This is an in depth look at the practice of necromancy in the ancient world and what might have been going on in Endor. It is a high quality piece of research on the subject so I am calling attention to it if anyone is interested:
http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/09/necromancer-from-endor.html
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
This is the law and the prophets
Is this an accurate statement?
Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this **is** the law and the prophets.
I guess that he, like Paul, is being contemptuous of the huge body of precepts in the law?:
Ga 5:14 For **all** the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
I mean, the law forbids different foods, for example, that are not forbidden to the believer. Identification of one with the other is really to negate “every obligation except to love one another”:
Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
I mean, it seems to me that this is patently false. It is fine that Jesus and Paul say that the believer is not under the law, but to say that the **law** has no other obligation in it seems pretty cheeky, no? These “this is all the law amounts to” verses appear to me to be patently false.
Maybe accuracy and sound hermeneutics isn’t such a big deal when you are preaching a good sermon?
Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this **is** the law and the prophets.
I guess that he, like Paul, is being contemptuous of the huge body of precepts in the law?:
Ga 5:14 For **all** the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
I mean, the law forbids different foods, for example, that are not forbidden to the believer. Identification of one with the other is really to negate “every obligation except to love one another”:
Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
I mean, it seems to me that this is patently false. It is fine that Jesus and Paul say that the believer is not under the law, but to say that the **law** has no other obligation in it seems pretty cheeky, no? These “this is all the law amounts to” verses appear to me to be patently false.
Maybe accuracy and sound hermeneutics isn’t such a big deal when you are preaching a good sermon?
Monday, December 21, 2009
New insights into the pruning of John 15
The best I can understand the info on pruning my Muscadines is this:
* the vine should be reduced to a single trunk;
* the trunk should be reduced to one or two arms, or "cordons" which are attached to a wire (other vines are pruned to be one trunk with two pairs of cordons, one upper and one lower);
* each cordon (arm) should be pruned to grow about 15 shoots, all on the upper part of the cordon. The ones that are pointing down will not do well and should be snipped off;
* each shoot grows into a long new growth the first year, with many buds that will bear fruit the following year. When they are long dormant, as spring approaches, snip them back until there are only one or two buds remaining. The ones on either end should have only one, as well as any that appear weak, while the others should have two;
* any shoots that look sick or damaged should be cut off completely;
The goal of all of this is to:
* cause the grapes to grow in round clusters, rather than individually along the shoot;
* make more energy available to the remaining clusters;
* make more light and air available to the plant to discourage disease and encourage fruitfulness;
This all leads me to identify the "branches" as the "shoots" from which the fruit appears rather than the trunk or cordons (arms). I see that the weak, damaged or diseased shoots are completely eliminated, such as Judas. The others are snipped back from a long shoot with many buds to a short shoot (or "spur") with few, but fruitful, buds. "Clean" may refer to the elimination of all of those elements of the branch that obstruct light and air movement or divert the resources for maximum, concentrated fruit production. It might not be a stretch to see this "cleaning," in the context of John 15, as referring to "cleaning" the branch of Judaism.
* the vine should be reduced to a single trunk;
* the trunk should be reduced to one or two arms, or "cordons" which are attached to a wire (other vines are pruned to be one trunk with two pairs of cordons, one upper and one lower);
* each cordon (arm) should be pruned to grow about 15 shoots, all on the upper part of the cordon. The ones that are pointing down will not do well and should be snipped off;
* each shoot grows into a long new growth the first year, with many buds that will bear fruit the following year. When they are long dormant, as spring approaches, snip them back until there are only one or two buds remaining. The ones on either end should have only one, as well as any that appear weak, while the others should have two;
* any shoots that look sick or damaged should be cut off completely;
The goal of all of this is to:
* cause the grapes to grow in round clusters, rather than individually along the shoot;
* make more energy available to the remaining clusters;
* make more light and air available to the plant to discourage disease and encourage fruitfulness;
This all leads me to identify the "branches" as the "shoots" from which the fruit appears rather than the trunk or cordons (arms). I see that the weak, damaged or diseased shoots are completely eliminated, such as Judas. The others are snipped back from a long shoot with many buds to a short shoot (or "spur") with few, but fruitful, buds. "Clean" may refer to the elimination of all of those elements of the branch that obstruct light and air movement or divert the resources for maximum, concentrated fruit production. It might not be a stretch to see this "cleaning," in the context of John 15, as referring to "cleaning" the branch of Judaism.
Paul's Better Approach
It is my considered opinion that all of 1 Corinthians is about how to properly handle differences of opinion. As you point out, he castigates the Corinthians for how they handle them - by denominating. He says that that this practice is carnal and that he stands in doubt of them for it. As he says elsewhere:
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick [identified with a named group] after the first and second admonition reject;
In 1 Cor 13 he says that he will show a better approach (a "more excellent way") to handle differences of opinion, but to do say, he has to explain the principles that dictate his approach. These principles are the situation on the ground, the background, that makes his better approach the only wise approach.
A large part of his argument is that no one does or can know everything. We are all like children with a limited view. We all know a part. We can only see things from our viewpoint. Hence, we all need to listen. It is in the very nature of love, which is superior to all of the gifts.
The application then, in chapter 14, is NOT how "churches" operate. They operate 100% on the Corinthian model, not by the better approach. They emulate Rome, not Paul. The way that "churches" operate is by the pattern that the Catholic beast established, patterned after Roman government. You have a Poppa ("pastor") and a Senate (elder oligarchy), then you have the peons, who must conform to the dogmas that come from the top down.
Paul's "better approach" is ignored completely. It is considered archaic, outdated, impracticable, and dangerous. Here is what he said:
1 Cor 14:
26 ¶ How is it [the "better approach"] then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches [gatherings] of the saints.
Verses 34 and 35 are likely later additions, based on textual evidence.
34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Christianity as Paul described it is clearly extinct.
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick [identified with a named group] after the first and second admonition reject;
In 1 Cor 13 he says that he will show a better approach (a "more excellent way") to handle differences of opinion, but to do say, he has to explain the principles that dictate his approach. These principles are the situation on the ground, the background, that makes his better approach the only wise approach.
A large part of his argument is that no one does or can know everything. We are all like children with a limited view. We all know a part. We can only see things from our viewpoint. Hence, we all need to listen. It is in the very nature of love, which is superior to all of the gifts.
The application then, in chapter 14, is NOT how "churches" operate. They operate 100% on the Corinthian model, not by the better approach. They emulate Rome, not Paul. The way that "churches" operate is by the pattern that the Catholic beast established, patterned after Roman government. You have a Poppa ("pastor") and a Senate (elder oligarchy), then you have the peons, who must conform to the dogmas that come from the top down.
Paul's "better approach" is ignored completely. It is considered archaic, outdated, impracticable, and dangerous. Here is what he said:
1 Cor 14:
26 ¶ How is it [the "better approach"] then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches [gatherings] of the saints.
Verses 34 and 35 are likely later additions, based on textual evidence.
34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Christianity as Paul described it is clearly extinct.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
My take on Phil 1:6
My take on THIS is that what Paul says is that he is confident that God will work "among" them (the most obvious reading of the EN+plural construction); But he was mistaken, because they forfeited participation in it (as did all of the assemblies in Asia that Revelation was given to) and their assembly no longer exists. Paul's confidence is primarily an expression of confidence that God is going to "be with you until the end of the age" but that is, of course, predicated on their continued obedience.
I think a similar "qualified vote of confidence" is seen in Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9 ¶ But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Those who "claim" Phil 1:6 as assurance that no matter whether they are faithful or not, God will ignore it and "make it happen anyway" are surely being presumptuous, rather than exercising "faith."
James 1:
2 ¶ My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
I think a similar "qualified vote of confidence" is seen in Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9 ¶ But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Those who "claim" Phil 1:6 as assurance that no matter whether they are faithful or not, God will ignore it and "make it happen anyway" are surely being presumptuous, rather than exercising "faith."
James 1:
2 ¶ My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
My response to a post about 1 John 3:6
The original post is here
My response:
I have a different take on 1 John. My understanding is that John is trying to clear up falsehoods that have sprung up concerning the gospel ("the word of life") by relating the message that he and the others who knew Jesus personally ("who touched him" etc) had received from him.
1 John 1:
5 ¶ This then is the message which we [the ones who know him personally] have heard of him [Jesus], and declare unto you [who did not know him personally], that [BEGIN MESSAGE] God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.[END MESSAGE]
This, John says is his summary of the message of Jesus concerning the "word of life":
1 John 1:
1 ¶ That [message] which was from the beginning [of the gospel], which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life [the gospel];
2 (For the [message of everlasting] life was manifested [plainly], and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was [clearly] manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us [might have this in common with us]: and truly our fellowship [our commonality] is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your [our?] joy may be full [its integrity might be restored].
So to make this gospel message of salvation *from* sin to be a description of the life of God's holy ones is to contradict the original message, which says that God is faithful and justified to forgive *and to cleanse one from all unrighteousness*. It is this cleansed life that is the subject of the part in question, about whether or not the believer sins.
To make this clear, he refers to the "seed" within the believer:
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Note that if the argument is softened as suggested, the argument *makes no sense*! In other words, is it any less absurd from John's point of view to say that whoever is born of God "only sins once in a while" than it is to say that one who is born of God "sins all of the time?" If the new birth creates the abiding home of the word of God then sin is NEVER compatible, not just some of the time!
Consider how absurd the notion of commonality with the light it is "if you only walk in darkness some of the time!"
So my view is that John taught that holiness was not a come and go thing, and nor was sin. You were either a saint (ex-sinner) or a sinner, never an occasional dipper. If you claim to know God, **in whom there is no darkness at ALL**, and yet continue to walk in [deeds of] darkness you are a liar. This seems to be his point rather than "continuously sins."
I would further point to words like "faithful" and "adulterous." Is someone faithful or adulterous if they are faithful three days per week? These words only have meaning when used to refer to consistent behavior.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Lu 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
My response:
I have a different take on 1 John. My understanding is that John is trying to clear up falsehoods that have sprung up concerning the gospel ("the word of life") by relating the message that he and the others who knew Jesus personally ("who touched him" etc) had received from him.
1 John 1:
5 ¶ This then is the message which we [the ones who know him personally] have heard of him [Jesus], and declare unto you [who did not know him personally], that [BEGIN MESSAGE] God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.[END MESSAGE]
This, John says is his summary of the message of Jesus concerning the "word of life":
1 John 1:
1 ¶ That [message] which was from the beginning [of the gospel], which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life [the gospel];
2 (For the [message of everlasting] life was manifested [plainly], and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was [clearly] manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us [might have this in common with us]: and truly our fellowship [our commonality] is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your [our?] joy may be full [its integrity might be restored].
So to make this gospel message of salvation *from* sin to be a description of the life of God's holy ones is to contradict the original message, which says that God is faithful and justified to forgive *and to cleanse one from all unrighteousness*. It is this cleansed life that is the subject of the part in question, about whether or not the believer sins.
To make this clear, he refers to the "seed" within the believer:
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Note that if the argument is softened as suggested, the argument *makes no sense*! In other words, is it any less absurd from John's point of view to say that whoever is born of God "only sins once in a while" than it is to say that one who is born of God "sins all of the time?" If the new birth creates the abiding home of the word of God then sin is NEVER compatible, not just some of the time!
Consider how absurd the notion of commonality with the light it is "if you only walk in darkness some of the time!"
So my view is that John taught that holiness was not a come and go thing, and nor was sin. You were either a saint (ex-sinner) or a sinner, never an occasional dipper. If you claim to know God, **in whom there is no darkness at ALL**, and yet continue to walk in [deeds of] darkness you are a liar. This seems to be his point rather than "continuously sins."
I would further point to words like "faithful" and "adulterous." Is someone faithful or adulterous if they are faithful three days per week? These words only have meaning when used to refer to consistent behavior.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Lu 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
My response to a post about "Can an Elder be divorce?"
Here is the original post: http://www.billmounce.com/blog/03-08-2009/can-elder-be-divorced-1-tim-3-2
And here is my response:
My first comment would be that what is in view here is not an "elder" but an "overseer." An "elder" is not what people think it is in Christendom. You see, Paul did not invent an "office" called "Elder." "Elders" have been around in tribal society since long before Moses, and continue to exist around the world in non-Judeo-Christian cultures.
An "elder" in tribal societies are the "alpha males." These are generally the oldest living male of the (extended) family, or "tribe." Sometimes the alpha is not actually the oldest, if, for example, the oldest is incapacitated due to sickness or is in prison.
Here are examples of the operation of the elders in Hebrew society:
Ge 50:7 And Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt,
Ex 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
Ex 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
Ex 4:29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:
Ex 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
The elder, or "alpha male" of a family, acted as the representative for that family in societal matters.
The modern oligarchy is a *perversion* of this idea, based on a bad reading of
Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Here Paul seems to be saying that Tim was to ordain people to become elders. In reality (and I know that I will be fought on this from the Greek, but I'm sticking to this), Paul is saying that alpha males should be set to various tasks.
The bottom line for the current discussion is, IMHO, that an overseer must not be the alpha male of more than one woman (and the children of that woman) - presumably because of a conflict of interest, or just that he would have his hands too full already - or both.
Polygamy is NOT forbidden on any page of scripture, though getting married at all is discouraged, and one could argue that "one man/one woman for life" was the original design (as Jesus did - overriding Moses and the fathers, etc).
And here is my response:
My first comment would be that what is in view here is not an "elder" but an "overseer." An "elder" is not what people think it is in Christendom. You see, Paul did not invent an "office" called "Elder." "Elders" have been around in tribal society since long before Moses, and continue to exist around the world in non-Judeo-Christian cultures.
An "elder" in tribal societies are the "alpha males." These are generally the oldest living male of the (extended) family, or "tribe." Sometimes the alpha is not actually the oldest, if, for example, the oldest is incapacitated due to sickness or is in prison.
Here are examples of the operation of the elders in Hebrew society:
Ge 50:7 And Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt,
Ex 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
Ex 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
Ex 4:29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:
Ex 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
The elder, or "alpha male" of a family, acted as the representative for that family in societal matters.
The modern oligarchy is a *perversion* of this idea, based on a bad reading of
Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Here Paul seems to be saying that Tim was to ordain people to become elders. In reality (and I know that I will be fought on this from the Greek, but I'm sticking to this), Paul is saying that alpha males should be set to various tasks.
The bottom line for the current discussion is, IMHO, that an overseer must not be the alpha male of more than one woman (and the children of that woman) - presumably because of a conflict of interest, or just that he would have his hands too full already - or both.
Polygamy is NOT forbidden on any page of scripture, though getting married at all is discouraged, and one could argue that "one man/one woman for life" was the original design (as Jesus did - overriding Moses and the fathers, etc).
The gifts of Eph 4
Eph 4:
11 and He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as proclaimers of good news, and some as shepherds and teachers,
12 unto the perfecting of the saints, for a work of ministration, for a building up of the body of the Christ,
13 till we may all come to the unity of the faith and of the recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to a measure of stature of the fulness of the Christ,
14 that we may no more be babes, tossed and borne about by every wind of the teaching, in the sleight of men, in craftiness, unto the artifice of leading astray,
15 and, being true in love, we may increase to Him in all things, who is the head—the Christ;
16 from whom the whole body, being fitly joined together and united, through the supply of every joint, according to the working in the measure of each single part, the increase of the body doth make for the building up of itself in love.
First of all, I would like to point out an incident in Acts that highlights your proposition that a person strong in one area might be a big flop in another. It appears to me that the point of this passage is that the apostles so bungled the "daily administration" that the Greek widows were murmuring (heading quickly toward a crescendo), so they "thought fast" and said that it was miserable for them to do this kind of administration, and that they should find laymen to do it:
Acts 6:
1 ¶ And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason [it is disagreeable] that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
But more importantly, it is my considered opinion that the Eph 4 passage in question refers to a work that ended with Paul. Note what he says about the expiration of these roles:
Eph 4:13 Till [Until] we all come [aorist] in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Note that, having come, the job at hand is "to maintain":
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Note the roles:
* apostles: it is clear to me that there were only 13 apostles; one fell, and one was "born out of time." The word signifies someone with great authority to act on behalf of the one who sent them. Paul had a commission to create the "Assembly" and he did so. He was the last of the apostles. This role lasted only until the end of the lives of the 13.
* prophets: Paul says that while all may prophesy, there were only some that were prophets, and again, that role ends with the apostles.
* evangelists, pastors and teachers: Given the expiration date he gives in verse 13, these, as the 2 prior roles clearly do, refer specifically to the 13.
If I am correct, then the purpose of these unique ones was to create the assembly and deliver the faith, once and for all, giving them the word of God.
NLT Eph 4:12 Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ,
These roles have expired. The work has been done. If anyone claims any of these roles, they do not recognize the body of Christ and are imposters. This is the way that the post-apostolic body is to operate:
Eph 4:
14 that we may no more be babes, tossed and borne about by every wind of the teaching, in the sleight of men, in craftiness, unto the artifice of leading astray,
15 and, being true in love, we may increase to Him in all things, who is the head—the Christ;
16 from whom the whole body, being fitly joined together and united, through the supply of every joint, according to the working in the measure of each single part, the increase of the body doth make for the building up of itself in love.
11 and He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as proclaimers of good news, and some as shepherds and teachers,
12 unto the perfecting of the saints, for a work of ministration, for a building up of the body of the Christ,
13 till we may all come to the unity of the faith and of the recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to a measure of stature of the fulness of the Christ,
14 that we may no more be babes, tossed and borne about by every wind of the teaching, in the sleight of men, in craftiness, unto the artifice of leading astray,
15 and, being true in love, we may increase to Him in all things, who is the head—the Christ;
16 from whom the whole body, being fitly joined together and united, through the supply of every joint, according to the working in the measure of each single part, the increase of the body doth make for the building up of itself in love.
First of all, I would like to point out an incident in Acts that highlights your proposition that a person strong in one area might be a big flop in another. It appears to me that the point of this passage is that the apostles so bungled the "daily administration" that the Greek widows were murmuring (heading quickly toward a crescendo), so they "thought fast" and said that it was miserable for them to do this kind of administration, and that they should find laymen to do it:
Acts 6:
1 ¶ And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason [it is disagreeable] that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
But more importantly, it is my considered opinion that the Eph 4 passage in question refers to a work that ended with Paul. Note what he says about the expiration of these roles:
Eph 4:13 Till [Until] we all come [aorist] in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Note that, having come, the job at hand is "to maintain":
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Note the roles:
* apostles: it is clear to me that there were only 13 apostles; one fell, and one was "born out of time." The word signifies someone with great authority to act on behalf of the one who sent them. Paul had a commission to create the "Assembly" and he did so. He was the last of the apostles. This role lasted only until the end of the lives of the 13.
* prophets: Paul says that while all may prophesy, there were only some that were prophets, and again, that role ends with the apostles.
* evangelists, pastors and teachers: Given the expiration date he gives in verse 13, these, as the 2 prior roles clearly do, refer specifically to the 13.
If I am correct, then the purpose of these unique ones was to create the assembly and deliver the faith, once and for all, giving them the word of God.
NLT Eph 4:12 Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ,
These roles have expired. The work has been done. If anyone claims any of these roles, they do not recognize the body of Christ and are imposters. This is the way that the post-apostolic body is to operate:
Eph 4:
14 that we may no more be babes, tossed and borne about by every wind of the teaching, in the sleight of men, in craftiness, unto the artifice of leading astray,
15 and, being true in love, we may increase to Him in all things, who is the head—the Christ;
16 from whom the whole body, being fitly joined together and united, through the supply of every joint, according to the working in the measure of each single part, the increase of the body doth make for the building up of itself in love.
Christianity and Speciesism
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism:
"...The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that it is irrational or morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property..."
As always, one must answer more than one question on the issue in order to evaluate whether or not this is Shocker...
* do the scriptures indicate a stance on speciesism?
* is that position morally correct?
* what is the historic posture of "The Church" on the matter? Is that morally reprehensible?
I suggest that speciesism is clearly taught in the scriptures:
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Men were to herd animals, kill them and eat them, as well as offer them to God.
Paul specifically says that a provision that appears to be intended to legislate kindness to animals was actually always intended as a precept for seeing that preachers were provided for, in exchange for their preaching:
1Co 9:
3 ¶ Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
Note Paul's rhetorical question in verse 9: "Doth God take care for oxen?"
Apparently, Paul thinks not.
So I think we should get the impression that Paul would not have any qualms about oxen being raised in a CAFO ("Concentrated Animal Farming Operation").
Historically, consequently, the Church has never had any apparent concern with "animal rights." Jewish wisdom literature seems to take the mandate to apply to animals:
Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
So the scriptures are ambivalent about whether God cares for oxen or not, but I think we should. We should take our cues here more from Proverbs than from Paul.
"...The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that it is irrational or morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property..."
As always, one must answer more than one question on the issue in order to evaluate whether or not this is Shocker...
* do the scriptures indicate a stance on speciesism?
* is that position morally correct?
* what is the historic posture of "The Church" on the matter? Is that morally reprehensible?
I suggest that speciesism is clearly taught in the scriptures:
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Men were to herd animals, kill them and eat them, as well as offer them to God.
Paul specifically says that a provision that appears to be intended to legislate kindness to animals was actually always intended as a precept for seeing that preachers were provided for, in exchange for their preaching:
1Co 9:
3 ¶ Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
Note Paul's rhetorical question in verse 9: "Doth God take care for oxen?"
Apparently, Paul thinks not.
So I think we should get the impression that Paul would not have any qualms about oxen being raised in a CAFO ("Concentrated Animal Farming Operation").
Historically, consequently, the Church has never had any apparent concern with "animal rights." Jewish wisdom literature seems to take the mandate to apply to animals:
Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
So the scriptures are ambivalent about whether God cares for oxen or not, but I think we should. We should take our cues here more from Proverbs than from Paul.
Which translation of the Bible is best?
This is my contribution to a discussion on which translation of the Bible is best:
First of all, it should be acknowledged that the term "Bible translation" is fraudulent, as it implies that there is a "Bible" somewhere that is being translated. In reality, every "Bible" is an original work. It should be discussed as "Bible creation." If I am mistaken on this point, then please show me where the original "Bible" exists?
The creation of a Bible involves first selecting the various sources that will be added "eye of newt" style to the cauldron. Everyone does this a bit differently. Personally, for NT study, my "perfect Bible" would be LXX based, since that is clearly the standard OT of the NT writers. And it would include the "Apocrypha."
I would despair of attempting to establish a pre-Catholic canon and adopt the current list of NT books that the Catholics originally adopted (minus the Letter of Paul to the Laodiceans).
As to the NT manuscripts, I would have to settle for Westcott-Hort's eclectic mish-mash.
Now, with my manuscripts settled (all in Greek) I would get to work on my new work of translating.
My point is that the translation job only begins AFTER you have created your Bible, and it will not be "THE Bible" - only YOUR "Bible."
Then I would proceed largely as the NET Bible does, and take my best shot at it and supply a wealth of footnotes. Any words I added would be bracketed.
So my favorites are thus:
* KJV - because what I have memorized, I have memorized in the KJV
* NET Bible, because it has documented the decisions that they have made
* the Anchor Bible, because each book is translated by a top scholar of that book exegetically, rather than in service to Catholic or Protestant prejudice
But ultimately, none of the existing "translations" are terribly useful to me, since they are based on the Massoretic text, following Jerome.
If, on the other hand, I wanted a translation of "the Bible" and accepted the historic definition of "the Bible" then I would have to go with the Douay Rhiems version, since "the Bible" is the invention of the Catholic Church and it is by Papal decree that the Latin text, the Vulgate, is the only authoritative text, or "Bible."
First of all, it should be acknowledged that the term "Bible translation" is fraudulent, as it implies that there is a "Bible" somewhere that is being translated. In reality, every "Bible" is an original work. It should be discussed as "Bible creation." If I am mistaken on this point, then please show me where the original "Bible" exists?
The creation of a Bible involves first selecting the various sources that will be added "eye of newt" style to the cauldron. Everyone does this a bit differently. Personally, for NT study, my "perfect Bible" would be LXX based, since that is clearly the standard OT of the NT writers. And it would include the "Apocrypha."
I would despair of attempting to establish a pre-Catholic canon and adopt the current list of NT books that the Catholics originally adopted (minus the Letter of Paul to the Laodiceans).
As to the NT manuscripts, I would have to settle for Westcott-Hort's eclectic mish-mash.
Now, with my manuscripts settled (all in Greek) I would get to work on my new work of translating.
My point is that the translation job only begins AFTER you have created your Bible, and it will not be "THE Bible" - only YOUR "Bible."
Then I would proceed largely as the NET Bible does, and take my best shot at it and supply a wealth of footnotes. Any words I added would be bracketed.
So my favorites are thus:
* KJV - because what I have memorized, I have memorized in the KJV
* NET Bible, because it has documented the decisions that they have made
* the Anchor Bible, because each book is translated by a top scholar of that book exegetically, rather than in service to Catholic or Protestant prejudice
But ultimately, none of the existing "translations" are terribly useful to me, since they are based on the Massoretic text, following Jerome.
If, on the other hand, I wanted a translation of "the Bible" and accepted the historic definition of "the Bible" then I would have to go with the Douay Rhiems version, since "the Bible" is the invention of the Catholic Church and it is by Papal decree that the Latin text, the Vulgate, is the only authoritative text, or "Bible."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Trying once again to explain the difference between an "atonement" and a "propitiation"
Here is how I have come to distinguish between an EXILASITO and a HILASTERION:
* an "atonement" is something done by *the perp*;
* a "propitiation" is something done by the *judge*;
* an "atonement" is an appeal for forgiveness though an expression of remorse;
* a "propitiation" is intended to appease the objections of the public (particularly those left unavenged) for the pardoning of the wicked;
* an "atonement" is a demonstration TO a judge;
* a "propitiation" is a demonstration *by* a judge;
* an "atonement" is made to recommend a penitent to a judge;
* a "propitiation" is made to recommend a judge to the wronged;
In no case and at no time is either an "atonement" or a "propitiation" conceived of as a **commercial** transaction, where sin is "paid for". Both atonement and propitiation are *gestures* in the context of the dispensation of *mercy,* not in the fulfillment of justice.
The death of Jesus is **never** spoken of in scripture as an "atonement" and no offering by a sinner is ever considered in scripture as a "propitiation." Confusion of these terms is the opposite of "rightly dividing."
The only "debt" that is in view in the propitiation was God's own obligation as judge, to repay the wicked for their deeds:
Ro 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
When God **freely forgave** sinners and pardoned them, releasing them from punishment, God opened himself up to the charge that he was **negligent** in his duty as judge, scandalously leaving victims unrequited. What if Jesus let Hitler off at the last minute, based on his faith? Would not the Jews have a grievance with the judge? So the propitiation was to justify **God** rather than sinners.
As an individual, as judge has the right to freely forgive those who offend him. As a public servant, a judge must not be remiss in dispensing punishment to avenge victims. So God, willing to forgive (and often having done so in the past) HAD to give a demonstration of his commitment to public justice, which he did, by setting forth his son as a propitiation. In so doing he demonstrated that he was forgiving freely, but not without likewise bearing injustice in the form of the abuse of his son.
This is a very key passage:
Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his [God's] grace through the redemption [release] that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his [God's] righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his [God's] righteousness: that he [God] might be just[ified], and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Shalom.
* an "atonement" is something done by *the perp*;
* a "propitiation" is something done by the *judge*;
* an "atonement" is an appeal for forgiveness though an expression of remorse;
* a "propitiation" is intended to appease the objections of the public (particularly those left unavenged) for the pardoning of the wicked;
* an "atonement" is a demonstration TO a judge;
* a "propitiation" is a demonstration *by* a judge;
* an "atonement" is made to recommend a penitent to a judge;
* a "propitiation" is made to recommend a judge to the wronged;
In no case and at no time is either an "atonement" or a "propitiation" conceived of as a **commercial** transaction, where sin is "paid for". Both atonement and propitiation are *gestures* in the context of the dispensation of *mercy,* not in the fulfillment of justice.
The death of Jesus is **never** spoken of in scripture as an "atonement" and no offering by a sinner is ever considered in scripture as a "propitiation." Confusion of these terms is the opposite of "rightly dividing."
The only "debt" that is in view in the propitiation was God's own obligation as judge, to repay the wicked for their deeds:
Ro 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
When God **freely forgave** sinners and pardoned them, releasing them from punishment, God opened himself up to the charge that he was **negligent** in his duty as judge, scandalously leaving victims unrequited. What if Jesus let Hitler off at the last minute, based on his faith? Would not the Jews have a grievance with the judge? So the propitiation was to justify **God** rather than sinners.
As an individual, as judge has the right to freely forgive those who offend him. As a public servant, a judge must not be remiss in dispensing punishment to avenge victims. So God, willing to forgive (and often having done so in the past) HAD to give a demonstration of his commitment to public justice, which he did, by setting forth his son as a propitiation. In so doing he demonstrated that he was forgiving freely, but not without likewise bearing injustice in the form of the abuse of his son.
This is a very key passage:
Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his [God's] grace through the redemption [release] that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his [God's] righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his [God's] righteousness: that he [God] might be just[ified], and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Shalom.
1 Tim 1:12
Someone made the following comment here:
>>>Paul’s thankfulness is based on God’s prior act of judging Paul to be faithful (or, as in my commentary, judging that Paul would be faithful),
Here is my response:
I understand your point to be that Jesus's estimation of Paul was actually knowledge based on foreknowledge given to Jesus by God. This does not sit right with me, and here is why...
First of all, how is it thank-worthy that Jesus would count him faithful if this were an undeniable fact? He might thank God for dictating that he would be faithful and then revealing it to Jesus, but there would be no basis to thank Jesus. Would you thank your professor for "believing in you" if your profess knew in advance that God was going to give you a 4.0?
Would one use the term XARIN which denotes a "favor" is involved?
Secondly, Paul expresses elsewhere that despite the fact that he *was* entrusted with a high calling, **the jury was still out** until the end of his life as to whether or not he would in fact live up to his trust. Note his own strong statements that he could at any time drop the ball:
1Co 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Phil 3:
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
It is my considered opinion that the scriptures constantly affirm that failure at any point in the race will bring forfeiture of the whole of the race, and Paul is no exception:
Lu 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, **No man**, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Lu 17:32 Remember Lot‘s wife.
Heb 12:
12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
James argues that as Abraham was justified by his works, long after his journey had begun, and Moses says it was only after this act that God was sure of where Abraham stood (though early on Abraham had found favor with God):
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
I could point to Peter's teaching of "the trial of one's faith" and of Jesus insisting that the believers were in peril of losing out and would only survive if they overcame during trial. I could point to the teaching of Jesus concerning the plants among the weeds, etc.
So I think the better reading is that Paul thanked Jesus for the favor of counting him a faithful person and entrusting him to the work.
>>>Paul’s thankfulness is based on God’s prior act of judging Paul to be faithful (or, as in my commentary, judging that Paul would be faithful),
Here is my response:
I understand your point to be that Jesus's estimation of Paul was actually knowledge based on foreknowledge given to Jesus by God. This does not sit right with me, and here is why...
First of all, how is it thank-worthy that Jesus would count him faithful if this were an undeniable fact? He might thank God for dictating that he would be faithful and then revealing it to Jesus, but there would be no basis to thank Jesus. Would you thank your professor for "believing in you" if your profess knew in advance that God was going to give you a 4.0?
Would one use the term XARIN which denotes a "favor" is involved?
Secondly, Paul expresses elsewhere that despite the fact that he *was* entrusted with a high calling, **the jury was still out** until the end of his life as to whether or not he would in fact live up to his trust. Note his own strong statements that he could at any time drop the ball:
1Co 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Phil 3:
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
It is my considered opinion that the scriptures constantly affirm that failure at any point in the race will bring forfeiture of the whole of the race, and Paul is no exception:
Lu 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, **No man**, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Lu 17:32 Remember Lot‘s wife.
Heb 12:
12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
James argues that as Abraham was justified by his works, long after his journey had begun, and Moses says it was only after this act that God was sure of where Abraham stood (though early on Abraham had found favor with God):
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
I could point to Peter's teaching of "the trial of one's faith" and of Jesus insisting that the believers were in peril of losing out and would only survive if they overcame during trial. I could point to the teaching of Jesus concerning the plants among the weeds, etc.
So I think the better reading is that Paul thanked Jesus for the favor of counting him a faithful person and entrusting him to the work.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Ecclesiastes 3:21
I was recently posed with this question:
***************
Speaking of suspect KJV translation, could you explain the discrepancy between the NIV and KJV in regards to this verse.
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (New International Version)
21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (King James Version)
21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
I am completely illiterate in any ancient language.
***************
Here is my reply:
The first thing that I hope will be obvious from the English here, is that what is being discussed is "breath" and not the bogus "spirit." There is no such thing in the scriptures as "spirit."
So, allow me to remove that mud, so we can see clearer:
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (corrected NIV):
21 Who knows if the breath of man rises upward and if the breath of the animal goes down into the earth?"
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (corrected KJV)
21Who knoweth the breath of man that goeth upward, and the breath of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Background: God made a statue that was shaped like and looked like himself out of clay, then animated the statue by breathing his own breath into its nose holes and it became self aware - a person. (Obviously, God is essentially a man).
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Note that animals likewise have this breath of life:
Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Ge 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
"breath" is routinely mistranslated as "spirit" (which is a word coined from the Latin word for "breath") or "ghost" (which is from a Saxon word meaning "breath"), and has been imbued with all manner of foolish metaphysical ideas. But to Moses, RUACH was "breath", and to the LXX and NT folks, "PNEUMA" means "breath" - all referring to the "breath of life."
So if two materials result in intelligence, and clay didn't bring it, then God's own breath, the "breath of life" must, one would think be an intelligent substance. This anatomically incorrect diagnosis is everywhere in the scriptures:
1 Cor 2:
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit [breath] of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit [breath] of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit [breath] of the world, but the spirit [breath] which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Note that "the breath of the world" is a different breath. So says Paul:
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air of the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
The question of different "breath of life" for Adam, animals and the wicked is handled differently. So it is this question that Ecclessiastes is dealing with. He says, in effect, "Has anyone direct knowledge about whether the breath of a dying man goes up to God who gave it, while the breath of a dying animal, being different, just goes down into the dirt from whence he sprang?"
He throws his lot in with everyone having all one breath:
Ec 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
So the translation of "knows" and "has seen" is not qualitatively different. In fact, the LXX word can mean either. it is literally "saw" but it is the common way of saying "knows!"
So Moses says that they are one breath, as does Ecclessiastes, from which info Ecclessiastes draws the inference that man is biologically an animal!
Paul sees the "breath of God" as being a **special and separate breath** that imparts life and divine knowledge. The NT is pretty much dominated by the camp that shares that opinion.
The embarrassment of this discrepancy has led, I believe, to the invention of the word "spirit" to say that breath is just breath, and the different PNUEMA from God is something different.
You have the same struggle in dealing with SARX, or "flesh." Modern translators are moving to change the term to "sinful nature" which effectively obscures the ancient anatomy of the text. Ditto for "heart" being translated as "mind."
I hope this helps...
***************
Speaking of suspect KJV translation, could you explain the discrepancy between the NIV and KJV in regards to this verse.
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (New International Version)
21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (King James Version)
21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
I am completely illiterate in any ancient language.
***************
Here is my reply:
The first thing that I hope will be obvious from the English here, is that what is being discussed is "breath" and not the bogus "spirit." There is no such thing in the scriptures as "spirit."
So, allow me to remove that mud, so we can see clearer:
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (corrected NIV):
21 Who knows if the breath of man rises upward and if the breath of the animal goes down into the earth?"
Ecclesiastes 3:21 (corrected KJV)
21Who knoweth the breath of man that goeth upward, and the breath of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Background: God made a statue that was shaped like and looked like himself out of clay, then animated the statue by breathing his own breath into its nose holes and it became self aware - a person. (Obviously, God is essentially a man).
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Note that animals likewise have this breath of life:
Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Ge 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
"breath" is routinely mistranslated as "spirit" (which is a word coined from the Latin word for "breath") or "ghost" (which is from a Saxon word meaning "breath"), and has been imbued with all manner of foolish metaphysical ideas. But to Moses, RUACH was "breath", and to the LXX and NT folks, "PNEUMA" means "breath" - all referring to the "breath of life."
So if two materials result in intelligence, and clay didn't bring it, then God's own breath, the "breath of life" must, one would think be an intelligent substance. This anatomically incorrect diagnosis is everywhere in the scriptures:
1 Cor 2:
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit [breath] of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit [breath] of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit [breath] of the world, but the spirit [breath] which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Note that "the breath of the world" is a different breath. So says Paul:
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air of the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
The question of different "breath of life" for Adam, animals and the wicked is handled differently. So it is this question that Ecclessiastes is dealing with. He says, in effect, "Has anyone direct knowledge about whether the breath of a dying man goes up to God who gave it, while the breath of a dying animal, being different, just goes down into the dirt from whence he sprang?"
He throws his lot in with everyone having all one breath:
Ec 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
So the translation of "knows" and "has seen" is not qualitatively different. In fact, the LXX word can mean either. it is literally "saw" but it is the common way of saying "knows!"
So Moses says that they are one breath, as does Ecclessiastes, from which info Ecclessiastes draws the inference that man is biologically an animal!
Paul sees the "breath of God" as being a **special and separate breath** that imparts life and divine knowledge. The NT is pretty much dominated by the camp that shares that opinion.
The embarrassment of this discrepancy has led, I believe, to the invention of the word "spirit" to say that breath is just breath, and the different PNUEMA from God is something different.
You have the same struggle in dealing with SARX, or "flesh." Modern translators are moving to change the term to "sinful nature" which effectively obscures the ancient anatomy of the text. Ditto for "heart" being translated as "mind."
I hope this helps...
Friday, December 4, 2009
Justification by Faith
The hinge-point of so much of the confusion about **scriptural** justification by faith and the righteousness of God is that most people believe that Jesus is involved in them. He is not.
Most people imagine that Jesus makes people justified, so that when they approach God, God is just "doing his job" by declaring them not guilty, because he can't tell the difference between an "alien righteousness" (the vicarious law-keeping of Jesus) and the real article. The person has no sins when they approach God because Jesus took them away.
This is all wrong.
The scriptural perspective is that **God** is the one who justifies by counting a person's **faith** as righteousness and **graciously** forgiving sins.
Rom 8:33 Who will bring any charge against God's elect?36 ***It is God who justifies.***
"Justification by faith" is just that: God counts someone righteous **because of their faith**:
Rom 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited 4 to him as righteousness."5
Note that justification by faith existed long before Jesus was born:
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard8 constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family. Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Note that sins are not "paid for" but are **freely** forgiven by God:
Mat 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we ourselves17 have forgiven our debtors.
1Jn 1:9 But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous [justified],22 forgiving23 us our sins and cleansing24 us from all unrighteousness.
What must one believe? That **God** raised Jesus from the dead (not that Jesus raised himself up):
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Note that faith is not a "gift from God" but rather something that a man does with his "heart."
So where does Jesus come in? Well, Christ became the gospel when he was resurrected by God, and that resurrection became the vehicle of justification by faith and the righteousness of [from a gracious, forgiving] God. This is a difficult image for some, where Jesus' flesh and blood became food that gives live, by virtue of him becoming gospel:
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jesus provided the justification for God to forgive sins by demonstrating to the public that he was not being remiss in not punishing the wicked:
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his [God's] righteousness: that he [God] might be just[ified], and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
But once someone is justified on the basis of their faith, there is a **gracious corrollary** and that is adoption by God, union with Jesus and everlasting life. These do not follow from justification, but rather are kindness to the restored person:
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom **also** [this is a second kindness] we have access by faith into this grace [favor] wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Adoption as sons is the destiny of the believer:
Eph 1:5 [God] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by [means of] Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his [God's] will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his [God's] grace [favor], wherein he [God] hath made us accepted in the beloved.
So Luther's analogy of marriage to Christ is appropriate, but only as a second blessing (justification by faith being the first).
The other thing I would point out relates to works. When Paul speaks of justification by faith apart from "works" it is clear that he is referring to "activities of the law."
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
When James speaks of "works" he is referring to "acts of obedience," which is clear by the example he uses:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
It should be obvious that Paul is not teaching that disobedient people will be counted righteous by God:
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Much of the scriptures say that believers will endure a "trial by ordeal" and if they do not act appropriately in the test then they will forfeit their justification, just as surely as Abraham would have if he had disobeyed God in the matter of the offering up of his son:
1Pe 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
1Pe 4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1Pe 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
1Pe 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Jas 1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
Jas 1:4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jas 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Jas 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Jas 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Jas 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
Jas 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Luk 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
One last point...
"Believing" is inceptive, not a one time thing. That is, "when you believed" is not in the past, it only began in the past. "Faith" is a race that has a distinct beginning, but must not end until the race is over, or you lose the race:
1Co 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
A momentary belief does not secure "fire insurance":
Luk 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
I hope that you will find this helpful.
Most people imagine that Jesus makes people justified, so that when they approach God, God is just "doing his job" by declaring them not guilty, because he can't tell the difference between an "alien righteousness" (the vicarious law-keeping of Jesus) and the real article. The person has no sins when they approach God because Jesus took them away.
This is all wrong.
The scriptural perspective is that **God** is the one who justifies by counting a person's **faith** as righteousness and **graciously** forgiving sins.
Rom 8:33 Who will bring any charge against God's elect?36 ***It is God who justifies.***
"Justification by faith" is just that: God counts someone righteous **because of their faith**:
Rom 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited 4 to him as righteousness."5
Note that justification by faith existed long before Jesus was born:
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard8 constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family. Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Note that sins are not "paid for" but are **freely** forgiven by God:
Mat 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we ourselves17 have forgiven our debtors.
1Jn 1:9 But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous [justified],22 forgiving23 us our sins and cleansing24 us from all unrighteousness.
What must one believe? That **God** raised Jesus from the dead (not that Jesus raised himself up):
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Note that faith is not a "gift from God" but rather something that a man does with his "heart."
So where does Jesus come in? Well, Christ became the gospel when he was resurrected by God, and that resurrection became the vehicle of justification by faith and the righteousness of [from a gracious, forgiving] God. This is a difficult image for some, where Jesus' flesh and blood became food that gives live, by virtue of him becoming gospel:
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jesus provided the justification for God to forgive sins by demonstrating to the public that he was not being remiss in not punishing the wicked:
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his [God's] righteousness: that he [God] might be just[ified], and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
But once someone is justified on the basis of their faith, there is a **gracious corrollary** and that is adoption by God, union with Jesus and everlasting life. These do not follow from justification, but rather are kindness to the restored person:
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom **also** [this is a second kindness] we have access by faith into this grace [favor] wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Adoption as sons is the destiny of the believer:
Eph 1:5 [God] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by [means of] Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his [God's] will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his [God's] grace [favor], wherein he [God] hath made us accepted in the beloved.
So Luther's analogy of marriage to Christ is appropriate, but only as a second blessing (justification by faith being the first).
The other thing I would point out relates to works. When Paul speaks of justification by faith apart from "works" it is clear that he is referring to "activities of the law."
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
When James speaks of "works" he is referring to "acts of obedience," which is clear by the example he uses:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
It should be obvious that Paul is not teaching that disobedient people will be counted righteous by God:
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Much of the scriptures say that believers will endure a "trial by ordeal" and if they do not act appropriately in the test then they will forfeit their justification, just as surely as Abraham would have if he had disobeyed God in the matter of the offering up of his son:
1Pe 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
1Pe 4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1Pe 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
1Pe 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Jas 1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
Jas 1:4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jas 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Jas 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Jas 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Jas 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
Jas 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Luk 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
One last point...
"Believing" is inceptive, not a one time thing. That is, "when you believed" is not in the past, it only began in the past. "Faith" is a race that has a distinct beginning, but must not end until the race is over, or you lose the race:
1Co 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
A momentary belief does not secure "fire insurance":
Luk 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
I hope that you will find this helpful.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tyndale House search tool
This is a nice tool for studying, especially if you are studying the scriptures:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/toolbar/Help/Intro.htm
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/toolbar/Help/Intro.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)