I don't underastand what you mean by the phrase "sin nature". Could you please explain?
Love,
Steve
No.
You made your point....I am letting it stand. Jesus made it to the second wrung on the way to sin....but never quite took the bait....and you used the passover dinner before His suffering for us, to illustrate your understanding of Jesus nature to occasionally be drawn away by His own over desire.
That is your understanding of Jesus.
Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life when He was tempted...lead by the Holy Spirit for God's sovereign purpose. Those are all the things in the world. All the ways we are tempted. God's holy character...is revealed in Jesus...He never sinned. It is there if you look for it.
But, I guess you have a different understanding of the Lord being drawn away by His own desire.
I thought He always desired to do His Father's will including the passover supper.
Yes, but doesn't the first part of Romans do a pretty good job in laying out the case that all men are sinners? Wouldn't that condemn us already? No one seeks God? That is a judgment and a sentence passed already.....Romans is....Righteousness denied....Righteousness supplied...and Righteousness applied.
Now, I may be reading you wrong.....but, there is no other righteousness than what God Himself supplies....right? And that is through the atoning work of Christ? This also includes our righteous deeds.(Filthy rags) We are condemned already...we are under the condemnation of sin. That is where righteousness supplied comes in.
When Paul is speaking of God judging according to works.....do you think that means whether someone merits salvation according to their works? Or am I confused? I don't want to jump to conclusions.
Or are you saying....works which come from obedience....which comes from genuine faith....given by God, that will be judged?
--------------------------------------
Hi Geisha :)
Yes, all folks are sinners and everybody (with one notable exception) has fallen short in more than one way, form, shape or manner I am sure.
I am just saying that outside of Christ, both Jew and Gentile God has promised to judge them one more time, without favoritism based upon their works. I think if Paul had meant, "And every one of them is toast" that he would have said so. And fitting in with the context of all people being sinners Paul leans heavily on the concept that this will be God's judgement, not ours.
But let me use the harlot Rahab as an example, she by faith left Jericho unto her and her house being saved from the judgement that came upon the city. (*Heb 11 as one reference)
Having thought and read about these Cananite cultures for some time, I feel I am capable of venturing into an opinion of Canaanite culture. In a nutshell, I believe the culture of Jericho probably resembled a sexually abusive, authoritarian, mind-control cult. Not really all that dissimilar to what wierwille was really up to behind closed doors at The Way.
So for whatever reason, Rahab ended up being a harlot in Jericho. Likely without much say on her part if she was to take care of her family as she did.
It seems reasonable to me that her faith to leave Jericho because she heard of God and Israel coming to judge this city of cretins was likely mixed with a healthy, honest dislike for her culture. And given the opportunity she PROVED her faith by protecting the spies risking a terrible fate for her and her family if she had been discovered.
Because of these actions she ended up marrying into Israel and being one of the women being mentioned in the Christ line in the gospel geneolgy of Christ. Not too bad for a harlot, yes.
So my question is, how many sinners are out there who haven't had Rahab's opportunity or that we haven't heard about living in necessity and being very much better than their rotten cultures?
For that possibility alone I will gladly accept Paul's perspective of knowing God will judge and knowing that it is not our place to say.
(added in editing)
But within a church or any religious group there will of necessity be standards set and sin being dealt with. I like it best when it is not done with the extensive cruelty, hypocrisy, any lies that the Way International still leavens their loaf with.
You made your point....I am letting it stand. Jesus made it to the second wrung on the way to sin....but never quite took the bait....and you used the passover dinner before His suffering for us, to illustrate your understanding of Jesus nature to occasionally be drawn away by His own over desire.
That is your understanding of Jesus.
Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life when He was tempted...lead by the Holy Spirit for God's sovereign purpose. Those are all the things in the world. All the ways we are tempted.
But, I guess you have a different understanding of the Lord being drawn away by His own desire.
I thought He always desired to do His Father's will including the passover supper.
Thank you for your quick response, geisha! I logged on to tell you that you no longer needed to explain "sin nature", to me. I googled the phrase. Duh.
I am very glad for the discourse you share with me. You force me to view the things I think from a perspective other than my own, and I have found yours to be a thoughtful and considered perspective.
Your question about "sin nature" didn't throw me because of the word sin. It threw me because of the word "nature." Paul and his readers didn't understand that word the same way you and I have been taught to understand it. If I answered your question with a simple "yes" or "no." You wouldn't have understood what I intended to communicate, whatever way I answered it.
Another thing that strikes me (now that I'm reading the record again) is that in Matthew and Mark the curtain is torn after the cry of "Eloi, Eloi", while in Luke it is clearly torn before.
I get that!
If we look at the gospels like a photograph.....searching out the details for perfection we probably will miss the bigger picture. Are they written in exact chronological order? Are they meant to be? What is their purpose? Is some of it written in light of theology? Why four? Is an ancient historiography or biography written differently than one of post-enlightenment ...those of which we are most familiar?
The point is....they say the veil was torn.
Luke is written more like a hellenistic historiography. Matthew and Mark....more like ancient biographies....there are limitations to these ancient genres....they are not written to be read in view of mathematical precision....it isn't the baseball box scores. :) Go Sox...
What is interesting to note, is a few verses later in Matthew....the centurion, who had mocked Jesus.....fell down and said...."Truly this was the Son of God" quick and dramatic conversion....right?......he went from taking pleasure in mocking to falling down and confessing....What happened? What did he see?
Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks were split apart. And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised.(Now there is something to consider in light of the resurrection!)
The reason I even mentioned the curtain being torn from top to bottom......from heaven to earth......is to draw attention to the significance. The earth shook with the force of it....it was an event, bodies were raised....and that centurion was there to see it.
Something else makes me wonder? When a harvest was brought in.....Israel would offer the sheafs of the first fruits to the priest.....a promise of the greater harvest.....and then the gleaning.
But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
Christ...the first fruits....then when He comes, those who belong to Him. All kinds of things to consider!! :) There is also the gleaning to keep in mind. Yikes!!All part of one resurrection with different timing maybe?
That's one way to look at it...
My NIV says that the firstfruits, Christ, was the guarantee of the resurrection of all who are redeemed, "Christ was raised in his own time in history and those who are identified with Christ will be raised at his second coming".
Also this, which you brought up...
Matthew 27
52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
It's interesting that that account only appears in Matthew. Who were these holy people?
Corinthians says only that Jesus appeared to "more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time" (v.6, which, as we discussed a while ago, is the only scripture that says that over 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection), it doesn't say anyone else was with him.
As far as this passage recording the dead rising....
Matthew 27:(NKJV)
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,
52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
It doesn't seem to jive with....
1 Co 15:
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
The record in Matthew does say what happened with the risen ones either.
I'm going to share a few things that are hard for me to do and I'll tell you why. They are hard to share because I read it once and even though it still makes sense to me I can't document it and the source was mostly unreliable, but I don't have a batter answer than what I once read in a Way mag.
The verse in Matthew was added. It started in Africa and eventually became a widely quoted scripture.
imho...Our Gathering and Our Resurrection...not only NOT as Wierwille taught it...but perhaps even pointing in such a different direction as to be pointing in an opposing direction...away from PFAL.
If so, a few steps away from PFAL is not enough.
Ten steps from PFAL is not enough.
A hundred steps from PFAL is not enough.
So keep going if you must...but perhaps even better is to stop...and turn completely around.
Because wherever we are...it may be that the answers we seek are found in that which we avoid.
There is no way around the fire if we want back to Eden. This is a most difficult truth.
You made your point....I am letting it stand. Jesus made it to the second wrung on the way to sin....but never quite took the bait....and you used the passover dinner before His suffering for us, to illustrate your understanding of Jesus nature to occasionally be drawn away by His own over desire.
That is your understanding of Jesus.
Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life when He was tempted...lead by the Holy Spirit for God's sovereign purpose. Those are all the things in the world. All the ways we are tempted. God's holy character...is revealed in Jesus...He never sinned. It is there if you look for it.
But, I guess you have a different understanding of the Lord being drawn away by His own desire.
I thought He always desired to do His Father's will including the passover supper.
I've spent part of my leisure today reading several articles from various sources about "sin nature", and tracking the words "nature" and "natural" in the King James Version.
Geisha asked me if I thought Jesus had a sin nature.
THE LONG ANSWER
(if this stuff makes your eyes glaze over and reminds you too much of an in-residence lecture by Walter Cummins, skip to THE SHORT ANSWER)
If I were forced to give a "yes" or "no" answer, I'd have to say "no", but not for the same reason others might.
I don't find the phrase "sin nature" in the Bible. What I DO find is a section of Romans dealing with sin and what a Christian's attitude should be toward it. The section begins with the question "Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?" in Romans 6:1, and ends with the final verses of chapter 8 where we learn that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul uses at least four analogies in this section of Romans and several other devices to illustrate how Christians should regard sin. Paul uses the contrast of law and grace, the contrast of being dead and alive in relation to baptism, the analogy of being a servant to sin in relation to obedience, the wages of sin versus the gift of God, the analogy of being a wife to sin and then becoming a widow, the idea of being carnally minded versus being spiritually minded, and the contrast of walking in accordance with the flesh versus walking in accordance with the Spirit.
Nowhere in these three chapters does the word "nature" occur. I think that the phrase "sin nature" was coined by later theologians to simplify the arguments Paul made in Romans 6-8 and at other places in his writings. Some of the meanings we attach to the phrase "sin nature" seem to me to be Biblically accurate, but some others do not. Part of the reason for this is that the meaning of the English word "nature" has changed since the time of the King James translators at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. To pursue these changes, I would have to go spend some time with the unabridged Oxford dictionary.
Part of the reason I think the phrase "sin nature" is not very instructive is because the concept of "nature" that the King James translators held in 1611 AD didn't exist in antiquity. This can be seen from the variety of Greek words the KJV translators forced together to get the one word "nature". Genesis, "beginning" or "birth", is translated "natural" twice. Variations of phusis, or "physical," are translated "nature" or "natural" most often, while the word psuchikos, or "soulish", is even translated "natural" a few times.
The word pneuma, or "spirit" didn't mean the same thing we think of today, either. To us "spirit" is the substance of a parallel, immaterial cosmos inaccessible to the senses, but that meaning didn't come into popular use until several generations after the New Testament had already been written. I don't know exactly what the word pneuma meant to Paul, but I've got a good idea of what it meant to his readers of Gentile background, and the differences aren't simple.
There were four generally recognized elements, earth, water, air and fire. The literal meaning of pneuma was "wind" or the element air set in motion by being admixed with the element fire. No part of the cosmos was pure except for the region of fire (the heavenlies). The rest of the cosmos consisted of the four elements mixed in different proportions. Pneuma extended throughout the cosmos where it performed four functions, hexis or "habit", phusis or "nature", psuche or "soul" and nous or "mind".
It was by performing the function of hexis that spirit gave form and persistence to all things, both animate and inanimate. Spirit gave growth life and the ability to reproduce to plants, animals, people (earth elementals), demons (air elementals) and gods (fire elementals) through phusis. Psuche was how spirit imparted sentience and the power to move to animals, people, demons and gods. The function of nous was how spirit imparted intelligence to people, demons and gods.
I don't think Paul himself necessarily thought of these things these ways, but the Christians of Gentile background to whom he addressed his letters sure did, and he must have taken that into account as he wrote.
So how would Paul have responded to the question "Did Jesus have a sin nature?" I can honestly say, "I don't know."
THE SHORT ANSWER
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
No.
Was Jesus capable of sinning?
Yes.
At every point in his life, from the time he reached the age of accountability (whenever that was) until he breathed out his last on the cross, he could have decided to disobey God. Did he ever decide to disobey God? No. Thankfully he did not.
Would eating Passover with his disciples before he suffered have been sin?
I believe it would have been. I think Jesus died on the cross at the same time the passover lambs were being slaughtered, and I believe God had a purpose for the timing. If, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus had said, "Yeah, I'm okay with the suffering part, but I'm just gonna put it off a couple of days because I really, REALLY wanna eat Passover with my peeps", that would have been disobedience and sin. Jesus would have risen to the bait, but he didn't. He said, "Not my will, but thine be done." Jesus DECIDED to do his Father's will, even though he didn't want to.
Yes, Jesus was tempted in all things like as we are. But he was also tempted in ways no one else ever has been, thankfully, without sin.
The concept that post-lapsarian humans born by natural generation are afflicted with an indwelling, inescapble proclivity and bondange to sin is certainly scriptural. Pelagians, Faustus Socinus and Christadelphians denied/deny this (the denial fits well with the mere-man Christology of the latter two).
Paul wrote:
“but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:23 – NASB)
*****
Quiz for the Day
Identify the person who famously wrote:
“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, or the Academy with the church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our doctrine originates with the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that men must seek the Lord in simplicity of heart. Away with all who attempt to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoicism and Platonism and dialectic!"
The concept that post-lapsarian humans born by natural generation are afflicted with an indwelling, inescapble proclivity and bondange to sin is certainly scriptural. Pelagians, Faustus Socinus and Christadelphians denied/deny this (the denial fits well with the mere-man Christology of the latter two).
mpt to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoicism and Platonism and dialectic!"
Apparently, Socinians attempted to affirm the reality of sin while denying original sin.
Finally, the Socinian doctrine is stated in the Racovian Catechism, p.
294:
And the fall of Adam, since it was one act, could not have had the
power of corrupting the nature of Adam himself, much less that of his
posterity. We do not deny, however, that from the constant habit of
sinning the nature of man has become infected with a certain fall and
excessive proclivity to sinning. But we deny that this is per se sin, or
of that nature.
While I find that statement incoherent, it seems at first glance to be a possible attempt to affirm the reality and presence of sin, while denying that the progeny of Adam (by natural generation) stand guilty before God due to Adam's sin, and are necessarily sinful in their own selves because of an inherited (post-lapsarian) Adamic human nature.
I've spent part of my leisure today reading several articles from various sources about "sin nature", and tracking the words "nature" and "natural" in the King James Version.
Geisha asked me if I thought Jesus had a sin nature.
THE LONG ANSWER
(if this stuff makes your eyes glaze over and reminds you too much of an in-residence lecture by Walter Cummins, skip to THE SHORT ANSWER)
If I were forced to give a "yes" or "no" answer, I'd have to say "no", but not for the same reason others might.
I don't find the phrase "sin nature" in the Bible. What I DO find is a section of Romans dealing with sin and what a Christian's attitude should be toward it. The section begins with the question "Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?" in Romans 6:1, and ends with the final verses of chapter 8 where we learn that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul uses at least four analogies in this section of Romans and several other devices to illustrate how Christians should regard sin. Paul uses the contrast of law and grace, the contrast of being dead and alive in relation to baptism, the analogy of being a servant to sin in relation to obedience, the wages of sin versus the gift of God, the analogy of being a wife to sin and then becoming a widow, the idea of being carnally minded versus being spiritually minded, and the contrast of walking in accordance with the flesh versus walking in accordance with the Spirit.
Nowhere in these three chapters does the word "nature" occur. I think that the phrase "sin nature" was coined by later theologians to simplify the arguments Paul made in Romans 6-8 and at other places in his writings. Some of the meanings we attach to the phrase "sin nature" seem to me to be Biblically accurate, but some others do not. Part of the reason for this is that the meaning of the English word "nature" has changed since the time of the King James translators at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. To pursue these changes, I would have to go spend some time with the unabridged Oxford dictionary.
Part of the reason I think the phrase "sin nature" is not very instructive is because the concept of "nature" that the King James translators held in 1611 AD didn't exist in antiquity. This can be seen from the variety of Greek words the KJV translators forced together to get the one word "nature". Genesis, "beginning" or "birth", is translated "natural" twice. Variations of phusis, or "physical," are translated "nature" or "natural" most often, while the word psuchikos, or "soulish", is even translated "natural" a few times.
The word pneuma, or "spirit" didn't mean the same thing we think of today, either. To us "spirit" is the substance of a parallel, immaterial cosmos inaccessible to the senses, but that meaning didn't come into popular use until several generations after the New Testament had already been written. I don't know exactly what the word pneuma meant to Paul, but I've got a good idea of what it meant to his readers of Gentile background, and the differences aren't simple.
There were four generally recognized elements, earth, water, air and fire. The literal meaning of pneuma was "wind" or the element air set in motion by being admixed with the element fire. No part of the cosmos was pure except for the region of fire (the heavenlies). The rest of the cosmos consisted of the four elements mixed in different proportions. Pneuma extended throughout the cosmos where it performed four functions, hexis or "habit", phusis or "nature", psuche or "soul" and nous or "mind".
It was by performing the function of hexis that spirit gave form and persistence to all things, both animate and inanimate. Spirit gave growth life and the ability to reproduce to plants, animals, people (earth elementals), demons (air elementals) and gods (fire elementals) through phusis. Psuche was how spirit imparted sentience and the power to move to animals, people, demons and gods. The function of nous was how spirit imparted intelligence to people, demons and gods.
I don't think Paul himself necessarily thought of these things these ways, but the Christians of Gentile background to whom he addressed his letters sure did, and he must have taken that into account as he wrote.
So how would Paul have responded to the question "Did Jesus have a sin nature?" I can honestly say, "I don't know."
THE SHORT ANSWER
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
No.
Was Jesus capable of sinning?
Yes.
At every point in his life, from the time he reached the age of accountability (whenever that was) until he breathed out his last on the cross, he could have decided to disobey God. Did he ever decide to disobey God? No. Thankfully he did not.
Would eating Passover with his disciples before he suffered have been sin?
I believe it would have been. I think Jesus died on the cross at the same time the passover lambs were being slaughtered, and I believe God had a purpose for the timing. If, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus had said, "Yeah, I'm okay with the suffering part, but I'm just gonna put it off a couple of days because I really, REALLY wanna eat Passover with my peeps", that would have been disobedience and sin. Jesus would have risen to the bait, but he didn't. He said, "Not my will, but thine be done." Jesus DECIDED to do his Father's will, even though he didn't want to.
Yes, Jesus was tempted in all things like as we are. But he was also tempted in ways no one else ever has been, thankfully, without sin.
Love,
Steve
This is why I declined to articulate to you what I meant by sin nature. Exactly why....I knew it was an invitation to an endless dispute over the meaning of a word.
We are no closer to a sound understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ.....but, we now have a volume on your understanding of a word. That profits us in productive Christian living or faith in a perfect and holy sacrifice...how?
There you have it.....you could have spared your leisure....Jesus was a holy sacrifice. Distinct....in a separate class. ....morally pure....no rivals....perfect.....and not like us...Peter knew it....
But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Go away from me, Lord,for I am a sinful man!
David knew it......because you will not leave my soul in Hades,nor permit your Holy One to experiencedecay.
And I know it because........the Holy One of God.....is vindicated or it is articulated by His resurrection.....or the cross...where we find the wisdom of God in perfect sacrifice.
Holy, not once...not twice.....but three times.....holy.
God's holy character, God Himself.....is revealed in Jesus Christ...in His temptation and response.....He is the express image of God.
His wisdom is found in the cross and spotless sacrifice, His glory in the face of Jesus Christ, His mercy in the death, His might in the resurrection, His purpose....in the Alpha and the Omega....
I simply pointed out Jesus holy nature by articulating God's in relation to temptation. When I asked "Did Jesus?" it was rhetorical, to make a point. I never dreamed you would dispute or spend time trying to deny it. Never, that you would say Jesus was drawn away.
His holiness is no longer veiled by an earthly body......which is why we fall down as John does in Revelation. John, who was so familiar with Him. That is the proper response to Jesus when we understand or see His holiness. We can look at Him now through the gospels and see what was then veiled in flesh.
And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last.......
"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, or the Academy with the church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our doctrine originates with the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that men must seek the Lord in simplicity of heart. Away with all who attempt to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoicism and Platonism and dialectic!"
Tertullian...... :) .... I do know how to Google! Sounded like him anyway.
Much easier to write them off for the very same faults I myself have.
Much easier to think escaping the just results of my faults somehow makes me better than them; or is it still true that in condemning them, I condemn myself.
Much easier to not face my own demons and condemn others for the same.
Much better to see the ugly and somehow manage to lighten that territory.
God's foolishness is stronger than our strength.
His judgements are just, I'm a fool if I think I get them.
I know love and grace when it shakes me to my bones.
Much easier to write them off for the very same faults I myself have.
Much easier to think escaping the just results of my faults somehow makes me better than them; or is it still true that in condemning them, I condemn myself.
Much easier to not face my own demons and condemn others for the same.
Much better to see the ugly and somehow manage to lighten that territory.
God's foolishness is stronger than our strength.
His judgements are just, I'm a fool if I think I get them.
I know love and grace when it shakes me to my bones.
I agree. I'm continuing the Tertulian discussion over on the Exegesis vs. Eisegesis thread.
"A living cell is a temporary repository of order purchased at the cost of a constant flow of energy."
So wrote Sylvia S. Mader in Inquiry into Life (12th ed., p. 103), the textbook we used when I took BIO1000 last year. This is a concise, scientific statement about life, but it is every bit as poetic as Genesis 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."
If we substituted the word "soul" for "cell" in the quote from Mader, the two passages would be saying the same thing, except Genesis properly attributes the origin of life to the Lord God. Mader stays silent about life's origin, because science can only speak about things that can be measured, and thus, cannot speak about God.
The "constant flow of energy" for a living cell is provided by the burning of sugar: C6H12O6 + 6O2 => 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy. This process is called "cellular respiration," since it requires that the gas O2 be delivered to the cell, and that the gas CO2 be removed from it. The primary purpose of "the breath of life" is to deliver O2 to a living soul, and to remove CO2 from it.
The word "respiration" comes from the same Latin root as the word "spirit". This Latin word is roughly equivalent to the Greek pneuma and the Hebrew ruach.
When God formed man of the dust of the ground, He arranged the molecules that make up man into a fearful and wonderful order. When He breathed into man's nostril's the breath of life, He set in motion the constant flow of energy that is required to maintain the order of a living soul.
So it was in Genesis 2:7. So it was prophesied in Ezekiel 37. So it was when God raised Jesus from the dead. So it will be with those who are Christ's at His coming!
Earlier, in Luke 20:32-36 we saw that Jesus associated receiving the Spirit of resurrection life and becoming children of God with the age to come. In Luke 18:18-30 we saw that Jesus considered "inheriting eternal life (zoe aionios)", "receiving everlasting life (zoe aionios) in the age to come", "entering into the kingdom of God" and "to be saved" to be synonymous phrases, all meaning essentially the same thing.
Matthew 13:36-43 contains another important passage in understanding our gathering and our resurrection,
"36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares and the field.
"37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
"38 The field is the world [kosmos 'order']; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
"39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world [aion 'age']; and the reapers are the angels.
"40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world [aion 'age'].
"41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather forth out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
"42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
"43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Here we see that the righteous shall shine forth in the kingdom of their Father after the end of this age. This agrees with what we saw in Luke 20, that those who are accounted worthy to obtain that age, after the end of this age, will be the children of God, being children of the resurrection.
Romans 1:4....who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrectionfrom the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
When Jesus was raised from the dead it was through the Holy Spirit.( GOD) According to the Spirit of holiness. Christ's works and power are connected to the holiness of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 1:4....who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrectionfrom the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
When Jesus was raised from the dead it was through the Holy Spirit.( GOD) According to the Spirit of holiness. Christ's works and power are connected to the holiness of the Holy Spirit.
You and I seem to be talking past each other, geisha, like the blind men and the elephant.
Wierwille taught what Jesus Christ is not, and that was a strong error. You have gone on from TWI and learned about the holiness of Jesus Christ. That is valid. I have gone on and learned about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That is also valid. They are both aspects of what Jesus Christ IS. They don't contradict each other. They support each other.
Wierwille disguised the Lordship of Jesus Christ by replicating an eisegetical dodge of smoke and mirrors that distracts people from what the integrity of the Word has to say about Jesus Christ. Wierwille's theology was a thought system of misdirections of attention and deceptive decoys.
The goal toward which I write is to expose the dodges Wierwille used so that people can recognized the current, active Lordship of Jesus in their lives.
One error Wierwille taught is that the Church is a "wholly new thing" rather than the believing remnant of Israel, under the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as the remnant of Israel, by grace through faith.
One of the ploys Darby invented to support a complete and total separation of the Church and Israel was a "pre-tribulation rapture" of the Church. Why? Because the great tribulation was promised to Israel. And the gathering together was also promised to Israel. The biblical phrase "gathering together" couldn't be used, so Darby, or one of his dispensationalist cohorts, substituted the non-biblical word "rapture." They taught that the "rapture" would be for the Church and would happen before the great tribulation, while the gathering together that is taught throughout the Bible as part of our hope will take place after the great tribulation.
This "rapture" dodge has caused no end of confusion for people who try to reconcile it with the various passages of scripture that describe our gathering together unto him (II Thessalonians 2:1).
If we're going to unravel this mess, we have to consider what the Bible says about resurrection... what exactly it is... and when exactly does it happen.
Was Jesus resurrected by the Spirit of holiness? Ezekiel 37 says,
"13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
"14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live..."
If it was God's own Spirit that animated Jesus in His resurrection, I would have to say that is about as holy as a spirit can get. If the same Spirit of resurrection life is going to animate US, then I can't help but agree with you that we also are going to raised by holy Spirit, God's own Spirit. The Spirit of resurrection life that raised Jesus to life WAS the Spirit of holiness.
The gift of holy Spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost is not THE Spirit of resurrection life, it is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:14). It hasn't made US holy yet, just as we will still die if the Lord tarries, but the earnest of our inheritance reminds us that we will be Christ's when He comes. That's when those of us who are already dead will be resurrected and those of us who are still alive will be changed. That's when we will no longer know only in part.
You and I seem to be talking past each other, geisha, like the blind men and the elephant.
Wierwille taught what Jesus Christ is not, and that was a strong error. You have gone on from TWI and learned about the holiness of Jesus Christ. That is valid. I have gone on and learned about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That is also valid. They are both aspects of what Jesus Christ IS. They don't contradict each other. They support each other.
Wierwille disguised the Lordship of Jesus Christ by replicating an eisegetical dodge of smoke and mirrors that distracts people from what the integrity of the Word has to say about Jesus Christ. Wierwille's theology was a thought system of misdirections of attention and deceptive decoys.
The goal toward which I write is to expose the dodges Wierwille used so that people can recognized the current, active Lordship of Jesus in their lives.
One error Wierwille taught is that the Church is a "wholly new thing" rather than the believing remnant of Israel, under the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as the remnant of Israel, by grace through faith.
One of the ploys Darby invented to support a complete and total separation of the Church and Israel was a "pre-tribulation rapture" of the Church. Why? Because the great tribulation was promised to Israel. And the gathering together was also promised to Israel. The biblical phrase "gathering together" couldn't be used, so Darby, or one of his dispensationalist cohorts, substituted the non-biblical word "rapture." They taught that the "rapture" would be for the Church and would happen before the great tribulation, while the gathering together that is taught throughout the Bible as part of our hope will take place after the great tribulation.
This "rapture" dodge has caused no end of confusion for people who try to reconcile it with the various passages of scripture that describe our gathering together unto him (II Thessalonians 2:1).
If we're going to unravel this mess, we have to consider what the Bible says about resurrection... what exactly it is... and when exactly does it happen.
Was Jesus resurrected by the Spirit of holiness? Ezekiel 37 says,
"13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
"14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live..."
If it was God's own Spirit that animated Jesus in His resurrection, I would have to say that is about as holy as a spirit can get. If the same Spirit of resurrection life is going to animate US, then I can't help but agree with you that we also are going to raised by holy Spirit, God's own Spirit. The Spirit of resurrection life that raised Jesus to life WAS the Spirit of holiness.
The gift of holy Spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost is not THE Spirit of resurrection life, it is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:14). It hasn't made US holy yet, just as we will still die if the Lord tarries, but the earnest of our inheritance reminds us that we will be Christ's when He comes. That's when those of us who are already dead will be resurrected and those of us who are still alive will be changed. That's when we will no longer know only in part.
Love,
Steve
Steve,
Christians don't grope around in the dark for God....they learn about Him from His own self-disclosure.
I am not totally oblivious to what you are saying....I am simply trying to suggest another understanding. Remember...the ultimate goal of exegesis is not to extrapolate, even to interpret, and surely not to wrap things up in neat little theological bow.....but, it is to transform.
What do you mean by "The gift of holy Spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost is not THE Spirit of resurrection life"?
The Holy Spirit....is just that....The Holy Spirit.
He has many ministries and functions.....He empowers(exodus 31:2,3), fills(Ephesians 5:18), guarantees(Ephesians1:14), guards(2nd Timothy 1:14), helps(John 14,15,16), comforts, illuminates(1Corinthians 2:10), indwells(1Corinthians 3:16), intercedes,(Romans 8:26, 27) produces fruit, (Galatians 5:22) Convicts of sin(Genesis 6:3, John 16:8-10), sanctifies or makes holy,(2nd Thess 2:13) seals, (2nd Corinthians 1:22)teaches,(1John 2:20) He is the source of POWER, fellowship, unity, and freedom.
He is personal...just as are the Father and Son...He has intelligence (1 Cor.2:10-11).emotions (Eph.4:30 ) will (1 Cor.2:11).
"The Holy Spirit spoke rightly to your ancestorsthrough the prophet Isaiah Acts 28:25....He is God.
For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. Who is the life giving spirit in Christ? The Holy Spirit. We are set free from sin and death.
The Holy Spirit.. is so clearly articulated in the OT.....and Pentecost was the filling, indwelling...or baptism of the Holy Spirit.......the beginning of the church, a distinction in ministry, ....He now dwells in us. It is the Holy Spirit who points us to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Why...is the Holy Spirit who indwells a believer....not the same Spirit who raised Jesus? What do you believe you are indwelt by? Some break away baby piece of God? Your own Holy Spirit? It is the same Spirit who works all in all.....Christ is all in all....the Father is all in all.
What more do you think there is? It is the token, the promise, the seal......the earnest of our inheritance. It is there. When we see Him...
Do you think because God spoke to Ezekiel about raising up Israel and pouring out His Spirit.....we too are waiting for the Holy Spirit? We are raised....seated....purchased......sealed.
What if.....Ezekiel is speaking specifically to Israel as a people....community.....nation...the context is judging nations.....a new order....God will bring life to Israel...reunite Judah and Israel. National restoration. In the future...the Lord will bless His people....send the Holy Spirit. God will judge the nations by Israel....God will be glorified to the nations by Israel... He(the Holy Spirit) points, illuminates, enlightens, and glorifies Jesus Christ....you cannot know Jesus without the Holy Spirit. As the head goes...so goes the people. And they will know...I am their God.
You and I already know He is our God....we know Jesus is Lord....and this we know by the Holy Spirit which indwells us...maybe, what we are waiting for and seeing in part is His glory...which we cannot fully comprehend or be fully in the presence of in our current form.
Dear friends, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. Weknow thatwheneveritis revealedwe will be like him, becausewe will see him just as he is.
His reflected glory...is our glorification. Romans 8
And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created. Christ is the glory of God....
For God, who said "Let light shine out of darkness,"is the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledgeof God in the face of Christ.
Among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospelof Christ,who is the image of God.
He (The Holy Spirit)will glorify me,because he will receivefrom me what is mineand will tell it to you.
As for being holy now....we are supposed to be. We are being sanctified. Set apart as a holy people. It is not our own holiness. . . . but His if we belong to Him.
These things run so deep...they are transforming right now.....we see glimpses of God's glory now....we know our God and Savior right now.....but, we only see God in part now....can you just imagine? What a hope...
It is the same Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead....that indwells us now.....we have eternal life now....and when He comes.....our mortal bodies will be changed. We have that promise....everything in its own time. Even if our mortal flesh dies.....we go to be with the Lord....in rest....and wait. God is able...God is faithful.
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
You are talking about animation......scripture speaks of transformation. There is a difference.
"12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
"13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
"14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."
What does it mean for the holy Spirit of promise to be the earnest of our inheritance? And what does it mean to be "sealed" with it?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
21
18
20
Popular Days
May 24
24
Apr 25
13
May 23
13
Apr 24
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 16 posts
Steve Lortz 21 posts
geisha779 18 posts
Gen-2 20 posts
Popular Days
May 24 2010
24 posts
Apr 25 2010
13 posts
May 23 2010
13 posts
Apr 24 2010
11 posts
Popular Posts
Tom
Not sure what you are saying here, Steve, when you say, "I don't think the gift of holy Spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost is salvation itself." Unless all you mean is that it is not the
JeffSjo
I like it. Much better to be able to face it and deal. Much easier to keep it stuffed away out of sight. Much easier to write them off for the very same faults I myself have. Much easier to think
Gen-2
Since you cannot be PM'd Mark I'll leave this not here for you I'm not sure why you assumed I am one of those "unbiblical" "Rapture" people whom you seem to detest, or why you simply refused to respo
Steve Lortz
I don't underastand what you mean by the phrase "sin nature". Could you please explain?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
No.
You made your point....I am letting it stand. Jesus made it to the second wrung on the way to sin....but never quite took the bait....and you used the passover dinner before His suffering for us, to illustrate your understanding of Jesus nature to occasionally be drawn away by His own over desire.
That is your understanding of Jesus.
Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life when He was tempted...lead by the Holy Spirit for God's sovereign purpose. Those are all the things in the world. All the ways we are tempted. God's holy character...is revealed in Jesus...He never sinned. It is there if you look for it.
But, I guess you have a different understanding of the Lord being drawn away by His own desire.
I thought He always desired to do His Father's will including the passover supper.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Geisha :)
Yes, all folks are sinners and everybody (with one notable exception) has fallen short in more than one way, form, shape or manner I am sure.
I am just saying that outside of Christ, both Jew and Gentile God has promised to judge them one more time, without favoritism based upon their works. I think if Paul had meant, "And every one of them is toast" that he would have said so. And fitting in with the context of all people being sinners Paul leans heavily on the concept that this will be God's judgement, not ours.
But let me use the harlot Rahab as an example, she by faith left Jericho unto her and her house being saved from the judgement that came upon the city. (*Heb 11 as one reference)
Having thought and read about these Cananite cultures for some time, I feel I am capable of venturing into an opinion of Canaanite culture. In a nutshell, I believe the culture of Jericho probably resembled a sexually abusive, authoritarian, mind-control cult. Not really all that dissimilar to what wierwille was really up to behind closed doors at The Way.
So for whatever reason, Rahab ended up being a harlot in Jericho. Likely without much say on her part if she was to take care of her family as she did.
It seems reasonable to me that her faith to leave Jericho because she heard of God and Israel coming to judge this city of cretins was likely mixed with a healthy, honest dislike for her culture. And given the opportunity she PROVED her faith by protecting the spies risking a terrible fate for her and her family if she had been discovered.
Because of these actions she ended up marrying into Israel and being one of the women being mentioned in the Christ line in the gospel geneolgy of Christ. Not too bad for a harlot, yes.
So my question is, how many sinners are out there who haven't had Rahab's opportunity or that we haven't heard about living in necessity and being very much better than their rotten cultures?
For that possibility alone I will gladly accept Paul's perspective of knowing God will judge and knowing that it is not our place to say.
(added in editing)
But within a church or any religious group there will of necessity be standards set and sin being dealt with. I like it best when it is not done with the extensive cruelty, hypocrisy, any lies that the Way International still leavens their loaf with.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you for your quick response, geisha! I logged on to tell you that you no longer needed to explain "sin nature", to me. I googled the phrase. Duh.
I am very glad for the discourse you share with me. You force me to view the things I think from a perspective other than my own, and I have found yours to be a thoughtful and considered perspective.
Your question about "sin nature" didn't throw me because of the word sin. It threw me because of the word "nature." Paul and his readers didn't understand that word the same way you and I have been taught to understand it. If I answered your question with a simple "yes" or "no." You wouldn't have understood what I intended to communicate, whatever way I answered it.
More later...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
As far as this passage recording the dead rising....
Matthew 27:(NKJV)
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,
52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
It doesn't seem to jive with....
1 Co 15:
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
The record in Matthew does say what happened with the risen ones either.
I'm going to share a few things that are hard for me to do and I'll tell you why. They are hard to share because I read it once and even though it still makes sense to me I can't document it and the source was mostly unreliable, but I don't have a batter answer than what I once read in a Way mag.
The verse in Matthew was added. It started in Africa and eventually became a widely quoted scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
imho...Our Gathering and Our Resurrection...not only NOT as Wierwille taught it...but perhaps even pointing in such a different direction as to be pointing in an opposing direction...away from PFAL.
If so, a few steps away from PFAL is not enough.
Ten steps from PFAL is not enough.
A hundred steps from PFAL is not enough.
So keep going if you must...but perhaps even better is to stop...and turn completely around.
Because wherever we are...it may be that the answers we seek are found in that which we avoid.
There is no way around the fire if we want back to Eden. This is a most difficult truth.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
until we the as just a path
how we walk on it if no border to anything
as if good kiss evil or evil kiss good
when become one it like all being one
what is sin natural but the kiss of natural sin overtaking itself and becoming one
is the path light by Christ or the path and Christ joining as one
When we are known as God knows us
when we see that is no true Serpent but good and evil
then we know evil we do only good because our natural has changed
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've spent part of my leisure today reading several articles from various sources about "sin nature", and tracking the words "nature" and "natural" in the King James Version.
Geisha asked me if I thought Jesus had a sin nature.
THE LONG ANSWER
(if this stuff makes your eyes glaze over and reminds you too much of an in-residence lecture by Walter Cummins, skip to THE SHORT ANSWER)
If I were forced to give a "yes" or "no" answer, I'd have to say "no", but not for the same reason others might.
I don't find the phrase "sin nature" in the Bible. What I DO find is a section of Romans dealing with sin and what a Christian's attitude should be toward it. The section begins with the question "Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?" in Romans 6:1, and ends with the final verses of chapter 8 where we learn that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul uses at least four analogies in this section of Romans and several other devices to illustrate how Christians should regard sin. Paul uses the contrast of law and grace, the contrast of being dead and alive in relation to baptism, the analogy of being a servant to sin in relation to obedience, the wages of sin versus the gift of God, the analogy of being a wife to sin and then becoming a widow, the idea of being carnally minded versus being spiritually minded, and the contrast of walking in accordance with the flesh versus walking in accordance with the Spirit.
Nowhere in these three chapters does the word "nature" occur. I think that the phrase "sin nature" was coined by later theologians to simplify the arguments Paul made in Romans 6-8 and at other places in his writings. Some of the meanings we attach to the phrase "sin nature" seem to me to be Biblically accurate, but some others do not. Part of the reason for this is that the meaning of the English word "nature" has changed since the time of the King James translators at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. To pursue these changes, I would have to go spend some time with the unabridged Oxford dictionary.
Part of the reason I think the phrase "sin nature" is not very instructive is because the concept of "nature" that the King James translators held in 1611 AD didn't exist in antiquity. This can be seen from the variety of Greek words the KJV translators forced together to get the one word "nature". Genesis, "beginning" or "birth", is translated "natural" twice. Variations of phusis, or "physical," are translated "nature" or "natural" most often, while the word psuchikos, or "soulish", is even translated "natural" a few times.
The word pneuma, or "spirit" didn't mean the same thing we think of today, either. To us "spirit" is the substance of a parallel, immaterial cosmos inaccessible to the senses, but that meaning didn't come into popular use until several generations after the New Testament had already been written. I don't know exactly what the word pneuma meant to Paul, but I've got a good idea of what it meant to his readers of Gentile background, and the differences aren't simple.
There were four generally recognized elements, earth, water, air and fire. The literal meaning of pneuma was "wind" or the element air set in motion by being admixed with the element fire. No part of the cosmos was pure except for the region of fire (the heavenlies). The rest of the cosmos consisted of the four elements mixed in different proportions. Pneuma extended throughout the cosmos where it performed four functions, hexis or "habit", phusis or "nature", psuche or "soul" and nous or "mind".
It was by performing the function of hexis that spirit gave form and persistence to all things, both animate and inanimate. Spirit gave growth life and the ability to reproduce to plants, animals, people (earth elementals), demons (air elementals) and gods (fire elementals) through phusis. Psuche was how spirit imparted sentience and the power to move to animals, people, demons and gods. The function of nous was how spirit imparted intelligence to people, demons and gods.
I don't think Paul himself necessarily thought of these things these ways, but the Christians of Gentile background to whom he addressed his letters sure did, and he must have taken that into account as he wrote.
So how would Paul have responded to the question "Did Jesus have a sin nature?" I can honestly say, "I don't know."
THE SHORT ANSWER
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
No.
Was Jesus capable of sinning?
Yes.
At every point in his life, from the time he reached the age of accountability (whenever that was) until he breathed out his last on the cross, he could have decided to disobey God. Did he ever decide to disobey God? No. Thankfully he did not.
Would eating Passover with his disciples before he suffered have been sin?
I believe it would have been. I think Jesus died on the cross at the same time the passover lambs were being slaughtered, and I believe God had a purpose for the timing. If, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus had said, "Yeah, I'm okay with the suffering part, but I'm just gonna put it off a couple of days because I really, REALLY wanna eat Passover with my peeps", that would have been disobedience and sin. Jesus would have risen to the bait, but he didn't. He said, "Not my will, but thine be done." Jesus DECIDED to do his Father's will, even though he didn't want to.
Yes, Jesus was tempted in all things like as we are. But he was also tempted in ways no one else ever has been, thankfully, without sin.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Steve,
The concept that post-lapsarian humans born by natural generation are afflicted with an indwelling, inescapble proclivity and bondange to sin is certainly scriptural. Pelagians, Faustus Socinus and Christadelphians denied/deny this (the denial fits well with the mere-man Christology of the latter two).
Paul wrote:
“but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:23 – NASB)
*****
Quiz for the Day
Identify the person who famously wrote:
“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, or the Academy with the church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our doctrine originates with the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that men must seek the Lord in simplicity of heart. Away with all who attempt to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoicism and Platonism and dialectic!"
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Apparently, Socinians attempted to affirm the reality of sin while denying original sin.
Here is one description of Socinian views about human sin nature and original sin I found at http://www.swordofthespiritbibleministries.com/RJSonnet/RJSonnetNOTES/RJS Notes DS1 Doctrine of SIN_Part1.pdf :
While I find that statement incoherent, it seems at first glance to be a possible attempt to affirm the reality and presence of sin, while denying that the progeny of Adam (by natural generation) stand guilty before God due to Adam's sin, and are necessarily sinful in their own selves because of an inherited (post-lapsarian) Adamic human nature.
*****
Post-lapsarian = after the Fall
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
This is why I declined to articulate to you what I meant by sin nature. Exactly why....I knew it was an invitation to an endless dispute over the meaning of a word.
We are no closer to a sound understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ.....but, we now have a volume on your understanding of a word. That profits us in productive Christian living or faith in a perfect and holy sacrifice...how?
There you have it.....you could have spared your leisure....Jesus was a holy sacrifice. Distinct....in a separate class. ....morally pure....no rivals....perfect.....and not like us...Peter knew it....
But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!
David knew it......because you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
And I know it because........the Holy One of God.....is vindicated or it is articulated by His resurrection.....or the cross...where we find the wisdom of God in perfect sacrifice.
Holy, not once...not twice.....but three times.....holy.
God's holy character, God Himself.....is revealed in Jesus Christ...in His temptation and response.....He is the express image of God.
His wisdom is found in the cross and spotless sacrifice, His glory in the face of Jesus Christ, His mercy in the death, His might in the resurrection, His purpose....in the Alpha and the Omega....
I simply pointed out Jesus holy nature by articulating God's in relation to temptation. When I asked "Did Jesus?" it was rhetorical, to make a point. I never dreamed you would dispute or spend time trying to deny it. Never, that you would say Jesus was drawn away.
His holiness is no longer veiled by an earthly body......which is why we fall down as John does in Revelation. John, who was so familiar with Him. That is the proper response to Jesus when we understand or see His holiness. We can look at Him now through the gospels and see what was then veiled in flesh.
And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last.......
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Tertullian...... :) .... I do know how to Google! Sounded like him anyway.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
when we find out the sin was pure all along...the form remains
wounds and scars become the flawless mistakes of fields of flowers and stars
the demon that was hiding in the shadow becomes an angel once the light of our attention has saturated the location
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I like it.
Much better to be able to face it and deal.
Much easier to keep it stuffed away out of sight.
Much easier to write them off for the very same faults I myself have.
Much easier to think escaping the just results of my faults somehow makes me better than them; or is it still true that in condemning them, I condemn myself.
Much easier to not face my own demons and condemn others for the same.
Much better to see the ugly and somehow manage to lighten that territory.
God's foolishness is stronger than our strength.
His judgements are just, I'm a fool if I think I get them.
I know love and grace when it shakes me to my bones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree. I'm continuing the Tertulian discussion over on the Exegesis vs. Eisegesis thread.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Ter.....WHO?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Tertulian... a third century Wierwillle prototype.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Or better known as one of the church Fathers. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"A living cell is a temporary repository of order purchased at the cost of a constant flow of energy."
So wrote Sylvia S. Mader in Inquiry into Life (12th ed., p. 103), the textbook we used when I took BIO1000 last year. This is a concise, scientific statement about life, but it is every bit as poetic as Genesis 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."
If we substituted the word "soul" for "cell" in the quote from Mader, the two passages would be saying the same thing, except Genesis properly attributes the origin of life to the Lord God. Mader stays silent about life's origin, because science can only speak about things that can be measured, and thus, cannot speak about God.
The "constant flow of energy" for a living cell is provided by the burning of sugar: C6H12O6 + 6O2 => 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy. This process is called "cellular respiration," since it requires that the gas O2 be delivered to the cell, and that the gas CO2 be removed from it. The primary purpose of "the breath of life" is to deliver O2 to a living soul, and to remove CO2 from it.
The word "respiration" comes from the same Latin root as the word "spirit". This Latin word is roughly equivalent to the Greek pneuma and the Hebrew ruach.
When God formed man of the dust of the ground, He arranged the molecules that make up man into a fearful and wonderful order. When He breathed into man's nostril's the breath of life, He set in motion the constant flow of energy that is required to maintain the order of a living soul.
So it was in Genesis 2:7. So it was prophesied in Ezekiel 37. So it was when God raised Jesus from the dead. So it will be with those who are Christ's at His coming!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Earlier, in Luke 20:32-36 we saw that Jesus associated receiving the Spirit of resurrection life and becoming children of God with the age to come. In Luke 18:18-30 we saw that Jesus considered "inheriting eternal life (zoe aionios)", "receiving everlasting life (zoe aionios) in the age to come", "entering into the kingdom of God" and "to be saved" to be synonymous phrases, all meaning essentially the same thing.
Matthew 13:36-43 contains another important passage in understanding our gathering and our resurrection,
"36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares and the field.
"37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
"38 The field is the world [kosmos 'order']; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
"39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world [aion 'age']; and the reapers are the angels.
"40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world [aion 'age'].
"41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather forth out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
"42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
"43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Here we see that the righteous shall shine forth in the kingdom of their Father after the end of this age. This agrees with what we saw in Luke 20, that those who are accounted worthy to obtain that age, after the end of this age, will be the children of God, being children of the resurrection.
More later...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Romans 1:4....who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
When Jesus was raised from the dead it was through the Holy Spirit.( GOD) According to the Spirit of holiness. Christ's works and power are connected to the holiness of the Holy Spirit.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You and I seem to be talking past each other, geisha, like the blind men and the elephant.
Wierwille taught what Jesus Christ is not, and that was a strong error. You have gone on from TWI and learned about the holiness of Jesus Christ. That is valid. I have gone on and learned about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That is also valid. They are both aspects of what Jesus Christ IS. They don't contradict each other. They support each other.
Wierwille disguised the Lordship of Jesus Christ by replicating an eisegetical dodge of smoke and mirrors that distracts people from what the integrity of the Word has to say about Jesus Christ. Wierwille's theology was a thought system of misdirections of attention and deceptive decoys.
The goal toward which I write is to expose the dodges Wierwille used so that people can recognized the current, active Lordship of Jesus in their lives.
One error Wierwille taught is that the Church is a "wholly new thing" rather than the believing remnant of Israel, under the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as the remnant of Israel, by grace through faith.
One of the ploys Darby invented to support a complete and total separation of the Church and Israel was a "pre-tribulation rapture" of the Church. Why? Because the great tribulation was promised to Israel. And the gathering together was also promised to Israel. The biblical phrase "gathering together" couldn't be used, so Darby, or one of his dispensationalist cohorts, substituted the non-biblical word "rapture." They taught that the "rapture" would be for the Church and would happen before the great tribulation, while the gathering together that is taught throughout the Bible as part of our hope will take place after the great tribulation.
This "rapture" dodge has caused no end of confusion for people who try to reconcile it with the various passages of scripture that describe our gathering together unto him (II Thessalonians 2:1).
If we're going to unravel this mess, we have to consider what the Bible says about resurrection... what exactly it is... and when exactly does it happen.
Was Jesus resurrected by the Spirit of holiness? Ezekiel 37 says,
"13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
"14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live..."
If it was God's own Spirit that animated Jesus in His resurrection, I would have to say that is about as holy as a spirit can get. If the same Spirit of resurrection life is going to animate US, then I can't help but agree with you that we also are going to raised by holy Spirit, God's own Spirit. The Spirit of resurrection life that raised Jesus to life WAS the Spirit of holiness.
The gift of holy Spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost is not THE Spirit of resurrection life, it is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:14). It hasn't made US holy yet, just as we will still die if the Lord tarries, but the earnest of our inheritance reminds us that we will be Christ's when He comes. That's when those of us who are already dead will be resurrected and those of us who are still alive will be changed. That's when we will no longer know only in part.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Steve,
Christians don't grope around in the dark for God....they learn about Him from His own self-disclosure.
I am not totally oblivious to what you are saying....I am simply trying to suggest another understanding. Remember...the ultimate goal of exegesis is not to extrapolate, even to interpret, and surely not to wrap things up in neat little theological bow.....but, it is to transform.
What do you mean by "The gift of holy Spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost is not THE Spirit of resurrection life"?
The Holy Spirit....is just that....The Holy Spirit.
He has many ministries and functions.....He empowers(exodus 31:2,3), fills(Ephesians 5:18), guarantees(Ephesians1:14), guards(2nd Timothy 1:14), helps(John 14,15,16), comforts, illuminates(1Corinthians 2:10), indwells(1Corinthians 3:16), intercedes,(Romans 8:26, 27) produces fruit, (Galatians 5:22) Convicts of sin(Genesis 6:3, John 16:8-10), sanctifies or makes holy,(2nd Thess 2:13) seals, (2nd Corinthians 1:22)teaches,(1John 2:20) He is the source of POWER, fellowship, unity, and freedom.
He is personal...just as are the Father and Son...He has intelligence (1 Cor.2:10-11).emotions (Eph.4:30 ) will (1 Cor.2:11).
"The Holy Spirit spoke rightly to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah Acts 28:25....He is God.
For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. Who is the life giving spirit in Christ? The Holy Spirit. We are set free from sin and death.
The Holy Spirit.. is so clearly articulated in the OT.....and Pentecost was the filling, indwelling...or baptism of the Holy Spirit.......the beginning of the church, a distinction in ministry, ....He now dwells in us. It is the Holy Spirit who points us to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Why...is the Holy Spirit who indwells a believer....not the same Spirit who raised Jesus? What do you believe you are indwelt by? Some break away baby piece of God? Your own Holy Spirit? It is the same Spirit who works all in all.....Christ is all in all....the Father is all in all.
What more do you think there is? It is the token, the promise, the seal......the earnest of our inheritance. It is there. When we see Him...
Do you think because God spoke to Ezekiel about raising up Israel and pouring out His Spirit.....we too are waiting for the Holy Spirit? We are raised....seated....purchased......sealed.
What if.....Ezekiel is speaking specifically to Israel as a people....community.....nation...the context is judging nations.....a new order....God will bring life to Israel...reunite Judah and Israel. National restoration. In the future...the Lord will bless His people....send the Holy Spirit. God will judge the nations by Israel....God will be glorified to the nations by Israel... He(the Holy Spirit) points, illuminates, enlightens, and glorifies Jesus Christ....you cannot know Jesus without the Holy Spirit. As the head goes...so goes the people. And they will know...I am their God.
You and I already know He is our God....we know Jesus is Lord....and this we know by the Holy Spirit which indwells us...maybe, what we are waiting for and seeing in part is His glory...which we cannot fully comprehend or be fully in the presence of in our current form.
Dear friends, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is.
His reflected glory...is our glorification. Romans 8
And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created. Christ is the glory of God....
For God, who said "Let light shine out of darkness," is the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in the face of Christ.
Among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.
He (The Holy Spirit)will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.
As for being holy now....we are supposed to be. We are being sanctified. Set apart as a holy people. It is not our own holiness. . . . but His if we belong to Him.
These things run so deep...they are transforming right now.....we see glimpses of God's glory now....we know our God and Savior right now.....but, we only see God in part now....can you just imagine? What a hope...
It is the same Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead....that indwells us now.....we have eternal life now....and when He comes.....our mortal bodies will be changed. We have that promise....everything in its own time. Even if our mortal flesh dies.....we go to be with the Lord....in rest....and wait. God is able...God is faithful.
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
You are talking about animation......scripture speaks of transformation. There is a difference.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Geisha - How do you understand Ephesians 1:12-14?
"12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
"13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
"14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."
What does it mean for the holy Spirit of promise to be the earnest of our inheritance? And what does it mean to be "sealed" with it?
These are probative, not argumentative questions.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.