How to walk in the Spirit.

[fhansen]

Now, talk about discipleship all you want.
Keep those commandments.
Get in that water.
Present that body a living sacrifice.
Tithe.
Give the Poor.
Do all those SELF EFFORT WORKS.

But always understand that all that stuff .... GOD DOES NOT DO.
That is because that stuff is not SALVATiON.
Its discipleship, and only you do that part.

But God must do those things through us; no degree of self-effort at being righteous is right for any reason which is why the new covenant is all about partnership with God- instead of doing it on my own. Do you think that the works prepared for us in advance as per Eph 2:10, or the good we must do as per Rom 2:7, or the holiness we must have as per Heb 12:14, or those things done for "the least of these" which Jesus praised in Matt 25, or putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit (Rom 8:12-13) are filthy rags??

 

[BNR32FAN]

But is that verse saying if we don't confess our sins as they occur, He will not forgive us? It seems that verse is used by some as a warning and an ultimatum, rather than as the reassurance I think it's meant to be. As one CF member insists, based on 1 John 1:9, if a born-again man sees a woman and has a lustful thought, and then gets hit by a bus before he has a chance to confess that sin, he's going straight to Hell. That's supposedly what the verse is about.

No I don’t believe we must confess every sin. I think simply confessing that we have sinned, asking forgiveness, or acknowledging that we are a sinner still constitutes a confession.

 

[Servus]

Please, say it ain't so for me...
I'll translate your point. Any verse that seems to contradict your particular modified understanding of the gospel-and there are many such verses-is necessarily being misused as per Gal 1:8.

I'm going to have to agree at least that Romans 2:7 was being used out of context. I found I had to read Romans 1:18 to Romans 2:16 to get the full message. Sometimes I think it was a mistake to break up epistles into verses because of this situation I see at times in the use of proof texts.

 

[Servus]

No I don’t believe we must confess every sin. I think simply confessing that we have sinned, asking forgiveness, or acknowledging that we are a sinner still constitutes a confession.

While you don't, others do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Again it seems there's two ways John 10:27 can be interpreted.

1. Those who hear his voice follow him by becoming born-again.

2. Those who are born-again hear His voice and follow Him, and if they don't keep following or stray off the path or whatever, they get unborn, unsealed, disinherited etc and are thrown into Hell.

It seems like there's this string of verses that get used like 1 John 1:9 and John 10:27, as basically a threat like 'you better keep confessing and you better keep following or else your salvation will be revoked and you'll go to Hell'.

If your first interpretation were correct then Ephesians 4 and 5 would be completely pointless, along with every other verse in the scriptures telling believers to refrain from sin. If obedience were automatic for those who were born again then no one could possibly sin or grieve the Holy Spirit. So then interpretation #1 isn’t a viable option.

 

[fhansen]

I'm going to have to agree at least that Romans 2:7 was being used out of context. I found I had to read Romans 1:18 to Romans 2:16 to get the full message. Sometimes I think it was a mistake to break up epistles into verses because of this situation I see at times in the use of proof texts.

Well, first of all it's only one verse out of many. And then secondly it aligns well with many many such sentiments expressed in the New Testament and thirdly you should demonstrate how it's used out of context

 

[Servus]

But God must do those things through us; no degree of self-effort at being righteous is right for any reason which is why the new covenant is all about partnership with God- instead of doing it on my own. Do you think that the works prepared for us in advance as per Eph 2:10, or the good we must do as per Rom 2:7, or the holiness we must have as per Heb 12:14, or those things done for "the least of these" which Jesus praised in Matt 25, or putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit (Rom 8:12-13) are filthy rags??

I think they're filthy rags if they are done with the wrong intentions. Like for instance I've heard of those who refer to tithing as "paying fire insurance". Or if someone helps the needy per Matt 25 just to save their own skin, rather than out of love for others.

 

[fhansen]

I think they're filthy rags if they are done with the wrong intentions. Like for instance I've heard of those who refer to tithing as "paying fire insurance". Or if someone helps the needy per Matt 25 just to save their own skin, rather than out of love for others.

Sure, and yet it should be quite obvious in that post and all my posts by now that such motivations are exactly not what Im referring to. Is there some reason you think that God cant make man righteous or holy or sanctified? Or who he was created to be IOW?

 

[Servus]

If your first interpretation were correct then Ephesians 4 and 5 would be completely pointless, along with every other verse in the scriptures telling believers to refrain from sin. If obedience were automatic for those who were born again then no one could possibly sin or grieve the Holy Spirit. So then interpretation #1 isn’t a viable option.

I'm all for obedience and refraining from sin. However, it's pretty clear to me that John 10:22-30 is about belief vs unbelief, rather than being about obedience and refraining from sin. There are verses that are specifically about obedience and refraining from sin, so why use a verse that's not about that? The credibility of an argument or view starts falling apart when proof verses are used, and then one reads the entire passage and sees that the proof verse is being used out of context.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm all for obedience and refraining from sin. However, it's pretty clear to me that John 10:22-30 is about belief vs unbelief, rather than being about obedience and refraining from sin. There are verses that are specifically about obedience and refraining from sin, so why use a verse that's not about that? The credibility of an argument or view starts falling apart when proof verses are used, and then one reads the entire passage and sees that the proof verse is being used out of context.

Just because belief is being discussed doesn’t mean that obedience cannot also be included in the message. What else do you think Jesus meant by the words “hear and follow”?

 

[Servus]

Sure, and yet it should be quite obvious in that post and all my posts by now that such motivations are exactly not what Im referring to.

But it is what Sidon is referring to.

Is there some reason you think that God cant make man righteous or holy or sanctified? Or who he was created to be IOW?

Is there some reason why you are lying about what I think?

 

[Servus]

Just because belief is being discussed doesn’t mean that obedience cannot also be included in the message. What else do you think Jesus meant by the words “hear and follow”?

I don't think shoehorning extra meanings into a verse because it sounds like it fits is a good idea. Like I said, there are plenty of verses that are specifically about obedience and refraining from sin.

 

[pescador]

I'm going to have to agree at least that Romans 2:7 was being used out of context. I found I had to read Romans 1:18 to Romans 2:16 to get the full message. Sometimes I think it was a mistake to break up epistles into verses because of this situation I see at times in the use of proof texts.

Chapters and verses are not part of the earliest Biblical texts; they were added in the 16th Century! IMHO the worst offender is the King James Version, which divides the text into verses -- one after the other -- with no logical breaks. It leads to people taking verses out of context, often giving them different meanings than they have when regarded as part of larger divisions. Thankfully, most modern translations have corrected this error.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (chosen at random) reads in the NET, "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

but in the KJV it reads...

"18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

The text is so fragmented as to be difficult to read with clear understanding. No Biblical "book" was written with this kind of choppy division that destroys the flow of the text (with the exception to the poetry that is intentionally divided).

Off topic, I know. But regardless of the issue we should read the Bible with the clearest understanding possible -- in the wording and format of our normal language. After all, that's the way the earliest texts were written.

 

[fhansen]

But it is what Sidon is referring to.

Yes...of course??? We've been discussing the same matter page after page. All here acknowledge- or should acknowledge- that legalism is a very human potential problem, and it can be practiced with any form of the faith BTW. Jesus came to get us off of legalism and into the real thing. He gives us the means to clean the inside, by the Spirit. External actions mean nothing by themselves, apart from God. The law cannot justify us IOW-only He can.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean." Matt 23:25-26

Like I said, and keep repeating, the New Covenant is all about communion with God first of all, the only One who can make us righteous, who can justify us:
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.” Jer 31:33-34

And if I understand correctly the OP seems to think that the righteous deeds of even a born again person are "filthy rags".

Is there some reason why you are lying about what I think?

Lying??? I asked you a question-a very valid one considering all my posts from the beginning have obviously contrasted legalism with the real thing-while you keep coming back to the same non-applicable non sequiturs-for some "reason".

 

[Servus]

Yes...of course??? We've been discussing the same matter page after page. All here acknowledge- or should acknowledge- that legalism is a very human potential problem, and it can be practiced with any form of the faith BTW. Jesus came to get us off of legalism and into the real thing. He gives us the means to clean the inside, by the Spirit. External actions mean nothing by themselves, apart from God. The law cannot justify us IOW-only He can.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean." Matt 23:25-26

Like I said, and keep repeating, the New Covenant is all about communion with God first of all, the only One who can make us righteous, who can justify us:
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.” Jer 31:33-34

Lying??? I asked you a question-a very valid one considering all my posts from the beginning have obviously contrasted legalism with the real thing-while you keep coming back to the same non-applicable non sequiturs-for some "reason".​

You said, "Is there some reason you think that God cant make man righteous or holy or sanctified? Or who he was created to be IOW?".

I don't think that. Saying that I do is a lie. As far as non sequiturs go, the argument I have been siding with for the most part, is the opposite of that. In that man is only righteous in the eyes of God because of what God did, rather than what man does.

And in my opinion, no matter how much you've tried dress it up as something else, it seems to me that you have been pushing legalism.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't think shoehorning extra meanings into a verse because it sounds like it fits is a good idea. Like I said, there are plenty of verses that are specifically about obedience and refraining from sin.

Ok but what do you think He meant when He said “they follow Me”? He said the hear His voice, this obviously has to do with listening so what does follow mean?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Chapters and verses are not part of the earliest Biblical texts; they were added in the 16th Century! IMHO the worst offender is the King James Version, which divides the text into verses -- one after the other -- with no logical breaks. It leads to people taking verses out of context, often giving them different meanings than they have when regarded as part of larger divisions. Thankfully, most modern translations have corrected this error.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (chosen at random) reads in the NET, "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

but in the KJV it reads...

"18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

The text is so fragmented as to be difficult to read with clear understanding. No Biblical "book" was written with this kind of choppy division that destroys the flow of the text (with the exception to the poetry that is intentionally divided).

Off topic, I know. But regardless of the issue we should read the Bible with the clearest understanding possible -- in the wording and format of our normal language. After all, that's the way the earliest texts were written.

Well the verses were added to be able to locate every statement for reference. Honestly they don’t bother me.

 

[Servus]

Ok but what do you think He meant when He said “they follow Me”? He said the hear His voice, this obviously has to do with listening so what does follow mean?

The context is believing in Him. I'm not going to come up with something out of context and say it means that also.

 

[Servus]

Well the verses were added to be able to locate every statement for reference. Honestly they don’t bother me.

They only bother me when they're misused, which happens a lot on CF.

 

[fhansen]

You said, "Is there some reason you think that God cant make man righteous or holy or sanctified? Or who he was created to be IOW?".

I don't think that. Saying that I do is a lie. As far as non sequiturs go, the argument I have been siding with for the most part, is the opposite of that. In that man is only righteous in the eyes of God because of what God did, rather than what man does.

You must be quite young. Anyway, as I said that was a question-and a very valid one in light of the conversation so far. I'd avoid responding at all if the intent is to make unsubstantiated irresponsible accusations. Or if you're not bothering to read my posts, just say so-since that seems to be the more logical scenario here. The issue of whether or not personal righteousness is required of man is a separate one from whether or not man can even be made righteous to begin with. And I maintain that both are true, with the former dependent on the latter.

And in my opinion, no matter how much you've tried dress it up as something else, it seems to me that you have been pushing legalism.

Yes, I understand your position, in contrast with Scripture's position.