Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[Wingnut]

43 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

There is outward, observable "keeping", which can arise from fear, or custom, etc.  And there is inward "keeping" which rises from true heart belief, love, agreement.  The inward keeping, is only possible by the indwelling (constant interaction) of the Spirit of Christ upon the mind.  The human observer cannot really tell the source (in the mind) of the (outward) behavior.  God is judge BECAUSE God "knows the heart".  He can know the "thoughts and intents of the heart".  This goes FAR BEYOND merely "intelligence".   That is why Jesus could say, "I know My Sheep."  He "knows" the persons with whom He is interacting, and their responses to Him.

CONCERNING WHAT GOD KNOWS:  I believe our God (the Father) sees the future, as you or I see things that happen around us.  God told Abraham:

Genesis 15:13 "Then the LORD said to him, 'Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. ¹⁴ But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions'" (NIV).

400 years to the very day, Abraham's descendants came out of Egypt, with great substance.  Which means that the LORD made this promise to Abraham on what would later be The Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Isaac would not even be born for another 15 years. 

 

If I say, "In 3 years time I will have a BA degree" and in 3 years time I have a BA degree, then that means I see the future in exactly the same way as God sees the future.  He works to achieve what He says He will do.  No magic there.  Just power.

[8thdaypriest]

I would like to consider the results, which could come from believing as Samie does - that all humans are born in a "saved" and therefore "justified' condition before God. 

It would make me question the Gospel Commission, to go and TEACH all nations.  Why?  Why teach them, if they are already "saved".  There would be no reason to TEACH them.  Just let them live out what remains of their lives, and then they will be resurrected into the Kingdom with eternal life.  TEACHING them would only jeopardize their salvation.  Jesus is sending His disciples out to DECREASE the number of human beings who will one day be in His Kingdom.  That just doesn't make sense. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

If I say, "In 3 years time I will have a BA degree" and in 3 years time I have a BA degree, then that means I see the future in exactly the same way as God sees the future.  He works to achieve what He says He will do.  No magic there.  Just power.

Which would mean that God the Father caused the death of His Son - by crucifixion, which was NOT the method of execution at the time the prophecies were written.  That would mean God the Father caused crucifixion to become the method of execution, so that His prophecy could be fulfilled. 

[Wingnut]

17 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

THE CURSES OF GOD

Did God Himself cause thorns to grow, or was this the natural result of changes within the soil, and atmosphere, which resulted from Noah's flood.  Were they caused by Satan's experimentation? 

 

God uses angels to do His will.  Sometimes good ones, sometimes bad ones.  God does not Himself leave heaven to visit evil on say Sodom.  

Either way, nothing happens outside God's control.  The buck stops at His throne.  So it does not matter if He causes it or allows it.  God just has to drop a hint that He wants thorns, and viola, some angel or the other will make sure there are thorns.

[Wingnut]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Which would mean that God the Father caused the death of His Son - by crucifixion, which was NOT the method of execution at the time the prophecies were written.  That would mean God the Father caused crucifixion to become the method of execution, so that His prophecy could be fulfilled. 

Yes! 

[8thdaypriest]

In Ephesians 2, Paul is addressing the problem of Gentile inclusion, in the "body" of - congregation of - Israel. 

Ephesians 3:6 ". . . that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel . . ."

The "Law contained in ordinances" that was abolished by the death of God's Son, is the "ordinance" that forbade the uncircumcised inclusion as citizens of Israel - forbade them inheritance of the things promised to Abraham, in the "covenants of promise".  (Acts 10:28;  Exo. 23:32;  Exo 34:12,15;  Ezra 9:12;  Daut 7:3,4;  Deut 23:6) 

Romans 9:4 [Paul speaking] ". . . Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises . . ."

Paul is clear that BEFORE the physical death of Christ, the "adoption" (as sons of God) and "the covenants" pertained ONLY TO ISRAEL - not to every person ever born into the whole world.

It might be well to point out that "the covenants" - each and every covenant promise from Abraham forward - including the "new covenant," is made with Abraham or with his chosen descendants. Believers become sons and daughters of Abraham, through faith in Christ. 

The REASON that uncircumcised believing persons could - after the death of God's Son - be included in the "promises" is BECAUSE they "inherit" through "marriage to Christ.  They are claimed as sons and daughters of God.  They are adopted by God.  They are "circumcised" by Christ.  They are "grafted in" (Romans Cpt 11) to Israel, while unbelieving Jews were "broken off (from Israel) because of unbelief". 

Paul used the "dividing wall" around the Temple Court in Jerusalem (which shut out uncircumcised males) as a symbol of their former exclusion, from Covenant - a very real exclusion in Scripture.

Romans 4:13-16 "For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. . ."  "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."

"The Promise" is SURE "to all the seed".      Who are "seed"?  All mankind? - No.     "Those who are of the faith of Abraham."  - those who BELIEVE. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

27 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Yes! 

The differences between your views and mine, just continue to expand. 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

There are a handful of things described in Scripture, which I believe God Himself DID directly.  Nadab and Abihu - consumed by the fire of God.  The 250 princes.  Korah et al.  The army of Gog/Magog finally consumed by "fire" from God. 

These can be seen the same way (loss of protection, etc.)  There's also the question of God's directing the Israelites to wipe out their enemies.

[pnattmbtc]

An interesting question to pursue, as we share different views, is what it says about God.  Or, what are our views about God.  Wingnut seems (from my perspective) to have quite a negative view of God the Father.  From my perspective, God the Father is wonderful, and Jesus' whole job was to show us what the Father is like.  We think, when we see Jesus, that we are seeing Jesus, but we are actually seeing the Father.  Jesus pointed this out on several different occasions.

[LifeHiscost]

5 hours ago, Wingnut said:

If you are referring to me saying "This is a foolish "proof" but worth considering" that if both the Father and Christ are identical, then one of them may be considered to be redundant - then I am not saying God's word is foolish, but rather giving notice that I Wingnut am about to make a somewhat foolish argument.  Or as Paul might say "I speak as a fool..."

Thanks for explaining that. Wingnut. My bad. Keep looking up.

God is Love!  Jesus saves!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

The REASON that uncircumcised believing persons could - after the death of God's Son - be included in the "promises" is BECAUSE they "inherit" through "marriage to Christ.  They are claimed as sons and daughters of God.  They are adopted by God.  They are "circumcised" by Christ.  They are "grafted in" (Romans Cpt 11) to Israel, while unbelieving Jews were "broken off (from Israel) because of unbelief".

This isn't time dependent.  This is one of Waggoner's main points.  Nothing happened time-wise with respect to the cross in that before the cross a certain class of people couldn't be saved but after the clasee they could.  It has always been the case that believers could be saved, whether Gentiles or not, and, indeed, Paul makes the case that we are all Gentiles until we believe (a true Jew is one who is circumcised inwardly).

[Wingnut]

40 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

An interesting question to pursue, as we share different views, is what it says about God.  Or, what are our views about God.  Wingnut seems (from my perspective) to have quite a negative view of God the Father.  From my perspective, God the Father is wonderful, and Jesus' whole job was to show us what the Father is like.  We think, when we see Jesus, that we are seeing Jesus, but we are actually seeing the Father.  Jesus pointed this out on several different occasions.

Our God is an awesome God He rules from heaven above

In wisdom power and love, our God is an awesome God..... etc.

One of my favourite songs when sung by the Gaithers

I don't think one bad thing about God, I am too scared to  

 

[Wingnut]

Here is a link to the Gaithers singing "Our God is an Awesome God"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXx30llZ-rU

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut, I like some of the things you are saying.  For example, your idea of humanizing God, so to speak, I agree with, in that I think God, in certain aspects, as much more like we are than people think (it is His character which is so different), and that He really did make us in His image.  So that part of what you are writing resonates with me.  However, the idea that the Father is different than the Son, and that Jesus is more willing to forgive, or less harsh, etc., is I think missing the whole point of the Gospel of John.

The theme of John is summarized by 1:18, which, as one translation puts it, says that No one has seen God at anytime; His only Son, who knows Him best, has shown us what God is really like.

[Samie]

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

Regarding me, I've never said that faith is the ability to respond. I'd hardly argue this was incorrect if I had, would I?  Your memory has been really, really bad in what I have said, which is one of the reasons I have repeatedly requested you quote things I've written and respond to those.

Really? You never gave one definition of faith as the ability to respond? My really, really bad memory tells me this part of one post of yours:

Quote

If faith is a response, then the giving of faith must be the giving of the ability to respond, and, yes, God gives that first, before the person responds. 

I just noticed that your really, really good memory had to be reminded by my really, really bad memory what your really, really good memory insists you never wrote.

[pnattmbtc]

5 minutes ago, Samie said:

Really? You never gave one definition of faith as the ability to respond? My really, really bad memory tells me this part of one post of yours:

I just noticed that your really, really good memory had to be reminded by my really, really bad memory what your really, really good memory insists you never wrote.

The quote you present has me saying "if faith is a response".  How is this not clear?

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

The quote you present has me saying "if faith is a response".  How is this not clear?

It is clear you wrote that faith is the ability to respond when you wrote in that post "the giving of faith must be the giving of the ability to respond".

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, first of all, you've misquoted me many times.  You should be aware of this.  So my comment that your memory is bad is founded on evidence.  Even if somehow you managed to correctly quote me from memory, it still would be a good practice so do what I've been asking, and quote something I've said, not just this one time, but as a general practice, the way I quote you.  This way if there's a disagreement, we can refer to something which has actually been said, as opposed to someone's memory of what was said.  This isn't something I'd expect you take as a personal afront as it's not a personal attack in any way, just a request to help further the discussion along.

Secondly, regarding Romans 12:3, what Paul is saying is that each believer (and note that Paul is addressing believers in Romans 12) should not think of himself too highly, but according to the measure of faith God has given him.  In other words, we have nothing to boast of, because all that we have comes from God, that's the basis idea.  Paul isn't making an argument that everyone is a believer, which is a gross distortion of what Paul is saying specifically in Roman 12, and in general, it's missing Paul's whole theology of justification by faith.

For example, consider Romans 10, just a couple of chapters earlier:

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

You have asserted this is speaking of the faith of Jesus, but this is definitely eisegesis, as Paul is clearly speaking of the response of the prospective believer to do something of himself:
1.declare with the mouth
2.believe in the heart

The believing in the heart is in the heart of the prospective believer.  Certainly the ability to do so comes from God, but the actual act of believing is dependent upon the free will of the prospective believer, to make the choice to believe with the heart and confess with the mouth.

[Samie]

Do you still want to deny you never wrote that one definition of faith is the ability to respond, bro Pnatt?

[pnattmbtc]

9 minutes ago, Samie said:

It is clear you wrote that faith is the ability to respond when you wrote in that post "the giving of faith must be the giving of the ability to respond".

Yes, of course.  You are not reading well.  When you read what someone writes, you should ask yourself, what is the person you are reading wanting to communicate.  You shouldn't try to read according to what you want or hope the other person is writing, or try to misread ready him by the letter of what is written, but to look at the intent of the author.  And this is a noticeable problem with how you read the Scripture authors.  Just as you misread me, you misread them, because you are inserting your own will in the place of the author.

Again, to read other well, set your own ego aside, and ask, "what it the person trying to say?"

Here's what I wrote:

"If faith is a response, then the giving of faith must be the giving of the ability to respond, and, yes, God gives that first, before the person responds." 

From this, any reasonable person can conclude that the intent of the author (me) is that faith is a response.  The first five words are "if faith is a response".  To somehow read this sentence is the author wanting to convey the idea that faith is NOT a response, but something else, is to not read very well.

[pnattmbtc]

And another thing, Samie, I've written whole posts with many paragraphs explaining what I believe faith to be.  You'd have to somehow set all that aside too.  This is all because of your not reading with the desire to discern the intent of the author.  You need to now just read individual words, but ask yourself the question, what is the author trying to say?  Not simply, "What did the person say?" (which is also important), but "What did the person want to say/" because people are human, and can make mistakes in communication.  And if you applied this test to me, since I've written over a hundred times what I believe faith to be, if I misstated something in one place (which it doesn't look to me that I did here), you would still be able to discern what I meant just by thinking a little bit.

[Samie]

So what's your point in writing "This is incorrect" in response to what I wrote "Faith is the ability to respond" when you are now admitting that indeed you gave one definition of faith as the ability to respond?

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

This isn't time dependent.  This is one of Waggoner's main points.  Nothing happened time-wise with respect to the cross in that before the cross a certain class of people couldn't be saved but after the clasee they could.  It has always been the case that believers could be saved, whether Gentiles or not, and, indeed, Paul makes the case that we are all Gentiles until we believe (a true Jew is one who is circumcised inwardly).

I would AGREE that all believers are sons of Abraham, because they are "of faith", whether they lived before Abraham or after.   Which goes back to the "measure of faith" - given to all.  Does the "measure" make one a believer?  That's the question.  Or - does it allow one to BECOME a believer, WHEN presented with the evidence.  The first would not require that the person HEAR or SEE anything.  The second would. 

[Samie]

5 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I would AGREE that all believers are sons of Abraham, because they are "of faith", which they lived before Abraham or after.   Which goes back to the "measure of faith" - given to all.  Does the "measure" make one a believer?  That's the question.  Or - does it allow one to BECOME a believer, WHEN presented with the evidence. 

I know this is directed to Pnatt who is now busy sorting out why he denied having given a definition of faith as the ability to respond.

But I just would like to answer you that it allows one to become a believer when presented with the evidence.

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

Wingnut, I like some of the things you are saying.  For example, your idea of humanizing God, so to speak, I agree with, in that I think God, in certain aspects, as much more like we are than people think (it is His character which is so different), and that He really did make us in His image.  So that part of what you are writing resonates with me.  However, the idea that the Father is different than the Son, and that Jesus is more willing to forgive, or less harsh, etc., is I think missing the whole point of the Gospel of John.

The theme of John is summarized by 1:18, which, as one translation puts it, says that No one has seen God at anytime; His only Son, who knows Him best, has shown us what God is really like.

And I am still hoping that Rachel, with all her research on the Trinity will do a comprehensive comparison of Father and Son.

Just off the top of my head, I would explore differences in...

obedience, wills being done, executive vs legislative, getting down and dirty, uncompromising, dare to cross or not, meekness, having attitude, glory, emanating authority, centre stage, owning all, delegation, high priestly role, intercessory, tolerance of failure, tolerance of weakness, tolerance of impurity, temper, jealousy, involvement-in-project-man, who we pray to, who actually helps us, who's thoughts are given to us, who has final say, etc.