FAITH ALONE

Participant

Quote (martian @ Feb. 13 2009,03:49)

For the above reasons I do not take this board very seriously.
For those on here that cannot answer those questions I posed. I am glad you are here because that means you have less time out messing up people in the real world.
As for me I take this as an entertainment venue and thats all. Like watching a football game and having about as much influince on the kingdom of God as that game.
The only benefit I have rceived from this board is to see if anyone can challenge my beliefs while being able to properly answer the questions I posted. I am looking for fruit that will change my life to be more like Christ. Winning a debate through a clever debate tactic or voicing a philosophy that cannot answer those questions does not produce fruit.

Martian,

You seem to be judging this board only by the vocal people who are replying negatively to your posts and challenging you, and not thinking about the fact that you are ministering to those that are lurking, listening and following the interaction between you and others, and also following the links that you provide.

I have appreciated the insight and thoughts, etc that I have received from a lot of the posts on this forum.

February 12, 2009 at 8:52 pm#121352

Participant

Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 13 2009,07:29)

Quote (martian @ Feb. 13 2009,03:49)

Martian,

I have appreciated the insight and thoughts, etc that I have received from a lot of the posts on this forum.

we all have our reasons for being here.

February 12, 2009 at 8:58 pm#121354

Participant

Quote (martian @ Feb. 13 2009,03:55)

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 13 2009,02:56)

To All,
Before I do any more posting today I want to say that I have not been pleased with the tone this subject has taken. I am more displeased with myself more than anyone on this board because I have been aggressive toward what I perceive to be attacks on me.

I am not a nasty person. I'm just a fighter. There were four of us kids growing up and my dad left my mom holding the bag. I was angry and joined a Chicago street gang at 15 years old. During the three years I was in the gang I received a lot of injuries due to gangbanging with other gangs and when I became older also due to starting saloon brawls. To this day I carry the marks in my body because of those injuries.

On another related matter. I want to offer a public apology to Martian for attributing to him personally what his source said.

Martian,
I apologize my friend. You had every right to request an apology from me and I was stubborn about it. I'm not nasty. I did it because I am a fighter but that comes across as nasty. I am not going to reply to your post concerning me today because I want to put that all behind us and to start new with you. I am going to PM you and invite you to discuss with me rules of debate that we both agree to.

thinker

thinker,
I read your post and I accept your apology without reservation.
I know that I too can seem aggressive at times. This is especially true when I perceive a doctrine that defames the character of my heavenly Father or diminishes the example of my brother and Lord, Jesus.

As to rules for debate, I am not sure I am interested in debate. I am interested in results. I have from time to time posted rules of hermeneutics that I attempt to follow when interpreting scripture. These include using both sources and context. Unfortunately because you and I are detail focused the rules would need be as detailed. I doubt either of us want to write books instead of posts.
For me it boils down to the reason for scripture. I believe it can be summed up in one word. “HOPE”. The word details to us testimony that inspires hope. Like the scripture in Mal God's promises do not change because His character does not change. This gives us a hope we can rely upon. Christ, a perfected human, gives us hope in everything that he did from his teachings to his resurrection and inheritance. This gives us hope because His life is an example for us to follow.
If you really want to continue to discuss scripture with me, I invite you to check out the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

I believe it is possible for a teachable person to get a new insight into the scriptures from this site.

I also invite you to read my thread called “What God cannot do”.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….03af782

Although it is sometimes entertaining to relate commentary on scripture, I am more interested in others telling me how their doctrine works or functions to build hope in my heart to become like Christ. I find no interest in discussing teachings that rely on changing the character of God to make Him fit into them.
You have mentioned that you like to step outside of the box. Here is an invitation to do just that. Instead of taking the old trail of attempting to prove that your processes are correct, show me how the end conclusions of your processes further the plan of God for me. I am not interested in you showing me the money, I am interested in you showing me the fruit.

A good process/interpretation will produce good fruit. A bad process/interpretation will produce bad fruit or none at all.

Yours in The Master’s Service,
martian

Martian said:
Quote
Like the scripture in Mal God's promises do not change because His character does not change.

But God becoming flesh does not change His character. That it would you have yet to prove.

Reply –
Did you read my post on “What God cannot do” It is proven there.

Martian said:
Quote
I also invite you to read my thread called “What God cannot do”.

I'm interested only in the Scriptures. And the Scriptures say this, “I will BECOME what I shall become” (Ex. 3:14).

Reply –
Oh I was unaware that Exodus was written in English. What you are really saying is that a translator that you agree with says that. The truth is that “ I will become” is an attempt to put a purely Hebrew concept into Western thinking terminology. Hebrews do not name things by their appearance but by their function. If something functioned as God they called it God. Case in point the Burning bush. Moses calls it God because it functioned as God. Hebrews also relate personally to nouns rather then impersonal. For instance A Greek thinker describes a pencil as yellow and 9 inches long. A Hebrew would say I write with it. A Greek says God is love. A Hebrew says God loves me. As I have posted many times there is no word for “is” in Hebrew. The closest you can get is “functions as” or “Relates to me as”

Martian said;
Quote
As to rules for debate, I am not sure I am interested in debate.

Come on bro! Let's be honest (hugs and kisses). For someone who is not interested in debate then why do you reply to a simple apology by opening up such a big can of worms? And why do you super impose the debate on the Trinity here? I wasn't born yesterday bro.

Reply –
You say you want to stick to context. Does that mean only within the context of the translators that you agree with? How about reading and understanding the scriptures from within the context of the culture in which they were written.

Martian said:
Quote
I find no interest in discussing teachings that rely on changing the character of God to make Him fit into them.

Jesus was the “express image of God's person”. So how was God's character changed in His becoming flesh? And why do you bring it up on this thread?

Reply –
Where does it say God’s “person”? Is that from a source that you agree with? Again I am not going to repost everything for your benefit. I sent you to the page in which I answered those questions and you did not read them. That makes me think you have no interest in my responses but only in blowing your own horn and reading what you have to say.

Martian said:
Quote
For me it boils down to the reason for scripture.

I challenge your claim. You have given the impression that it all boils down to sources. By doing this you forget that the men who compiled those sources did so without objectivity according to their presupposed paradigms. In other words, you assume that men tell the truth. I assume the contrary.

Reply –
I guess I am supposed to shake in my boots at your challenge? Get over yourself again. You rejected sources and I am talking about fruit. Are you afraid to line your doctrines up against the question of fruit?

Quote
For the core of man is deceitful above all things and incurably wicked (Jer. 17;9)

This Scripture includes you and me and yours and my sources without exception. So wouldn't it be better to restrict yourself to what the Scriptures say insted of what your sources say what the scriptures say? This is w
hy I try to avoid touting off sources. I assume that bias is present in all sources.

Reply
Fine – Then let’s talk about fruit and judge doctrine on the basis of the fruit it produces.

And if you say that you assume that truth comes from the core of man then I would ask you why do men need a Savior from sin? Btw, I don't vote in elections anymore. I have learned that the core of man really is decetiful and incurably wicked. I don't vote and I don't rely on sources.

Reply –
How very sad for you. That you cannot trust any man regardless of the fruit in their lives or words.

Martian said:
Quote
A good process/interpretation will produce good fruit. A bad process/interpretation will produce bad fruit or none at all.

Would I be misrepresenting you if I said that “fruit” to you has to do with the results which YOU want to see? I'm thinking here and not questioning your integrity. For someone who is not interested in debate then why do you reply to a simple apology by opening a can of worms?

Reply-
You ask for rules of debate we could both agree on. Since you will not accept any sources and I will not accept YOUR opinion on what a scripture means, I suggested a very biblical approach. Judge them by their fruits. Hope in the living resurected Christ as our example is the cornerstone of the faith. Hope in the unchanging character of God is paramount to our steadfastness in God. Without faith there is no hope. If your doctrine cannot produce hope and encouragement then one has to question if it is of faith.

It is true that there are several threads discussing aspects of the Trinity and it is hard to keep them separated all the time.

February 12, 2009 at 9:08 pm#121355

kerwin

Participant

The Thinker wrote:

Quote

I am not a nasty person.

According to the gospel we are all nasty people by nature as we are slaves to sin. That is why Paul made the argument that “no one is righteous”. I believe that a person who is poor in spirit is one who admits that they are a nasty person and needs God to be anything else and without God they will continue to be nasty. So being by nature a nasty person is not the problem but not turning God and telling him “May I do your will and not my own“ is.

The Thinker wrote:

Quote

To this day I carry the marks in my body because of those injuries.

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and bear the marks of those sins in our bodies.

I pray that you will come to peace with God which is not peace with man for too many men love to do wickedness.

February 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm#121356

Participant

Thinker

You say

Quote

I'm interested only in the Scriptures. And the Scriptures say this, “I will BECOME what I shall become” (Ex. 3:14).

But if I look at 1961 {hayah} and the other places in scripture that it is used , it does not always have a future sense to it and when it has a future sense to it is because the context of the passage is future itself.

Gen 1:2 Would read as {the earth “will become” without form}
Gen 1:3 Let there “will become” light and there “will become” light

are 2 examples – it seems to have more of a present aspect extending into the future and not just a future aspect that you want to give it.

Sometimes the context of a passage is about a future happening and the the word is used referring to the future happening and the word has the sense of the present for that future happening.

God is who he is – he is not a man, Jesus says God is a Spirit – God was not saying that he was going to become a man – in the OT God said that he will raise up a prophet like Moses referring to Jesus, not God will become the prophet.

February 12, 2009 at 9:18 pm#121358

Participant

Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 13 2009,08:14)

Thinker

You say

Quote

I'm interested only in the Scriptures. And the Scriptures say this, “I will BECOME what I shall become” (Ex. 3:14).

Gen 1:2 Would read as {the earth “will become” without form}
Gen 1:3 Let there “will become” light and there “will become” light

are 2 examples – it seems to have more of a present aspect extending into the future and not just a future aspect that you want to give it.

Sometimes the context of a passage is about a future happening and the the word is used referring to the future happening and the word has the sense of the present for that future happening.

Good points

February 12, 2009 at 9:19 pm#121359

kerwin

Participant

Nick Hassan wrote:

Quote

Gene does but he adds more than equal amounts of his own speculations such as saying Satan does not exist, God is of good and evil and the spirit is the intellect and all men will be saved.

I would not call that Gnostic as Gnosticism is a group of false doctrines with certain tenets in common. What you are accusing Gene of doing is adding and /or subtracting from the message of gospel which is what all false doctrines do or they would not be false. The way I have learned to resolve such as situation is to address the false tenets by scriptures and logical reasoning and then to let the matter drop when the matter is no longer progressing. I will probably address it again later and I hope that in the meantime they have reconsidered their ways as I am constantly examining my own.

Now about the tenets you mention they may actually be Gnostic if they are examined more closely. Gnostics believe their is an evil “god” of creation. Does Gene also believe this. Does he believe God is evil?

February 12, 2009 at 9:20 pm#121360

Participant

Meerkat said:

Quote

Martian,

You seem to be judging this board only by the vocal people who are replying negatively to your posts and challenging you

Meerkat,
I agree with you and and I thank you for saying this. If you challenge Martian or his sources you're just speaking “opinion”. Yet I have provided two sources, one on the Trinity thread and the other on this thread. My sources were either explained away or just dismissed altogether. The difference is that I'm not whining about it (hugs and kisses Martian).

thinker

February 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm#121362

Participant

Seeking said:

Quote

Thinker,

Amen! I agree – let's do. I have an affinity for you also. Perhaps we have walked the same paths. I also grew up in Chicago and sought to survive as you did. You haven't punched me out have you!?

If I remember right, you attended school in California. I am reluctant to ask if your travels took you to Texas and Oregon.
Things might get to uncanny.

Seeking,
I did live in California before age 15. I have never set foot on Oregon soil and only traveled through Texas enroute to Chicago. I don't think I punched you out or that we ever met. But if you lived near Wrigley Field or hung out anywhere near Sheffield and Waveland avenues we may have crossed paths.

Peace and love,
thinker

February 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm#121363

NickHassan

Participant

Hi,
Salvation is not by faith alone.
But we walk and live by faith and whatever is not of faith is of sin.

2 Corinthians 5:7
for we walk by faith, not by sight–

Galatians 2:20
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

February 12, 2009 at 9:51 pm#121368

942767

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 12 2009,20:40)

942767 wrote:

Quote

Then the following scripture is no longer valid?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
942767 wrote”

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

It doesn't appear to me that we have reached the state described in verse 4:13 above.

Marty,
The expression “perfect man” simply means the mature man as opposed to the child. In Galatians 4 Paul taught that the gospel was leading them away from the law as children to full grown “sons”.

The church became a “mature man” by the time the apostles and prophets finished their work. So yes, we do NOT need pastors and teachers today. Many of the early post-apostolic churches recognized the principle in Hebrews 10 and they didn't have “pastors”. At times if a man was speaking he would be interupted by another who would challenge what he said. And some, but few recognize it today. The Plymouth brethren have been known to have several unordained men speak in their worship services.

We “ordain” pastors today because we're too lazy to study the scriptures on our own. But ordination as we know it is unbiblical for it involves the laying on of hands. And Hebrews says that the laying on of hands is of those “elementary principles” and we are warned to LEAVE those principles and to NOT lay again that foundation.

Hebrews 10 is clear that in the new covenant age “NONE shall teach his neighbor…for ALL shall know ME FROM THE GREATEST TO THE LEAST.”

Seeing that I am stuck with the present unbiblical system I must sit in the pew quietly and peacefully without interrupting the man (pastor) as was allowed in some of the post-apostolic churches. But I have on many occasions challenged the “pastor” at a later time. On one occasion the pastor said something that was ridiculous and had no biblical support whatsoever. So I challenged him about it and he ignored it at first. Then I called the church secretary and threatened to write a rebuttal to his sermon in the next church newsletter. The secretary relayed my threat to the pastor and that got his attention. Afterwards we talked about his sermon over the phone and he changed his mind on some things.

We are not an infant church anymore. We are now a body that is a “mature man”. And we should be acting like it. But we choose to remain like infants. So we “ordain” men to study the Bible for us. It's a shame I tell you.

love,
thinker

Hi Brother:

And so, everyone in the church is a mature Christian today?

Love in Christ,
Marty

February 12, 2009 at 9:53 pm#121369

Participant

Martian said:

Quote

Like the scripture in Mal God's promises do not change because His character does not change.

Martian,
This is the Faith Alone thread. Remember? I can see that you really want to sparr with me on this. Last week you sent me a pm inviting me to come back to the Trinity 2 thread and discuss these things. But I told you in the pm I sent you today that if we can't agree on some rules of debate there is no point to our discoursing. Your reply was this: “I am not interested in debate.” I took this to mean that you want all discussion to proceed on your terms.

It doesn't matter how many sources you give me. I will reply not with a source but with a Scripture asking you to reconcile your source with that Scripture. So if you will allow me to reply my own way I will come back over there and discourse. But if you keep on being demanding trying to engineer exactly how the discussion will proceed then I will drop out of it.

I am interested only in “Thus saith the Lord”. I have told you before that I am not going to chase you down some rabbit trail pitting source against source. But I will gladly pit the Scripture against your sources. But I have found that you won't allow this.

thinker

February 12, 2009 at 9:55 pm#121370

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 13 2009,08:20)

Meerkat said:

Quote

Martian,

You seem to be judging this board only by the vocal people who are replying negatively to your posts and challenging you

thinker

I am willing to throw out all sources but you cling to them. Where did you come up with the idea that YHWH means I will become? Was it a source?
You are the one that keeps harping about sources. I have asked about fruit.

I am willing to go by fruits produced and so far you have refused.

Since you will not read my post on the other thred here are a few points from it.

Speaking of God
He is not free to act contrary to his nature that is permanent. Does this mean he is not all powerful? No- it means that as a perfect and unchangeable being His commands and actions are rooted in the ultimate good which flow from his nature. God's moral character does not change. “I the Lord change not “Mal.3:6. There is no shadow of change with God (Jm.1:17).
His nature is eternal. He cannot say tomorrow I’ll act like the devil for a while or sin as man does. What God has been, He will always be, (the I Am). He is completely self sufficient within himself.
God cannot sin, Holiness is part of his intrinsic nature, He cannot do otherwise.

Because of these truths about the character of God, it is impossible for him to become a man with a human’s ability to sin. Jesus was tested in every way like unto us. If God became a man and His character did not change, then Jesus was not capable of sin. If christ had this EXACT same character trait of God it would be impossibe for him to sin or even be tempted to sin. This makes scripture a lie and denies us the possibility to use Christ as an example of how to resist temptation. Christ had to be tempted like other men not tempted as a God. He had to have a nature capable of sin like other men. God's character in a human being is going to be different then God's character in himself. In a human being there are human weakness and frailities. There are no such things in God. this was the purpose for having a completely human messiah to show us what it means to have the character of God in a human with all of our human needs and frailities.

But this is again delving into the Trinity debate.

February 12, 2009 at 10:17 pm#121375

Participant

Martian said:

Quote

I am willing to throw out all sources but you cling to them. Where did you come up with the idea that YHWH means I will become? Was it a source?

What!!! You're willing to throw out all sources??? I cling to sources???

You ask where I got the idea that YHWH means “I will become what I will become.” First, I gave you the link to the Hebrew-English Interlinear on the Trinity 2 thread. Are you saying the Interlinear is not a source? Btw, I first got it from my former pastor who is a Hebrew scholar and has published several books for the past several years and has been a professor at a well known Seminary.

But for you to now say that it is I who “clings” to sources and then forget that I provided the Interlinear as a source is making me want to put on the gloves again!

I'm not going back to the Trinity 2 thread until you regain your senses.

To All,
You are my witness that I tried to be a peacemaker today. Now Martian is being provocative and saying that I cling to sources when we alll know better. And he forgets that I provided the Interlinear as a source and then asks, “was it a source”? He says that he is not interested in debate but only in fruit. I think we all know now what Martian means by the term “fruit”.

thinker

February 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm#121376

Participant

942767 wrote:

Quote

And so, everyone in the church is a mature Christian today?

No! The expression “mature man” simply means that the body of Christ collectively is equipped with all it needs. Pastors and teachers were needed only in the interim period. Btw, thanks for getting this back on topic.

thinker

February 12, 2009 at 10:23 pm#121377

Participant

Meerkat said:

Quote

I agree that it doesn't always have a future sense. I was commenting only on its use in Exodus 3:14

thinker

February 12, 2009 at 10:26 pm#121378

Participant

It seems to me that there are overlaps between the threads in that faith alone vs faith plus works depends on what you mean by faith and what you mean by works – Some could be referring to faith as a mental belief in Jesus and a fear of hell causing them to abide by works of rituals of purification and obedience ie baptism then churchgoing and no change in their heart – to me faith encompasses relying on Jesus words and Gods Holy Spirit and obedience from the heart and being led by the Spirit and not following an outward letter of the law but obedience to the spirit of the law – love God and love your neighbour as yourself – as it is a faithfulness and comes from the heart, and the fruit/works come from the faith and is not a separate work of compliance to the letter of the law.

Martian as you say – if Jesus pre existed and had the help of a divine nature it negates his saying that those who overcome will sit on his throne with him just as he overcame and sits on his Father throne. {Rev 3:21} If he had divine pre existance that is no help in helping us to overcome when it is said that we have a high priest who was made exactly like us to help us. {Heb 2:17}

February 12, 2009 at 10:35 pm#121379