Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Its a clanging cymbal ,technical garb without life ,without relationship .
The first in depth study I did on Biblical Love looked at all the ways God shows us His love and different aspects there of....for example, God is our Father, our Brother, our Savior, our Friend. He is our Creator, Bridegroom, etc. Notice that just because He is our Father (think correction here) does not mean He automatically is our Friend. Or another example. Just because He is our Creator, doesn't automatically mean He is our Savior. As Creator over all, we know that He is sadly not Savior of those who choose otherwise.You have the elements backwards. Obedience doesn't come before the relationship. It is the result OF the relationship.
It's not that "we are only friends with Christ if we obey what He commands", it's that we WILL, by nature, be obedient IF we have a relationship with Him.
The way you have them makes it all dependent on the believer to be obedient to remain saved. That isn't Scriptural.
He didn't command obedience to remain in Christ. He was saying we WILL be obedient IF we remain in Christ. The "remaining" is done through faith.
As I have studied Biblical Love in depth, one thing struck me that applies to this discussion. Christ was empowered by the HS. The very same HS that is to empower every believer. IOW's the same power that Christ had to overcome sin on this earth is the same power we have as believers. So...here is a question for you. If we have the same power that Christ had to avoid temptations on this earth, why do we need Him to take away temptations that He says we will have in order to be without sin? Look at this passage....Heb. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin.As a part of His earthly ministry, yes, He was tempted. However, I wasn't referring to His earthly ministry. I was referring to His current status, AFTER resurrection. He no longer CAN be tempted, He has defeated sin.
And, that exact same nature which He now lives can be MINE, through faith. While I remain in faith of God's promise to give me a new nature, I am as immune to sin's temptation as Christ is NOW. If this is not true, then God's promise was a lie.
Then I will have to disagree with you being that scripture tells us what we must do in order for us to live the sin free life. I personally hold scripture to be a greater authority than I hold you to be on the topic at hand.I take issue with this. I would leave out the word "alone". We cannot be obedient at all, even with help. It requires a brand new nature. HIS nature. In HIS nature, we are not only ABLE to be obedient, it requires no extra effort. It doesn't require yielding, or striving, or anything like that at all. It is the natural result of the new nature.
I thought the question was a great question and have been waiting the answer of some since you posted it...thanks for the question by the way, it illustrates the point very well.Difficult to get a straight answer..thus far its been oddky avoided..any one else feel free to dive in ...
Q. I'm in a supermarket ,i'm about to buy some beers because i have always had that liberty to drink .(but avoid being drunken) and the holy Spirit speaks to my heart (he is my Sheppards voice -he only speaks that which he hears from the father ) And he says to me ..do not buy that ...
Do i go ahead and buy it ?-if so why?
Do i listen and obey ? - if so , why ?
lets get applicable with the topic .
this is not only an imagined scenario.
But was the elementary the goal? NO!
The writer wanted to move on, that is clear in the text, and is what I have said, people need to leave the training wheels behind.
You may think you corrected me, but you did not, actually you are the one not listening or reading my posts, as you accuse me of doing.
Puppies that are obedient, are still puppies.
except you are the only one talking about living by works of law, which means you are the only one talking about rule keeping....which means you aren't responding to me and so, moving on.Living by works of law, is rule keeping,
but since that isn't what I am saying or talking about, you are not responding to me or what I said which means....what? I'm not listening to you? Seriously...if you can't respond to what I am saying how does it show that I am not listening to you?and obedience is central it has to be, after all it is a rule, and one had to be obedient or he did not get a puppy biscuit! Rules become the mode. And it is self righteousness, see Rom 10:3, and Phil 3:9 for facts. That is my point, obedience obssesed people, are not seeing God deeply, or the higher way, they just measure themselves all the time, having their own righteousness. I have shown that it was for children, Gal 3 and 4 shows this, puppies need to grow up already.
yet the text says that the elementary teachings are not the legalism you are preaching against, but rather the elementary teachings are the going to the cross and stopping there. We are suppose to move on, beyond the cross to the deeper things of God, things like who He is and why He does what He does, things like obedience being an act of Love, not some legalistic non sense like you are going on about. It is about not crucifying Christ all over again by denying the power within to overcome sin and death. You know, the deeper things of Christ that we don't see when we just stop at the cross like your posts seem bent on us doing.Look here at the verse, it is good puppy or bad puppy, basic elementalism. The law was for children, that is a development stage, that some are stalled in, sort of like arrested development.
Yep...God will judge each man on what he does, that is scriptural, but that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing obedience not judgment. Shall I post some passages about being judged for what we do? Like Romans 2:6; Job 34:11; Psalms 62:12; Jere. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; II Cor. 11:15It was to be just a stage, the Hebrews wanted to go backwards, not good. See, look, bad puppy gets retribution.:o
Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,
"A merit system!" Obedience is the mark of the Spirit led believer, wilful disobedience makes us a child of darkness.
this response suggests to me that you have no real understanding of what God wants for His children, or just how prideful we people are in comparison to Christ.again what is the big deal? God said not to, don't, but for me, there is more to life, than coming home knowing i did not buy the beer.
Again, it is like the puppy being all excited that he did not go on the couch, like he was trained not to, after a while, so what!? I mean really, elementalism should become boring already.
The wall might be that frog has not heard the inner voice from the Holy Spirit?
Who can say what the word obey sounds like to another person? Maybe it is frightning.
I thought it was cheap to call another christian a dog, puppy, whatever term to say the same as 'your not as far along as I am'.
We can disagree on living close to Jesus, but it should be done in a kind manner.
Its a clanging cymbal ,technical garb without life ,without relationship .
This is the incredibly sad thing about your argument frog. You are either obeying or disobeying. There is no in between in that regard. If God tells do something you have two options, not three or four or five, two.
Do as he says, or
Do not do as he says
You have multiple times here fought against obedience so that means you are promoting disobedience as a rule which is why your talking point is scary and sad.
To be perfectly transparent for a moment, the thing that bothers me most about what you keep saying is how many NT passages we have to throw away in order to keep this theology in tack. For example....James 4:7 is a NT passage that tells us to do something to maintain the cleansing that we received upon salvation. John 14:15 is another....in fact, the NT is full of passages that we would have to throw away if we were to accept what you are saying as truth.Paul spent his whole earlier life in Judaism, in obedience class, but look at the verses, but then he wanted something higher, living by faith, and resurrection power!.
Phil 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
Same here, died to elementalism, to live by faith, something higher than good Paul, bad Paul.
Ga; 2;19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
That is why Galatians shows that the law was a just a temporary stage, it was for kiddies under tutors, and govenors in chapt 3-4, but then it ended, so that the Sons would come, the mature ones after the age of obedience classes, they graduated!.That is a fact, that is text.
It does seem that you have added in a fair amount of unwarranted personal opinion to this word. The word has no connection with what you have suggested which you will be able to see from the following lexical entries:
(BibleWorks 9) Friberg Lexicon:
24998 στοιχεῖον, ου, τό strictly small upright post; hence first beginning, element or principle; only plural in the NT; (1) generally, the rudimentary elements of anything, what belongs to a basic series in any field of knowledge; in grammar, the ABCs; in speech, basic sounds; in physics, the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, water); in geometry, the axioms; in philosophy, the givens; (2) as used in the NT; (a) as a religious technical term elementary doctrines, fundamental teachings, basic principles (HE 5.12; perhaps CO 2.8, 20 and GA 4.3, 9); (b) in a negative sense, humanistic teachings common to Jewish and pagan religions, involving binding traditions, taboos, prohibitions, ordinances, ceremonies, etc., teachings involving either supernatural elemental or animating spirits (probably CO 2.8, 20), or basic material elements (probably GA 4.3, 9) elements, elemental things; (c) in relation to the natural world (basic) elements, natural substances (2P 3.10, 12)
Thayers Greek Lexicon
4914 stoicei/on
stoicei/on, stoiceiou, to, (from stoi/coj a row, rank, series; hence, properly, that which belongs to any stoi/coj, that of which a stoi/coj is composed; hence), "any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise; an element, first principle". The word denotes specifically:
1. the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters (which are called gra,mmata), but the spoken sounds: stoicei/on fwnh/j fwnh, avsu,nqetoj, Plato definition, p. 414 e.; to, rvw to, stoicei/on, id. Crat., p. 426 d.; stoicei/on evsti fwnh, avdiairetoj, ouv pa/sa de,, avllV evx h-j pefuke suneth, gi,gnesqai fwnh,, Aristotle, poet. 20, p. 1456{b}, 22.
2. the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe (evsti de, stoicei/on, evx ou- prw,tou gi,netai ta, gino,mena kai, eivj o` e;scaton avnalu,etai ... to, pu/r, to, u[dwr, o` avh,r, h` gh/, Diogenes Laërtius Zeno 137); so very often from Plato down, as in Tim., p. 48 b.; in the Scriptures: Sap. 7:17; 19:17; 2 Pet. 3:10,12.
3. the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens, or (as others think) because in them the elements of man's life and destiny were supposed to reside; so in the earlier ecclesiastical writings: Ep. ad Diogn. 7, 2; Justin Martyr, dialog contra Trypho, 23; ta, Ouvrani,a stoicei/a, id. Apology 2, 5; stoicei/a Qeou/, created by God, Theoph. Ant. ad Autol. 1, 4; cf. Hilgenfeld, Galaterbrief, pp. 66-77. Hence, some interpreters infelicitously understand Paul's phrase ta, stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou, Gal. 4:3,9; Col. 2:8,20 , of the heavenly bodies, because times and seasons, and so sacred seasons, were regulated by the course of the sun and moon; yet in unfolding the meaning of the passage on the basis of this sense they differ widely.
4. the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles (cf. our `alphabet' or `a b c') of any art, science, or discipline; e. g. of mathematics, as in the title of Euclid's well-known work; stoicei/a prw/ta kai, me,gista crh,sthj politei,aj, Isocrates, p. 18 a.; th/j avreth/j, Plutarch, de puer. educ. 16, 2; many examples are given in Passow, under the word, 4, ii., p. 1550b; (cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word, II. 3 and 4). In the N. T. we have ta, stoicei/a th/j avrch/j tw/n logi,wn tou/ Qeou/ (see avrch,, 1 b., p. 76{b} bottom), Heb. 5:12, such as are taught to nh,pioi, Heb. 5:13; ta, stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou, the rudiments with which mankind like nh,pioi were indoctrinated before the time of Christ, i. e. the elements of religions training, or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles, Gal. 4:3,9, (and since these requirements on account of the difficulty of observing them are to be regarded as a yoke -- cf. Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1 -- those who rely upon them are said to be dedoulwme,noi u`po, ta, stoicei/a); specifically, the ceremonial requirements especially of Jewish tradition, minutely set forth by theosophists and false teachers, and fortified by specious argument, Col. 2:8,20. The phrase ta, stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou is fully discussed by Schneckenburger in the Theolog. Jahrbücher for 1848, Part iv., p. 445ff; Neander in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. Christl. Wissensehaft for 1850, p. 205ff; Kienlen in Reuss u. Cunitz's Beiträge zu d. theolog. Wissenschaften, vol. ii., p. 133ff; E. Schaubach, Comment. qua exponitur quid stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou in N. T. sibi velint. (Meining. 1862).*
Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.both verses were about after conversion, the life I NOW live after dying to law,
the power is over sin and death....I Cor. 15:57...not over the law but rather the power to fulfil the law....Matt. 5:17and when he wrote Phil that was a late epistle, where he wanted to know him and the power, well after not being under law, well after conversion..
Just wanted to point out that the last half of this post is way out of line and should be ignored by everyone reading.You keep saying this, but I already showed you a verse that makes good works a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Though I notice you are now saying "human works," the "human" perhaps meaning "not by the working of God?" If that's the case, that's a significant reversal.
What do you know about the Christian walk? You are one who denies the omniscience of God, says nasty things to people who disagree with you (and repeatedly twisted what I said), and doesn't debate using the scripture, but with lame human philosophy (which is even non-nonsensical by philosophical standards, since you can't even represent my position correctly). Check yourself; perhaps you are the one far from God, and not the eeevil Calvinist.
The wall might be that frog has not heard the inner voice from the Holy Spirit?
Who can say what the word obey sounds like to another person? Maybe it is frightning.
I thought it was cheap to call another christian a dog, puppy, whatever term to say the same as 'your not as far along as I am'.
We can disagree on living close to Jesus, but it should be done in a kind manner.
The law was a school teacher . but then i graduated . and just like how what i learned in high school and university is mostly irrelevant in the working world . teachers wont be hearing that it is irrelevant while they're teaching .
.
the law/written code teaches something . but it teaches us to learn . that part is important .. but what we learn from direct contact with the Holy Spirit in life service is far more important .
are you confusing legalism with obedience? I am seriously trying to figure out what the heck you don't understand and this currently seems to be my best guess.Naaa...not demeaning, but the puppy point drives home a point, that being, if a puppy can be obedient, then it's really not the highest standard of achievement for us now, in grace. Besides, a little humor is good for the soul, don't take it so seriously.
I posted text about elementalism, it is a fact.
Even here, in the Greek it is stoicheion, elementalism, same as Gal 4:3, used for the obedience works centered life that Paul was under when in law, and it was elemental, and for a child, not the mature, and in heb 5:12 it is used also, and the writer wanted them to also go on to maturity, not be stuck in a rules centered elemental life, these are textual facts.
Hebrews 5:12Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
12 ·
kai For
gar though
by
dia this
ho time
chronos you
ought
opheilō to
be
eimi teachers
didaskalos,
you
have
echō need
chreia of
someone
tis to
teach
didaskō you
hymeis again
palin ·
ho the
ho basic
archē elements
stoicheion ·
ho of
ho God
s
theos revelation
logion.
·
ho ·
kai You
have
become
ginomai people
having
echō need
chreia of
milk
gala,
not
ou solid
stereos food
trophē;
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?