the same word, these are such totally different things, using the same word to speak of both seems to me to be a major source of confusion, and I don't think it shows a good understanding of what the Law did compared to what Jesus did.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

William Tyndale termed the phrase, atonement. Before him, the word didn't exist. It means "at one ment." Like abiding in Christ, and He is us." That is why, 1 John 3:5 ends with there is no sin in Christ. Not as a theory, but a reality.

I really don't care who invented a non-biblical language. All that matters is whether a particular language properly conveys what the Bible said!

I know what "atonement" means, and it didn't wait until William Tyndale came along. Tyndale obviously was discovering and trying to describe, in English, what the Bible had said in Hebrew and in Greek, as well as in Aramaic.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I really don't care who invented a non-biblical language. All that matters is whether a particular language properly conveys what the Bible said!

I know what "atonement" means, and it didn't wait until William Tyndale came along. Tyndale obviously was discovering and trying to describe, in English, what the Bible had said in Hebrew and in Greek, as well as in Aramaic.

Yes, I know what it means too. I like at one with God, rather than merely payment for our sins.

 

[marks]

Prevenient grace is a Catholic term. Romans 12 shows that God gives all a "measure" of faith. I think that is what you mean.

Whether prevenient grace is a Catholic term, I know not. And I really don't care. Arminius also used it. I use it because to me it describes what God does, to my understanding.

In giving all a measure of faith, this is prevenient to our conversion and rebirth, and allows it to happen, by a preceding convenient gift from God. So that's how I think about it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

That is completely, absolutely, and finally false!
That you're wrong is easily provable. I need only provide a single verse here.

Psalm 119.1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord.



That proves nothing! God *required* that animal blood be offered! How can obedience to that *not* be righteousness? I think you're confused. And I'm utterly unable to convey to you the problem.

Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Galatians 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

According to these verses, does righteousness come by the Law?

Are there other passages that tell us something different?

Psalm 119.1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord.

And does this verse tell us that the Law makes that person righteous? I'm not seeing that.

Much love!

 

[CharismaticLady]

Whether prevenient grace is a Catholic term, I know not. And I really don't care. Arminius also used it. I use it because to me it describes what God does, to my understanding.

In giving all a measure of faith, this is prevenient to our conversion and rebirth, and allows it to happen, by a preceding convenient gift from God. So that's how I think about it.

Much love!

Okay. I just know the Bible terms more than man's.

 

[marks]

Some feel that Eze 36.26 refers to the salvation of Israel under the New Covenant. But the following has to do with the return of Israel from the Babylonian Captivity. They were to change from their previous state of idolatry to a state of fidelity to God.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
32 Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.
33 Thus saith the Lord God; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.

When?

 

[marks]

Okay. I just know the Bible terms more than man's.

And normally I'd be right there alongside you. I totally prefer to use the language of the Bible, and specifically because it helps to rewrite my mind better.

In this case, I think it is properly descriptive.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I sincerely would like to know more on this, if you have more?

The more we can simplify the discussion the better for me.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Atonement is a word used to translate 'cover', 'to sound forth', in honesty I don't recall which other words right now. But the thing is this. We say atonement for the OT concept that the blood of an animal would provide a covering for sin, not that the sin is removed, not that the sin is forgiven, the sin is still there, but covered, so long as the sacrifices continued. Now, to be sure, it wasn't the death of the animal that helped the people. Many peoples kill animals hoping to appease their god. But these were trusting that God would accept the offering, and their trust was what God was looking for. But in the OT theology, sin is not dealt with in any permanent manner, and we call this atonement.

I find the word "kippur" to mean what in English we describe as "atonement." It was the act by which God had men show His own sovereign means of reconciling us, in our sin, to Himself. I don't see temporary covering and complete removal in the word at all. It is your burden to prove this, as I said.

In the New Testament, there is no more animal sacrifice, the offering made by Jesus satisfies. Behold the Lamb of God Who carries away the sin of the world.

This has nothing to do with dissecting the meaning of the words you mentioned. In context we both agree atonement is temporary in the OT and permanent in the NT. You need to explain what you're getting at? If you're claiming the words themselves carry the "temporary" or "eternal" facets, you need to prove that!

Rather than giving a covering for those sins specified, and for the Jews only, Jesus removed - not covers - removed the sins of the world. Again their are various words used, such as send away, loose, free, sins are not covered, they are gone.

What words are you referring to? If all you're saying is that OT rituals are gone, you're not proving anything!

When we talk about the atoning of sin in the OT, and the atoning of sin by Jesus, though using the same word, these are such totally different things, using the same word to speak of both seems to me to be a major source of confusion, and I don't think it shows a good understanding of what the Law did compared to what Jesus did.
Much love!

Your choice to believe things are your own. I find great value in comparing the temporary and eternal aspects of atonement in both testaments. Otherwise, some fall into Gnostic Dualism, and falsely conclude that the temporary means, which are gone now, never had any validity. While it's true they never had any validity with respect to obtaining eternal life, they were acceptable to God as a covenant system, preparing the way for the coming of eternal life.

 

[marks]

Good, they don't believe one can turn to Christ because of total depravity. They believe you must be born again FIRST, before you CAN turn to Christ.

For the grace of God unto salvation has appeared to ALL men.

Much love!

 

[marks]

We must avoid the philosophical conclusion that led to gnostic dualism. Since it had no sense of a new righteous nature, Gnosticism assumed that evil is removed not by spiritual change but rather, by avoiding material realities, denying one's self, abstinence, etc. Christianity teaches man has both good and evil, and is indeed capable of redemption by choice for change, including both a change for good works and a choice to embrace Christ's atonement.

I'm coming to realize we are on two very different tracks here.

Are you talking about the Gnosticism of NT times?

 

[CharismaticLady]

For the grace of God unto salvation has appeared to ALL men.

Much love!

Supply the text - I like that.