On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:10:12 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John writes:
We'll go with ................... brown. John
In a message dated 8/21/2004 4:18:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 (which is breaking God's Law).
Uh?
jt: One huge problem with the teachings TFT, Kruger, Jonathan and Lance is their lack of understanding concerning the fall of all mankind (along with the creation because of this) in the first Adam - That and the holiness of God.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. Originally it was given to Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law which was nailed to the cross. The Covenant has now been given to 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.
jt: Faith works by love and love is what fulfills God's Law through Christ. Actually faith is also a gift because it is the faith of Christ that we live by .. so it is all grace.
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.jt: I can agree thus far John but here we get to face the reality of Jeremiah 17:9. You see when Adam chose against God in the garden he gave the adversary a doorpoint into the human race by joining himself to darkness. He knew things he hadn't been taught that were notfrom God. His heart was no longer pure.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.jt: John, there comes a point where one must have some "understanding" from God because scripture has to be interpreted in the light of other scripture or else all we will have is one big mass of contradiction and confusion. It is contradiction to say that ALL mankind fell in Adam and that this fall was so serious in God's eyes that it caused a breach with Him so that Adam could no longer walk with Him in the cool of the day, in fact Adam could no longer stay in His garden. Soon we see the first slaughter of animals as God provides skin for A&E to cover themselves followed by the first murderer Cain. Not many generations pass until the imaginations of mens hearts have become so wicked that God has to wipe out the whole known world and start over with one family. Look at the demise of the Canaanite nations. Sin is serious. God didn't give His Law to Moses to make anyone righteous. Sin was atoned for and covered back then by the sacrificial system; God's Law was given to show us what a mess we are and how badly we need a Savior, Redeemer and Advocate. Paul wrote that the Jews had a zeal for God but it was not according to knowledge because they went about trying to establish their own righteousness (by way of the Law). It is impossible for a Gentile (any Gentile) to make it some other way and I can't figure out why you can't see that this makes no sense. There are no nice guys with good hearts .. all humanity is rotten to the core and this is why God made the ultimate sacrifice.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.
jt: You are being legalistic John. I am interpreting scripture in the light of other scripture and Romans 2:12-16 must be interpreted in light of the fall of mankind and God's plan of redemption. For you to claim that this Gentile guy can make it by being kind and being a good guy is denying God's standard of righteousness and holiness (the one that demands blood for the remission of sin) and substituting your own.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.
jt: Lord, please help us. If we can just get past men and theologies in our thinking we might get somewhere. I know the words you are reading John and I read them exactly as they are written. I have no idea what Calvin says about Romans 2:12-16 but I do know there is no way an unregenerate man can do what you claim this man can do because even if it looks right outwardly his motives would be wrong.(Paul knew better than that, the only people who are able to fulfill God's Law from the heart are people who have become partakers of the divine nature; the ones who have been born again and have received new hearts of flesh). I can also say with authority that no humanity ever gets to ascend into heaven without a spiritual birth. Yes Jesus came to save the lost but the other part of the story is that he also came to judge ie. "for judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind" (John 9:39).
(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?
jt: If I allow that text to say what you claim it is saying John I would of necessity negate the seriousness of mankinds fall in Adam, deny that the wages of sin is death, and trivialize the cross of Christ. Why are you so legalistic about the words and yet you are blind to the consequence of what you are claiming. Paul was not saying that this Gentile could just be a good sinner and fulfill God's law.
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.jt: What bias John? I am a Gentile myself. I certainly am not against Gentiles. I have some sinning Gentiles in my family that are nice folk but not of them even come close to fulfilling God's Law.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.jt: That's good John. You must have mellowed as we all have over time but there are some issues that are worth taking a stand on. :)In love of course.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.jt: My question then would be "What Christ is your faith in?" I wonder that about Lance, and Jonathan also because they are always talking about the person of Christ. However, there are a lot of Christs out there. Every cult has their own peculiar flavor and they all say they know Him. I guess the test will come when we learn whether or not He knows them. Judy
judyt
