|
Post by socalexile on Apr 21, 2019 7:33:32 GMT -6
For future reference:
The context of Romans 6 is Christians suing other Christians in secular court. Paul is telling them not to do it and mentions that list as something against the world, not the Christians in the church. P
As others have pointed out in this thread, if you look at that list with Matthew 5 in mind, along with Colossians 3:5/Romans 2:22, it condemns everyone. However, read the next verse:
6:11 And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
-We are washed (given a clean conscience) by the ressurrection of Christ in 1 Peter 3:21 -We are sanctified (set apart/made holy) by the offering of Jesus on the cross in Hebrews 10:10 -We are Justified by faith in Christ (Romans 4:5; 5:1)
None of this has to do with the flesh whatsoever. This is about spiritual well-being. As Paul stated in Romans 6:11, "Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord."
Here, "reckon" is the same word translated as "impute" or "credit" in Romans 4:
Now if we look at Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8, sin is very much tied to conscience, both ours and others. Sin is not about the flesh, it's about the spirit (as in Matthew 5 and Genesis 3). Yes, this means that intentions DO matter. We're not to bring sin upon another person. The irony is that Paul uses the example of eating meat in Romans 14 - and basically in modern contexts means that we are to be vegans around the vegans (see 1 Corinthians 9:20-22). I'm not saying we should be gay around the gays, but that pointing fingers and judging them by the Law does not go along with the Bible, lest we be judged by the Law ourselves, which is another reason that American churches are dying. They're too busy railing against sinners for being sinners while they themselves commit sins such as gossip and other spiritual abuse, along with sins concerning sex, money, and influence.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 21, 2019 9:26:46 GMT -6
socalexile said: I realize how fallen we all are, I am no exception. We are to be all things to all men, yet not participate in sin or sinful activity. Eating meat or not eating meat, neither is sinful in God's eyes (right? - I cant think of any examples in the Word, unless sacrificed to idols). I struggle with trying to explain this to people. Yes homosexuality is a sin, an abomination in fact and should not be a lifestyle of someone who names the the name of Christ.
How do you (SoCal) articulate this to people you have discussions with? How do you separate the sin that we don't intend to do or sometimes struggle with, when asked.
For example recently an acquaintance of mine asked me flat out "is being gay wrong?" Now although I do not know for sure, but I am about 97% sure this man is gay. My wife met him once and thought so too. However I did not give him an emphatic "YES - repent or die!" or something like that. I believe he was expecting me to say that. I encouraged him to read the bible and ask God what He thinks. I didnt want him to feel like God already hated him, but at the same time I struggled with not say "yes it is".
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Apr 21, 2019 14:01:52 GMT -6
socalexile said: I realize how fallen we all are, I am no exception. We are to be all things to all men, yet not participate in sin or sinful activity. Eating meat or not eating meat, neither is sinful in God's eyes (right? - I cant think of any examples in the Word, unless sacrificed to idols). I struggle with trying to explain this to people. Yes homosexuality is a sin, an abomination in fact and should not be a lifestyle of someone who names the the name of Christ.
How do you (SoCal) articulate this to people you have discussions with? How do you separate the sin that we don't intend to do or sometimes struggle with, when asked.
For example recently an acquaintance of mine asked me flat out "is being gay wrong?" Now although I do not know for sure, but I am about 97% sure this man is gay. My wife met him once and thought so too. However I did not give him an emphatic "YES - repent or die!" or something like that. I believe he was expecting me to say that. I encouraged him to read the bible and ask God what He thinks. I didnt want him to feel like God already hated him, but at the same time I struggled with not say "yes it is". What I posted above is in a thread asking whether LGBT culture tearing apart Christianity. I don't think it is, I think religion is tearing apart churchianity. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, when He was talking about adultery and murder, stated in so many words that it is not the act that brings in sin - the act is the result of sin; meaning the actual sin is present in the heart. Is eating meat sacrificed to idols a sin? Most modern Christians might say "yes"; but Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 says that meat is nothing of itself, and neither are idols. However, if it causes another Christian to lose his faith, then he wouldn't eat any meat. Likewise, in modern churches, some things are sin that aren't really sin, like smoking; but if everyone were to follow Paul's teaching, then the smoker shouldn't smoke at church and the anti-smoker shouldn't condemn, lest either stumble in their faith. So as far as homosexuality, it's tough these days to walk the line. On the one hand we want to welcome and love others, even though we might not like what they are doing. At the same time, we should be careful that our behavior doesn't cause another to stumble. The problem is though that many homosexuals don't have feelings for the opposite sex, so they feel isolated and hopeless, especially within Christian moralism. What people seem to miss though is laid out in Romans 7: For centuries churches have preached Law, Law, Law and not Christ. They still preach Law today and just tag it with Christ's name. Yet the Bible above states that this INCREASES sin. This is the same principle that led to the failure of prohibition, the Drug War, the 60's revolution, the culture war etc. In fact, if you look at church history, the modern abuses aren't new, they're what inspired the Reformation in the first place with Jan Hus. However, the Reformers were often worse, such as John Calvin's burnings in Geneva, and even Luther's railings against the Jews contributed to the Holocaust. Now we have this thing with LBGTQ, which isn't tearing apart Christianity. Churchianity is being torn apart; actual Christianity is doing just fine.
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Jun 21, 2021 7:56:00 GMT -6
Thinking a lot on John 8 lately. I've updated my thinking and I'm looking to see who else has caught this and taught it.
Updated version:
Thoughts on John 8:1-11
8:1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
8:2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them.
8:3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,
8:4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"
8:6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear them.
8:7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
8:8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
8:9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
8:10 When Jesus had lifted Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
Now a lot of people like to quote part of the last verse very inconsistently with the rest of the New Testament, but we’ll get into that later.
Was Jesus telling her to follow the Law perfectly (since sin is transgression of the Law according to 1 John 3:4), and never sin again? This is what most people who have quoted this verse to me are implying without saying it.
Let's examine the situation here. Those who considered themselves experts among the Jews on the Law brought this woman to be judged by Jesus in accordance to the Law. Of course, adultery was a capital offense according to the Mosaic Law, the trap was that according to Roman Law, the Jews couldn't enact capital punishment, and the Romans had no law against adultery.
Now the first thing Jesus did when confronted by the Law is profound. He wrote on the ground. People have wondered what He wrote, but if it were important to John's point, it would have been written. What is important is that He wrote with His finger. Being that He was in the temple at the time, the ground was stone. There is a previous event involving the Law, stone, and a finger:
Exodus 31:18 "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God"
So Jesus, by writing on the ground in the Temple with His finger when confronted by a ruling on the Law, is indicating subtly that He is the Giver of the Law to Moses. He is doing this because of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32:
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Keep in mind that the Mosaic Law is ONE Law. It is not 613 laws, or three sets of laws. It is a package deal; as is mentioned in these passages:
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is [d]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is [a debtor to keep the whole law.
James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
So by being the giver of the Law to Moses, God - in the flesh of Jesus Christ - is the only One that can do away with it.
By telling them "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first", He's revealing that they are transgressing the Mosaic Law by not following what it said about how she was to be tried. One of the things about their attempt to trap Jesus with the Law was that they weren't following the Law themselves. First, the man was to be brought as well (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), and there are to be at least two witnesses (Deut. 19:15, 17:5-6), and if pronounced guilty, those witnesses were to throw the first stones (Deut. 17:7). So even the men who represented the Law were guilty of violating it themselves and thus disqualifying themselves from being judges of the Law! As such they've transgressed the Law and are sinners themselves. Realizing this, they left.
Now verses 10-11 is where it gets interesting. Jesus, having vanquished the accusation of the Law, asks the woman where her accusers have gone, and what is there to condemn her. She replies that there is nothing. And this is the most profound, the Giver of the Law, the only One qualified to judge the sins of man, says, "Neither do I condemn you"!
So let's break this down:
1. The Law, represented by the Scribes and Pharisees in this passage, tried to condemn a lawbreaker, but couldn't, because they were imperfect themselves. Just as the Law was imperfect and could only condemn (Hebrews 7:18-19). It could make no one righteous.
2. Jesus reveals Himself as the One who gave Moses the Law on Mt. Sinai. Meaning that Jesus is truly God in the flesh; thus, only He is qualified to judge the Law and condemn others.
3. Yet Jesus vanquished the Law due to its imperfection.
4. When the woman realized that the Law had been vanquished and she no longer stood condemned, the Giver of the Law did not condemn her, and said an incredibly profound thing, "Go and sin no more".
So, was Jesus telling her to go back to the Law after He had removed it, essentially reversing what He had just done? May it never be! He was telling her that, with the Law removed, the offense was gone as well!
Sin in the New Testament is not about the letter, it is about our conscience. Again, Paul makes interesting statements about the Law in his epistles. It increases sin (Romans 5:20), it is the strength of sin (1 Cor 15:56), the 10 Commandments were a "ministry of death" (2 Cor 3:7) and is passing away (2 Cor 3:11) it is not made for Christians (1 Tim. 1:8-9), who are dead to it (Gal. 2:19; Romans 7:1-4), it was abolished in Christ (Eph. 2:15) and it was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). Paul also states that anything not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23), and the Law is not of faith (Gal. 3:12).
If the Law was perfect, we would no longer have a conscience of sin (Hebrews 10:2), yet Christ made us perfect by faith (Hebrews 10:10-14), and thus we can have no more consciousness of sins, we are even to impute ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11, 7:1-4).
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Jun 23, 2021 6:52:30 GMT -6
The Parable of the Sower
This passage is often mislabeled "the parable of the soils". That's because the most common explanation of this passage is that it is the responsibility of the soil to be good soil. If it's not, then the soil is evil and the sower has no responsibility to do anything at all other than to throw out seeds and curse the soil for it's failure. Or at least that's how many preachers treat the people in the pulpits - they toss out the Word and if it doesn't get the results they want, they curse the ground, go inside and slam the door without bringing in any fruit and accepting no responsibility for it's failure.
Any good gardener will tell you that to have a long-term successful garden, don't focus on growing plants or fruit - you focus on growing the soil. It goes beyond just dumping some bagged dirt labeled "soil" from a store, which more often than not isn't very good. It involves initial tilling of the soil, removing the rocks, adding the right amendments to build a good balance of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, adding compost, lime, fertilizer, etc. and putting in beneficial bacteria so that the plants can process the nutrients, keeping the birds distracted, and weeding throughout the growing season.
While the disciples back then didn't know about nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, they did know that a successful sower needed to prepare the soil first , and care for it as it grows - and that's what Jesus is telling us here. If we want to be successful, we need to add some depth, remove the cares of the world, and keep the word from being snatched away by those that often roost in the church (see the Parable of the Mustard Seed).
I originally read this explanation from a free grace believer who was a prison Chaplain and an Addictions Treatment Counselor. He said that the biggest challenges he faced in the prisons was removing all the bad doctrines that were often spread by other Chaplains and volunteer ministries who were often of a Pentecostal background, "the majority of the inmates believed the message that these sowers were spreading. Works for salvation, you can lose your salvation, only good boys and girls (soil) goes to heaven, all the rest go to Hell". It was challenging job for him, but God was able to make him stand.
Pastors and preachers, grow your soil.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 23, 2021 6:56:12 GMT -6
Two thumbs up socalexile - I think you shared something like this a few years back and it has stuck with me since. Thank you brother!
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Oct 13, 2021 9:24:04 GMT -6
I'll also add to the Parable of the Sower that the natural function of fruit is to spread the seed and grow the next generation.
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Dec 7, 2021 9:32:24 GMT -6
A thought I had this morning: an answer to the question "then where did God come from"?
This is not a scientific assertion but a philosophical thought experiment.
Take the puzzle of quantum physics summed up with Schrodinger's Cat, where cat in a box is not dead or alive until you open the box and look at it, and then it exists in a state that it always had at that moment. The quantum world does not operate according to material physics, especially in regard to time.
Quantum physics is a hot topic it seems. The simple premise in this post is that some scientists believe that our reality is emergent from quantum reality.
Time is essentially a material construct - there exists another reality that our material universe emerges from that is not bound to our concepts of time.
Apply that knowledge to the concept of evolution that so many now believe, where life developed over time from simple to complex, only take away the concept of time. Thus you have something that has reached the peak of realized potential, only it was always at that point, since "reached" implies time. It eternally exists at what Aristotle thought of as 'maximum actuality'.
|
|