God's job

[woobadooba]

Thank you for your explanation... I disagree.... as I stated previously, when the words all scripture was written, there was no NT....

So then, the NT doesn't apply to us since it wasn't written when Paul said that. That is what you are saying.

everything in the bible does not apply... if it does why are we not stoning rebellious children?

Because you are asking me this question it is obvious that you missed my point. What was the underlying theme of stoning rebellious children? That God does not tolerate rebellion? So are you saying that that message doesn't apply to us?

Keep this in mind... When I say that it applies to us I am not talking about practice, but application, meaning: we may not do as they did, but we ought to fulfill the purpose for which the rule was made!

There is much in the bible that has NO practical application today.... OR if it is applicable we are not doing it... so which is it?

Again, I'm not talking about methodology of practice; rather I am talking about purpose.

 

[woobadooba]

For a moment I thought we could agree that the principle of the sabbath applies to all generations and cultures.

It does, so we do agree.

 

[StormyOne]

So then, the NT doesn't apply to us since it wasn't written when Paul said that. That is what you are saying.



Because you are asking me this question it is obvious that you missed my point. What was the underlying theme of stoning rebellious children? That God does not tolerate rebellion? So are you saying that that message doesn't apply to us?

Keep this in mind... When I say that it applies to us I am not talking about practice, but application, meaning: we may not do as they did, but we ought to fulfill the purpose for which the rule was made!



Again, I'm not talking about methodology of practice; rather I am talking about purpose.

The point made is this.... "all scripture" to Paul is not the same "all scripture" to us...

God does tolerate rebellion... that is why Satan is still around...

There may be some agreement when it comes to "purpose" as opposed to practice. However that still puts us in a sticky position..... every 3rd year the practice was to take the tithe and distribute it to the levites, the orphans, the widows and strangers within the border... How would that practice be made purposeful here and now?

 

[jonno]

It does, so we do agree.

Yipeeeee!

 

[woobadooba]

The point made is this.... "all scripture" to Paul is not the same "all scripture" to us...

And why wouldn't it be? Do explain.

God does tolerate rebellion... that is why Satan is still around...

He does tolerate it for a time, but not indefinately! That was the point. And Satan won't be around forever.

There may be some agreement when it comes to "purpose" as opposed to practice. However that still puts us in a sticky position..... every 3rd year the practice was to take the tithe and distribute it to the levites, the orphans, the widows and strangers within the border... How would that practice be made purposeful here and now?

So what is the underlying theme here? As a people of God, share what God has given to you with those who are less fortunate?

Why doesn't that apply to us today? And some of us are doing this. Unfortunately, the numbers are few and far in between.

 

[StormyOne]

And why wouldn't it be? Do explain.



He does tolerate it for a time, but not indefinately! That was the point. And Satan won't be around forever.



So what is the underlying theme here? As a people of God, share what God has given to you with those who are less fortunate?

Why doesn't that apply to us today? And some of us are doing this. Unfortunately, the numbers are few and far in between.

Paul was writing letters that eventually became a part of "scripture." He was not writing those letters for that purpose. When he spoke of scripture it was the OT... The statement was made that God doesn't tolerate rebellion. My statement indicated that He does... then the statement was qualified... for a time... true, but the point remains, He does tolerate it...

The directive from God was to use the tithe every 3rd year... those churches who utilize the tithing system do not follow that directive...

 

[payattention]

God has power over the whole earth. But we can choose to allow Satan to own our will. Here are some verses that I feel do point out that our default condition is not to be saved, along with some commentary....Although I should note the default condition is due to our sin. If someone didn't sin the default condition wouldn't apply. But the Bible is quite clear that all have, so it does.

If by default condition you are referring to the condition before we sin, then yes, that is fine. But the Bible rarely addresses that issue, since everyone has sinned. And if you make the point that we don't have to warn people, I assume you include people who have sinned.

Since they have sinned, their condition is lost, and they are in need of warning.

If that were true then the statement regarding ignorance would be meaningless. A child who has been abducted cannot be and is not held responsible for behaving after the manner of his abducters. This is what the Bible means when it says that our sins are not held to our account. But only God knows the heart of man. I would wager that mMore people have been turned away from from God by the "evangelistic" efforts of some Christians than have been drawn to Him. Nor does this flawed mindset only reveal itself in these "evangelistic" efforts. They continue it every week, telling the people how evil they are then turn around and are surprised because they act during the week in line with how they were described in church.

God does love the world and made a provision. But the condition is belief. Here it says plainly that anyone who does not believe in Him is condemned already.

That only applies to one who has heard and understood. Much of what some people reject is not God but the caricature of Him that has been presented to them by Christians.

If one does not have the Son of God they do not have life. The next verse speaks to those who believe in the Son of God..again the condition is belief.



Here Paul notes that all are unrighteous, and convicts the whole world of sin for violating his law. They are all silenced by the law and are accountable to God for their sin.



Again we see that the condition of the gift of righteousness from God apart from law is through faith to all who believe.

It is more fruitful to understand what happened at Eden than to gain an understanding of Paul's perception. Paul saw through a glass darkly. By his own admission he did have a complete understanding of the issues, yet so many Christians quote him as if he did.

For some reason we ignore the fact that even after three and a half years of an intense internship with Jesus the disciples, who became the Apostles, did not understand the Master. Why we allowed the enemy to blind our eyes to these obvious facts?

 

[payattention]

It has nothing to do with changing times and laws; and incidentally, you just took that verse out of context, since it is referring to the antichrist, and what he will do to the saints, not homiletics! So, I see that it is ok for you to apply a verse to any given situation, but not ok for anyone else?

I put that in there deliberately. Besides, you misread me if you think I am saying that one cannot make applications. I simply said they must be valid applications. Christ did not say if those leaders will be in heaven or not. He simply said you should choose a leader who is what you want to be like. The person's eternal destiny is not for you to know or decide.

Ok, let's use your argument...

If we were to use your line of reasoning, then nothing in the Bible applies to us, because it was written to a people that were of another time period!

That was not my reasoning, so I don't know where you got it from. Read what I say not what you think I say.

So what sense is there in having a Bible if we can't apply what was said in times past to the people of today?

The purpose of the Bible is to show you how God worked in the lives of people in the past.

And you never did answer my question! My question was, if Jesus, in referring to leaders, could say, "By their fruits you shall know them", can we not apply that to common people too? Don't you think you can know where someone stands in relation to God by what they do and refuse to give up, regardless of whether they are a leader or not?

You have no idea where a person stands in relation to God. I hope you do not believe in salvation by works. You have no idea why people do not give up the things they give up. I am not about to judge because you refuse to give up what I believe is a flawed view of God. I have not walked in your shoes. I do not know where you have been. Besides, God does not seek my input. There is no advise and consent clause in the plan of salvation.

 

[woobadooba]

Paul was writing letters that eventually became a part of "scripture." He was not writing those letters for that purpose. When he spoke of scripture it was the OT...

But whether Paul realized it or not, it is scripture, meaning it isn't any less scriptural than the scripture to which he was referring. Thus the message concerning scripture in 2Tim. 3:16-17, is applicable to the writings of the NT on the grounds that it is scripture!

The statement was made that God doesn't tolerate rebellion. My statement indicated that He does... then the statement was qualified... for a time... true, but the point remains, He does tolerate it...

Yes, He does tolerate it. But according to the context of the argument that you presented concerning the stoned child, it seems that you were indicating that God was less tolerant then, than he is now.

The directive from God was to use the tithe every 3rd year... those churches who utilize the tithing system do not follow that directive

There are many things that we ought to be doing for purposes that are clearly disclosed in the Bible, but that doesn't make them less meaningful/applicable for us simply because we aren't putting such teachings into practice.

It just simply means that we aren't paying attention to what God is really saying.

Looking for underlying themse is a great practice to delve into. You will see God's word in a much more personal way by doing this, and so your experience with God will be greatly enriched.

 

[tall73]

Thank you for your explanation... I disagree.... as I stated previously, when the words all scripture was written, there was no NT.... everything in the bible does not apply... if it does why are we not stoning rebellious children? Why are we not building battlements around our roofs to keep folks from falling off? Why are we not giving the tithe every third year to the Levites, the orphans, the widows, and the strangers within our gates?

There is much in the bible that has NO practical application today.... OR if it is applicable we are not doing it... so which is it?

We should really resurrect that post about the stoning children. We never worked it out. I did post about 9 different laws.

The point that Woobadooba was getting at is not refuted by saying we don't stone children. The point is that there are scriptural princples the laws were based on.

You are right that the initial audience is the primary, not us. But even Peter said the things in the OT were written for our benefit. They are a picture of how God has dealt with men in the past.

Now the specific law of stoning children is an outgrowth of the enduring command to honor father and mother. We don't have to apply it as the thecracy did to see some enduring value in the principle.

The problem is, we don't always know the principle.

Was the reason they could not plant mixed crops, or wear mixed fabric because of some custom around them among the pagans? Do we even know?

Is the reason we keep the dietary laws even though the uncleanness of the temple service is not an issue because they are health laws? Then why don't we keep the mildew ones? Or the ones about menstruation? Or why don't we put people out of the camp so to speak after sex?

It is true we pick and choose. But woobadooba is implying there are enduring principles. That is the big question. ARe there? And how do we extract them? Or are the specific laws still really in place in some instances and we don't want to keep them (women and head coverings for instance).

 

[woobadooba]

The person's eternal destiny is not for you to know or decide.

Did I ever say it was? You can know someone by his fruits, but that doesn't mean such current fruits will arbitrate the final outcome of his life in terms of whether he will be saved or not. He may change his ways, and produce good fruits.

The point is, we are not to consider such people to be brethren in the current situation wherein they are intentionally producing fruits that are not of God, but of the devil.

That was not my reasoning, so I don't know where you got it from. Read what I say not what you think I say.

Payattention, I'm not the only one who has a problem understanding you. So there appears to be something wrong with the manner in which you express your thoughts. If you want people to understand you, then you need to add more clarity to your thoughts, so as to avoid such confusion.

The purpose of the Bible is to show you how God worked in the lives of people in the past.

The purpose of the Bible has been given to us in 2Tim. 3:16-17. Please read it! The purpose for which it was written and compiled, is much more than just simply showing us how God worked in the lives of people of past times. It shows us that He wasn't merely the God who worked in past lives, but is an ever present help for all peoples of every generation and culture, and that He uses His word to bridge the gap between the past and the present for this very purpose, to teach the man of God His will, and to provide Him with instruction on how to accomplish it.

You have no idea where a person stands in relation to God.

But we can get a pretty good indication of where that person stands when he is flat out doing things that he clearly knows he shouldn't be doing, but refuses to give up. Did you not read Tall's response to you concerning this?

I hope you do not believe in salvation by works.

Of course I do...

It's not by man's works however, but God's!

You have no idea why people do not give up the things they give up.

Of course I do. It's because they haven't learned to trust God in that area of their lives. That's why they don't give it up when they know they ought to.

I am not about to judge because you refuse to give up what I believe is a flawed view of God.

But aren't you judging me in saying that my view of God is flawed? So are you going to judge or are you not going to judge? Please make up your mind.

 

[StormyOne]

We should really resurrect that post about the stoning children. We never worked it out. I did post about 9 different laws.

The point that Woobadooba was getting at is not refuted by saying we don't stone children. The point is that there are scriptural princples the laws were based on.

You are right that the initial audience is the primary, not us. But even Peter said the things in the OT were written for our benefit. They are a picture of how God has dealt with men in the past.

Now the specific law of stoning children is an outgrowth of the enduring command to honor father and mother. We don't have to apply it as the thecracy did to see some enduring value in the principle.

The problem is, we don't always know the principle.

Was the reason they could not plant mixed crops, or wear mixed fabric because of some custom around them among the pagans? Do we even know?

Is the reason we keep the dietary laws even though the uncleanness of the temple service is not an issue because they are health laws? Then why don't we keep the mildew ones? Or the ones about menstruation? Or why don't we put people out of the camp so to speak after sex?

It is true we pick and choose. But woobadooba is implying there are enduring principles. That is the big question. ARe there? And how do we extract them? Or are the specific laws still really in place in some instances and we don't want to keep them (women and head coverings for instance).

I went back and gave you may take on the laws you posted in the other thread..... just because we believe there may be principles attached to directives given by God does that mean there are? Sometimes can God be arbitrary? As in do this cause I said do it?

 

[woobadooba]

I went back and gave you may take on the laws you posted in the other thread..... just because we believe there may be principles attached to directives given by God does that mean there are? Sometimes can God be arbitrary? As in do this cause I said do it?

God never did, and never will tell anyone to do something for which He has no purpose.

God does not give us commands for the sake of giving commands, to arbitrate His rule over us. He gives us commands for our benefit, not His own.

 

[StormyOne]

God never did, and never will tell anyone to do something for which He has no purpose.

God does not give us commands for the sake of giving commands, to arbitrate His rule over us. He gives us commands for our benefit, not His own.

Are you a parent? Have your children gotten to the point where they can dissect the directives you have given them and point out the inconsistency? If that has ever happened to you as a parent, you will understand the context in which I asked the question....

 

[woobadooba]

Are you a parent?

Yes, and I really don't see why it makes a difference. God still has a purpose for everything that He tells us to do.

Have your children gotten to the point where they can dissect the directives you have given them and point out the inconsistency?

But you are equating the finite with the infinite. God isn't a typical parent. He is our Creator. And there is nothing inconsistent about what He has given us instruction to do. It may be inconsistent with what we are currently doing, but that is the whole purpose of giving us such instruction, to teach us how to make our lives consistent with His will, is it not?

 

[StormyOne]

Yes, and I really don't see why it makes a difference. God still has a purpose for everything that He tells us to do.



But you are equating the finite with the infinite. God isn't a typical parent. He is our Creator. And there is nothing inconsistent about what He has given us instruction to do. It may be inconsistent with what we are currently doing, but that is the whole purpose of giving us such instruction, to teach us how to make our lives consistent with His will, is it not?

Thank you for your response...

 

[woobadooba]

Thank you for your response...

And thank you for yours! I don't think you realize the impact you've had on my life in helping me to strengthen my walk with God.

I'm thankful for CF because it gives Christians, who would otherwise be made to keep silent in the church, an opportunity to speak, to share what they believe with others. Just two months ago I was about to walk away from this, but CF gave me assurance that what I have to say does matter. I am glad the Lord led me to this place.

And people, such as yourself, in asking me questions, have shown me that you care about my opinion, and that, in terms of my walk with God, has helped me in a way for which I will forever be grateful!

Thank you!

 

[tall73]

It is more fruitful to understand what happened at Eden than to gain an understanding of Paul's perception. Paul saw through a glass darkly. By his own admission he did have a complete understanding of the issues, yet so many Christians quote him as if he did.

For some reason we ignore the fact that even after three and a half years of an intense internship with Jesus the disciples, who became the Apostles, did not understand the Master. Why we allowed the enemy to blind our eyes to these obvious facts?

Payattention:
Now we already know that you resent us misquoting you. So I am going to be very careful this time. And I hope you in turn will be very clear in what you are saying.

What parts of the Bible do you accept as anything other than flawed?

Does Paul's view have no meaning?

Did the disciples' view have no meaning?

Do you accept the direct statements of Jesus who also gave warnings?

Who exactly would you accept a statement from?

These are not misquotes, and they are not attacks. They are questions that I am asking because so far I cannot tell where you are coming from.

Stormy,

Yes, I think it is conceivavle he could make what a decision based on simply His choice. And He might at times do things for other than an ulterior motive. That is why I am interested in the topic of these laws. He never stated that the laws of cleanness etc. were for health. He always said they were about holiness. Which is why I wonder when we always apply it the other way. Now it may be that from our vantage point we see them as health oriented. But then if we realize that it was only later revelation, confirmed by science (to some degree, not all the revelation was yet) then are we judging it really just on the ones we like?

What about those scriptural commands that EGW doesn't touch on and science hasn't yet confirmed?

I will check your reply there by the way. It is an interesting topic to me.

Woobadooba,

I have apprecaited your posts on this thread. Please check out the law one if you didn't already.


I do think there are often principles. But there are cases where they would be hard to find out what the principle is.

 

[payattention]

Did I ever say it was? You can know someone by his fruits, but that doesn't mean such current fruits will arbitrate the final outcome of his life in terms of whether he will be saved or not. He may change his ways, and produce good fruits.

The point is, we are not to consider such people to be brethren in the current situation wherein they are intentionally producing fruits that are not of God, but of the devil.

How do you know that it is intentional, according to your meaning of the term? The only reason why knowing someone's fruits is that you may know what you are likely to become if you associate with them. It is also possible that you could make them become like you, but the principle is the same. This discussion was never about that. I know, because I started it. People who talk about people's fruits are attempting to make judgements about that person's condition based on personal observation. That is God's job.

Payattention, I'm not the only one who has a problem understanding you. So there appears to be something wrong with the manner in which you express your thoughts. If you want people to understand you, then you need to add more clarity to your thoughts, so as to avoid such confusion.

Or you could read more carefully. A good example occurred in this post where you accused me of judging you because I said you view of God is flawed. I did not say what kind of person you were, nor did I attempt to intimate how you came to have that view of God. Yet, you concluded that I was judging you. Was it my lack of clarity that led you to that conclusion?

The purpose of the Bible has been given to us in 2Tim. 3:16-17. Please read it! The purpose for which it was written and compiled, is much more than just simply showing us how God worked in the lives of people of past times. It shows us that He wasn't merely the God who worked in past lives, but is an ever present help for all peoples of every generation and culture, and that He uses His word to bridge the gap between the past and the present for this very purpose, to teach the man of God His will, and to provide Him with instruction on how to accomplish it.

Another example. Based on how he worked in the lives of people in the past we know that He will be willing to work in our lives as well based on our circumstances and conditions. He never said that the Bible is His word, if you are trying to give it that lofty perch. Jesus is the Word: He is the express image of God. That is what the Word really refers to: that which reveals the essence of the Creator. The Word -- the Logos. This is why logic is so essential to a proper understanding of the Eternal One.

But we can get a pretty good indication of where that person stands when he is flat out doing things that he clearly knows he shouldn't be doing, but refuses to give up. Did you not read Tall's response to you concerning this?

How do you know that person knows he should not be doing that. Are you in his mind? And why are you so concerned that you do not think it is sufficient to pray that God will keep the forces of evil away from the individual that he may get the victory? Why do we think that the way to show we care is to condemn others?

Of course I do...

It's not by man's works however, but God's!

Not if you mean good deeds. You are not saved because you can apply God's good deeds to your account. Salvation is something God accomplished in the same way that a lifeguard saves a drowning victim.

Of course I do. It's because they haven't learned to trust God in that area of their lives. That's why they don't give it up when they know they ought to.

How do you know they have not learned to trust God? Could it not be that they don't really understand? You are making claims that are clearly outlandish. You don't even understand yourself, yet you would think you understand your brother.

But aren't you judging me in saying that my view of God is flawed? So are you going to judge or are you not going to judge? Please make up your mind.

We addressed that above.

 

[payattention]

Payattention:
Now we already know that you resent us misquoting you. So I am going to be very careful this time. And I hope you in turn will be very clear in what you are saying.

What parts of the Bible do you accept as anything other than flawed?

The only part of the Bible that I accept unequivocally in terms of historical accuracy is the first two verses that say "In the beginning God created the heavens." Everything else must be tested against the idea that an Eternal being created the human race as part of his celestial government, and that He is reflected in every part of His universe. Any doctrine, no matter how well tailored fails if it disagrees with that concept in any way.

Does Paul's view have no meaning?

Paul's view has meaning in the context of his experience that is recorded. But Paul's understanding is limited by his fallibility and his cultural heritage. When Paul says women should not speak in the church I interpret that in the context of the culture in which he lived. I don't hold God to what Paul said.

Did the disciples' view have no meaning?

The disciples' view had meaning in the context of who they were. Up to the end of Christ's life they demonstrated that they just did not understand Him. Why else would James and John be foolish enough to ask Him to give them special seats in His kingdom. Why would they try to turn away the women who brought their children to Him. He lived with them and they did not know Him. We should not repeat their mistakes.

Do you accept the direct statements of Jesus who also gave warnings?

I have been having difficulty getting Christians to accept the recorded direct statements from Jesus. They refuse to accept the implications of His direct statements to the disciples in Matt. 16:25-28 that some of them would see Him return in His glory with His angels. They choose to apply that to the Transfiguratioin even though Matthew, writing years after Christ had returned to heaven, never did. They do anything to refute Christ's direct reported statements.

Who exactly would you accept a statement from?

I will accept a healthy financial statement from any financial institution of good repute. I hope my answers were helpful.