Romans 8:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Because the carnal (sarx) mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be
Romans 8:7
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
are these saying the same thing ??
Have you meditated on what the Sarx mind is ??
What is your thoughts of what the Sarx mind is ??
An unsubmitted freewill will always be without God. However, It doesn't mean God isn't recognized in the matter. What is the definition of rebellion?__ hmm, lets see...
Hi Croref,
How can a will be both free and submitted ??
What else do you have to offer the Lord?
Hi Croref if we offer our free will to the Lord is it any longer a Free will ??
Would it not rather be a submitted will ??
I am just thinking as I am typing is that why some people get so offended when they hear the phrase free will ??
Is there not liberty in Jesus? Offering our freewill to Him is as being His bond slave, no? __for which we can rejoice for the privilege?
Did not Paul say "offer yourselves asa living sacrifice which is [only] our reasonable service, correct?
If our freewill or lack of, is something to be argued out then would it not be reasonable to assume our ability to mature would be as well? __ and yet we are told to grow in Grace__in Christ.
Is not the liberty in Jesus the Liberty to now do the will of God??
Is the free will and the Carnal mind the same thing ??
I am just thinking as I am typing.
As someone of note once said: "Love God and do as you please".
What does that mean except God will be the only one we will want to please.
.
.
.
.
. How come if all we see is a creed to live by?
BTW: Carnal mind = flesh = unsubmitted "self".
Hi Croref, good thoughts!! good definition for Carnal mind also!
)) Thank you. Great subject matter!
I believe this about the new born of God:
Our new make up:
One soul __ours
One flesh __ Ours
One Nature __ His ... that our flesh wars against for supremacy over our soul.
"He who over comes I will give to . . . ." Jesus. Rev 2 and 3.
1) "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Hostile, opposes, at odds, all these words do a fine job describing the relationship of the carnal mind/flesh and God.
2) "for it is not subject to the law of God." Due to the hostility the carnal mind/flesh does not obey the law of God.
3) "Neither indeed can be." This refers to ability. The carnal mind/flesh does not obey God's law nor does the carnal mind/flesh have the ability to.
The flesh cannot please God.
Quote: believe this about the new born of God:
Our new make up:
One soul __ours
One flesh __ Ours
One Nature __ His ... that our flesh wars against for supremacy over our soul
-------
Humans are not made up of Flesh, Soul, Nature. Humans are Spirit Soul and body...1 Thes 5:23
Spirit --- Born from above
Soul ---- Not Born from above (This is made up of Mind will and emotions)
This is the area that fights against God. If you study in the bible the word heart, you'll find it is made up of the Mind will and emotions, this is what we call the Soul...
Christ says out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
Think about what Paul says: the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envying, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like Gal 5:19-21
Where does Christ say they stem from the heart, so the flesh is the heart of a man... What is the heart, mind will emotions which is our soul..
These proceed from the heart.. When scripture says "Put on Christ" this is the area where he needs to be put on.. Putting on Christ is putting on his nature now thats something that that we can't do ourselves...
But that's for a different post..
Body ---- Flesh and Bones does what ever it's told either by the spirit or the soul...
by murrcolr on 2012/11/4 2:24:34
Dear Murr,
I believe I made myself perfectly clear that I was referring to one who is born again.
I stand my remarks.
Hi stevet83
stevet83 wrote ///1) "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Hostile, opposes, at odds, all these words do a fine job describing the relationship of the carnal mind/flesh and God.///
Yes this is true the natural intellect the rational mind is all of this, It has no faith, It only believes what it see's but it does not consist of the total makeup of man
stevet83 wrote
///3) "Neither indeed can be." This refers to ability. The carnal mind/flesh does not obey God's law nor does the carnal mind/flesh have the ability to.///
Man is not guilty because of his inability no One is in Hell thinking I was unable to believe I was unable to follow the truth no rather they are their because they could of, they should have, but they did not.(where the worm dieth not)
The Scripture (Romans) says that men are guilty because they ((hold)) the truth that is they have the ability to seek out and find the truth.
All men are being drawn to the truth !! (just many resist it)
the Augustinian position has gotten so caught up in trying to explaine mans depravity that they have denied that all men (hold the truth!) All men have a ((Conscience)) that bears witness to the truth.
That is why men are Guilty because of their ability
Hi stevet83
stevet83 wrote ///1) "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Hostile, opposes, at odds, all these words do a fine job describing the relationship of the carnal mind/flesh and God.///
Yes this is true the natural intellect the rational mind is all of this, It has no faith, It only believes what it see's but it does not consist of the total makeup of man
stevet83 wrote
///3) "Neither indeed can be." This refers to ability. The carnal mind/flesh does not obey God's law nor does the carnal mind/flesh have the ability to.///
Man is not guilty because of his inability no One is in Hell thinking I was unable to believe I was unable to follow the truth no rather they are their because they could of, they should have, but they did not.(where the worm dieth not)
The Scripture (Romans) says that men are guilty because they ((hold)) the truth that is they have the ability to seek out and find the truth.
All men are being drawn to the truth !! (just many resist it)
the Augustinian position has gotten so caught up in trying to explaine mans depravity that they have denied that all men (hold the truth!) All men have a ((Conscience)) that bears witness to the truth.
That is why men are Guilty because of their ability
Quote:I believe I made myself perfectly clear that I was referring to one who is born again.
I stand my remarks
------
Fine but show me it in scripture....
Murr, What part??
You keep talking bout Augustine, I am not familiar with what he taught.
You asked a question I answered it, according to you I am wrong. Oh well.
Quote: Dear Murr,
I believe I made myself perfectly clear that I was referring to one who is born again.
I stand my remarks.
-------------------
Quote: believe this about the new born of God:
Our new make up:
One soul __ours
One flesh __ Ours
One Nature __ His ... that our flesh wars against for supremacy over our soul
---------------------
I guess this part?
Hi stevet83 If you consider yourself reformed you are Augustinian.
edit:ps I do not say this as an insult but rather as a fact, The reformers where heavely influenced by Augustine they quote Him as scripture.
Your wrong bro, I'm not an Augustinian, what he says does not shape my faith, the word of God does
I never quoted him
HI stevet83 , Do you consider yourself reformed ??
No I do not, I don't hold alliegence to no man or denomination. I live and die for Christ and His word
Hi Stevet 83, I apologize for labeling you as such, I came to this impression when you wrote
///You can always tell who the reformers are(brothagary). I'm gonna piggyback your statement a little, hope you don't mind./// https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=47287&forum=36&start=70&viewmode=flat&order=1
and than went on and declared doctrine almost point by point in agreement with reformed theolgy.
Edit PS stevet83 wrote ///I live and die for Christ and His word/// Wounderful way to label oneself
by murrcolr on 2012/11/4 11:24:43
Our new make up:
One soul __ours
One flesh __ Ours
One Nature __ His ... that our flesh wars against for supremacy over our soul
---------------------
I guess this part?
Ah, OK. Question: Does not the "Word", as was in Jesus while on earth, enter us when we are born again? Think about that before making a distinction between Nature and Spirit when considering what we possess when born again--if indeed you believe our old nature has been crucified.
The problem is instead of you asking me from the start u tried to disprove something I wasn't pushing. My piggybacking was his statements about scripture. You can disagree with what I have to say about scripture, that does not make what I say wrong, nor you'rs right.
Hi stevet83 I except your exhortation.
1) "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Hostile, opposes, at odds, all these words do a fine job describing the relationship of the carnal mind/flesh and God.2) "for it is not subject to the law of God." Due to the hostility the carnal mind/flesh does not obey the law of God.
3) "Neither indeed can be." This refers to ability. The carnal mind/flesh does not obey God's law nor does the carnal mind/flesh have the ability to. The flesh cannot please God.
You keep talking bout Augustine, I am not familiar with what he taught. You asked a question I answered it, according to you I am wrong. Oh well.Steve83
Hi Steve
I hope that you don’t mind me presenting something towards your above comments. I believe that in essence you are correct in your understanding but may lack one thing. For your benefit and others as is necessary I enclose a few articles that adequately explain the broad definition of the meaning of depravity, as it is understood in balance of Scripture. Also a few verses and my own explanation. When prodpapa says that reformed theology is Augustinian he is not taking into account the possibility that reformed theology is not a single entity. Anyway no ill will is intended. Any extreme understanding will always be just that. Augustine was extreme but their is a balance which lines up more reasonably with our experience in Christ.
C H Spurgeon
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Human%20Inability.htm
Dr. R C Sproul
http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html
John Piper
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html
Here are a few Scriptures which support the idea that a man’s efforts are tainted, depraved or else of no use to God.
Gen. 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psa. 130:3; 143:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Isa. 64:6; Jer. 13:23; John 3:19; 8:34, 44; Rom. 3:9-12; 6:20; 8:8; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Tit. 3:3; 1 John 5:19; Jam. 3:8; 1 John 1:8;
Here are a few Scriptures which show that a man cannot believe in God, come to God and generally know God without God Himself drawing or else changing that man from within.
John 3:3-8; 6:65; 10:26; 12:37-41; Rom. 3:10-11
The Greek word used in Romans 8:7 is the word σάρξ translated sarx. The term means literally the physical body. Although ocassionally it is used to decribe the soul as well. As is this verse from Romans. In thinking about the pysical body it is needful to remember that the physical body is the ‘body of sin’ in Romans. So when Paul speaks of the ‘Law of Sin and Death’ in Romans he is speaking about a power which is in the physical body. Depravity as defined in the above articles is applied to the physical body and ‘only’ the soul to the extent that the soul (mind) is itself governed by the physical body. Given therefore that the ‘will’ is a function of the soul as well and is not of itself a physical thing, it makes it easier to understand that a man can ‘will’ to do good before God yet may still fail to do good. This is because the soul is not independant of the physical body with its lusts and sinful characteristics, (Except by the Cross) inclinations Indeed the law of sin and death. Not only this but even when a man is able to do something which would ordinarily please God this ‘good’ act or desire cannot justify that man and so the man still depends on God to give him the power to do that which is truly pleasing to Him and this is to believe on His Son. After belief and newness of life then the individual has the chance and an ability to please God always by not walking in the lusts of the flesh, but in newness of life. Everything hinges on this arrangement because this is God’s will. That no flesh shall be justified by the works of the Law. In the end Romans 8:7 could be sated as "the mind that is set (governed) by the flesh is hostile to God etc.". Or "the mind (will) which is set on the flesh is hostile to God etc.".
by amrkelly on 2012/11/4 12:43:31
Sproul, Spurgeon, Piper all speaks volumes as to what theology you hang your hat on, amr.
I well recognize no one has a lock on ALL the truth but Jesus however, how about Chambers, Fromke, Nee, and Finney and co.? Were they OTL in your estimation? Why?
who is Fromke??
Devern Fromke is listed on this forums audio tapes Cat.
His book, I taught from years ago, "The Ultimate Intention", is still the book to read. I will research some of the comments from readers on this forum and direct you to them.
The Mod's should also know.
Ok, I had never heard of Him, will look into it
by proudpapa on 2012/11/4 13:52:52
Ok, I had never heard of Him, will look into it
Cut and paste this add.
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=345&forum=35&9
I well recognize no one has a lock on ALL the truth but Jesus however, how about Chambers, Fromke, Nee, and Finney and co.? Were they OTL in your estimation? Why? Croref
DeVerne Fromke
http://coursematerials.vision.edu/le504/no_other_foundation.pdf
As a matter of interest I don’t see any particular theology as true. I judge truth from the position of knowing Christ and subject everything else to that knowledge. I do however have a high regard for Nee and would most likely hang my hat on his ministry if I had to hang my hat. Below is something that I wrote in another thread which proudpapa started. It explains the same thing I have shared here in this thread with Steve. I can see value in many so-called theological positions. In my experience there is always a balance that tends to come nearer to my experience of being saved and which helps me to resist taking a position that by the nature of sound doctrine proves to be more conformed to experience than a division. If I take any other position then I find that it becomes divisive.
There is no doubt that this subject is a difficult one, but there is also no doubt that the Scripture is clear that “the heart is wicked and deceitful above all else” Jeremiah. Clearly the heart in this verse does not have to do with the physical body; it is to do with the soul. The wickedness and deceitfulness has to do with unbelief or else a refusal to acknowledge God Who is “clearly manifest through the things He has created” Romans. Universalism as a doctrine or a teaching is built upon the idea that because men cannot but sin therefore God Himself would be unjust to condemn anyone who sinned simply because they are sinners by nature. It is a claim that this would be unjust and must be therefore incompatible with a just and loving God. Added to this is the modern day teaching that because Christ has died for sin, there is no sin for which eternal consequences can be accounted to any individual, as this would itself be a denial of God’s love which sent Christ to the Cross for sin.The Scripture teaches that the sin nature is the physical body and the soul becomes sinful insofar as it is governed by the lusts of the flesh. Once this dominion is achieved even the heart, mind and will are taken captive and become carnal by nature as well. Only new birth offers a man the opportunity to overcome this carnal mind and sinful body, by the renewing of the mind as well as by the Cross of Christ through personal experiential identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. What Nee teaches is that the soul does not always sin; not that the soul is sinless. This is different to the reasoning of Augustine who asserts that a man must willfully sin in order to be accounted a sinner. Nee teaches that men do not sin in the first instance because they “will” to sin in some particular way or other, but that men sin in the first instance because they are sinners by nature. The singular distinction which Nee draws is a distinction between Spirit, Soul and Body, not simply Soul and Body. So that in Nee’s teaching it is possible to draw a distinction between the inevitability of sin arising from the body (the law of sin and death working in our members) as well as the soul which is governed by bodily lusts and desires, and the possibility that the soul can through a regenerated spirit do that which is not sinful by the governing principle of resurrection life having dominion over the whole man. In this view the unregenerate man will inevitably sin both in the body and the soul, i.e. thoughts and desires; (though even the unregenerate man does not always sin) but the regenerate man can have a renewed mind as well as victory over his body through the Cross of Christ. To that extent I believe Nee is arguing that the soul is not intrinsically evil. The soul does sin, but it has the possibility of becoming free from sin by the renewing of the mind, so that “you may prove that acceptable and perfect will of God”. In contrast the body must be “borne up unto death daily”. The soul is able to “do God’s will” whereas the body must become subject to the “death of the Cross”.
In Augustine’s argument sin is only sin where the will to sin is recognised. This leaves room for the possibility that a person can claim to be sinless before God simply because they do not willfully sin, without the need to repent of sin, and this because Christ has died for sin. It is sin, which arises from the nature or else the consequence of Adam's sin. This is the historical root of Universalism, as we know it today. Amrkelly
by amrkelly on 2012/11/4 14:14:07
I well recognize no one has a lock on ALL the truth but Jesus however, how about Chambers, Fromke, Nee, and Finney and co.? Were they OTL in your estimation? Why? Croref
DeVerne Fromke
http://coursematerials.vision.edu/le504/no_other_foundation.pdf
As a matter of interest I don’t see any particular theology as true. I judge truth from the position of knowing Christ and subject everything else to that knowledge. I do however have a high regard for Nee and would most likely hang my hat on his ministry if I had to hang my hat. Below is something that I wrote in another thread which proudpapa started. It explains the same thing I have shared here in this thread with Steve. I can see value in many so-called theological positions. In my experience there is always a balance that tends to come nearer to my experience of being saved and which helps me to resist taking a position that by the nature of sound doctrine proves to be more conformed to experience than a division. If I take any other position then I find that it becomes divisive.
For reasons you have stated are those same reasons I don't give, Piper, Sproul, Packer, MacArthur and yes Spurgeon much space at all in my considerations if for no other reason than they hang their collect hats on A.W. Pink and his abstract of the "Sovereignty of God" and others of the Calvinist bent seen by them to be the-e gospel...
Give me my Thompson Chain and the complete works of Oswald Chambers and I am a happy camper__you can keep all the others.
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Some observations
1.The servant with only one talent was only required to use that one talent.
2. The servant with only one talent was given from the lord the talent to accomplish the lords preferred purpose. He had the talent even though the lord new beforehand how he would handle what was given.
3. The lords forknowledged wisdom gracesiouly only gave the servant with one talent, 1 Talent so that he would not be responsable for the 10 nor the 5, If He had, how much worse the punishment would be.
4. All three where considered servants but the one with one talent had an obscured view of his lord and thus the lord became to him as what his wrong perspective had imagined
ability or inability
by proudpapa on 2012/11/4 14:46:30
Some observations
1.The servant with only one talent was only required to use that one talent.
Yes!
2. The servant with only one talent was given from the lord the talent to accomplish the lords preferred purpose. He had the talent even though the lord new beforehand how he would handle what was given.
Preferred purpose?? Did the servant know that up front??
3. The lords forknowledged wisdom gracesiouly only gave the servant with one talent, 1 Talent so that he would not be responsable for the 10 nor the 5, If He had, how much worse the punishment would be.
It would have been no worse. Why? Because the whole issue was one of the heart and allegiance.
4. All three where considered servants but the one with one talent had an obscured view of his lord and thus the lord became to him as what his wrong perspective had imagined.
Obscured?? That's conjectured simply because what is not being reported is that servants unbelief and strong desire for his "self" preservation.
Can we make any similitude with this and the sin of Israel for not believing Joshua and Caleb?
Hi Croref you asked ///Preferred purpose?? Did the servant know that up front??///
ummm?? He confessed " Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine"
there is alot revealed about what was in this servants heart and understanding in these verses, His misconseption of the lords intentions and motives seems to cause his thinking to become obscured.
Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
He would have had some general understanding intuitively but his false understanding of his lord intentions caused him to be obscured in his intelect.
What are your thoughts, I know that it is deeper than I explained here??
Croref wrote ///It would have been no worse. Why? Because the whole issue was one of the heart and allegiance///
I disagree, Men are judged according to what they did with what they were given the more given the more required.
" And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Romans 2 also speaks much of this.
Croref wrote ///Can we make any similitude with this and the sin of Israel for not believing Joshua and Caleb?///
what are your thoughts??
by proudpapa on 2012/11/5 8:07:57
Hi Croref you asked ///Preferred purpose?? Did the servant know that up front??///
ummm?? He confessed " Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine"
. . .Yes?
there is alot revealed about what was in this servants heart and understanding in these verses, His misconseption of the lords intentions and motives seems to cause his thinking to become obscured.
I fail to see except what was expected of him__he did not perform.
Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.He would have had some general understanding intuitively but his false understanding of his lord intentions caused him to be obscured in his intelect.
Why assume that? Are you reading someone who might be trying you to protect his religious bent? __just asking.
Croref wrote ///It would have been no worse. Why? Because the whole issue was one of the heart and allegiance///I disagree, Men are judged according to what they did with what they were given the more given the more required.
But either way, is it still not a matter of the heart in faithfulness, perhaps even more so with those given much?
" And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
I see that but, cannot overlook the issue of punishment of those who willfully neglect, as the scriptures speak of it, compared to those of honest ignorance who neglect.
Romans 2 also speaks much of this.Croref wrote ///Can we make any similitude with this and the sin of Israel for not believing Joshua and Caleb?///
what are your thoughts??
I think the unbelief of the Israelites was willful__very willful. One might even suppose they were getting used to being "taken care of" that indolence became their way of life. After all, is not what Joshua and Caleb spoke of to have been a warfare?
hi Croref
Croref wrote re: ///Why assume that? Are you reading someone who might be trying you to protect his religious bent? __just asking///
not that i am aware of, If the saints see through a glass, darkly; and only know in part for now, how much less does those whom the god of this world hath blinded there minds understand in thier intelect but they are guilty cause they hold truth intuitively in their subconscience.
Croref wrote ///
" And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
my point was that in the The lords forknowledged wisdom gracesiouly only gave the one talent to him whom he forknew would be unwise with what was given. Had the Lord given him the 10 or the 5 talents how much worse the punishment.
Croref wrote
///I think the unbelief of the Israelites was willful__very willful. One might even suppose they were getting used to being "taken care of" that indolence became their way of life. After all, is not what Joshua and Caleb spoke of to have been a warfare?///
What does egypt represent for the Christian??
What does the the wilderness represent for the Christian??
What does passing over this Jordan represent for the Christian??
What does land of Canaan represent for the Christian??
That Subject would make a good thread for its self.
by proudpapa on 2012/11/5 9:28:24
hi Croref
Croref wrote re: ///Why assume that? Are you reading someone who might be trying you to protect his religious bent? __just asking///
not that i am aware of, If the saints see through a glass, darkly; and only know in part for now, how much less does those whom the god of this world hath blinded there minds understand in thier intelect but they are guilty cause they hold truth intuitively in their subconscience.
Sorry, can't buy it. Too much conjectured for me.
Croref wrote ///
" And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
my point was that in the The lords forknowledged wisdom gracesiouly only gave the one talent to him whom he forknew would be unwise with what was given. Had the Lord given him the 10 or the 5 talents how much worse the punishment.
That either.
Croref wrote
///I think the unbelief of the Israelites was willful__very willful. One might even suppose they were getting used to being "taken care of" that indolence became their way of life. After all, is not what Joshua and Caleb spoke of to have been a warfare?///What does egypt represent for the Christian??
. . . defeat
What does the the wilderness represent for the Christian??
. . possibilities, if they pay attention
What does passing over this Jordan represent for the Christian??
Taking up the challenge of overcoming spiritual enemies. . . . Shall I name them?
What does land of Canaan represent for the Christian??
. . Kingdom living.
That Subject would make a good thread for its self.
Yes! Ready to take it up? Put your moniker on it!
hi Croref
Croref wrote re ///Sorry, can't buy it. Too much conjectured for me.///
That is fine I am not selling my opinion only giving some of my thoughts conserning the subject.
'conjectured' good word I will have to add it to my vocabulary, I feel that way toward alot of peoples conclusions of certain understandings of scripture.
Croref wrote re:///Yes! Ready to take it up? Put your moniker on it!///
I have to get to work now, but Might look into it when I have more time
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate