How to walk in the Spirit.

[pescador]

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

1) It's unfortunate that
2) people don't use chapters
and verses for
3) their original purpose:
4) reference, instead of
5) using them stand-
6) alone to prove
7) doctrine

 

[fhansen]

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

Everyone uses verses to support their positions. We can't recite the entire bible, with commentary, for someone. So probably just as often as someone misuses a verse, someone else will accuse someone of misuse when they're actually using it rightly. And most probably tend to filter their interpretations through the lens of a previously held theology.

 

[Clare73]

Lets look at this....

'"walking.....................IN...........THE Spirit."""

So, whose Spirit?

Yours?
It can't be yours, as your Spirit is already always ON. Its ALIVE, and made so by God.

See, you dont learn to walk in THAT, as that is already constantly in process = born again.

So, that means, you are to walk in someone else's.
How do you walk there?
You walk there the same way you are : "seated in Heavenly places in Christ".
You walk there the same way you the born again have become...."As Jesus IS< so are the born again IN THIS WORLD".
You walk there the exact same way you are in the world but not OF It, because you have been "translated From Darkness.....TO LIGHT".
So...
This is why the verse tells you to walk in THE Spirit.
See, The verse is talking to you, spiritually, and not just as words on a page.

And remember, ....when you are learning how to see the light in the word, and not just the words on the page, there are keys, to notice.
And one of them is to notice = "THE". As often the NT will be talking about something SPECIFIC and not in the general sense, and so, it will say....."THE"....>"THE"......"THE".........as in Jesus is THE Way, and not just a way. And Christ hung on THE Cross, and not just a cross.
See that?
Notice the "THE's.

Now, when you are told to walk in THE Spirit, then that is a Specific direction and not just a random or general idea.
And the "walking" in this verse, is not you trying to be good, or you trying to live right, or you trying to present your body as a living sacrifice, as all that is just generic discipleship.

So, what is "THE Spirit"?.... = Its Jesus's MIND of Faith and Belief.
Its this....>"the MIND of Christ".
Its this, > "God's Perspective, regarding all things".
And for you to get THERE, within your Spirituality, you have to "Put on the new man", and "renew your mind".
And that means,

you have to understand HOW to align your mind with God's perspective of YOU, so that you only SEE yourself as God's has recreated you to be, as a "new Creation in Christ".
And Saint, that is not a saved sinner.

God does not see you as a saved sinner.
God sees you as a HEIR of God and a Joint Heir with Jesus.

And you know this, how?

God sees all things in their certain completion and fullness.
There is no time in eternity, all is complete.

But that's not what he sees in time, where we are on the way to completion and fullness, in a process of growth and change.

Salvation is not a one-time event. It is past, present and future:
past--when you believed (Ephesians 2:5, 8) and were delivered from God's judgment on your sin,
present--in your growth in sanctification (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18),
future--at the resurrection (Romans 13:11, 8:23, Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 1:5) in its completion.

God sees you as a HEIR of God and a Joint Heir with Jesus.
God sees you as a SAINT, as a Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Do you see you like that?
If not, Then you are not yet in the "right mind" or the "renewed" mind.
And if you are in a denomination that does not teach you what im showing you, then you need to consider finding a better teacher, and a denomination that is all about "Pauline Theology".

So, once you do come to this understanding, and you must do it.... and stay there, you are walking in The Spirit, which is to REST in God's Grace.

"Walking" is not "resting."

Walking is going forward. . ."to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29) through the Holy Spirit.

A truncated view of salvation is not "walking in the Spirit."

Our rest is in our salvation-rest from our works to save ourselves from God's judgment on our sin,
it is not in spiritual idleness.

Our walking in the Spirit is growth in our conformity to the likeness of his Son (Romans 8:29).

And our burden is light because of our enablement by the Holy Spirit.

See, when you learn to see yourself only as God has made you to be as the "new Creation" in Christ, then you are finally in the perfect faith.
And in THERE, is where you find this.....>"Christ always GIVES ME = The Victory".

So, how do you put on and renew? How do you put on the New Man and Renew your mind?
You must learn to only see yourself as God has recreated you to be, as "ONE WITH GOD", "In Christ". "made Righteous", and always having "Eternal Life".
That is who you are, in GOD's eyes.
And when you get those same enlightened spiritual inner eyes, that is to only SEE YOURSELF as God has recreated you to eternally exist as the "new Creation".... then you are finally "walking in THE Spirit", but not until you see this and become this same "mind" having put it on.

 

[pescador]

Everyone uses verses to support their positions. We can't recite the entire bible, with commentary, for someone. So probably just as often as someone misuses a verse, someone else will accuse someone of misuse when they're actually using it rightly. And most probably tend to filter their interpretations through the lens of a previously held theology.

Reductio ad absurdum. Of course we can't recite the entire bible, but that doesn't mean that it should be chopped into into very small pieces. That is the method to prove points erroneously -- taking them out of context. Sections of Scripture should be quoted in a manner that retains as much of the original meaning and intent as possible. If it's not in the original formatting, for examples the psalms (which are poetry), then it's open distortion of the author's meaning.

1 John 2:15, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Taken separately, these out-of-context verses contradict each other. God loved the world, but we are not to love the world. Just one example...

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

Well your certainly entitled to your opinion, I believe it is a reference to walking with Christ, following in His footsteps. I would also like to say that I enjoy discussing the scriptures with you my friend. I like the way you examine them in context and your discussions are very honest and genuine. God bless

 

[fhansen]

Reductio ad absurdum. Of course we can't recite the entire bible, but that doesn't mean that it should be chopped into into very small pieces. That is the method to prove points erroneously -- taking them out of context. Sections of Scripture should be quoted in a manner that retains as much of the original meaning and intent as possible. If it's not in the original formatting, for examples the psalms (which are poetry), then it's open distortion of the author's meaning.

1 John 2:15, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Taken separately, these out-of-context verses contradict each other. God loved the world, but we are not to love the world. Just one example...

I get it-although personally I doubt many would find conflict between those particular verses, intuitively understanding the different usages in this case. I'd hope so anyway. But all true and yet any verse quoted is automatically out of context. So how much historical or literary, etc, context and commentary do we provide? Most just start with the verse as supporting the position that they, hopefully, sincerely believe it means, and then let the discussion continue. Catechisms generally do the same, without delving into a commentary every time they quote a verse or passage. I've been charged with taking verses out of context, and then no context is offered to support the opposing position. They just "know" I'm wrong I guess. In the end many of us seem to end up sticking with our positions regardless, and might likely do so even if a highly credentialed bible scholar or historian et al provided a context that opposed our theologies. I'm not arguing the point, I'm just not so sure how to apply it on the forums-other than to do our due diligence in understanding what we quote as best we can beforehand. I'm sure it's frustrating for all sides.

 

[Clare73]

I get it-although personally I doubt many would find conflict between those particular verses, intuitively understanding the different usages in this case. I'd hope so anyway. But all true and yet any verse quoted is automatically out of context. So how much historical or literary, etc, context and commentary do we provide? Most just start with the verse as supporting the position that they, hopefully, sincerely believe it means, and then let the discussion continue. Catechisms generally do the same, without delving into a commentary every time they quote a verse or passage. I've been charged with taking verses out of context, and then no context is offered to support the opposing position. They just "know" I'm wrong I guess. In the end many of us seem to end up sticking with our positions regardless, and might likely do so even if a highly credentialed bible scholar or historian et al provided a context that opposed our theologies. I'm not arguing the point, I'm just not so sure how to apply it on the forums-other than to do our due diligence in understanding what we quote as best we can beforehand. I'm sure it's frustrating for all sides.

"Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" is not out of context.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is not out of context

"Do not murder" is not out of context.

"Justification is by faith apart from religious works" is not out of context.

"God is just, good and holy" is not out of context.

Etc., etc., etc.

 

[fhansen]

"Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" is not out of context.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is not out of context

"Do not murder" is not out of context.

"Justification is by faith apart from works" is not out of context.

"God is just, good and holy" is not out of context.

Etc., etc., etc.

Some still might argue otherwise. Or argue that those verses don't really mean that man's obligated to love- in order to be holy in God's eyes.

 

[Clare73]

Some still might argue otherwise. Or argue that those verses don't really mean that man's obligated to love- in order to be holy in God's eyes.

Has nothing to do with them being an unambiguous command or statement.

 

[fhansen]

Has nothing to do with them being an unambiguous command or statement.

"Justification is by faith apart from works" is not out of context.

Ok, and by this verse alone we should be able to discern, without the context given by other passages, that Paul is speaking of works of the law, and that the justification of man, realized by faith, involves real righteousness given to him which works of grace, works of love, flow from, and must flow from in order to be saved, correct? So that we might conclude from that verse that, as taught, quoting a 16th century believer, "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

 

[Clare73]

"Justification is by faith apart from religious works" is not out of context.

Ok, and by this verse alone we should be able to discern, without the context given by other passages, that Paul is speaking of works of the law, and that the justification of man, realized by faith, involves real righteousness given to him which works of grace, works of love, flow from, and must flow from in order to be saved, correct? So that we might conclude from that verse that, as taught, quoting a 16th century believer,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

I hope not, because that is incorrect.
There are Christ rejectors who love well, as in Orthodox Jews, for instance.

 

[fhansen]

I hope not, because that is incorrect.
There are Christ rejectors who love well, as in Orthodox Jews, for instance.

[I had the word "religious" in there. Sometimes words get missed.]

I finally got your quote right-sorry. Anyway, I've identified your theological error for you right there .To the extent that you understand the quote I used, you'll better understand God's purposes with man, and the role faith is meant to play.

And I don't know how anyone can tell how well another person loves, but I do know that to love God with one's whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and one's neighbor as oneself is a very tall order, not accomplishable apart from grace, and would amount to perfection in man, where his justice or righteousness is completely realized and sin would be totally excluded.

 

[Clare73]

I finally got your quote right-sorry. Anyway, I've identified your theological error for you right there. To the extent that you understand the quote I used, you'll better understand God's purposes with man, and the role faith is meant to play.

I'm missing it, to what error are you referring in:

"Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" is not out of context.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is not out of context

"Do not murder" is not out of context.

"Justification is by faith apart from religious works" is not out of context.

"God is just, good and holy" is not out of context.

Etc., etc., etc.?

 

[ozso]

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.

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

No I'm 59 like it says in my profile. And your question was formed as a statement regarding my beliefs which was untrue. The adult thing to do in a situation like that is reword the loaded question strawman.
The issue in this thread is whether or not a man will have his salvation revoked if he doesn't behave righteously enough. This is the age old argument of once saved always saved vs you can lose your salvation if you're too naughty. Both sides have a bunch of verses to back them up. And both sides use verses out of context.

 

[fhansen]

I'm missing it, to what error are you referring in:

"Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" is not out of context.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is not out of context

"Do not murder" is not out of context.

"Justification is by faith apart from religious works" is not out of context.

"God is just, good and holy" is not out of context.

Etc., etc., etc.?

Forgive me-it's getting a little late in the day for me at this point. And that seems to come earlier than it used to. So,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

To the extent that you understand the quote I used [the quote above], you'll better understand God's purposes with man, and the role faith is meant to play.

 

[Clare73]

Forgive me-it's getting a little late in the day for me at this point. And that seems to come earlier than it used to. So,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

To the extent that you understand the quote I used [the quote above], you'll better understand God's purposes with man, and the role faith is meant to play.

Okay. . .the quote above is not Biblically true.

Many love well who will not be saved, as in Orthodox Jews who reject Jesus Christ.

We will be judged on our possession of saving faith in Jesus Christ, not "on our love," for love can be faithless.

 

[fhansen]

You're making stuff up about me so that you can knock it down.

No, I haven't. After post after post of my insisting that a man can only be authentically righteous if God makes him so, a righteousness which would naturally produce righteous deeds stemming from right motivation, taking pains to distinguish between that righteousness and any human so called righteousness that would produce filthy rags, you still said,

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.

So for me to then ask whether or not you believe, first of all, that God, can, indeed, produce righteousness in man, is an appropriate question to follow with. From that point we can discuss whether or not man is obligated to live and express and progress in that righteousness, with the help of grace, as opposed to failing and persistently sliding back into the flesh/grave sin, turning away from God for all practical purposes, with eternal life at stake.

 

[ozso]

Some still might argue otherwise. Or argue that those verses don't really mean that man's obligated to love- in order to be holy in God's eyes.

The argument is if a born again Christian will lose his salvation if he doesn't properly fulfill that obligation.

 

[fhansen]

The argument is if a born again Christian will lose his salvation if he doesn't properly fulfill that obligation.

Exactly

 

[ozso]

No, I haven't. After post after post of my insisting that a man can only be authentically righteous if God makes him so, a righteousness which would naturally produce righteous deeds stemming from right motivation, taking pains to distinguish between that righteousness and any human so called righteousness that would produce filthy rags,

So for me to then ask whether or not you believe, first of all, that God, can, indeed, produce righteousness in man, is an appropriate question to follow with.

That's not how you worded your question. That is how you should have worded your question.