If that isn't retarded, I don't know what is. You are not basing this on anything I have actually said, bit rather on your assumptions. And you know what happens when you assume, don't you?godrulz said:
ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John
- Thread starter Sozo
- Start date
I understand your issue with the flow of the book. It could use a little more editing, but the most recent version is definitely better than the original. Which one have you read? That might explain the flow issue.Sozo said:
Also, the fact that John never mentions the Body of Christ, but does reference the Bride of Christ is a huge indicator that he is writing not to the Body, but to the Bride. Israel is the Bride. And since John was a disciple of Christ, it only makes sense that he would continue with what Jesus taught, which included the law. Only Paul ever said the law was removed, and there is very good reason for that. If you lok to Acts 15 you can gain some understanding on this issue. Also, another thing that shows that there were two different gospels for a time is in Paul's epistles. Galatians 2, is one, and Romans 4:16 is another.
Sozo said:
Christians are dead to sin (actually they are to count themselves dead to sin since some where not doing so in Rome and Corinth), but they are not dead. I think we can agree that adultery or fornication is a sin and that believers can misuse their genitals as well as an unbeliever or as they did before conversion (I Cor. 6; Gal. 5).
I am a saint, not a sinner. I am not looking for an excuse to prove I am a sinner. The Law already told me this. Christ now calls me a son, a child of God. One sin does not make one a godless sinner. Paul called the Corinthians 'saints' set apart for God, even while they wallowed in immorality, pride, and sin.
I affirm Acts 2 dispensationalism and an eschatological pre-trib. dispensationalism. I am not a cultist because I reject the heresy of ultradispensationalism.
Sozo, we have a common concern about 'The Plot'. Can we be on the same team on this one? I think its roots are in Bullingerism and I am concerned about its heretical implications. I do agree with Enyart's Open Theism views in many ways. I am surprised you are not more vocal against Open Theism, since many consider this the most significant heresy in evangelical circles (actually, it is the Calvinists that are most threatened by it).
Can we be friends, brother?
Lighthouse said:
Blah blah? This sounds confusing. We are to line our wills up with Christ's will. It is not that His will is a thing that indwells us making us do something despite our own resident wills. God has redeemed our whole being, spirit, soul, and body. You say we are dead to sin and the flesh, yet you sound like it is very much alive if we 'sin'. There is a better explanation of why Christians do not always conform to His will. Our bodies will be redeemed at a future glorification. We are still the temple of the Spirit now. This does not mean some believers were not misusing their wills and temple. They were rebuked for sinning and urged to repent and renew obedience (moral issue/choice, not metaphysical issue 'flesh').
Lighthouse said:
It sounds like you are personifying 'flesh'. I believe from other threads over the last year that you seemed to be talking about two wills in us. I think my questions were good, and I had hoped to better understand your position or have mine corrected. :comeout:
Lighthouse said:
Ironside showed that 'bride' is an illustration of Israel, but it is also used of the Church. A title can apply to both dispensations of the people of God. The Body of Christ is about the Church, but bride is also used for it. Pitting Johannine teaching against Pauline teaching shows a lack of understanding of both. Acts 15 is concessions for Jewish believers, not proof of two NT gospels for a limited time. Galatians 2:7 is about taking the one gospel of Christ to two target groups by two ministries. It is not a proof text for two NT gospels (circ./uncirc.).
Romans 4 refutes the idea that there ever was a dispensation that was saved by faith + works. There is an Old and New Covenant, both based on grace and faith. After the resurrection of Christ, genetic Jews were not saved by a different gospel than genetic Gentiles (this is absurd). Acts 2 is the birth of the Church by the Spirit, not the conversion of Paul.
Give me just one verse where Paul uses the phrase "Bride of Christ."godrulz said:
Lighthouse said:
Principles, not proof texts. Your negation of Johannine teaching also begs the question. John's visions included after the Second Coming of Christ with the Church (Jew and Gentile). The 7 churches in Rev. 2; 3 were after Paul's death and included Gentile churches.
"In the NT, the bride imagery is used often of the church and her relationship to Christ. The bride belongs to Christ, who is the bridegroom (Jn. 3:29). In Revelation, the church, as the bride of the Lamb, has prepared herself for marriage by performing righteous deeds (Rev. 19:7,8). In Rev. 21, the great wedding is portrayed with the church prepared for her bridegroom (21:2, 9). Finally, the bride and the Spirit issue an invitation to come (22:17). PAUL used the metaphor of the bride to indicate his feelings toward the churches he had founded. In 2 Cor. 11:2, Paul wrote that he had betrothed the Cor. church to Christ. He wanted to present the church as a pure bride to Christ. The Cor. were in danger of committing adultery. The imagery of the bride was used by various biblical writers, but they appear to have a single purpose. The bridal imagery is used to indicate the great love which God has for His people. For these writers, no image could express better this love than the ideal between a bridegroom and bride." Holman Bible Dictionary
Israel and the Church are both the people of God. The bride metaphor can be used by both, so proof texting Israel passages or resorting to extreme dispensationalism is not helpful.
Ephesians 5:22 ff. is also Pauline imagery comparing marriage relationships with the relationship of Christ to His church (bridegroom/bride)....5:32 "I am talking about Christ and the church..." (two become one)
Look up all the verses in OT/NT that use the word 'bride' before you are dogmatic.
"Body of Christ" is not the only NT metaphor for the Church (building, etc.).
http://www.gotquestions.org/bride-of-Christ.html
(the bride imagery is more about the church triumphant in the future?)
there is more than matthew 5 but there you will find that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill. This would include Prophets here as to the word fulfill. So, how does this relate to the commands of God? Which command might be the least of those of which He speaks?Lighthouse said:
In Romans 8 there is "the law of the spirit of life ... in Christ Jesus". This is not a "law of the Spirit" though it's easy to say in reference to it. Just wondering if you caught that. The "law of the spirit of life" would be different than "the law of the Spirit". So then, "the law" here would perhaps not be the Law as you have envisioned it. Certainly, we have "the requirement of the Law" in this passage... but one must know what the requirement of the Law is in order to know what it is that is "fulfilled" in those who are His.
Still working on this myself. I think we read our own theology into the text on this one... way too much... and I don't want to come out with following some other wrong interpretation either. Hope you can see the common way I am speaking of in which this may be incorrectly read. Maybe you are reading it correctly. I can't tell and I am done pointing this out here... unless you would like to pursue the matter further and figure out how it relates to Sozo's post about being free from sin.
Shalom,
Jacob
elected4ever
New member
apparently not youDaniel50 said:
Daniel50 said:
It is possible to live up to all the light you have in His power. A new believer does not know as much about God and His Word, but can live up to what the Spirit shows him. As we get more light through the Word and Spirit, we need to walk in these truths. The Spirit leads us into all truth and righteousness. If a new Christian is fornicating/living together and justifies it as 'love', the Spirit will convict and show the need for purity and the necessity of marriage for sex. At this point, the new believer can cease sinning, and move to a place of obedience to His Lord. If we were 'dead', the person would literally be killed so the believer would not be sinning.