Why I Warn, and Why I Won’t Stop

[marks]

Instead of saying, "Be who we are, not who we were," I would say, "Be who we are capable of being (by truly abiding in Christ), not who we were." Other than that, which might just be semantics, we are on the same page. Btw, I appreciate that you gave me a cordial response. Have a great night.

I have no complaint with your wording, and if you agree with the rest, then I think we are in fact on the same page, what a blessing!

What does it mean to you to abide in Christ? How do we do that?

Much love!

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

What does it mean to you to abide in Christ? How do we do that?

I think that we find the answer to this question in some Old Testament imagery.

When the children of Israel first thirsted during their wilderness journeys, God instructed Moses to smite the rock, which we know was a type of Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), to satisfy their thirst. Similarly, our initial thirst for righteousness is quenched when we come to the smitten Christ and are born again of his Spirit.

When the children of Israel thirsted thereafter during their wilderness journeys, God instructed Moses to speak to the rock that it might quench the thirst of the Israelites. Of course, Moses got angry, and he smote the rock a second time, and God was sorely displeased with him. Why? Because in smiting the rock a second time, Moses broke the typology that God was seeking to convey unto the Israelites. In other words, we know from scripture that Christ will not be crucified afresh, which is what the second smiting of the rock implied. Instead, after we have come to the smitten Christ to quench our initial thirst, thereafter, we need to speak to Christ, through prayer, or to have daily communion with him. In this way, I believe that we best "abide in Christ" because he is never going to instruct us to do anything contrary to walking in true righteousness and holiness.

Of course, things like reading the Bible are important as well.

 

[Jay Ross]

Context is very important when reading the scriptures and we cannot ringfence one portion of the scriptures and provide an interpretation of that ringfenced portion of the scriptures without considering the whole of the scriptures to come to the right understanding.

If then, we are a person in whom the light has filled our life with Christ's glory, then whenever an opportunity comes a knocking to us, we should share the light within us when that opportunity comes our way.

Sadly, we often fall short of what we claim is within us because we hold onto grievances with other people or consider that our "knowledge/understanding is far superior to theirs and as such we need to correct their knowledge/understanding to conform to ours.

If there is no forgiveness in our heart for others who have/might have offended us, then the light is not within us, and our saltiness has gone astray, and the light is no longer within us, and we also stumble.

If a brother among the Saints has stumbled, then we should pray for that brother in Christ, that God will continue to draw that brother to Himself so that the stumble becomes of no consequence for him if he will repent his sin to God.

Yes, we are told that when a brother stumbles that we should approach him in love gently to help him back to God's pathway to salvation. But so often our approach is to lord it over our brother and commit the sins that God has told us not to commit.

The primary sin that we commit in this situation is that we begin to act God like towards our fallen brother, rather than to simply commit our concerns for the brother to God to deal with.

Because we commit this primary sin and we lose God's moral compass for our lives, we will experience the manifestation of other secondary sins that if we consider them, indicates to us that we have also turned from God and also need redemption.

Much wisdom is needed to be able to follow God's leading in all that we do while worshipping God with our life.

Shalom

 

[shepherdsword]

Precious friend, you must have missed post # 21 = please advise which part you assume/believe is a Severe Form of heresy?

Precious friend, you must have missed post # 21 = please advise which part you assume/believe is a Severe Form of heresy?

Eliminating the teaching of Jesus from Christianity IS severely heretical. Do you believe in Jesus? Are you a follower of Jesus? Yes and Yes? Then how can we say we believe and follow Him if we eliminate what He said as relevant to us by claiming it was only for the Jews?

 

[shepherdsword]

Are you filling water pots? Jesus told the servants to do that. You speak of me being dismissive, what I'm saying is that Jesus commanded these certain people, and it is not applicable to us. And there are many such examples of this. Jesus told Peter bring some of these fish. And Jesus told the disciples who were with Him that day to go into all the nations and so forth.

We need to be clear from context whether this is a general command to all, or to some.

John 20:21-23 KJV
21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus gave His disciples the same authority Jesus had on the earth, to forgive sins. Did He give that authority to everyone?

"What I say unto you I say unto all, watch!" This one is pretty clear.

I'm not suggesting we dismiss anything. I am suggesting that we examine everything, and be clear about the intent of each passage and verse and word.

Much love!

Once again you are presenting silly strawmen.

Are you filling water pots? Jesus told the servants to do that. You speak of me being dismissive, what I'm saying is that Jesus commanded these certain people, and it is not applicable to us. And there are many such examples of this. Jesus told Peter bring some of these fish. And Jesus told the disciples who were with Him that day to go into all the nations and so forth.

We need to be clear from context whether this is a general command to all, or to some.

John 20:21-23 KJV
21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus gave His disciples the same authority Jesus had on the earth, to forgive sins. Did He give that authority to everyone?

"What I say unto you I say unto all, watch!" This one is pretty clear.

I'm not suggesting we dismiss anything. I am suggesting that we examine everything, and be clear about the intent of each passage and verse and word.

Much love!

No one said (at least not I) that we shouldn't examine context and audience. I was speaking of hyper-dispensationalists that claim the teachings of Jesus are not for the church but only for the Jews. If you are not one of them then you don't have a dog in the fight.

Blessings

 

[marks]

Once again you are presenting silly strawmen.

No one said (at least not I) that we shouldn't examine context and audience. I was speaking of hyper-dispensationalists that claim the teachings of Jesus are not for the church but only for the Jews. If you are not one of them then you don't have a dog in the fight.

Blessings

I've been addressing the notion that we are to obey everything Jesus commanded. I've been giving examples that we have to be more nuanced than that.

And the fact is that those who promote doing all Jesus commanded others, and they don't. At least, I don't know of anyone who takes a tenth of their garden produce and gives it to the Levites. And no one is bringing sacrifices to the altar.

The fact is that there was a dispensational change that makes a difference.

I find the word "hyper-dispensational" to often be applied to people not that it defines their view, but it's used to marginalize their assertions.

Maybe this is a case of hyper-non-dispensationalism.

I think that some people read the Bible, take a lot of things the wrong way, concoct their own "Law" to follow, and demand others do also.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No one said (at least not I) that we shouldn't examine context and audience.

When someone declares that not all of Jesus’ commands apply today...

 

[shepherdsword]

I've been addressing the notion that we are to obey everything Jesus commanded. I've been giving examples that we have to be more nuanced than that.

and I think most will agree with that. Look at "all" in the context it was given. The Lord obviously wasn't telling everyone to go catch a fish and use the money in it's mouth to pay the temple tax. That's just some strawman you present to deflect from the true essence of this discussions. That being "Are the commandments of Jesus for the nation of Israel only or are they for anybody that follows him?".

And the fact is that those who promote doing all Jesus commanded others, and they don't. At least, I don't know of anyone who takes a tenth of their garden produce and gives it to the Levites. And no one is bringing sacrifices to the altar.

Once again the strawmen. I am not suggesting anyone makes attempts to fulfill commandments that were obviously limited to a particular audience. I am speaking about the ones that were obviously written to anyone who follows Him. "If any man follow me..." "Whosoever loses his life for my sake..." and so forth. This is in stark contrast to hyper-dispensationist

The fact is that there was a dispensational change that makes a difference.

I find the word "hyper-dispensational" to often be applied to people not that it defines their view, but it's used to marginalize their assertions.

Maybe this is a case of hyper-non-dispensationalism.

I think that some people read the Bible, take a lot of things the wrong way, concoct their own "Law" to follow, and demand others do also.

And others throw out the sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ and present a false gospel,

 

[marks]

That's just some strawman you present to deflect from the true essence of this discussions.

No, it's the far end of the spectrum. For someone who gives an absolute, sometimes that's the best they can handle. In this case, it doesn't seem to have made any impact.

I am not suggesting anyone makes attempts to fulfill commandments that were obviously limited to a particular audience.

Not you. The person I was responding to. You and I seem to have more the same POV on this point.

Much love!

 

[marks]

And others throw out the sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ and present a false gospel,

And some make up there own "religions" outright.

Much love!