Author Topic: Works  (Read 83855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nathan

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 3053
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #500 on: March 10, 2009, 05:50:03 PM »


Pursue love and the rest falls into place.

AMEN.

i often think 1 cor 13 sums up christianity to a tee.  :boogie:

peace
euty

I'm with ya bro . . . it's a beautiful chapter.

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1631
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Works
« Reply #501 on: March 10, 2009, 06:56:17 PM »
Grace is for sinners, not the perfect.
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

Offline chuckt

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #502 on: March 10, 2009, 07:07:53 PM »
Grace is for sinners, not the perfect.

thank god im not like those sinners over there  :heat:
2

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #503 on: March 10, 2009, 07:13:02 PM »
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

The way I read that Tony, is that I should be sinning as much as possible to ensure that I get the most Grace possible.  Don't you see error in that?

Paul

Offline chuckt

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #504 on: March 10, 2009, 07:16:21 PM »
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

The way I read that Tony, is that I should be sinning as much as possible to ensure that I get the most Grace possible.  Don't you see error in that?

Paul


NO NO NO thats carnal thinking, stinkin thinkin.....GO FORBID!!

why do people say these things when grace is spoken of??  :ticked:

paul even addressed this type thinking!!

hey friend you should read :

"""HOW TO BE FREE FROM SIN WHILE SMOKING A CIGARETTE"""

by martin zender.

be well
chuckt



« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 07:25:32 PM by chuckt »
2

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #505 on: March 10, 2009, 07:27:28 PM »

NO NO NO thats carnal thinking, stinkin thinkin.....GO FORBID!!

why do people say these things when grace is spoken of??  :ticked:

paul even addressed this type thinking!!

hey friend you should read :

"""HOW TO BE FREE FROM SIN WHILE SMOKING A CIGARETTE"""

by martin zender.

be well
chuckt


Can you see how I came to that conclusion based on Tony's verse though?

Paul

Offline chuckt

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #506 on: March 10, 2009, 07:35:44 PM »
Quote
Can you see how I came to that conclusion based on Tony's verse though?

Paul


only because i heard it before from unlearned/legalists.  :sigh:

sorry bro not trying to be harsh. and not really speaking of you , but i scratch my head HERE on this forum.

grace teaches us to say no to unrighteouness.

LOVE constrains us.

Tony spoke the truth.

i person who commits adultery is as much a slave to sin as one who lusts.

be well
chuckt.





« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 07:43:11 PM by chuckt »
2

Offline sheila

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
Re: Works
« Reply #507 on: March 10, 2009, 07:58:53 PM »


   he that is forgiven much..loves much....

    as I look about the earth..and the long history of man on it.

   I can't help but to see....all that error and sin....

   tranposed in the heavenlies..to LOVE..

    ...and then...I can say..this WILL ALL BE AL[L]RIGHT[OUS]

   for when He is ALL IN ALL...ALL WILL BE RIGHTEOUS

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1631
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Works
« Reply #508 on: March 10, 2009, 08:05:49 PM »
Grace is for sinners, not the perfect.

thank god im not like those sinners over there  :heat:

Chuck, when my dad was still alive he asked me to pray at the dinner table I said: "I thank you God that I am not a sinner like my dad and brother."

They got a good kick out of that.
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

Offline chuckt

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #509 on: March 10, 2009, 08:06:03 PM »
Quote
  he that is forgiven much..loves much....

Chapter 3
1 Remind them to be subject to sovereignties, to authorities; to be yielding, and to be ready for every good work,
2 to be calumniating no one, to be pacific, lenient, displaying all meekness toward all humanity.3 For we also were once foolish, stubborn, deceived, slaves of various desires and gratifications, leading a life in malice and envy, detestable, hating one another.
4 Yet when the kindness and fondness for humanity of our Saviour, God, made its advent...........


AMEN!


   
2

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #510 on: March 10, 2009, 08:15:39 PM »
Grace is for sinners, not the perfect.

thank god im not like those sinners over there  :heat:

Chuck, when my dad was still alive he asked me to pray at the dinner table I said: "I thank you God that I am not a sinner like my dad and brother."

They got a good kick out of that.

Then you got a good kick out of that from Dad.    :laughing7:

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #511 on: March 10, 2009, 08:44:07 PM »
only because i heard it before from unlearned/legalists.  :sigh:

sorry bro not trying to be harsh. and not really speaking of you , but i scratch my head HERE on this forum.

grace teaches us to say no to unrighteouness.

LOVE constrains us.

Tony spoke the truth.

i person who commits adultery is as much a slave to sin as one who lusts.

be well
chuckt.


I'm not a legalist.  But the verse that Tony provides is present tense and it DOES convey the meaning that the more I should sin that the more Grace will abound unto me.

See the problem I see is his interpretation of the verse.  That present tense is the problem.  Again, here is Tony's version:

Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

Here is the version from Young's Literal Translation:

Rom 5:20  And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

Now if the meaning is present tense then Young's Literal Translation would use the word "does" instead of did.  Here is the Greek parsing based on WH:

Rom 5:20  νομοςG3551 N-NSM  δεG1161 CONJ  παρεισηλθενG3922 V-2AAI-3S  ιναG2443 CONJ  πλεονασηG4121 V-AAS-3S  τοG3588 T-NSN  παραπτωμαG3900 N-NSN  ουG3757 ADV  δεG1161 CONJ  επλεονασενG4121 V-AAI-3S   ηG3588 T-NSF  αμαρτιαG266 N-NSF  υπερεπερισσευσενG5248 V-AAI-3S  ηG3588 T-NSF  χαριςG5485 N-NSF  

I have bolded the verb that is translated as "abounded" in the KJV here in the Greek text along with its parsing information.  Notice the V-AAI.  This is telling us that it is a Verb, Aorist Tense, Active Voice and Indicative Mood.  The key here is the Aorist Tense.  This tense means something happened (past tense).

Now, Tony claims that the aorist, active, indicative should be interpreted as PRESENT tense.  As you can see the two different views have profound consequences towards the meaning of the verse.

The translation of Young's Literal Translation indicates to me that where sin abounded (past tense) - meaning where sin at one time abounded at that location is where afterwards, Grace has more abounded.

When I read Tony's verse it says to me that there sin is abounding (present tense) is where (Grace is also more abounding).  Now even if you believe we are not to continue in sin, that verse as Tony presents it shows that one would still have MORE Grace even if they did continue in sin.

I believe that translation of Tony's is in error.   I desire Tony to show me of those Greek Grammars that he claims interprets aorist, active, indicative as PRESENT Tense.  So Tony if you read this post, please provide a specific link that references such. I will provide here one that shows aorist is past tense (notice chart in the middle of the page):

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/egreek/egreek08.htm

Paul

Offline chuckt

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #512 on: March 10, 2009, 08:53:46 PM »
ok paul,

i see what you are saying but following along we see:

20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
21 that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus


Jesus IS WAS and WILL BE...... follow along:

Chapter 6
1 What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?
2 May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it?
3 Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death?
4 We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life.



so it is INDEED present tense as the object of the topic is us dieing to sin INCHRIST. and US NOT persisting ""in sin"" even though that GRACE is STILL increasing. and WILL increase till the end.



ok, i understand your point, do you understand mine?

and thanks for the link.

peace bro
chuckt
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 08:55:29 PM by chuckt »
2

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1631
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Works
« Reply #513 on: March 10, 2009, 09:16:15 PM »
See the problem I see is his interpretation of the verse.  That present tense is the problem.  Again, here is Tony's version:

Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

Here is the version from Young's Literal Translation:

Rom 5:20  And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

Now if the meaning is present tense then Young's Literal Translation would use the word "does" instead of did.  Here is the Greek parsing based on WH:
Paul

trettep, it is not in error but shows the aorist:

"In "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research" Prof. Robertson has this to say regarding the
translation of the Aorist into English: "The Greek Aorist ind., as
can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense in
any other language. It has {nuances} all its own, many of them
difficult, or well nigh impossible to reproduce in English. We
merely do the best we can in English to translate in one way or
another the total result of a word, context and tense. Certainly
one cannot say that the English translations have been successful
with the Greek Aorist...(Page 847). The English past will
translate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer `have'...
(Page 848). The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactly
correspond....The Greek aorist covers much more ground than the
English past...The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the
English labors and groans to express it. As a matter of fact the
Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense
except the imperfect..." Again, "The aorist is, strictly speaking,
timeless."

     "As this is the latest and most authoritative work on the
grammar of the New Testament, it is evident that Dr. Weymouth's
suggestion has not been deemed a satisfactory solution and that
the translation of the aorist into English is in a most
unsatisfactory state notwithstanding all the efforts of modern
scholarship.

     "In view of this self-confessed failure, any attempt at the
solution of so grave a defect in our method of translation should
be welcomed and examined on its own merits.

     "Dr. Weymouth, in his pamphlet "On the Rendering into English
of the Greek Aorist and Perfect" criticizes the Revised Version
for its treatment of the aorist. Falling in with the prevailing
tendency, they had changed

p188                                  Weymouth Prefers the Perfect
                                      as a Rendering of the Aorist

many renderings which are in the "perfect" (using HAVE) to the
past tense. In fact they, generally speaking, regarded the aorist
as referring to the past. Dr. Weymouth noted how often it makes
poor English, and felt, in an indefinite way, that the aorist must
not be confined to the past. He would have it rendered by the
"perfect," as it often is in the Authorized Version, at the same
time translating the perfect in this way as well. But if the
aorist is I-HAVE-LOVED and the Perfect also is I-HAVE-LOVED, what
is the difference between them? After all, the chief function of a
translation is to preserve the distinctions of the original. If a
painter should copy a picture of sheep and goats and draw them all
alike, he may produce a pretty picture, but an abominable copy.
There are sharp boundaries between all the forms of the Greek verb
as we shall see, and they should be distinguished as far as
possible.

     "Weymouth pleads for the perfect, as a rendering of the Greek
aorist because it has a bearing on the present, which the past has
not. He protests that "it is too commonly believed and taught that
the Greek Aorist Indicative...is equivalent to the Simple Past
Tense in English (I {wrote}, I {loved}, I {brought}...) "He
affirms that "the English Past, used according to the {true
English idiom}, will largely fail to coincide with the Aorist..."
He makes the startling discovery that we give the English Present
the force of a Future, giving the following examples: "We {start}
tomorrow," "The king {comes} here tonight." He might have added
the fact that this same "present" is used of the past also, as in
"The king {comes} here since he was crowned."

     "He was on the verge of discovering that the English "Present"
is not a present at all but a true past-future indefinite. He even
gives examples where the Present must be used, as, "The Chronicle
{states}--," "Clarendon {records}--," "Gibbon {informs} us--." The
one instance he gives for the past in narrative is found in Acts
25:14: "Festus {declared}." But the Greek word here used has none
of the characteristics of the true aorist at all-

p189                                  Weymouth Prefers the Perfect
                                      as a Rendering of the Aorist

except the sign of the past. {Etheto} is a simple past, and should
be rendered "Festus {submitted} Paul's case to the king."

     "To prove that the aorist is not a simple past he gives the
following instances in which both the A. V. and the Revisers
render it by the perfect: We add the C. V. rendering to show that
it can usually be still better rendered by the so-called English
"present."

Matt.5:21,27  Ye {have heard} that it was said
     C. V.     You {hear} that it was declared
Mark 10:20    All these things I {have observed}
     C. V.     I {maintain} all these things from
Rev.14:8      Babylon is fallen, is fallen
     C. V.     It falls! It falls! Babylon

     "The perfect limits the {action} to the past just as much as
the past tense does. In these and all other instances of the
aorist the action is not confined to the past.

     "Weymouth then makes the welcome admission that "{aorist}
means {indefinite}, and we must bow to the authority of the Greek
grammarians who held that name to be a suitable one...." This is
precisely the point for which we contend.

     "He then gives examples where he thinks the aorist should be
rendered by the pluperfect and the translators have so given it.

Matt.1:24     As the angel {had bidden} him
     C. V.     As the messenger {bids} him
Matt.11:1     When {he had made} an {end}
     C. V.     When Jesus {finishes}
Matt.27:31    When they {had mocked} Him

     C. V.     And when they {deride} Him
Matt.26:19    As Jesus {had appointed} them
     C. V.     As Jesus {instructs} them
Mark 1:32     When the sun {had set}
     C. V.     When the sun {sets}

     "The following is a step in the right direction: "{The Aorist
is often used where our idiom demands the Present}...but this
Gnomic Aorist (as in James 1:11, "for the sun {rises}." etc.) and
the Epistolary Aorist (2 Cor.

p190                  The Concordant Method of Solving the Problem

8:18, we {send} with him the brother") need not here be enlarged
upon." Weymouth touches the true sense of the aorist here, but,
alas, he did not enlarge upon it! He recognizes its use in the
statement of general truths or proverbs (the Gnomic Aorist). The
very fact that it can be used of things which are true at all
times and that English uses the "present" for this purpose is
sufficient to identify them.

     "Those who suppose that the English of our versions is beyond
reproach will be shocked when he states that "the persistent
rendering of the Greek Aorist by the English simple Past in the R.
V. of the N. T. has one very undesirable effect--that {the
translation is not English}." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.13)
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #514 on: March 10, 2009, 10:12:07 PM »
ok paul,

i see what you are saying but following along we see:

20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
21 that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus


Jesus IS WAS and WILL BE...... follow along:

Chapter 6
1 What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?
2 May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it?
3 Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death?
4 We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life.



so it is INDEED present tense as the object of the topic is us dieing to sin INCHRIST. and US NOT persisting ""in sin"" even though that GRACE is STILL increasing. and WILL increase till the end.



ok, i understand your point, do you understand mine?

and thanks for the link.

peace bro
chuckt

Chuck, I see the next verse has the same problem of quoting in the present tense verses the past.  Consider this from YLT:

Rom 5:21  that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What version are you quoting from by the way?

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #515 on: March 10, 2009, 10:21:12 PM »
trettep, it is not in error but shows the aorist:

"In "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research" Prof. Robertson has this to say regarding the
translation of the Aorist into English: "The Greek Aorist ind., as
can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense in
any other language. It has {nuances} all its own, many of them
difficult, or well nigh impossible to reproduce in English. We
merely do the best we can in English to translate in one way or
another the total result of a word, context and tense. Certainly
one cannot say that the English translations have been successful
with the Greek Aorist...(Page 847). The English past will
translate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer `have'...
(Page 848). The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactly
correspond....The Greek aorist covers much more ground than the
English past...The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the
English labors and groans to express it. As a matter of fact the
Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense
except the imperfect..." Again, "The aorist is, strictly speaking,
timeless."

     "As this is the latest and most authoritative work on the
grammar of the New Testament, it is evident that Dr. Weymouth's
suggestion has not been deemed a satisfactory solution and that
the translation of the aorist into English is in a most
unsatisfactory state notwithstanding all the efforts of modern
scholarship.

     "In view of this self-confessed failure, any attempt at the
solution of so grave a defect in our method of translation should
be welcomed and examined on its own merits.

     "Dr. Weymouth, in his pamphlet "On the Rendering into English
of the Greek Aorist and Perfect" criticizes the Revised Version
for its treatment of the aorist. Falling in with the prevailing
tendency, they had changed

p188                                  Weymouth Prefers the Perfect
                                      as a Rendering of the Aorist

many renderings which are in the "perfect" (using HAVE) to the
past tense. In fact they, generally speaking, regarded the aorist
as referring to the past. Dr. Weymouth noted how often it makes
poor English, and felt, in an indefinite way, that the aorist must
not be confined to the past. He would have it rendered by the
"perfect," as it often is in the Authorized Version, at the same
time translating the perfect in this way as well. But if the
aorist is I-HAVE-LOVED and the Perfect also is I-HAVE-LOVED, what
is the difference between them? After all, the chief function of a
translation is to preserve the distinctions of the original. If a
painter should copy a picture of sheep and goats and draw them all
alike, he may produce a pretty picture, but an abominable copy.
There are sharp boundaries between all the forms of the Greek verb
as we shall see, and they should be distinguished as far as
possible.

     "Weymouth pleads for the perfect, as a rendering of the Greek
aorist because it has a bearing on the present, which the past has
not. He protests that "it is too commonly believed and taught that
the Greek Aorist Indicative...is equivalent to the Simple Past
Tense in English (I {wrote}, I {loved}, I {brought}...) "He
affirms that "the English Past, used according to the {true
English idiom}, will largely fail to coincide with the Aorist..."
He makes the startling discovery that we give the English Present
the force of a Future, giving the following examples: "We {start}
tomorrow," "The king {comes} here tonight." He might have added
the fact that this same "present" is used of the past also, as in
"The king {comes} here since he was crowned."

     "He was on the verge of discovering that the English "Present"
is not a present at all but a true past-future indefinite. He even
gives examples where the Present must be used, as, "The Chronicle
{states}--," "Clarendon {records}--," "Gibbon {informs} us--." The
one instance he gives for the past in narrative is found in Acts
25:14: "Festus {declared}." But the Greek word here used has none
of the characteristics of the true aorist at all-

p189                                  Weymouth Prefers the Perfect
                                      as a Rendering of the Aorist

except the sign of the past. {Etheto} is a simple past, and should
be rendered "Festus {submitted} Paul's case to the king."

     "To prove that the aorist is not a simple past he gives the
following instances in which both the A. V. and the Revisers
render it by the perfect: We add the C. V. rendering to show that
it can usually be still better rendered by the so-called English
"present."

Matt.5:21,27  Ye {have heard} that it was said
     C. V.     You {hear} that it was declared
Mark 10:20    All these things I {have observed}
     C. V.     I {maintain} all these things from
Rev.14:8      Babylon is fallen, is fallen
     C. V.     It falls! It falls! Babylon

     "The perfect limits the {action} to the past just as much as
the past tense does. In these and all other instances of the
aorist the action is not confined to the past.

     "Weymouth then makes the welcome admission that "{aorist}
means {indefinite}, and we must bow to the authority of the Greek
grammarians who held that name to be a suitable one...." This is
precisely the point for which we contend.

     "He then gives examples where he thinks the aorist should be
rendered by the pluperfect and the translators have so given it.

Matt.1:24     As the angel {had bidden} him
     C. V.     As the messenger {bids} him
Matt.11:1     When {he had made} an {end}
     C. V.     When Jesus {finishes}
Matt.27:31    When they {had mocked} Him

     C. V.     And when they {deride} Him
Matt.26:19    As Jesus {had appointed} them
     C. V.     As Jesus {instructs} them
Mark 1:32     When the sun {had set}
     C. V.     When the sun {sets}

     "The following is a step in the right direction: "{The Aorist
is often used where our idiom demands the Present}...but this
Gnomic Aorist (as in James 1:11, "for the sun {rises}." etc.) and
the Epistolary Aorist (2 Cor.

p190                  The Concordant Method of Solving the Problem

8:18, we {send} with him the brother") need not here be enlarged
upon." Weymouth touches the true sense of the aorist here, but,
alas, he did not enlarge upon it! He recognizes its use in the
statement of general truths or proverbs (the Gnomic Aorist). The
very fact that it can be used of things which are true at all
times and that English uses the "present" for this purpose is
sufficient to identify them.

     "Those who suppose that the English of our versions is beyond
reproach will be shocked when he states that "the persistent
rendering of the Greek Aorist by the English simple Past in the R.
V. of the N. T. has one very undesirable effect--that {the
translation is not English}." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.13)

Thanks for the detail Tony.  I see those comments if pertaining to the validity of the subject verses as being in error and the translation error.  Obviously, Dr. Young disagreed with the rendering of your verse as well. I highly regard Dr. Young.  So this matter of translation has profound consequences on what we believe.  I'm assuming your version is the Concordant Literal Version?  I happen to agree with many things about the Concordant Method as I have read before but if this is it's outcome then either the method or the underlying initial analysis is in error in my opinion.

But I appreciate you giving me this information Tony as it was insightful and may explain why others I have discussed this subject with have had such different opinions on it.

Paul

DaughterofDavid

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #516 on: March 10, 2009, 11:11:36 PM »
trettep wrote....

"Thanks for the detail Tony.  I see those comments if pertaining to the validity of the subject verses as being in error and the translation error.  Obviously, Dr. Young disagreed with the rendering of your verse as well. I highly regard Dr. Young.  So this matter of translation has profound consequences on what we believe.  I'm assuming your version is the Concordant Literal Version?  I happen to agree with many things about the Concordant Method as I have read before but if this is it's outcome then either the method or the underlying initial analysis is in error in my opinion.

But I appreciate you giving me this information Tony as it was insightful and may explain why others I have discussed this subject with have had such different opinions on it.

Paul"


*************************

Hi Paul,

As I have been reading your ongoing comments/conversation with Tony and others regarding the interpretation of WHY grace abounds....I find it interesting that both of you have given 'proof' from scholarly translators of the Word....and yet both come to 2 different conclusions.

Hmmm.

This is a perfect example of the letter of the Word versus the Spirit of the Word....for the Letter has now been thoroughly parsed ....but what does the Spirit of Truth have to say?

I guess this is where each person has to be led by the Spirit of Truth for himself/herself....

My prayer is that all believers would be in agreement that we would not want to continue in sin or practice sin when we know THE PRICE that our beloved Lord had to pay in order to free us of/from sin.

With head bowed low....I am so grateful.

Shalom,
DaughterofDavid













Offline Doc

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 853
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL men.
Re: Works
« Reply #517 on: March 10, 2009, 11:37:53 PM »


For me, the person who thinks it's okay to live as you wish and grace will cover it . .. is the same who still doesn't understand that to live in that thinking is not pursuing Christ.  When I pursue Christ . . .when I just let him live in me . . . when I let him be in my DAILY thoughtlife, as well as my nightlife . . .when I read of him, worship to him, just ramble around with him . . .then the deeds in me that are subpar are covered by grace as I walk in him.  There's no need to try to step as he steps . . .if my eyes are on him, my feet will follow and I may even step in a cow pie occasionally . . .but both the Father and myself are oblivious to that because regardless of what I step in thorugh out my day, my relationship with him will continually wash me, cleanse me, and I don't even need to be always aware of it.


I do agree with this; however, grace will cover it (even though it's not "okay" to live this way).  Another problem other than the one you've stated here is that we still reap what we sow to the flesh in the flesh, so we can't mock God. This will slow his progress of transformation in our lives, and how much "hell" (death) do we really want to reap from approaching things this way? God will burn this stuff out of us, no matter what or how long it takes...
« Last Edit: March 11, 2009, 12:51:07 AM by Doc »
God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.
 
"Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me." --C.S. Lewis

God never had or needed a Plan B. He's still on Plan A.

Res Veritas Loquitur

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #518 on: March 10, 2009, 11:43:44 PM »

Hi Paul,

As I have been reading your ongoing comments/conversation with Tony and others regarding the interpretation of WHY grace abounds....I find it interesting that both of you have given 'proof' from scholarly translators of the Word....and yet both come to 2 different conclusions.

Hmmm.

This is a perfect example of the letter of the Word versus the Spirit of the Word....for the Letter has now been thoroughly parsed ....but what does the Spirit of Truth have to say?

I guess this is where each person has to be led by the Spirit of Truth for himself/herself....

My prayer is that all believers would be in agreement that we would not want to continue in sin or practice sin when we know THE PRICE that our beloved Lord had to pay in order to free us of/from sin.

With head bowed low....I am so grateful.

Shalom,
DaughterofDavid

Well we can still analyze this in light of scripture that we can see the inconsistency of translating it as the present tense.  Consider here the very first place we find the aorist, active, indicative in the New Testament:

Mat 1:2  Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

The word "begat" that I have bolded is aorist, active, indicative and has the same Greek parsing as the word abounded in in the dicussed verse of Romans.  Now does it make any sense to translate that as Present tense?

Here is the verse though from the Concordant Literal Version in the Present tense:

Mat 1:2 Abraham begets Isaac; now Isaac begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Judah and his brothers.

Does anyone really believe that Abraham was still begetting Isaac while Isaac was begetting Jacob?

Paul
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 11:47:41 PM by trettep »

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #519 on: March 10, 2009, 11:52:59 PM »


Grace covers our eternal destiny whether or not we believe it is fair that someone who lives in a manner that we disapprove of enjoys that same reward.

Grace does not prevent us from taking the path of destruction.


Online jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 8821
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Works
« Reply #520 on: March 11, 2009, 12:14:45 AM »
I like many of the comments, bros and sis's  :thumbsup:   IMO, this passage is an excellent summary of the law, the promise to Abraham that was to THE SEED (singular) Jesus, and what He does for us through His death, blood, resurrection, and grace..if anyone wants to focus on works, that's between them and God...but I will resist a yoke of bondage...I will seek for my yoke to be the yoke of Jesus, Who took my sin and suffering and nailed it to the cross...and Who will lead me into His righteousness...which will as its own fruit, be seeking to please Him..."on Christ the Solid Rock"...

1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

 2 This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

 4 Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.

 5 He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

 7 Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham.

 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.

 9 So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.

 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.

 11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith;

 12 and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them.

 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 14 that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2009, 12:52:48 AM by jabcat »
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Online jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 8821
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Works
« Reply #521 on: March 11, 2009, 12:49:10 AM »
And I LOVE the CLT version of the next verses that further explain it further...BEAUTIFUL!

16 Now to Abraham the promises were declared, and to his Seed. He is not saying "And to seeds," as of many, but as of One: And to "your Seed," which is Christ.
17 Now this am I saying: a covenant, having been ratified before by God, the law, having come four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not invalidate,
18 so as to nullify the promise. For if the enjoyment of the allotment is of law, it is no longer of promise. Yet God has graciously granted it to Abraham through the promise.
19 What, then, is the law? On behalf of transgressions was it added, until the Seed should come to Whom He has promised, being prescribed through messengers in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now there is no Mediator of one. Yet God is One.
21 Is the law, then, against the promises of God? May it not be coming to that! For if a law were given that is able to vivify, really, righteousness were out of law.
22 But the scripture locks up all together under sin, that the promise out of Jesus Christ's faith may be given to those who are believing.
23 Now before the coming of faith we were garrisoned under law, being locked up together for the faith about to be revealed.
24 So that the law has become our escort to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
25 Now, at the coming of faith, we are no longer under an escort,
26 for you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus.

God's blessing, James.
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Doc

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 853
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL men.
Re: Works
« Reply #522 on: March 11, 2009, 12:54:48 AM »
Right on, James!

And Paul, you can dissect the word to death and argue over tenses and verbs and everything else, but that will not bring life to the hearer, but the point of that passage; that Grace is always stronger than sin will bring life...


God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.
 
"Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me." --C.S. Lewis

God never had or needed a Plan B. He's still on Plan A.

Res Veritas Loquitur

DaughterofDavid

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #523 on: March 11, 2009, 01:04:11 AM »
Hi Paul,

You state...

"Mat 1:2 Abraham begets Isaac; now Isaac begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Judah and his brothers.

Does anyone really believe that Abraham was still begetting Isaac while Isaac was begetting Jacob?

Paul"
***************

You make a good point....and I also want to add what Dr. Young writes regarding the Hebrews view of past and present....

"The Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certainty of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for some time. And

That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future were accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense." (pg. IV).

Bottomline though...one does not need to be grammatically correct to be LED by the Holy Spirit....and if one thinks that it is ok to keep sinning and practice sinning then as John says....

"1Jn 2:1 1-2 I write these things to you (may I call you "my children" - for that's how I think of you), to help you to avoid sin. But if a man should sin, remember that our advocate before the Father is Jesus Christ the righteous, the one who made personal atonement for our sins (and for those of the rest of the world as well).

1Jn 2:3 3-6 It is only when we obey God's laws that we can be quite sure that we really know him. The man who claims to know God but does not obey his laws is not only a liar but lives in self-delusion. In practice, the more a man learns to obey God's laws the more truly and fully does he express his love for him. Obedience is the test of whether we really live "in God" or not. The life of a man who professes to be living in God must bear the stamp of Christ."

Shalom,
DaughterofDavid





Online jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 8821
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Works
« Reply #524 on: March 11, 2009, 01:31:00 AM »
It seems to me, obeying God is evidence of His presence and all that entails in the believer, more so than a means to obtain it.  Tongue and groove  :thumbsup:.  So again, IMO, if I seek Jesus with all my heart, and I abide in Him and Him in me, He will both lead and empower me to do His will...authoring, and finishing.  Focus on losing myself in Jesus, being filled with the Spirit...the fruits of the Spirit are.....
« Last Edit: March 11, 2009, 01:35:00 AM by jabcat »
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23