understanding Paul

[Randy Kluth]

What do you mean when you say, "we must adopt a new nature"? How do we do that?

Much love!

Look at it like this. You can take one of two choices.
1) Choose to carry about with a carnal mentality, coveting, lusting, hating, etc. and still do a few good deeds. Or, you can...
2) Choose to live under the lordship of Christ all the time, which requires us to have our entire nature converted from carnal to spiritual. This doesn't make us perfect, but it allows God to invest His power in us so that we overcome sins.

All men can overcome their sin tendency, when they choose to obey God in their conscience and do good. The problem is that men are satisfied with just doing isolated good deeds, only to return to their carnal, selfish nature. Wanting our own way, we lose God's power to overcome sin, and become enslaved by the sin nature.

To get completely free from the power of sin we must turn our lives over completely to Christ, to be endowed with a new nature--some call it being "born again." I just call it embracing the New Nature Christ wants us to have. It is the need to live in constant fellowship with God. He doesn't want us some of the time. He wants us all of the time. I'm happy to oblige Him!

I'm sure you are too. I appreciate your good spirit, brother. I know I say things that make you suspicious. But bear with me. I'm open to whatever the Lord wants in my life.

 

[Randy Kluth]

We are not saved because we AGREED to do something later.
You are teaching that we said to God....."ok, i agree to be good, live in Christ, and do stuff, now, can i be saved".
What is this nonsense, Randy?

At least have the good grace to quote me correctly! Where did I say this? It isn't even a good characterization. It sure doesn't sound like me!

God takes a person who Gives God FAITH in Christ and SAVES them... There is no downpayment or promise we make along with our faith, so that God will save us.
Salvation is a GIFT. You dont have to earn it by agreeing to do something later.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying we must do something to acquire salvation, but we don't do something to earn our own atonement! What we must do to acquire salvation is respond to God's word when He sends that word to us. We must choose to believe it. When God presents to us the idea of having a righteous nature, one that is obedient to Him all the time, we simply need to accept that proposition. It is necessary to acquire salvation!

The salvation comes when the thing God proposes to us actually comes to us. And that is precisely when we accept it. Easy peasy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You verse does not say the Law Keeper is Blessed.

Of course it does, brother! That's exactly what it says. In case there's any doubt, read the blessings of the Law read on Mt. Gerazim in Deuteronomy.

As a matter of fact, if you read Philippians 3, you will find that Paul walked according to the Law, and was ""blameless in the law"", kept them all, and said that this achieved no righteousness and was futile, and in fact he described all self effort, commandment keeping, or law keeping, to try to be accepted by God, or to try to be righteous = is "DUNG".
So, you are teaching the opposite. You are crediting what can't provide righteousness, with providing it.
Listen, get rid of your commentaries as they are ruining your understanding of the NT.

Not at all! Yes, Paul mixed in some righteous living with his murderous attitude, and the Law can't be blamed for Paul's bad attitude. But the point is, the Law does invite good behavior.

The problem with Paul, however, is that with him faith and the Law got separated. That is how he could follow the Law as a coverup for his bad attitude. He was not following the Law the way it was meant to be followed. If he did, he would've accepted Jesus earlier.

You see, the problem with the Jews was not in following the Law, but in following the Law without faith. They somehow came to using the Law as a cover-up for their hidden sins. This is why it is called "filthy rags." Just doing isolated good deeds is not a replacement for having a good nature that causes the man to submit his whole life to God. That is what the Law really wanted--not isolated deeds to cover up internal sin.

Still, I won't say that those isolated deeds are not righteousness. They just fail to constitute a godly nature, which was what the Law was all about.

"blessed are those whose ways are blameless". This is not describing keeping the law.
Notice... = "who walk according to the law of the Lord".
The "Law of the Lord" is not the Law, Randy, .. the "Law of the Lord" is to walk in LOVE.

That's a little strange! The Law is not the Law??

I agree--the Law is fulfilled in love. I would similarly say that the Law was meant not just for isolated good deeds, but for a new nature. That's where Paul had fallen short, and why he referred to the Law, in that sense, as "dung."

Its walking in LOVE that fulfills the law..
You dont fulfill the law by keeping it, you fulfill it by LOVE.
Love= is the fulfilling of the Law.
Study your NT, Randy. Get RID of the LYING commentaries, or you will continue to be in the dark.
Im trying to help you...
-
-
Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore =love is the fulfilling of the law.


Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore = love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore =love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[justbyfaith]

I'm certainly not trying to be nasty, or have a nasty spirit.

But, when I see false teaching, I will identify it as such, for the sake of those who might be deceived by it if it were not identified as such.

It is out of love for the sheep that I am "being nasty to you".

Because it is the devil's tactic to be confusing in order that he might deceive (see Genesis 3:1-6).

God, on the other hand, is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

So, if someone's teaching is confusing, that is a sure sign that it is false teaching.

For it is written,

2 Corinthians 11:3, But I fear, lest, by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

I wouldn't put you in the same category as marks. I think he is a better Christian than you--he has a great spirit, and you don't.

1Co 4:12, And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
1Co 4:13, Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

I agree that @marks has a great spirit and that he could teach me a thing or two about how to be positive.

But I think that if I have been being nasty, that you are returning nastiness back to me in the spirit of nastiness.

I understand that you are offended by what I have said to all...that I believe that you are a false teacher...that from your perspective, it is being nasty because you are the teacher that is being identified as false.

What option does a false teacher have, when identified as such, except to accuse the identifier as bearing bad fruit?

But the fruit of the Spirit is love...

And it is love that motivates me to protect the flock from false teachers such as yourself.

So I am not bearing bad fruit except from your perspective...

It is the same as when a wolf accuses the shepherd of being violent in not allowing him to eat his sheep.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1 Corinthians 4:12-13.

I agree that @marks has a great spirit and that he could teach me a thing or two about how to be positive.

But I think that if I have been being nasty, that you are returning nastiness back to me in the spirit of nastiness.

I understand that you are offended by what I have said to all...that I believe that you are a false teacher...that from your perspective, it is being nasty because you are the teacher that is being identified as false.

What option does a false teacher have, when identified as such, except to accuse the identifier as bearing bad fruit?

But the fruit of the Spirit is love...

And it is love that motivates me to protect the flock from false teachers such as yourself.

So I am not bearing bad fruit except from your perspective...

It is the same as when a wolf accuses the shepherd of being violent in not allowing him to eat his sheep.

No, you are indulging in the most vile form of Christianity--attacking a brother believer, and accusing him of false teaching without even pointing out what the "false teaching" is! Lie in the bed you make for yourself, brother. I won't feel sorry for you.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, you are indulging in the most vile form of Christianity--attacking a brother believer, and accusing him of false teaching without even pointing out what the "false teaching" is! Lie in the bed you make for yourself, brother. I won't feel sorry for you.

The false teaching is humanism...a denial of the reality of Jeremiah 17:9 and a variety of other verses in the Bible.

 

[Episkopos]

I know what happened with the New Covenant, but you sweep away the above passages without even reading them in context! They were fulfilled after the Babylonian Captivity. And the one passage was a proposal for a "new heart" in that particular time, which was *under the Law!* If your premise is based on proving this point, your argument is lost. Israel was promised they could have a "new heart" while *under the Law!*

Yes, the New Covenant provided a new heart that included the promise of eternal life, whereas the new heart under the Law did not yet have that hope. But it was indeed under the Law that God sought from Israel a "new heart," or a new nature. You're clearly wrong about that!

Eze 18.Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel?

This was *for that time,* while Israel was under the Law! This clearly proves you're wrong!

Jeremiah 9:26
“Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.”

God wanted Israel to adopt a new attitude....but not a new nature. You go too far. And this is the habit of all men...to take things too far. So you will have to come back a ways from this new nature under the law in order to not take away from the new nature in the New Covenant. Otherwise a New Covenant would not have been required. The law was our schoolmaster until Christ.

 

[Episkopos]

Look at it like this. You can take one of two choices.
1) Choose to carry about with a carnal mentality, coveting, lusting, hating, etc. and still do a few good deeds. Or, you can...
2) Choose to live under the lordship of Christ all the time, which requires us to have our entire nature converted from carnal to spiritual. This doesn't make us perfect, but it allows God to invest His power in us so that we overcome sins.

All men can overcome their sin tendency, when they choose to obey God in their conscience and do good. The problem is that men are satisfied with just doing isolated good deeds, only to return to their carnal, selfish nature. Wanting our own way, we lose God's power to overcome sin, and become enslaved by the sin nature.

To get completely free from the power of sin we must turn our lives over completely to Christ, to be endowed with a new nature--some call it being "born again." I just call it embracing the New Nature Christ wants us to have. It is the need to live in constant fellowship with God. He doesn't want us some of the time. He wants us all of the time. I'm happy to oblige Him!

I'm sure you are too. I appreciate your good spirit, brother. I know I say things that make you suspicious. But bear with me. I'm open to whatever the Lord wants in my life.

There are some good things in here. But also some inaccuracies.

We can follow Christ at different distances at different times. Some people are happy to follow Him from a great distance in a "spectator" mode. Others will make their way forward to stay in a much closer proximity to be active participants in what God is doing. At many people (if not all) will fluctuate back and forth with time...going closer and moving back as the circumstances of life, trials and the chaos around us all have their effect on us.

And all that is in the same zone (the tent of David) of training AFTER one is born again.

What most people will miss is that the purpose of the transition walk (wilderness) of following Christ (or trying to) is that we are to seek the Lord for an entrance into the kingdom walk...a walk already perfected by the resurrection power of Christ.

As we tire of our ever fluctuating Christian experience we can cry out to God...ask, seek and knock...to be permitted access to Zion: to be translated into the kingdom life and walk.

Of course very few even know of this walk in these perilous times. But the walk is there. Paul was chiefly concerned with that level of walk that he calls....the high calling. This is the "promised land" in the spiritual realm that we are being trained for and transitioned into. But because of so much bad teaching these days...most will take hold of very destructive teachings and things that cause a person to become worse and worse.

The wilderness walk is also a place of testing. Many are called but few are chosen.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There are some good things in here. But also some inaccuracies.

We can follow Christ at different distances at different times. Some people are happy to follow Him from a great distance in a "spectator" mode. Others will make their way forward to stay in a much closer proximity to be active participants in what God is doing. At many people (if not all) will fluctuate back and forth with time...going closer and moving back as the circumstances of life, trials and the chaos around us all have their effect on us.

And all that is in the same zone (the tent of David) of training AFTER one is born again.

What most people will miss is that the purpose of the transition walk (wilderness) of following Christ (or trying to) is that we are to seek the Lord for an entrance into the kingdom walk...a walk already perfected by the resurrection power of Christ.

As we tire of our ever fluctuating Christian experience we can cry out to God...ask, seek and knock...to be permitted access to Zion: to be translated into the kingdom life and walk.

Of course very few even know of this walk in these perilous times. But the walk is there. Paul was chiefly concerned with that level of walk that he calls....the high calling. This is the "promised land" in the spiritual realm that we are being trained for and transitioned into. But because of so much bad teaching these days...most will take hold of very destructive teachings and things that cause a person to become worse and worse.

The wilderness walk is also a place of testing. Many are called but few are chosen.

Well, sounds lovely--too bad it's a bit idealistic. I don't want you to be discouraged when things don't go the way you want. But thanks for your viewpoint.

 

[Episkopos]

Well, sounds lovely--too bad it's a bit idealistic. I don't want you to be discouraged when things don't go the way you want. But thanks for your viewpoint.

When a person makes the gospel to be idealistic...that's a big problem. It's just that Jesus died to take us from the flesh and into the Spirit...into the fellowship with the Father and the Son in the light. So you are exempting yourself from that pursuit?

The disappointment for NOT seeking the face of God is still coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jeremiah 9:26
“Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.”

God wanted Israel to adopt a new attitude....but not a new nature. You go too far. And this is the habit of all men...to take things too far. So you will have to come back a ways from this new nature under the law in order to not take away from the new nature in the New Covenant. Otherwise a New Covenant would not have been required. The law was our schoolmaster until Christ.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. God called Israel "uncircumcised in heart" not because they were consigned to that under the OT, but rather, to urge them to adopt a new nature under the OT. They were acting in disobedience!

Though God wanted Israel to have a new heart, or a new nature, under the OT, I agree with you that the new nature under the NT is the more desirable objective. My point was only that God was the same in the OT and in the NT, wanting His people to have more than just the ability to do a few good deeds--He wanted them to adopt an entire nature that does good.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When a person makes the gospel to be idealistic...that's a big problem. It's just that Jesus died to take us from the flesh and into the Spirit...into the fellowship with the Father and the Son in the light. So you are exempting yourself from that pursuit?

The disappointment for NOT seeking the face of God is still coming.

The real disappointment to me is that like so many others you turn, in pride, to personal attack, to try to have your way. You will *never* get your way that way. Your way will always have to be the Lord's way--not personal attack.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Works 1829: "Paul was the first corruptor of the doctrine of Jesus."
Women should shave their heads or wear a hat when praying (Cor. 11:6-7) & it is a disgrace for men to have long hair (Cor. 11:14). Apparently, Paul did not notice that Jesus had long hair during his vision on the road to Damascus?

So you agree that Paul was a corruptor of the doctrine of Jesus because he said that long hair is a disgrace to men? It's a good subject, but I'm left a bit confused if you here attack Paul on a Christian forum?

I think Paul was suggesting that it is not in the nature of men to want to make their hair attractive, to appeal to men. The women of Paul's time were no doubt like ours today--they combed or brushed their long hair to make it as beautiful as possible, because they are the fairer sex. That gender has every right to look good, though we should not judge them as "loose." It is their glory to look good to men.

I don't think Paul was saying that nature doesn't allow men to have long hair. Obviously, men can grow their hair long! So Paul obviously is talking about the nature of the male mind, which though he has long hair, does not wear it in a feminine way, which was condemned under the Law. Men were not allowed to wear women's clothing so as to look like women.

Today, women can wear jeans, and men can wear dresses (kilts), as long as it is not to appear as the opposite gender. And I do think that's what Paul is talking about. In his time, if men brushed out their hair at full length, it may have been a sign that they were gay.

 

[justbyfaith]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. God called Israel "uncircumcised in heart" not because they were consigned to that under the OT, but rather, to urge them to adopt a new nature under the OT.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you when you say that men could adopt a new nature under the OT.

I think that you have even taught contrary to this in time past?

This is what I mean by confusing...you teach one thing under one context, but under a different context you teach the exact opposite.

Don't ask me to dredge up the posts where you said what I think you said...if someone actually goes to the trouble of reading your posts, they will come across it in due time (except you go back and edit the posts where you taught the thing in question).

 

[Episkopos]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. God called Israel "uncircumcised in heart" not because they were consigned to that under the OT, but rather, to urge them to adopt a new nature under the OT. They were acting in disobedience!

Though God wanted Israel to have a new heart, or a new nature, under the OT, I agree with you that the new nature under the NT is the more desirable objective. My point was only that God was the same in the OT and in the NT, wanting His people to have more than just the ability to do a few good deeds--He wanted them to adopt an entire nature that does good.

Yes. But righteousness is not the same as holiness. The OT champions righteousness and the NT champions holiness.

We have the power to be humble and submit to God in our human capacity.

But only in Christ are we connected to a holy God.

 

[Episkopos]

The real disappointment to me is that like so many others you turn, in pride, to personal attack, to try to have your way. You will *never* get your way that way. Your way will always have to be the Lord's way--not personal attack.

Do you see that you are actually the one doing what you think I am doing? Read you own post to yourself.

I am speaking the truth about a generation that no longer believes the gospel. Everything has been reduced to what men can do.

Where is the connection to God?

 

[Yan]

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Works 1829: "Paul was the first corruptor of the doctrine of Jesus."
Women should shave their heads or wear a hat when praying (Cor. 11:6-7) & it is a disgrace for men to have long hair (Cor. 11:14). Apparently, Paul did not notice that Jesus had long hair during his vision on the road to Damascus?

Jesus had a long hair because he was fulfilled the requirements of the anointed to redeem all sinners so the anointed one should be treated the same as the sinners (Numbers 6:1-21). That's why Jesus said to the disciples before his crucifixion that he were no longer drink the fruit of the vine until he sat down in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 26:26-29).
Paul cannot see his face because he was only see light (Acts of the Apostles 9:3-9), no one could stare his face even Moses (Exodus 33:17-23).

 

[justbyfaith]

If Jesus had long hair (for the depictions and portrayals of Him may in fact be fabricated), He did so because of a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6). However, there is no record of Jesus taking a Nazirite vow. He is called a Nazarene; which refers to His home town of Nazareth: but as to whether He actually took a vow of the Nazirite is not mentioned in scripture. But it would account for His long hair as being an exception to the rule that Paul sets forth in 1 Corinthians 11, apart from Jesus sinning.

 

[Yan]

If Jesus had long hair (for the depictions and portrayals of Him may in fact be fabricated), He did so because of a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6). However, there is no record of Jesus taking a Nazirite vow. He is called a Nazarene; which refers to His home town of Nazareth: but as to whether He actually took a vow of the Nazirite is not mentioned in scripture. But it would account for His long hair as being an exception to the rule that Paul sets forth in 1 Corinthians 11, apart from Jesus sinning.

Jesus was knew how would he lived as Nazirite, because he was the one who spoke to all prophets of old covenant. Here's how he took himself as low as a servant, so that he can be a cornerstone to all suffered mankind who fell into sins and he takes our sufferings because every mankind who had been chosen as a priest were all mankind had been defeated by death (1 Corinthians 15:35-58), because since the rise of John the baptist; the kingdom of heaven on earth were opposed and gagged by force (Matthew 11:10-12). So thru Jesus mankind will be justified in front of God, because he won the battles with the dark ruler of this world (Ephesians 6:10-20) which corrupting our body under sins (Philippians 2:1-16; Hebrews 7).