lighthouse's new website [Archive] - Theology Forum

Jefferson

January 22nd, 2005, 11:14 AM

At http://members.tripod.com/brandon_shane_allen/ lighthouse writes the following:

He loves us all, no matter what some might think.

What about Psalm 5:5 - The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

and...

Psalm 11:5 - The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

But His grace is not a license to sin.

I actually think that it is a license to sin, but we are foolish if we do not keep in mind Paul's admonition that although all things are lawful for us not all things are beneficial.

It is freedom from sin.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean it is freedom from temptation to sin?

BillyBob

January 22nd, 2005, 11:52 AM

My 'Back Button' doesn't work there...:noid:

Lighthouse

January 22nd, 2005, 06:40 PM

First of all, the website isn't new. I just updated it.

Originally posted by Jefferson

At http://members.tripod.com/brandon_shane_allen/ lighthouse writes the following:

What about Psalm 5:5 - The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

and...

Psalm 11:5 - The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
-Romans 5:8

That is what I meant. God loves us with tough love.

I actually think that it is a license to sin, but we are foolish if we do not keep in mind Paul's admonition that although all things are lawful for us not all things are beneficial.
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid."
-Romans 6:1-2

What do you mean by this? Do you mean it is freedom from temptation to sin?
"How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
-the rest of Romans 6:2

"For he that is dead is freed from sin."
-Romans 6:7

Define temptation.

We are not free from the temptation as Jesus was tempted, but we are free from the power of sin, and that includes the desire to sin. The temptation may arise, but those who know they are free in Christ have no interest in the lusts of the flesh. The more I come to grips with my freedom, and relying on the Spirit to lead me, the less and less I even think of sinful things. And even when my mind does wander, it is difficult ot even focus on those things, so I just give up, and let my mind think on those things that are pure, lovely...

Jefferson

January 24th, 2005, 01:29 PM

That is what I meant. God loves us with tough love.
So "hatest" in Psalm 5:5 really means "tough love?"
So "hate" in Proverbs 6:16 really means "tough love?"
So "hateth" in Psalm 11:5 really means "tough love?"

I don't think so. I think God said what He meant and meant what He said.

I actually think that it is a license to sin, but we are foolish if we do not keep in mind Paul's admonition that although all things are lawful for us not all things are beneficial.
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid."
-Romans 6:1-2If the state gave you a licence to drink and drive (oh, for the love of God, please don't try to sidetrack my point by mentioning that you don't drive. This is just a hypothetical example . . .OKAY??????) If the state gave you a license to drink and drive your friends would nevertheless admonish you not to do so just like Paul did in Romans 6:1,2. But their admonishment would not nullify your license to drink and drive. Likewise, a Christian can sin all he wants and still go to heaven, but why should he? Sin is destructive both to the sinner and the people he hurts so Paul admonishes against sin even though they have a license to sin.

"How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
-the rest of Romans 6:2

"For he that is dead is freed from sin."
-Romans 6:7
Those verses referr to the fact that we are dead to the eternal consequences of sin, ie. the second death.

Define temptation.
That which appeals to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. (I John 2:16)

We are not free from the temptation as Jesus was tempted, but we are free from the power of sin, and that includes the desire to sin. The temptation may arise, but those who know they are free in Christ have no interest in the lusts of the flesh. The more I come to grips with my freedom, and relying on the Spirit to lead me, the less and less I even think of sinful things. And even when my mind does wander, it is difficult ot even focus on those things, so I just give up, and let my mind think on those things that are pure, lovely...Well, this looks like it may be another one of those issues where we disagree only because of a misunderstanding of definitions. Does my new signature comport with your view?

elohiym

January 24th, 2005, 02:14 PM

"My goal is by faith, to walk with God. I believe that means we should constantly commune with God and be aware of His presence in everything that we do. When we do this, He performs the miracle of the Christian life in our lives." - Bob HillAn awesome goal! :up:

Lighthouse

January 24th, 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

So "hatest" in Psalm 5:5 really means "tough love?"
So "hate" in Proverbs 6:16 really means "tough love?"
So "hateth" in Psalm 11:5 really means "tough love?"

I don't think so. I think God said what He meant and meant what He said.
:doh:

God hates unrighteouseness, wickedness and iniquity. And because He loves us He wants to save us fromt hose things. That is why He sent His Son to die and rise again. Put soem thought into these discussions, Jeff.

If the state gave you a licence to drink and drive (oh, for the love of God, please don't try to sidetrack my point by mentioning that you don't drive. This is just a hypothetical example . . .OKAY??????) If the state gave you a license to drink and drive your friends would nevertheless admonish you not to do so just like Paul did in Romans 6:1,2. But their admonishment would not nullify your license to drink and drive. Likewise, a Christian can sin all he wants and still go to heaven, but why should he? Sin is destructive both to the sinner and the people he hurts so Paul admonishes against sin even though they have a license to sin.
I don't drive.:eek:

The flesh can do nothing but sin. It can not be made righteous, or given the life of Christ. Only the spirit can. And when your spirit is in Christ it can not sin, for there is no sin in Christ. This does not mean my flesh is free to commit adultery. And it doesn't mean that I would be saved if I took god's grace for granted. Those who take God's grace for granted are not saved.

Those verses referr to the fact that we are dead to the eternal consequences of sin, ie. the second death.
Wrong. We are dead to sin. We are free from sin. Not just the condemnation, but also the power.

That which appeals to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. (I John 2:16)
Who was 1 John written to?:eek:

Then no. We are not free from temptation. Neither was Christ. But He dismissed it, by the power of His name, as we can. When we are indwelt with Christ, we have the power of Him inside of us and we can dismiss temptation, just as He did.

"Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."
-James 4:7

Well, this looks like it may be another one of those issues where we disagree only because of a misunderstanding of definitions. Does my new signature comport with your view?

It seems to.

Poly

January 24th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Granite

January 24th, 2005, 02:57 PM

Red letter day, I agree with Poly completely.:thumb:

godrulz

January 24th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

:doh:

Who was 1 John written to?:eek:

Then no. We are not free from temptation. Neither was Christ. But He dismissed it, by the power of His name, as we can. When we are indwelt with Christ, we have the power of Him inside of us and we can dismiss temptation, just as He did.

"Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."
-James 4:7

If you are going to cut out I John due to Mid-Acts (written to believers....principles apply to all believers, not just Jewish believers= I John 5:13 you cannot have this promise of eternal life if you reject 2:16 also), then you should not be quoting James either. I John and James have universal truths for all believers, not just the "circumcision".

Lucky

January 24th, 2005, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Those who take God's grace for granted are not saved.
So if I lied or stole something today (in other words, took God's grace for granted), that must mean I'm not saved? Or did I lose my salvation?

godrulz

January 24th, 2005, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Lucky

So if I lied or stole something today (in other words, took God's grace for granted), that must mean I'm not saved? Or did I lose my salvation?

Lighthouse would say you cannot do these things, or if YOU do, it is not you, but your flesh? This artificially dissects our wills and responsibility out of the equation. If you are saved, you could do these things. If you are not saved, you also could do these things. It does not mean you lose your salvation unless you decide to become a habitual liar, thief, idol worshipper, Satanist AND blatantly renounce Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. You will have returned to your former state of living entirely for Self apart from God. You would be godless and an apostate from the truth. To say that it is not really sin to do these things because we are in Christ ignores God's holiness, justice, omniscience, and unchanging moral law. Lying and stealing are inherently wrong, whether believer or unbeliever. There is provision if we sin (I Jn. 1:9), but we do not need to sin. Just as God's grace can be resisted before conversion, so it can be resisted after. This is why we are warned not to trample underfoot the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 6; 10) or to quench and grieve the Holy Spirit through disobedience (Eph. 4:30; I Thess. 5:19).

Hebrews 10; I Cor. 6; I Jn., etc. distinguishes between an ongoing, habitual life time of sin and an isolated lapse that is repented of quickly.

Lighthouse

January 24th, 2005, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Poly

:up:

You know lighthouse, it's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another thing to make shallow comments in order to make yourself look good. Even if you do disagree with Jefferson, you must admit that he is known for putting thought into whatever it is that he has to say.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was teasing him. I hope he understood that.:noyed: Er, I mean :noid: ;)

Lighthouse

January 24th, 2005, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Lucky

So if I lied or stole something today (in other words, took God's grace for granted), that must mean I'm not saved? Or did I lose my salvation?
Not what I meant. Taking God's grace for granted is when someone does something wrong while thinking ot themselves, "I'm free to do this. I'm forgiven, therefore it isn't wrong."

godrulz

January 24th, 2005, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Not what I meant. Taking God's grace for granted is when someone does something wrong while thinking ot themselves, "I'm free to do this. I'm forgiven, therefore it isn't wrong."

This is a problem, but seems to be a rational way of thinking in light of your view (we are forgiven for future things before we do them; they are not sinful, because we cannot sin or our flesh sins, but not us).

Jefferson

January 25th, 2005, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

:doh:

God hates unrighteouseness, wickedness and iniquity.But those verses I quoted say a lot more than that. Read them again. It doesn't just say God hates iniquity, it says God hates all workers of iniquity. It doesn't just say that God hates lies and discord, it says God hates "A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." It doesn't just say that God hates wickedness and violence, it says God hates "the wicked and him that loveth violence.

See the difference?

You also said that God's grace is not a license to sin but rather a freedom from sin. I think God's grace is freedom from sin specifically because it is a license to sin. I Corinthians 15:56 says, "The strength of sin is the law." Therefore if there is no law (ie. if there is a license to sin), then sin loses its strength over our lives.

Lighthouse

January 25th, 2005, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

But those verses I quoted say a lot more than that. Read them again. It doesn't just say God hates iniquity, it says God hates all workers of iniquity. It doesn't just say that God hates lies and discord, it says God hates "A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." It doesn't just say that God hates wickedness and violence, it says God hates "the wicked and him that loveth violence.

See the difference?
Is this your love and hate at the same time theory?

You know my answer. It's the same one I gave julie21 when she first showed up. God hates who and what we are apart from Him, because He loves us. And that is why He came and died for us, because He loves us so much He wants to set us free from what He hates.

You also said that God's grace is not a license to sin but rather a freedom from sin. I think God's grace is freedom from sin specifically because it is a license to sin. I Corinthians 15:56 says, "The strength of sin is the law." Therefore if there is no law (ie. if there is a license to sin), then sin loses its strength over our lives.
Exactly. It has no strength over us. Do you understand what that means?

elected4ever

January 25th, 2005, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

But those verses I quoted say a lot more than that. Read them again. It doesn't just say God hates iniquity, it says God hates all workers of iniquity. It doesn't just say that God hates lies and discord, it says God hates "A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." It doesn't just say that God hates wickedness and violence, it says God hates "the wicked and him that loveth violence.

See the difference?

You also said that God's grace is not a license to sin but rather a freedom from sin. I think God's grace is freedom from sin specifically because it is a license to sin. I Corinthians 15:56 says, "The strength of sin is the law." Therefore if there is no law (ie. if there is a license to sin), then sin loses its strength over our lives. I can be nothing but righteous and my flesh can be nothing but unrighteous. What makes anyone think that we are held responsible for the work of the unrighteous. Get life youguys.:doh:

Jefferson

January 25th, 2005, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Is this your love and hate at the same time theory?Yes.

You know my answer. It's the same one I gave julie21 when she first showed up. God hates who and what we are apart from Him, because He loves us. And that is why He came and died for us, because He loves us so much He wants to set us free from what He hates.I disagree. To say "God hates who and what we are apart from Him" is just another way of ignoring the very clear words of those verses that say God hates those people themselves, not just what they do.

Exactly. It has no strength over us.I disagree. It has less strength over us. If it had no strength, we would never sin (ie. do that which is unprofitable)

Do you understand what that means? Yes. It means that the lure of forbidden fruit has lost it's value to our rebellious nature since the fruit is no longer forbidden. It's like a teenager who one day turns 21. Somehow getting drunk just isn't as big of thrill anymore because he's no longer breaking the law. Many of them just throw up their hands and think, what's the point then? And they never get drunk again.

Lighthouse

January 25th, 2005, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

Yes.

I disagree. To say "God hates who and what we are apart from Him" is just another way of ignoring the very clear words of those verses that say God hates those people themselves, not just what they do.
What part of 'who' do you not understand?

I disagree. It has less strength over us. If it had no strength, we would never sin (ie. do that which is unprofitable)
Semantics, shemantics.

Yes. It means that the lure of forbidden fruit has lost it's value to our rebellious nature since the fruit is no longer forbidden. It's like a teenager who one day turns 21. Somehow getting drunk just isn't as big of thrill anymore because he's no longer breaking the law. Many of them just throw up their hands and think, what's the point then? And they never get drunk again.
Exactly.

godrulz

January 26th, 2005, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

I can be nothing but righteous and my flesh can be nothing but unrighteous. What makes anyone think that we are held responsible for the work of the unrighteous. Get life youguys.:doh:

Flesh is a metaphor for sin, not a metaphysical principle indwelling us. Our spirit, soul (will, intellect, emotions) works through our bodies. 2 Cor. 5:10 = things done in the body, whether good or bad. Artificial dissection of our whole being is heretical. We can worship and serve God with all our faculties or we can use our will and bodies for sin. The same hands that minister in Jesus name can kill or be immoral. Our eyes are neutral molecules, but what we do with them is either praiseworthy or blameworthy. Negating the will dishonors God and shifts the blame to a nebulous concept negating responsibility/accountability. We love God and others with our whole beings, not just our 'spirit'. We commit sin with our whole beings, not just our 'flesh'. Pagan Greek philosophy dissected the soul and body. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, not the source of sin. If we live for the pleasures of the physical senses/flesh, we will not live and walk in the Spirit. Yet, there is a legitimate sense of God-given pleasure experienced by the God-given body. Lust is a legitimate desire out of control. Motive and will are key to the nature of a choice.

elected4ever

January 26th, 2005, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Flesh is a metaphor for sin, not a metaphysical principle indwelling us. Our spirit, soul (will, intellect, emotions) works through our bodies. 2 Cor. 5:10 = things done in the body, whether good or bad. Artificial dissection of our whole being is heretical. We can worship and serve God with all our faculties or we can use our will and bodies for sin. The same hands that minister in Jesus name can kill or be immoral. Our eyes are neutral molecules, but what we do with them is either praiseworthy or blameworthy. Negating the will dishonors God and shifts the blame to a nebulous concept negating responsibility/accountability. We love God and others with our whole beings, not just our 'spirit'. We commit sin with our whole beings, not just our 'flesh'. Pagan Greek philosophy dissected the soul and body. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, not the source of sin. If we live for the pleasures of the physical senses/flesh, we will not live and walk in the Spirit. Yet, there is a legitimate sense of God-given pleasure experienced by the God-given body. Lust is a legitimate desire out of control. Motive and will are key to the nature of a choice. That is why we will never come to a common understanding. We will just sit here and call each other a heretic. Like it or not, understand it or not, the flesh and the Spirit are different entities that inhabit this body of ours Your failure to understand that will never change the reality or truth of it.

godrulz

January 26th, 2005, 01:29 AM

I know we are spirit, soul, and body (I Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12). I know Paul contrasts spirit with flesh. The key is what he means by his flesh analogy. It is not explicit that it is a sin principle passed on from Adam. This has Augustinian roots. You make it sound like flesh is like a demon that is personal and living in our bodies. The reality is that the will is the seat of moral choice. Our spirit-soul includes the God-conscious part of us that has will, intellect, and emotions. We are in the personal, spiritual, and moral image of God. The imago Dei is defaced, not erased. We become new creatures in Christ and are warned not to continue pleasing fleshly desires, but to walk in newness of life as He lives in us. There is a process of transformation (Rom. 12:1,2). Watchman Nee made a big doctrine on spirit vs flesh. It had some truth, but pressed an analogy and metaphor into a wooden literalism.

Jefferson

January 26th, 2005, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

What part of 'who' do you not understand?When you say, "God hates who we are" that is very different from saying, "God hates us." You are just using different words to repeat your same error: That God hates iniquity but not the worker of iniquity, that God hates lying but not the liar, etc.

Semantics, shemantics.It's not semantics. When you say sin has no strength over us, then you can't blame people when they think you teach sinless perfection.

Exactly.Then you agree with me that grace IS a license to sin. The former teenager who now has turned 21 has been given a license by the state to "sin" (as it were). He has been given a license to do that which was formerly illegal for him to do since he is no longer under that law just like the Christian is no longer under God's Law.

elected4ever

January 26th, 2005, 09:05 AM

Godrulz, why do you keep referring to flesh,soul, body,born again, new birth and so on as analogy? You speak as though God did not mean what He said. To you salvation is an analogy. Sin is an analogy. Satan is an analogy. Jesus is an analogy.:confused:

Sozo

January 26th, 2005, 09:50 AM

elected4ever

January 26th, 2005, 09:52 AM

godrulz

January 26th, 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Godrulz, why do you keep referring to flesh,soul, body,born again, new birth and so on as analogy? You speak as though God did not mean what He said. To you salvation is an analogy. Sin is an analogy. Satan is an analogy. Jesus is an analogy.:confused:

No...no...no....

Flesh is a metaphor for sin. Sin is a wrong moral choice, lawlessness, selfishness, disobedience, etc. It is not a physical substance (do not confuse 'morals' with metaphysics). Think about the sins of murder, adultery, idol worship, hating parents, stealing, etc. Are these the wrong use of the will, intellect, and body or is it a causative, mystical thing called 'flesh'. The concept of sin cannot be divorced from volition or we would not be responsible/accountable for what we do. Paul talked about behavior. Who are we to blame Adam, the devil, or an impersonal flesh principle? What do you mean by flesh? What did Paul mean by flesh? It is an apt analogy, because living for sensual desires only is the antithesis of living for God and His glory. Lust is legitimate desire out of control. The body is not evil. It is what WE (will) do with our body. Developing a huge doctrine on 'flesh' that goes beyond the simple analogy Paul develops leads to all kinds of ideas like lighthouse's version of 'perfectionism' or some holiness groups doctrines of 'entire sanctification'.

I have never said soul and body are analogies. I am a paramedic. I know about anatomy and physiology. I have also studied psychology (soul).

"Born again" is used 3x in the Bible. It is also a figure of speech (metaphor) with valid description of salvation truth (new life in Christ; new birth). It is also translated born anew or born from above. It has become a cliche in society. Even Billy Graham deemphasized the term because of this. Nicodemus did not recognize it as a figure of speech, but took it too literally. Jesus emphasized the spiritual aspect, not the physical. Some Calvinists use the phrase to support OSAS...you cannot be unborn. This analogy is feeble because spiritual rebirth is not identical to physical birth. You also cannot be unborn physically, so it is a non-sensical idea.

Salvation is NOT an analogy. It is very real, but is described by more than one term. Analogies can be used to describe salvation or explicit statements can be made. e.g. payment of a debt...this concept is highly problematic. The Commercial Transaction Theory of the atonement logically leads to universalism. The debt payment is not meant to be a literal summary of the only truth about the nature of the cross. It must be interpreted in context and in light of more explicit concepts.

Basic hermeneutics teaches us to interpret literally unless there is a possibility of a figure of speech. This does not mean the concept or truth being illustrated is a mere analogy. God means what He says. You cannot interpret a figure of speech, allegory, poetic literature, or parable in the exact same way as a didactic passage using propositions and statements. Even these passages must be understood in light of the author's use of context, grammar, cultural factors, and theological perspective. It is too easy to read our modern preconceptions back into the biblical text.

Sin is not an analogy. My point is that it involves choice. It is not an inherited substance from Adam (this is Augustinian, not biblical).

Satan is a real personal being, not an analogy or myth. Do you think it is right to misrepresent my views? What is your motive in doing so? Is it ignorance or malicious?

My Deity of Christ thread will show that Jesus is not an analogy. Surely you jest. Your credibility is lacking to even think that viewing 'born again' or 'flesh' as metaphors to describe truth about salvation and sin (real concepts) is tantamount to denying the reality of Jesus Christ and His finished work.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The :confused:

may mean you want clarification lest you misunderstand what I am saying. This is the right thing to do rather than create straw man caricatures of other's beliefs.

I like this forum because of the depth of thought. Other forums are more mature and Christ-like in their dealings with fellow believers, but they are superficial. We can have both. There are a few here who act like amateur students or pseudo-scholars. Their lack of insight or false accusations is embarrassing.

godrulz

January 26th, 2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

This is a perfect description of godrulz and his anti-Christ doctrines.

The bible says that the Law is a shadow, and that Christ is the reality.

godrulz claims that it is Christ who is the shadow, and the Law is the reality.

godrulz is the embodiment of evil.

Satan is the embodiment of evil. A Christian is a child of God.

I have often stated that the OT and its sacrifices are a shadow or type of the reality fulfilled in Christ. Most believers understand this, so quit the insults. Christ fulfilling the Law does not mean He negated the Law. He lived it Himself. Even after Christ, as Christians, we do not commit murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. For the hundredth time, we are not saved by the Law. The Jews were not either. Romans 1 proves grace/faith has always been the criteria. Keeping the Law was evidence that the Jews had faith. Our lives being consistent with the holiness of God's nature and laws are evidence we have saving faith and He is living in us. We are not lawless (one definition of sin). If our lives are not consistent with God's universal absolutes, then we will subjectively support gay marriage, abortion, affairs, etc. Are you dense or just inflammatory? Unless you are prepared to be a rabid antinomian, you might want to better represent what the Law is and is not and what I believe about it. Your shallow, superficial accusations are beneath you.

godrulz

January 26th, 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

:up:

Can't think for yourself? See above for clarification. Don't be a sucker.

Lighthouse

January 27th, 2005, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson

When you say, "God hates who we are" that is very different from saying, "God hates us." You are just using different words to repeat your same error: That God hates iniquity but not the worker of iniquity, that God hates lying but not the liar, etc.
No. I mean that God hates us. That is exactly what I meant, and what I mean.

It's not semantics. When you say sin has no strength over us, then you can't blame people when they think you teach sinless perfection.
Isn't that what I teach?:confused:

Then you agree with me that grace IS a license to sin. The former teenager who now has turned 21 has been given a license by the state to "sin" (as it were). He has been given a license to do that which was formerly illegal for him to do since he is no longer under that law just like the Christian is no longer under God's Law.
Not in the way many people would take it to mean. Romans 6:1-2 clears it all up. What it says is what I believe. Grace is not freedom to live in sin. It is freedom from sin.

SOTK

January 27th, 2005, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

This is a problem, but seems to be a rational way of thinking in light of your view (we are forgiven for future things before we do them; they are not sinful, because we cannot sin or our flesh sins, but not us).

This leads me to a question I have been wanting to ask.

lighthouse,

You have said before ( I'm pretty sure you have anyways) that we are forgiven for future things before we do them.

If the future doesn't exist, which I know for a fact you have stated before, how can we be forgiven for anything which we might do in the future which would dishonor God. I guess this is more of an Open View/Closed View type question rather than a Sin question (sorry for going off topic a little ;) ). If one believes the future is Closed, you can't be forgiven for anything you might do in the future. In your view, you wouldn't be able to be forgiven until you actually committed the wrong.

By the way, I do think it's biblical to make the statement that we are forgiven any future transgressions (eg, errors, mistakes, sins, etc) as a Christian. I guess I am wondering how this fits in with the Closed View theology.

godrulz

January 27th, 2005, 11:55 AM

There is certainly provision for future sins (I Jn. 1:9). Jesus did not literally forgive all future sins when He died on the cross. They were non-existent, just as the sinners or saints were non-existent. The cross was a substitute for the penalty of sin. It's merits had to be appropriated through repentant faith. Universalism is not true (if all sins were forgiven at the cross, all would be saved). There is a sense the blood continually cleanses us from all sins. We do not even know all the wrong thoughts, motives, words, actions we do that offend the holiness of God. This does not keep us from heaven. The biblical norm for willful, defiant sins against light/holiness/God/others, is to confess, repent, make restitution, renew obedience, etc. We do not walk around with this "Do not go to jail" card in our pocket and sin against God and others and refuse to deal with it as the Spirit convicts us. Those of us who are married do not presume on our spouse's love or a commitment made years ago. If we offend or hurt our wife or are offended, we forgive or ask forgiveness. This is explicit NT teaching, but should not be confused with justification issues (not lose salvation over one sin). Sin is dealt with when it comes into existence. It was dealt with on the cross, but people are saved or forgiven as they appropriate the perfect provision and respond to God's reasonable and wise conditions. It is unjust for a Lawgiver to forgive those who persist in defiant, willful lawlessness. The idea is to be free from the power and penalty of sin, not 'forgiven' while defiantly persisting in it.

Sozo

January 27th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Jesus did not literally forgive all future sins when He died on the cross. Blasphemous pig!

Jesus died for ALL sin, for ALL time.

Does the phrase "IT IS FINISHED" ring a bell?

godrulz

January 27th, 2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Blasphemous pig!

Jesus died for ALL sin, for ALL time.

Does the phrase "IT IS FINISHED" ring a bell?

I agree. What I am differentiating is that "It is finished" does not mean that all men are forgiven all sins for all time. This would be blatant universalism. Distinguish the grounds from the conditions, the objective provision from the subjective appropriation. The cross IS EFFICACIOUS for all who believe. IT IS FINISHED. Not all are saved or forgiven. This doesnot mean Jesus did not die for all sin, for all time. Words can be vague or ambiguous. If I say black, you say white and vice versa. We agree with the sufficiency of the great provision of Christ. I have affirmed this repeatedly. Unless you are a hyper-Calvinist or a heretical universalist, you should not be protesting my clarifications. I do not deny what you hold to, but it must be qualified or all will be saved, including Hitler and Satan. The Commercial Transaction Theory or literal payment of a debt is not the best view of the nature and extent of the death of Christ. Universalism is a lie, as you well know.

IT IS FINISHED, but not all are saved, right? The problem is on our end, not on God's end. (elect; non-elect is Calvinism/TULIP, not biblical).

Sozo

January 27th, 2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

What I am differentiating is that "It is finished" does not mean that all men are forgiven all sins for all time. This would be blatant universalism. Just once, (all insults aside), could YOU please provide just ONE piece of evidence that forgiveness of sin equates to salvation.

Jefferson

January 27th, 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

No. I mean that God hates us. That is exactly what I meant, and what I mean.But your website says, "He loves us all, no matter what some might think." So which is it?

Isn't that what I teach?:confused:Your asking me if I think you teach sinless perfection?

Grace is not freedom to live in sin.Yes it is. Living with the freedom to live in sin is what "takes the wind out of the sails" of our rebellious nature since there is no longer any Law to rebell against.

It is freedom from sin. You really ought to listen to Bob Enyart’s taped commentary on Romans 6. You want to borrow my copy?

godrulz

January 27th, 2005, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Just once, (all insults aside), could YOU please provide just ONE piece of evidence that forgiveness of sin equates to salvation.

Heb. 9:22 "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (remission)..."

Forgiveness of sin is not necessarily equal to salvation. I thought it was a benefit or result of salvation. This is not ALL that salvation is. You have already filled some of the rest of the blanks. If we looked at every use of forgiveness, salvation, repentance, confession, reconciliation, redemption, etc. (Old and New Testament), I think we could infer that salvation includes forgiveness of our sins.

see Ps. 32; 51 of a man who knows the forgiveness of God.

I Jn. 1:9 is about believers in context (I know you may dispute this or dispensationalize it away).."If we confess....forgive our sins..." The context is not initial salvation, but how much more is our past dealt with at conversion (forgiveness does not mean they are forgotten, literally....it means they are not reckoned or counted against us because of the substituted penalty of the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world)....

I Jn. 2:1,2 He is a sacrifice for the world's sins and especially those who believe. It is reality for us, but potential for those who have not yet come in repentant faith. It is implicit, if not explicit, that salvation includes, but is not limited to the forgiveness of sins....now you can remind us about the precious truths of an exchanged life.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by SOTK

This leads me to a question I have been wanting to ask.

lighthouse,

You have said before ( I'm pretty sure you have anyways) that we are forgiven for future things before we do them.
Yes, I have said that.

If the future doesn't exist, which I know for a fact you have stated before, how can we be forgiven for anything which we might do in the future which would dishonor God. I guess this is more of an Open View/Closed View type question rather than a Sin question (sorry for going off topic a little ;) ). If one believes the future is Closed, you can't be forgiven for anything you might do in the future. In your view, you wouldn't be able to be forgiven until you actually committed the wrong.

By the way, I do think it's biblical to make the statement that we are forgiven any future transgressions (eg, errors, mistakes, sins, etc) as a Christian. I guess I am wondering how this fits in with the Closed View theology.
Okay, to make things clear, I believe in the open view, you believe in the closed view.

Now, how can we be forgiven? Well, God knows us well enough to know that we will not always honor Him. But He has perfected us, and made us righteous, so we are forgiven for those reasons. God does not have to know our specific future "sins" to know that we will "sin." So we forgiven from the time we accept it on. In all actuality the forgiveness was there, just waiting for us to accept it.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson

But your website says, "He loves us all, no matter what some might think." So which is it?
He still loves us. That's why He sent His Son. Do you think there's a clash between the two?

Your asking me if I think you teach sinless perfection?
We are perfected in the spirit, in Christ and are sinless therein.

Yes it is. Living with the freedom to live in sin is what "takes the wind out of the sails" of our rebellious nature since there is no longer any Law to rebell against.
No. Some people would not see it that way. Some people would continue to do those things. What takes the "wind out of the sails" is grace. When you know His grace, you don't even desire to take it for granted.

You really ought to listen to Bob Enyart’s taped commentary on Romans 6. You want to borrow my copy?
I guess. Have you read Sozo's? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=636198#post636198)

Jefferson

January 28th, 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

He still loves us. That's why He sent His Son. Do you think there's a clash between the two?I think God hates the unsaved wicked yet He still loves them enough to die for them.

We are perfected in the spirit, in Christ and are sinless therein.What do you mean? Do you mean we are legally declared perfect by God? Do you mean we are perfected in the Holy Spirit? Do you mean we are perfected in our human spirit? If the later, please explain the difference between a person's soul and spirit.

No. Some people would not see it that way. Some people would continue to do those things.That's like saying because some people continue to use bicycle power when automobile power is available to them that therefore we should get rid of cars.

If people don't use their freedom from the Law to experience a personal walk with God, that's their loss.

What takes the "wind out of the sails" is grace. When you know His grace, you don't even desire to take it for granted.He we go with definitions again. What do you mean by "grace?" Do you mean "power" direct from God in Heaven transfused down into your spirit?

I guess. Have you read Sozo's? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=636198#post636198) Yes. I don't agree with all of it.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson

He we go with definitions again. What do you mean by "grace?" Do you mean "power" direct from God in Heaven transfused down into your spirit?

Yes. I don't agree with all of it.

:shocked: Your salvation is suspect?!

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

I think God hates the unsaved wicked yet He still loves them enough to die for them.
Isn't that what I said?

What do you mean? Do you mean we are legally declared perfect by God? Do you mean we are perfected in the Holy Spirit? Do you mean we are perfected in our human spirit? If the later, please explain the difference between a person's soul and spirit.
Is there a difference?

Christ's sacrafice has made us perfect.

That's like saying because some people continue to use bicycle power when automobile power is available to them that therefore we should get rid of cars.
Do what?

If people don't use their freedom from the Law to experience a personal walk with God, that's their loss.
Agreed. But you've already said that someone who says Jesus is Lord, yet lives as a homosexual would not go to heaven. Correct?

He we go with definitions again. What do you mean by "grace?" Do you mean "power" direct from God in Heaven transfused down into your spirit?
Grace is grace, Jefferson. There is not a difference of definition here.

Yes. I don't agree with all of it.
Your loss.:eek:

Jefferson

January 28th, 2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Isn't that what I said?No. Your website says, " He loves us all, no matter what some might think." Your website pretends the first part of the sentence (ie. "God hates the unsaved wicked") is not true since it makes no mention of that fact.

Is there a difference?
I mentioned several things. Which one of them are you questioning? Are you asking if there is a difference between being declared perfect by God as contrasted to being perfected in the Holy Spirit? Are you asking if there is a difference between being perfected in the Holy Spirit as contrasted to being perfected in our human spirit? Are you asking if there is a difference between being declared perfect by God as contrasted to being perfected in our human spirit? Or are you asking if there is a difference between a person's soul as contrasted to a person's spirit? :bang: :bang: :bang:

Christ's sacrafice has made us perfect.Experientially? No Christian ever commits adultery? No Christian ever lies, cheats or steals?

But you've already said that someone who says Jesus is Lord, yet lives as a homosexual would not go to heaven. Correct?No, that's not what I've said. I think people who were living a homosexual lifestyle and then became Christians often take time to grow out of it. A lot of it depends on how the gospel was presented to them. A strong message containing the Law, its consequences and how badly they have violated it, often produces deep repentance. But a "soft gospel" message with nothing but "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" often produces a "what can God do for me?" attitude rather than an attitude of "I am now God's property. I am no longer the lord of my own life."

Additionally, former homosexuals can backslide just like former heterosexual adulterers and fornicators can. That doesn't mean they lose their salvation. However, I do believe that if a person persists year after year and even decade after decade in a backslidden lifestyle, then it is highly likely (though not mandatory) that they were never truely saved to begin with.

Grace is grace, Jefferson. There is not a difference of definition here.Define grace.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:07 PM

Jefferson: I am also scratching my head at some of his 'perfectionism' ideas. I think Scripture does not divorce doctrine from practice. Paul's letters first lay a doctrinal foundation. In light of this, the rest of the letter shows a practical, experiential fleshing out of these truths.

Lighthouse

January 29th, 2005, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson

No. Your website says, " He loves us all, no matter what some might think." Your website pretends the first part of the sentence (ie. "God hates the unsaved wicked") is not true since it makes no mention of that fact.
It's called "bait and switch," Jeff.

Anyway, as I beleive I told you already, I started that website before coming to TOL. You rememebr what I was like. And I still have some fleshing out to do.

I mentioned several things. Which one of them are you questioning? Are you asking if there is a difference between being declared perfect by God as contrasted to being perfected in the Holy Spirit? Are you asking if there is a difference between being perfected in the Holy Spirit as contrasted to being perfected in our human spirit? Are you asking if there is a difference between being declared perfect by God as contrasted to being perfected in our human spirit? Or are you asking if there is a difference between a person's soul as contrasted to a person's spirit? :bang: :bang: :bang:
There is no difference between being perfected in teh Spirit, and being declared perfect by God. And that makes us perfected in our spirits. There is no difference between the three.

Soul and spirit: what's the difference?

Experientially? No Christian ever commits adultery? No Christian ever lies, cheats or steals?
Okay. No, it is not experiential in that no one ever does anything wrong. But it is experiential in that no Christian lives in sin. Those who are in Christ have the mind of Christ, know the difference between right and wrong, and do not live in sin.

No, that's not what I've said. I think people who were living a homosexual lifestyle and then became Christians often take time to grow out of it. A lot of it depends on how the gospel was presented to them. A strong message containing the Law, its consequences and how badly they have violated it, often produces deep repentance. But a "soft gospel" message with nothing but "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" often produces a "what can God do for me?" attitude rather than an attitude of "I am now God's property. I am no longer the lord of my own life."
Okay. I agree.

Additionally, former homosexuals can backslide just like former heterosexual adulterers and fornicators can. That doesn't mean they lose their salvation. However, I do believe that if a person persists year after year and even decade after decade in a backslidden lifestyle, then it is highly likely (though not mandatory) that they were never truely saved to begin with.
I think the status of whether they were saved or not is shown by their attitude. Do they believe it to be right or wrong...

Define grace.
Oh boy. You know what grace is. It has power, that is all I'm saying. It has the power to free.

godrulz

January 29th, 2005, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Soul and spirit: what's the difference?

Okay. No, it is not experiential in that no one ever does anything wrong. But it is experiential in that no Christian lives in sin. Those who are in Christ have the mind of Christ, know the difference between right and wrong, and do not live in sin.

I think the status of whether they were saved or not is shown by their attitude. Do they believe it to be right or wrong...

Spirit is God-conscious, Soul is self-conscious (will, intellect, emotions). Spirit-soul is the real us living in a body.

Many unbelievers believe their adultery is wrong and even sinful. Some stop their behavior quicker than some Christians do. Sin is sin, right is right, wrong is wrong, whether for believer or unbeliever. Many teenagers know the difference between right and wrong. Christians do not habitually sin, but it does not mean that they cannot physically sin. There is more to the story.

Since I am on ignore, I spose lighthouse cannot see this:p

elected4ever

January 29th, 2005, 08:56 AM

godrulzChristians do not habitually sin, A habit doses not mean an acquired state. A habit is what one does naturally. An apple tree produces apples A vine grows on a fense. A habit is what is the natural to what ever the nature of that thing is. The verse is saying that it is not the nature of a child of God to sin. A grape vine does not produce apples at no time It is not its habit. You know what something is by the fruit it bears. A child of God does not bear sin at no time, and the flesh does not bear righteousness at anytime.

godrulz

January 29th, 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

godrulz A habit doses not mean an acquired state. A habit is what one does naturally. An apple tree produces apples A vine grows on a fense. A habit is what is the natural to what ever the nature of that thing is. The verse is saying that it is not the nature of a child of God to sin. A grape vine does not produce apples at no time It is not its habit. You know what something is by the fruit it bears. A child of God does not bear sin at no time, and the flesh does not bear righteousness at anytime.

Is it natural for the newborn human body to be addicted to tobacco, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, sex, gambling, etc.? These habits are acquired through wrong choices forming a nature (state) and character leading to a destiny.

Those who walk in the light vs darkness, walk in the Spirit vs flesh, are in Christ vs living selfishly, etc. will bear fruit as you say. The fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23) is the Holy Spirit reproducing the life and character of Christ in us. This does not mean we are totally passive as evidenced by the hundreds of New Testament exhortations to right living and Christ-like character.

elected4ever

January 29th, 2005, 12:12 PM

The point I am trying to make is that the flesh walks according to the flesh perpetually. When a person receives the new birth of life from God by his seed then he walks in life perpetually.

Even after the new birth in Christ the flesh does not change. It always acts according to its nature (habit). It is not sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. It is a constant. The righteous life that is within can never be extinguished by the acts of the flesh. There is a battle raging.

We are no longer subject to the flesh nature nor can we ever be. We are in the world but we are not of the world. Our true nature of righteousness and glory will be reveled when we put off this robe of flesh and receive our new bodies. There is absolutely nothing that can prevent that. Not even our selves. We cannot undo what God has done.

It is a matter of believing God and not believing God. God is true to His word and not the whims of man. I am not saved because I feel like it all the time. I am saved because God said so and that is that. I cannot be His son today and not be His son tomorrow. The ways of man are to fickle for God to make man subject to the acts and desire of the human mind. I am a child of God not by how I feel or act but because I believed God. It is God that justifies me. Not me or any other man, thing, creation or anything else that can be imagined or real. I am complete (perfected) in Him, the author and finisher of my faith.
1 John 4:17 _¶Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1 John 5:5 _Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 _¶This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 _For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 _And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 _If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 _¶He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 _And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 _He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 _These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Sozo

January 29th, 2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

The point I am trying to make is that the flesh walks according to the flesh perpetually. When a person receives the new birth of life from God by his seed then he walks in life perpetually.

Even after the new birth in Christ the flesh does not change. It always acts according to its nature (habit). It is not sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. It is a constant. The righteous life that is within can never be extinguished by the acts of the flesh. There is a battle raging.

We are no longer subject to the flesh nature nor can we ever be. We are in the world but we are not of the world. Our true nature of righteousness and glory will be reveled when we put off this robe of flesh and receive our new bodies. There is absolutely nothing that can prevent that. Not even our selves. We cannot undo what God has done.

It is a matter of believing God and not believing God. God is true to His word and not the whims of man. I am not saved because I feel like it all the time. I am saved because God said so and that is that. I cannot be His son today and not be His son tomorrow. The ways of man are to fickle for God to make man subject to the acts and desire of the human mind. I am a child of God not by how I feel or act but because I believed God. It is God that justifies me. Not me or any other man, thing, creation or anything else that can be imagined or real. I am complete (perfected) in Him, the author and finisher of my faith.

You are sooooo... right!

Thank you, Jesus!!