"Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?"

[Robert]

Ellen White makes a statement that I would like to examine. It’s found in GC page 492:

“Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is ‘the transgression of the law;’ it [sin] is the outworking of [:"red"]a principle[/] at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government.”

Paul tells us that, “through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” [Rom 3:20] Note he does not say the law brings the knowledge of sins! When you read the Ten Commandments you are reading the letter of the law…you are reading ten, brief definitions of sin. E.G., it’s sin to murder; it’s sin to commit adultery, etc. What it doesn’t explain is “the principle” behind all these sins.

Once we allow the law to expand on itself (as Christ did in Matt 5:17-48) we will realize that behind every “transgression” there is a principle at work. Ellen calls it, “the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love.”

Paul explores this issue in Romans 7:7-10….Let’s examine it:

“…I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’”

You must remember that in his previous life Paul was a Pharisee – an expert at the law. Didn’t Paul know about the 10th commandment? Sure he did! Then why is the converted Paul zeroing on “Do not covet”? Let’s continue:

“But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.”

What in the world is Paul trying to say? What does he mean by apart from the law sin is dead?

If I tell you coveting is only wanting someone’s goodies (without stealing them), then anything beyond this limited view makes sin non-existent – it is dead. In other words if you believe that coveting is just limited to wanting your neighbor’s goods, then as far as you are concerned you are keeping the 10th commandment.

Then what is Paul really stating? From reading the context I believe that his sinful nature simply took advantage of his limited view of “coveting” and in return produced in him every kind of covetous desire. Let’s continue:

“Once I was alive apart from law”….

Again, because as a Pharisee he limited “coveting” to the letter of the law, he considered himself “blameless” and therefore alive (i.e., not under condemnation)! [see Phil 3:6]

“ but when the commandment came [i.e., when he understood ’what coveting really was’], sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.”

In other words when Paul understood the spiritual meaning of coveting, his sin was exposed and he came under the law’s condemnation (death). That’s why He said, “the very commandment (the 10th) that was intended to bring life, actually brought death.”

Okay, then what is “coveting”? Apparently it’s more than meets the eye! It must be more than we typically define it to be when using “the letter of law”.

Well, I could go through more N.T. passages to prove what coveting really is, but I am going to be lazy and let Ellen White help….I am using her because when someone mentions Ellen, Adventists' ears tune in.

Now read carefully and understanding the essence of sin:

“Sin originated [how?] in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven.” [i.e., he wanted to be # 1] [FLB 68]

In explaining love, Ellen states: “…There will be no rivalry, no self-seeking, no desire for the highest place. [Now she gives an example:] You will have that love which seeks not her own, [:"red"]but another's wealth[/].” [DA 439]

Did you get that? Sin is self-seeking! Then she goes further: Sin is anything outside seeking for the wealth and good of others! Read it again....

Here’s more: “The Prince of heaven [Jesus] came to this world to live in human nature a perfect life, a life that would be an example for all human beings. [:"red"]He lived a life free from self-seeking[/], [how?] wholly given to the service of others.”

Now she illustrates this principle at work:

“The Owner of the world, he had not where to lay his head. Unrecognized and unhonored, he walked in and out among the people for whom he had done so much. Of himself he said, ‘Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.’”

Now for the kicker:

And to his followers he says, ‘If any man will come after me [i.e., live solely for others and never self], let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’” [YI, 04-27-09]

In other works if you want to be perfect in law-obedience, you must live for others only and not yourself. You must crucify the desires of the flesh (coveting) not wanting anything for yourself….Your constant, overwhelming passion will be the welfare of others. This especially includes your enemies!!!

Now do you still desire to be “under law”?

[Robert]

• We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him. [1 John 5:18]

Is this true or are we misunderstanding the context? If you read 1 John 5:16,17 you will see that other fellow believers do sin.

Now if I go to 1 John 1:8, I find this:

• If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

This seems to contradict 1 John 5:18 that states those who have been born again do not sin. In 1 John 1:8 I see the opposite: Those who claim to have no sin are deceived because the Holy Spirit is not in them. They haven't been born again!

My point here is that Christians "fall short of the glory of God [His goodness]" [Rom 3:23] To "fall short" must mean they are reflecting some of God's attributes, so I am not saying that there isn't any change in the believer's life.

But some will claim that they keep God's law. This is what the rich young ruler claimed [see Matt 18:20] until Christ gave him the spirituality of the law: "You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Remember what Christ stated in Matt 5:48 concerning the law? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

What is perfection? It is living Christ's life - a life free from self-interests. That is why He told the rich young ruler, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor...." In other words, be selfless....

[there buster]

Quote:

---

“Once I was alive apart from law”….

Again, because as a Pharisee he limited “coveting” to the letter of the law, he considered himself “blameless” and therefore alive (i.e., not under condemnation)! [see Phil 3:6]

“ but when the commandment came [i.e., when he understood ’what coveting really was’], sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.”

In other words when Paul understood the spiritual meaning of coveting, his sin was exposed and he came under the law’s condemnation (death). That’s why He said, “the very commandment (the 10th) that was intended to bring life, actually brought death.”

---

It's all very interesting, but not valid based on the context of Romans 6-8. Paul makes no mention of his understanding 'as a Pharisee,' in Romans. His argument here is quite different, and, as most of Romans, quite difficult, as well.

In addition, Paul is simply using coveting as an example. You're trying to build a rather large theological tower on a very slight foundation.

[Bravus]

The 'sell everything you have and give to the poor' is, I believe, a very specific challenge to the rich young ruler. This was the area in which Jesus' discernment allowed him to see that this guy was still holding on to self. I don't believe that these instructions are for all of us: they were for him. Jesus will challenge each of us in the specific area in which we are still hanging on to selfishness, and that won't be material goods for everyone.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

The 'sell everything you have and give to the poor' is, I believe, a very specific challenge to the rich young ruler.

---

Actually it is to any man or woman who might ask the question, "What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [Matt 19:16] The answer will always be that if you desire heaven by works, then you must keep the law!

Hence verse 17: "And he [Jesus] said to him, 'if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'"

You must remember that this rich man claimed to have kept the law - even after Christ had recited the last six commandments to him (see verses 18 & 19). What he didn't understand was the spirit of the law: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"!

You see if you really loved your neighbor as you naturally love and do for yourself, well...your neighbor would have your goodies and you would go penniless! The only way to escape this predicament is to love yourself first and then help the neighbors out using your leftovers. Well, according to the law that is still being selfish because you are still living for yourself....

Now before you go nuts on me (because this sounds ridiculous), you need to realize that heaven is based on this concept of love [agape]. As I have stated many times before, we can see a glimpse of heaven in the early Christian Church as found in Acts 2:44,45/4:32....Let's look at these quotes:

• And all who believed were together and had all things in common; [:"red"]and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need...[/]

  ....those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

If Jesus had come to a selfless world He would have had a place to lay His head. Why? Because in God's system there is no "self"...there are no cliques...no hierarchy. In fact Jesus states that the greatest is the one who is servant of all [Mark 9:35]....In this system no one is left out for your sole motivation is to live for everyone else, and they you!

This world is not based on that principle, hence wars, poverty, death and general greed and corruption. If you want a roof over your head in this world you must live for yourself.

The very fact we do this makes us sinners because we are perpetuating the principle of self or self-love. Hence in that respect we are not fully keeping the law and can never be justified by our good deeds. In fact we had better not be "under the law"!!!! That's my whole point!

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

It's all very interesting, but not valid based on the context of Romans 6-8. Paul makes no mention of his understanding 'as a Pharisee,' in Romans. His argument here is quite different, and, as most of Romans, quite difficult, as well.

---

Paul's main points in Romans 6 are,

1]our death in Christ that legally redeems us

2] and our sanctification as we walk with Him daily.

Because legalism abounded in Paul's day, he tempered Romans 6 with Romans 7. In Romans 7:1-6 he points out that believers are no longer under the law. Yes he still held the law up as a standard for Christian living - but never as a means of heaven.

To prove that it can never be a means of our salvation, he dovetails into Romans 7:7-13....You see the 10th commandment is not an outward action - it is a mind-set. Sure it manifests itself in outward actions, but it is based on self-love and self-seeking!

When Christians look at Romans 7:14-25 they wonder how Paul could be converted and say things like, "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish."

The answer is back in Romans 7:7-13....Before his conversion Saul the Pharisee had a very high opinion of his law keeping. We can see this in Phil 3:6 -- "As to the Law, a Pharisee [an expert]; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless."

But after conversion, after Saul becomes Paul, we see a new man....We see a believer who is not measuring up to the spirit of the law as explained in Rom 7:7-13.

Is there condemnation for such a believer that delights in God's law, yet is falling short?

Romans 8:1 (NASB) "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....." Why not? We are not longer under the law....This doesn't mean there's not any growth because Paul encourages believers to "walk in the Spirit." That's the goal....

So I stand by what I have stated,

Rob

[there buster]

Quote:

---

So I stand by what I have stated

---

Well, of course that's up to you. But what you have stated has only your own authority behind it, since you have not bothered to link it directly to the context of Romans.

I realize that Paul wrote Philippians as well as Romans (well, I'll grant Romans as part of this discussion), but that doesn't mean you can just grab a verse from Philippians and claim that's what Paul was thinking/talking about in Romans.

You've still failed to establish that's what Paul is talking about in Romans. Evidence from, say, Romans 6 or 8 would be much more convincing. Evidence from anywhere earlier in Romans would be telling, and evidence from later in Romans might be illuminating. But lacking some verbal or thematic link, evidence from Philippians is unconvincing. It might be useful after you establish an internal link, but not till then.

So, while your interpretation is interesting, it's far from authoritative.

Now, some might be inclined to accept your authority. As for me, I'd prefer to see it backed up by the original author.

[Robert]

Then you should disprove me....

Rob

[Robert]

I'll examine the below later today:

1 Cor 13:1 IF I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Then you should disprove me.

---

No need. Unless you can find a link within Romans to Pharisees, Phariseeism, or some more definitive link to Philippians, there's nothing to disprove. Your case falls of its own weight.

Now, we could go back and examine Romans itself, to see what Paul was trying to say. That would be a different approach.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

your interpretation is interesting, .

---

I'm sure you're aware of this statement below, Ed, and take it to be authoritative.

[:"red"] "Knowing this first, that no prophecy [declared will and purpose of God AMP] of the scripture is of any private interpretation." [/] 2 Peter 1:20 KJV

brackets mine from another verse defining prophecy LHC

Not wishing to appear as defending one person above another, but desiring to take evidence out of the narrow parameters of individual reasoning, I would like to suggest the importance of seeing God's Word as expressing principles, that are not restricted to context, as if the one context could fit God's meaning into a bottle that would have no meaning elsewhere.

I recall a comment of yours from a different post that said something like this, "I see a text taken out of context as a pretext".

pretext: ...a motive...assumed ...to cloak the real intention. Sounds rather judgemental to me. Especially in the light of 1 Cor 13:7

[:"red"] "Love.... is ever ready to believe the best of every person" [/]

There are two texts often used to "prove" the need for maintaining context to get proper perspective of what God "really means". Most often they are used by individuals who believe themselves to know what God "really means", as opposed to the other person who is so ignorant as to be pathetic.

[:"red"] "..and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." [/] Genesis 4:8 KJV

[:"red"] " Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." [/] Luke 10:37 KJV

When you put these two together and apply each as instruction in principles, God's Word loses none of it's premise of Truth, whatever the context.. In the first, the principle of the world of darkness, "go out and destroy", is perfectly obvious. OTOH, the latter principle is revealed, "go thou and do righteousness", a principle in contrast. The way one discerns is what makes them clear, not the context. And discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit, something all have access to if they but ask.

[:"red"] "For this reason we also, from the day we heard of it, have not ceased to pray and make [special] request for you, [asking] that you may be filled with the full (deep and clear) knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and in understanding and discernment of spiritual things-- " [/] Colossians 1:9 AMP

[:"red"] "If you then, evil as you are, know how to give good gifts [gifts that are to their advantage] to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask and continue to ask Him!" [/] Luke 11:13

Lift Jesus up!!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I would like to suggest the importance of seeing God's Word as expressing principles, that are not restricted to context, as if the one context could fit God's meaning into a bottle that would have no meaning elsewhere.

---

That total statement is almost impossible to parse, but I'll try, because obviously you think you said something.

Saying "principles are not restricted to context" assumes that you know to begin with what those principles are. But that's the problem. Where did the principles come from? Did they come from your mind? Or did they come from the text, in context?

If we don't derive our principles from Scripture, they have no authority. That sort of interpretation moves inspiration from the author to the interpreter. That's why I reject it. I'm certain I'm not inspired, and have no reason to believe you are, either.

In effect, you're begging the question, saying "This text teaches such and such a principle, so I can attach it to any other text I think teaches that principle." Maybe. But first we have to determine what exactly this text teaches. That's all I'm trying to do.

Quote:

---

I recall a comment of yours from a different post that said something like this, "I see a text taken out of context as a pretext".

pretext: ...a motive...assumed ...to cloak the real intention. Sounds rather judgemental to me.

---

First of all, it was stated as a general principle, which applies to everyone. Second, it's more than a century old--I didn't originate it. Third, it's misquoted "A text without a context is a pretext."

Whether you see it as judgmental or not is of no interest to me. It's a simple statement of fact, like "Anyone who steps off a cliff should prepare to fall."

Quote:

---

There are two texts often used to "prove" the need for maintaining context to get proper perspective of what God "really means". Most often they are used by individuals who believe themselves to know what God "really means", as opposed to the other person who is so ignorant as to be pathetic.

---

The understanding that meaning depends upon context is both undeniable and elementary. It is not optional.

A simple example will demonstrate this:

Tell me what does the word "read" rhyme with? You may only choose one phoneme.

Or another:

What does the word "fast" mean? One definition.

Quote:

---

The way one discerns is what makes them clear, not the context. And discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit, something all have access to if they but ask.

---

And in so saying, you have made all discussion impossible. Because I can claim I discern it spiritually, and so can you, and we have no means of resolving it.

You have also contradicted Peter's statement. No Scripture is of any private interpretation. You have made the means of interpretation totally subjective, inaccessible to correction from anyone else.

Why our churches have so many intractable theological problems.

P.S. Discernment is a gift of the Spirit, but the gifts are validated by the church as a whole, not individually.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Then you should disprove me.

---

No need. Unless you can find a link within Romans to Pharisees, Phariseeism, or some more definitive link to Philippians, there's nothing to disprove. Your case falls of its own weight.

---

Not at all, Ed....Your dismissal of my study does not negate it. As I stated, in Romans chapter 6 Paul links our death & resurrection with Christ with our death to sin and newness of life. He contrasts the two....

If that is the final story on Christian living, then why does he do a U-turn in Romans chapter 7? The answer lies in verses 9 and 10. Let's review them again:

Verse 9: "Once I was alive [past tense] apart from law; but when the commandment came [sometime later], sin sprang to life and I died."

Did Paul, pre-converted or converted, ever live apart or without the law? NO! In his early days he was a Pharisee....By the age of 12 they had to memorize the whole of the Torah! So Paul knew the law!

What "commandment" is Paul speaking of...what's the context? Right, "coveting" - the 10th commandment.

Did Paul ever base his eternal life on the law? No, but the pre-converted Paul did....His name was Saul! IF you want to understand this you have to go to Phil 3:4-6 where he concludes that, "as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless." Being a Pharisee Saul knew very well that to be blameless meant heaven! What changed? Go now to verse 10:

I found that the very commandment [i.e., the 10th] that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

Did the converted Paul teach that life came by obedience to the law and death for disobedience! Absolutely not, but the Pharisees taught it. That's old covenant language: "Obey and live, disobey and die."

[:"blue"]Apparently something changed from verses 9 to 10....In verse 9 he considers himself "alive" with respect to his law keeping, but in verse 10 he now realizes that the 10th commandment actually brings death, i.e., "under law"! Why the change of mind? [/]

What changed? Did the law change? No...but Paul's understanding of what it meant to "covet" did change!

My conclusion is correction....Paul would have never claimed eternal life by law. Only the pre-converted Paul (Saul) would have made that boast!

So what changed in the 10th commandment? Nothing according to the letter, but Saul only understood the letter. He had heaven according to the letter of the law or apart from understanding its spirit.

[Robert]

[Robert]

Quote:

---

So what changed in the 10th commandment? Nothing according to the letter, but Saul only understood the letter. He had heaven according to the letter of the law or apart from understanding its spirit.

---

While I do not base my understanding of the Bible on Ellen White, I have to say that this woman had some real insights! Now listen to her for she is saying what I have stated:

Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw [:"red"]the spiritual nature of the law[:"black"], sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem (i.e., pride of performance) was gone.

[there buster]

I guess I missed it. Where was that reference to Pharisees in Romans, again?

Restating your conclusions isn't the same thing as citing textual evidence.

Until then, to quote C. S. Lewis' tutor, "This doesn't rise to the level of error." It's just speculation. Which can be fun, but it's not Bible study.

Quote:

---

My conclusion is correction....Paul would have never claimed eternal life by law. Only the pre-converted Paul (Saul) would have made that boast!

---

When you're able to back that up with textual evidence, I will congratulate you. If I get a chance before you congratulate yourself.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

I guess I missed it. Where was that reference to Pharisees in Romans, again?

---

Here Ed, you tell me what the following means?

Romans 7:9 I [Paul] was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; 10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I guess I missed it. Where was that reference to Pharisees in Romans, again?

---

Here Ed, you tell me what the following means? [This is the heart of Romans 7:7-11]

Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; 10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.

---

I wouldn't mind exploring that, but I have a question: does putting something in italics mean that it's a reference to Pharisees? Or is that just dodging my question about the where the Pharisees can be found in Romans?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

I wouldn't mind exploring that, but

---

Then explore away!

[there buster]

I have several other things going, and Romans takes a bit of work to do right, but I'll start.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

P.S. Discernment is a gift of the Spirit, but the gifts are validated by the church as a whole, not individually.

---

I would suppose, according to your opinion, that would then eliminate the thief on the cross from having the gift of discernment, since the 'church' did not validate his conclusions. Which also would eliminate the Son of Man from the kingdom, as the 'church' didn't validate His discernment either.

[:"red"] "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." [/] Romans 2:29 KJV

[:"red"] "And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner" [/] Mark 12:10 KJV

[:"red"] "Remember I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his owner.' If they made it very hard for Me, they will make it very hard for you also. If they obeyed My teachings, they will obey your teachings also." [/] John 15:20 NLV

Lift Jesus up!!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

I have several other things going, and Romans takes a bit of work

to do right

, but I'll start.

---

Just start with Romans 7....If you wish to touch on chapters 6 and 8, then do so....

[Robert]

Quote:

---

does putting something in italics mean that it's a reference to Pharisees?

---

Let's say I am teaching integral calculus. In doing so, I come across an unknown trigonometric function. Well, the subject is "integral calculus" - that's the context. Is it out of context to go back and "review" trigonometry so that I can understand the integral better? Not at all, in fact it is a must if I am to succeed.

The same is true of Romans 7. When I see Paul talking like a Pharisee, when in fact he has already converted to Christianity in the context of Romans 7, then to better understand the context I need to look at Paul's past.....

Not too hard of a concept to understand, is it?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

When I see Paul talking like a Pharisee, when in fact he has already converted to Christianity in the context of Romans 7, then to better understand the context I need to look at Paul's past.....

---

Paul's past:

Phil 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Beware of the dogs [wolves in sheep's clothing], beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision [see Acts 15:1,5]; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh [our performance] 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence [Paul is talking of his past now]. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:

• 5 circumcised the eighth day,

  of the nation of Israel,

  of the tribe of Benjamin,

  a Hebrew of Hebrews;

  as to the Law, a Pharisee;

  6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church;

  [:"red"]As to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless [and that includes “coveting”].[/]

7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but dung in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith....

There is it, a contrast between Paul "pre" & "post" conversion!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I would suppose, according to your opinion, that would then eliminate the thief on the cross from having the gift of discernment, since the 'church' did not validate his conclusions. Which also would eliminate the Son of Man from the kingdom, as the 'church' didn't validate His discernment either.

---

Actually, the church did validate both the thief on the cross, and Jesus, although not specifically for the gift of discernment.

The church validated both of them by including the Gospels which contain that story in the canon of Scripture.

That's not so much my opinion as historical fact.