We'll go with ................... brown.
John
In a message dated 8/21/2004 4:18:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John writes:
I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well.
jt: I didn't post references but they are there. Understanding the fall of man and why God instituted the Mosaic Law to begin with is a good start and from there to New Creation realities. What being born again means and the outworking in a person's life ie walking after the Spirit rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.
Uh?
As far as "another way?" This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law.
jt: What New Law? There is no "new Law" What is new is the Covenant or Testament. It was with Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law.
It is now through Christ and through Him we are to walk after the Spirit and fulfill the "royal law" - Same law. Love fulfills it.
"Where then is our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith." (Ro 3:27) Paul contrasts the old with the new.......obviously.
So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost?
jt: Yes. There are not two gospels. One for this felow (and 3rd world countries) and another for those of us who live in the USA.
True -- just one gospel and just one concern on the part of God -- a concern for the heart of man. The only things a Gentile can do by "nature,' having never heard the requirements of law, are those things that emanate from the heart. Jeff mentioned to Terry that he (Jeff) wanted a biblical answer, not a doctrinal one. Although I thought Terry was talking about a biblical text, still the concern of Jeff is mine, as well. I just say it differently. I really ask for a biblical passage that speaks specifically and succinctly to the point of any conclusion that is of Christian origin or influence. How have you dealt with my comments regarding Ro 2:12-16? You have clearly and undeniably added words not found in the text in order to incorporate this text into your system of belief. As a result, you disregard any exegetical analysis of the text -- something I have found over the years to be common among "holiness" students (they all do this) -- and continue to pit one scripture against another rather than allowing scripture to define scripture.
Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me.
jt: Yours is not a biblical teaching John. To teach that someone can be saved through Christ apart from conviction, confession, and repentance is to walk in massive denial...
Stop right there, young lady (used to say that to my oldest daughter all the time). The text says what it says. The massive denial, here, is your refusal to allow this passage, as it is written, to influence your thinking or amend your Calvinistic theology in any way whatsoever.
(even to the point of negating the ministry of John the Baptist who came to "prepare the
way of the Lord" exhorting people to repent and telling them that if they did not the axe would be laid to the root of the tree (them). Noone gets to carry all their carnal mess into Christ. Not even the gentile in V.15-16.and to go on and claim that this man fulfilled God's Law while still in his sin even more preposterous.
All of the immediate above text (yours) is written because of your refusal to accept what Paul says in 2:12-16, allowing that passage to stand as it is written. If you can add words to the text to get it to say what you want it to say, where do we stop?
And when I say "refusal," maybe that is too strong. I know that you are doing the best that you can. You do not ---- simply do not see the bias that contributes to your point of view. I have bias. Lance does. Iz does. ..........we all do. speaking as a counselor, and this is the first time I am doing this on this forum, we (all) will do what we have to do to protect ourselves from our insecurities. I would have never made it ten minutes into a forum such as this when I was in my twenties. I was wedded to my doctrinal base and on the rare occasion that one more gifted than myself in the science of argument could put me into a corner, well, I would just blow up. Now-a-days, I just change my mind and move on to the next subject. It is so much simpler. My faith is in a Christ (and not what I beleive or think I beieive) who knows that I am trying the best I can; that if I am wrong about something, it might be because of my IQ or poor training in thinking; it is possible that I am not as good a debater as I think I am -- maybe I think too highly of myself ----- on and on, but I am forgiven and this forgiveness gives me all the time in the world to get it right. There is not biblical option to this model.
judyt
