Luke 16: A response to an article.

[Clare73]

So the NT churches were the true religion, and they existed in the first century.

Judaism was not "the only true religion" in the first century, which is another corruption.

And Scripture does not present the Church as "beginning" at Pentecost.
Scripture presents the Church as all believers who are the body of Christ.
There were many believers in Christ before Pentecost, and they were the Church.

It is vital in our understanding of scripture to distinguish between Judaism and the faith followed by Christians.

"Judaism" was the only true religion before Christ's death because it was given by God as a covenant by which man could be in relationship with God. But...God promised the New Covenant because man could not keep the "First Covenant," or, the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Covenant of Law.

Thanks, Pilgrim, for the kind comment.

Okay, so in terms of covenants, the New Covenant was inaugurated at the death of Christ, when the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant was made obsolete (old)--Heb 8:13, and the Church was born at Jesus' death on the cross, five weeks before Pentecost.

So the New Covenant was the true religion, and it was in force during the first century, making the statement that Judaism was the only true religion in the first century another of that author's corruptions.

But as Paul teaches the Law (euphemistic for this covenant) was meant to lead man to Christ. In other words, just as God's word today leads man to repentance and faith in Christ whereby we are saved, even so the Law was a tutor, a servant given the job of leading men to an understanding of sin, and that they were reliant upon God for salvation.

Therefore we are "mediators of the New Covenant,"

Okay, I don't find a Biblical basis for saying that "we" are mediators of the New Covenant.
Scripture presents Christ as the one and only mediator of the New Covenant.

not adherents to the covenant which has been abrogated by the New Covenant. The writer of Hebrews goes to great lengths to teach this to his Hebrew brethren, who would have understoof clearly the implication of his teaching which is lost on (though we can understand) us because we were not brought up under Law as they were in the first century.

Read Hebrews 7-10, and take note reference to the "First Covenant" and what he is saying about it.

Yes, it has been made obsolete (old) and has disappeared.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Phantasman]

Are you sure about that?

You can deny the specific, clear and certain meaning of the words in v. 47, where the stated choice is to enter
the kingdom of God missing an eye, or to enter hell fire with both eyes.

I will take Jesus at his word, not denying its plain meaning and its context to "make up my own truth."


Are you sure about that?

1) I note that Mk 9:41-50 is not a parable any more than the Sermon on the Mount is a parable. A parable is a fictitious narrative. Mk 9:41-50 is instruction on dealing radically with our sin.

2) I note vv. 49-50 do not negate Jesus' strong words on the unquenchable fires of hell.

3) I note you did not show how vv. 49-50 negate Jesus' words regarding the unquenchable fires of hell.
All you offered was denial of the plain meaning of his words.
I will show vv. 49-50 do not negate Jesus' words regarding the fires of hell, but complete his instruction regarding them.

4) I note that salt is a symbol of grace/sanctification because:
--salt penetrates - grace penetrates, to the level of our heart and motives, sanctifying them
--salt retards corruption - grace transforms our corruption
--salt aids healing - grace heals our sin (1Pe 2:24; cf 2Kgs 2:20-22)
--salt makes tasteless things tasty and acceptable - we are unacceptable to God without his grace

5) I note that in the NT salt is used as a symbol of grace/sanctification:

Col 4:6 - "Let your conversation be always full of grace (no corruption), seasoned with salt (which retards corruption).

Mt 5:13 - "You are the salt of the earth (and the decaying earth desperately needs salt).
But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything,
except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

[If the professing church (salt) loses its saltiness (holiness), it will no longer be good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled on by the world.]

Mk 9:49-50 - "Everyone will be salted (sanctified) with fire (of refining). Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another."

[Grace/sanctification retards corruption (the source of our conflicts - Jas 4:1) and makes us peaceable.]

6) I note that salt was added to the grain sacrifices (to sanctify them).

So the understanding of the lesson in its entirety is that those who would not enter the unquenchable fires of hell must enter the fire of suffering and sanctification in dealing radically with their sin.

My church does not confuse me, but your denial of the plain meaning of Jesus' simple words certainly confuses you.
I'm so sorry you find the words of Jesus unacceptable to you.

In the faith,
Clare

This post will be different, dear Clare

After praying about our debate, and after you asking me what spirit if affecting me, here is the truth.

Hell is not a subject I spend a lot of time studying or thinking about. I don't debate it much and don't have but a post or two in any thread on the subject. So I am no longer going to act like I know or debate the subject anymore, because it is out of my league.

I do want to apologize to you for the church remarks. These are not appropriate coming from a person that is supposed to project love for his neighbor. When I was reading Thomas, Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles us, but what comes out of the mouth. What ever spirit that is in me showed me you and how I have communicated to you. As you can see, I am a seeker. As you also can see, I find my own faults, or at least my spirit and what I read shows them to me.

This does not stop me from my beliefs. It just confirms to me that I am not faultless, and that I continue, because I am becoming better. But because of you, I have learned as well. I hope you forgive my remarks because I know the church is personal to you.

I want my debates to remain productive, not personal. I want to provoke thought in questions (learn), not teach. I am not here to push my beliefs, but to gather thoughts for a healthy belief system. Debating is fine. Arguing is hell.

Love

Dan

 

[paul becke]

Well, Pilgrim, I think this parable is a fascinating one, even by the standard of Christ's other parables.

Firstly, I think the author of the article is correct: Jesus did not say explicitly that the rich man (note he is not accorded with a name - which is a very personal thing - by Jesus). And you are correctly that he most certainly did state that he was a bad man implicitly, but nevertheless, for those with eyes to see - very clearly.

So, the question arises: why did Jesus ostensibly speak of the rich man in very gentle terms - as did Father Abraham, who, in a quite tenderly-seeming way, called him, 'my son'.

It strikes me that Jesus was preaching about a very recognisable breed of human being, the very rich, the 1% and their intimates, and that he had concluded that to speak to them directly in terms of morality was a waste of time, (his brothers had had Moses and the prophets to teach them...). Indeed, you won't hear this explicitly remarked upon in too many sermons, but Jesus compared the rich man unfavourably with the street-dogs (held to be the lowest form of life), who in their hapless, stumbling, even cross-species compassion, licked Lazarus' sores.

So, instead, he spoke in a manner that suggested that the law of 'supernature', the eschatological law, determining whether our destiny is to be heaven or hell, in relation to the obdurately uncompassionate, was paralleled in the same remorseless, inevitable way as the law of the jungle, by which he had been living on earth, operates. Only it was worse. On a full belly, few predators will turn their minds to killing. The very rich never have enough, can never have enough. it defines them in a sorry sort of a way.

So, what does Jesus do? Instead of appealing to their conscience, he says, through Father Abraham, well this is the way it is: You had good things in this life; while Lazarus had bad things. Now, it's time for a reversal of your fortunes.

So, instead of giving an explicit moral lesson for the rich man, Jesus, through Abraham, was implicitly invoking the other pole of his dictum: 'Where your treasure is, there your heart is', addressing the matter of his treasure, in the not too optimistic hope that its connection with his heart might be made by the rich man.' Or, rather, in reality, by his listeners.

So, in my view, it sounds very much as if Christ was actually incandescent with fury, when he told this parable, and his quiet, desperately understated tone actually expresses it with unique force.

The reversal of the fates of Lazarus and the rich man seems to echo Mary's words in the Magnificat:

'He has pulled down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he has sent empty away. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy, even as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham(!) and to his seed for ever.'

 

[Clare73]

This post will be different, dear Clare

After praying about our debate, and after you asking me what spirit if affecting me, here is the truth.

Hell is not a subject I spend a lot of time studying or thinking about. I don't debate it much and don't have but a post or two in any thread on the subject. So I am no longer going to act like I know or debate the subject anymore, because it is out of my league.

I do want to apologize to you for the church remarks. These are not appropriate coming from a person that is supposed to project love for his neighbor. When I was reading Thomas, Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles us, but what comes out of the mouth. What ever spirit that is in me showed me you and how I have communicated to you. As you can see, I am a seeker. As you also can see, I find my own faults, or at least my spirit and what I read shows them to me.

This does not stop me from my beliefs. It just confirms to me that I am not faultless, and that I continue, because I am becoming better. But because of you, I have learned as well. I hope you forgive my remarks because I know the church is personal to you.

I want my debates to remain productive, not personal. I want to provoke thought in questions (learn), not teach. I am not here to push my beliefs, but to gather thoughts for a healthy belief system. Debating is fine. Arguing is hell.

Love

Dan

Well, my dear Dan, that is heart warming.
And, of course, your apology is accepted. I've had to make a few of my own.

I don't know the difference between arguing and debating, all I know is addressing discreditation of the Bible.

The only time you will find me disagreeing with you is when the Bible is misrepresented or discredited.

Don't you love it when we play nice(ly)!

In the faith,
Clare

 

[daq]

Dear ''timewerx'' when a leper sees he is a leper only then can his leprosy be healed.

Dear ''P1LGR1M'' you are not a ''mediator of the New Covenant'' as that would be usurping the position and authority of Yeshua Christou who is the New Mediator of the Covenant according to the order of Melchizedek by sworn oath.

 

[Clare73]

Well, Pilgrim, I think this parable is a fascinating one, even by the standard of Christ's other parables.

Well, Paul, speaking of the other parables in Lk 14-16, which I see as the context for this one,
and where the nature of the Christian life in the kingdom of God is portrayed in:
the cost of being a disciple (Lk 14:25-35) - purity of heart, wholeheartedness;

then three parables on spiritual death and rebirth:
parable of the lost sheep (Lk 15:1-7) - on God seeking the elect (Jn 6:39),
parable of the lost coin (Lk 15:8-10) - on rejoicing in heaven at the rebirth of the elect
parable of the lost son (Lk 15:11-32) - on the Gentiles (younger son), Pharisees (older son),
and the inheritance of the Father (Eph 1:14; 1Pe 1:4);

the parable of the shrewd manager (Lk 16:1-12) - on the necessity of shrewdness in using worldly wealth for eternal benefit; and the

parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31).

I think the description of the situations of Lazarus and the rich man in vv. 19-26 are simply
for setting up the point of the parable, and have nothing to do with the lesson of the parable.

In v. 27 the rich man begs for Lazarus to be sent to his brothers (the Jews) to warn them regarding unbelief.
In v. 29, Abraham replies they have Moses and the Prophets to warn them.
In v. 30, Lazarus replies that if someone from the dead (Jesus) goes to them, they will repent.
In v. 31, Abraham replies that if they did not believe Moses (in Dt 18:15-16) and the Prophets (in all their prophecies of the Messiah), they won't believe even if someone rises from the dead (the Messiah himself).

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not about wealth, poverty, or goodness, badness,
or greed, conscience and morality.
It's about the nature of the kingdom of God in relation to salvation itself, about
the wrath of God (agony of fire, v. 24) on unbelief,
faith and salvation by the word of God (v. 29),
belief and unbelief (v. 31).

It's pure gospel:

Jn 3:18 - "whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already"

Jn 3:36 - "whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

In the faith,
Clare

 

[P1LGR1M]

Thanks, Pilgrim, for the kind comment.

Okay, so in terms of covenants, the New Covenant was inaugurated at the death of Christ, when the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant was made obsolete (old)--Heb 8:13, and the Church was born at Jesus' death on the cross, five weeks before Pentecost.

Hello again, Clare.

It is just my view that until Pentecost the Church did not begin. Particular to the New Birth is the indwelling of the Spirit of God, and we see that He did not come until Pentecost. There are some great bible expositors I come into disagreement about on this point, but, I see no scriptural basis to think that people were born again before Pentecost.

So the New Covenant was the true religion, and it was in force during the first century, making the statement that Judaism was the only true religion in the first century another of that author's corruptions.

I think the author has in view the time during Christ's ministry, rather than including post-Pentecost events.

Where he errs is to imply that the rich man represents Judah, making it clear that he refers to the tribe, rather than the kingdom by likening the rich man's five brothers to those of Judah (the man).

Okay, I don't find a Biblical basis for saying that "we" are mediators of the New Covenant.
Scripture presents Christ as the one and only mediator of the New Covenant.

lol, and you are right. I did this the other day in a thread where I mistakenly said Christ instead of God. Again, I was in a hurry and made an error. We are, however, ministers of the New Covenant.

Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

Yes, it has been made obsolete (old) and has disappeared.

In the faith,
Clare

And what is interesting is we never see mention of the New Covenant in doctrinal discussions. In beginning to understand this it opened up scripture for me, giving me an understanding of the whole of scripture, better than I previously had.

And it looks like my hope of answering posts after finishing the response can be laid aside...lol.

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

Hello again, Clare.

It is just my view that until Pentecost the Church did not begin. Particular to the New Birth is the indwelling of the Spirit of God, and we see that He did not come until Pentecost. There are some great bible expositors I come into disagreement about on this point, but, I see no scriptural basis to think that people were born again before Pentecost.

You don't think Pentecost was about empowering those who were born again in the preaching of the gospel?

There is no faith without the Holy Spirit, and we know many had faith before Pentecost.

lol, and you are right. I did this the other day in a thread where I mistakenly said Christ instead of God. Again, I was in a hurry and made an error. We are, however, ministers of the New Covenant.

Now why didn't I realize that is what you meant?

Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[P1LGR1M]

Well, Pilgrim, I think this parable is a fascinating one, even by the standard of Christ's other parables.

Hello Paul, always glad to meet someone from the land of my forefathers, being of "Scotch-Irish" descent a well as Irish.

One thing one decides is...is it a parable? I take the position that it makes little difference, though it is the only one in which proper names are assigned.

The point of this thread is to address the article in view. It has just begun but already we are getting some travel, lol. I was going to wait to respond but since there is so much activity, I will just respond to the article as I can and then start a new thread and post it simultaneously.

Firstly, I think the author of the article is correct: Jesus did not say explicitly that the rich man (note he is not accorded with a name - which is a very personal thing - by Jesus). And you are correctly that he most certainly did state that he was a bad man implicitly, but nevertheless, for those with eyes to see - very clearly.

So, the question arises: why did Jesus ostensibly speak of the rich man in very gentle terms - as did Father Abraham, who, in a quite tenderly-seeming way, called him, 'my son'.

Jesus did not...Abraham did. And it would make little sense, to me that is, that there would be language such as, "You dog, you were a pig in life and now you are in torment!" lol

That Abraham is "tender" is no wonder, either, surely compassion would be present, even for one in such circumstances.

It strikes me that Jesus was preaching about a very recognisable breed of human being, the very rich, the 1% and their intimates, and that he had concluded that to speak to them directly in terms of morality was a waste of time, (his brothers had had Moses and the prophets to teach them...). Indeed, you won't hear this explicitly remarked upon in too many sermons, but Jesus compared the rich man unfavourably with the street-dogs (held to be the lowest form of life), who in their hapless, stumbling, even cross-species compassion, licked Lazarus' sores.

I do not read scripture and see condemnation of the rich. I personally believe that God blesses material according to the stewardship abilities of His children. The Lord did show compassion and love for the rich young ruler, and it was not his money that interfered with his spiritual condition, it was his love for it.

Being rich and being out of favor with God is no more synonymous than having sickness or infirmity is.

So, instead, he spoke in a manner that suggested that the law of 'supernature', the eschatological law, determining whether our destiny is to be heaven or hell, in relation to the obdurately uncompassionate, was paralleled in the same remorseless, inevitable way as the law of the jungle, by which he had been living on earth, operates. Only it was worse. On a full belly, few predators will turn their minds to killing. The very rich never have enough, can never have enough. it defines them in a sorry sort of a way.

Agreed, to a certain extent. I believe we see in view a matter of stewardship and concern for a neighbor. Lack of compassion is certainly an element in the story.

So, what does Jesus do? Instead of appealing to their conscience, he says, through Father Abraham, well this is the way it is: You had good things in this life; while Lazarus had bad things. Now, it's time for a reversal of your fortunes.

Not appealing to...sticking it to them, lol. It was a rebuke of them that would not have been missed.

Abraham does not coddle the rich man, simply tells the facts.

So, instead of giving an explicit moral lesson for the rich man, Jesus, through Abraham, was implicitly invoking the other pole of his dictum: 'Where your treasure is, there your heart is', addressing the matter of his treasure, in the not too optimistic hope that its connection with his heart might be made by the rich man.' Or, rather, in reality, by his listeners.

There is no lesson for the rich man in the story to be learned. He chose his fate and the implication is that he was disobedient to the Law, which should have brought a fear of God that extended to compassion and concern for others.

If we merge the teachings we lose, I think, the integrity of the teaching in view. And we are beyond the temporal application of the treasure of the heart and entered into a teaching of judgment which cannot be reversed.

Abraham does not, either, agree to go to lengths to help his brethren.

So, in my view, it sounds very much as if Christ was actually incandescent with fury, when he told this parable, and his quiet, desperately understated tone actually expresses it with unique force.

I think the indignation of the Lord can be seen not only in this teaching, but in many with regard to the leadership of Israel.

The reversal of the fates of Lazarus and the rich man seems to echo Mary's words in the Magnificat:

'He has pulled down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he has sent empty away. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy, even as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham(!) and to his seed for ever.'

I can see that as well.

Thanks for the response, and again, nice to meet you.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

You don't think Pentecost was about empowering those who were born again in the preaching of the gospel?

No, lol. That is just one aspect of what took place that day. Read John 13-17 with an eye to...what is going to happen. The coming of the Comforter occurred on the day pf Pentecost. Consider this passage again with that in mind:

Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)



1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,


2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:


3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.




6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


8 But ye shall receive power,after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Few consider that here, after the Resurrection, Christ is still saying that the Comforter is coming. Verse 8 says "after the Holy Ghost has come upon you," yet the emphasis in many circles is on the power.

The disciples at this point illustrate that they are still awaiting the promises of God, however, it is the restored Kingdom promised by God they are...still...looking for.

Again, read John 13-17 with an eye toward the prophetic nature of Christ's teaching, particularly concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit. I can't get too involved with this right now, as I am visiting my Dad, and have snuck on here to respond to a few posts, so once again, I am doing what I shouldn't be doing...posting in haste, lol.

There is no faith without the Holy Spirit, and we know many had faith before Pentecost.

Receiving the Spirit of God is part of the New Birth experience. Consider:

Ezekiel 36:21-27

King James Version (KJV)



21 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.


22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.


23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.


24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.


25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.


26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.


27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.



This is the beauty of the promises of God: we can truly say we are created in Christ unto good works, and the reason for this is the indwelling of God.

Read this passage and see if you recognize the new birth in this promise of God.

Now why didn't I realize that is what you meant?

My fault...lol. Like I said, I did this, much to the delight of my antagonist, the other day. It only happens when I am in a hurry (I hope, lol), and I was trying to get finished so I could get ready for Sunday School.

I had Hebrews on the brain, sorry.

Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

In the faith,
Clare

That He is. Here is another passage in relation to this which is often overlooked:


1 Corinthians 11:24-26

King James Version (KJV)



24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.


26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.



God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Dear ''timewerx'' when a leper sees he is a leper only then can his leprosy be healed.

Dear ''P1LGR1M'' you are not a ''mediator of the New Covenant'' as that would be usurping the position and authority of Yeshua Christou who is the New Mediator of the Covenant according to the order of Melchizedek by sworn oath.

My dear Daq, you are so right, I misspoke in my haste. It happens sometimes.

Concerning leprosy, there was no cure in biblical times, those affected were isolated from society, outcasts. That he recognized he had leprosy made little difference.

If you would like to look at the teaching of Hebrews, I would love to, as it is actually my favorite book in scripture.

For your information scripture does not mention that the Lord is the "new" Mediator. There is no precedent for a Mediator such as the role of God manifest in the flesh dying in sinful man's place, then to be paraklētos.

You might be familiar with this word translated Comforter, but have you considered it's use here:



1 John 2:1

King James Version (KJV)



2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:




Pretty cool, eh?


Glad you are on your toes, though, as this would be a serious error on my part. It is good for this to happen, as it helps me to be more thorough in what I say, as we all should.


And hey, its okay to call Him Jesus Christ.



God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

There is no faith without the Holy Spirit, and we know many had faith before Pentecost.


In the faith,
Clare

Forgot to comment on this, Clare: keep in mind that it is the Holy Spirit in His ministry of conviction which allows natural man to believe, and repent. So we can see that which the writer of Hebrews teaches concerning "partaking of the Holy Spirit" in this very work. Judas cast out demons, preached the Kingdom, healed...yet we know this man was not saved according to New Covenant standards.

Likewise, we see many who have faith in the days of Christ's ministry, yet we also do not conclude the indwelling of God. Take the woman at the well: she knew Christ was coming, and knew enough to be moved to faith that Christ was in fact who He said He was, thus her "mission trip" into town.

The Pharisees placed their faith in adherence to the Law.

Now, look at the "faith" of Christ's disciples. When He went to the Cross...what did they do? Did they abide? The clear answer is no. What did they do? They went back to their former lives (I go afishing, lol).

Clearly, when the Comforter came, we see an explosion of activity that is Christ centered and evangelical in nature. Now...they could understand, not because of what they were taught, but because the Holy Spirit brought meaning to what they had been taught. It then made perfect sense.

Consider John the Baptist, who said, "Behold! The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world."

But when John was in prison, what did he do? He sent disciples to inquire if Christ was He they expected, or did they await another.

Very interesting, no? lol

One of my favorite teachers disagrees with me, so, given the fact I am human and may be in error, I still have seen no scriptural presentation that makes me think that anyone....was born again before Pentecost.

This might be difficult to consider at first, but with this in mind, you will see what I mean when you read scripture with this in view.

And now, have to get going. But thanks again for the posts, always grateful for actual conversation, lol.

God bless.

 

[paul becke]

Well, Clare, thank you for your response, but we must agree to differ about the Parable of Lazarus.

Regarding your reference to 'shrewdness in the Christian life', I believe it is not 'shrewdness', as such, in the Christian life, but 'purposefulness' that is the point of the parable - an interpretation I have not seen in commentaries on it. Jesus is saying that, when the children of this world want something, they go for it, bald-headed. Whole-heartedly! It impresses me no end, what lengths the large corporations, the Behemoths, will go, to turn a buck. No field of learning would fail to interest them. Their purposefulness is awesome. Alas, matched by their propensity for wickedness.

However, the children of light, tend to be ambivalent, so that, not only do we not want to be poor - still less, a beggar, like poor Lazarus... much rather be the heartless, rich man - if able to choose, we would prefer to be a brain-surgeon or accountant or lawyer, than a carpenter.

Yet Jesus and Joseph were carpenters or joiners. And though Zebedee evidently owned a small business, Peter, James and John were manual workers, and, I dare say, others, apart from Matthew, were also, since Jesus was, himself, and we are told in James' epistle (as well as most of scripture) that God chose the poor to be rich in faith: that area where the analytical intelligence, no matter how finely honed, of the proud intellectual, is actually at a disadvantage in terms of openness to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, as regards the much more subtle and abstruse, fundamental assumptions which form the basis of his world-view.

I find it fascinating to reflect on this Parable of the Dishonest Steward, in relation to the priorities of a high-street bank manager, when assessing a client's application for a loan.

However unaware he may be of Christ's precept, 'Where your treasure is, there your heart is', that will be at the back of his mind. The manager would not regard a person who is painfully honest and clearly not driven to acquire wealth, as a good prospect. On the other hand, he would look upon a 'driven' businessman, who, he thinks would 'know his way round the block', perhaps be a bit too sharp to be entirely honest, as a fine prospect.

If a working man, who is not already a client, goes into a bank, he will have to fill in forms and get a reference or references, in order to join it. If a Russian oligarch who's built up a fortune from organised crime, applies to joint the bank, telling the manager at the outset that he has several large businesses in Russia, and he would like to deposit several million pounds with his bank, it will be, 'Oh, please, come this way, to my office! No. No. Don't worry about paperwork. Plenty of time for that later. We'll keep it to a minimum. I'm sure your time's valuable. We don't want to hold you up."

In fact, more than one major bank has been kept afloat by laundering the money from large-scale drug-trafficking, although I believe there are supposed to be all sorts of regulations to prevent banks from doing so. Yet that ordinary Joe who applies may well have to answer a question relating to money-laundering!'

The World and its worldings, the children of this world, LOVE the Dishonest Steward. He knows what it's about - according to the lights/darkness visible of the World. I'm sure he'd be considered a great wealth-creator and general benefactor of mankind. One of the Herods was responsible for enormous building projects, mostly his palace think. A major employer. But I don't believe he was motivated by any consideration of the needs of his employees.

 

[Clare73]

Forgot to comment on this, Clare: keep in mind that it is the Holy Spirit in His ministry of conviction which allows natural man to believe, and repent. So we can see that which the writer of Hebrews teaches concerning "partaking of the Holy Spirit" in this very work. Judas cast out demons, preached the Kingdom, healed...yet we know this man was not saved according to New Covenant standards.

Likewise, we see many who have faith in the days of Christ's ministry, yet we also do not conclude the indwelling of God. Take the woman at the well: she knew Christ was coming, and knew enough to be moved to faith that Christ was in fact who He said He was, thus her "mission trip" into town.

The Pharisees placed their faith in adherence to the Law.

Now, look at the "faith" of Christ's disciples. When He went to the Cross...what did they do? Did they abide? The clear answer is no. What did they do? They went back to their former lives (I go afishing, lol).

Clearly, when the Comforter came, we see an explosion of activity that is Christ centered and evangelical in nature. Now...they could understand, not because of what they were taught, but because the Holy Spirit brought meaning to what they had been taught. It then made perfect sense.

Consider John the Baptist, who said, "Behold! The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world."

But when John was in prison, what did he do? He sent disciples to inquire if Christ was He they expected, or did they await another.

Very interesting, no? lol

One of my favorite teachers disagrees with me, so, given the fact I am human and may be in error, I still have seen no scriptural presentation that makes me think that anyone....was born again before Pentecost.

This might be difficult to consider at first, but with this in mind, you will see what I mean when you read scripture with this in view.

And now, have to get going. But thanks again for the posts, always grateful for actual conversation, lol.

God bless.

Yes, what you say is very interesting.

However, I'm still stuck at all the examples being pre-death of Jesus.

I'm having a hard time thinking that after the resurrection, the road to Emmaus, the many appearances of Jesus, and his ascension to heaven on the cloud, that they weren't born again into saving faith.

And remember, Jesus told them to stay put and not go out until he empowered them for their ministries.
I'm not sure they're not evangelizing is an indication of lack of faith, rather an indication of obedience.

In the faith,
Clare

P.S. Edit: Didn't take me too long to think maybe you are right.

What they had could well have been a natural faith, like one has in a good leader.
What makes me think you are right, is at the ascension they were still thinking in terms of a political kingdom by the leader whom they loved and trusted.
But that does not add up to saving faith through the Holy Spirit.

Let me look at it some more.

 

[paul becke]

Thank you for your kind greeting, but as with Clare, Pilgrim, I think we must agree to differ. I will comment, however on two of your points.

You will, in fact, find that throughout the Old Testament, as well as the New (again, the Magnificat), the rich man is referred to in apposition to the wicked man, and as violent and deceitful - the latter, noteworthy, since it ultimately refers to economic oppression - Mr Big doesn't sully his hands; the poor man, in apposition to the virtuous man, the true Israel. It crops up again and again, particularly, in the Prophets. Also, most striking is that Gospel quote of Isiah 53:9 concerning Christ's burial. And bear in mind that Joseph of Aramethea was the generous donor of the tomb, and a disciple.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."

However, somehow Americans have managed to re-interpet it. Not even scripture is holy in the eyes of American capitalism.
[/FONT]

 

[paul becke]

Repeat post.

 

[daq]

My dear Daq, you are so right, I misspoke in my haste. It happens sometimes.

Concerning leprosy, there was no cure in biblical times, those affected were isolated from society, outcasts. That he recognized he had leprosy made little difference.

If you would like to look at the teaching of Hebrews, I would love to, as it is actually my favorite book in scripture.

For your information scripture does not mention that the Lord is the "new" Mediator. There is no precedent for a Mediator such as the role of God manifest in the flesh dying in sinful man's place, then to beparaklētos.

You might be familiar with this word translated Comforter, but have you considered it's use here:



1 John 2:1

King James Version (KJV)



2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:




Pretty cool, eh?


Glad you are on your toes, though, as this would be a serious error on my part. It is good for this to happen, as it helps me to be more thorough in what I say, as we all should.


And hey, its okay to call Him Jesus Christ.



God bless.

No response to my Pg.1 post where the answer from Luke 17 is given?

Two places in Hebrews the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' are mentioned.
One of them employs ''kainos'' and the other employs ''neos'' ~

Hebrews 12:24 KJV
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

The New Covenant is always ''KAINOS''-RENEWED
Hebrews 12:24 employs ''NEOS''-NEW and the order is catastrophically altered:

Hebrews 12:24 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
24. kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou kai haimati rantismou kreitton lalounti para tonHabel.
24. And the covenant of a New Mediator Yeshua; and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh more noble things than that of Abel.

As for ''leprosy'' the ''cure'' is found in Leviticus 14 for both the man and his house. As for the ''house'' it must first be emptied of the contents so that what is inside not be made unclean. This ''emptying out'' of the house I do believe the rapturites call the famous Rapture, (Paulos called it being ''harpazo-caught up'' to the third heaven and Paradise).

Leviticus 14:33-45 KJV
33. And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
34. When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
35. And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
36. Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
37. And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
38. Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
39. And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
40. Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
41. And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
42. And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
43. And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
44. Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house; it is unclean.
45. And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.

Indeed there was a day, when long after I had entered into the Beautiful Land, that I did come unto the Great High Priest, (order of Melchizedek) and said unto him: ''It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house''… And oh if only I had known at the time what would come of this! And at that time the High Priest gave me a little scroll and commanded me to eat all of it until the appointed time when he would come and empty out my house to perform the purging and atonement ceremony.

Zechariah 5:1-4 KJV
1. Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.
2. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.
3. Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.
4. I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

My entire ''house'' had to be scrapped but the contents inside were ''saved'' …

 

[timewerx]

the parable of the shrewd manager (Lk 16:1-12) - on the necessity of shrewdness in the Christian life; and the

Most Christians don't understand those verses properly. Jesus is actually condemning 'worldly shrewdness', especially in applying shrewdness to do worldly affairs.

Children of the light should be less shrewd than the children of the world:

Luke 16:8

8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.

We go on to Luke 16:10-12 - handling property that isn't yours. Most Christians don't understand this. They it has something to do with succeeding in business or career, and living in a nice comfortable house, puttering around in a nice car. Those Christians will not inherit even one micrometer square property in Heaven!

To prove most Christians are in the wrong context, those verses are immediately followed by:

Luke 16:13

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

The entire context of those verses is actually condemnation of accumulation of wealth and would condemn most Christians by their lifestyles.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
However, somehow Americans have managed to re-interpet it. Not even scripture is holy in the eyes of American capitalism.
[/FONT]

I agree with you.

I personally call it the 'satanic interpretation of the bible'

Few others here would agree with you as well. Unfortunately, only few think that way.

Most Christians in reality serve Mammon. Even an idiot can figure it out. Doesn't mean we're idiots!

The World and its worldings, the children of this world, LOVE the Dishonest Steward. He knows what it's about - according to the lights/darkness visible of the World. I'm sure he'd be considered a great wealth-creator and general benefactor of mankind. One of the Herods was responsible for enormous building projects, mostly his palace think. A major employer. But I don't believe he was motivated by any consideration of the needs of his employees.

Let's be honest and frank. MOst Christians love the dishonest steward too.

Even today, the Parables of Jesus still catches people off guard!

If you read the whole Luke 16, not just the parable, you can see the context is not about, in fact condemning shrewdness in worldly affairs, condemns keeping wealth to yourself.

Most Christians understand Luke 16 the other way, which makes the shrewd manager good, and succeeding in worldly trade/investments, favorable to God. They make Luke 16:13 the 'joke verse' and treat is as not absolute.

Like duh! Even an idiot can figure that out. Even an idiot knows a monkey will stick its hand a jar full of cookies than an empty jar....

So you see, it's a satanic interpretation of the bible with how most christians do it... The message of Jesus is clear but most will twist it to favor greed and acquisition of wealth. Most Christians obviously, don't use the word greed, more like blessings, rewards, promises, capitalism.

 

[P1LGR1M]

No response to my Pg.1 post where the answer from Luke 17 is given?

Hello Daq, thanks for the response, however, I will have to say that your "answer from Luke 17" is not actually an answer to anything, but a presentation of the works-based message you seek to convey. I have read a little of the thread you started and usually do not involve myself in threads that will be dismissed by even young Sunday School attendees. But since you seek to make an issue of this false gospel...okay.

I had hoped to keep this thread from the usual derailment, and focus on the article, but it seems your message is more important than a little common decency.

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Simply...false teaching. Your misuse of the scripture to teach a works-based Gospel will have no basis in the word of God.

Your first mistake is not to recognize that the Lord did not teach the New Covenant to those He ministered to. All knowledge concerning the New Testament was veiled until it was established through His death and and the promise of God's indwelling began on the Day of Pentesost.

If you would bother to read the content of this thread, it may be that you will recognize the author's interpretive skills and devices resemble those you employ.

All who do not practice austerity is living in opposition to what Jesus teaches.

Your scripture? Would you show where the Lord teaches...

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

The Lord taught concerning the Kingdom, not the New Covenant. And while those that will enter the Kingdom will be under the New Covenant, specific revelation, just as knowledge concerning Atonement, was not given, even to those closest to Him.

But today, postmodernism has destroyed Christianity. Most Christians will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven for the pursuit of good life on Earth.

One cannot enter either the Kingdom which speaks of the rule and reign of Christ in the heart, or, the Millennial Kingdom...unless they are Christians, my friend.

It seems your particular gospel denies what is written and taught in scripture and teaches the Sacrifice of Christ sets people on the right track, rather than bringing them into The Way.

Modern Christendom, timewerx, does not equate to salvation. No-one not being born again...will enter either Kingdom.

The only way you can have a good life, even just survive in the standards of the world here is through exploitation of the poor and nature. There is no other way.

To use a technical term...baloney.

Christians men are, for example, commanded to work and to supply for the needs of their family.

Your gospel would have everyone sitting on a street corner with a sign.

The instruction for being godly in business practice is also taught, not just in the New Testament, but threads it's way throughout the entirety of scripture. You make a division between what is expected of man concerning righteousness in the Old and in the New, and no such division is there. Why do you think God was able to justify man before the Cross?

That's why Jesus commanded to sell possessions and give to the poor and he's commanding all of us! It's the only way to give back what you took from them!

Okay, present the scripture, and we will look at it.

What you are seeking to teach brings along the corollary that salvation is the work of man: just live poor...and your righteous.

Works-based salvation is an easily recognizable false doctrine, timewerx.

That's why Jesus referred to traders as thieves! Even if you don't own a business, you work for a thief, doesn't it make you a thief also?

Funny, but Paul was a tent-maker, Lydia a Seller of purple. Does your doctrine condemn these Christians to Hell? It would have to.

Paul taught that those that minister the word of God should have their needs supplied, though he was self-supportive...through the work he did.

The only way that changes that is you don't partake of the evil worldly system or give back to the poor most of what you've earned which is only possible through a life of austerity in everything!

You betray your doublemindedness, my friend.

Not most...all.

The Lord did not require of the rich young ruler to g"go and give most of what he owned," but...


Mark 10:21

King James Version (KJV)


21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.



Unlike you, most know better than to yank out a single teaching and try to make this a standard for all teaching.

So your most is an unbiblical standard you created because you cannot do that which was required of this man. That this is an isolated incident and not meant to be a universal pattern can be seen in the Lord's response to Zacchaeus and the soldiers:


Luke 19:8-9

King James Version (KJV)


8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.



Half...not most. Half, not all.


Luke 3:14

King James Version (KJV)


14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.



Hmm. Do your Job well, and don't snivel you don't make enough.

That's why Lazarus went to Heaven.

You teach an ungodly entrance to Heaven.

Lazarus is not said to go into Heaven, first. He is said to go into Abraham's Bosom. Secondly, we see that Moses and the Prophets was sufficient to keep the rich man's brethren from torment in Hades, so the implication is that Lazarus' life conformed to the word of God.

Here are some other poor people who have similar circumstances to Lazarus:


Luke 17:11-19

King James Version (KJV)


11 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.

12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:

13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.

14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.

15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,

16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.

17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?

18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.

19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.


You see, timewerx, salvation is always going to revolve around faith. It is a heart issue, not a fleshly effort, as you teach.

He is certainly not guilty of exploiting others. But the rich man? Duh? No need to mention he is a sinner or died in sin.

No mention in the text about exploitation. None.

But it is typical to insert into passages that which one needs to fortify their peculiar brand of teaching.

If you are wealthy in the world, you definitely will be condemned to hell even if you're a Christian.

Then explain James' teaching concerning those that are wealthy:


James 1

King James Version (KJV)

9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:


10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.



James accounts for a rich brother, and one of low degree (poor). His instruction for the rich is...do not trust in your riches. Just as the rich young ruler did.

James 2

King James Version (KJV)


1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?



I am sure you will, according to your doctrine, miss that the exhortation is for the members not to have respect of persons for the rich, but will see it as a condemnation of being rich. Consider that no mention is made of the individuals' circumstances themselves, but how they treat those that come into the assembly.

"The poor will you always have with you," the Lord said, not, "You will always be poor."


7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?


8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:


9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.


The rich man in Luke 16 was guilty of not fulfilling the "royal law," which is quite evident in the stroy. James seeks to teach an unprejudiced love for all here.

Paul also has a word for those that are rich among the brethren:

1 Timothy 6:17

King James Version (KJV)


17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;



He does not say, "Charge them that they give all their possessions to the poor," but that they do not place their faith in their riches, but...in the Living God.

The opposite is just as sinful...to trust that one is saved because he has given all he has to the poor.

And it is very sad that this is established on a poor understanding of the scriptures.

Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

A true Christian cannot have many or nice possessions, be saving money(enriching themselves).

We see example of God blessing certain characters in scripture, to name a few, Job; Abraham; David; Solomon.

We see the Hebrew people aquiring wealth from those of Egypt to make their journey. We see Joseph of Arimathea contributing to the placement of the Body of Christ.

A true Christian is a true Christian because of one thing: because God has made him one through the New Birth. This is done through faith, not the human efforts you teach.

You are sadly mistaken about salvation, my friend, and I hope through discussion we can examine the basis for your gospel, which I, and most will find to be another gospel, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If that is what the Spirit is leading them, it is not the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of God deals with the heart, not the pocketbook.

Stewardship of that which the Lord blesses us with is just as important as our love for our neighbor, timewerx.

Those that trust in riches betray their hearts, even as those that trust in anything they accomplish. This would include making one's self poor. How will one provide food for their family if they make themselves poor? Do you understand that being poor is not something that the majority of Americans can claim? Most have daily bread, a roof over their heads, whereas the poor of the world have...nothing.

Are you going to also teach that all who are destitute will go to Heaven because they are poor, rather than as scripture teaches having placed their faith in Jesus Christ?

That is a false gospel, my friend.

NT is many things different from OT - abolish animal sacrifice, stoning sinners to death, and sadly to many, chasing a good life is now considered evil.

You would do well to begin judgment with your own heart, timewerx, rather than condemning others. This is a typical ploy of those that are lacking in an assurance of salvation. Many convince themselves they are saved because they do this, or don't do that, showing an utter lack of understanding that it inly through faith in Christ one can be saved.


Luke 18:13-14

King James Version (KJV)


13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.



Can you recognize your self glorying, timewerx? Can you recognize your separation of the teacings of the Law from the teachings of the New Covenant create two gods with two different messages?

God saves man in the exact same manner today that He did in the Age of Law, for...


Habakkuk 2:4

King James Version (KJV)


4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.



What we are taught about the New Covenant is that it is the NEW Covenant, which makes perfect, which the First Covenant could not.

It was meant to lead man to Christ, not poverty. It was meant to bring faith, not works.

Jesus said it many times...

Again, present your scriptural presentation...and a response to this response. We will look at the basis of your faith, and where your faith really lies.

The popular Christian doctrines followed suit with abolishing animal sacrifices and stoning sinners to death but why not the accumulation of wealth. Smell something fishy? Or is just serving Mammon instead of God?

The thought that one can reverse the situation and teach salvation through deprivation rather than through faith in Christ is equally erroneous.

In other words, trusting one is saved because they have nothing is just as bad as trusting one is saved because they have riches and possessions.

Both views fail to draw a balance wherein lies the truth of the Gospel of Christ, which is, man is saved by faith through grace.

So your works-based faith I will certainly challenge, as well as the basis you provide for this faith. Yours is a familiar doctrine to me, timewerx, and it one that muddies the waters of sound doctrine and practice and encourages man to place his faith inhis own works.


Continued...