Works

[pneuma]

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

I agree.  I have the same problem.  Do we have one gospel here or two?

according to Tony it two. Go figure

[Taffy]

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

I agree.  I have the same problem.  Do we have one gospel here or two?

according to Tony it two. Go figure

Tis ONE, for mine Scott.

 

[pneuma]

Of course, the Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ are the ones that believe Paul's evangel.

Well glad you had a good laugh Tony, but of course you must be mistaken that some Jews beleived Pauls evangel for according to you Pauls teaching does not apply to the Jews.

You can't have it both ways Tony, either it applies to the Jews and Gentiles or it does not. Go figure

Not true. Some Jews did come over to Paul's evangel. Paul himself was a Jew and believed the evangel of the Uncircumcision with a heavenly allotment whereas Peter James and John's evangel has an earthly allotment.

But under Paul's evangel of the body of Christ the central barrier has been broken down between Jew and Gentile and in that body both Jew and Gentile are on an equality.

Paul went to the nations with the Uncircumcision's evangel. Peter, James and John told him that was cool in Galatians 2. And Peter, James and John said they would be for the Circumcision. But this would not forbid a Circumcision Jew from leaving that paradigm and entering into Paul's.

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

Also remeber Paul went with the gospel first to the JEWS and they rejected it so he went to the gentiles who accepted it.

So what in the world was Paul preaching to the Jews the SAME Gospel that he preached to the gentile if Pauls preaching has nothing to do with them?

And if it is a different Gospel why did Paul withstand Peter? Paul would have had no right to do that if Peters gospel was not the SAME as his.

Of course there are two gospels/evangels.

Peter preached repentance and baptism with faith.
Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.

Peter preached God was going to destroy them if they didn't repent.
Paul preached that God was at peace with all mankind and is not reckoning their offenses.

I could go on and on.

Paul withstood Peter because Peter shrank back when some from James came. Peter didn't want to be seen eating with "unclean" Gentiles even if they were believers. Paul stood up to Peter on this issue.

Tony your free to beleive that if you want to , but don't exspect me to swallow it.

Two different gospels put up the wall of DIVISION that Christ tore down.

Tis the same as saying those who are christians have a different gospel preached to them then those who are not christian.

You make a division between the haves and the have nots.

[pneuma]

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

I agree.  I have the same problem.  Do we have one gospel here or two?

according to Tony it two. Go figure

Tis ONE, for mine Scott.

 

 

[Nathan]

Noone is arguing that point . . .you didn't answer the question . . .

Say you don't see your view of what his works are, manifesting in me . . .then what?

Then I can't conclude that you have Christ, if you don't have His works.

Paul

Which is my whole point . . . My relationship with the Father is just that . . .mine . . .what does it matter what other people think and see?  If my pursuit is Christ . . .that's all that matters.  It does no good for me to follow you around looking for Christ working in you.  Nor does it do any good for you to become an alarmist about questioning ones personal relationship being authentic according to what "you" consider to be the fruits of Christ manifesting.  The only way you could possibly know would be if you followed someone around 24x7, otherwise, there's just no way to tell.

Christians are still human . . .and they still can't measure up to perfection . .so you catch them on a bad day . . and . .according to you . . .because "you" didn't see any works of Christ manifesting in them "that day" you then conclude they aren't a Christian.  To which I would respond . . .so what???

If I were to respond to your concern and try to manufacture the appearance of what a Christian is . . .you'd feel better but you'd be making a judgment according to a lie . .either way, I don't see the emphasis of works in another to be beneficial at all.

[Tony N]

Of course, the Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ are the ones that believe Paul's evangel.

Well glad you had a good laugh Tony, but of course you must be mistaken that some Jews beleived Pauls evangel for according to you Pauls teaching does not apply to the Jews.

You can't have it both ways Tony, either it applies to the Jews and Gentiles or it does not. Go figure

Not true. Some Jews did come over to Paul's evangel. Paul himself was a Jew and believed the evangel of the Uncircumcision with a heavenly allotment whereas Peter James and John's evangel has an earthly allotment.

But under Paul's evangel of the body of Christ the central barrier has been broken down between Jew and Gentile and in that body both Jew and Gentile are on an equality.

Paul went to the nations with the Uncircumcision's evangel. Peter, James and John told him that was cool in Galatians 2. And Peter, James and John said they would be for the Circumcision. But this would not forbid a Circumcision Jew from leaving that paradigm and entering into Paul's.

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

Also remeber Paul went with the gospel first to the JEWS and they rejected it so he went to the gentiles who accepted it.

So what in the world was Paul preaching to the Jews the SAME Gospel that he preached to the gentile if Pauls preaching has nothing to do with them?

And if it is a different Gospel why did Paul withstand Peter? Paul would have had no right to do that if Peters gospel was not the SAME as his.

Of course there are two gospels/evangels.

Peter preached repentance and baptism with faith.
Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.

Peter preached God was going to destroy them if they didn't repent.
Paul preached that God was at peace with all mankind and is not reckoning their offenses.

I could go on and on.

Paul withstood Peter because Peter shrank back when some from James came. Peter didn't want to be seen eating with "unclean" Gentiles even if they were believers. Paul stood up to Peter on this issue.

Tony your free to beleive that if you want to , but don't exspect me to swallow it.

Two different gospels put up the wall of DIVISION that Christ tore down.

Tis the same as saying those who are christians have a different gospel preached to them then those who are not christian.

You make a division between the haves and the have nots.

It apprears you might have a problem with an attention deficit. I already addressed your "walll of division" several times now.

The wall is torn down IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. IN THAT BODY THERE IS NO JEW OR GREEK.

Under Peter, James and John the believing proselyte is under the 12.

[Doc]

Noone is arguing that point . . .you didn't answer the question . . .

Say you don't see your view of what his works are, manifesting in me . . .then what?

Then I can't conclude that you have Christ, if you don't have His works.

Paul

Which is my whole point . . . My relationship with the Father is just that . . .mine . . .what does it matter what other people think and see?  If my pursuit is Christ . . .that's all that matters.  It does no good for me to follow you around looking for Christ working in you.  Nor does it do any good for you to become an alarmist about questioning ones personal relationship being authentic according to what "you" consider to be the fruits of Christ manifesting.  The only way you could possibly know would be if you followed someone around 24x7, otherwise, there's just no way to tell.

Christians are still human . . .and they still can't measure up to perfection . .so you catch them on a bad day . . and . .according to you . . .because "you" didn't see any works of Christ manifesting in them "that day" you then conclude they aren't a Christian.  To which I would respond . . .so what???

If I were to respond to your concern and try to manufacture the appearance of what a Christian is . . .you'd feel better but you'd be making a judgment according to a lie . .either way, I don't see the emphasis of works in another to be beneficial at all.

Not to mention that we are not to judge another's servant. Before his own master he stands or falls.

[pneuma]

Of course, the Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ are the ones that believe Paul's evangel.

Well glad you had a good laugh Tony, but of course you must be mistaken that some Jews beleived Pauls evangel for according to you Pauls teaching does not apply to the Jews.

You can't have it both ways Tony, either it applies to the Jews and Gentiles or it does not. Go figure

Not true. Some Jews did come over to Paul's evangel. Paul himself was a Jew and believed the evangel of the Uncircumcision with a heavenly allotment whereas Peter James and John's evangel has an earthly allotment.

But under Paul's evangel of the body of Christ the central barrier has been broken down between Jew and Gentile and in that body both Jew and Gentile are on an equality.

Paul went to the nations with the Uncircumcision's evangel. Peter, James and John told him that was cool in Galatians 2. And Peter, James and John said they would be for the Circumcision. But this would not forbid a Circumcision Jew from leaving that paradigm and entering into Paul's.

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

Also remeber Paul went with the gospel first to the JEWS and they rejected it so he went to the gentiles who accepted it.

So what in the world was Paul preaching to the Jews the SAME Gospel that he preached to the gentile if Pauls preaching has nothing to do with them?

And if it is a different Gospel why did Paul withstand Peter? Paul would have had no right to do that if Peters gospel was not the SAME as his.

Of course there are two gospels/evangels.

Peter preached repentance and baptism with faith.
Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.

Peter preached God was going to destroy them if they didn't repent.
Paul preached that God was at peace with all mankind and is not reckoning their offenses.

I could go on and on.

Paul withstood Peter because Peter shrank back when some from James came. Peter didn't want to be seen eating with "unclean" Gentiles even if they were believers. Paul stood up to Peter on this issue.

Tony your free to beleive that if you want to , but don't exspect me to swallow it.

Two different gospels put up the wall of DIVISION that Christ tore down.

Tis the same as saying those who are christians have a different gospel preached to them then those who are not christian.

You make a division between the haves and the have nots.

It apprears you might have a problem with an attention deficit. I already addressed your "walll of division" several times now.

The wall is torn down IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. IN THAT BODY THERE IS NO JEW OR GREEK.

Under Peter, James and John the believing proselyte is under the 12.

Yes you state the wall of division is torn down, but just like the ET preacher who state that Jesus came to save the whole world proceed to show that the whole world is not saved you likewise state the wall is torn down then beging building it back up.

And you have yet to answer me why Paul preached the SAME gospel to the Jews that he did to the gentiles.

[pneuma]

Noone is arguing that point . . .you didn't answer the question . . .

Say you don't see your view of what his works are, manifesting in me . . .then what?

Then I can't conclude that you have Christ, if you don't have His works.

Paul

Which is my whole point . . . My relationship with the Father is just that . . .mine . . .what does it matter what other people think and see?  If my pursuit is Christ . . .that's all that matters.  It does no good for me to follow you around looking for Christ working in you.  Nor does it do any good for you to become an alarmist about questioning ones personal relationship being authentic according to what "you" consider to be the fruits of Christ manifesting.  The only way you could possibly know would be if you followed someone around 24x7, otherwise, there's just no way to tell.

Christians are still human . . .and they still can't measure up to perfection . .so you catch them on a bad day . . and . .according to you . . .because "you" didn't see any works of Christ manifesting in them "that day" you then conclude they aren't a Christian.  To which I would respond . . .so what???

If I were to respond to your concern and try to manufacture the appearance of what a Christian is . . .you'd feel better but you'd be making a judgment according to a lie . .either way, I don't see the emphasis of works in another to be beneficial at all.

Nate that is why I stated the fruit inspection is to judge ourselves and not another, for if the Lord tells me to do something, but tells you to do nothing, how can I rightly judge you according to the work the Lord has called me to. We can't, it would be an unrightious judgment.

[Molly]

Under Peter, James and John the believing proselyte is under the 12.

What does this 'believing proselyte' believe in?

You mean he doesn't believe in Jesus?


"proselyte"
A new convert to a doctrine or religion.


Are you suggesting we could convert to Judaism?

[Nathan]

Noone is arguing that point . . .you didn't answer the question . . .

Say you don't see your view of what his works are, manifesting in me . . .then what?

Then I can't conclude that you have Christ, if you don't have His works.

Paul

Which is my whole point . . . My relationship with the Father is just that . . .mine . . .what does it matter what other people think and see?  If my pursuit is Christ . . .that's all that matters.  It does no good for me to follow you around looking for Christ working in you.  Nor does it do any good for you to become an alarmist about questioning ones personal relationship being authentic according to what "you" consider to be the fruits of Christ manifesting.  The only way you could possibly know would be if you followed someone around 24x7, otherwise, there's just no way to tell.

Christians are still human . . .and they still can't measure up to perfection . .so you catch them on a bad day . . and . .according to you . . .because "you" didn't see any works of Christ manifesting in them "that day" you then conclude they aren't a Christian.  To which I would respond . . .so what???

If I were to respond to your concern and try to manufacture the appearance of what a Christian is . . .you'd feel better but you'd be making a judgment according to a lie . .either way, I don't see the emphasis of works in another to be beneficial at all.

Nate that is why I stated the fruit inspection is to judge ourselves and not another, for if the Lord tells me to do something, but tells you to do nothing, how can I rightly judge you according to the work the Lord has called me to. We can't, it would be an unrightious judgment.

Yeah, I think you and are in agreement on this, but trettep keeps forcing it back out there trying to emphasize the importance of manifesting Christ works . . .as if we can manufacture his works on our own volition.  And what you just shared is what I've been also trying to push back with . . .the assessing of another's fruit is not for the purpose of me proclaiming their salvation as authentic . . .for me . .it's actually got two purposes . . .one is just as you shared . .that the assessment is an inner one, not an outer measurement of another's actions.

And the second purpose that knowing they're Christ's disciples by their fruit or outward manifestations is so that I am personally aware of who it is I'm receiving from . . .if their words say one thing but their actions reveal something all together different . . .those are the ones we're to be wary of.  That's what I was trying to get out of trettep . .but all he would provide me with is . .if you aren't manifesting Christ's works according to my interpretation of what they are . . .which can be just as faulty . . .but if you're not acting like I think a Christian should act . .then I can't call you one . . .and for all the time and effort that's been put in on this subject . . .it seems to completely sidestep the whole point . .and that is . . . "So what?" 

It's really none of my business "how" you choose to let Christ manifest through you.  "My" responsibility is to love you without judgment or condemnation or conditions.  That alone keeps my plate full enough without announcing 'you're a Christian . . your not . . you're one as well . . .and the three of you aren't . . .

Thanks but no thanks.

[pneuma]

Noone is arguing that point . . .you didn't answer the question . . .

Say you don't see your view of what his works are, manifesting in me . . .then what?

Then I can't conclude that you have Christ, if you don't have His works.

Paul

Which is my whole point . . . My relationship with the Father is just that . . .mine . . .what does it matter what other people think and see?  If my pursuit is Christ . . .that's all that matters.  It does no good for me to follow you around looking for Christ working in you.  Nor does it do any good for you to become an alarmist about questioning ones personal relationship being authentic according to what "you" consider to be the fruits of Christ manifesting.  The only way you could possibly know would be if you followed someone around 24x7, otherwise, there's just no way to tell.

Christians are still human . . .and they still can't measure up to perfection . .so you catch them on a bad day . . and . .according to you . . .because "you" didn't see any works of Christ manifesting in them "that day" you then conclude they aren't a Christian.  To which I would respond . . .so what???

If I were to respond to your concern and try to manufacture the appearance of what a Christian is . . .you'd feel better but you'd be making a judgment according to a lie . .either way, I don't see the emphasis of works in another to be beneficial at all.

Nate that is why I stated the fruit inspection is to judge ourselves and not another, for if the Lord tells me to do something, but tells you to do nothing, how can I rightly judge you according to the work the Lord has called me to. We can't, it would be an unrightious judgment.

Yeah, I think you and are in agreement on this, but trettep keeps forcing it back out there trying to emphasize the importance of manifesting Christ works . . .as if we can manufacture his works on our own volition.  And what you just shared is what I've been also trying to push back with . . .the assessing of another's fruit is not for the purpose of me proclaiming their salvation as authentic . . .for me . .it's actually got two purposes . . .one is just as you shared . .that the assessment is an inner one, not an outer measurement of another's actions.

And the second purpose that knowing they're Christ's disciples by their fruit or outward manifestations is so that I am personally aware of who it is I'm receiving from . . .if their words say one thing but their actions reveal something all together different . . .those are the ones we're to be wary of.  That's what I was trying to get out of trettep . .but all he would provide me with is . .if you aren't manifesting Christ's works according to my interpretation of what they are . . .which can be just as faulty . . .but if you're not acting like I think a Christian should act . .then I can't call you one . . .and for all the time and effort that's been put in on this subject . . .it seems to completely sidestep the whole point . .and that is . . . "So what?" 

It's really none of my business "how" you choose to let Christ manifest through you.  "My" responsibility is to love you without judgment or condemnation or conditions.  That alone keeps my plate full enough without announcing 'you're a Christian . . your not . . you're one as well . . .and the three of you aren't . . .

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[trettep]

Which is my whole point . . . My relationship with the Father is just that . . .mine . . .what does it matter what other people think and see?  If my pursuit is Christ . . .that's all that matters.  It does no good for me to follow you around looking for Christ working in you.  Nor does it do any good for you to become an alarmist about questioning ones personal relationship being authentic according to what "you" consider to be the fruits of Christ manifesting.  The only way you could possibly know would be if you followed someone around 24x7, otherwise, there's just no way to tell.

Christians are still human . . .and they still can't measure up to perfection . .so you catch them on a bad day . . and . .according to you . . .because "you" didn't see any works of Christ manifesting in them "that day" you then conclude they aren't a Christian.  To which I would respond . . .so what???

If I were to respond to your concern and try to manufacture the appearance of what a Christian is . . .you'd feel better but you'd be making a judgment according to a lie . .either way, I don't see the emphasis of works in another to be beneficial at all.

Take it up with Christ.  He is the one that says we will know them by their fruits. 

Mat 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Paul

[trettep]

A quick note about Judging as it seems that many think that judging is just something we ought not do.  Let me give you Jesus' response:

Mat 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Notice that Jesus says Judge not that ye be not judged and then calls them whom He is talking to "Hypocrites".  Then He goes right on to say essentially to Judge after you have cast the beam out of thine own eye.  So what does this all mean?  It means this:

Judge Righteously.

Paul

[trettep]

Yeah, I think you and are in agreement on this, but trettep keeps forcing it back out there trying to emphasize the importance of manifesting Christ works . . .as if we can manufacture his works on our own volition.  And what you just shared is what I've been also trying to push back with . . .the assessing of another's fruit is not for the purpose of me proclaiming their salvation as authentic . . .for me . .it's actually got two purposes . . .one is just as you shared . .that the assessment is an inner one, not an outer measurement of another's actions.

And the second purpose that knowing they're Christ's disciples by their fruit or outward manifestations is so that I am personally aware of who it is I'm receiving from . . .if their words say one thing but their actions reveal something all together different . . .those are the ones we're to be wary of.  That's what I was trying to get out of trettep . .but all he would provide me with is . .if you aren't manifesting Christ's works according to my interpretation of what they are . . .which can be just as faulty . . .but if you're not acting like I think a Christian should act . .then I can't call you one . . .and for all the time and effort that's been put in on this subject . . .it seems to completely sidestep the whole point . .and that is . . . "So what?" 

It's really none of my business "how" you choose to let Christ manifest through you.  "My" responsibility is to love you without judgment or condemnation or conditions.  That alone keeps my plate full enough without announcing 'you're a Christian . . your not . . you're one as well . . .and the three of you aren't . . .

Thanks but no thanks.

Nathan, if pneuma believes that we are not to judge at all, then YES it would mean that me and pneuma do not agree.

And of course I say we must have GOOD Works.  I think it is of the highest importance.  After all your salvation depends on it.  See Nathan, under Christ we do care about the works of others.  Under Christ we indeed ARE our brother's keeper. 

Sure we should love others - that is Christ's works.  If I don't see Love from someone and instead see the opposite, I conclude that they don't have Christ - that is the message according to Christ.  It doesn't mean someone can't announce they are a Christian - it doesn't mean I have to accept that they are and it doesn't remove my love for them or more rather His love for them.

Paul

[trettep]

Nate that is why I stated the fruit inspection is to judge ourselves and not another, for if the Lord tells me to do something, but tells you to do nothing, how can I rightly judge you according to the work the Lord has called me to. We can't, it would be an unrightious judgment.

Pneuma, while it is true we must Judge ourselves, that we be not judged.  The scriptures concerning the fruits are about inspecting the fruits of others:

Mat 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The scriptures distinguish between you and them in Matthew 7:20.

Paul

[Molly]

So what does this all mean?  It means this:

Judge Righteously.

Paul

[pneuma]

A quick note about Judging as it seems that many think that judging is just something we ought not do.  Let me give you Jesus' response:

Mat 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Notice that Jesus says Judge not that ye be not judged and then calls them whom He is talking to "Hypocrites".  Then He goes right on to say essentially to Judge after you have cast the beam out of thine own eye.  So what does this all mean?  It means this:

Judge Righteously.

Paul

Paul no one here would agrue that point, but surely your not saying you have no speak of dust in your own eyes?

[pneuma]

Nate that is why I stated the fruit inspection is to judge ourselves and not another, for if the Lord tells me to do something, but tells you to do nothing, how can I rightly judge you according to the work the Lord has called me to. We can't, it would be an unrightious judgment.

Pneuma, while it is true we must Judge ourselves, that we be not judged.  The scriptures concerning the fruits are about inspecting the fruits of others:

Mat 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The scriptures distinguish between you and them in Matthew 7:20.

Paul

That speaks more to me about judging where the fruit comes from, whether the Spirit or the flesh, not the judgment of the individual

[trettep]

Paul no one here would agrue that point, but surely your not saying you have no speak of dust in your own eyes?

Absolutely, I got "dust" in my own eyes.  But that doesn't mean I haven't been given "vision" into certain aspects of God's Word.  

Paul

[pneuma]

Paul no one here would agrue that point, but surely your not saying you have no speak of dust in your own eyes?

Absolutely, I got "dust" in my own eyes.  But that doesn't mean I haven't been given "vision" into certain aspects of God's Word.  

Paul

Not saying you don't have any vision into Gods word Paul, just showing you that we are to JUDGE the FRUIT not the individual.

For every child of God is still in part a child of Adam and produces the fruit of Adam.

[trettep]

That speaks more to me about judging where the fruit comes from, whether the Spirit or the flesh, not the judgment of the individual

It says:

Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It refers knowing the person BY their fruits that they produce, not where they gathered it from.  It even goes further and explains this with these verses:

Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

These are those people that had evil fruits.  It doesnt' speak to where they gathered them from.  It is speaking to what they do.

Paul

[Paul Hazelwood]

Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Yes the scriptures speak of this,  I think the bottom line is that no one is actually qualified to claim they can accuratly enough to be of a selfless purpose to do so and should keep quiet.

[trettep]

Not saying you don't have any vision into Gods word Paul, just showing you that we are to JUDGE the FRUIT not the individual.

For every child of God is still in part a child of Adam and produces the fruit of Adam.

Pneuma, the individual will be known by the fruit.  Adam produced the fruit of Satan which means he produced the works of Satan which is sin.  So I disagree that every child of god is still producing that fruit.

Paul

[trettep]

Yes the scriptures speak of this,  I think the bottom line is that no one is actually qualified to claim they can accuratly enough to be of a selfless purpose to do so and should keep quiet.

Paul, there are numerous examples in scripture that show righteous Judgement exercised by men.

Paul