Does this mean a sinner can do nothing good? Not. An unregenerate person can be very Christ like at times. There's common grace and there's saving grace.
understanding Paul
- Thread starter Randy Kluth
- Start date
-
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!
Yan
Active Member
- Jun 15, 2020
- 410
- 143
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Indonesia
Its look like since a long ago, the priests of Israel always offered the burnt offerings to God because they were lack of knowing the real reason of why did God always came to the sick people (Mark 2:17), those priest are mis understood by knowing that every man who picked by God was a prophet, that's why they treat the sick people who battled with the devil always treat as burnt offerings (Malachi 1:6-14) because Jesus had shown them that every sick people needs help in their suffering (Hebrews 10:3-8).
Israel priests always treat all sinners as burnt offerings because they were misleading by jewish tradition who treat them as part of the devil azazel (Leviticus 16), that's why Jesus who heal them all was also treated as part of the devil azazel by the jewish people and moslem (palestine/sadducee & pharisee).
This misunderstanding was the main problem among jewish and moslem until today, because they're still following the old covenant tradition who put the sinners as a burnt offered (2 Kings 18:1-5). The Jewish & moslem doesn't know that all burnt offered sinners was not offered to God instead of to evil spirits (Joshua 24:2).
Israel priests always treat all sinners as burnt offerings because they were misleading by jewish tradition who treat them as part of the devil azazel (Leviticus 16), that's why Jesus who heal them all was also treated as part of the devil azazel by the jewish people and moslem (palestine/sadducee & pharisee).
This misunderstanding was the main problem among jewish and moslem until today, because they're still following the old covenant tradition who put the sinners as a burnt offered (2 Kings 18:1-5). The Jewish & moslem doesn't know that all burnt offered sinners was not offered to God instead of to evil spirits (Joshua 24:2).
An unregenerated person can indeed do good; but that good is tainted by sin, so that it is as filthy menstrual rags before the Lord (Isaiah 64:6).
It can appear to be beautiful outwardly and righteous before men; but on the inside and before God, it is as dead men's bones (Matthew 23:25-28).
To anyone who believes that unregenerated sinners can be righteous, I would ask the question that is found in 2 Corinthians 10:7a...
2Co 10:7, Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.
The connection to God is *faith.* Works without *faith* are dead. When the Law was in play, works under the Law were *dead.* Faith is the key to doing things for God, in God, and through God.
So you're a Liberal Christian, and that's okay--you have to come to God with your own honest convictions. But from a more conservative pov, let me suggest this. Paul *knew* what he was doing when he recommended certain external observances. Things like how long your hair is, or whether a woman wore a hat in church, were external things, as Paul well knew. He had already suggested that the gospel was *internal,* and that he was allowed, before God, to put on different hats, so to speak. He could put on the Jewish hate, or the Greek hat. He could reach many by any means, assuming it was external, and not an internal matter.
So Paul was actually advocating for things that represented certain things within the culture he was addressing--not establishing a norm for all peoples. In his churches, limited to his own apostleship, he set down certain standards, because he knew how they would be perceived in those places.
As I said, the symbolism is critical. A woman was not supposed to distract worshipers from the worship of God by displaying her beauty unduly. The hat was a symbol of devotion to God, ahead of the more sensual aspects of life.
Men not having long hair obviously in that culture suggested there was an issue with homosexuality, certain men making themselves appear beautiful like women, displaying their hair to enhance their attractiveness. These are the things Paul was getting at.
And we know that because Paul elsewhere addressed the fact that the externals were less important than the internal realities, although his message here is that the external things are important symbols, communicating truth or lies. Paul was not naïve. We shouldn't be naïve about what he taught either.
I did *not* say that *only* the beauty in women is their sole value for existing!
If you try to deny that women are attractive to men, I wonder where you get your understanding from?Mary M. was *not* an apostle at all! Was she important? Of course!
What you fail to see is that women obtain their reward by doing what they, as women, are called to do, just as men are honored for doing what men are supposed to do.
We are all indeed equal before God. But we do not serve the exact same tasks. Women were built to do pretty much whatever men can do. After all, all men come from women by birth.
But there is in our DNA female and male differences, indicating God has different purposes for each gender. To ignore this is in the mode of homosexuals, who confuse the genders.
Last edited:
You've made this up entirely. Righteousness and holiness are in both testaments. God is the same in both testaments. The only difference from one testament to the other is the fact Christ came, lived, died, and rose again, giving us his Spirit as a replacement for the Jewish Law. We now live by following the example of Christ, and not by following the outmoded rituals of the Jewish Law.
Both testaments required real righteousness and holiness, but only the NT completed righteousness and holiness, by giving us not just a temporary blessing, but more, an eternal blessing. That is, God rendered permanent His blessings, so that we have the hope of eternal life.
If you're going to say something is biblical, you need to prove it--not just say it. Assertions mean nothing, except they express your own opinion--not what the Bible says.
Yes, if you're going to throw lies and slanders out in public, you better be able to dredge up the proof. That's just part of being responsible, brother. I have no idea where you get this idea that I've denied we can have a new nature under the OT? Perhaps you misunderstood? Don't expect anybody to know what you claim I've said if you don't take the time and effort to provide the evidence. Would you convict someone in court just because I say they're guilty?
As I told a brother elsewhere, the new nature that God expected of Israel is evident in His asking them to adopt a "new heart." This was not just for a future time, but for the immediate time. Yes, there are prophecies to the effect Israel will acquire a new heart in the Kingdom to come. But it was also required under the Law and at that time, as well.
I haven't been using this particular language long, because I've just acquired it in the present need. But I've been saying for a long time that God in the OT is the same as the God in the NT. I've been fighting Marcionite-like errors of thinking in the Church for quite awhile. Many have damned the Law as an instrument of torture, telling Israel to do this, while at the same time telling them it was of no consequence--they will never be able to do it.
That was confusing, and I'd hoped to help people get things straight in their minds, just as I've tried to get them straight myself for many years. If it doesn't help you, that's fine. You need to believe in your own convictions, right or wrong. You stand or fall by your own convictions.
Again, anyone can read through your posts (while I don't suggest that they do so because they might be deceived by them) and find your statements on the subject; unless you went back and changed your posts.
I do recall you saying to me what I think you said to me; but if you didn't then you didn't. If the evidence is not to be found in what you have written, then you either went back and changed your posts or else I misunderstood you.
But I do not have to go and dredge up the specific post in which you said what you said; because anyone reading through your posts will come across your statements in due time.
There was a change in the holiness laws and the priesthood. The holiness laws were not a living holiness.
Heb. 7: 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
A change in the law of holiness.
The scriptures are now only for instruction in righteousness...not holiness. The temple holiness is done away with in favour of a perfect way through Christ...our new high Priest. The law of holiness has been replaced by the gospel according to the power of an everlasting life in Christ Jesus. The holiness now comes from heaven...true holiness.
Eph. 4:24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in righteousness and true holiness.
Here, you say that people can adopt a new nature under the OT.
You seem to be here arguing that people could not be saved in the OT.
Last edited:
You need to go find what you claim I said, or you will have to retract. Sorry, without evidence you're done. And no, I go back and correct errors, or when I'm overly rude--but I don't normally have to go back and change anything of substance, because what I believe is most often the product of a long time of consideration, as well as lots of opposition.
Let's get back to Christian fellowship. This false accusation thing isn't very Christian.
I can accept a change in the laws. We've gone from OT Law to NT Law. But no, holiness is in both covenants. If you want to call it a different law of holiness from one covenant to another, fine. But holiness exists in both covenants because God is the same in both covenants. He doesn't change.
If that be the case, then it isn't very Christian for a shepherd to defend his flock against wolves; though they be dressed in sheep's clothing.
The Bible says to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
If you're not sure what I said, but insist on condemning me for saying something, you need to retract. Your only option is to go retrieve the evidence--otherwise, you need to apologize for making false claims, or possible slanders. You're a very bad Christian if you go accusing other believers of things they're not guilty of. You're even worse because you call them "false teachers" not to be listened to, when you can't even prove they taught anything wrong.
By contrast, I've shown where you're wrong. Your response: you just double down on your slanders.
The link that I gave (understanding Paul) showed where I had already pulled up the post in question.
Now you are trying to divert from that as though such a thing might work.
Anyone with eyes to see can see that I showed clearly where you made the statements that I had previously said you had made. I went back and pulled up the quote from the other thread where you had made the statement.
And now, you are simply denying the truth that this is what I did.
You are playing games.
I hope you realize that if you are also playing games with God, that there is going to come a reckoning!
Last edited:
The devil operates under the radar by promoting confusion that will keep people from seeing the plain truth of the matter.
I have already identified you as a false teacher, so such a statement is to be expected coming from a wolf.
Similar threads
