Menu

What About The New Testament Commands?

S
sermonindex

So New Testament commands have their function, just as the Old Testament commands had their function as a tutor to lead us to Christ. But the commands are not the meat. They are the milk. The Holy Spirit's role is to bring us to a complete knowing of who Christ is in us and how Christ lives as us. When that has been done, He will fulfill the commands through us (Romans 8:4). But it will be His living, not our striving.

Knowing Christ in us - knowing that the gospel is 100 percent grace, that God does it all - frees us from the various labors that bogged us down for so many years. We thought these labors were our part, but we were wrong.

We can quit trying to be good. Our attempt just brings us despair, anyway, because we find out we can't do it. We are free from the facade of pretending that we can pull it off.

We can stop being religious. Jesus wasn't religious. He experienced life from the Father. The religionists wanted to kill Him, and did. We have as much religion today as they did back then. If we don't have a complete understanding of the grace of God, we will revert back to religion for our answer. We will use religious activity to say something about us, to make us acceptable to God, ourselves, and others. But when we see that Christ is formed in us, we're no longer religious. If God places us in a certain religious system (and He has with me), fine. But that doesn't mean we have to be religious. God has freed us from that.

We can stop trying to crucify ourselves. The old us is already dead. In the unseen and eternal realm, that's a done deal. But Christians have been trying to crucify themselves for the last 2000 years. As I always say, if you could crucify yourself, you'd crucify the wrong thing. We have something we want to get rid of for God's glory - a personality trait or some other displeasing thing. And He is shouting, "No, no, no, no! What you've got is for My glory. That's what presses you into Me. You want to get rid of it so you'll look good for Me. I will crucify in you what's displeasing to Me, and I will magnify in you your weakness so I can be strong through it."

If God does it all, do we have any role to play? Absolutely. As I said earlier, our part is to be willing. Paul wrote, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13). God is at work in us to choose and to perform His good pleasure. Our part is not to do it. Our part is to be willing. Our willingness is expressed as faith or trust. "I am willing for You to be living Your life through me this day, and I am trusting You to do it." Life for the believer operates by faith, not by self-effort.

Sometimes people hear the full message of God's grace and respond, "But doesn't God call us to be obedient?" Yes, there is an obedience God calls us to. Paul called it the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5). You obey by believing. You became a believer through the obedience of faith. You believed that Christ died for your sins. You having died with Christ works the same way as Christ having died for you. In both cases, you have to put faith in an unseen and eternal truth before you begin to see it operate in your life.

The work of faith is not to try to do the dying. The work of faith is to recall that the old you did die and to live out of that fact. We remember and count on the revelation fact. If it's not a revelation fact, then you are striving to get hold of something you think you don't have. There's no guilt in that, because what else can you do than strive for something if you don't know you have it? But the truth is we already have it. In the unseen and eternal, the old us is already dead. The faith life on our part occurs when the circumstances arrive that say, "The old you isn't dead," and we reply, "Yes, he is." But we aren't trying to accomplish it, because how can we accomplish something that's already accomplished?

Paul had another word for this process in Romans. He called it reckoning. Reckon is a banking word. It means you can count on money in the bank when you go shopping. You can write checks because there's money in the bank. Reckoning doesn't put money in the bank. But counting on the fact that there is money in the bank will free you to write checks. After explaining that we have died and been raised with Christ, Paul said, "Even so consider [reckon] yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11).

You are dead to sin. You are alive to God. Reckoning doesn't make it so. It is already so. But reckoning allows you to live out of the fact that it is so.

God says you are a brand-new creature. The old one died. You don't look dead, you don't feel dead, you don't always act dead, but are you going to agree with God or are you going to debate Him? You may debate Him, but you're going to lose the debate. It's not worth it. So in faith you agree with God: "I read that, and it sounds too good to be true, but I'm going to believe that. I'm going to set my face to that."

The truth is that when we first trusted Christ, we were made perfect (Hebrews 10:14). We were complete in Him (Colossians 2:10). But who knew it at that point? So we thrashed about below the line in all of our soul activity, trusting in appearances instead of God's truth. All we ever do is catch up with the truth. Through our trust in God's revelation, His truth becomes our experience.

If we never get to the point where we appropriate truth, we are caught in a flesh trap forever. God has designed life so that our will, which He is at work in, has a role to play. We have to choose to trust Christ in us.

God spoke to me one time about that in Denver. I was playing golf, and I was my usual incorrigible self. I was so disgusted with the quality of my play that I had resorted to using only one club. I drove with it. I hit from the rough with it. I knocked balls out of sand traps with it. I putted with it. I didn't speak to the woman I was sharing a cart with. My wife was ahead of us with another lady. I was just going through the motions, waiting to get the miserable experience over with. On the back nine, my partner looked at me and said, "Jesus sure acts like a baby in you." And I thought, That's God.

I am in charge of whether Jesus looks like a baby in me or not. We must act on what God says, because we are involved with Him in this. We must choose to trust Him. Ours is a covenant relationship, and faith is the operating principle. "I speak to you, and you respond to Me. You trust Me." We are not lost in this union relationship. We are a vital part of it. God invites us to be cooperators with Him.

Humanity was created in the beginning with the capacity to receive the Tree of Life (which is Christ) and then to be an expresser of that life. That was God's original intent. But God purposely created us with the possibility of choice, and we reap the results of our choice. We never escape that - then or now. In God's love, He lets us choose. He says, "If you want to go the way of the world, go. If that's where your love and affection is, you go. But you'll reap what you have chosen."

Does that mean all is not of grace? No. God does do it all. Only He can live the life. And only He can work in us, enabling us to be willing cooperators with Him. But He has left us a role. Our role is availability. We are available to the Lord to live His life through us. What Mary said to the angel Gabriel applies to every believer: "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). That's availability. Mary was willing. God was the one who did it.

Our availability releases God's ability. So we trust the Lord to do it through us.

"Lord, You want to love this person through me. I'm not feeling loving toward them. You do the loving through me. I make myself available for that."

"Lord, I'm feeling bitter toward this person. I choose to allow You to be forgiving through me."

"Lord, I don't feel like serving this person. But You do. You go the second mile through me."

Apart from Christ, humanity isn't going to do that. But that's the nature of the One who is in you. You can say to Him, "You do it. I am willing for You to do the willing. You take over here."

In the unseen and eternal realm of God, things that don't seem to be finished already are; things that don't seem to be complete already are; someone who doesn't yet appear to be mature or full-grown already is. Until we get revelation knowledge of that, we are going to try to accomplish these things by ourselves. Our point of reference is still going to be ourselves. We will keep trying to make it happen until we get a complete picture of the grace of God. Then we will see that it's already done. He does it. He does it all.

From THE REST OF THE GOSPEL by Dan Stone

P
proudpapa

very good tuc.

I am going to have to get that Dan Stone book.

add:this is the same message a Michael Pearls "sin no more" teachings.

S
sermonindex

"Lord, You want to love this person through me. I'm not feeling loving toward them. You do the loving through me. I make myself available for that."

"Lord, I'm feeling bitter toward this person. I choose to allow You to be forgiving through me."

"Lord, I don't feel like serving this person. But You do. You go the second mile through me."

Actually, we still make the choice to forgive and not be bitter. Christ does not take us over. His Spirit in us gives us power to line up our will with His now and we make the conscious choice to perform His will, which is to walk in love.

Some of these thoughts by Dan Stone, can be misunderstood, as they are a bit nebulous. I think it should be explained as to what the Believer's responsibility in walking after the Spirit, is. Many misunderstand the scriptures and thus the working of God in them and how to walk with God.

Here are some examples of incorrect thinking:

Christ lives in me: Gal 2:20
Wrong concept: I do not live now at all.
Right concept: I live by the faith of the Son of God
Principle: God does not require self-effacement for His life to be manifested. God does not require your personality to cease to exist.

I am crucified with Christ. Gal 2:20
Wrong concept: I am dead and must practice death.
Right concept: I am dead with Christ and raised by His life to live.
Principle: God's purpose for the believer is not death but life.

God worketh in me. Phil 2:13
Wrong concept: I do not work, only surrender and God performs both the willing and the working.
Right concept: Since I have His power in me, I can do all things through Christ.
Principle: God never sets aside man's will. God never requires man to cease his activities before He can work.

"those who obey Him". Acts 5:32
Wrong concept: I must surrender my whole being to the invisible Spirit.
Right concept: I will obey God the Father through the Holy Spirit.
Principle: The Holy Spirit will not think through my mind, nor feel through my emotion, nor decide through my will. The Holy Spirit guides by divine impressions upon man's spirit.

"God's love...through the Holy Spirit." Rom 5:5
Wrong concept: I will not love. The Holy Spirit will give them God's love.
Right concept: I will love them as the Holy Spirit has shown me God's love. As you receive God's love you make a conscious choice to show God's love. You can close your heart anytime. Open your heart and choose to love and God will teach you how to love.
Principle: To love is a choice. We choose to love as God has loved us.

"In everything give thanks" 1 Thess 5:18
Wrong concept: I will accept all circumstances as the will of God.
Right concept: I will submit myself to God in all circumstances.
Principle: Submission to God and resistance to evil must work together. (James 4:7). We do not submit to the Devil. He will grind your will down into passivity. And do not "pray through" for experiences and feelings.

"when I am weak, them I am strong" II Cor 12:10
Wrong concept: I will, to be weak, so that I can be strong.
Right concept: The Believer does not choose weakness, but rather the weak believer shall have God's strength.
Principle: God is sufficient in whatever state you may be.

"Thy will be done"
Wrong concept: God wills for me, I do not have to choose.
Right concept: I choose to do His will.
Principle: God never substitutes His will for man's.

We need to know what we are choosing to understand...what we are choosing. When we decide, God will do everything to establish us in our choice, if it is according to His will. Pro 16:3.

Apart from Christ, humanity isn't going to do that. But that's the nature of the One who is in you. You can say to Him, "You do it. I am willing for You to do the willing. You take over here."

This is incorrect. He will not take over.

Our availability releases God's ability. So we trust the Lord to do it through us.

We have to be more than available. We have to be willing to act, to exercise our will and make a choice based on what the Lord is telling us. Our choice to do His will, releases His will through us.

Dan sends a lot of mixed messages: Here, he does say, "We must act on what God says". He speaks and we respond and we are cooperators with Him. This is true.

I am in charge of whether Jesus looks like a baby in me or not. We must act on what God says, because we are involved with Him in this. We must choose to trust Him. Ours is a covenant relationship, and faith is the operating principle. "I speak to you, and you respond to Me. You trust Me." We are not lost in this union relationship. We are a vital part of it. God invites us to be cooperators with Him.

From my previous statements, you can see that we are to be more than willing and Dan even says in a previous statement that we are to ACT, but then he says that God will take us over and He will do nothing of the kind. So, his message is fraught with inconsistencies and confusion, at least as far as I am reading it. Too much mixture for me.

I'm sure he doesn't mean to confuse, but it is hard to see that in his writings.

P
proudpapa

Is the : "wrong concept, right concept, principle" quotes your own doings that are specifically formated to refute error with the artical, Or is it a copy and paste from another source ?

S
sermonindex

by proudpapa on 2015/10/16 15:34:41
Is the : "wrong concept, right concept, principle" quotes your own doings that are specifically formatted to refute error with the article, Or is it a copy and paste from another source ?

My own, from a class I taught many years ago. Not specifically created for this article but applicable. I have used them mostly to refute cultish thinking and teach young believers.

P
proudpapa

Thank you,

I thought there where some good ideas, But I did not find that they pertained to the artical.

S
sermonindex

You wrote
My own, from a class I taught many years ago.

I would like too see more of this teaching if possible.

P
proudpapa

What is the specific danger that you feel with the post's of Tucs ?

S
sermonindex

Unclear messages like this, with ambiguity and mixture can promote teaching that lead to passivity.

I'm sure Dan Stone didn't mean for it to be unclear and this is not an attack on him. I see it as an opportunity to bring some more thoughts/principles to the discussion to clarify the Christian walk.

P
proudpapa

RE:///Unclear messages like this, with ambiguity and mixture can promote teaching that lead to passivity.///

It may be that many misunderstand it as that, but I do not.

What I hear is how to recieve correct motivation for living out the Christian life.

obligation is not correct motivation

S
sermonindex

Why not write an article that in your opinion that is clear and post so we can discus it?

S
sermonindex

by tuc on 2015/10/16 16:29:55

Why not write an article that in your opinion that is clear and post so we can discus it?

That is actually a good idea, tuc. When I have time I could do that.

My response was a little article. I have more to add and it will complete it, for now. It is a big subject.

S
sermonindex

THANKS! I look forward to seeing it.

S
sermonindex

I have been infused by His love. His love is inside me. I have been Made a partaker of His DIVINE NATURE - LOVE!

THIS was all done by HIS DOING!!! I had nothing to with it.

My thoughts have nothing to with it. It is there even when I am asleep.

PERFECT LOVE!! FOREVER ACTIVE

Even faith works by love.

D
dolfan

Obligation can be correct motivation. Love is a choice. Obligation is the duty of love lived out. When I don't "feel" lovely or loving and I do what is right because I know it pleases Him whom I love and I know that it works into my character what He wants to see reflected in me of Himself, that is obligation. I am tied to the doing of it in spite of myself because of Him who made me and for His glory.

P
proudpapa

obligation by definition : is an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound.

obligation is the the fruit of law not fruit of love.

S
sermonindex

For now - I would add this to complete my "article". :-)

This should be read after my previous post (Right concept, wrong concept).

Join yourself unto the Lord with one heart (agreement), committing your will unto Him and desiring His will. He will give you a strong inner conviction and a "burning" inside to serve Him.

The Word of God teaches us to obey objective truth, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Obeying God, not some "impulse." When you get these impressions from God, your mind, will and emotions will be free, not so from Satan, you will feel an ungodly pressure (not being led by peace) to make a decision, usually emotional or you will feel that you must make the decision right this very minute. But, God will not move till your will functions. Wait for His peace, step out boldly, God will lead.

God wants to demonstrate His righteousness through us and bring us to the point where WE CAN work and WE CAN will. He cannot demonstrate His righteousness through a passive person.

Renewing of the mind will undo bad thought patterns and release cleansing. This is progressive deliverance from fallen thinking and will strengthen your will. Our subconscious mind is a reservoir of all past experiences. The enemy uses the subconscious mind to project thoughts to our conscious mind. Your will, will receive or reject these thoughts. But when your will ceases to resist Satan in any area, the Devil comes into control in that area of your life (stronghold). Renewing of the mind will bring strength to your will and release you from bondage. Through the renewing of your mind, the source of temptation will be eliminated. Jesus said, "He has nothing in Me." (John 14:30)

If your will is not working in a certain area, then usually the Devil is.

Sin, rejection, hurts, bitterness, pornography, jealousy, envy, etc, etc, open doors to Satan. Satan uses these and brings them up to produce certain responses. Your will must be strong to suppress them. Your will must resist these thoughts and past thoughts. The Devil wants to find a place in your subconscious and establish strongholds.

It is important for your will to be free because it is the governing body of the person. A spiritual person is one that is free to exercise his will. Passivity will open you to demonic oppression and paralyze your will, giving place to the Enemy who also wants to "work and to will" in you. You will be led by him instead of Christ. Remember, he wants to do what Jesus does, but he can only counterfeit.

The Holy Spirit gives gentle, peaceful impressions on our spirit, Satan projects erratic fear based impulses.
Jesus wants to have complete influence over us setting our soul free to respond freely to Him.

Satan wants to have complete influence over us bringing our soul into bondage and oppression enslaving us to do his will and to turn us this way or that as he desires.

Jesus does not want us to be passive, Satan does. Jesus actually requires in a man for him to have complete control of his mind, will and emotions (this is freedom). Satan, on the other hand has much more success with men who have passive souls (faculties). In that way, they will accept his counterfeit alternatives more readily and he can easily turn them as he wishes.

S
sermonindex

by proudpapa on 2015/10/16 17:23:00

obligation by definition : is an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound.

obligation is the the fruit of law not fruit of love.

A willing SACRIFICE, not obligation is the fruit of love.

Rom_12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the SACRIFICE of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
Heb 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such SACRIFICES God is well pleased.

Eph_5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a SACRIFICE to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

I have been infused by His love. His love is inside me. I have been Made a partaker of His DIVINE NATURE - LOVE!

THIS was all done by HIS DOING!!! I had nothing to with it.

My thoughts have nothing to with it. It is there even when I am asleep.

PERFECT LOVE!! FOREVER ACTIVE

Even faith works by love.

All good statements.

S
sermonindex

you wrote

"Sin, rejection, hurts, bitterness, pornography, jealousy, envy, etc, etc, open doors to Satan. Satan uses these and brings them up to produce certain responses. Your will must be strong to suppress them. Your will must resist these thoughts and past thoughts. The Devil wants to find a place in your subconscious and establish strongholds."

I do not agree - suppression NEVER works. How about the shield of FAITH that works by love that extinguishes all the darts of the enemy?

"Your will must be strong to suppress them. Your will must resist these thoughts and past thoughts."

God never intended you do do that - if you could do this by the power of your will then Christ died in vain.

S
sermonindex

you wrote

"Sin, rejection, hurts, bitterness, pornography, jealousy, envy, etc, etc, open doors to Satan. Satan uses these and brings them up to produce certain responses. Your will must be strong to suppress them. Your will must resist these thoughts and past thoughts. The Devil wants to find a place in your subconscious and establish strongholds."

I do not agree - suppression NEVER works. How about the shield of FAITH that works by love that extinguishes all the darts of the enemy?

"Your will must be strong to suppress them. Your will must resist these thoughts and past thoughts."

Good point. Ok, lets go with resist. It is more correct and a Biblical term. But, in the same sentence, I believe I did say 'resist'. "Your will must be strong to suppress them. Your will must RESIST these thoughts and past thoughts."

Either word, the point is that you must exercise your will by the power of the Holy Spirit not the power of the flesh.

But, yes I do like to stay with "bible speak" so, "resist" is a much better word, because we are really resisting a foe. The flesh, sin and Satan should all be viewed as foes.



God never intended you do do that - if you could do this by the power of your will then Christ died in vain.

Wrong thinking. You do realize that we must engage our wills when fighting spiritual battles and walking with the Lord each day? "I CAN DO ALL THINGS through CHRIST WHO STRENGTHENS ME". Yet, it is Christ who is strengthening us (strengthening our will, our mind and our emotions).

Look at Paul using his will:
Rom_15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

1Co_14:15 ...I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

You are sending an incomplete message to young believers. Of course, we use our will, only now we have a mind that is being renewed daily and the strength and love of the Lord who dwells inside us. We are to draw from His Spirit.

All glory and credit go to Jesus because without His Spirit you could do nothing.

D
dolfan

Is love not moral? Is it not commanded? Then it is a moral obligation.

Of course it is voluntary. We are bound to do it but not forced to do it.

S
sermonindex

Is Sin A Moral Violation?

WHAT DOES "SIN" MEAN?

The term in Greek and Hebrew means "to fall short of the goal, miss the mark, and to fall short of one's destiny."

When God created Adam, He gave Adam His own divine life and very nature. His goal for was for all of mankind to be in complete union with Him and to participate in His Divine Life fully and to enjoy communion with Him.

When Adam sinned he died to the Divine Life and union with God and no obedience to any law could ever restore him to the Divine Life.

The real issue was the loss of the Divine Life not the violation of the law. If sin is only a violation of the law, then morality consists only in obeying the law. Such morality could not contribute to one's salvation, but could only render one completely alienated from Christ.

The essence of sin should also not be understood as a rebellion against God's will in a legalistic sense, nor to fall below a given norm of behavior. To sin means to violate God's will. Sin means to fall short of the destiny (mark, goal) for which man was created. Since the "goal," "destiny" and "mark" for which man was created is full communion with God, to partake of the Divine Nature), sharing in His glory and immortality, then "sin" means to fall short of the destiny of the participation in God. Sin is not a moral failure.

SIN IS MORE THAN BREAKING A LAW OR A MORAL CODE.

Death is not a punishment of God: it is, rather, the result of man's failure to live up to his destiny of participating in God's immortality. Death is the primary manifestation of separation and alienation from God; it is also our principle source of bondage (Heb. 2:15) and the driving force behind individual sins. Thus death is the "sin of the world," and as a result of what Adam did, all of mankind is in a bondage to the manner in which the world deals with the question of death, as Paul again says, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.." (Gal.4:3).

The Apostle expresses this concept of sin when he says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". In Adam everyone has missed the mark and has fallen short of the goal of their destiny, which is to participate in the glory of God. In Adam, all mankind, therefore, became "sinful" and each person became a "sinner". Death is both cause and result of missing the goal of the immortality which results from union with God.

Do not forget it was Adam's and Eve's eating and participating in tree of knowledge of good and evil that was the cause of their death. After that mankind became obsessed with attempting to be moral by doing certain things that they considered to be good and avoiding certain this they considered to be bad. No morality could ever make them alive again.

Morality is not even the real issue. Sin than is not a moral issue at all and really has nothing to morality at all. True Christianity is the embracing, enjoying and participating in Christ's Life as much as he knows and sees. The true Christian who is participating in his union with God is not concerned about morality because he knows that it is Christ's Life alone that makes him fully acceptable to God.

Many religions, including the Christian religion, emphasize the embracing of a moral code with proper behavior to be acceptable to God. In fact they define morality as keeping the law and good proper conduct.

Now the truth is the embracing of any moral code becomes a substitute for the True Life that only comes from Christ. It also becomes a substitute for the transformation of the heart.

Anything that causes us to be arrogant, prideful and lead us to the judging and condemning other people is completely contrary to true Christianity, the Life of Christ.

Now this emphasis on embracing a moral code which seems to be very prevalent teaching in many denominations across America is a complete and utter lie. In fact, it really is heresy because it offers an alternate way to the Life of Christ and an alternative for the transformation of the heart.

This is a false gospel because the embracing of any moral code, law or even good behavior can never produce the life that is required. It has no effect on changing or transforming any person's heart. It is totally imposable for it to even affect the heart in the slightest way.

This moral code often becomes a platform on which many view and judge other people. Any person who is seen deviating from this code is criticized and many times even condemned.

When anyone moralizes any issue whatsoever they actually make any solution totally impossible.

True Christianity is not a moral force that shapes and controls a person life. True Christianity is not following the teachings of Christ. It is not the embracing of any doctrine, creed, law, code or anything seen as virtuous at all. It is the embracing of Christ's Life and enjoying the union with Him and to participate in His Divine Life fully and to enjoy communion with God.

Morality can never transform your heart or give you life. It is only by embracing Christ's Life that you experience total acceptance by God.

Any teaching which teaches the embracing of any moral code with proper behavior to be acceptable to God is total heresy

M
makrothumia

Have we forgotten the need to TEST ALL THINGS?

Did anyone TEST these statements made on this thread?

"obligation is not correct motivation

"obligation by definition : is an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound."

"obligation is the fruit of law not fruit of love."

If these declarations are true, then John the Apostle promoted error - that's the implication of the declaration! If John used obligation in his writings and we affirm that "obligation is not correct motivation", then John promoted "the fruit of law, not the fruit of love."

Did John really promote "fruit of law"? Did he speak or write about our "obligation"? Let's put John to the test by our profound declaration.

I John 2:6 - "He who says he abides in Him, ought himself to walk just as He walked."

AHA! John is promoting the "fruit of law"! His words fail the test! We have declared that "obligation is not correct motivation, and the fruit of law, not the fruit of love"; therefore, John promoted obligation and legalism.

Now that we have found this "error" in one New Testament letter, perhaps we should look to make sure that there is not other places where the error of "oughtism" made its way into the our bible.

But first, let's make sure we did not misunderstand John. We know our translation uses the word "ought", but did the Greek word John used really mean "ought" as we understand it?
ὀφείλω (opheílō) "originally belonged to the legal sphere; it expressed initially one's legal and economic, and then later one's moral, duties and responsibilities to the gods and to men, or to their sacrosanct regulations. . . . opheílō expresses human and ethical responsibility in the NT"

Sadly, we must face the evidence that John erred! He clearly used a word that scholars affirm has "legal" and moral "duty". How did we miss this error for so many years? And since we have now proven that "obligation is a fruit of law not a fruit of love", should we not warn others about this error in John's epistle. Yes! But first, it might be good to see if it is an isolated error, or one that found its way into other parts of our New Testament.

OH NO! Our Lord used the same word - John 13:14 - "If I then your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet". This must have been an innocent mistake, for we have already determined that "obligation is not a fruit of love".

OH NO AGAIN! Paul, what were you thinking? "We who are strong ought to bear the failings of the weak" NO PAUL, don't you understand that obligation is not a good motivator. Paul you are promoting the fruit of law.

Paul did it again - "A woman ought to have her head covered." and again - "I ought to have been commended by you." But here is a HUGE MISTAKE - Paul wrote that husbands "OUGHT to love their wives" NO - HOW CAN THIS BE?
We have declared that "obligation is NOT a fruit of love" and Paul uses the term for moral obligation in the same sentence with love. How could we have been so blind to these errors slipping into our New Testament?

I am afraid to look for more errors

Thank you, those who contribute to this thread for helping me see that "obligation" should be rejected even if it is found in the New Testament.

makrothumia

D
dolfan

Makrothumia, I ought to love that. And, l do.

J
JFW

If that made you smile, you ought to say so,...
So;)))

P
proudpapa

RE: ///by dolfan on 2015/10/17 8:34:10
Makrothumia, I ought to love that. And, l do.///

Yes,

Tim does not agree with Makrothumia becuase he feels obligated to, but because Makrothumia post reflects dolfans understanding.

So the "ought" both as used in Dolfans response as well as in the obvious context 1 John 2:6 is not referring to an 'obligation' but rather as a natural response.

add: With obligation, the individual is not motivated within. He is bound by the rules and laws without.

M
makrothumia

If John had wanted to say "the man who says he abides in Him will naturally walk even as He walked" he could easily have done so and would have used the Future Indicative verb for "walk"; but, John chose the verb form to communicate what was on his heart, not what we want it to mean.

John was saying that professing to abide in Him, obligates a believer to walk as Jesus walked. He chose the specific Greek word for "obligation" and our wanting the sentence to mean something else only shows we disagree with his choice of words.

Makrothumia

M
MaryJane

Greetings

There is an "obligation" to walk as JESUS walked. The Bible tells us we "ought to do this" it is a command to "walk as JESUS walked" So there is obligation to do so, what is so amazing and wonderful is that JESUS HIMSELF gives us the desire to follow and obey the command to "walk as HE walked."
Its not a chore for me to do so, because of who HE is, I want to "walk as HE walked."

GOD is so good, in HIM the obligation becomes a desire to "walk as HE walked. Praise GOD!

Just my thoughts
GOD bless
MJ

M
makrothumia

I believe I know what is attempting to be set forth by the opposition to the idea of "obligation".

Yes, to be compelled by the love of Christ, inspired, and moved to walk in the Lord's laws and His commandments is the end (goal) of the commandment.

Yet, since we have only a deposit of the full inheritance and not the entire salvation for which we still wait in expectant hope, we must still face our struggle with corruption.

The entire creation groans longing to set at liberty, and we too, having the first fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves. Oh, how it would be true, that Christ Jesus so overtakes me, so overwhelms every corrupt inclination that temptation bounces off me like bullets off Superman.

BUT! My body has NOT been redeemed, and even though my flesh was crucified with him and rendered powerless to dominate me, still it wars with my spirit and I suffer.

I am not able to do what I want all the time. I must deny what I want and yield to the voice of the Spirit of Christ within me. This is called our "present suffering. One day we will not have to war any longer, and we should all long for that day. Come Lord Jesus!

The fear of the Lord, and a holy sense of obligation, are good companions and I believe a fruit of His Spirit in us.
I believe my sense of obligation to live a holy life is inspired by Jesus living in me. Even with this inspiration there is a struggle with my flesh that must be dealt with like Paul - it must be beaten and made subject.

I must not make provision for the flesh, and I must put on the Lord Jesus Christ. He does not so overwhelm me that I have no will in the matter. I would never do it without Him, but He will not finish it without me.

makrothumia

S
sermonindex

The life of Christ is extreme. When I became a new creature and began devouring the Word of God, I felt obligated to break from everything that was not of Christ. To break free from everything that is contrary to Him regardless of the cost. The Spirit of God led me to make financial restitution towards others. I felt completely obligated to do this and all of these actions on my part that I felt obligated to follow through on was because of the love of God that was shed abroad in my heart and the great forgiveness I received from Him.

Love sees the obligation of committed loyalty and faithfulness to Christ no matter how difficult the road. And love obligates me to preach the gospel to everyone. Freely you have received, freely give.

Rom 1:14 I am debtor (obligated) both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

And because of Christ there are many things I am also no longer obligated to do.

All words have their place, it is principles and thoughts (many words), that can be troubling.

D
dolfan

Papa, I disagree. I am internally pleased to do many things I am obligated to do. And, there are times when I am not pleased but I do them because they are right and glorify the Lord I love. They are right because He said they are. I am obligated. And I love Him. Those are not opposed.

I tell you what folks, the things we do with words matter. We redefine obligation. We redefine religion. We vest meaning into words and accept our definitions as the actual full definition. We err.

You can opine on my ought freely, papa. I take no offense. And I hope you are not in the boat with tuc on this stuff. I would be disappointed to learn that you are.

But, I know what ought and obligation mean. I know, definitively, that they are not opposite to love. My "ought" to Makrothumia was not a mere feeling. It was rooted in that Scriptural command to think on whatever is true, just, pure, lovely, praiseworthy and excellent. Were it not for that Scriptural truth, Makro's post would have been sophistry.

And sophistry is the specialty of the hyper-grace / Joseph Prince movement that continually cites truckloads of Scripture while redefining what the words mean. They intend to overload the voice of truth that opposes them by sheer volume and then engage in really --- not being perjorative here, but precise -when I say this -- dumb semantic explanations when you get down to cases. They never prevail in their arguments. They simply refuse to be corrected. They frustrate you to silence and claim they have win the day with their absurdities.

S
sermonindex

Words should not be redefined and given different meanings, either. It is the combination of words that transmit thoughts that are either edifying or not.

"Obligation" in and of itself is only a word. "Law" is also a word.

Obligation can be used to transmit unbiblical thoughts or biblical thoughts.

Examine the thought that is being conveyedg

From something that was said earlier.
(The love of God is not moral. It has nothing to do with morality. Morality is the creation of man according to his ever changing whims and lusts/desires. Morality is the domain of men where they judge one another based on their moral systems.)

P
proudpapa

RE: ///If John had wanted to say "the man who says he abides in Him will naturally walk even as He walked" he could easily have done so and would have used the Future Indicative verb for "walk";
John was saying that professing to abide in Him, obligates a believer to walk as Jesus walked. He chose the specific Greek word for "obligation" and our wanting the sentence to mean something else only shows we disagree with his choice of words.///

The context seems to be a comparison of natural attributes.


If you say that you have a milk cow that gave birth a month ago, than you ought to have milk.

We would not understand that as implying that we are obligated to buy a gallon of milk.

add: The Key to understanding the verse is in : "He that saith"
which is also repeated in verse 9 reemphasizing the same point : comparison of natural attributes

S
sermonindex

Excellent, proudpapa.

So, we know those who say they have the life of Christ in them ought to be manifesting it.

Not that they have an obligation to manifest it, but rather it should be happening.

Am I understanding you, correctly?

He that says he abides in Him will be (ought to be) walking as He walked.

I
InTheLight

Is love not moral? Is it not commanded? Then it is a moral obligation.

Indeed, that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength is the one rule that sums up all others. This clinging to God and preferring Him above all else is what we were created for. Sadly, because of our fallen state, the ultimate perfecting of our clinging and preferring won't be reached in this life.

But it is our obligation to pursue Him, and when we honestly do delight in God as our only real good then this frame of mind will be worked out in performing every duty that comes up, in enduring every trial that we face, and in resisting every temptation that would seek to steal our affections.

In Christ,

T
TMK

The whole idea of "suffering" or "taking up our cross" which is a plain NT teaching, is that sometimes we must do things that our flesh does not want to do. We do it because it is right to do. Eric Liddell did not mop out overflowing backed up latrines when he was a prisoner in China because he wanted to. He did it because he was a servant of the Most High.

Now I agree that as we grow in the Lord that there should be less drudgery in our spiritual walk. But there will always be some things that we must decide to do even if we do not feel like doing it, because we know it will please the Lord.

I am not sure if hyper-grace folks deny there is drudgery, or simply call it something else.

S
sermonindex

Jesus did not carry His cross begrudgingly and He doesn't want us to either. "For the joy that was set before Him, He endured the cross".

The Lord wants us to serve Him with gladness and joy and be thankful in all things, knowing that we are doing all things unto Him.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Col 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it HEARTILY, as to the Lord, and not unto men;

ψυχή
psuchē
HEARTILY - with all your life (mind, soul)

The Lord wants us to be of good cheer in whatever state or situation we find ourselves in for "the steps of a righteous man are ordered by the Lord" and we are living for Him not men.


M
makrothumia

The words of the risen Lord - "I know your works that you are neither cold nor hot, you OUGHT to be cold or hot. Thus, because you are lukewarm, and not hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you from My mouth."

Did this place an obligation upon this church?

And the writer of Hebrews - "although you OUGHT to be teachers
by now...".

How many examples will it take to get a simple acknowledgment that the New Testament writers did not hesitate to speak of our duty and obligation?

Makrothumia

S
sermonindex

Maybe, not the best examples, Mak.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.


ophelon

of'-el-on

First person singular of a past tense of G3784; I ought (wish), that is, (interjectionally) oh that!: - would (to God).


Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Seems that he is saying, "by this time you should be teachers".

I think this one conveys duty/obligation.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.


M
makrothumia

You are right on that one Julius - thank you

Mak

P
proudpapa

RE:///I think this one conveys duty/obligation.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.///

Yes, But this is mutual obligation between a married couple.
I do not see how this fits into our discussion

P
proudpapa

RE: ///Jesus did not carry His cross begrudgingly and He doesn't want us to either. "For the joy that was set before Him, He endured the cross".///

very good.

Jesus did say : "..if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

Would that be similar to the artical speaking of :
"Our availability releases God's ability. So we trust the Lord to do it through us." ?

RE: ///The Lord wants us to serve Him with gladness and joy and be thankful in all things, knowing that we are doing all things unto Him.///

very good.
That was my understanding of the point of the artical: how to recieve this proper motive.


P
proudpapa

RE: ///Now I agree that as we grow in the Lord that there should be less drudgery in our spiritual walk. But there will always be some things that we must decide to do even if we do not feel like doing it, because we know it will please the Lord.///

Did the artical deny that the Christian life is filled with drudgery ?

from the artical :

"Our availability releases God's ability. So we trust the Lord to do it through us.

"Lord, You want to love this person through me. I'm not feeling loving toward them. You do the loving through me. I make myself available for that."

"Lord, I'm feeling bitter toward this person. I choose to allow You to be forgiving through me."

"Lord, I don't feel like serving this person. But You do. You go the second mile through me."

Apart from Christ, humanity isn't going to do that. But that's the nature of the One who is in you. You can say to Him, "You do it. I am willing for You to do the willing. You take over here." "


I do not feel that the artical is denying drudgery but rather giving some insight on how to be filled with the proper motive that will release us from the feelings of drudgery.


S
sermonindex

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how our "availability, releases God's ability". What is the definition of "our availability"?

Abraham wasn't just "available", he actually had to choose to act (exercise his will) in sacrificing Isaac, then and only then did God act.

I said in my post regarding "wrong concept, right concept", that God does not act until we exercise our will.

Jesus had to be more than just available, He had to set (choose) His will to do His Father's will and then act upon what He knew regarding His Father's will.

God does not do anything through us without our complete cooperation and activity of mind and will in the matter. God has never forgiven through me when I did not want to forgive. I had to make the choice to forgive, to love, to help, to hold, etc, etc. It is the Spirit of Christ and the life of Christ in us that "moves" us and strengthens us to walk as He walked, but His ability (life) won't do anything (will count for nothing) if we refuse to step out in faith and act.

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

If you are saying "our availability", encompasses our choosing His will and acting upon it then I agree, but that is not what I am reading.

Regarding His Father's will:
Jesus did not choose His Father's will begrudgingly. He delighted to do His Father's will.

Psalms 40:7-8. (Look at Hebrews 10:7)
Then said I, Lo, I come:
in the volume of the book it is written of me,
I DELIGHT to do thy will, O my God:
yea, thy law is within my heart.

He knew that His Father's will was His mission.
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Notice "to do His will". Jesus was not just a "hearer" and not just " available", but He was also willing to do, to execute His Father's will.

As He was in this world, so are we.

1Jn 4:17 ...because as he is, so are we in this world.

Do we delight to do His will?

His will may be for you to be ridiculed and mocked and rejected and abandoned. Do you still delight to do His will? Do you still believe there is a purpose behind it?

P
proudpapa

Julius21 wrote RE : ///God has never forgiven through me when I did not want to forgive. I had to make the choice to forgive, to love, to help, to hold, etc, etc.///

dolfan wrote RE: /// ... Love is a choice ...///

dolfan wrote :
///Is love not moral? Is it not commanded? Then it is a moral obligation.
Of course it is voluntary. We are bound to do it but not forced to do it. ///


I am not so sure that Love is something that we can just conjure up through our own will power, when ever we choose to.


S
sermonindex

No we don't conjure it up. We have to dwell in Him, to dwell in love. Only as we abide in Christ can we truly walk in love. We voluntary abide in Christ, it is not automatic, otherwise Jesus would not warn us about the dangers of not abiding in Him. Any fruit of the Spirit we produce comes from abiding in Christ.

S
sermonindex

proud papa wrote
"I am not so sure that Love is something that we can just conjure up through our own will power, when ever we choose to. "

Walking in love "Hesed" is a constant effortless state or your in the flesh. We can talk about abiding until the cows come home. But like my mama used to say "don't tell me about your rice puddin, bring me a bowl".

Walking in Hesed is the normal natural state of believers. We have the Hesed of God shed abroad in our hearts. If you snap at a waitress, push your opinions at work, get upset in traffic, mutter under your breath, complain about anything or can have your feelings hurt your in the flesh.

The walk in Hesed comes by revelation of who you really are, all the verses and information in the world might impress your small group but will not produce anything but wood, hey and stubble anywhere else.

The depth of your "abiding" is instantly seen in your off balance behavior and speach to a rude total stranger when your hungry and have a migraine. That is your mini cross of following Him who had been beaten, whipped and nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns on His head while saying forgive them they know not what they do. Faith without works is dead and the works is Hesed.

marcmc

S
sermonindex

Someone had to make that rice pudding, and the bowl didn't bring itself.
:-)

S
sermonindex

The Father willed the pudding, Jesus made the pudding, we eat the pudding and the stranger sees what it produces in us.

Its revelation knowledge. It kind of concerns me how little attention this is given on SI. The early church did not have bibles.

I studied Hesed for 20 years but it was a single revelation from the Holy Spirit that made it real and effortless 4 years ago. It's like your blind one minute in your proof texts and mental assents and then God speaks to your heart and you never need another verse on it for the rest of your life. Instantly everybody including your wife says "what happened to you?"

I was blind but now I see!

marcmc

D
dolfan

Papa, choice is not self-will. It is an exercise of will born from the indwelling Holy Spirit. When I choose to please Him in loving obedience, it is actually His enabling my choice in His transformation of me into the image of Jesus, and it is still my choice. He works and wills, and He teaches me by having me do (work, act, obey, etc.) and choose (will) so that over the course of my walk I become increasingly like my Master. This is how He brings many sons to glory.

You are right, of course, that we do not conjure up love at our discretion or at all. We are not saying otherwise. We bear love as a fruit of the Holy Spirit. We are active participants with God in this bearing because He is making us to be like Jesus -- students, apprentices in His Way -- because He has chosen this as the means of glorifying Himself. As His apprentices in Christlikeness, He teaches us and changes us by leading us into doing and not merely "being".

Even this language of "making ourselves available" and "saying" things like "I am not willing but I am willing for you to will through me" admits of choosing and doing. It pretends not to, but no one "makes" or "says" or thinks without actually doing the making or saying or thinking. That is why all of that is what I called sophistry. The only rejoinder to that is to semantically argue that you are not choosing and doing by "making available" and all that jazz.

S
sermonindex

dolfan,

The rub to your position is I cannot count the believers I have spoken with that wanted to walk in loving obedience to God, be carried by the Spirit and bless every person they meet. But can't.

I have read some good things in this thread but it's theory. Churches are full of saints that would nod in agreement with most of it but snap at their husbands at the first little thing or fill in the blank__________

It requires a power and that power is not in the Logos word. It's in the Rhema. The church is buried in the bible, the Scribes and Pharisees could qoute most of the Old Covenant verbatim and then crucified the Living Word they had read about.

Splitting hairs over the level of our involvement is pointless. Do rude strangers come back and apologies to you? Do people stare at you with amazement at your unconscious reactions in your day to day life because they have never witnessed it before. That's God once again manifesting HIS HESED through flesh. And that is the fruit through you that glorifys the Father! And for me, one day it wasn't there and the next day it was. That's the power of a Rhema from God. One Word and your a different person forever.

marcmc

S
sermonindex

marc,

I'm sorry but you are spouting gnostic hogwash and I have to point it out even if no one else will.

Luke_22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless NOT MY WILL (Not what I choose or desire), but thine, be done.

Even Jesus shows us, at the end of His ministry that He had to consciously, through prayer bring His will into harmony with His Father's. He subjected Himself to a fleshly body, which we also live in and to think that at some point in our life things will be "automatic", will only build a horrible pride in us. We never arrive.

Php 3:12 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.

Let's look at the spiritually mature Ephesian church, also.

Don't tell me they unconsciously "left their first love". No, they consciously left their first love. No accident here. And Jesus wants them to consciously return to it.

How, could the Ephesian church, so mature and accomplished leave their first love. Maybe, they too grew in gnostic pride over their "revelation knowledge" and the great things God was doing in their midst.

It does not matter how "senior" you are in the Lord, (and Jesus showed us this in the garden of Gethsemane), you must consciously, continue to choose His will over your own desires. Yes, we should all be maturing in the "love walk", as Jesus gains more and more of our heart but He only gains more and more of us as we stayed surrendered and submitted to Him.

The Ephesian church had to be told by their Lord and Savior, to "return to their first love" and consciously choose to repent and do the "first works". These first works are abiding in Christ.

Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because THOU HAST LEFT THY FIRST LOVE.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

S
sermonindex

Brother we are talking about two different things altogether.

Those who have an ear to hear know exactly what I'm talking about in my post.

Be blessed

marcmc

S
sermonindex

Ok, sorry I must not have my ears on today.

P
proudpapa

dolfan wrote : RE: ///Even this language of "making ourselves available" and "saying" things like "I am not willing but I am willing for you to will through me" admits of choosing and doing. It pretends not to, but no one "makes" or "says" or thinks without actually doing the making or saying or thinking. That is why all of that is what I called sophistry. The only rejoinder to that is to semantically argue that you are not choosing and doing by "making available" and all that jazz.///

I am not convinced that it is sophistry,
I see a difference between deciding or else choosing that I am going to be loving or do loving actions from that of seeking and waiting patiently for a filling of love that than will move me to action.

As I asked Julius previously I want to ask Tim, What do you feel is the danger with what Tuc has been posting ?


S
sermonindex

by proudpapa on 2015/10/18 14:32:03

I am not convinced that it is sophistry,
I see a difference between deciding or else choosing that I am going to be loving or do loving actions from that of seeking and waiting patiently for a filling of love that than will move me to action.

As I asked Julius previously I want to ask Tim, What do you feel is the danger with what Tuc has been posting ?

No, its not sophistry. Words have meaning and I also said previously, we are "not to pray through, or wait for experiences or feelings."

To love is to choose to love, it is not a feeling.

We have already been filled with the Spirit and are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4). We are to step out in faith and act, not wait to be "filled with love".

If we are waiting for feelings then our emotions are dominating our mind and will (and controlling us) instead of us controlling our emotions with our mind/will. You WILL have experiences, because you are choosing to let your mind and will be passive.

Our will is strengthened with truth and our mind renewed and we are to act on truth, not feelings or experiences.

Passive people wait for emotions and are unable to act by their own volition. They are like a cork in the sea.

Why should we not "wait to be filled"?

There is a vacuum in the religious world. For generations the church has denied the supernatural and the workings of the Holy Spirit (for the present time). The emphasis upon the intellect with its power of reasoning has been the source of doctrine and practice which has ruled out the supernatural. In this vacuum, the kingdom of darkness is generating a revival of the occult and the supernatural. The traditional church has become structured and dead and people are turning from it and seeking reality elsewhere. Because man is basically "religious", the occultic counterfeit fulfills his need and Satan has brought this into the church through his ministers.

To think that the counterfeit supernatural and occult is not in the Church is erroneous thinking.

2Co 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

There is reality in the supernatural of the occult. Some of it is called "Christian", today but many Christians would never think the Enemy has infiltrated their organization. I could point out "revivals" in the past 10 years which were actually occultic in nature where "experiences" were sought out.

Many people today go on the premise: "If it is real, then it is right". Many Christians have ignored the reality of a spiritual enemy. The world of the occult is a supernatural dimension and consequently, they also adopt the premise: "If it is supernatural, then it is God". But, as I often say, man has a supernatural enemy who is a counterfeiter. The kingdom of darkness is opened by the occult.

Through the occult has come the counterfeit of the true. There is a true outpouring of the Holy Spirit which is supernatural (Joel 2:28, Acts 1:5, 8).

1) In the true baptism, one receives the Holy Spirit. In the couterfeit one receives an unclean spirit.

2) The Holy Spirit energizes the total person. The unclean spirit brings passivity to the total person.

The occultic powers focus on deceiving the mind, manipulating emotions and bringing one's will into passivity, whereas the true comes through our spirit and are ministries of the Holy Spirit. The ministry of the true does not requires passivity or trances. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (I Cor 3:17). The Spirit of God does not consume the individual nor oppress him. The works of the Spirit are for edification and correspond with the fruits of the Spirit. The counterfeit of the Spirit corresponds to the works of darkness and the works of the flesh.

DECEPTION

One of the main significant signs of the Coming of Christ is DECEPTION

Have you ever heard of Roland Buck? Back in the 80's I heard about him, today through his book all his supernatural experiences are accepted as from God.

This is a man that had many angelic visitations. Page 19 of his book, Angels on Assignment is the first visit of a very big angel. He has 16 visitations in 2 years covering over 50 hours (2-4 hours each).

Significant direction given:
2nd visit - quit preaching at relatives
3rd visit - (pg 39) Angel Gabriel and Creoni
4th visit - He worshipped some presence
5th visit - (pg 66) visitation of Michael

Pgs 37-39 relates the purpose of these visitations. They speak about broader revelations and special truths.

"God has a family plan" (pg 22-28). "The ties of family are eternal." "God always has a backup plan (pg 23). If one plan doesn't work, He has another."

"Complete universal forgiveness" - pg 25, 110, 112.

He was told "not to preach pardon or repentance" (which Jesus contradicts). And he had a very superficial view of the atonement. The doctrine given to him left out sanctification.

6th visitation - Angelic activity - "You can rejeect the Spirit but not the angels. Creoni was saying that Joshua worshipped him." Roland was taught about the "waiting room" (Purgatory). Was told that Christ did not taste physical death for us because we still die.

Here was a man that sought spiritual experiences for the sake of the spiritual experience. He was caught up in an extreme mystical type of Christianity. We don't need to sit and wait for a move of the Holy Spirit. We are not to live only for experiences and lose ourselves from the Word of God. And, "walking in the Spirit", doesn't mean we divorce our mind and reasoning from the present situation.

The Local Church of Witness Lee said that "to exercise the Spirit in every place, you must do away with your mind." And they taught "pray reading". "Pray reading turns off your mind and ministers to your spirit." This is false! Your mind should be involved with your spirit. The danger here, is dismissing your mind. When the Holy Spirit is working, every part of a man's body is energized. Passivity invites the Devil in.

Deception comes through our minds (thinking) being led astray. (2 Cor 11:3)

Truth coming from God to your spirit goes to your mind to be understood. (Rom 8:6). Your mind and spirit are to be joined (integrated) together. We are not to be "darkened in our understanding" (Eph 4:18), but be renewed in the spirit of our mind. (Eph 4:23).

When you dismiss your mind, you WILL have experiences. (Todd Bentley, Kansas City prophets).

Our faith is to be anchored in the Word of God and we are to reach out to God with our whole man being energized by the Spirit of God. (John 4:23).

D
dolfan

dolfan wrote : RE: ///Even this language of "making ourselves available" and "saying" things like "I am not willing but I am willing for you to will through me" admits of choosing and doing. It pretends not to, but no one "makes" or "says" or thinks without actually doing the making or saying or thinking. That is why all of that is what I called sophistry. The only rejoinder to that is to semantically argue that you are not choosing and doing by "making available" and all that jazz.///

I am not convinced that it is sophistry,
I see a difference between deciding or else choosing that I am going to be loving or do loving actions from that of seeking and waiting patiently for a filling of love that than will move me to action.

As I asked Julius previously I want to ask Tim, What do you feel is the danger with what Tuc has been posting ?

---------------------

I say so papa because to say that we are "making ourselves available to release God's abilty" doesn't actually mean anything. And, I do not want to be unkind or abrasive, but even your respinse to me doesn't mean anything. See your own words: "seeking and waiting patiently" (which are actions that are deliberate, i.e., choices) "that will move me to action". Acts that lead to acts. The "difference" is artificial. It is not self choosing or self deciding and acts of love from self of which I spoke, but love born of God in a believer. You say we deliberate, I say we make a choice. You say act, I say act. But you say that your alternate phrasing proves that the "make available/release ability" idiom is not sophistry because it is somehow saying something different. It isn't. This is the kind of semantic breakdown I told you this would lead to. In this case you are setting up a syntactical distinction without a substantive difference but calling it different. And, you are using the artificial difference to support something that in itself is nothingness ("making ourselves available to release God's ability"). That is, by definition, sophistry.

It is the whole of hyper-grace thinking as mastered and marketed by Joseph Prince and others like him. That is the kind of thing tuc is posting in this thread.

M
makrothumia

Thank you for your question Proudpapa

I would also like to express my concern. Whether it is dangerous or not, let everyone judge very carefully, my concern is the extreme statements that are sprinkled through much of his posts. Statements like - "I have nothing to do with it at all." (not sure if this is an exact quote) These kind of statements are a leaven that affect the whole nature of his posts.

Statements like these that go this far are not consistent with the understanding and expressions found within the New Testament.

There is a grammatical tool that the New Testament writers specifically chose to express "our involvement" and "participation" in the completion of an action.

This grammatical tool is called "the Middle Voice". Some scholars call it by another name - "Subject Focused". When the writer chooses to write using the Middle Voice, he did so specifically to draw attention to the reader to the importance of the subject's participation in the action of the verb.

There are many examples of these in the New Testament. When writers of the New Testament consistently chose to use the "Middle Voice" or "Subject Focus" verb forms, they were underscoring the importance of the subject's participation in the action of the verb.

Statements like "I have nothing to do with it at all" are inconsistent with what we read in the New Testament.

Perhaps our involvement and participation could be expressed as "I have very little to do with it", but some spices are very small in their proportion to the amount of ingredients in a recipe, but their participation is dynamic and very intentional.

If you are interested in looking deeper into the subject of "the Middle Voice" or "Subject Focus" verb forms. Then I encourage you to look into it further.

Here are a list of New Testament words that clearly fall into the category of "Subject Focus" or "Middle Voice" verbs. These words make the list because it is so intrinsically clear that the subject is vitally involved in the action of the verb that they only appear in the "Middle Voice" form.

Some of the words in this category are "Come", "pray", "receive", "put off", "forbear", "become", "obtain", "work", .

These are examples of words where the subjects participation in the action of the verb is understood to be vital. They are not simple grammatical non-essentials, they are the very means the writer chose to express the understanding he had received and sought to convey.

makrothumia

S
sermonindex

That is very interesting Mak. I never heard that but it makes a lot of sense.

I would think that "put on", also falls into the same category.

By the way, I have a question and it is in no way intended to ignite a KJV, debate, but since you are familiar with this linguistic tool of the "middle voice", would you say that it has been preserved in contemporary Bible versions? (I am assuming you read several versions)

M
makrothumia

Hi Julius,

I will look into your question regarding the KJV. For some time now I have only used the Greek New Testament and the Septuagint as the bible I read.

I am so grateful for the men who devoted their lives to help make it possible for myself and others to have such a clear understanding of what the New Testament writers intended to say. This is especially true in light of the trend to "read into" the text our own experience, especially the reactionary kind.

That's what I sense in some of the responses in the recent threads. Experientially, some feel very strongly about relieving others of the burdens that they themselves became free of. While I rejoice in their freedom, some of the expression of their understanding contradicts the understanding and what I believe is spiritually guided writing of the New Testament writers. All of the writers of the New Testament exhorted action, warned of inaction, and did so with authority. They often used the Greek Imperative - the mood of command. We have not even touched upon how often they chose this grammatical tool to call their readers to act or abstain.

I will say this about the KJV, the translators did an excellent job of committing themselves to the text. It is clear that they attempted to submit themselves to what the original writer meant to say. The KJV is a sound and noble attempt to reproduce in another language what was conveyed originally in Greek.

I realized that you asked about other bible versions. What I can say is that not every bible version available has shown the same commitment to the limitation of the grammar found in the original texts. The more liberty that is taken to express what the translator "thinks" is being said, the more subjective the version becomes and the more vulnerable to missing the specific intent of the original author. Some men mistakenly think being concerned about how it was specifically written is "bibliotry", but not for those who believe the writer chose to convey their thoughts very specifically and that being careful to insure that thought is preserved is preserving the original understanding given the author by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Careful study and spiritual insight are a perfect marriage.

Makrothumia

S
sermonindex

Very well said, Mak.

I do thank God for learned men who love and study God's word in the Greek and Hebrew and bring out helpful truths to the Church.

Reading our experiences into the Word is always dangerous and not what the Scriptures teach.

I have noticed with new versions that with all the changed words it destroys the ability to cross reference scriptures. Just a note of observation and again not trying to start anything. It's sad how apologetic I have become just making observations about the KJV.

Blessings to you.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 61 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate