|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 17:27:49 GMT -5
Sorry, I wrote that to answer the question of one or two natures but I neglected the first question.
I don't know the details of how Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit but I believe John when he says the Word became flesh. John doesn't say the Word obtained flesh. Did you understand my response about 'nature'?
btw are you roman catholic, like under the pope?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 17:17:52 GMT -5
Nature: The essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. Part of one's nature would be part of the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. I've thought for a while now that the concept of two natures is nonsensical. If you add more qualities and characteristics there is no need to create a second nature to hold the overflow. The word nature, by definition, is capable of encompassing all of the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 16:47:36 GMT -5
haha, Don't eat the sweet old lady's apple Kerrigan. Just wait till the dwarves come home.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 16:44:21 GMT -5
Even Jehovah's Witnesses know that when people goof around with words like this that it makes the listeners easy targets for their "Should you believe in the Trinity?" booklets. No one denied that Jesus is God but you are trying to force physical and spiritual things together. How can you expect to intellectually merge the physical birth of Jesus through a woman into the very "nature" of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You can shuffle two halves of a deck of cards together but I don't think you should be going about this the same way.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 16:07:31 GMT -5
I certainly hope so but it's up to the Father.
Why do you believe that?
That sounds like a silly fable. Is it all part of the same story as the assumption?
Not really. In my opinion, that's choking on the doctrine of the trinity to make that statement. Mary is not the mother of the Father and she is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she was not the mother of the Word before he became flesh in her. In my opinion, to say that Mary has become the mother of God is misleading because of the silliness of people trying to fathom the trinity doctrine. That could be a whole new thread on the trinity doctrine huh?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 15:05:47 GMT -5
example: Joh 15:22 If I had not come and had not spoken to them, they had no sin. But now they do not have excuse as to their sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 14:00:36 GMT -5
I agree there is only one church.
Figuratively in a spiritual sense. My literal mother was a literal woman like Mary.
Here's another one: Is Joseph our 'stepfather' in heaven?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 13:51:35 GMT -5
Is Ruth our mother in heaven too?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 13:48:57 GMT -5
haha Morrell Theory: 1 seminal identity: 0 : )
Jesse, you think Rom 5:19 is saying that Adam literally contributed in some way (via temptation)? I was taking it completely figuratively (the underlying assumption being personal choice which you obviously agree with). Including the temptation inheritance in that particular verse is less figurative an interpretation than I had made.
Now if knowledge inherited from Adam allows more variations of temptation then wouldn't the knowledge in the 'sermon on the mount' have the same effect?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 12:28:04 GMT -5
Hi Frank, I don't think Romans 7 means that. I think that interpretation (which is basically what I was taught too) derives from gnostic or antinomian traditions.
Here's a rough sketch of how I understand this chapter now: Verses 1-6 are about freedom from the condemnation of the law (through repentance [death] and faith in Jesus [remarriage])
7-12 Show that the law is not sin (The law 'being sin' or the cause of sin would be a foolish interpretation of verses 1-6. Probably an interpretation that antinomian or gnostic people would make up? Paul personifies sin to make a sharp distinction between sin and the law.)
13-25 Show that sin causes death and not the law. (Is the law to blame for the sinners condemnation? Did that which is good become death? The law is not to blame but the choice to sin. Paul continues to emphasize the distinction between the law and sin. The idea of sin being a "law" that "dwells in his members" is figurative. Sin is not a literal law, nor can it literally dwell anywhere. The purpose of the figurative language is to show that our choice to sin is what brings condemnation to us not the law. The law does not condemn the righteous man but the sinner condemns himself. Verse 14 shows that the person being described is "sold under sin." That's figurative language. Sin doesn't literally have a money purse and go around buying people. We are slaves to whom we present ourselves. The law of sin in his members is there because he presents himself to sin to serve it. He hasn't yet died and been remarried as described in 1-6. The whole point is that the law was not a bad husband, the source of sin, the cause of death, etc. It was personal [chosen] sin that was the problem, "the [figurative] law of sin". The sinner can never go back to the law as her husband because it's too late, she's already crossed the line. She needs to fully die and be remarried to Christ.)
Do you see how Paul defending the goodness of the law leads to the figurative language that personifies sin and even calls it a law of its own?
I don't think he's making a new statement about the nature of sin. Sin is a choice, period. I think he's defending the nature of the law from people who would blame sin on the law. In the figurative language it can sound like the sinner is the victim of sin. This is true in the sense that the sinner is the "victim" of his own willful disobedience. I think the point is that the sinner is not the victim of the law.
What do you think Frank? This is still new to me so I hope anyone feels free to critique this.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 22:41:05 GMT -5
yeah, basically. that's what I used to tell myself because I loved sin
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 22:06:34 GMT -5
Control is just another way of saying exercising dominion. Self control is exercising dominion over your self (body, mind, emotions, etc.) My question is this: Is man able to control himself or not?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:52:09 GMT -5
sorry, that last question might be getting a bit off topic
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:50:47 GMT -5
Do you think that is also what happened when the law was given and since Jesus has fully shown us what loving God and our neighbor means? Has the bar been raised more than once? Is that why it says God overlooked certain things in the time of ignorance?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:13:21 GMT -5
What does it mean that he knew good and evil like God? And what was different about Adam before his eyes were opened? I would think he had to know right from wrong in order to sin originally.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:07:14 GMT -5
Does that mean that it became impossible for him to perfectly control himself? What percent of the time could he control himself before and after?Are you saying that God subjected Adam's relationships to tension, lust, and domination? Is man's authority over woman part of this three-fold corruption?Inclination by personal choice or inclination by birth?'Experience' sounds vague. Is anyone forced to lust with their eyes? Did the Lord Jesus posses these three sinful 'experiences'?Temptation is a result of Adam's sin? What about the devil? Was Adam himself tempted? Was Jesus only able to be tempted as a result of Adam? Does temptation (inherited or not) lead to a certain dominion of death (physical or spiritual)?It sounds like you think it was obscured or weakened in some way. I think the will is either free or not in regards to sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 13:23:17 GMT -5
Excellent point. Your pastor sounds like an honest man. When I was finally convinced of free will it was still murky because I assumed I had a sinful nature but it was still very convicting to admit free will. A sinful nature really is that last possible excuse for not walking as the Lord Jesus walked. Since the command is to love God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your mind, well, that means that the heart, soul, and mind are capable of doing those things. The only thing left to get in the way is our own choice.
The only thing I don't understand is what about children who grow up in wicked environments and are taught to live sinful lives? When will God begin to hold them accountable? At the same age as someone who grew up with godly parents? Obviously blaming our parents is not the right idea but can't children be traumatized by different experiences or situations?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 12:35:56 GMT -5
Hi Frank, This statement does not sound right to me. It logically leads to Adam being incapable of obeying God and anyone born into this "state" also incapable. I don't think that's scriptural. If we had disabled souls, minds, hearts, or bodies then we would not be fully to blame for our sin, which, as I understand it, we are.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 15, 2008 3:57:06 GMT -5
I can't claim to be a mature christian at this point but here are some more thoughts on it:
Someone has to do it Michelle. It ought to be the men taking the lead, which I gather you agree with.
Your town isn't the only town that's in a sad state. I live in a majorly homosexual town, northampton, ma. I've only met a small handful of people who seemed to take God's word seriously. Only one of them, that I know of, actually rebuked sin in the streets.
I was just thinking, if you were with a man, that him taking the lead seemed appropriate, but if you're by yourself then I think you may be responsible in some situations. Even a little child has to be able to speak up when an adult is doing something wrong. I'll pray for a more ideal situation for you. It sure is encouraging seeing your desire to serve God.
It sounds like that pastor wasn't reading his bible.
If you are concerned about being respectful (which is also encouraging to see) you could consider the different ways servants of God used to admonish those they did not have authority over. I don't think you need to think of every man as if he is a king or anything like that, but the basic principle of humble admonishment seems like the way to go if you are unsure.
Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
The way Paul spoke to rulers in acts is obviously way over the top for this, but maybe once you take out all the fancy titles of honor you can get a basic idea of how he boldly spoke the truth.
The word "sir" is good for showing respect. I saw a video of a women correcting a street preacher and she kept calling him "bro". I don't know if it was just her attitude (which stunk) but the word seemed inappropriate the way she used it.
I've been thinking about how I can admonish an older man in a way that is appropriate and one thing I've tried is turning the statement into a question. You can still hit hard with the direct blow of the truth but presenting it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are their instructor or superior. I guess an "appeal" is what you would call that.
As long as you don't have a husband, brother, etc. to guide you in this, I think if you just closely follow your conscience and stick with the two good motives you've expressed here (to speak the truth in love) God can show you if you're too hesitant or too bold.
I was thinking about what Jesus said "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath?" Children should never yell at adults in general. But if an adult was about to get hit by a train shouldn't the child speak up?
I don't think being an orator is an edifying role for a woman but I don't think that disqualifies her from sharing the truth with someone.
I'd like to know if that helps with your question or not.
Another thought I just had is that all men have a conscience themselves and if they were willing to listen to it they would soon find themselves taught by God. Maybe you can appeal to a man's own conscience, that he would receive instruction from what God has placed in him.
I'm sorry this isn't a simple yes or no opinion.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 15, 2008 1:57:29 GMT -5
Hi Steve,
I've noticed that too. I have to admit I was the same way and had never even questioned the doctrine.
I'd like to know which verses you believe prove original sin. Are there many? Do you have a list? Also what version of original sin you believe in? That is, how do you define it, how does it work, why did God "allow" it, etc.
It would be nice to hear it from someone who doesn't just resort to contentiousness. I'm looking forward to the debate too. I hope it covers the arguments from both sides thoroughly (as much as time allows).
Thanks, Ben
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 22:34:49 GMT -5
You can see in the above post and using these other examples that the spirit vs letter dichotomy doesn't stand up in this case. Letter vs spirit of the law could be a whole 'nother thread. It just does not apply to this passage in 1 Cor.
Water baptism is symbolic. But Christians must obey. The Lord's supper is symbolic. But Christians must obey. The use of the veil is symbolic. But Christians must obey.
Now, if you were nailed to a cross when you repented and turned your heart to the Lord, THEN you would be free according to the Spirit from water baptism, the Lord's supper, veiling, and anything else that was physically beyond your control. A woman who had some kind of sensitive wound on her head would be exempt from wearing her usual veil if it was too difficult. Or if you were going to be executed with a hood on your head and had no control over it, I think it would be good to pray. There is a difference between the letter and the spirit but if we are able to fulfill the spirit through the letter (which we are in this case) then we must do it that way. If there is no water available for baptism, then there's no water. If no bread or wine or anything for the Lord's supper then we are not guilty of anything.
The apostle Paul was appointed by the Lord Jesus to be a teacher to us gentile nations. That means you and me. He poured out his life to bring the gospel of the Messiah to us. He was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was writing these passages.
If it was cultural only, it would say so. It doesn't. It says otherwise. If it was optional, it would say so. It doesn't. It says otherwise.
If sinners don't understand water baptism and the Lord's supper, we wouldn't just abandon them because we were worried about what they might think. The reason is that they are commanded, and are symbolic of things that have nothing to do with accommodating the fickle opinions of a sinful world.
The fact that veiling is the proper practice of the church of God means that it can only be beneficial to the ones who are obedient to it. Everything that God ordains is for our benefit, never to harm us or enslave us to foolish things. God is worthy of our trust in all things. There are also many practical benefits of regular use in a natural sense. Women who cover their hair are usually treated with more respect by men. In word and with the eyes. Also it helps a woman not to be tempted to practice vanity by spending more time than is needed with her hair. For some women that could make a big difference.
The veil, as Paul teaches, is literally an expression of femininity that is ordained by God as evidenced in nature. It's already apparent that what is called "feminism" has actually robbed women of their femininity. What is called "women's liberation" has actually enslaved them to masculine roles which they were never made for. So also is that which our FOOLISH culture calls oppression actually a liberation from the chaotic blurring of gender identity which Satan has worked in our midst. No woman should be discouraged from wearing a veil. They should instead be encouraged to wear them. Satan has deceived them again into thinking evil is good and good is evil and AGAIN the man is passively standing by doing NOTHING and saying NOTHING even though in he may know that things are not the way God would prefer them.
Now, women who are "spiritually veiled" toward their husbands will be humble, submissive, etc. when it comes to being taught about veiling if they do not already know about it. It's important that a woman be encouraged and allowed to learn about this and benefit from it but most importantly to give glory to God and to reverence her husband, father, etc. through it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 19:23:04 GMT -5
that was seriously invigorating
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 18:30:36 GMT -5
Jonah repented in the belly of a whale. The other man repented on the cross. You can repent while you are dying because you are still alive.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 18:16:39 GMT -5
You | Paul | Me | 1) Use the veil without regard for the motive of ones heart.
2) Wear the veil even if you are not honoring your husband from your heart, aren’t in the attitude of humility, and don’t glorify God.
3) Your can have the right attitude but not wear the veil, which makes you guilty.
| 1Co 11:7 For truly a man ought not to have the head covered, being the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man;
1Co 11:10 because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels.
| Men should not be covered BECAUSE they are the image and glory of God.
But woman is the glory of man and THEREFORE she should be covered BECAUSE of the angels.
#1 NO WAY. #2 and #3 are absent because the proper attitude is assumed.
| 1) Honor your husband from your heart, be humble, and glorify God.
2) If you are honoring your husband from your heart, are humble, and glorify God, then the veil is optional.
3) Follow the set standards of propriety of the culture concerning veiling.
| 1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head shames his head.
1Co 11:5 And every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled dishonors her head, for it is the same as being shaved.
| Every man praying or prophesying who is literally covered shames the Lord.
Every woman praying, etc. who is literally unveiled dishonors the man extremely
#1 is assumed, not instructed. #2 is absent. #3 is absent.
|
This is why I believe it it false to say there are two separate commands in the passage:Men | Women | Every man praying or prophesying who is literally covered shames the Lord. | Every woman praying, etc. who is literally unveiled dishonors the man extremely (as even nature teaches) | Therefore | Therefore | Men should not be covered BECAUSE they are the image and glory of God. | THEREFORE, being the glory of man, she should be covered BECAUSE of the angels. |
There are probably specific passages that exhort Christians to obey what you were calling "the spirit of veiling" but this passage in Corinthians SPECIFICALLY limits itself to instructing and explaining the USE of the veil BASED ON THE ASSUMED FACT that Christians by "nature" are ALREADY obeying "the spirit of veiling." THEREFORE when Paul explains it to them, he can be confident that simply giving them the reasons for DOING IT will automatically result in them OBEYING BECAUSE they are already willing to fulfill it in spirit. I hope you understand this. What I am saying is that the underlying motive of reverence is already assumed in the fact that he is writing to SAINTS. Definitions: 1) " Veiled men": Men who are doing what Paul says shames the Lord. 2) " Men honoring Christ": Men who are not doing what Paul says shames the Lord. 3) " Christian men": Christian men Major Premise: No "veiled men" are "men honoring Christ."Minor Premise: All "Christian men" are "men honoring Christ."Conclusion: No "Christian men" are "veiled men."Definitions: 1) " Unveiled women": Women who are doing what Paul says dishonors their husbands. 2) " Women honoring their husbands": Women who are not doing what Paul says dishonors their husbands. 3) " Christian wives": Christian wives Major Premise: No "unveiled women" are "women honoring their husbands."Minor Premise: All "Christian wives" are "women honoring their husbands."Conclusion: No "Christian wives" are "unveiled women."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 15:40:36 GMT -5
My fault. Will you please fulfill the last line in that post?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 15:37:06 GMT -5
Please pray for me that God will give me wisdom to make the right decisions and that as I make them he will have mercy on me in the name of the Lord Jesus and give me His Holy Spirit.
Benjamin
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 15:13:48 GMT -5
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. How long does someone have to consistently "practice" iniquity to graduate into being a "worker of iniquity"? How long does someone have to consistently "practice" righteousness to graduate into being a "worker of righteousness"? I would call someone who worked miracles a miracle worker after the very first miracle (if miracles came from men that is). That's why I mentioned the thief on the cross. He didn't need a week, month, or decade to straighten things out. All he had to do was stop putting himself first and start putting God first. He admitted his guilt, took full responsibility, accepted his just execution, loved the other man who was mocking the Lord (by rebuking him), and trusted in forgiveness of sins, the resurrection, and the love of God through the Lord Jesus. You make it sound like it's worse for a nonbeliever to sin than it is for a believer to sin. My understanding is that it is the exact opposite. It's bad to slander someone who you don't know while you are in the streets but if they extend friendship and pardon to you and invite you for dinner, how much worse is it then to slander them in their own house while eating their food!! That man should be ten times as ashamed as the at the first! Doesn't he deserve a harsher punishment than when he was in the streets without knowledge? Well some people believe that there is forgiveness in the next age based on something Jesus said. Personally I don't think what he said justifies counting on that being an option. Proverbs says whichever way a tree falls there it is. It's too late after that. God is not racing against your natural death. If He wants to save you from a car wreck to give you a chance to repent then he can do that. If He wants to give you fifteen more years He can do that. You could live to 120 or tonight. Being loved by God and being acceptable to God are two different things. We haven't earned God's love, it is free. Being acceptable is also free but with the condition of us loving God with all we got. Sinners are being loved by God. No sinner is acceptable to God. God wakes up sinners in the morning hoping they will love Him. That's love. But they aren't going to heaven if they don't stop sinning. See above Mental imperfection is not sin. Moral imperfection is sin. Having an inaccurate or incomplete memory is different than lazily not being careful to remember. Sinless perfection just means loving God and our neighbor as we should. It is possible to do this. Therefor sinless (moral) perfection is not an unattainable distant thing. That is what the law states. It is written "They have hated me without cause" Was it an accidental hatred? The nature of repentance is that you now love those you previously hated. Same mind you always have. You can't blame sin on your "other mind." You sin with the same mind you ought to love with. Can salt water and fresh water come out of the same spring? Children are covered. Can you help a grown man who refuses help? What kind of savior leaves you to die with a "weakness" (excuse) that cause you to sin? When the Lord healed the blind man in two stages did he leave him to die halfway healed? Was the healing interrupted or was it completed? God is worthy of this: All of you. If you deny Him some of you you deny Him what He is worth. I mean the analogies I gave in the context of the single present moment, not over the course of one's life.That whole scene is a description of a heart "partially" loving God. True love is a consuming fire. How many bug problems did the burning bush have? Son 8:6 Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour 1Co 13:4 Love has patience, is kind; love is not envious; love is not vain, is not puffed up; does not behave indecently, does not pursue its own things, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth. Love quietly covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. Go to a cemetery and wait by a grave until someone climbs out. How long will you have to wait? That's how long you'll have wait for love to sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 13:22:39 GMT -5
Here are your definitions of veiling and "the spirit of veiling." veiling | "the spirit of veiling" | 1) Use the veil without regard for the motive of ones heart.
2) Wear the veil even if you are not honoring your husband from your heart, aren't in the attitude of humility, and don't glorify God.
3) Your can have the right attitude but not wear the veil, which makes you guilty. | 1) Honor your husband from your heart, be humble, and glorify God.
2) If you are honoring your husband from your heart, are humble, and glorify God, then the veil is optional.
3) Follow the set standards of propriety of the culture concerning veiling.
|
8) True Both veiling and "the spirit of veiling" are commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.Based on these definitions of veiling and "the spirit of veiling" and also #8 being true you should be able to show, without commentary, which passages in 1Cor 11:1-16 command each of these items in the above table.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 3:53:24 GMT -5
1) True or False. What you call "the spirit of veiling" is distinguishable from veiling itself.
2) True or False. "The spirit of veiling" is mandatory.
3) True or False. The mandatory nature of "the spirit of veiling" is apparent in 1Cor 11:1-16.
4) True or False. Something that requires consent and has a mandatory nature is a command.
5) True or False. "The spirit of veiling" is commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
6) True or False. Veiling is commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
7) True or False. Obedience to "the spirit of veiling" makes veiling optional.
8) True or False. Both veiling and "the spirit of veiling" are commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 2:00:03 GMT -5
The criminal on the cross next to Jesus was a lover of God. Whether or not someone is a lover of God is measurable by whether they are in this present moment loving God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Falling short of the command to love God with everything = not loving God with everything. Partial love toward God is really complete hatred of God because He is worthy of no less than our complete love. To give Him partial love is to offer a lame, blind, blemished sacrifice which is unacceptable.
Say you only have twelve dollars and an article of clothing you need costs twelve dollars. Can you spend a dollar on a can of soda and still buy the clothing you need? Isn't it impossible?
You sit down in a nice restaurant to enjoy a large and expensive meal. Afterward they bring you the bill and you pay all but one dollar of what you owe. You then take out your last dollar and tear it into pieces. Will you be welcome to come back simply because you paid all but the last dollar?
Partially loving someone to whom we owe complete love is the same as not loving them.
|
|