New Christian from UK

[Shev]

Hello CST and Marie,

I agree that there is certainly a distinction between how we treat believers and how we treat the world.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people –  10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.  11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?  13 God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.' (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

This really shows the issue. We hold other believers to the standard of Christ - for how can we admonish someone to behave like a hand, if they are not even in the body? But if they are in the body, we indeed admonish in love. The church has gone on grave detours at times by becoming involved in the political, public debate about homosexuality. That being said, the scriptures are clear that we must "expel the wicked from among you". Is this merciful? I suppose it depends how you look at it, but to me, jealously guarding the flock is more important than soothing the feelings of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[CST]

How is a gay person, who admits they're gay, or a prostitute who's open about being a prostitute or even a thief who everyone knows is a thief a wolf in sheep's clothing? Does look like very good sheep's clothing to me.

Jesus hung around with a lot of people that the Jewish religious leadership told Him He shouldn't hang around with. A lot of the sort of people Paul is saying to the church in Corinth they shouldn't hang around with. Of course, I get the distinct impression the 'sheep' in Corinth were rather outnumbered by those 'wolves' in their environment.

[jabcat]

(Not wanting to perpetuate another "is it right or wrong discussion" - we've already done that and don't need to do it again.  :)   However, there may be issues around it that are pertinent to our walk that it seems we're attempting to sort out a bit.)
-------------------
I believe there's a lot involved, and i believe we/I need to seek to do things with the right attitude, and always hope and pray for reconciliation and salvation.  Plus, we all need grace and mercy, as we all struggle with certain things and fail.  The difference I believe is attempting to be obedient and follow the Spirit, vs. reveling in and celebrating the flesh - and insisting others accept and agree with it.

I think perhaps the "wolfness" comes into play when they often then go ahead and proclaim that their behavior is OK, that they can be a true follower of Christ and continue willfully and even "proudly" in their sinful lifestyle - celebrating, living, and insisting that it really fits and has just been misunderstood somehow.  Attempting to mix righteousness with wanton lasciviousness, thus confusing the issue.  I believe that's exactly what's happened today.  It's creeping into the church - and has crept in - to the point that many no longer are able to see what's right and wrong.  Confusion, deceit.  Right now there are only 2 mainline church denominations (not that I'm necessarily for denominations) that still take a clear stand against the willful practice and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.  All others I know of (Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, Episcopalians, "Evangelical" Lutheran and perhaps others) either accept in full fellowship as followers of Christ, or even ordain as "pastors" active homosexuals.  An example;   "On 21 August 2009, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, voted 559 to 451 in favor of allowing non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers".  The exceptions are Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God, who still take a Biblical stance - love and be kind to the person, while instructing against willfully following the sinful desires of the flesh.  Many of the others have caved to deceit.

Here's how I see the "hanging out with sinners" issue.  Jesus did associate with sinners.  But i believe there's no doubt that he didn't do so simply for fellowship or to "get his kicks", but rather, He did so to lovingly change them.  There are multiple instances where Jesus left a person either having them changed, or having shared truth with them whether they received or rejected it.  He told His disciples to make an attempt at sharing righteousness, but if they weren't heard, to shake the dust off their feet and move on.  He saved the ignorant and unbeliever, while chastising those who should and did know better.  Paul also instructed and practiced making the attempt at instruction, then taking further action of separation.  Especially those mingled within the body - "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

[Shev]

How is a gay person, who admits they're gay, or a prostitute who's open about being a prostitute or even a thief who everyone knows is a thief a wolf in sheep's clothing? Does look like very good sheep's clothing to me.

Jesus hung around with a lot of people that the Jewish religious leadership told Him He shouldn't hang around with. A lot of the sort of people Paul is saying to the church in Corinth they shouldn't hang around with. Of course, I get the distinct impression the 'sheep' in Corinth were rather outnumbered by those 'wolves' in their environment.

Hey CST,

My point (and the point of the scripture passage used) is about those who claim to be part of the body but still sin openly and willfully, not those outside the body.

God bless!

[CST]

(Not wanting to perpetuate another "is it right or wrong discussion" - we've already done that and don't need to do it again.  :)   However, there may be issues around it that are pertinent to our walk that it seems we're attempting to sort out a bit.)
-------------------
I believe there's a lot involved, and i believe we/I need to seek to do things with the right attitude, and always hope and pray for reconciliation and salvation.  Plus, we all need grace and mercy, as we all struggle with certain things and fail.  The difference I believe is attempting to be obedient and follow the Spirit, vs. reveling in and celebrating the flesh - and insisting others accept and agree with it.

I think perhaps the "wolfness" comes into play when they often then go ahead and proclaim that their behavior is OK, that they can be a true follower of Christ and continue willfully and even "proudly" in their sinful lifestyle - celebrating, living, and insisting that it really fits and has just been misunderstood somehow.  Attempting to mix righteousness with wanton lasciviousness, thus confusing the issue.  I believe that's exactly what's happened today.  It's creeping into the church - and has crept in - to the point that many no longer are able to see what's right and wrong.  Confusion, deceit.  Right now there are only 2 mainline church denominations (not that I'm necessarily for denominations) that still take a clear stand against the willful practice and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.  All others I know of (Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, Episcopalians, "Evangelical" Lutheran and perhaps others) either accept in full fellowship as followers of Christ, or even ordain as "pastors" active homosexuals.  An example;   "On 21 August 2009, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, voted 559 to 451 in favor of allowing non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers".  The exceptions are Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God, who still take a Biblical stance - love and be kind to the person, while instructing against willfully following the sinful desires of the flesh.  Many of the others have caved to deceit.

Here's how I see the "hanging out with sinners" issue.  Jesus did associate with sinners.  But i believe there's no doubt that he didn't do so simply for fellowship or to "get his kicks", but rather, He did so to lovingly change them.  There are multiple instances where Jesus left a person either having them changed, or having shared truth with them whether they received or rejected it.  He told His disciples to make an attempt at sharing righteousness, but if they weren't heard, to shake the dust off their feet and move on.  He saved the ignorant and unbeliever, while chastising those who should and did know better.  Paul also instructed and practiced making the attempt at instruction, then taking further action of separation.  Especially those mingled within the body - "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

It seems plausible that that's what Paul understood it to mean when he gave this speech to the Ephesians:

'I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.' (Act. 20:29-30)

Although there does seem to be some logical contract between the phrases 'come in among you' and 'from among your own selves' so this is a bit open. For clarity and comparison here's what Jesus said:

'"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits."' (Matt. 7:15-20)

There's an instruction in Deuteronomy on what the fruits of false prophets are so they shall be recognized here Jesus may be recalling that or expanding on it it's not 100% clear which.

Of course Jesus also says:

'"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."' (Matt. 10-16-20)

'Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.' (Luk. 10:3)

So Jesus' commission doesn't say have no part, Jesus's commission definitely says have your wits about you but it demands their own initiative. It's on their own initiative they are to kick the dust from their feet otherwise something is not working somewhere. Of course when He tells them that He then says: "'I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom than for that town.'" (Luk. 10:12, Mat. 10:15)

Just a few verses earlier however this happened: 'And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village.' (Luk. 9:52-56)

What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, oh yeah, God had fire rain down on them. I sometimes understand how the disciples could get confused. The Bible is very strange sometimes.

But your primary sentiment still seems sound, reckless sexual behavior is a very destructive path. Nevertheless it also seems to me that sexual behavior has no place at all in the world to come and such attractions just won't exist. I continue to feel the whatever discipline God executes needs to be meaningful and it's hard to see how it is if there isn't something bigger behind these sort of sins.

Jesus certainly did hang around with sinners to lovingly change them, but it's unclear how much He kept mentioning the fact they were sinning like 'Christians' today tend to. We've got so excited telling people how sinful they are and not really caring beyond that.

How is a gay person, who admits they're gay, or a prostitute who's open about being a prostitute or even a thief who everyone knows is a thief a wolf in sheep's clothing? Does look like very good sheep's clothing to me.

Jesus hung around with a lot of people that the Jewish religious leadership told Him He shouldn't hang around with. A lot of the sort of people Paul is saying to the church in Corinth they shouldn't hang around with. Of course, I get the distinct impression the 'sheep' in Corinth were rather outnumbered by those 'wolves' in their environment.

Hey CST,

My point (and the point of the scripture passage used) is about those who claim to be part of the body but still sin openly and willfully, not those outside the body.

God bless!

If sin really is 'missing the mark' than the concept of 'willful sin' is a non-sequitur. You can't try to miss the mark because that just changes the mark. So what we're really discussing when we talk of 'willful sin' is reckless abandon. Which would be very,very bad.

[Shev]

Hey CST,

I actually believe you can be spiritually enlightened and still sin willfully. I don't think it is a non-sequitur, because it is mentioned as such in scripture:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,  27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)

[CST]

Yeah, I understand the phrase 'sin willfully' is in the Bible and I'm not going to quibble the translation. Nevertheless that doesn't necessarily take away from the non-sequitur it seems to be by definition and may mean more than it seems to the modern reader.

The book of Leviticus, that strange Old testament book that can often look like a lot of Diktat and is cited by many an anti-theist as evidence of the ogre god of the Old Testament, actually begins more mercifully than people who use it this way seem to remember.
Before the large section detailing all the sins that can be committed followed by death sentence after death sentence it actually lists a large number of sacrifices for people who sin 'unintentionally' (unwittingly, through ignorance/inadvertence) in order to make themselves right with God. Now the translation 'unintentionally' suggests that these sacrifices don't work for many people who sin intentionally which would sound like willingly to me. But would also be a problem for UR if sacrifices don't work neither before or after the crucifixion. But the thing is the Bible also says that the Israelites are supposed to know what the law is so it sounds like it would be sinful to be ignorant of it's content. So the use of all this is I have no idea.

So basically 'sin willfully' here doesn't seem to mean try to miss the mark deliberately, it means, as we more normally think when we're not dragging the 'missing the mark' definition into it, doing things we know God would have us not do. Which when e're being legalistic we equate to not doing things we've been told not to although according to Jesus that reasoning may not always follow.

But my problem here, while trying to avoid making the a discussion on homosexuality again, as I said elsewhere UR can bother me in some forms and approaches to it. Take Hell away and atheists, secularists and Humanist have nothing to object to. Which isn't necessarily true. These people are put off from Christianity by the fact that 'god', as presented to them by a lot of Christians , looks a lot like the sort of deity that men would create to justify their selfish actions, embody all their prejudices and grant them  all their desires. Not the fair compassionate being they claim he is. Sexism, homophobia and xenophobia is what it looks like to them embodied in a fictional being. We have to do better.

The problem I have here is that homosexuality is one of a number of sins that are presented as a deal breaker with God so appalled with such behavior He is it exceeds His love for the sinner. But I struggle with that concept. I have difficulty imagining that at the end of days when God opens the books and people are judged according to their works, which is what it says will happen, God will find anyone and go 'well I see you've done immense work for charity, adopted and raised several orphan children and everyone who met you had their lives illuminated... but if only you hadn't been gay.'

I don't see sin existing in isolation but rather as a pattern of behavior which is what God has to address and correct it seems pointless to correct people if their pattern of behavior isn't detrimental to the welfare of themselves and others. I imagine the difference between 'Christians' and 'non-Christians is that the commitment to Jesus means that they are attempting to get God aid so they can leave their negative pattern behind while non-Christians who haven't called on God through Jesus will always be in danger of slipping back into that pattern.

:2c:

[marie glen]

When I think of the Old Testament and its laws I first think of it as laws for tiny Israel in order for the nation to be somewhat prepared for the coming of the savior/Messiah. And then 2nd I find myself thinking, concerning stonings and Lev chapter 18, is, these things, if we humans like it or not, are detrimental to a godly society. But I do disagree with the attitude that seems to say homosexuality is some sort of extra sin. To be honest, I seldom worry about what someone else does or doesn't do. I figure it's the Holy Spirit's function to convince of sin, not mine, so I don't address it or worry about it.. I simply try to relate the full victorious gospel of God if or when I get the chance, more online than in person. I figure bring someone to knowledge of Jesus, and let the Holy Spirit/Presence of God do the rest. Some brothers or sisters in the faith may think such an attitude is too easy on folks.. but I can't help it (and there's tons of believers threatening everyone with God's wrath so..)

..Besides.. Jesus said "I give to you" (me, us) "a new commandment, love.." I actually like to tell people (or would like to tell people) no matter who they are, that they have one rule, to love God. I figure if they will do that.. He can take care of all the rest.. I will confess to having a fondness for what's called the path of least resistance.. But I also am a strong believer in cutting ppl some slack.. and think there's a lot of wisdom in the saying, "but for the grace of God, there could go I.." Basically the only thing I take a stand on outwardly, is anything predator, murder, etc.. If someone were to ask me specifically, I still would likely simply say how God is pure, and we all do well to thoroughly submit our self to the working of His Spirit in us.. Inwardly, I consider to Him, adultery, premarital relations, homosexuality are not acceptable, along with envy, strife.. and all things less than perfect, which He is.. And will be ultimately "all in all".. And of course, i can only be and am only one tiny member of the body..

[Shev]

Hey CST and Marie,

Great, thoughtful responses. I really think there is a distinction between the body and the world when it comes to how we respond to sin. We are called to judge the body and root out the evil from among us, and even this can only be done in love and intimacy. There is a big difference between carrying a placard berating the world for its sin, compared to sitting down one on one with a dear brother or sister in the Lord and attempting to "gently restore" them.

[marie glen]

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :iagree:

[CST]

Oh, bother I haven't explained this at all well. The Bible teaches that judgement is by works, it also teaches that salvation is through faith. This makes sense no one can take credit for their faith as it is a gift of grace from God so it would not be fair to judge them by it. Their works however they do like to take credit for.

But the snag is that the Bible isn't as clear as we might like on the relationship between the two. The clearest detail is that at some point sinful works make grace dubious and faith look perverse where this point is is less clear. To the most fundamentalist people sin is the act, every sin is bad and, at the most extreme one 'willful sin' throws grace out of the window. This sounds impossibly demanding.

To more liberal minded people sin is the motive behind the act, humans would struggle to make the distinction because they don't know peoples minds, God has no such problem.

When I wrote the above I left it unfinished due to constraints of time and courtesy. I expected I might be challenged on things like the above, that I was in danger of advocating salvation by works over faith. Convicting people for sin, and set that up as your primary mechanism for presenting Christianity as a lot of people seem to do seems to make it hard to make a distinction on that.

Shev, not to go back to an old topic but when we were discussion Paul's letter to Timothy and the role of women in the church I know I alarmed you when I suggested Paul may have learned his attitude to such things from his time as a Pharisee. I'm sure I wasn't as clear on this as I could have been, been clear is something I'm poor at, and you struggled to see it as anything other than me saying Paul was wrong and so challenging the authority of scripture. That wasn't the point I'm simply considering the possibilities of how to perhaps understand the text either so it either could be interpreted less harshly or we could limit its scope. There are people who say that Paul was only speaking to a specif situation in Ephesus. That may be true from the point of view of Paul but there's nothing in the text to support that. To me it's the text of the Bible and the Word of God that's inspired and authoritative and that we can learn from. I find it hard to see how we can say Paul is only talking to the situation in Ephesus when he doesn't say that he's only talking to the situation in Ephesus.

But that's not why I'm writing about that here. I'm bringing that up because although we both agree that the text of the Bible is inspired and the rules of the site say we can't challenge that around the time EW closed the thread I found that some years ago, and pertinent to the original conversation of that thread, our founder Gary Amirault had written this:

http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/2011/james-is-really-jacob/

In which he writes things like:

"James seemed to teach a combination of grace and works. (James Chapter 2) There is disagreement among Protestant churches as to just what James taught. I used to teach that he taught that we were saved by grace which would produce the works God gave us to do. In other words faith would bring forth the works given us from before the foundations of the world. I no longer believe that. I think he mixed law and grace together. Paul constantly mentions church leaders who were destroying his work by a mixture of Mosaic law and grace. Galatians is full of exhortations to stay away from this kind of teaching. James, I believe, is an example of this kind of teaching, which Paul says that those who teach this kind of heresy should castrate themselves."

And:

God, is His wisdom allowed James' book a place in the Bible so that we could look into this mixture of law and grace which Paul was constantly fighting. A mixture of law and grace will always wipe out grace. He who tries to keep part of the law is doomed to keeping all of it because the Mosaic Law was an all or nothing package. The Book of James is a mild example of the kind of preaching the "Gospel of the Circumcision" was all about. It was to end at the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Levitical Priesthood in 70AD. But Satan picked up this discarded gospel which mixes law and grace and has injected it into most of the church. It was only supposed to be a transitory gospel to aid the Jew born under the Mosaic Law to enter into the New Covenant of Grace. When that generation died, this gospel was to end. (Further explanation of this can be found on our audio tapes Two Gospels and Which laws to keep.)

Now I may have misunderstood that article and I don't know if Gary still hold to the position I understand him as holding to but to me he seems to say very categorically that James is and God is employing him as as example of error. Wow, that's a big deal. But I disagree with that and here's why.

In Matthew Jesus is recorded as saying, 'So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matt. 7:17-19) John the Baptist speaks similarly earlier and Jesus also uses the tree model elsewhere. He's clearly talking about people and their works.

Elsewhere He declares, 'By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.' (John 15:8) This is Jesus as the true vine but the message about people and their works is very clear.

As I said I don't know if Gary still holds the position he seemed to describe in that article but I'm not sure how he can after those quotes. I can understand the possibility James is wrong, I can even understand the possibility that Paul might sometimes be wrong. But I can't see how we can argue that anything Jesus said might be wrong.

If anyone is interested and I haven't messed up I'll come back later and explain what I think Jesus means with these messages about trees, vines and fruit.

[Shev]

Hey CST,

I apologize, but I still don't quite get your point, and that is not meant to be rude in any way. Are you saying that the Bible is too vague on the relationship between faith and works, and also on the nature of sin, for anyone to judge anyone else?

Sorry again. I don't quite see what I have written that you disagree with, and I am not quite grasping your argument either.

Thanks brother!

[marie glen]

Oh, bother I haven't explained this at all well. The Bible teaches that judgement is by works, it also teaches that salvation is through faith. This makes sense no one can take credit for their faith as it is a gift of grace from God so it would not be fair to judge them by it. Their works however they do like to take credit for.

But the snag is that the Bible isn't as clear as we might like on the relationship between the two. The clearest detail is that at some point sinful works make grace dubious and faith look perverse where this point is is less clear. To the most fundamentalist people sin is the act, every sin is bad and, at the most extreme one 'willful sin' throws grace out of the window. This sounds impossibly demanding.

To more liberal minded people sin is the motive behind the act, humans would struggle to make the distinction because they don't know peoples minds, God has no such problem.

When I wrote the above I left it unfinished due to constraints of time and courtesy. I expected I might be challenged on things like the above, that I was in danger of advocating salvation by works over faith. Convicting people for sin, and set that up as your primary mechanism for presenting Christianity as a lot of people seem to do seems to make it hard to make a distinction on that.

Shev, not to go back to an old topic but when we were discussion Paul's letter to Timothy and the role of women in the church I know I alarmed you when I suggested Paul may have learned his attitude to such things from his time as a Pharisee. I'm sure I wasn't as clear on this as I could have been, been clear is something I'm poor at, and you struggled to see it as anything other than me saying Paul was wrong and so challenging the authority of scripture. That wasn't the point I'm simply considering the possibilities of how to perhaps understand the text either so it either could be interpreted less harshly or we could limit its scope. There are people who say that Paul was only speaking to a specif situation in Ephesus. That may be true from the point of view of Paul but there's nothing in the text to support that. To me it's the text of the Bible and the Word of God that's inspired and authoritative and that we can learn from. I find it hard to see how we can say Paul is only talking to the situation in Ephesus when he doesn't say that he's only talking to the situation in Ephesus.

But that's not why I'm writing about that here. I'm bringing that up because although we both agree that the text of the Bible is inspired and the rules of the site say we can't challenge that around the time EW closed the thread I found that some years ago, and pertinent to the original conversation of that thread, our founder Gary Amirault had written this:

http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/2011/james-is-really-jacob/

In which he writes things like:

"James seemed to teach a combination of grace and works. (James Chapter 2) There is disagreement among Protestant churches as to just what James taught. I used to teach that he taught that we were saved by grace which would produce the works God gave us to do. In other words faith would bring forth the works given us from before the foundations of the world. I no longer believe that. I think he mixed law and grace together. Paul constantly mentions church leaders who were destroying his work by a mixture of Mosaic law and grace. Galatians is full of exhortations to stay away from this kind of teaching. James, I believe, is an example of this kind of teaching, which Paul says that those who teach this kind of heresy should castrate themselves."

And:

God, is His wisdom allowed James' book a place in the Bible so that we could look into this mixture of law and grace which Paul was constantly fighting. A mixture of law and grace will always wipe out grace. He who tries to keep part of the law is doomed to keeping all of it because the Mosaic Law was an all or nothing package. The Book of James is a mild example of the kind of preaching the "Gospel of the Circumcision" was all about. It was to end at the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Levitical Priesthood in 70AD. But Satan picked up this discarded gospel which mixes law and grace and has injected it into most of the church. It was only supposed to be a transitory gospel to aid the Jew born under the Mosaic Law to enter into the New Covenant of Grace. When that generation died, this gospel was to end. (Further explanation of this can be found on our audio tapes Two Gospels and Which laws to keep.)

Now I may have misunderstood that article and I don't know if Gary still hold to the position I understand him as holding to but to me he seems to say very categorically that James is and God is employing him as as example of error. Wow, that's a big deal. But I disagree with that and here's why.

In Matthew Jesus is recorded as saying, 'So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matt. 7:17-19) John the Baptist speaks similarly earlier and Jesus also uses the tree model elsewhere. He's clearly talking about people and their works.

Elsewhere He declares, 'By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.' (John 15:8) This is Jesus as the true vine but the message about people and their works is very clear.

As I said I don't know if Gary still holds the position he seemed to describe in that article but I'm not sure how he can after those quotes. I can understand the possibility James is wrong, I can even understand the possibility that Paul might sometimes be wrong. But I can't see how we can argue that anything Jesus said might be wrong.

If anyone is interested and I haven't messed up I'll come back later and explain what I think Jesus means with these messages about trees, vines and fruit.

It seems to me the article is in error.. I've never yet come across anyone, or any group, who (I would think of as) having no error of idea, or even doctrine.. So I'm not surprised.. There's other things I am not in complete agreement with also, with tentmaker and/or Gary.. One day of course we will all agree on all points of doctrine.. But in this day and age, I might even be alarmed if a group agreed on all things 100%(?) :mshock:

I know Jesus was not wrong in anything He said.. and I don't believe James nor Paul were wrong in what they wrote.. I still go by the "grace produces works-as change, and good works" and "works-changes in character and good works-changes in acts, demonstrates or is evidence of ones faith"

[CST]

Hey CST,

I apologize, but I still don't quite get your point, and that is not meant to be rude in any way. Are you saying that the Bible is too vague on the relationship between faith and works, and also on the nature of sin, for anyone to judge anyone else?

Sorry again. I don't quite see what I have written that you disagree with, and I am not quite grasping your argument either.

Thanks brother!

Sorry, it wasn't that you wrote anything I necessarily disagreed with. More that it was clear that you hadn't got my point because nothing you or marie said seemed to speak to what I said. Not sure that they were meant to if both cases.

In a sort of way I'm say that, what should stop us judging anyone else is our own sins, the fact we are not really any less guilty than they are.

I'm not saying the the Bible is necessarily too vague on any of these matters but because ET or ED are the predominant eschatological positions in the church means that the judgement cast on sinners as they perceive them is that they go to Hell. Most of them don't read the Bible through, those that do don't understand it. Hardly surprising when they've been taught most everyone is going to Hell but then they come across passages that seem to suggest everyone will be saved, they won't know what to think.

Why should I believe the only translations, the only interpretations of teaching that have been corrupted are those on the duration of punishment. I continue to suspect, no I'm sure, that ever though we are taught and read we are saved through faith of Jesus and through no works of our own. We are incapable of not dividing the world into the two groups, the sheep and the goats. Whether that distinction is Heaven or Hell, life or death, saved now or saved later we are all inclined to make division by judgement and we use the Bible to make that division and I worry very much we put the Bible above God in tell us what the moral decision should be presumably. David ate what the law - recorded in the Bible said he shouldn't have but Jesus seemed to demonstrate this law violation was the morally correct decision so where does that leave us.

A position where apparently the end can justify the means but people who spend all their time fighting various temptations with varying degrees of success with not the slightest relief of their burden and waiting on a miracle that it just vanishes one day.

All this makes no sense to me. The Bible also supports slavery which no one thinks is a good thing anymore. Several Christians now claim God was doing things to subtly undermine slavery so it would inevitably fall apart, atheists just say if He was really as decent as He claimed to be He'd just have banned it. He should just have banned it.

But for some reason He didn't, why not? I sometimes wonder, if we think of God as talking to the communities Paul is writing to how can He be talking to us at all. I believe He must be but I'm not sure He's saying the same thing but it might need to be considered a little more. For example God, for His own reasons, didn't forbid slavery. How do I know the reason for that is that is because doing so wouldn't have been accepted by His audience at the time. Remember the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Romans. They have their own idea of what is right, they've all ready decided what they expect him to say in such cases. They've ceded authority to him. If he, and thus God, said some contrary to what they expected would they accept it, or would they reject it as heresy?

Going from experience here, they'd reject it as heresy. The same way most of the 'official' church rejects UR as heresy because, even though it's in the Bible it goes against what they're expecting and thus prepared to accept.

How many times has things God wanted to say been rejected because the listeners didn't want to accept them? More often than not according to the Bible. I believe in the inspiration of the Bible but even the Bible teaches it's not the only method God uses to speak to us. So how do we know to listen when God is trying to say something our limited understanding of the Bible, which many have put above all else, leads us to believe He would never say?

I hope that's clearer I doubt it is. All my thoughts tend to seem to jump into my head at the same time and I often struggle to be entirely sure what I'm thinking myself. :sad:

Oh, bother I haven't explained this at all well. The Bible teaches that judgement is by works, it also teaches that salvation is through faith. This makes sense no one can take credit for their faith as it is a gift of grace from God so it would not be fair to judge them by it. Their works however they do like to take credit for.

But the snag is that the Bible isn't as clear as we might like on the relationship between the two. The clearest detail is that at some point sinful works make grace dubious and faith look perverse where this point is is less clear. To the most fundamentalist people sin is the act, every sin is bad and, at the most extreme one 'willful sin' throws grace out of the window. This sounds impossibly demanding.

To more liberal minded people sin is the motive behind the act, humans would struggle to make the distinction because they don't know peoples minds, God has no such problem.

When I wrote the above I left it unfinished due to constraints of time and courtesy. I expected I might be challenged on things like the above, that I was in danger of advocating salvation by works over faith. Convicting people for sin, and set that up as your primary mechanism for presenting Christianity as a lot of people seem to do seems to make it hard to make a distinction on that.

Shev, not to go back to an old topic but when we were discussion Paul's letter to Timothy and the role of women in the church I know I alarmed you when I suggested Paul may have learned his attitude to such things from his time as a Pharisee. I'm sure I wasn't as clear on this as I could have been, been clear is something I'm poor at, and you struggled to see it as anything other than me saying Paul was wrong and so challenging the authority of scripture. That wasn't the point I'm simply considering the possibilities of how to perhaps understand the text either so it either could be interpreted less harshly or we could limit its scope. There are people who say that Paul was only speaking to a specif situation in Ephesus. That may be true from the point of view of Paul but there's nothing in the text to support that. To me it's the text of the Bible and the Word of God that's inspired and authoritative and that we can learn from. I find it hard to see how we can say Paul is only talking to the situation in Ephesus when he doesn't say that he's only talking to the situation in Ephesus.

But that's not why I'm writing about that here. I'm bringing that up because although we both agree that the text of the Bible is inspired and the rules of the site say we can't challenge that around the time EW closed the thread I found that some years ago, and pertinent to the original conversation of that thread, our founder Gary Amirault had written this:

http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/2011/james-is-really-jacob/

In which he writes things like:

"James seemed to teach a combination of grace and works. (James Chapter 2) There is disagreement among Protestant churches as to just what James taught. I used to teach that he taught that we were saved by grace which would produce the works God gave us to do. In other words faith would bring forth the works given us from before the foundations of the world. I no longer believe that. I think he mixed law and grace together. Paul constantly mentions church leaders who were destroying his work by a mixture of Mosaic law and grace. Galatians is full of exhortations to stay away from this kind of teaching. James, I believe, is an example of this kind of teaching, which Paul says that those who teach this kind of heresy should castrate themselves."

And:

God, is His wisdom allowed James' book a place in the Bible so that we could look into this mixture of law and grace which Paul was constantly fighting. A mixture of law and grace will always wipe out grace. He who tries to keep part of the law is doomed to keeping all of it because the Mosaic Law was an all or nothing package. The Book of James is a mild example of the kind of preaching the "Gospel of the Circumcision" was all about. It was to end at the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Levitical Priesthood in 70AD. But Satan picked up this discarded gospel which mixes law and grace and has injected it into most of the church. It was only supposed to be a transitory gospel to aid the Jew born under the Mosaic Law to enter into the New Covenant of Grace. When that generation died, this gospel was to end. (Further explanation of this can be found on our audio tapes Two Gospels and Which laws to keep.)

Now I may have misunderstood that article and I don't know if Gary still hold to the position I understand him as holding to but to me he seems to say very categorically that James is and God is employing him as as example of error. Wow, that's a big deal. But I disagree with that and here's why.

In Matthew Jesus is recorded as saying, 'So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matt. 7:17-19) John the Baptist speaks similarly earlier and Jesus also uses the tree model elsewhere. He's clearly talking about people and their works.

Elsewhere He declares, 'By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.' (John 15:8) This is Jesus as the true vine but the message about people and their works is very clear.

As I said I don't know if Gary still holds the position he seemed to describe in that article but I'm not sure how he can after those quotes. I can understand the possibility James is wrong, I can even understand the possibility that Paul might sometimes be wrong. But I can't see how we can argue that anything Jesus said might be wrong.

If anyone is interested and I haven't messed up I'll come back later and explain what I think Jesus means with these messages about trees, vines and fruit.

It seems to me the article is in error.. I've never yet come across anyone, or any group, who (I would think of as) having no error of idea, or even doctrine.. So I'm not surprised.. There's other things I am not in complete agreement with also, with tentmaker and/or Gary.. One day of course we will all agree on all points of doctrine.. But in this day and age, I might even be alarmed if a group agreed on all things 100%(?) :mshock:

I know Jesus was not wrong in anything He said.. and I don't believe James nor Paul were wrong in what they wrote.. I still go by the "grace produces works-as change, and good works" and "works-changes in character and good works-changes in acts, demonstrates or is evidence of ones faith"

In error or not, it does have the phrase 'by Gary Amirault' at the top of the page and has been posted on one of Tentmaker's sister sites. But that last part sounds about right.

[marie glen]

I, for one, am never surprised at human error.. but actually expect it.. untruth covers the planet.. like weeds gone unchecked and run rampant..

[Shev]

I do agree that at the root of it, we are all saved through faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else. I believe everyone was saved in a certain sense as soon as the sin debt was paid, and indeed this was a sure thing from the foundation of the world.

There is an extent to where sin is focused on too much, especially when it comes to the world (who must sin by nature, of course), but I do think it is relevant to have an absolute idea of sin. To me, the purpose of a person once they are in Christ is not to rest in the fact they are saved, or even to necessarily seek reward in the way we understand it, but to grow up into the very image of Jesus Christ. There are things that will hinder this, both on a personal and a corporate level, and those things must be dealt with and overcome. In Revelation, Christ identifies issues with the churches, and warns them of the need to overcome. If we cannot discern sin and judge correctly, our path will be a murky one indeed.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?  2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?  3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?  4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?  5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?  6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)

Paul certainly expected those believers at Corinth to be worthy to judge! He equates this judgment to wisdom in verse 5, rather than any spirit of self righteousness.

I agree about the limited understanding of the scriptures, but I also believe that all of us are growing in grace and knowledge as we are conformed to the image of Christ. Ultimately, the scriptures say "As many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God", rather than "As many as read the Bible"...

[CST]

I, for one, am never surprised at human error.. but actually expect it.. untruth covers the planet.. like weeds gone unchecked and run rampant..

Utterly true.

I do agree that at the root of it, we are all saved through faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else. I believe everyone was saved in a certain sense as soon as the sin debt was paid, and indeed this was a sure thing from the foundation of the world.

There is an extent to where sin is focused on too much, especially when it comes to the world (who must sin by nature, of course), but I do think it is relevant to have an absolute idea of sin. To me, the purpose of a person once they are in Christ is not to rest in the fact they are saved, or even to necessarily seek reward in the way we understand it, but to grow up into the very image of Jesus Christ. There are things that will hinder this, both on a personal and a corporate level, and those things must be dealt with and overcome. In Revelation, Christ identifies issues with the churches, and warns them of the need to overcome. If we cannot discern sin and judge correctly, our path will be a murky one indeed.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?  2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?  3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?  4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?  5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?  6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)

Paul certainly expected those believers at Corinth to be worthy to judge! He equates this judgment to wisdom in verse 5, rather than any spirit of self righteousness.

I agree about the limited understanding of the scriptures, but I also believe that all of us are growing in grace and knowledge as we are conformed to the image of Christ. Ultimately, the scriptures say "As many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God", rather than "As many as read the Bible"...

Funny, when writing to the Romans Paul said: 'Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things... Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?' (Rom. 2:1,3)

Doing the same or similar things yourself seems to disqualify from judgement. Well then everyone is disqualified from judgement because we know all are sinful.

True, also true but having the idea doesn't necessarily tell us how we should respond when we see it or are tempted by things we suspect might be it, especially if we keep failing to control that temptation. Needing to overcome is true and collectively it certainly should be what we endeavor to do, but on a personal level sin may not be what we imagine it is.

I also agree we are growing in grace and knowledge but perhaps the consequences of that growth may be surprising. God is supposed to be the most loving, merciful and compassionate being. And yet we never fail to present Him to others and something akin to the most prejudiced and hateful and not just in the matter of eternal destinies. And that doesn't sound right to me.

[marie glen]

It seems to me it must be a question of balance..

I do agree that at the root of it, we are all saved through faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else. I believe everyone was saved in a certain sense as soon as the sin debt was paid, and indeed this was a sure thing from the foundation of the world.

I totally agree!

There is an extent to where sin is focused on too much

And I totally and absolutely agree with this too!!


But on the other end of the pole, God witnesses every horrible and despicable thing which occurs.. When those babies were sacrificed to 'gods' by burning them alive and banging drums to drown out their screams, we can't help thinking our heavenly Father was less than pleased. Although of course it is logical our heavenly Father knew exactly how they got there to that horrible point.

History is full of very mean spirited oppressions and abuses.. and that's likely a mild way to put it. When folks in the second resurrection, who never (yet) repented, so they rise still in their sins, i don't think all of them will be ready to hear "every one will be saved and live joyfully, mercy to all". And for those the most meanly despicable on small and large scale surely need to experience weeping and gnashing of teeth, outer darkness and deep burning shame and remorse.. Which of all degrees all of us humans feel at conversion.. and/or during fiery trial allowed to occur for our much needed purifying..

And I think surely every teeny tiny speck of sin and imperfection results in nonlife, death and dying. Unless we had been saved, we all would perish. "End of story." (Imo.) And I think this is what we are learning. There is no other way (in any matter) except His way. This to me is a "rod of iron". God's way/law/natural law cannot be broken. I believe this is true because I believe He Himself is life, the life force. The 'spark' science cannot explain (but so desperately tries.  :laughing7: ) And of course, He can only be perfect. Therefor imperfection / "missing the mark" / "sin" is the opposite of life. ..."Surely on the day that you be eating of it, you shall be dying.."

So though we know premarital or unmarried relations, for example, or homosexuality is a sin, surely it is also a sin to dislike a gay person. Seeing as, ultimately, His law is "love".

I agree.. that with His Spirit, His people can "judge" but it's a balanced 'judgment' and wise judgment because His own are led by the Spirit.. If not led of the Spirit, their 'judgment' surely is faulty.

And of course, even led of the Spirit, during this life, our judgments can still be faulty! Good reason to ever be yielding, yielding ourselves to Him as we await His appearing and the ushering in of His (long) second advent. :banana:

And in every instance being led of His Spirit as to what attitude/judgment is appropriate (will work) in each individual instance. Sin is always sin, but it's the Spirit of God that knows how to convince. (The Psalmist - "I am poor and needy, O God, make haste to deliver me!") Maybe some folks need to hear "turn or burn"  :eek: :dontknow: How do I know? "Wisdom is justified of all her children." ..But personally I tend to lean in the other direction, of gentleness. (Except for despots and predators! jus sayin')

[CST]

When those babies were sacrificed God made clear His displeasure but He shouldn't have had to and to us when we read about it it's obvious. Sexual sins and other personal sins are different. They're sins of carelessness which tend to come back and bite the perpetrator on the behind even while that was obviously not the intent. The murder of those children is something you read about and only think 'what could they have been thinking?'

It's easy to talk about these folks who have 'never yet repented' awaking at the second resurrection being as unwilling to do so as ever and getting what's coming to but I can't help imagining that will be a very wide scope of people. A lot of people who in many ways appeared to be very decent because the general understanding of those 'not yet repented' equates to 'non-Christians.

Comparing them to horrible people who did horrible things like murdering their own children seems a bit off and again, hardly gives the impression of a God who is loving beyond our capacity to imagine it. Which I feel we must intellectually imagine God to be even if we can't emotionally understand that.

I said above that if to sin is missing the mark as you keep pointing out than to sin willfully is to do things you been told are sinful according to the commandments. Which is effectively true. But that's also legalism. So a more considered understanding of sinning 'willfully' is to simply not care that there's a mark you should be aiming for.

Such a cavalier attitude would be seriously bad and is generally called 'nihilism'. Even atheists try to believe there's some sort of mark or standard the good and evil can be measured by even if they don't share with Christians the belief that the Bible tells us what they all are without argument.

Even I struggle with that one, if we have any sort of free will what good is it if all we're meant to do is what we're told without ambiguity. This idea is something I've long had a problem with.

Being led by His Spirit is of course ideal, but how does that relate to instinct because a lot of modern instinct is the way we indict people for sin these days is well off?

[James Zimmerman]

Jesus warned the Pharisees about closing the door to the Kingdom of God and not letting others inn.  (I think Matt. chapter 22 or 23.  I apologize for not being prepared)  It has disappointed me to hear some Christians say that a homosexual can't be a devoted Christian.  I agree with Daryl, and it is so refreshing to hear what you had to say.  There are a lot of other things mentioned in Galations 5 that all of us are guilty of.  If a homosexual comes to God with a pure heart, and loves Jesus, who are we to judge or to say whether God will receive him?  Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that includes homosexuality.

A long time ago, I was bisexual also.  When I got married, I prayed with all my heart for God to take bisexual lusts away from me.  I had to apply myself, and recondition my mind a bit, but when the Holy Spirit gives you the desire to do or not do something, there is power.  My wife and I have been together for almost 11 years now, and we have a beautiful romance because God answered my prayers and delivered me from that lust.  I knew it was the right thing to do at the time, because I was uncomfortable with sharing my mind with lust for anyone except my wife.  All Praise be to God!

I'm not saying I never have to cast down a negative thought here or there, but I have learned that God loves us and His ways are good.  If we seek Him with a pure heart, His Spirit will become part of us.  It's not hard to quit something when you no longer have the desire to continue in it.  I will pray for you my brother!  Don't ever let anyone close the gates of the  Kingdom of God on you.  God accepts you and loves you deeply.  He never gives up on us, so we should never give up on Him. I pray that you will find a good community of like minded believers to walk with also!

[CST]

Jesus warned the Pharisees about closing the door to the Kingdom of God and not letting others inn.  (I think Matt. chapter 22 or 23.  I apologize for not being prepared)  It has disappointed me to hear some Christians say that a homosexual can't be a devoted Christian.  I agree with Daryl, and it is so refreshing to hear what you had to say.  There are a lot of other things mentioned in Galations 5 that all of us are guilty of.  If a homosexual comes to God with a pure heart, and loves Jesus, who are we to judge or to say whether God will receive him?  Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that includes homosexuality.

A long time ago, I was bisexual also.  When I got married, I prayed with all my heart for God to take bisexual lusts away from me.  I had to apply myself, and recondition my mind a bit, but when the Holy Spirit gives you the desire to do or not do something, there is power.  My wife and I have been together for almost 11 years now, and we have a beautiful romance because God answered my prayers and delivered me from that lust.  I knew it was the right thing to do at the time, because I was uncomfortable with sharing my mind with lust for anyone except my wife.  All Praise be to God!

I'm not saying I never have to cast down a negative thought here or there, but I have learned that God loves us and His ways are good.  If we seek Him with a pure heart, His Spirit will become part of us.  It's not hard to quit something when you no longer have the desire to continue in it.  I will pray for you my brother!  Don't ever let anyone close the gates of the  Kingdom of God on you.  God accepts you and loves you deeply.  He never gives up on us, so we should never give up on Him. I pray that you will find a good community of like minded believers to walk with also!

Amen!

That is essentially what Jesus said about the sin of the Pharisees and it was among His most important statements, I believe. And obviously Jesus' statements all tended to be highly important.

Of course, that isn't going to stop people who feel so inclined citing Paul's condemnation of sexual immorality. This shouldn't be surprising but perhaps we shouldn't read it so inflexibly.

I'm now going to attempt to explain what I said I would try to explain above. What I think Jesus means when He talks of the works of His disciples using metaphors of plants and their fruit. This is what I understand for the Bible, what I have gleaned from the text. I forget how much of what i am about to say is supported by categorical statements in the Bible. So feel free to challenge it if it seems incorrect.

First of all we learn from Chapter 2 of Genesis that on the third day God began the work of creating the man that came to be called Adam. This isn't a contradiction so far as I can tell it reads: 'In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' (Gen. 2:4b-7)

This is the middle of the third day, it can be identified as such from Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is usually understood as following a perfect pattern where each of the six days God will do some of the work of creation then it will say ' And God saw that it was good.' followed by 'And there was evening and there was morning, a <insert number> day.' This isn't entirely correct.

In fact on the first day God only observes that the light is good. God does not seem to see the darkness is good. And on the second day God does not observe that it is good at all. Also no night is ever recorded as occurring during the unfolding of creation, here evening is recorded as being immediately followed by morning.

And on day three this happens: 'And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.' (Gen. 1:9-13)

On the third day God observes that it is good twice. And, going from Genesis 2, it is that point after the first declaration but before God produces the plants that Adam is formed. Remember Adam is made from the soil of the earth. His name 'Adam' (from 'adamah') reflects this. After making Adam, God makes the plants which grow from the earth from which Adam is made. Adam is made so to cultivate the earth to encourage plant growth. It says so. There is, you may notice, a parallel here in that Adam is made on the third day and through the work of the last Adam remade on the third day. Of course I may not have expressed that perfectly. But if you understand the basic point you'll still see the parallel.

God then decides Adam needs a companion, an equal, to assist him. God then proceeds to make every animal of the earth but no 'equal' is found. Now I have read that this is embarrassing for God, He can't even produce a suitable partner for His creation. No, that's not the reason. Not to me.

God in fact, very deliberately creates all the other animals first and brings the to Adam to name them. Adam does so and in doing so puts his authority on them, and understanding of things in the Hebrew world of the day, I'm informed. God then puts Adam to sleep, removes one of his ribs and makes from it a female. the consequence of this is that the woman (as Adam names her, ishshah from 'ish' for Man) is made of the man and shares in the authority that has he has just placed onto the animals. Otherwise we'd have an untenable situation where Adam would have dominion over anything he names and his wife over anything she names and thus a trap for division and conflict to set in.

As it is we have to approximate equals made for dominion over the world and made from the soil of the earth from where plants also grow and, of course, produce fruits. So thus, I think, here is the source of the metaphor.

Now, I also understand that when Adam ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he imbibed it's seed which took root in his earth and took over so only that tree produces fruit in him and all other trees (humans) that grow in his soil.

Jesus, through His faith which we can receive through grace, provides and new soil with a new tree (or vine) in which good fruit (works) can be produced and when we a grafted in we are able to produce good works indirectly ourselves, through the good soil and vine provided by Jesus.

Hence, there a no good works outside faith of Jesus and faith of Jesus should, hopefully, produce good works in works.

Such is how I understand it anyway. Of course, I continue to doubt I am actually grafted into that vine and that earth since my good works remain zero.

[Ross]

Hence, there a no good works outside faith of Jesus and faith of Jesus should, hopefully, produce good works in works.

1 Cor 15;10     " But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain.
                         No. I worked harder than any of them,
                        YET NOT I BUT THE GRACE OF GOD THAT IS WITH ME."

Phil 1;21     " For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Gal 2;20,21    " It is no longer I who lives but Christ Who lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of
                 God Who loved me, and gave Himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained   
                  through the law, then Christ died in vain."

All about Christ and His complete work for us.
                       

[jabcat]

James, you say you sought God for help in deliverance for your sin.  I believe that's the answer, not any of us telling people something is possibly OK in direct contradiction to scripture that says otherwise. 
--------

As stated earlier, this will not turn into a "is it right or is it wrong" thread.  Also stated earlier, the scriptures are clear that active homosexual behavior is a sin (along with many others) that needs confessed, admitted to, and turned from with God's help.  When we fall, there's mercy and forgiveness if we admit and confess.  It's true, God loves us in our sin.  But He also wants our surrender in moving us out of our sins and into maturity.  If we don't, then there's discipline and correction to be expected.  And encouraging others to remain in their sin, accepting it as "possibly OK with God" is also discouraged in multiple scriptures, including Paul's instructions as mentioned. That's doing no one any favors, and that's not our purpose here.

Since this thread has taken the "maybe it's OK after all" turn, I'm going to go ahead and lock it.  There are various threads where scriptural replies have been given to this topic that can be searched if anyone is truly looking for Biblical truth.

[eaglesway]

 :iagree: