Some of the serious NT warnings to the churches

[Deborah13]

This new way of relating to God does not negate the commandments. It keeps them. We can tell who is not operating in the new way of the Spirit by whether they uphold the commandments or not.

This is what it means for the law to have ended. The law as the way to righteousness has ended and the new way to righteousness--faith in Christ--has been revealed. The mistake Protestants make is thinking the end of the law means quite literally the end of the law as if we don't have to keep it's righteous requirement anymore. We can thank the early church for that blunder.

The requirements of the law are summed up in 'love your neighbor as yourself' but which are specifically seen in commands like 'do not steal', 'do not covet', etc. These specific requirements of the law are fulfilled through the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of mere written words (Romans 7:6), but it's still the requirements of the law being served. And we have every right and responsibility to take note of who is upholding the requirements of the law (through the new way of the Spirit, not the written word) and who is not.

Mere written words? the law is mere written words?? what do you mean by that?

How would You be able to tell who is acting in a Godly manner because they see themselves justified by the law or they see themselves justified by faith?

 

[francisdesales]

I still cannot remember anyone here explaining ...

WHY ALL OF THE MANY DIRE WARNINGS TO THE CHURCHES?

Which is what da thread is (err, was) all about!

Geez, Louise ... what a laugh!

The warnings are obviously to Christians who were falling away. Revelation 2-3 are not written for unsaved Gentiles! People who had been freed from the pollutions of the world (2 Peter 2) - that can't be refering to the unconverted Gentiles or people "pretending" to be saved... OSAS is a dangerous teaching of man, since it relies on presumption that God must save someone, no matter what they do in the future. The people in Jeremiah's time thought the same thing, they held to a false theology that God must save the Temple and Zion from destruction. These things were written for our use, says Paul...

2 Peter 2:20-22 thoroughly destroys OSAS, but there are a number of others that tell us that Christians can and do fail - and that those who do not repent shall not inherit the Kingdom.

Regards

 

[John Zain]

I have made the point over and over that those who seem to enjoy warning others need to warn themselves. Most every warning in the New Testament is made against those who turn from grace back to legalism. Most of the people who seem to want to warn others are the very people who are being warned in the scripture. So bring your warning of scripture, but I warn you that when you attempt to lay it upon others? It may very well be the warning God has intended for you?

So, Jesus 2 full chapters about church members having to be OVERCOMERS or else
is referring to those boys n gals NOT returning to a legalistic works-based faith?

 

[francisdesales]

I am trying to remain on topic. I'm also trying to keep it real as in honest and sincere with no guile or pretense. I know you don't wish to discuss the topic of free will and again I apologize that it has gone there. However, you make my point accurately that presuming there is a free will would render a majority of religious discussion moot if in fact there is no free will. I therefore must address the issue whether people like it or not. I don't think it is wise to build a conclusion based upon an assumption. And I am using the accepted theological term "freewill". Again I emphasize that I believe a will that is free is one set free by the Truth. Hence I recognize an enslaved will also.

I believe when people start talking about fate and that man has no free will - it leads to the concept of determinism. This is certainly not a Christian concept. The relationship between grace and nature and our interaction between God sees in eternity and what I do in the here and now are mysterious questions that will never be completely answered here.

Freedom has a number of definitions. Our society defines it as the ability to do what we want. Christians define it as our ability to do the will of God and what He has planned for us. Sin prevents us from being free (as per the Christian definition). When I am enslaved to sin, I am not free - I cannot do the will of God simultaneously. Sure, I can do what I want, with my wounded will, but I am not free to live the life that God desires me to live (which we believe, by faith, is for the better).

So in the passage in question, we find a man who WAS free from pollutions of the world. That fits in with the definition above. Freed from sin means Christian freedom. Now, you speak of being able to choose a moral question without God's "interference", but that is not the Christian definition of freedom. It is man's definition, our society. We are free when we are removed from the slavery of sin and can live our life to the fullest. There is no question here about whether the man was faking it, or didn't have enough "centi-faith-meters" on the "faith scale" that some people conjure up in their minds. HE WAS FREED FROM THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD. That is not possible without God gracing man and man receptive to that grace and not rejecting it. Clearly, the man was free. He subsequently chose to return to a path of sin. Being that concupiscence (the tendency to desire to sin) remains after we are washed in the waters of baptism, it is not impossible that a man would give up Godly freedom for "freedom" to return to sin, since our minds are often clouded and deluded to what is best for us.

Yes, we are freed from sin, but it doesn't follow that I cannot return to it. Christian freedom means that a NEW force is potentially leading me. The Holy Spirit. But it is not so overpowering that I cannot choose to "grieve" Him, as Paul warns against. Experience shows that we are still tempted and we still sin because we DO grieve the Spirit and sometimes do not listen to Him.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So, Jesus 2 full chapters about church members having to be OVERCOMERS or else
is referring to those boys n gals NOT returning to a legalistic works-based faith?

John,

Thanks for the chuckle!!! Funny how some people just won't read what is plainly there, rather than twisting texts to make it fit a scheme...

I don't recall anywhere that Jesus warns about returning to the Law of Moses, as if following it was necessarily "legalism"... He says NOT ONE DOT of the Law shall be removed. He warns against legalistic following of the Law, not that the Law ITSELF is legalistic...

Nor does it make sense that Jesus/Paul is speaking about recruiting drives, rather than exhortations TO CHRISTIANS! Have these people read the beginning of 1 Corinthians? Who was causing dissension? (which Paul says in 1 Cor 6 is among the actions that will keep one OUT OF THE KINGDOM!) Gentiles 1000 miles away??? Good gravy. ;)

Regards

 

[John Zain]

The mistake Protestants make is thinking the end of the law means quite literally
the end of the law as if we don't have to keep it's righteous requirement anymore.
We can thank the early church for that blunder.

Yes, but a much greater blunder of the early church was
altering it from a Spirit-led church to a man-led church!

The NT church was God's basic MODEL for all churches in da future.
Satan and man sure put a quick end to that idea!

My days here are numbered ... just thought I'd get that in.

 

[John Zain]

The warnings are obviously to Christians who were falling away. Revelation 2-3 are not written for unsaved Gentiles! People who had been freed from the pollutions of the world (2 Peter 2) - that can't be refering to the unconverted Gentiles or people "pretending" to be saved... OSAS is a dangerous teaching of man, since it relies on presumption that God must save someone, no matter what they do in the future. The people in Jeremiah's time thought the same thing, they held to a false theology that God must save the Temple and Zion from destruction. These things were written for our use, says Paul...

2 Peter 2:20-22 thoroughly destroys OSAS, but there are a number of others that tell us that Christians can and do fail - and that those who do not repent shall not inherit the Kingdom.

The warnings are NOT OBVIOUS to very many here!
Thanks for joining in on the warnings to da BIG-TIME sleepers!

 

[Mitspa]

So, Jesus 2 full chapters about church members having to be OVERCOMERS or else
is referring to those boys n gals NOT returning to a legalistic works-based faith?

Well I am glad that you are so confident in your ability to ridicule and call others names. There is One who laughs in the heavens at such people, and I will laugh with Him.
Read again the book of revelation for the we overcome is the "accuser of the brothern" I will be praying for you, I am glad you are so found of correction.

 

[Mitspa]

The arrogance and spiritual pride has suddenly become overwhelming in the last couple of pages. Perhaps it is time the thread is closed.

Not sure if the standards of "spiritual pride" and arrogance are very well understood?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The people in Jeremiah's time thought the same thing, they held to a false theology that God must save the Temple and Zion from destruction. These things were written for our use, says Paul...

Good insight! (You are Catholic?)

'Remember Shiloh!' The prophet reminds the people what God did to the dwelling place of his name when it dwelt at Shiloh:

12 “‘Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel." (Jeremiah 7:12 NIV)


Jeremiah 7 is a picture of the church today and what she believes:

9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? (Jeremiah 7:9-10 NIV)


Let us all make it a point to read it soberly and honestly.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And tell me the church today doesn't look like this today:

30 “As for you, son of man, your people are talking together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, saying to each other, ‘Come and hear the message that has come from the Lord.’ 31 My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to hear your words, but they do not put them into practice. Their mouths speak of love, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain. 32 Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice." (Ezekiel 33:30-32 NIV)

 

[gr8grace]

The warnings are obviously to Christians who were falling away. Revelation 2-3 are not written for unsaved Gentiles! People who had been freed from the pollutions of the world (2 Peter 2) - that can't be refering to the unconverted Gentiles or people "pretending" to be saved... OSAS is a dangerous teaching of man, since it relies on presumption that God must save someone, no matter what they do in the future. The people in Jeremiah's time thought the same thing, they held to a false theology that God must save the Temple and Zion from destruction. These things were written for our use, says Paul...

2 Peter 2:20-22 thoroughly destroys OSAS, but there are a number of others that tell us that Christians can and do fail - and that those who do not repent shall not inherit the Kingdom.

Regards

I agree with you that in 2 Pet 2:20-21 believers are in view.

But where do you get peter saying, Hell, eternal judgement, unending suffering, lake of fire for those believers?

And In verse 21 we have the word "better"...better WHEN? In this context it can only be seen as in this life. because in verse 19 we have false teachers that are promising freedom in this Life only to enslave the believer in this life.

In verse 21 it would have been better for the believer IN THIS LIFE not to have known the way of righteousness, because the believer has more temporal judgement than an unbeliever. We are held more accountable in this life because we are saved and know better than the unbeliever.

That is why Peter wrote 2 Pet 1:9~~For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.

And Peter knows exactly what he is saying here because he was Face to face with the Lord, when the Lord told him he was completely clean,except for his feet.

John 13:10~~Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."(Judas)

Peter Knows that these believers are bathed, they have not washed their feet. 1 John 1:9 is how we clean our feet.

Peter knows eternal security, but he also knows experiential sanctification.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Mere written words? the law is mere written words?? what do you mean by that?

How would You be able to tell who is acting in a Godly manner because they see themselves justified by the law or they see themselves justified by faith?

(Oh, how I wish I had more time between brain surgeries to chat here!)

The WAY of just reading written words NEVER changed a single soul. Only the Holy Spirit writing those words on the heart of a person has changed anybody into someone who heeds those Words. The Spirit doing that, that's part of the NEW WAY of the Spirit, as opposed to the old way of just the written words.

And, how can we tell the difference between a law abiding self-righteous person, and a Spirit-filled/led person upholding the law? Think about Jesus' sermon on the Mount, and particularly what he says to the Pharisees in Matthew 23.

 

[Free]

Not sure if the standards of "spiritual pride" and arrogance are very well understood?

They are quite well understood, don't worry.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well I am glad that you are so confident in your ability to ridicule and call others names. There is One who laughs in the heavens at such people, and I will laugh with Him.
Read again the book of revelation for the we overcome is the "accuser of the brothern" I will be praying for you, I am glad you are so found of correction.

Was Paul being an 'accuser of the brethren' when he used the law that is spiritual (Romans 7:14) to judge the fellow at Corinth who was breaking the law (1 Corinthians 5)? Even saying this:

"12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13 NIV)

 

[WIP]

This thread has been very active. I am having trouble hearing Christian humility and love in many posts. Are we here to admonish and edify one another or to jab and spear each other in the heart? Let's tone it down and keep our comments on the topic rather than expressing our opinions of each other please lest the thread be locked down.

 

[childeye]

I believe when people start talking about fate and that man has no free will - it leads to the concept of determinism. This is certainly not a Christian concept. The relationship between grace and nature and our interaction between God sees in eternity and what I do in the here and now are mysterious questions that will never be completely answered here.

Freedom has a number of definitions. Our society defines it as the ability to do what we want. Christians define it as our ability to do the will of God and what He has planned for us. Sin prevents us from being free (as per the Christian definition). When I am enslaved to sin, I am not free - I cannot do the will of God simultaneously. Sure, I can do what I want, with my wounded will, but I am not free to live the life that God desires me to live (which we believe, by faith, is for the better).

So in the passage in question, we find a man who WAS free from pollutions of the world. That fits in with the definition above. Freed from sin means Christian freedom. Now, you speak of being able to choose a moral question without God's "interference", but that is not the Christian definition of freedom. It is man's definition, our society. We are free when we are removed from the slavery of sin and can live our life to the fullest. There is no question here about whether the man was faking it, or didn't have enough "centi-faith-meters" on the "faith scale" that some people conjure up in their minds. HE WAS FREED FROM THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD. That is not possible without God gracing man and man receptive to that grace and not rejecting it. Clearly, the man was free. He subsequently chose to return to a path of sin. Being that concupiscence (the tendency to desire to sin) remains after we are washed in the waters of baptism, it is not impossible that a man would give up Godly freedom for "freedom" to return to sin, since our minds are often clouded and deluded to what is best for us.

Yes, we are freed from sin, but it doesn't follow that I cannot return to it. Christian freedom means that a NEW force is potentially leading me. The Holy Spirit. But it is not so overpowering that I cannot choose to "grieve" Him, as Paul warns against. Experience shows that we are still tempted and we still sin because we DO grieve the Spirit and sometimes do not listen to Him.

Regards

Thanks for your response. In this post you have obviouslyly put forth a great effort to address all the details. That is precious to me particularly from someone who has already run a great distance. I can agree with everything you say. It is also said well. There is very little room for the semantics that can cause confusion. The point of why a person returns to sin is a bit complex in my view. I don't think the fact that we can and do grieve the Holy Spirit is any evidence that the impetus to do so is correctly labeled free will.

So in all gravity of the issue concerning the grieving of the Spirit and the warning that those who fall away cannot then be brought back to repentance, it is incumbant upon me to understand exactly what that impetus is that would have a man eat vomit.

I get comfort from people who know more than me. There is a certain security in seeing that those in authority know what they are doing. It's okay if someone doesn't know why someone does something. There is nothing wrong if someone sincerely says "I don't know". Even to say, "perhaps because that is what he is familiar with", is worth pondering. I believe you have alluded to that before when mentioning the Old man. But to make up an answer such as "because he could" leaves me in doubt as to the depth of that persons understanding. For it seems to me he has given up his search for Truth and doesn't care anymore.
Do you think I am wrong to feel that way?

 

[childeye]

I did not say that the law is not needed for the sinner, but it is not to be laid upon the righteous. Pride comes from the flesh of man, one who will not die to the law, as scripture demands is yet seeking to serve God by the flesh, on some level.
The humble man is the one who admits that nothing good lives in his flesh, and that only by dying with Christ to law can the flesh be overcome by the Spirit. The humble man does not look for good in that which God says has no good. You see that to made wise, one must in fact become a fool. To be made strong one must admit that they cannot keep the law.
Now if we are justified by Christ? how can we use the law to be shown as sinners? Paul makes this very point!

No we are justified by Christ and the law of moses has no legal power to make a charge of sin against those Christ have justified. Shame and guilt are not the ways of God, but these are products of the fallen man. Look at Adam. Christ came to deliver us from shame and guilt.
Also I would say that If i cared about the opinions of other men, I would not be a servant of God. A man who judges other men by his own flesh is not wise. All judgment belongs to those who have been delivered from the flesh, for they judge according to what is true in spirit.

I sgree with everything you say here. It is an easy thing for those who can see, to see those who don't. Thank God He sent a Truth that is able to dispel all darkness in a manner that is gentle and full of mercy and understanding.

You said this at the front of your post, "I did not say that the law is not needed for the sinner". I apologize, it was not my intent to imply that you had ever said that. I hope I did not cause you much grief.

 

[francisdesales]

Good insight! (You are Catholic?)

Ha, yea, I'm one of those guys - and I read the Bible too! Imagine that! ;)

'Remember Shiloh!' The prophet reminds the people what God did to the dwelling place of his name when it dwelt at Shiloh:

12 “‘Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel." (Jeremiah 7:12 NIV)

Yes, very good, Jeremiah warned them that God had already destroyed Shiloh. Got Jeremiah arrested, beaten and thrown in a cistern. People apparently don't like to have their cherished ideas cast down! They will do anything to silence that voice...

Jeremiah 7 is a picture of the church today and what she believes:

9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safeâ€â€”safe to do all these detestable things? (Jeremiah 7:9-10 NIV)


Let us all make it a point to read it soberly and honestly.

Yes, good point on the "weekend warrior". How dare anyone do as Jeremiah pointed out. Unfortunately, it happens. It would be interesting to discuss why that is - false theology insulates people? God is actually a low priority? Practical atheism - Christian in name only???

On Scriptures, Yes. Sometimes, it is not easy to read it in such a manner. And I have found that religous pride only makes things more difficult...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Thanks for your response. In this post you have obviouslyly put forth a great effort to address all the details. That is precious to me particularly from someone who has already run a great distance. I can agree with everything you say. It is also said well. There is very little room for the semantics that can cause confusion.

That is very kind of you. Some people make me think a bit more!

The point of why a person returns to sin is a bit complex in my view. I don't think the fact that we can and do grieve the Holy Spirit is any evidence that the impetus to do so is correctly labeled free will.

Again, "free will" as defined by "doing what I want", I think one, even a Christian, retains that ability. Even the greatest of saints realized that they COULD falter, and that all of them had a core vice. Spirituality for beginners starts with recognizing our own core vice - anger, lust, pride, sloth, etc. and calling upon God to practice the opposing virtue. God grants more to those whom He has given grace and respond effectively. From those who do not respond, God takes them away. As we grow more in Christ, we have developed what is called a virtue - a learned response through the grace of God. We become less likely (but never an impossibility) to repeat our core vice.

It is complex, sin. We barely know ourselves. But I can tell you that God's ways are narrow. They are NOT fun and joyful (once we get past the initial emotions and consolations that God sends beginners). As we approach the 'dark night of the soul', God takes those joyful moments of prayer away. We then struggle. It is here where we must crucify ourselves, mortify the senses, if we want to advance. Sacrifice. Die to self. NO ONE joyfully approaches those things. Sadly, some rationalize that "i'm good enough now" or "Jesus did it all, why do I have to worry".

And so people (as in 2 Peter) will invent theology that tries to take the easy road to God. OSAS, for example. Only through suffering can we be exalted (Romans 8). People will become tempted when under diress. Recall the parable of the seed and the sower. Some of the seed DID begin to grow, but was soon choked out or dried up. Here, we find the Lord giving us other reasons why people revert to sin; difficulties and the ways of the world press in on them and the Word dies within them. Why some and not others??? That is beyond my pay scale!

I get comfort from people who know more than me. There is a certain security in seeing that those in authority know what they are doing. It's okay if someone doesn't know why someone does something. There is nothing wrong if someone sincerely says "I don't know". Even to say, "perhaps because that is what he is familiar with", is worth pondering. I believe you have alluded to that before when mentioning the Old man. But to make up an answer such as "because he could" leaves me in doubt as to the depth of that persons understanding. For it seems to me he has given up his search for Truth and doesn't care anymore.
Do you think I am wrong to feel that way?

No, it is better to admit our shortcomings and lack of knowledge. It makes us more creditable than BS'ing or "because he could".

Regards