Re: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?

[Lance Muir]

Well said Slade. Gnostic dualism(s) are present from time to time on TT. Your 'earthy' illustrations help to identify them.   thanks,   Lance  ----- Original Message ----- From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 22:58 Subject: RE: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Hello Terry.   You and I hear different views from the same text. Both you and I realize this. I hold no animosity toward you for your views, and I am pleased to hear you don’t hate me for my views either. This is good. This gives us the privilege to converse down other avenues… some of which we will disagree and some we agree.   In closing this discussion between you and me, I would like to explain the greatest reason we disagree. You compartmentalize Scripture into “Old vs. New.” You contrast what I cannot. This is like someone separating Golden Delicious and Macintosh, saying that both cannot be apples because one is “Macintosh” and the other “Golden Delicious.” I hope I’ve made myself clear here without being vindictive or demeaning. This is not my intent.   We have different worldviews and different mindsets. I know I can learn form your perspective because I have not fallen deeply into the Hellenistic perspective, so “dualism” is something I generally do not perceive (i.e., separation of thing spiritual and things physical). For another instance, you may be one who believes an aesthetic, otherworldly lifestyle is more spiritual than one that involves pleasure and enjoyment. I, on the other hand, believe the enjoyments of life (be it the wonderful taste of food or the pleasure of my wife) are all blessings from God and opportunities for me to bless God; to deny them is to snub God’s blessings. Spirituality to me involves dirty fingernails (if one enjoys gardening), whereas it may involve a very clean, starched white shirt for you.   I look forward to continuing discussions with you. Have a blessed Sabbath and an enjoyable Sunday.   -- slade     -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?   ShieldsFamily wrote: Thanks, Terry.  Glad to hear you aren’t getting old AND grouchy. Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?   ShieldsFamily wrote: Terry, I would appreciate hearing your scriptural basis for your point of view rather than your apparent anger with those who have a different viewpoint, which they have respectfully presented along with their scriptural basis. Izzy No anger Iz.  Just sadness.  I don't know anything about Jeff.  He may be just a little confused, or he may be as screwed up as they come.  In any event, I wish him the best and hope someday he truly understands as well as he thinks he does. I have nothing but respect for Slade.  I think that he is serious about what he believes, and I think he probably tries to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord.  Yet I cannot respect what he is teaching.  Anytime anyone says that it is Jesus plus Torah, they are teaching in error, what Paul calls false teachers, and false teaching hurts the cause of Christ, whether or not it is done in good faith. Can I prove this?  I believe I can, but of course I am biased, so you must decide for yourself after considering what I offer. Let's start with something Slade and I recently discussed very briefly -  the parables of the wineskin and the new patch.  I think it is obvious that Jesus was speaking to people who were familiar with both wineskins and new wine, as well as old and new cloth.  He was not teaching a class on how to age wine or how to repair garments.  He was using these things because people knew about them and could relate to them.  He said, using my own paraphrase, "You can't put new wine in an old stiff animal skin; one that is dried and cracked, because the new wine, as it ferments, will give off gas that will cause pressure that the old bag cannot withstand.  It will burst if you try it.  You will lose everything -  the wine skin and the wine.  If you have a new batch of wine, you put it in a new, strong, flexible wine skin that can handle the pressure".  Then He said, " You don't take a new piece of cloth and use it to patch a hole in your clothing, (no Sanforizing in those days) because the new cloth will shrink and tear the old cloth where it is sewn together, and the hole will be larger than ever."  What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything.  Jesus did not come to patch up something old.  He came to make something totally new, something called a Christian, a new creature in Christ. I said that I thought the above was obvious, so you will want to know why I see this as obvious.  The answer is this.  There is no way to fit the old covenant into the new covenant and there is no way to fit the new covenant into the old covenant.  You would have a better chance of success if you mixed oil and water.  Just a glance at either tells you immediately that the two are so contrary to one another that they cannot possibly co-exist.  Under the old covenant, hereafter simply referred to as OC, you had one nation, Israel, out of all the nations, that could approach God.  Of that nation, only one tribe could be priests.  Of all the priests, only one could enter the presence of God, and him only one day a year.  Under the new covenant, all believers are priests, and can approach God anyplace, any time, 24/7. During the OC, when you went to the temple, you found that everything to do with worship was handled by the Levites.  The NC picture of the Church shows Jesus as the cornerstone, the apostles as the foundation, and every believer as a living stone.  There are no Levites. In the OC, the Holy Spirit was only given to selected individuals, for a specific purpose, for a limited time.  Under the NC, every believer receives the Holy Spirit at the moment that he or she is saved. The OC  law of Moses made no allowance for failure. (Whoever shall keep the whole law of Moses, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.)  The NC promises that we can do all things thru Christ, and if we fail, we have a redeemer.  Under the OC, the only way to be righteous was to be totally compliant with 600 plus rules.  Under the NC, we are considered righteous, not because of what we have done, but because of what our Savior has done. We could go on and on with endless comparisons, but you get the idea, I am sure; the law is not compatible with grace.  When you stand before the throne, the question will not be "Did you eat pork, or did you tithe?  It will be, what did you do with Christ?" That is why Paul says in Romans 7:4 that believers have become dead to the law because Christ has saved us.  The law has no hold on the follower of Christ.  We do not have six hundred rules, we have two.  Love God, love one another.  Being a gentile, I was never under the law to begin with, but in that same verse, Paul also tells us that those who seek righteousness by keeping the law can only bear fruit unto death. If this seems like some radical new thinking, let me point out that Abraham was saved by faith, not by keeping a clipboard under his arm to check for proper response to every situation.  He got by fine before the law, just as we get by fine after the law. (The law was in effect until the Seed came, Gal.3:19 )  Have to cut it off now and jump in the shower, but this should give you at least a good start if you want to pursue the truth. Blessings, Terry