Becoming a Fundamentalist: An Interview with Randy White – Grace Evangelical Society

A link to Dr Randy White's book Why I am a Fundamentalist: and you should be too!
Amazon.com

Seems like there are quite a few Randy Whites, but this is the Randy White in the article.
https://dispensationalpublishing.com/about-us/dr-randy-white-founder-and-ceo/

Say it aint so said:

Odd...not one passage from the purported mouth of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Its all from Christ. He is God and God inspired Paul to write those words. Therefore that is what Christ wanted Paul to write. He did not ask Paul to write things that he did not approve of.

fhansen said:

It depends on what you mean here. No one's been speaking of doing it by one's own merit. Christ is our righteousness, both our model-showing that it can be done- and our empowerer, enabling us, by grace, to do it as well. To the extent that we're near to and fellowshipping with God, we will begin to act like Him, or as He would if he were human (Jesus), or as He desires us to be and to act in any case. To the extent that we sin, especially in particularly grevious manner, then we've already abandoned Him and the love that is intrinsic to that relationship, that union. The righteousness that comes with justification, IOW, is not merely imputed or declared, but given. And if we're honest with ourselves we know that we can still fail to live by it, by the Spirit. The gift:

Click to expand...

Christ is a model but this needs to be qualified as to how far that model extends. I suspect what you mean is Christ is a model so far as it pertains to the things you value in your faith. For example, Christ was circumcised physically; therefore, as a model, should we not be circumcised physically? Christ died for our sins; therefore as a model, should we too die for the sins of others? Christ radically challenged the de facto interpretation of the law of the day, so as a model, should we not radically challenge the de facto interpretation of the law too? How far does this modelship go? Simply calling Christ a model is not a mic drop as it's a loaded statement and used only to prop up whatever it is you're trying to prop up.

As it pretains to Sabbath law, Christ shows us as a model of Sabbath that it is better to do good (Mat 12:12). So rather than plan to have a ritual rest on the Sabbath day, it is better to plan to do good (even if that involves work) but no one whats to admit that logic and would rather keep their sabbath day as the 4th has instructed them to, rather than actively seek goodness as Christ has modeled.

fhansen said:

There was a new-found freedom from the law, for sure, But from the beginning the churches carried the 10 commandments down through time with them as a requirement, even if only to spell out and emphasize the way a truly reborn Spirit-empowered person should behave. The law in that sense has no power or purpose for one who is truly Spirit-led. But it still serves as a tutor, showing that we're not being led by the Spirit to the extent that we're engaging in serious sin; as we've strayed. As to the 4th commandment, the early church in both the east and west obviously felt free to observe a new day as set aside for rest and worship of God. This is a practice that they would not have changed on their own, however, but which could only have been received.

Click to expand...

Paul uses this same example, calling the law a tutor. But he doesn't bifurcate law (such as things is foreign in scripture). Gal 3:24-25 says "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." The law can certainly show us moral action, but it should not function as our guide to a moral foundation and if it does we will end up missing the point. I may not kill, not steal or not lie to my neighbour, all law-keeping things, but I also may actively hate him and have a motivation towards him that is incompatible with Christian living, all while saying the law is my tutor so I am justified. You may say the law is your tutor, but in practice, the law is not informing you of your moral action (since the product of the 10 is too superficial) but something much deeper is.

I suspect the thing that keeps you fixated on the law is the 4th commandment so you have to maintain this false dichotomy of law to prop up the 10 and smuggle them into the NC. Resisting harming my neighbour is not actually that hard to do (I can just ignore him and I can easily accomplish that) and this is all that the 10 require of us. Actively seeking my neighbour and loving him as myself is a lot harder to do and goes beyond the 10. So are we really informed by the 10 or is it something else? I do hope (for your neighbour's sake) it is something else. So what informs you of the Sabbath? well if you keep the sabbath day, then certainly you're trying to align with the law (in a modern contextual way no doupt since sabbath-keeping today would require a off-the-grid action) but if the rest of law is not informing your of your actions (you understand it's not just about not killing people) then why is it the 4th has this crucial role? Does the not 4th/Sabbath point to Christ? Is not Christ the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning he has authority over it? The 10 communicates these values in Christ but in ignorance and unrevealed. Why would you hold on to those value? I do not seek simply to not cause harm to my neighbour, or not have idols in my house. But I actively seek a relationship with God and my loving my neigbour, all of which the 10 does not tell me to do.

stevevw said:

OK so what does it look like. Does it look like a straight edged copper saw did this. How did the orthodox method cut this.

Ok so your saying someone came along in 1934 and polished all the stones. This is what I mean in how every other explanation that will conform with the orthodoxy is believed except the most likely one. In fact I gave you the tests which showed it was a thin glassy type covering that contain unnatural chemistry.

You admit that it looks vitrified. But your explanation is polished. Where is the evidence. Where is the peer review lol.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it, I didn't say that they were polished. I pointed out a possible alternative explanation that the researchers have to show is less likely than their own explanation.

stevevw said:

Because there is no record or evidence of someone going around in the 1930s or any modern time and it would have to be post industrial age. Thats if massive machines could have been secretly brought in to Giza. Or some polishing at an industrial level missed being recorded in modern times.

Archeologist acknowledge this is ancient and not a forgery. But I can understand how the provenance cop out is used as you cannot account for the fact that it is genuine. So forgery is the next best counter.

And its been checked and its genuine. See this is where the rubber hits the road and we begin to pin down exactly what evidence skeptics have. It looks like all these have is exactly what they accuse myself and others of doing. Making claims without any evidence. Avoiding the obvious facts so that the orthodoxy is maintained.

You don't have to make an appeal. The works and signatures are the witness marks that are making that appeal.

Click to expand...

They haven't shown that the most likely explanation is that the ancients had an lost technology or knowledge. That is the researchers job.

stevevw said:

It then comes down to whether they are from the ancients. You claim it could be a forgery and the expert archeologists say its not. That its as old as the works. There is absolutely no evidence of modern forgeries so don't use that as an excuse to avoid the facts.

This is just another way of dismissing the obvious evidence right before your eyes. First your admitting that you don't know and are appealing to a subjective experience according to you. That could mean anything. You may not have the experience of an expert. So its meaningless. Especially considering the demands place on me to provide such a high level of evidence.

Click to expand...

If they want to be convincing they need to get it into the journals after peer-review.

stevevw said:

But none of this explains how a straight edged copper saw and abrasion can cut an arc. Or how the thin edge left at the ebnd of the cut against the uncut rock is thinner than the copper blade let alone the extra stone ground out from abrasion. Nor how a hand held straight edged copper saw could cut a 20 foot long and narrow cut across the stone wall while also cutting curves in the stone at the same time.

These are the signatures that tell us that a hand held copper saw was impossible. Unless you can create some unreal explanation of how straight saws cut arcsand can cut around bends and along curved surfaces.

Yet you can make all these claims without peer review. Therefore everything that you or anyone says that disputes what I am saying is also of little value and the claims that there is no advanced and lost knowledge is of little value and a conspiracy just as much as those they accuse.

Click to expand...

Of course, it is the actual archeological field that needs to be convinced for widespread acceptance.

stevevw said:

The scale is there. The cut or what looks like a thin layer was shaved off the surface (don't you think so). As it runs along the top of what looks like a rock wall. Its around 12 inches wide and 20 foot long. How on earth could a hand saw cut that. Remembering that the surface is not flat but moves up and down and has no evidence of restarting. Rather a long continious cut.

Explain how this can happen. This is where the rubber hits the road and we don't need peer review as its right there before our eyes.

I am saying this does not even get into the traditional journals lol. Imagine trying to present the idea that there was advanced knowledge with some sort of machining.

Click to expand...

So don't say that they are being kept out if they haven't even tried to get it published.

stevevw said:

We don't need peer review. People already acknowledge that they looked machined or softened. Even skeptics accidently admit this when they then try to explain this away as forgeries. They are admitting they look too modern lol.

Click to expand...

No, that is an overinterpretation on your part. Presenting alternative hypothesis is not the same as saying they look to modern.

stevevw said:

So we already have the evidence right before our eyes. Experts I presented with knowledge of machining explain how this is like machining and could not be the traditional methods. As far as I and many others are concern the case is closed. We have clear evidence of an alternative and advanced knowledge that contradicts the orthodoxy.

Or at the very least enough evidence to suggest this is the case and warrants further investigation. Rather than being fobbed off as conspiracy or psuedoscience.

I disagree. There was complete resistence at first that this was all conspiract like Hancock has been made out to be. Now we can say at least some of the evidence supports that there was alternative and even advanced methods if the findings and clear observations hold up. So its not conoluted but a reality.

Click to expand...

There are no clear observations.

stevevw said:

Yup claimed that someone may have come along in 1934 and created the vitrified stones. To me thats more or less admitting that the stones look like they must have had some sort of modern intervention.

Click to expand...

Or have been struck by lighting, or scared in a accidental fires or....

stevevw said:

Its strange how you have completely ignored explaining how exactly in your opinion that this was created by a hand saw and abrasion. But just appeal to experience which to me says nothing. Especially if people are demanding peer review or scientific support. Its a double standard I think.

Click to expand...

You obviously think what you want in any case.

stevevw said:

If you disagree then why don't you explain why. Explain how this does not look like machining and was created by the traditional method. Even the fact there is an obvious arc cut in the stone is just ignored.

Anyone would immediately recognise this initially as something a planer or router or circular saw would leave and not a straight edged saw. So I fail to see that you have even looked at this proerly or just skipped over parts to really have a clear position to disgree with me in the first place.

Click to expand...

Ok. You can believe what you want.

stevevw said:

Like I said the first step is to admit what is before your eyes. What it looks like and not what you think may have caused it to make it look like that. For example the arc cut. You may assume it was created by hand. Making a precise arc in the stone for some reason.

But what do arcs, super thin and straight line cuts, cuts super flat and around bends or over undulating surfaces leaving a thin and smooth finish like it was shaved. What do those signatures usually represent when we see them. The obvious answer that just about everyone will admit is that they look exactly like what machining leaves. Not what hand held small tools leave.

Then you get into the rediculous idea that the ancients someone wanted to creatye signatures that look like maching by hand. In rocks that are never used like they were testing the cuts. Somehow they made router cuts by hand to make them look like planers and routers. Thats more unreal that having advanced knowledge lol. It also dumbs down the ancients.

Click to expand...

Who has argued this?

stevevw said:

Only because I explain and reason why the images and signatures look like machining and how this clear and obvious evidence is not even admitted. When you just say "in my experience or opinion" and then don't give any explanation that is the same as fobbing off the images and signatures. Not not just disagree but also not engaging to explain why.

I don't care about the journals and peer review to determine what an image with obvious witness marks looks like. If you cannot even admit this and engage in explain why you think it does not look like its machined then what is the use lol. We cannot even get past step 1 let along peer review.

Click to expand...

Normally you don't present the data to non-experts before you write the article and send it to the journal. Upon acceptance they can ask you to put a link on social media.

stevevw said:

I agree and thats a good approach. I am not saying I am 100% confident and as we have seen if this is partly a matter of subjective opinion then how could anyone be confident. You claim the images don't even look like machining and I and many others do. I eman thats the first step in science in acknowledging the observations.

I think there is clear and obvious evidence for some sort of advanced and alternative methods that produced these lookalike machine marks. We have done experiments with machining and hand cutting and the nand cutting looks completely different.

But not just that you don't need peer review or experients to know that for example a straight edged nad saw cannot cut an arc, around bends or along undulating surfaces taking off a super thin layer. But you cannot even see this so whats the use.

Thats why I am going back to the basics. To the first step of simple observational science. First acknowledging exactly what we see. You say it does not look like machining and more like the orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it is done by the ortodox methods. I'm just not convinced that machining is a better fit for the data.

stevevw said:

So lets go from there. You need to explain why the signatures fit the orthodoxy. I just explained some difficult if not impossible cuts and signatures the orthodoxy could do.

Click to expand...

I really don't need to.

stevevw said:

Because you make a claim that its caused by the orthodoxy when I see obvious marks that are not the case and you don't give any explanation or address the obvious marks.

Click to expand...

I don't make that claim.

stevevw said:

Until you can explain this my point stands. Until you can explain for example how the orthodoxy can make arc, planing and router marks with the crisp, sharp and fine edges like machining. Which grinding cannot do. Then I have to assume you have no answer.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

stevevw said:

Yes they are. Can the stories of miracles, and supernatural events and knowledge by corroborated. Same thing. If the ancients knowledge exists within the realm of the spiritual or conscious experiences that transcedent material science. How can they be corroborated.

Click to expand...

So how do you purpose to differentiate between stories that depict what actually happened from those that had a some different function?

stevevw said:

Therefore we know that knowledge does come from this realm and has changed the world and reality. So we have to at the very least be open to listening and investigating this knowledge through the experiences, beliefs and stories. You cannot say because this cannot be corroborated by a certain methology (material/naturalism science). That it must be dismissed.

Yes, where the subject or observer has to step back, remove themselves and their experiences from the equation. Two comeletely different ways to knowledge. But they could end up at the same place. In fact the direct experiences may be the real knowledge.

Ok but do you think others can. Like Christians or any spiritual or conscious experience of the world and reality. Or are you saying all the belief and stories and experiences expressed for millenia from all cultures around the world has or never brings knowledge that transcends what we see in the material sense and the scientific method.

Well there you go, we have evidence of knowledge that transcends the material world through lived reality.

Click to expand...

What? There is nothing transcendental with lived reality, it is like all other knowledge.

stevevw said:

Its the conforming to something objective I disagree with. Yes when it comes to measuring that which falls within the material and can be objectively (outside the observer) established.

But what about all the experiences that don't have an objective basis. I mean you can do meta analysis to find common cognitions and behaviour that may show its a real phenomena. That belief in gods or spirituality is a real natural human condition.

But how do you prove subjective conscious experiences. Like I showed with the thought experiment of 'Colorblind Mary'. No amount of knowledge about the material processes could explain or bring Mary the experience of Red for the first time. She gained new transcedent knowledge .

Click to expand...

That philosophical argument is not seen as slam dunk among philosophers, so how you think that it proves anything is really strange.

stevevw said:

They are exactly appropriate for this thread. As you say they are well established sciences. As mentioned above they can show that religion, belief in gods, the supernatural, the transcedent aspects are as natural to humans as any material aspect.

Click to expand...

The name of the sub forum is physical and life sciences.

stevevw said:

So already we have evidence that its natural that humans exist within this realm and its real and it brings real knowledge of reality and can change the world. Its just a case of then researching what exactly it is within this domain that is the knowledge. How it fits into the bigger picture.

Have not I already linked these. I know I did on this thread. Maybe not to you. I can't remeber. Man How many times do I have to keep doing this lol.

Let me check. Actually they are within the articles I linked. The articles reference them as part of their support. I did not just link magazine or blog sites without the links to the papers.

Click to expand...

For vitrified stone? Give the post number if you don't wish to link them again.

Philip_B said:

A clearly invested source accuses others of not neuteral. Whilst I deplore the state of journalism worldwide, with a predisposition to advocate for positions rather than to provide information, I would not see Meir Amit as a source of information that was not geared to heavily side with the Israeli Defence Force.

Click to expand...

The bitter truth is that there is no independent journalism in Gaza. Every photographer, every cameraman, every reporter works under the thumb of Hamas. The terrorist organisation's Government Media Office controls filming permits, access and topics with an iron fist. Without Hamas' consent, no images from detention cellars, no recordings of looted aid supplies, no evidence of the recruitment of minors are ever made public.

International teams have not been granted entry permits for a long time. The few exceptions are closely supervised visits under military escort. In this way, Hamas determines which images the world gets to see and Western editorial offices willingly swallow this curated reality.

Belk said:

You presume intimacy .

Click to expand...

I have no control over your hallucinations or incantations.

Belk said:

Do you think generalities do not include specifics?

Click to expand...

Do you think it's okay to be deceitful toward people's remarks? It's not. And thats No matter if many people with power do support such a flagrancy, it's still an Evil deed to falsely accuse humans of any Acts. I'm pretty sure I deemed only a type of politics "Evil and satanic" and I never called any humans evil and satanic.

I'm starting to feel like Trump at the DNC. LOL

Belk said:

I'm certain this is a witty retort, but I'm afraid I don't understand it.

Click to expand...

Well then, just pretend like I meant whatever you feel like claiming that I meant... it seems to be a popular way to treat my remarks here

Please pray for my aunt who was sick recently.

God bless

May they rest in peace and rise to glory!

Michie said:

Nick Reiner put on suicide watch after his arrest in parents' deaths

Nick Reiner 'is under supervision of the jail mental evaluation team' at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility, a law enforcement insider confirmed to Daily Mail Monday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Click to expand...

Imagine the guilt he must be feeling- if he has a conscience. That must be a monster to deal with.

Glory to God!

God bless you!

Wolseley said:

Now there are reports coming out that Nick Reiner was attempting a "transgender conversion" and was pumped full of synthetic hormones in preparation for a sex change. Whether the hormones had anything to do with driving him over the edge is unknown.

Click to expand...

Yikes!

I wonder if you would be better in a church with musical instruments. The fact that you like the sermons, enjoy saying prayers and are concerned about the issue makes me think that it is probably the wrong church for you, rather than that you are falling away. However I might be wrong. I would pray that the Lord leads you to where He wants you to be and that you find Spirit-filled worship as well as Biblically-based sermons and good fellowship. God bless.

Owlette said:

Hey, did you end up going?

My 20 year was this past summer too. I kind of wanted to go, but they ended up moving the original date they had in August, to Labor Day weekend, and I ended up not going. I found out that none of my friends went anyway. I kind of want to go to one eventually, just to see people again, but I think only 20 people out of over 300 went this time, even with it being the 20 year. It seems most people in my class don’t care about going. Kinda sad, lol.

Click to expand...

Nah I didn't go, it was kind of the same situation as you. Our classes sound pretty similar actually, I think all of my friends have no sentimentality towards high school or anything else from their lives growing up here. None of my friends went, they all live in other states or countries. Plus they (the coordinators) made it "too much". Like Friday night was our high school's homecoming football game so they arranged for everyone to go to that. Then Saturday was a family picnic in the park, and Saturday night was the actual reunion party at the event space of a local restaurant.

I just couldn't justify any of it, especially since I work seven days a week anyway. I wasn't gonna take unpaid time off or burn a sick day to go to something where most of the folks wouldn't know or remember me.

Maybe I'll go to my 30th or 40th. By then my kids will be easier to leave with a sitter (or they won't need one at all), at the time they were 2.5 and six months and leaving them with my parents or step kids is tough cause the kids are a handful.

ThatRobGuy said:

Noting again, it's not that a bunch of moderates voted for Trump, it's that a lot of moderates didn't vote for the other team.

View attachment 374572

View attachment 374573

The R team gained 3 million voters, the D team lost over 6 million...

That's a lot of people "sitting that one out"

155 million voters came out for 2020
152 million came out for 2024

Evidently I'm not alone on that, I'm joined by 3 million other people.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how this refutes the polling results on the reasons Trump was elected?

Dolphin Tale.

Dikaioumenoi said:

You are effectively reasoning in reverse: John 6:44 cannot mean X because X would conflict with what you already believe Scripture must teach elsewhere. That is not exegesis; it is harmonization by bare assertion.

Click to expand...

Why would that be, especially regarding a Book that’s not intended or structured as a catechism, often not at all perspicuous, and seemingly vague or ambiguous or even contradictory in places? In any case, reading Scripture under the counsel of all of it while also not disregarding the testimony of early Christians is not only possible, but essential.

Dikaioumenoi said:

If your understanding of the rest of Scripture is accurate, you ought to be able to show how John's syntax here fits within it, not excuse yourself from addressing it.

Click to expand...

I did address it, I stated the true meaning based on the fuller counsel of Scripture and the understanding of Christianity from the beginning.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Appealing to Matt. 19:17 or Rom. 2:7 does nothing to address that grammatical question. Once again, you are assuming a particular interpretation of those passages and then using that assumption to avoid engaging the syntactic issue in front of us. Those texts do not alter the referent of αὐτόν, the structure of the conditional, or the force of the final clause in John's sentence. Invoking them here is simply a deflection. The issue under dispute is syntactic, not systematic. Syntax is not fluid or impressionistic. You are responding to a grammatical argument by appealing to broader theological synthesis, as though theology could retroactively rewrite sentence structure.

Click to expand...

You can’t necessarily know what I assume about those passages, even as they happen to be more plain and straightforward in their meaning than John 6:44, incidentally. Anyway, I could say the same of you, that you assume a particular interpretation of those passages in order to avoid understanding John 6:44 correctly...in light of them.

John 6:44 affirms one thing, one thing that jives with the rest of Scripture, that the only way to be saved is to come to God and the only way to come to God is to be drawn by Him. It does not claim exclusivity, that being drawn necessarily means being saved, especially in light of the preponderance of Scripture. Grace is not irresistible.

Floor Lamp

Thank you for sharing Pastor, may God spread his protection over you and the believers in Pakistan and deliver you all from every evil attack and bring you safely into his heavenly kingdom. Pastor I pray that you and the church in Pakistan will be strengthened with joy and peace so that these trials do not shake your faith. May God equip you with power of the Holy Spirit to endure suffering and I pray that Jesus will lift up every person suffering in those churches, may they be healed and restored and comforted in Jesus name.

We all have a past, don’t we? For all of us were born into sin, with sin natures, in the image of Adam, the first man God created, and the first man to sin against God. All of us have sinned and have fallen short of the glory (favor and approval) of God. So, in our flesh, not one of us is approved by God, for not one of us can do anything in ourselves to earn or to deserve our own salvation. In fact, even the faith to believe in Jesus is gifted to us by God, and it is persuaded of God, and it is empowered by God’s Spirit.

So Jesus Christ didn’t give his life up for us on that cross because of our greatness, or because we were so deserving of his love and grace, for we were not, not any of us! Even while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. But… when he died, he put our sins to death with him so that, by God-ordained faith in him, we will now die to sin and live for God in walks of obedience to his commands in holy living, guided by the Holy Spirit now living within us, and in surrender to God’s perfect will he has for our lives.

And this is not optional. It is not a mere suggestion. We cannot just profess faith in Jesus Christ with our lips and then continue to chart our own course, and to go our own way without regard for God’s will and purpose for our lives in sending Jesus Christ to that cross to die for the sins of the world. And this doesn’t mean that if we believe in Jesus that we will be perfect from then on. For we are still clay in the hands of the Potter (God), hopefully being made by God to be like Jesus, as we cooperate with God’s grace.

However, if our faith in Jesus Christ is from God, and not from human flesh, and so we have been crucified with Christ in death to sin, and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, we should no longer be living as slaves to sin, but as servants of righteousness. And this is not to say that we might not ever backslide (see Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22). But if we have wandered from the faith, we must repent of (turn from) our sin and follow our Lord in obedience from then on.

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

And God, who is rich in mercy, might take some of us who had failed him miserably, and he might turn us around, and he might point us in a new direction like he did with Paul (then Saul). For, God had planned for us, from even before we were born, that we would serve him with our lives in obedience to his commands and in taking the message of the gospel to the people of the world, and in ministering to the body of Christ the love of God, the grace of God, and God’s plan and purpose for all of our lives.

And even though we had a period of time in our lives where we failed God miserably, and we went the opposite direction of what he has planned for our lives, still he loved us enough, not only to restore us to a right relationship with him, but to use us to preach (to spread) the truth of the gospel to the people of the world so that many people will follow Jesus with their lives from this moment forward and never look back. And we do none of this for self-glory, but all for the glory and praise of God who rescued us.

[Matthew 5:13-16; Matthew 28:18-20; John 4:31-38; John 13:13-17; John 14:12; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:14-18,42-47; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:14-15; Romans 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 14:1-5; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Ephesians 5:11-21; Ephesians 6:10-20; Philippians 2:1-8; Colossians 3:12-16; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 10:23-25; James 5:19-20; 1 Peter 2:9,21; 1 John 2:6]

Jesus, Rescue Me

Based off of Romans 7:7-25 thru Romans 8:1-39
An Original Work / September 18, 2011
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Jesus, rescue me today.
Listen while I bow and pray.
I need Your help to obey You;
Live for You always.
Meet me in my hour of need, Lord,
As I pray to You.
Help me walk in fellowship, Lord,
Living in Your truth.
Jesus, how I long for You to
Change my heart anew.

Father, God, my heart’s desire
Is to live for You this hour
In Your Holy Spirit’s power
Living in me now.
Teach me to walk in Your love, Lord,
Guiding me each day.
Help me to show love and kindness
To the lost, I pray.
Father, teach me to love others
As You love always.

Holy Spirit come in pow’r.
Revive our hearts in this hour.
Change our hearts to be like You, Lord;
Live for You each day.
Help us to forsake our sins, Lord,
As we humbly pray.
Teach us how to live for You, Lord,
Obey You always.
Holy Spirit come in power,
Revive us today.

Login to view embedded media
All Because of God’s Amazing Grace
An Original Work / December 15, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

is more info on the manuscripts of it.
I am converting On the Destruction of Jerusalem (De Excidio Hierosolymitano) into audio format now, and will put it on youtube. This was a Christian version of Josephus Judean wars written about 375 AD. I am using a text to speech app copying the text from here Ps.Hegesippus, translated from Latin into English (2005). Preface and book 1 that text contained the passion of Peter, and Paul part from Acts of Peter, and Paul. I believe acts of Peter, and Paul was written 65 AD making it inspired scripture.

BobRyan said:

Definition for "Antinomianism"

AI:

Antinomianism
is a term used in Christian theology to describe the belief that, because salvation is granted by divine grace through faith, believers are not bound by the moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments. The word itself comes from the Greek anti ("against") and nomos ("law"), literally meaning "against the law"

R.C. Sproul

What Are Legalism and Antinomianism?

Legalism and antinomianism undergird all forms of false teaching and heresy.

learn.ligonier.org

"Antinomianism says that God does not require a believer to obey the Law of God (the Ten Commandments)"

Antinomianism | Monergism

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The

www.monergism.com

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The term comes from the Greek words anti (against) and nomos (law), and it literally means “against the law.” Antinomianism falsely teaches that Christians, having been saved by grace, are free from the obligations of the moral law, leading to a rejection of the law’s role in the Christian life.

If you have read the threads on this particular forum then every now and then you will see someone arguing against the moral law of God , specifically the Ten Commandments. As James 2 says "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking them all"

As Paul says in Eph 6:1-2 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

hint: What are the set of commandments in scripture where the first one in that list WITH a promise is the 5th commandment calling children to Honor father and mother.

Click to expand...

If antinomianism (lit. against law) is regarding no longer being bound by the "moral law of God" then the critical question is what is the "moral law of God". This is not terminology found in scripture, so there is no biblical way to isolate what this moral law of God is and what it is not, which begs the question: Is this responsible terminology/should we be using it? Scripture doesn't bifurcate law, and when the subject of law is raised, law is treated as whole units defined within covenants. Some indeed have more of a moral foundation and others ceremonial/ritual or symbolic, but the law doesn't separate itself to sub categories like this, that's a post-biblical thing to do. So the real question is what aspects of the law of the old covenant should we consider universally moral? The answer, as it applies to the legal code, is nothing. The legal code is meant for the covenant and those outside the covenant are not bound by it (that's how covenants work). That isn't to say they are not based on a universal moral framework but they are not universal themselves, which is an important distinction. Instead, the framework they are based on is universal, which is more foundational to the character and root of God than a covenantal law ever can be.

Even a commandment like "Do not murder," which sounds perfectly agreeable, is not a moral foundation of the NC. The moral foundation of the NC is not about passive resisting evil like murdering, stealing, lying, sleeping with your neighbour's wife, etc... but instead is about actively seeking love and is primarily guided by the Spirit. It's actually pretty easy to resist murdering my neighbour (I haven't done it yet), but I may still cross the street and ignore him when I see he needs help. In doing so, I do not break the 10, which just exposes the limits of the 10, but not the moral framework they are based on.

So what's the moral framework that's better than these laws (better than the 10)? Fortunately, Jesus spells it out in Mat 22:37-40 "And he said to him,“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” He says it right there, that all the law and prophets are based on these two commandments, so this is the moral framework the 10 are based on. There is no list here, and it operates more like a heuristic approach requiring active critical involvement in our actions. NT authors also affirm this same law. Paul calls it "Christ's law (1 Cor 9). James calls it "the Royal law." (Jam 2)

So if by "moral law" we mean the moral framework that law is based on, then Christ spells it out, and this is fundamental to NC teaching. But I suspect "moral law" is a code word for smuggling in the 10 commandments. so if antinomianism in practice means "no longer bound by the 10 commandments" then or course I affirm this. For some reason, people seem to think that without the 10 we will steal, murder, lie and have sex with everyone we see. This plainly is not true, one, we have the Spirit in us to guide us (this is critical), and I have confidence in the Spirit's mechanism given by God. The Spirit is the sign of the NC agreement, so it is crucial to our worldview operating as followers of Christ and we need the Spirit to understand the lens of God. There is no other way around this, and the 10 commandments do not accomplish this the way the Spirit can. The 10 operate several levels in so highly contextualized, where the Spirit is the direct source. but we also have Christ's law to help align ourselves (as well as a host of NT teaching), the product of which will not be murdering, stealing, lying, etc... but now loving our neighbour as ourselves, which is a foreign product of the 10 but a critical part of the NC. The OC focuses on morality from the outside in. eg. I do X, Y, Z therefore I am good. But the NC is focused on an inward outflowing, where our moral expressions and worship are from an outflowing from the heart. As a Christian, that outflowing is rooted by the Spirit, not by the 10 commandments. This is the meaning of "laws written upon our heart" (2 Cor 3) it is not the 10 commandments smuggled in the NC, but the quality of the Spirit impacting our core and overflowing to all actions. We are not dependent upon lists in the NC, we are dependent upon the leading of the Spirit. Even if the outflow looks "good" without the Spirit as its source, it can be that of a clanging symbol. I'm not sure why anyone would argue with this, as it is fundamental to NC teaching. I am spirit-led, not stone-led. Is the output the same? It doesn't matter because it is not a "both x AND y" system. I am emphatically Spirit-led.