TRUE HOLINESS

[Jethro Bodine]

Mans righteousness, by law, is "DUNG"

Just explain how seeing that the Word says 'do not show favoritism' and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equates to 'man's righteousness'.

The real George Muller did that, yet you are afraid to assign him as one with the dung of man's righteousness for doing so.

You, along with a lot of others in the church, do not understand that doing that with the purposeful intent of earning your righteousness through that effort is what makes it legalism. But doing that because you have the righteousness of God and seek to please him is NOT legalism.

Your doctrine simply does not know what 'legalism' is. Even though the Bible plainly spells it out. Paul calls it legalistic righteousness--depending on the effort of his law keeping to be made righteous.

 

[George Muller]

That is a good honest question. The mind of each believer but must be "renewed" unto the "Image" and knowledge of Christ. Not all believers will surrender to the Spirit, but most remain in a "carnal" condition, just as Paul said "I could not speak to you as spiritual" but as to carnal. So much of the New Testament is written to give guidance to "carnal" believers. To in effect control them and bring them unto regeneration as they are able to have their minds renewed.

See? Just more 'holier-than-thou' condescension.

Paul hardly made this kind of boast. Are you saying Paul was a carnal babe in Christ?

Getting the picture now of how wrong this attitude is?

What? I never in any way suggested Paul was carnal, but that He could not speak to all as "spiritual" I think you should reread my post?

I suggested it. Because what you said applies to Paul who never condescended to his congregations as far as I know. He made no boast of 'having arrived'. Quite the opposite if I'm not mistaken. Quite the opposite. Would you dare say you haven't arrived? Did you know the real George Muller did say that?

What? Paul used these very words. If they seem "condescending" to you, that because you do not understand what the term "spiritual" and "carnal" mean as Paul used them. And of course Paul was absolute and confident in his "spiritual" authority, but thought nothing of himself as in the flesh.

2Co 10:1 ¶ Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

 

[George Muller]

Mans righteousness, by law, is "DUNG"

Just explain how seeing that the Word says 'do not show favoritism' and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception 'man's righteousness'.

The real George Muller did that, yet you are afraid to assign him as one with the dung of man's righteousness for doing so.

You, along with a lot of others in the church, do not understand that doing that with the purposeful intent of earning your righteousness through that effort is what makes it legalism. But doing that because you have the righteousness of God and seek to please him is NOT legalism.

Your doctrine simply does not know what 'legalism' is. Even though the Bible plainly spells it out. Paul calls it legalistic righteousness--depending on the effort of his law keeping to be made righteous.

I don't even understand your question? We "do" righteousness based upon "being" righteous. Righteousness is a product of the Spirit, not the flesh. Not the "letter" for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem is, walking by the Spirit does not mean you don't know or care what the law says to do. It means you rely on the ministry of the Spirit in our lives to do what God requires.

This is a true statement. So maybe the question should be, Why does God require obedience?

The best answer I can give you at this moment is because obedience is what it means to 'keep on believing'. It's like saying staying wet is required of the one who has been graciously granted entrance to the pool. We stay wet by staying in the pool. Our obedience is how we in effect 'keep believing'. Notice I said 'in effect' so that will not be misunderstood as a works oriented, earning, kind of salvation.

And then, how are we able to meet those requirements? Which I think you have already answered in your statement above.

I did somewhere.

The Holy Spirit teaches us how to be sensitive to other people's needs. It's as practical a working as it is supernatural. It's not just his voice within us. It's him carefully controlling our circumstances and situations teaching us the hard lessons of life and humanity. Charismatics fail to understand this big picture of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer leading us to ever-increasing obedience.

 

[Deborah13]

imo.

The church should never be trying to balance Law and grace, or works of any kind and grace.

The church should be teaching a balance between grace and faith.

In other words, what is God's grace.
What is true faith, what does it look like and how does one access it. By the Word of God, there is power in God's Words of Grace that speak to the heart.
The Holy Spirit opens ones eyes to the truth of God's Words.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What? I never in any way suggested Paul was carnal, but that He could not speak to all as "spiritual" I think you should reread my post?

I suggested it. Because what you said applies to Paul who never condescended to his congregations as far as I know. He made no boast of 'having arrived'. Quite the opposite if I'm not mistaken. Quite the opposite. Would you dare say you haven't arrived? Did you know the real George Muller did say that?

What? Paul used these very words. If they seem "condescending" to you, that because you do not understand what the term "spiritual" and "carnal" mean as Paul used them. And of course Paul was absolute and confident in his "spiritual" authority, but thought nothing of himself as in the flesh.

2Co 10:1 ¶ Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

Just more charismatic un-rightly divided Word.

Here's what Paul said and which actually addresses what we're talking about here:

12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that [i]for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude..." (Phillipians 3:12-15 NASB)


Tell me now you would say these same words? Or are you the 'perfect' one who Paul is saying should have the same attitude as him? Is what Paul said too low for you to accept? Or are you like Paul and the rest of us?

 

[Deborah13]

Charismatics fail to understand this big picture of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer leading them to ever-increasing obedience.

I have to smile....now who is judging a group of people?

I know many Charismatics who do not fail at seeing what saving faith looks like or that it is how we are to "being conformed into the image of the Son".

I've also known many Charismatics who are very much into the law and works for salvation. In every group you will see a very broad spectrum of beliefs. Especially among non-denominational types because they do not go by a set doctrine of a denomination.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

imo.

The church should never be trying to balance Law and grace, or works of any kind and grace.

The church should be teaching a balance between grace and faith.

In other words, what is God's grace.
What is true faith, what does it look like and how does one access it. By the Word of God, there is power in God's Words of Grace that speak to the heart.
The Holy Spirit opens ones eyes to the truth of God's Words.

Then you agree, 'law' doesn't always equate to trying to be justified by keeping the law, right?

If it's true that law always means 'the effort to be self-righteous', then James taught the church to be self-righteous by being careful to fulfill the law (through love).

See how ridiculous how (fake) Muller's doctrine is?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Charismatics fail to understand this big picture of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer leading them to ever-increasing obedience.

I have to smile....now who is judging a group of people?

I know many Charismatics who do not fail at seeing what saving faith looks like or that it is how we are to "being conformed into the image of the Son".

I've also known many Charismatics who are very much into the law and works for salvation. In every group you will see a very broad spectrum of beliefs. Especially among non-denominational types because they do not go by a set doctrine of a denomination.

Charismatic DOCTRINE. I have been very careful to point out that's what I'm addressing.

Maybe you've noticed my references to 'fringe' sects within the charismatic movement? I know that not all charismatics are guilty of holding these ridiculous teachings.

What is being addressed here is Muller's doctrine of 'super-spiritual' holiness. I don't care if he or Mickey Mouse holds it...I'm addressing the doctrine for the sake of the TOS.

 

[George Muller]

What? I never in any way suggested Paul was carnal, but that He could not speak to all as "spiritual" I think you should reread my post?

I suggested it. Because what you said applies to Paul who never condescended to his congregations as far as I know. He made no boast of 'having arrived'. Quite the opposite if I'm not mistaken. Quite the opposite. Would you dare say you haven't arrived? Did you know the real George Muller did say that?

What? Paul used these very words. If they seem "condescending" to you, that because you do not understand what the term "spiritual" and "carnal" mean as Paul used them. And of course Paul was absolute and confident in his "spiritual" authority, but thought nothing of himself as in the flesh.

2Co 10:1 ¶ Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

Just more charismatic un-rightly divided Word.

Here's what Paul said and which actually addresses what we're talking about here:

12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that [i]for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude..." (Phillipians 3:12-15 NASB)


Tell me now you would say these same words? Or are you the 'perfect' one who Paul is saying should have the same attitude as him? Is what Paul said too low for you to accept? Or are you like Paul and the rest of us?

Your trying to mix up what Paul is saying, and your translation is in error as to the point Paul is making;

Php 3:9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

His point being that Christ and being conformed to "His Image" is ever and ongoing process, that none of us should ever "think" that we will ever be in a position where we are not in the process of being conformed more and more into His Glory and Image. This is BY THE SPIRIT- NOT THE "LETTER"

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord

By the way, all true "Christians" are charismatic- a gift of grace

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Mans righteousness, by law, is "DUNG"

Just explain how seeing that the Word says 'do not show favoritism' and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception 'man's righteousness'.

The real George Muller did that, yet you are afraid to assign him as one with the dung of man's righteousness for doing so.

You, along with a lot of others in the church, do not understand that doing that with the purposeful intent of earning your righteousness through that effort is what makes it legalism. But doing that because you have the righteousness of God and seek to please him is NOT legalism.

Your doctrine simply does not know what 'legalism' is. Even though the Bible plainly spells it out. Paul calls it legalistic righteousness--depending on the effort of his law keeping to be made righteous.

I don't even understand your question? We "do" righteousness based upon "being" righteous. Righteousness is a product of the Spirit, not the flesh. Not the "letter" for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Before I go...

The question is, "how is seeing that the Word says, for example 'do not show favoritism', and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equivalent to 'man's righteousness' and depending on that law keeping to be made righteous?"

Why is reading the Bible and then doing what it says always and categorically a work of one's effort to merit right standing with God, and impossible to be a work of the Spirit leading and guiding a person to the righteous life that comes from faith?

 

[Deborah13]

It's really quite simple and doesn't have to be as miraculous and supernatural as the church has been taught it has to be. Having the law written on your heart means your sensitivities to it have been heightened.

Oh but I think it is very supernatural. God takes a heart of stone, a self-centered, carnal heart and supernaturally (beyond the natural) changes that heart.
We can't do that, only God can.

 

[George Muller]

Mans righteousness, by law, is "DUNG"

Just explain how seeing that the Word says 'do not show favoritism' and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception 'man's righteousness'.

The real George Muller did that, yet you are afraid to assign him as one with the dung of man's righteousness for doing so.

You, along with a lot of others in the church, do not understand that doing that with the purposeful intent of earning your righteousness through that effort is what makes it legalism. But doing that because you have the righteousness of God and seek to please him is NOT legalism.

Your doctrine simply does not know what 'legalism' is. Even though the Bible plainly spells it out. Paul calls it legalistic righteousness--depending on the effort of his law keeping to be made righteous.

I don't even understand your question? We "do" righteousness based upon "being" righteous. Righteousness is a product of the Spirit, not the flesh. Not the "letter" for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Before I go...

The question is, "how is seeing that the Word says, for example 'do not show favoritism', and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equivalent to 'man's righteousness' and depending on that law keeping to be made righteous?"

Why is reading the Bible and then doing what it says always and categorically a work of one's effort to merit right standing with God, and impossible to be a work of the Spirit leading and guiding a person to the righteous life that comes from faith?

You seem to have all these terms mixed up in your mind, but lack even a basic understanding of what "righteousness" is or how a Christian works righteousness through the obedience of faith working by love. The "letter" kills- "legalism" works nothing but hypocrisy and promotes the flesh of man.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's really quite simple and doesn't have to be as miraculous and supernatural as the church has been taught it has to be. Having the law written on your heart means your sensitivities to it have been heightened.

Oh but I think it is very supernatural. God takes a heart of stone, a self-centered, carnal heart and supernaturally (beyond the natural) changes that heart.
We can't do that, only God can.

Perhaps you saw in anther post I said it's not JUST supernatural.

Some people take what you said and think it's all done now. We have an obligation to purposely walk in what God has done for us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't even understand your question? We "do" righteousness based upon "being" righteous. Righteousness is a product of the Spirit, not the flesh. Not the "letter" for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Before I go...

The question is, "how is seeing that the Word says, for example 'do not show favoritism', and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equivalent to 'man's righteousness' and depending on that law keeping to be made righteous?"

Why is reading the Bible and then doing what it says always and categorically a work of one's effort to merit right standing with God, and impossible to be a work of the Spirit leading and guiding a person to the righteous life that comes from faith?

You seem to have all these terms mixed up in your mind, but lack even a basic understanding of what "righteousness" is or how a Christian works righteousness through the obedience of faith working by love. The "letter" kills- "legalism" works nothing but hypocrisy and promotes the flesh of man.

How does this help your argument. It's just another non-explanatory non-answer.

I more than answered this rout, repeated, non-specific doctrine. Now you have to counter what I've been saying with substance. Answering this question I asked, and other questions, is what you have to do to get anywhere.

"How is seeing that the Word says, for example 'do not show favoritism', and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equivalent to 'man's righteousness' and depending on that law keeping to be made righteous?"

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What? Paul used these very words. If they seem "condescending" to you, that because you do not understand what the term "spiritual" and "carnal" mean as Paul used them. And of course Paul was absolute and confident in his "spiritual" authority, but thought nothing of himself as in the flesh.

2Co 10:1 ¶ Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

Just more charismatic un-rightly divided Word.

Here's what Paul said and which actually addresses what we're talking about here:

12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that [i]for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude..." (Phillipians 3:12-15 NASB)


Tell me now you would say these same words? Or are you the 'perfect' one who Paul is saying should have the same attitude as him? Is what Paul said too low for you to accept? Or are you like Paul and the rest of us?

Your trying to mix up what Paul is saying, and your translation is in error as to the point Paul is making;

Php 3:9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

His point being that Christ and being conformed to "His Image" is ever and ongoing process, that none of us should ever "think" that we will ever be in a position where we are not in the process of being conformed more and more into His Glory and Image. This is BY THE SPIRIT- NOT THE "LETTER"

You're failing to explain how simply knowing what the Word says and doing it is somehow equivalent to 'man's righteousness'.

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord

According to the text who has a veil over their eyes, Christians or the Jews (non-Christians)?

The law is not the veil. Dependance on the law instead of faith and trust in Christ is what veils the eyes of unbelievers. But somehow this gets understood that simply reading the law is what puts a veil over the eyes of Christ rejectors.

 

[George Muller]

According to the text who has a veil over their eyes, Christians or the Jews (non-Christians)?

The veil is the law that ministers condemnation, this is not different for a Jew or a Gentile, the law condemns all and blinds all who look to the "ministry of death" written and engraved on stones. So a Gentile under law is just as blind as Jew, which point Paul makes throughout his epistles.

 

[jasoncran]

tee hee. I got a blessing from this thread and only other knows about it besides god.

I guess im a legalist for wanting to be like my dad who redeemed from the pits of hell.

 

[George Muller]

I don't even understand your question? We "do" righteousness based upon "being" righteous. Righteousness is a product of the Spirit, not the flesh. Not the "letter" for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Before I go...

The question is, "how is seeing that the Word says, for example 'do not show favoritism', and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equivalent to 'man's righteousness' and depending on that law keeping to be made righteous?"

Why is reading the Bible and then doing what it says always and categorically a work of one's effort to merit right standing with God, and impossible to be a work of the Spirit leading and guiding a person to the righteous life that comes from faith?

You seem to have all these terms mixed up in your mind, but lack even a basic understanding of what "righteousness" is or how a Christian works righteousness through the obedience of faith working by love. The "letter" kills- "legalism" works nothing but hypocrisy and promotes the flesh of man.

How does this help your argument. It's just another non-explanatory non-answer.

I more than answered this rout, repeated, non-specific doctrine. Now you have to counter what I've been saying with substance. Answering this question I asked, and other questions, is what you have to do to get anywhere.

"How is seeing that the Word says, for example 'do not show favoritism', and then not showing favoritism categorically and without exception equivalent to 'man's righteousness' and depending on that law keeping to be made righteous?"

Well I see no question that has not been answered again and again. Even Deb tried to explain this to you. So the issue is in your ability to understand, not that the truth has not already been presented. I cannot "make" you understand what you "refuse" to understand.

 

[George Muller]

We have an obligation to purposely walk in what God has done for us.

Oh yes we do. It seems as if a lot of people think that they do not have to follow the 10 commandments because we have been released from the law as in Romans 8. While it may be technically true that the we are not under the law, it is dangerous thinking to think that way. The Master Himself told us what to do if we love God.

John 14:15

15If ye love me, keep my commandments./(KJV)

Yes what is His Commandments, The Same John made this clear;

1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 ¶ And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

As Paul said "nothing profits but faith working by love" The law "written code" is not of faith.

But "love" from the Spirit is the fulfillment of what the law represented - for the law is spiritual. We now have the "new heart" the law written upon the heart and all obedience is from the heart by faith working by love. This is the simplicity of Christ, to "believe" and to love as He has loved us.