Man made standards. Who do they think they are??

[Narrow Is The Way]

These standards are driving me nuts. Talk about legalism, I received a Jury summons in the mail today and you won't believe what they are asking me to do and not to do.

First of all: I have to park my car in a designated place.

2. They have asked me not to wear denim.

3. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without any shoes.

4. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without a shirt.

5. They have asked that I appear in a professional manner.

6. They have asked me to not wear any clothing that would be offensive, or have offensive slogans.

My question is: WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE??


SHOULD THERE BE STANDARDS IN A COURTROOM??

SHOULD A JUDGE BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE YOU FROM HIS COURTROOM IF YOU ARE NOT DRESSED RIGHT?

SHOULD THESE MAN MADE STANDARDS BE ENFORCED ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?

Do you think they are trying to keep the place looking right and clean?
Or are they just pushing their weight around so they can control me?

Your help would be appreciated. I do not feel like standards should be pushed on me by the world.

And this goes for McDonalds and other eating establishments as well.

Get your legalistic signs off the doors telling me how I should and should not dress in your eating establishments.

SHOULD BASEBALL TEAMS BE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE STANDARDS OF FACIAL HAIR?

SHOULD PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A STANDARD UNIFORM TO WORK?

I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.


SHOULD THE WORLD SHUT THEIR MOUTH WITH THEIR STANDARDS OR JUST THE PREACHER?





I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMPLAINING ABOUT PASTORS AND THEIR STANDARDS, BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE UPSET ABOUT THE WORLD SETTING THESE SAME TYPES OF STANDARDS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EVEN IN EATING ESTABLISHMENTS.

ANY THOUGHTS?

[Narrow Is The Way]

Oh, I also forgot to mention that I have to be there on-time and there are consequences for not showing up. Do they think they are God? RULES, RULES, RULES.

[houston]

Stupid.

[faithit166]

Oh, I also forgot to mention that I have to be there on-time and there are consequences for not showing up. Do they think they are God? RULES, RULES, RULES.

amen,

[Brad Murphy]

I think the difference is that a judge actually has authority given to him by the government, and a pastor basically just wakes up one day and says that the supreme being of the universe has decided that it is his job to rule over others, with absolutely no proof of his authority other than his own say-so. (plus the judge is only trying to enforce a dress code at a particular venue, and a pastor decides it is his responsibility to tell people how to dress 24/7)

[faithit166]

was just wondering if we are to come out from amongst them and be ye seperate is it still okay to look like them,how would one define a peculiar people just wondering

[aegsm76]

Every church has standards/rules.

Even if it is those imposed by the current culture.

[Truthseeker]

Every church has standards/rules.

Even if it is those imposed by the current culture.

true

[vrblackwell]

was just wondering if we are to come out from amongst them and be ye seperate is it still okay to look like them,how would one define a peculiar people just wondering



e ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.


Paul was speaking about joining with those who worshiped idols and taught false doctrines. These were things clearly God hated. It had nothing to do with how they dressed, going to a ball game, or normal activity not clearly stated as sin.

[MissBrattified]

Um...the difference is that the preacher has an obligation to teach God's commandments and the principles found in HIS Word. Not make things up arbitrarily as he goes along. I have a reasonable expectation that what a man preaches behind the pulpit should be based in scripture, else why preach it? Further, I have a right and even an obligation to search the scriptures myself and make sure that what is being said is "so."

I also understand making rules and guidelines for a local congregation because a pastor feels that they are profitable or beneficial. What I have a huge problem with is when the pastor teaches those personal opinions and guidelines as heaven or hell issues. Then those saints often go about judging and condemning other Christians instead of loving their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ [whose pastor may not have set out the same guidelines].

Bottom line, when I go to church, I expect to be held to the standards of God's Word. Exactly the same as working for someone and expecting to be held to the employer's standards for the workplace. The disconnect here is that the allegorical "employer" is God - not the pastor. Ultimately, we should all hold ourselves accountable to His standards.

[On The Wheel]

These standards are driving me nuts. Talk about legalism, I received a Jury summons in the mail today and you won't believe what they are asking me to do and not to do.

First of all: I have to park my car in a designated place.

2. They have asked me not to wear denim.

3. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without any shoes.

4. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without a shirt.

5. They have asked that I appear in a professional manner.

6. They have asked me to not wear any clothing that would be offensive, or have offensive slogans.

My question is: WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE??


SHOULD THERE BE STANDARDS IN A COURTROOM??

SHOULD A JUDGE BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE YOU FROM HIS COURTROOM IF YOU ARE NOT DRESSED RIGHT?

SHOULD THESE MAN MADE STANDARDS BE ENFORCED ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?

Do you think they are trying to keep the place looking right and clean?
Or are they just pushing their weight around so they can control me?

Your help would be appreciated. I do not feel like standards should be pushed on me by the world.

And this goes for McDonalds and other eating establishments as well.

Get your legalistic signs off the doors telling me how I should and should not dress in your eating establishments.

SHOULD BASEBALL TEAMS BE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE STANDARDS OF FACIAL HAIR?

SHOULD PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A STANDARD UNIFORM TO WORK?

I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.


SHOULD THE WORLD SHUT THEIR MOUTH WITH THEIR STANDARDS OR JUST THE PREACHER?





I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMPLAINING ABOUT PASTORS AND THEIR STANDARDS, BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE UPSET ABOUT THE WORLD SETTING THESE SAME TYPES OF STANDARDS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EVEN IN EATING ESTABLISHMENTS.

ANY THOUGHTS?

There is certainly biblical authority to make guidelines based upon scriptural precepts. Using your analogy, however, I doubt very seriously that the judges who preside over the courtroom you mention would invalidate any verdict rendered by a jury or court that does not abide by the same set of appearance guidelines. Rather, they would examine how they had all conducted themselves and how closely they followed judicial procedure.

IMO, that is the issue that is troubling to so many. One man's convictions should not become the law for all humanity in every time and place.

[vrblackwell]

Um...the difference is that the preacher has an obligation to teach God's commandments and the principles found in HIS Word. Not make things up arbitrarily as he goes along. I have a reasonable expectation that what a man preaches behind the pulpit should be based in scripture, else why preach it? Further, I have a right and even an obligation to search the scriptures myself and make sure that what is being said is "so."

I also understand making rules and guidelines for a local congregation because a pastor feels that they are profitable or beneficial. What I have a huge problem with is when the pastor teaches those personal opinions and guidelines as heaven or hell issues. Then those saints often go about judging and condemning other Christians instead of loving their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ [whose pastor may not have set out the same guidelines].

Bottom line, when I go to church, I expect to be held to the standards of God's Word. Exactly the same as working for someone and expecting to be held to the employer's standards for the workplace. The disconnect here is that the allegorical "employer" is God - not the pastor. Ultimately, we should all hold ourselves accountable to His standards.


Very well said. I agree.

[MissBrattified]

I have a lot of respect for my pastor because I have yet to hear him preach or teach anything that isn't based in the Word. Sure, he rounds it out with his ideas and opinions, but he's honest enough to say which is which. When he recommends a standard that may not be found in scripture, he says things like, "This is my preference", or "We do this so that we don't offend people"--he doesn't proof-text and try to make something scriptural when it isn't.

That kind of attitude breeds respect and more importantly, trust.

You know, when you're careful about where you put your foot down, people are more likely to pay attention when it happens.

[aegsm76]

Um...the difference is that the preacher has an obligation to teach God's commandments and the principles found in HIS Word. Not make things up arbitrarily as he goes along. I have a reasonable expectation that what a man preaches behind the pulpit should be based in scripture, else why preach it? Further, I have a right and even an obligation to search the scriptures myself and make sure that what is being said is "so."

I also understand making rules and guidelines for a local congregation because a pastor feels that they are profitable or beneficial. What I have a huge problem with is when the pastor teaches those personal opinions and guidelines as heaven or hell issues. Then those saints often go about judging and condemning other Christians instead of loving their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ [whose pastor may not have set out the same guidelines].

Bottom line, when I go to church, I expect to be held to the standards of God's Word. Exactly the same as working for someone and expecting to be held to the employer's standards for the workplace. The disconnect here is that the allegorical "employer" is God - not the pastor. Ultimately, we should all hold ourselves accountable to His standards.

I agree with you on almost everything.
I would say that those who go around condemning others due to a lack of standards/guidelines are just as bad as those who condemn others for holding certain standards.
I would say that if you cannot buy in to your churches vision regarding this issue, that you need to find one where you can.
Just as a business has a certain vision, your church should have one, also.
And this has nothing to do with a heaven or hell issue.

[On The Wheel]

Um...the difference is that the preacher has an obligation to teach God's commandments and the principles found in HIS Word. Not make things up arbitrarily as he goes along. I have a reasonable expectation that what a man preaches behind the pulpit should be based in scripture, else why preach it? Further, I have a right and even an obligation to search the scriptures myself and make sure that what is being said is "so."

I also understand making rules and guidelines for a local congregation because a pastor feels that they are profitable or beneficial. What I have a huge problem with is when the pastor teaches those personal opinions and guidelines as heaven or hell issues. Then those saints often go about judging and condemning other Christians instead of loving their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ [whose pastor may not have set out the same guidelines].

Bottom line, when I go to church, I expect to be held to the standards of God's Word. Exactly the same as working for someone and expecting to be held to the employer's standards for the workplace. The disconnect here is that the allegorical "employer" is God - not the pastor. Ultimately, we should all hold ourselves accountable to His standards.

Balanced, reasonable, and gospel. :thumbsup

[MissBrattified]

I agree with you on almost everything.

Which part did you disagree with?

I would say that those who go around condemning others due to a lack of standards/guidelines are just as bad as those who condemn others for holding certain standards.

Agreed.

I would say that if you cannot buy in to your churches vision regarding this issue, that you need to find one where you can.

I'm totally on board with the local church having authority to set guidelines for the congregation. Not a problem. However, the saint still has the right to look in the Word for him or herself and ask the pastor about it if there's a discrepancy. Hopefully they can come to a reasonable understanding or agreement. However, many pastors are offended by even a simple question. In my experience, usually that quick offense or anger is prompted by a knowledge that they can't really answer or defend a teaching.

Just as a business has a certain vision, your church should have one, also. And this has nothing to do with a heaven or hell issue.

It does when pastoral preferences are taught as heaven or hell issues instead of what they are - preferences. It leads to saints being rigid and judgmental even if the pastor didn't intend it that way. (I've seen that happen, too.)

The vision a local church should have is the vision of Christ. The local church is part of the whole body and the whole body should have singular vision. If every local church would look to the Word for their "vision", having singular vision would be easier to accomplish.

How that church interacts with the community and one another is simply a practical matter.

[Narrow Is The Way]

I think the difference is that a judge actually has authority given to him by the government, and a pastor basically just wakes up one day and says that the supreme being of the universe has decided that it is his job to rule over others, with absolutely no proof of his authority other than his own say-so. (plus the judge is only trying to enforce a dress code at a particular venue, and a pastor decides it is his responsibility to tell people how to dress 24/7)

Where does the government get their authority?

[MissBrattified]

Where does the government get their authority?

From the people.

[Narrow Is The Way]

They won't let me wear a shirt with offensive slogans. How does that Judge know whether the slogan is offensive or not? I guess he looks at it and makes a judgement. Lord forbid a man of God do the same thing about the way I am dressing. ugh!!

[*AQuietPlace*]

These places can enforce "rules" and "standards". But employees of these places can't enforce standards that their owners or bosses don't require.

The place where I work has a dress standard of "dress, casual". In other words, dress clothes, but not full suit and tie, etc. My supervisor doesn't have the right to say - "You know what? THIS department is going to be required to wear suits every day." Sorry, sir, our company doesn't require that, and you can't either.

McDonalds can require uniforms of their employees, and shoes and shirts for their guests, because that's company policy. But the shift manager can't decide that on his shift all customers must wear ankle-length pants, and long sleeve shirts, and that employees must wear neckties with their uniforms.

INDIVIDUAL BOSSES don't have the right to require more than the person in authority requires.

PASTORS don't have the right to require more than GOD requires.

[Narrow Is The Way]

From the people.

So we the people have decided how I should dress in a courtroom?

[Timmy]

So we the people have decided how I should dress in a courtroom?

:banghead

[MissBrattified]

So we the people have decided how I should dress in a courtroom?

I don't know who made the specific rules about dress in a courtroom, but the authority to make those rules is granted to the government by its constituency.

As Christians, we have an obligation to submit ourselves to the [secular] government, (as unto God) even when it may be tyrannical in nature. That aside, tyranny is not the model for church leadership, so I'm not sure where you're headed with your line of thought.

[MissBrattified]

These places can enforce "rules" and "standards". But employees of these places can't enforce standards that their owners or bosses don't require.

The place where I work has a dress standard of "dress, casual". In other words, dress clothes, but not full suit and tie, etc. My supervisor doesn't have the right to say - "You know what? THIS department is going to be required to wear suits every day." Sorry, sir, our company doesn't require that, and you can't either.

McDonalds can require uniforms of their employees, and shoes and shirts for their guests, because that's company policy. But the shift manager can't decide that on his shift all customers must wear ankle-length pants, and long sleeve shirts, and that employees must wear neckties with their uniforms.

INDIVIDUAL BOSSES don't have the right to require more than the owner requires.

PASTORS don't have the right to require more than GOD requires.
:thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

was just wondering if we are to come out from amongst them and be ye seperate is it still okay to look like them,how would one define a peculiar people just wondering
Fruits of the Spirit are a good place to start.

And then we have the usual questions -
*How do men look "separate", couldn't spot an Apostolic man in a lineup of businessmen if someone were going to give you $1,000.
*How did the church look "separate" in the 1800s when all women had ground-length dresses, long sleeves, and puffy up-dos? How did they come out from among them then?

It's not about clothes. It's not about clothes. It's not about clothes. Being a Christian is so much more than that!!

[Narrow Is The Way]

These places can enforce "rules" and "standards". But employees of these places can't enforce standards that their owners or bosses don't require.

The place where I work has a dress standard of "dress, casual". In other words, dress clothes, but not full suit and tie, etc. My supervisor doesn't have the right to say - "You know what? THIS department is going to be required to wear suits every day." Sorry, sir, our company doesn't require that, and you can't either.

McDonalds can require uniforms of their employees, and shoes and shirts for their guests, because that's company policy. But the local manager can't decide that all customers must wear ankle-length pants, and long sleeve shirts, and that employees must wear neckties with their uniforms.

INDIVIDUAL BOSSES don't have the right to require more than the owner requires.

PASTORS don't have the right to require more than GOD requires.
I think we Judge pastors too harshly. Here is a man of God that is trying to do what is right and get his people to heaven, and all you have a is bunch of carnal people that want to criticize his every move and standard because they don't want to dress and live right.

[Timmy]

was just wondering if we are to come out from amongst them and be ye seperate is it still okay to look like them,how would one define a peculiar people just wondering

Exactly. You must look peculiar. Like this guy:

http://www.funz.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Post-It-Wear1.jpg

[*AQuietPlace*]

I think we Judge pastors too harshly. Here is a man of God that is trying to do what is right and get his people to heaven, and all you have a is bunch of carnal people that want to criticize his every move and standard because they don't want to dress and live right.
That's quite a broad brush you have. :)

[MissBrattified]

I think we Judge pastors too harshly. Here is a man of God that is trying to do what is right and get his people to heaven, and all you have a is bunch of carnal people that want to criticize his every move and standard because they don't want to dress and live right.

Nice.

I've grown up in Pentecost--when I attended my Dad's church, I went by his rules, agreeable or not (even after I was an adult, in case you're wondering). Then I attended an ultra-con church in Louisiana--my husband and I followed the rules, even when we disagreed--without complaint or argument. Now I attend a UPCI church and I have a pastor who allows us to have opinions and make choices. It's refreshing. I still follow his guidelines, and there have been times when I didn't agree with his "preferences." When we have a question, we aren't afraid to ask. He says horribly controversial things like, "I'm going to leave that decision up to you and your family."

You might want to rethink your overwrought characterization of a "bunch of carnal people that want to criticize his every move and standard because they don't want to dress and live right." That's an easy way to discredit anyone who has a question, isn't it? But it's rarely accurate, IMO. Most people are going to church because they love God and they DO want to serve Him and live right. I think people object to serving men--not serving God. And part of the problem is abuse of authority where people learn not to trust ministers, and it's hard to submit to someone you don't trust.

[mfblume]

Applying the ways of the world and how folks dress in court to the church? Hmmmm..

This principle that the pastor can demand things not in the bible is bogus. I hear a HISSSSSSS somewhere amongst this.

[Narrow Is The Way]

Nice.

I've grown up in Pentecost--when I attended my Dad's church, I went by his rules, agreeable or not (even after I was an adult, in case you're wondering). Then I attended an ultra-con church in Louisiana--my husband and I followed the rules, even when we disagreed--without complaint or argument. Now I attend a UPCI church and I have a pastor who allows us to have opinions and make choices. It's refreshing. I still follow his guidelines, and there have been times when I didn't agree with his "preferences." When we have a question, we aren't afraid to ask. He says horribly controversial things like, "I'm going to leave that decision up to you and your family."

You might want to rethink your overwrought characterization of a "bunch of carnal people that want to criticize his every move and standard because they don't want to dress and live right." That's an easy way to discredit anyone who has a question, isn't it? But it's rarely accurate, IMO. Most people are going to church because they love God and they DO want to serve Him and live right. I think people object to serving men--not serving God. And part of the problem is abuse of authority where people learn not to trust ministers, and it's hard to submit to someone you don't trust.

That is what I was hoping the Judge would do. Leave it up to me whether I want to wear a shirt or not. Let me form my own opinions.

I did not find anywhere in the Jury summons: We hope that you wear shoes and a shirt, but if you don't that is ok also.

I am sure this is upsetting to you that they did not give me an option and let me form my own opinion about what I should wear.

[*AQuietPlace*]

That is what I was hoping the Judge would do. Leave it up to me whether I want to wear a shirt or not. Let me form my own opinions.

I did not find anywhere in the Jury summons: We hope that you wear shoes and a shirt, but if you don't that is ok also.

I am sure this is upsetting to you that they did not give me an option and let me form my own opinion about what I should wear.
Court of the land = authority
God = authority. :)

No one is upset about what God requires.

You'd probably get upset if the court clerk came up to you and said that he personally liked for people to wear Amish outfits to court, so he'd like for you to do that when you came. ;) You might remind him that he didn't have the authority to require that.

[Sam]

I think the difference is that a judge actually has authority given to him by the government, and a pastor basically just wakes up one day and says that the supreme being of the universe has decided that it is his job to rule over others, with absolutely no proof of his authority other than his own say-so. (plus the judge is only trying to enforce a dress code at a particular venue, and a pastor decides it is his responsibility to tell people how to dress 24/7)

:thumbsup:thumbsup

[Sam]

was just wondering if we are to come out from amongst them and be ye seperate is it still okay to look like them,how would one define a peculiar people just wondering

Jesus told us how His disciples would be recognizable in John 13:34-35

[hometown guy]

Um...the difference is that the preacher has an obligation to teach God's commandments and the principles found in HIS Word. Not make things up arbitrarily as he goes along. I have a reasonable expectation that what a man preaches behind the pulpit should be based in scripture, else why preach it? Further, I have a right and even an obligation to search the scriptures myself and make sure that what is being said is "so."

I also understand making rules and guidelines for a local congregation because a pastor feels that they are profitable or beneficial. What I have a huge problem with is when the pastor teaches those personal opinions and guidelines as heaven or hell issues. Then those saints often go about judging and condemning other Christians instead of loving their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ [whose pastor may not have set out the same guidelines].

Bottom line, when I go to church, I expect to be held to the standards of God's Word. Exactly the same as working for someone and expecting to be held to the employer's standards for the workplace. The disconnect here is that the allegorical "employer" is God - not the pastor. Ultimately, we should all hold ourselves accountable to His standards.

I agree with this sentence....And there is a lot of principles for standards that are taught in the conservative movement and most of you here would just call them "man made rules"

[Sister Alvear]

probably MB and I and a few more have many standards and rules we live by...in fact everyone and about every place in life has standards. However I think what most people do not go along with is the Jim Jones type leadership...

People do have a right to seek God for themselves...salvation is personal...we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling let me see..the scripture is this:Philippians 2:12-13

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. "

It would seem the Holy Spirit in us is given not only to comfort us but to lead and guide us.

I am 100 % for respecting our pastor and anyone can feel free to call my pastor of over 50 years and ask how many times I have ever disrespected him...He has grown old 73 or 74 years old and started being my pastor when he was very young...maybe 20 or so!

He will tell you I respect him, look up to him and talk to him almost every week even after 43 years on the mission field!

He and his wife are everything a person could want in a pastor...however he is human like all of us and he would be the first to tell anyone that. He has NEVER set himself up as someone's lord...

I still do some things JUST out of my respect to him and his ministry. He would be the first to tell you some things are NOT a heaven and hell issue but he feels safer and his sheep are safer doing or not doing certain things. Yes, and he does leave many things up to us to decide...

I am honored to have lived under the guidance of Brother Bryan Taylor's ministry! He is what would be considered here ole time holiness but he is not over bearing and a sheep beater...

I have lived long enough to see him change his mind on certain things...I call that a wise man...have lived long enough to see him in all kinds of weather and he still is tops in my book.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I agree with this sentence....And there is a lot of principles for standards that are taught in the conservative movement and most of you here would just call them "man made rules"
The thing is Hometown, there are people more conservative than you, pastors with much more stringent rules, and you'd probably call those man-made.

For instance, I know a group where the women aren't allowed to curl their hair at all, or use any hair ornaments. They aren't allowed to wear high heels, bright colors, or frills. Most of their clothing is home-made. The men must dress down, and part their hair on the side. No shiny belt buckles, nice neckties, fancy suits.

You'd probably call those things man-made restrictions, they call them principles from God's word.

Where do we stop? We can't just insist on any old thing and call it principles. We really need to have a biblical foundation for what we require.

[Sister Alvear]

I do not care for hard uncaring people...that beat the sheep and mistreat God's little ones.
I once was in a meeting in our church and the visitor from the states told me how as soon as service was over I should rebuke a young girl with a see through blouse on...I looked at my stateside friend and said, I am just glad she is here...her mother is a street walker...just glad she chose to come to our service...

How people can be so cold is beyond me but they usually change when it comes home to them....

[mfblume]

There are principles to live by in the bible that are applied in different ways the bible could not detail since culture and time plays a role. Hence, principles are there. But where does the bible teach a pastor can make a heaven or hell standard not listed in the bible, and people are required by God to adhere to it just because the pastor said so? Where is this taught in the Word?

[NotforSale]

These standards are driving me nuts. Talk about legalism, I received a Jury summons in the mail today and you won't believe what they are asking me to do and not to do.

First of all: I have to park my car in a designated place.

2. They have asked me not to wear denim.

3. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without any shoes.

4. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without a shirt.

5. They have asked that I appear in a professional manner.

6. They have asked me to not wear any clothing that would be offensive, or have offensive slogans.

My question is: WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE??


SHOULD THERE BE STANDARDS IN A COURTROOM??

SHOULD A JUDGE BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE YOU FROM HIS COURTROOM IF YOU ARE NOT DRESSED RIGHT?

SHOULD THESE MAN MADE STANDARDS BE ENFORCED ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?

Do you think they are trying to keep the place looking right and clean?
Or are they just pushing their weight around so they can control me?

Your help would be appreciated. I do not feel like standards should be pushed on me by the world.

And this goes for McDonalds and other eating establishments as well.

Get your legalistic signs off the doors telling me how I should and should not dress in your eating establishments.

SHOULD BASEBALL TEAMS BE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE STANDARDS OF FACIAL HAIR?

SHOULD PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A STANDARD UNIFORM TO WORK?

I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.


SHOULD THE WORLD SHUT THEIR MOUTH WITH THEIR STANDARDS OR JUST THE PREACHER?





I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMPLAINING ABOUT PASTORS AND THEIR STANDARDS, BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE UPSET ABOUT THE WORLD SETTING THESE SAME TYPES OF STANDARDS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EVEN IN EATING ESTABLISHMENTS.

ANY THOUGHTS?

Bottom line, Jesus Christ never preached on one outward standard, and he called those who focused on standards and rules;

Blind Guides, Full of Dead Men's bones, Serpents and a generation of Vipers, Hypocrites, Fools, Full of all uncleanness.

Any Religion that focuses on outward Holiness will fall into the trap of using it to cover their sin. They will wind up swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat. They will look at sinners as worse than them and will ignore the humble confession of a man smoting his breast with the grief of failure. They will deny the Thief on a cross a pardon, and they will seek the uppermost seats in the Synagogue.

What is sad, the Scripture deeply warns people like us about the consequences of being radical about Standards, and we look the other way like that isn’t us. Jesus can save a man who has left the 99, and he can save a woman who cuts her hair. The Lord doesn’t care one bit about the color of your underwear or the length of your sleeves.

Standards isolate and create a pride that becomes the bondage of darkness. We’ve got to stop putting people in our Religious Box, and measuring other Christians that don’t look like us as being lost.

[Sister Alvear]

I think a key word would be balance...temperance in ALL things...

[AncientPaths]

I do not care for hard uncaring people...that beat the sheep and mistreat God's little ones.
I once was in a meeting in our church and the visitor from the states told me how as soon as service was over I should rebuke a young girl with a see through blouse on...I looked at my stateside friend and said, I am just glad she is here...her mother is a street walker...just glad she chose to come to our service...

How people can be so cold is beyond me but they usually change when it comes home to them....

I couldn't agree more. God bless you Sis.

[MissBrattified]

Great post, Sister A. :thumbsup

Objecting to heavy-handed leadership doesn't mean that me (or my family) lives without rules and guidelines.

[Sam]

The thing is Hometown, there are people more conservative than you, pastors with much more stringent rules, and you'd probably call those man-made.

For instance, I know a group where the women aren't allowed to curl their hair at all, or use any hair ornaments. They aren't allowed to wear high heels, bright colors, or frills. Most of their clothing is home-made. The men must dress down, and part their hair on the side. No shiny belt buckles, nice neckties, fancy suits.

You'd probably call those things man-made restrictions, they call them principles from God's word.

Where do we stop? We can't just insist on any old thing and call it principles. We really need to have a biblical foundation for what we require.

Things like open toed shoes, red clothing, wedding rings and other jewelry, frosting on cake, going to a dentist or doctor, wearing a watch, metal rimmed glasses, metal buckles on shoes or belts, dessert, chocolate, tobacco, alcohol, patterned shirts or blouses, neck ties, etc. I consider to be private convictions or consecrations between an individual and his/her God. I do not think any of us should judge or condemn others on stuff like this where we do not agree.

We all have certain "standards" or limits or boundaries, or things we may do or may not do even though we may be considered worldly and carnal if our list does not match yours.

[Sam]

I think a key word would be balance...temperance in ALL things...

aren't modesty and moderation the same?

[Praxeas]

These standards are driving me nuts. Talk about legalism, I received a Jury summons in the mail today and you won't believe what they are asking me to do and not to do.

First of all: I have to park my car in a designated place.

2. They have asked me not to wear denim.

3. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without any shoes.

4. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without a shirt.

5. They have asked that I appear in a professional manner.

6. They have asked me to not wear any clothing that would be offensive, or have offensive slogans.

My question is: WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE??


SHOULD THERE BE STANDARDS IN A COURTROOM??

SHOULD A JUDGE BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE YOU FROM HIS COURTROOM IF YOU ARE NOT DRESSED RIGHT?

SHOULD THESE MAN MADE STANDARDS BE ENFORCED ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?

Do you think they are trying to keep the place looking right and clean?
Or are they just pushing their weight around so they can control me?

Your help would be appreciated. I do not feel like standards should be pushed on me by the world.

And this goes for McDonalds and other eating establishments as well.

Get your legalistic signs off the doors telling me how I should and should not dress in your eating establishments.

SHOULD BASEBALL TEAMS BE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE STANDARDS OF FACIAL HAIR?

SHOULD PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A STANDARD UNIFORM TO WORK?

I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.


SHOULD THE WORLD SHUT THEIR MOUTH WITH THEIR STANDARDS OR JUST THE PREACHER?





I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMPLAINING ABOUT PASTORS AND THEIR STANDARDS, BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE UPSET ABOUT THE WORLD SETTING THESE SAME TYPES OF STANDARDS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EVEN IN EATING ESTABLISHMENTS.

ANY THOUGHTS?
My thoughts...apparently the bible does not support Pastors man made standards or otherwise they'd preach the bible instead of rely on secular anecdotes

My other thoughts, we are supposed to be separate from the world, isn't it a contradiction to use what the world does in order to support separation from the world?

Let's see. Preacher says "The world does it, so we should avoid it. Don't dress like the world, don't talk like the world etc etc"

Preacher is asked for evidence to support his standards of Holiness

Preacher says "Well the world has man made standards, so why not us?"

So we are using the world as a standard for separation from the world?!?!

That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard and it's contradictory....

that's my thoughts on the matter

[CC1]

Um...the difference is that the preacher has an obligation to teach God's commandments and the principles found in HIS Word. Not make things up arbitrarily as he goes along. I have a reasonable expectation that what a man preaches behind the pulpit should be based in scripture, else why preach it? Further, I have a right and even an obligation to search the scriptures myself and make sure that what is being said is "so."

I also understand making rules and guidelines for a local congregation because a pastor feels that they are profitable or beneficial. What I have a huge problem with is when the pastor teaches those personal opinions and guidelines as heaven or hell issues. Then those saints often go about judging and condemning other Christians instead of loving their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ [whose pastor may not have set out the same guidelines].

Bottom line, when I go to church, I expect to be held to the standards of God's Word. Exactly the same as working for someone and expecting to be held to the employer's standards for the workplace. The disconnect here is that the allegorical "employer" is God - not the pastor. Ultimately, we should all hold ourselves accountable to His standards.

I have only had time to read page one of this thread but was so glad to see that Ms. Bratperson's post gives the answer I would have given. Well actually she gave it more articulately than I would have.

I think it is absurd when cons and utra cons use examples like the premise of this thread. Of course there are laws (standards) and rules (standards) to be obeyed in society.

Just because I believe an employer has a right to demand a certain dress code from employees (something the law no longer supports in most cases sadly) it does not mean I think a pastor is supposed to be drawing up a laundry list of a dress code and enforcing it. See the post I just quoted to see what the pastor should be doing. I again challenge any con or ultra con to show me one time in the New Testament in Jesus' ministry where he preached about dress code distinctions.

[JamDat]

I think we Judge pastors too harshly. Here is a man of God that is trying to do what is right and get his people to heaven, and all you have a is bunch of carnal people that want to criticize his every move and standard because they don't want to dress and live right.

You're assuming the church is full of saved people. Jesus said it has wheat and tares, good fish and bad fish. The pastor must be aware of this and also make sure he isn't a tare.

[hometown guy]

Bottom line, Jesus Christ never preached on one outward standard, and he called those who focused on standards and rules;

Blind Guides, Full of Dead Men's bones, Serpents and a generation of Vipers, Hypocrites, Fools, Full of all uncleanness.Any Religion that focuses on outward Holiness will fall into the trap of using it to cover their sin. They will wind up swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat. They will look at sinners as worse than them and will ignore the humble confession of a man smoting his breast with the grief of failure. They will deny the Thief on a cross a pardon, and they will seek the uppermost seats in the Synagogue.

What is sad, the Scripture deeply warns people like us about the consequences of being radical about Standards, and we look the other way like that isn’t us. Jesus can save a man who has left the 99, and he can save a woman who cuts her hair. The Lord doesn’t care one bit about the color of your underwear or the length of your sleeves.

Standards isolate and create a pride that becomes the bondage of darkness. We’ve got to stop putting people in our Religious Box, and measuring other Christians that don’t look like us as being lost.

Bad argument.....You should read the whole chapter about this and you will find out the Jesus tells us to do what they preached.

[Praxeas]

Has anyone pointed out the author has essentially admitted "Holiness Standards" are unbiblical man made doctrines?

What I find ironic is the same folks will blast Roman Catholics for their man made doctrines

[RandyWayne]

Has anyone pointed out the author has essentially admitted "Holiness Standards" are unbiblical man made doctrines?

What I find ironic is the same folks will blast Roman Catholics for their man made doctrines

Except Roman Catholics do not have The Look (unless of course if they are a nun or priest). We all know that this is what everything really boils down to when you get to the very root of these discussions. Of course you probably have to throw in tithing, church attendance, and pastoral authority in the mix as well, but it all revolves around The Look. After all, what in the world would make a brown eyed girl turn blue?

[ILG]

One thing I noticed, they only asked you to do this WHILE AT COURT and not anywhere else.

[AncientPaths]

One thing I noticed, they only asked you to do this WHILE AT COURT and not anywhere else.

Now, now... If we start picking apart his silly analogy, we'll be here all day.

[Sam]

One thing I noticed, they only asked you to do this WHILE AT COURT and not anywhere else.

OP's do that with "platform standards"

[ILG]

OP's do that with "platform standards"

So women can wear a dress and no makeup only while at church?

[Praxeas]

OP's do that with "platform standards"
It should be called platform decor

[Sam]

So women can wear a dress and no makeup only while at church?

YES

The "platform standards" thing is --We're not saying you have to look like this to be saved or when you are away from the church building. This is just so we can present our cookie cutter look on the platform.

[Michael Phelps]

So we the people have decided how I should dress in a courtroom?

Does the judge tell you that you're going to go to hell if you don't follow his rules?

That's the difference.

Of course organizations have standards, the army has standards, society has standards.......I have no issue with churches having "standards".......the problem is when they make those standards issues of heaven or hell.....and use them to condemn everyone else who doesn't live by them.

[Narrow Is The Way]

Does the judge tell you that you're going to go to hell if you don't follow his rules?

That's the difference.

Of course organizations have standards, the army has standards, society has standards.......I have no issue with churches having "standards".......the problem is when they make those standards issues of heaven or hell.....and use them to condemn everyone else who doesn't live by them.

For all I know he may tell me that I am going to hell. Guess what, it won't make me mad if he does. I am not unsecure at all. He may put me in jail however, I am not sure.

The problem that we are seeing in the Apostolic Church is clear cut Biblical requirements (such as men and womens clothing) now being explained away as just man made standards.

I am just confused at why there is not an outcry when a public building enforces standards.

[Narrow Is The Way]

One thing I noticed, they only asked you to do this WHILE AT COURT and not anywhere else.

Actually there is a standard for all citizens everywhere. You cannot just go out in public in the nude.

[berkeley]

For all I know he may tell me that I am going to hell. Guess what, it won't make me mad if he does. I am not unsecure at all. He may put me in jail however, I am not sure.

The problem that we are seeing in the Apostolic Church is clear cut Biblical requirements (such as men and womens clothing) now being explained away as just man made standards.

I am just confused at why there is not an outcry when a public building enforces standards.

...and in cultures where men and women both wear wraps that resemble skirts?

[Hoovie]

OP's do that with "platform standards"

And for the most part I am ok with that. When it is preached as conformity or hell it becomes problematic IMO.

[Hoovie]

Actually there is a standard for all citizens everywhere. You cannot just go out in public in the nude.

You mean it's illegal?? What if no one sees you? Even if it's dark and I have to take out the trash?

Man I wish I known...:happydance

[Narrow Is The Way]

...and in cultures where men and women both wear wraps that resemble skirts?

What about it? Is that the culture you live in?
A woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment. Very simple.

Go to a public restroom, look at the pictures on the doors, choose the one that resembles your gender, and you will know which culture you are living in.

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.

[Narrow Is The Way]

You mean it's illegal?? What if no one sees you? Even if it's dark and I have to take out the trash?

Man I wish I known...:happydance
It's illegal because it is a violation of the law. You are ok if nobody sees you. Good luck trying to get something past God, he sees everything.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.


My sons always knew the difference between a man's and a woman's garment. If I accidentally bought a pair of girls' pants at a garage sale and gave them to them to wear, they'd freak out and pitch them in the trash! They knew not to wear women's garments. :)

[freeatlast]

Narrow...there are apples and then there are oranges.

go and learn that.

[freeatlast]

What about it? Is that the culture you live in?
A woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment. Very simple.

Go to a public restroom, look at the pictures on the doors, choose the one that resembles your gender, and you will know which culture you are living in.

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.

Man...you are so narrow an ant could set on your nose and kick both your eyes out.

[BeenThinkin]

What about it? Is that the culture you live in?
A woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment. Very simple.

Go to a public restroom, look at the pictures on the doors, choose the one that resembles your gender, and you will know which culture you are living in.

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.


De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Great scripture ... for the culture of that day? Is that your doctrinal position concerning what you can or cannot wear? Does all of Deut. apply to you? If not, how do you decide which part of it does and which part does not?

Does the following scripture, just one chapter before your favorite passage, apply to you and the church today?

Deut 21:18 ¶ If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

So the picture on the door of a restroom determines the culture of the wearing of apparel?

What would you say if the culture of today said it was okay to wear this or that? Would you agree?

Please show me one scripture in the New Testament where it is defined as to what is a man's garment and what is a woman's garment. That shouldn't be hard to do if it's in there. Again.... scripture that says this is what a man should wear and this is what a woman should wear.

You're painting yourself into a corner when you start depending on the custom of your day to decide your doctrine for Heaven and hell.

The culture could change tomorrow. What will you use for a guide line then?

The truth is when you go beyond modesty in the New Testament concerning what you wear, you're on your own. And modesty is relevant to the times and customs. In parts of the world UltraCon women, UPC women if you will, would be considered to be immodest because their faces are uncovered! And if they are not wearing garments that completely cover their body they are immodest.

What did Jesus say about the way we dress?

Let's see, what was your name? Narrow Is The Mind?

Been Thinkin

[MissBrattified]

It's illegal because it is a violation of the law. You are ok if nobody sees you. Good luck trying to get something past God, he sees everything.

Yes, except that He doesn't mind private nudity either. :D No need to try to sneak that past Him.

[tv1a]

It takes more than what covers a person's crotch to determine if a woman dresses like a man.

[RandyWayne]

What about it? Is that the culture you live in?
A woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment. Very simple.

Go to a public restroom, look at the pictures on the doors, choose the one that resembles your gender, and you will know which culture you are living in.

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.

I am pretty sure the bible has something like this in mind (and probably worse) when referring to dressing like the opposite gender.

Is it Glen? Or is in Glenda?
http://www.franksfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/blogger/7466/2357/1600/ed_wood.jpg

[tv1a]

A few years ago, my pastor rolled up his pant legs during a sermon and asked the congregation why that would be considered holy on a woman and not holy on a man.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I was in a college lunch room the other day and saw this big, husky guy wearing a kilt - aka - a pleated, plaid skirt. I would have loved to see one of you guys walk up to him and accuse him of wearing women's apparel. :D

[BeenThinkin]

I was in a college lunch room the other day and saw this big, husky guy wearing a kilt - aka - a pleated, plaid skirt. I would have loved to see one of you guys walk up to him and accuse him of wearing women's apparel. :D

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Been Thinkin

[Sam]

A few years ago, my pastor rolled up his pant legs during a sermon and asked the congregation why that would be considered holy on a woman and not holy on a man.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

[RandyWayne]

I was in a college lunch room the other day and saw this big, husky guy wearing a kilt - aka - a pleated, plaid skirt. I would have loved to see one of you guys walk up to him and accuse him of wearing women's apparel. :D

Ya, just look at these girlie men!

http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1995_Braveheart/995BVH_Mel_Gibson_078.jpg

[Praxeas]

What about it? Is that the culture you live in?
A woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment. Very simple.

Go to a public restroom, look at the pictures on the doors, choose the one that resembles your gender, and you will know which culture you are living in.

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.
The restrooms here have no pictures. One says women and one says men.

Pants have not pertained to a man for a long long time anymore than underwear, socks, shoes or shirts

In the time that law was written, men did not wear pants

[CC1]

What about it? Is that the culture you live in?
A woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment. Very simple.

Go to a public restroom, look at the pictures on the doors, choose the one that resembles your gender, and you will know which culture you are living in.

Don't try to twist the word of God and act ignorant like you don't even know the difference between a man and womans garment.

LOL!! I always love it when cons and ultra cons resort to the bathroom sign as proof of their "doctrine".

[Praxeas]

LOL!! I always love it when cons and ultra cons resort to the bathroom sign as proof of their "doctrine".
So culture DOES matter? It's funny if someone uses that argument against what they believe it does not matter

[Narrow Is The Way]

De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Great scripture ... for the culture of that day? Is that your doctrinal position concerning what you can or cannot wear? Does all of Deut. apply to you? If not, how do you decide which part of it does and which part does not?

Does the following scripture, just one chapter before your favorite passage, apply to you and the church today?

Deut 21:18 ¶ If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

So the picture on the door of a restroom determines the culture of the wearing of apparel?

What would you say if the culture of today said it was okay to wear this or that? Would you agree?

Please show me one scripture in the New Testament where it is defined as to what is a man's garment and what is a woman's garment. That shouldn't be hard to do if it's in there. Again.... scripture that says this is what a man should wear and this is what a woman should wear.

You're painting yourself into a corner when you start depending on the custom of your day to decide your doctrine for Heaven and hell.

The culture could change tomorrow. What will you use for a guide line then?

The truth is when you go beyond modesty in the New Testament concerning what you wear, you're on your own. And modesty is relevant to the times and customs. In parts of the world UltraCon women, UPC women if you will, would be considered to be immodest because their faces are uncovered! And if they are not wearing garments that completely cover their body they are immodest.

What did Jesus say about the way we dress?

Let's see, what was your name? Narrow Is The Mind?

Been Thinkin

Sorry, abominations do not change with time. Without going into details, when God told the Children of Israel of an abomination this did not change from the old testament to the new testament. Abominations do not change!! We are still bound in this case.

As for the Deut 21 18-21 this was directed at the children of Israel for that time. There were no abominations mentioned here.

Jesus told Peter: Cast your net on the other side.
This does not mean that when I go fishing I have to do the same.

Not sure if you get my point, probably a bad analogy, lol

[Narrow Is The Way]

I was in a college lunch room the other day and saw this big, husky guy wearing a kilt - aka - a pleated, plaid skirt. I would have loved to see one of you guys walk up to him and accuse him of wearing women's apparel. :D

Yea, I don't get it either. Why would someone so tough want to look like a full blown queer.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Yea, I don't get it either. Why would someone so tough want to look like a full blown queer.
Wow.

I am always stunned by how many die-hard "holiness" people think and speak. Apparently holiness of dress code is all that matters.

Please, please come with me and call that guy a queer to his face.

[Brad Murphy]

Yea, I don't get it either. Why would someone so tough want to look like a full blown queer.

Such a sad little world you live in...

[Narrow Is The Way]

Wow.

I am always stunned by how many die-hard "holiness" people think and speak. Apparently holiness of dress code is all that matters.

Please, please come with me and call that guy a queer to his face.

You have no idea what you are talking about. OUTWARD HOLINESS IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS. You can wear your sleeves below your fingertips and your dress can drag the floor, and at the same time have an unholy heart. God is just as concerned about the inward man as he is the outside. DRESS CODE IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS. We need to put on the garment of righteousness, clothed in humility.

You missed my point about that guy you saw. I didn't say he was a queer, he is only dressing like one.

My question is why would a rough and tough dude want to look like a queer. I see them all the time and I Never have got it.

[ILG]

Actually there is a standard for all citizens everywhere. You cannot just go out in public in the nude.

I can't??? Awww shucks.

[ILG]

In my experience, platform standards are generally expected all the time, within a certain give or take.

[AncientPaths]

Yea, I don't get it either. Why would someone so tough want to look like a full blown queer.

So, did Jesus and others in the Bible dress like full blown q***rs as well? What with the long dresses and such? Just making sure I understand which cultural dress codes you consider valid.

[Brad Murphy]

Kilts certainly predate the UPC dress code... unless Jesus had Wing Tips, Consort Hair Spray and white on white dress shirts...

[Aquila]

These standards are driving me nuts. Talk about legalism, I received a Jury summons in the mail today and you won't believe what they are asking me to do and not to do.

First of all: I have to park my car in a designated place.

2. They have asked me not to wear denim.

3. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without any shoes.

4. They will not allow me inside the courtroom without a shirt.

5. They have asked that I appear in a professional manner.

6. They have asked me to not wear any clothing that would be offensive, or have offensive slogans.

My question is: WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE??


SHOULD THERE BE STANDARDS IN A COURTROOM??

SHOULD A JUDGE BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE YOU FROM HIS COURTROOM IF YOU ARE NOT DRESSED RIGHT?

SHOULD THESE MAN MADE STANDARDS BE ENFORCED ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?

Do you think they are trying to keep the place looking right and clean?
Or are they just pushing their weight around so they can control me?

Your help would be appreciated. I do not feel like standards should be pushed on me by the world.

And this goes for McDonalds and other eating establishments as well.

Get your legalistic signs off the doors telling me how I should and should not dress in your eating establishments.

SHOULD BASEBALL TEAMS BE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE STANDARDS OF FACIAL HAIR?

SHOULD PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A STANDARD UNIFORM TO WORK?

I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.


SHOULD THE WORLD SHUT THEIR MOUTH WITH THEIR STANDARDS OR JUST THE PREACHER?





I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMPLAINING ABOUT PASTORS AND THEIR STANDARDS, BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE UPSET ABOUT THE WORLD SETTING THESE SAME TYPES OF STANDARDS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EVEN IN EATING ESTABLISHMENTS.

ANY THOUGHTS?

If you want to reduce the Kingdom of God to a functional institution like those found in the world... feel free.

The Kingdom of God has one standard. JESUS.

It's not about how you dress.
It's not about how you entertain yourself.
It's not about the works you do or "earning salvation".
It's not about being "obedient" to an earthly pastor or religious system.
It's not about waking up in the morning thinking about what you will "do for God" that day.

It's about waking up and deciding "who I will be" that day. Surrendering ALL self and works... to allow Jesus Himself to live through you. In sports they say, "Keep your eyes on the ball.", and, "Be one with the ball." In Christianity we need to "Keep our eyes on Jesus.", and, "Be one with Jesus."

If you discover this truth of identity as it relates to the indwelling Jesus Christ... you'll find no need for "standards"... you'll have a new identity.

All our standards can't bring us a hairs width closer to being saved. Because even our most righteous deeds originate from SELF (flesh). The one and only standard we have isn't found in a principle, or principles, of living (like a spiritual 12 step program). Our standard is found in a PERSON. And that person is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

[Aquila]

Standards will make you a good little Apostolic.
Standards will make you a good little Pentecostal.
Standards will make you a good little Baptist.
Standards will make you a good little Methodist.
Standards will make you a good little Luthern.

Don't be fooled into being a good little religionist following the "standards". You'll bust Hell wide open.

The Father's one and ONLY desire for your soul and sanctification is to be conformed into the image of the person of Jesus. That is IT! The Christian destiny. The MEANING of the Christian life. And guess what... only Jesus can live the "Christian" life. Therefore you have to die and allow HIM to live HIS life through you. Being an extension of Jesus with every waking moment, every breath.

[onefaith2]

Sorry, abominations do not change with time. Without going into details, when God told the Children of Israel of an abomination this did not change from the old testament to the new testament. Abominations do not change!! We are still bound in this case.

As for the Deut 21 18-21 this was directed at the children of Israel for that time. There were no abominations mentioned here.

Jesus told Peter: Cast your net on the other side.
This does not mean that when I go fishing I have to do the same.

Not sure if you get my point, probably a bad analogy, lol

I agree with the modestly with skirts on women and pants on men.. but abominations can change.. here is one


Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:


Unless you still believe catfish is an abomination to eat?

[onefaith2]

Standards will make you a good little Apostolic.
Standards will make you a good little Pentecostal.
Standards will make you a good little Baptist.
Standards will make you a good little Methodist.
Standards will make you a good little Luthern.

Don't be fooled into being a good little religionist following the "standards". You'll bust Hell wide open.

The Father's one and ONLY desire for your soul and sanctification is to be conformed into the image of the person of Jesus. That is IT! The Christian destiny. The MEANING of the Christian life. And guess what... only Jesus can live the "Christian" life. Therefore you have to die and allow HIM to live HIS life through you. Being an extension of Jesus with every waking moment, every breath.

You regretfully deny that sanctification can become outward in dress. A sad spiral my friend.

[onefaith2]

It's not about how you dress.
It's not about how you entertain yourself.
It's not about the works you do or "earning salvation".
It's not about being "obedient" to an earthly pastor or religious system.
It's not about waking up in the morning thinking about what you will "do for God" that day.

.

If one is truly saved, all the above will matter, not to earn salvation to allow salvation to have her perfect work. If you think a saved person can entertain themselves in any way they choose, you are not far from sodomy or if you think a saved person doesn't have to do any works, you are misunderstanding what we are saved to do, and if you think "obedience" to spiritual authority has nothing to do with keeping our relationship with God, you are denying that we are to "obey" the ones Jesus sets above us to lead us closer to Him.

[Timmy]

Sorry, abominations do not change with time. Without going into details, when God told the Children of Israel of an abomination this did not change from the old testament to the new testament. Abominations do not change!! We are still bound in this case.

ROFL! ROFLMBO! Literally! (OK, not literally, but this is seriously hilarious! lol)

Unless you also believe that is it still an abomination to eat shellfish. Then I take it all back. I will unlaugh at you. ;)


As for the Deut 21 18-21 this was directed at the children of Israel for that time. There were no abominations mentioned here.

Obeying that law would have been an abomination, IMO.


Jesus told Peter: Cast your net on the other side.
This does not mean that when I go fishing I have to do the same.

Not sure if you get my point, probably a bad analogy, lol

Probably. :lol

[AncientPaths]

If one is truly saved, all the above will matter, not to earn salvation to allow salvation to have her perfect work. If you think a saved person can entertain themselves in any way they choose, you are not far from sodomy or if you think a saved person doesn't have to do any works, you are misunderstanding what we are saved to do, and if you think "obedience" to spiritual authority has nothing to do with keeping our relationship with God, you are denying that we are to "obey" the ones Jesus sets above us to lead us closer to Him.

Wow. What makes one's mind jump immediately to that point? :spit

Did he say that a saved person could entertain themselves in any way they choose? :blah:blah:blah

[AncientPaths]

ROFL! ROFLMBO! Literally! (OK, not literally, but this is seriously hilarious! lol)

Unless you also believe that is it still an abomination to eat shellfish. Then I take it all back. I will unlaugh at you. ;)



Obeying that law would have been an abomination, IMO.



Probably. :lol

That is generous of you to offer to unlaugh. You clearly haven't been through his posting history.

[Timmy]

That is generous of you to offer to unlaugh. You clearly haven't been through his posting history.

OK. Consider him unlaughed at. :D At least, he's consistent. (But IMO it is ridiculous to think God gets really upset about someone eating shrimp. ;))

[Aquila]

You regretfully deny that sanctification can become outward in dress. A sad spiral my friend.

I don't deny that. I believe that regeneration of the dead spirit of man takes place when one receives the Holy Ghost, this "sanctifies" (sets apart) the believer unto God. The new nature of Christ (righteousnesS) is imparted by faith alone. What one then struggles with is the carnal mind. This is overcome through renewing the mind through the Word of God. As the mind (soul) is renewed by the living Word of God the believer is taking on the mind of Christ. As one takes on the mind of Christ, yes, modesty will be the result.

However, "modesty" isn't about women wearing nothing but skirts and dresses at a manditory length. Modesty is appearing non-seductive. For example, a women in our house church wear pants and are rather modest. They aren't any tighter than men's jeans. However, in the Apostolic church I left women were wearing skirts and dresses that were form fitting and about mid shin. On top of that they wore no panty hose. Meaning their legs were bare in the skits and dresses. This is the "easy access" look. The women who dress normally in our house church are far more modest in appearance and personality than the Apostolic women I've known.

When one puts on Christ as their only standard, allowing Him to live through them, they will be modest. And I have little tolerance for stupid debates about kilts, facial hair, wedding bands, etc.

Give me CHRIST!

[onefaith2]

I don't deny that. I believe that regeneration of the dead spirit of man takes place when one receives the Holy Ghost, this "sanctifies" (sets apart) the believer unto God. The new nature of Christ (righteousnesS) is imparted by faith alone. What one then struggles with is the carnal mind. This is overcome through renewing the mind through the Word of God. As the mind (soul) is renewed by the living Word of God the believer is taking on the mind of Christ. As one takes on the mind of Christ, yes, modesty will be the result.

However, "modesty" isn't about women wearing nothing but skirts and dresses at a manditory length. Modesty is appearing non-seductive. For example, a women in our house church wear pants and are rather modest. They aren't any tighter than men's jeans. However, in the Apostolic church I left women were wearing skirts and dresses that were form fitting and about mid shin. On top of that they wore no panty hose. Meaning their legs were bare in the skits and dresses. This is the "easy access" look. The women who dress normally in our house church are far more modest in appearance and personality than the Apostolic women I've known.

When one puts on Christ as their only standard, allowing Him to live through them, they will be modest. And I have little tolerance for stupid debates about kilts, facial hair, wedding bands, etc.

Give me CHRIST!

You implied dress doesn't matter.. So now you are saying dress does matter? Not talking about apostolic standards, but dress itself.

[onefaith2]

Wow. What makes one's mind jump immediately to that point? :spit

Did he say that a saved person could entertain themselves in any way they choose? :blah:blah:blah

How do you interpret

"It's not about how you entertain yourself"

I said "if" in my reply. He may not mean that but if entertainment doesn't matter at all.. then that is toward Sodomy. I think Aquila might mean, its not about whether you own a TV or not (but he didn't say that)

[Aquila]

If one is truly saved, all the above will matter, not to earn salvation to allow salvation to have her perfect work.

To speak of "salvation" as a "her" is to reduce it to a principle. Salvation isn't a principle, salvation is a person... Jesus Christ. And Jesus is a "He".

If you think a saved person can entertain themselves in any way they choose, you are not far from sodomy or if you think a saved person doesn't have to do any works, you are misunderstanding what we are saved to do, and if you think "obedience" to spiritual authority has nothing to do with keeping our relationship with God, you are denying that we are to "obey" the ones Jesus sets above us to lead us closer to Him.

A saved person doesn't have to do any works. A saved person (spiritually regenerated person) renews their mind by studying the Word of God. If they have a desire for ungodly entertainment they might defeat it for a time with "will power" (works). However, this is a leaglists answer and it doesn't change the person. The truly saved person will lay their sinful proclivity at the foot of the cross and pray..."Lord Jesus, change me. I am your workmanship made for good works." I prayed this prayer about temptations that I faced and let it rest at the foot of the cross. I didn't "will" or "try" to curb my tendencies...I let it go, giving it to Christ, and continued to read my Bible and appropriate my identity in Christ Jesus to my heart by believing the Word. Then one night at about 3 AM I suddenly found myself awake staring at the ceiling. I was "different". I sat up and felt different about some sinful things that I had to change. I then made those adjustments and went back to bed...sleeping the best sleep I'd had in months. He did the work. The author and finisher of my faith. The one who began a good work in me was faithful to complete it.

You've heard of cocane addicts and alcoholics being "delivered" by the power of God. God worked the work in them quickly and miraculously. This is how all deliverance is found... IN CHRIST.

[onefaith2]

To speak of "salvation" as a "her" is to reduce it to a principle. Salvation isn't a principle, salvation is a person... Jesus Christ. And Jesus is a "He".
.

You really think I believe Jesus is a her? The Bible uses this many times, especially in the Proverbs. Her doesn't mean a woman in the context. Like
"Let patience have her perfect work." Is patience a her?

Salvation is both a principle (eternal life) and a person. You can't get the person and not have the principle.


A saved person doesn't have to do any works. A saved person (spiritually regenerated person) renews their mind by studying the Word of God. If they have a desire for ungodly entertainment they might defeat it for a time with "will power" (works). However, this is a leaglists answer and it doesn't change the person. The truly saved person will lay their sinful proclivity at the foot of the cross and pray..."Lord Jesus, change me. I am your workmanship made for good works." I prayed this prayer about temptations that I faced and let it rest at the foot of the cross. I didn't "will" or "try" to curb my tendencies...I let it go, giving it to Christ, and continued to read my Bible and appropriate my identity in Christ Jesus to my heart by believing the Word. Then one night at about 3 AM I suddenly found myself awake staring at the ceiling. I was "different". I sat up and felt different about some things I had to change. I then made those adjustments and went back to bed...sleeping the best sleep I'd had in months. He did the work. The author and finisher of my faith. The one who began a good work in me was faithful to complete it.

God saved you to do good works and serve the living God; leaving your dead works. There has never been a saved person that was "free" of doing good works. There isn't such a thing. Salvation moves you to love and help those in need. If you do not do these things, how can you say you love God?

[Aquila]

You really think I believe Jesus is a her? The Bible uses this many times, especially in the Proverbs. Her doesn't mean a woman in the context. Like
"Let patience have her perfect work." Is patience a her?

Salvation is both a principle (eternal life) and a person. You can't get the person and not have the principle.

Nope. It's not a "principle" at all. It's a person. The reality of being possessed by the person of Christ Jesus Himself. No math, no 12 step program to spiritual victory (principles), blah, blah, blah. The Pharisees searched the Scripture for principles of holiness to obey. What they failed to see is that the Scriptures testified not of "principles" but of HIM... a person... Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The carnal mind loves principles, laws, input/out-put concepts, rules, regulations, etc. This is legalism, will worship, and bondage. Being possessed by Jesus Christ Himself is a lifewalk with the indwelling Savior as we are perfected IN HIM... not a principle.

God saved you to do good works and serve the living God; leaving your dead works. There has never been a saved person that was "free" of doing good works. There isn't such a thing. Salvation moves you to love and help those in need. If you do not do these things, how can you say you love God?

It's a matter of "nature" not principle. For example, Muslims abide by higher "principles" than Christians. However, the truly BORN AGAIN doesn't live by religious principles, but by the appropriation of their identity in relation to the new nature of the indwelling Christ. When one's nature is changed... EVERYTHING changes naturally without any effort but prayer and surrender to the will of the Father. John speaks of this...

1 John 3:8-10 (New Living Translation)
8 But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. 9 Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. 10 So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.

Those who are born again cannot "make a practice of sinning". Why? Because God's very life and nature permanently resides in them. So they CANNOT "keep on sinning". This is how we tell who is truly born again (spiritually regenerated by the Holy Ghost). Anyone who doesn't live righteously and isn't grieved by their sin, allowing the new nature becoming a buoyancy that lifts them to victory... is unregenerated.

The true saint of God may sometimes act out of congruence with their new nature... but it isn't continuing. They KNOW they have to change and they indeed surrender to the will of the indwelling Christ Jesus, bringing fruits of repentance and victory. The branch need not give effort and try to produce fruit, fruit comes naturally from the flow of life that comes directly from the vine.

The discovery of sinful tendences (which increases as one spends time in the Word) should bring one to their knees praying, "Lord Jesus, change me.", not praying, "Lord Jesus, I promise to TRY to do better." Even if YOU do better... it's YOU. Not a fruit of the Spirit within.

The answer to every Christian question, struggle, temptation, trial, and circumstance is summed up in being closer to Jesus. That's the only "effort" one must have. The Christ will do the rest, our perfector, and redeemer who is the head of all principality and power... and we are COMPLETE IN HIM.

[onefaith2]

Nope. It's not a "principle" at all. It's a person. The reality of being possessed by the person of Christ Jesus Himself. No math, no 12 step program to spiritual victory (principles), blah, blah, blah. The Pharisees searched the Scripture for principles of holiness to obey. What they failed to see is that the Scriptures testified not of "principles" but of HIM... a person... Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The carnal mind loves principles, laws, input/out-put concepts, rules, regulations, etc. This is legalism, will worship, and bondage. Being possessed by Jesus Christ Himself is a lifewalk with the indwelling Savior as we are perfected IN HIM... not a principle.

.
Wrong my friend.. HOliness is not just a person but there are principles that person taught us to live by.. read the sermon on the mount for instance.

Making peace isn't a person, its an action based on a principle. Blessed those that curse you isn't a person, its an action based on a principle, etc. etc.



It's a matter of "nature" not principle. For example, Muslims abide by higher "principles" than Christians. However, the truly BORN AGAIN doesn't live by religious principles, but by the appropriation of their identity in relation to the new nature of the indwelling Christ. When one's nature is changed... EVERYTHING changes naturally without any effort but prayer and surrender to the will of the Father. John speaks of this...

1 John 3:8-10 (New Living Translation)
8 But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. 9 Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. 10 So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.

Those who are born again cannot "make a practice of sinning". Why? Because God's very life and nature permanently resides in them. So they CANNOT "keep on sinning". This is how we tell who is truly born again (spiritually regenerated by the Holy Ghost). Anyone who doesn't live righteously and isn't grieved by their sin, allowing the new nature becoming a buoyancy that lifts them to victory... is unregenerated.

The true saint of God may sometimes act out of congruence with their new nature... but it isn't continuing. They KNOW they have to change and they indeed surrender to the will of the indwelling Christ Jesus, bringing fruits of repentance and victory. The branch need not give effort and try to produce fruit, fruit comes from the flow of life that comes directly from the vine.

None of what you said addresses the Bible truth that we are saved to do good works. That is the natural progression of salvation. If you aren't doing good works, you aren't being controlled by the Spirit and how then can we be saved if we ignore the Spirit.

Its not just about not "sinning." Its about living the life of a new creature, things which accompany salvation, good works.

[Aquila]

Wrong my friend.. HOliness is not just a person but there are principles that person taught us to live by.. read the sermon on the mount for instance.

None of what you said addresses the Bible truth that we are saved to do good works. That is the natural progression of salvation. If you aren't doing good works, you aren't being controlled by the Spirit and how then can we be saved if we ignore the Spirit.

Its not just about not "sinning." Its about living the life of a new creature, things which accompany salvation, good works.

In general, I agree with you. Where we might disagree is the essence of the process of that reality. It's not by EFFORT or WILL to do works. It's simply by surrender. Reckoning one's self to be crucified with Christ, dead to the Law, that Christ might live His life through them. Living in the shadow of the cross and breathing the very air of grace.

If you've struggled with a sin or temptation for years and years the answer isn't "recommitting" yourself. Why? Because the God of Heaven doesn't want you to recommit "yourself". That's the problem. He wants your "self" to DIE that you might find your identity in Christ Jesus ALONE. In Christ, you rest from your "works", He is your Sabbath rest. Give up all "effort" at doing better...because even at your best it's not good enough and NEVER will be. Once the effort has ended and self lays dead, surrendered to the Holy God of Heaven, the prayer of "change me Jesus" is all that is needed. And HE will change you and deliver you by manifest His own person in you. Then you will have put on Christ and have the very mind of Jesus Himself living and breathing in you. The very heart beat you feel in your breast is no longer yours... but Christ's.

[Pendragon]

Not trying to derail the excellent line of thought between Aquila and Onefaith, but I just want to interject this point about some previous comments:

The shellfish abomination vs a man in women's clothing (and vice versa) abomination isn't a good comparison. When God spoke about a man wearing what pertains to a woman, He said it was an abomination to Him. When He told the Jews not to eat shellfish, He said it was an abomination to them. Two completely different views.

Obviously the law is now dead, and we know God told Peter in a vision that it is ok to eat whatever you want, so that is one abomination that is now cleared up. But has anything changed in God that would cause something that used to be an abomination to Him, no longer an abomination to Him? We know God does not change. If something turned His stomach 3,000 years ago, then it still turns His stomach today.

Having said that, there is obviously room for argument as to what in modern days differentiates men's and women's garments. I just think we should be pretty careful about dismissing that verse.

[Sam]

...
Obviously the law is now dead, ....

If the law is dead, doesn't that mean that circumcision, animal sacrifices, holy days, sabbaths, tithing, clothing rules, etc. are all passed away?

[NorCal]

Nope. It's not a "principle" at all. It's a person. The reality of being possessed by the person of Christ Jesus Himself. No math, no 12 step program to spiritual victory (principles), blah, blah, blah. The Pharisees searched the Scripture for principles of holiness to obey.

Wait, are we back to being Oneness again?

Sorry to derail.

[Pendragon]

If the law is dead, doesn't that mean that circumcision, animal sacrifices, holy days, sabbaths, tithing, clothing rules, etc. are all passed away?

But has anything changed in God that would cause something that used to be an abomination to Him, no longer an abomination to Him? We know God does not change. If something turned His stomach 3,000 years ago, then it still turns His stomach today.

It's a sin, it's not part of the Law. It was a sin then, and it's a sin today. Just like murder, covetousness, theft...

[onefaith2]

In general, I agree with you. Where we might disagree is the essence of the process of that reality. It's not by EFFORT or WILL to do works. It's simply by surrender. Reckoning one's self to be crucified with Christ, dead to the Law, that Christ might live His life through them. Living in the shadow of the cross and breathing the very air of grace.

If you've struggled with a sin or temptation for years and years the answer isn't "recommitting" yourself. Why? Because the God of Heaven doesn't want you to recommit "yourself". That's the problem. He wants your "self" to DIE that you might find your identity in Christ Jesus ALONE. In Christ, you rest from your "works", He is your Sabbath rest. Give up all "effort" at doing better...because even at your best it's not good enough and NEVER will be. Once the effort has ended and self lays dead, surrendered to the Holy God of Heaven, the prayer of "change me Jesus" is all that is needed. And HE will change you and deliver you by manifest His own person in you. Then you will have put on Christ and have the very mind of Jesus Himself living and breathing in you. The very heart beat you feel in your breast is no longer yours... but Christ's.

The disagreement lies in wording and in meaing. To surrender to Christ is one thing, but to carry that surrender out is something we have to decide to do. That is why Romans 8 is written the way it is. We carry out and work out our salvation through Christ Jesus which manifests in good works, always. THe source is indeed Jesus but the decision to do it lies with us. We have to desire to do these things. What you are talking about regarding failing over and over is a different matter. I'm talking about living out our faith practically following the leading of the Lord and doing good works, as we are saved to do them and shine the light Jesus gives us. That is something we decide to do, God will not ever make us be a peacemaker or help the poor or live holy and separate. We may feel miserable when we don't do it, but God will not make us do it. We have to decide to allow Salvation to continue the work in us, or else we will eventually fall into a hardened heart.

Helping the poor to make you feel better is your works. Helping the poor because that is what Jesus beckons you to do is His work through you.

[onefaith2]

Aquila said

"A saved person doesn't have to do any works"

I believe this is a serious statement to make. we are saved by grace through faith and not of works, lest any man could boast. However the nature of our salvation produces in us the will and desire of Jesus, therefore we are saved to do good works.

To say a "saved" person doesn't have to do any works is my opinion is to deny the very work of salvation.

For instance

Hebrews 9:14

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God

The very nature of our salvation is to purge our conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God. The only way to serve the living God is by faith and action. We cannot just think "Oh I am serving God today." We actually have to act. Matthew 5 is a pure example of the teaching of Jesus regarding action. Blessed are they that do these things.

[Pressing-On]

The disagreement lies in wording and in meaing. To surrender to Christ is one thing, but to carry that surrender out is something we have to decide to do. That is why Romans 8 is written the way it is. We carry out and work out our salvation through Christ Jesus which manifests in good works, always. THe source is indeed Jesus but the decision to do it lies with us. We have to desire to do these things. What you are talking about regarding failing over and over is a different matter. I'm talking about living out our faith practically following the leading of the Lord and doing good works, as we are saved to do them and shine the light Jesus gives us. That is something we decide to do, God will not ever make us be a peacemaker or help the poor or live holy and separate. We may feel miserable when we don't do it, but God will not make us do it. We have to decide to allow Salvation to continue the work in us, or else we will eventually fall into a hardened heart.

Helping the poor to make you feel better is your works. Helping the poor because that is what Jesus beckons you to do is His work through you.

Interesting you would bring this up in bold. It reminded me of a previous comment that Aquila made, which I never commented on. This is his post from another thread:

I firmly believe in "working out our faith with fear and trembling." But I think this is often taken out of context. Please note what it is teaching...

Philippians 2:11-13 (King James Version)
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Notice, we are not the ones working out our salvation. It is "God which worketh in" us to will and to do of "his good pleasure". We are His workmanship in Christ Jesus. God Himself is the one perfecting and sanctifying through the convicting power of the Spirit. It ISN'T our efforts or our works. Therefore, working out our salvation is predicated upon denying self and allow Christ to work in us. Not keeping religious rules and standards.

He overlooks the fact that verses 11 and 12 go together and that verse 13 is not possible if we don't do our part. Yes, God works in us, but we must have a commitment, and a willing and obedient relationship with God for that to happen. Yes, He died on a cross to take away our sin, but if we don't accept that truth and apply it to our lives, through the Gospel, we will not be saved. God does His part, but we must also do ours. It's a mutual relationship, not one-sided.

[hometown guy]

I agree with the modestly with skirts on women and pants on men.. but abominations can change.. here is one


Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

Unless you still believe catfish is an abomination to eat?

This is where you are wrong....abomination to God never change. Read your bible and you will never find a place where an abomination to God changed. However abomination to the people do change like they did in the scripture you posted.

[Praxeas]

This is where you are wrong....abomination to God never change. Read your bible and you will never find a place where an abomination to God changed. However abomination to the people do change like they did in the scripture you posted.
So you believe it's still a sin/abomination to eat catfish?

[hometown guy]

So you believe it's still a sin/abomination to eat catfish?

NO the abomanation was to the people and not unto the Lord. Sorry..I thought I was clear in my post.

[NotforSale]

You have no idea what you are talking about. OUTWARD HOLINESS IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS. You can wear your sleeves below your fingertips and your dress can drag the floor, and at the same time have an unholy heart. God is just as concerned about the inward man as he is the outside. DRESS CODE IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS. We need to put on the garment of righteousness, clothed in humility.

You missed my point about that guy you saw. I didn't say he was a queer, he is only dressing like one.

My question is why would a rough and tough dude want to look like a queer. I see them all the time and I Never have got it.

You obviously have no idea what a Kilt is and who wears them. United States Marines will wear them. I spent 6 years in the Marines, and I highly doubt you would walk into the Squad Bay and announce to these fighting men, "You guys are a bunch of queers".

[Praxeas]

NO the abomanation was to the people and not unto the Lord. Sorry..I thought I was clear in my post.
I still don't understand. He posted a verse about certain kinds of "fish" that it was an abomination to eat.

His point was it's no longer an abomination to eat catfish, but you said abominations don't change..so it must still be an abomination to eat catfish

[onefaith2]

This is where you are wrong....abomination to God never change. Read your bible and you will never find a place where an abomination to God changed. However abomination to the people do change like they did in the scripture you posted.

Deuteronomy 17:1
Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.


Deuteronomy 23:18
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.


Proverbs 20:23
Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.


Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.


Which of this are still abominations unto the LORD and what scripture says abomination unto the Lord never changes?

Furthermore what reasoning can we say that a women that wears pajama pants or women's pants are trying to wear that which pertains to a man?

I agree with skirts on women and pants on men but applying an abomination to something is a discreet claim, wouldn't you think?

That means if a women even wears a man's shirt, its an abomination.

[hometown guy]

I still don't understand. He posted a verse about certain kinds of "fish" that it was an abomination to eat.

His point was it's no longer an abomination to eat catfish, but you said abominations don't change..so it must still be an abomination to eat catfish

Who was it an abomination to?...God or the people?

[onefaith2]

I still don't understand. He posted a verse about certain kinds of "fish" that it was an abomination to eat.

His point was it's no longer an abomination to eat catfish, but you said abominations don't change..so it must still be an abomination to eat catfish

he is saying that its different when the phrase says abomination unto you and when it says abomination unto God

[Praxeas]

Who was it an abomination to?...God or the people?
So are you saying it still is an abomination but the point was to whom?

Is it an abomination to God for man to eat catfish? IF so then that means God thinks it's still a sin?

If it's an abomination to man...well that certain can change since man changes their mind and culture all the time.

Im still not getting your point

[hometown guy]

he is saying that its different when the phrase says abomination unto you and when it says abomination unto God

:thumbsup Thanks

[Praxeas]

This is given as a command. Was it from God or man?

Lev 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.
Lev 11:11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses.
Lev 11:12 Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

[NorCal]

You obviously have no idea what a Kilt is and who wears them. United States Marines will wear them. I spent 6 years in the Marines, and I highly doubt you would walk into the Squad Bay and announce to these fighting men, "You guys are a bunch of queers".

Ever been to San Fran and seen a Hairy Man dressed as a woman? Not a pretty sight.

[hometown guy]

Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

Deuteronomy 22
5The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

[NotforSale]

Bad argument.....You should read the whole chapter about this and you will find out the Jesus tells us to do what they preached.

Bad answer. So, what did they preach?

[Praxeas]

Ever been to San Fran and seen a Hairy Man dressed as a woman? Not a pretty sight.
That's not a kilt. Women generally don't wear kilts. In the time they came from too, women wore long flowery dresses and men wore kilts;

Roman centurions wore skirts. Israeli fighters back then dressed similar. They did not have pants and long robes did not allow for very much movement

[Praxeas]

NET
Deu 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor should a man dress up in women's clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the Lord your God.

[NotforSale]

Ever been to San Fran and seen a Hairy Man dressed as a woman? Not a pretty sight.

I grew up and lived in the Bay Area for over 30 years. Wearing a Kilt has nothing to do with a Homosexual in San Francisco.

[hometown guy]

Bad answer. So, what did they preach?

Matthew 23 (King James Version)

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

[NotforSale]

Matthew 23 (King James Version)

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

You are avoiding the answer; What did they preach?

[jediwill83]

I do not care for hard uncaring people...that beat the sheep and mistreat God's little ones.
I once was in a meeting in our church and the visitor from the states told me how as soon as service was over I should rebuke a young girl with a see through blouse on...I looked at my stateside friend and said, I am just glad she is here...her mother is a street walker...just glad she chose to come to our service...

How people can be so cold is beyond me but they usually change when it comes home to them....

Sis I tell people all the time bout what a awesome lady you are and what a sweet spirit you have...I love your attitude in this.:thumbsup

[onefaith2]

:thumbsup Thanks

I think the point PRax is making is that the penalty was the same for both. It was both a commandment from the Lord for his people.

The argument though is whether deut 22:5 can apply to women's pants or not since both wore robes in Bible days, women's robes and men's robes. If we go by the letter of the law, women really do not need to wear tshirts, boots, or a man's shirt such as a jersey; as all pertain to a man.

There is why the NT teaching on modesty is better suited to go along with the Spirit of the law in Deut 22:5

[hometown guy]

Bottom line, Jesus Christ never preached on one outward standard, and he called those who focused on standards and rules;

Blind Guides, Full of Dead Men's bones, Serpents and a generation of Vipers, Hypocrites, Fools, Full of all uncleanness.
Any Religion that focuses on outward Holiness will fall into the trap of using it to cover their sin. They will wind up swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat. They will look at sinners as worse than them and will ignore the humble confession of a man smoting his breast with the grief of failure. They will deny the Thief on a cross a pardon, and they will seek the uppermost seats in the Synagogue.

What is sad, the Scripture deeply warns people like us about the consequences of being radical about Standards, and we look the other way like that isn’t us. Jesus can save a man who has left the 99, and he can save a woman who cuts her hair. The Lord doesn’t care one bit about the color of your underwear or the length of your sleeves.

Standards isolate and create a pride that becomes the bondage of darkness. We’ve got to stop putting people in our Religious Box, and measuring other Christians that don’t look like us as being lost.

I am not avoiding anything I am just going off of what you said they preached.

[aegsm76]

Either doctrine means something or it means nothing.

[Narrow Is The Way]

You obviously have no idea what a Kilt is and who wears them. United States Marines will wear them. I spent 6 years in the Marines, and I highly doubt you would walk into the Squad Bay and announce to these fighting men, "You guys are a bunch of queers".

You are making my point for me. I don't understand why a tough man would want to wear a womans garment.

[Truthseeker]

Has anyone addressed that both genders wore skirts like robes in the bible days? Priest were even commanded to not build alters with steps so no one would look up their skirts to see nakedness.

[NorCal]

Has anyone addressed that both genders wore skirts like robes in the bible days? Priest were even commanded to not build alters with steps so no one would look up their skirts to see nakedness.

I believe I did, because Men wore robs designed to "Gird up they Loins". Where women did not. Also women wore Veils.

[Aquila]

Not trying to derail the excellent line of thought between Aquila and Onefaith, but I just want to interject this point about some previous comments:

The shellfish abomination vs a man in women's clothing (and vice versa) abomination isn't a good comparison. When God spoke about a man wearing what pertains to a woman, He said it was an abomination to Him. When He told the Jews not to eat shellfish, He said it was an abomination to them. Two completely different views.

Obviously the law is now dead, and we know God told Peter in a vision that it is ok to eat whatever you want, so that is one abomination that is now cleared up. But has anything changed in God that would cause something that used to be an abomination to Him, no longer an abomination to Him? We know God does not change. If something turned His stomach 3,000 years ago, then it still turns His stomach today.

Having said that, there is obviously room for argument as to what in modern days differentiates men's and women's garments. I just think we should be pretty careful about dismissing that verse.

True.

I discovered that rabbinical sources might draw distinction between the types of abomination. For example the shellfish abomination is largely ceremonial, while the woman wearing that which pertains to a woman being moral.

In both cases it's important to understand WHY God set such things as abomination. First, it was to draw a distinction between Israel and pagan peoples. Dietary laws appear to be focused on this concept. Also, pagan worship often involved cross dressing wherein a male priest might dawn the garment of a goddess to act out the role of the goddess in pagan rites and vice versa. Others point out that the term "abomination" in the context of wearing the clothing of the opposite gender has a moral foundation. In other words God is condemning the perversion of cross dressing and gender bending. With this in mind we understand that God isn't issuing commands regarding "style" of clothing, but rather moral purpose. A woman who wears women's pants is perfectly in harmony with the Law. However, a man wearing women's pants because of some gender bending proclivity would be violating the command of God.

Technically if the Law means what UPCI would have us think it means, women shouldn't be allowed to wear T-Shirts either.

[Aquila]

If the law is dead, doesn't that mean that circumcision, animal sacrifices, holy days, sabbaths, tithing, clothing rules, etc. are all passed away?

I wouldn't say that the Law is dead. I'd say that we are dead to the Law. Meaning we are no longer bound by it. Instead, the Law serves to condemn the sin of a sinner to drive them to their realization that they need a Savior. Once in Christ Jesus they are free from the Law's demands and are not regenerated to allow Christ to live His life through them (walk in the Spirit). The Law was never intended to make one holy through obedience. It was intended to condemn (Paul calls it the ministry of condemnation) and that sins might "increase" (as Paul puts it) through our increased knowledge of God's holiness.

The Law's purpose is to BREAK us and CORNER us that we might be forced into the arms of Christ. That is using the Law lawfully. To impose it upon the saint of God who has come to Christ is to essentially "fall from grace" (as Paul states to those who seek to be justified by law keeping).

[Aquila]

Wait, are we back to being Oneness again?

Sorry to derail.

No. Rather one is Oneness or Trinitarian, we must acknowledge that Jesus is indeed a "person".

[On The Wheel]

Someone preaches a message entitled "What would you wear if God was your tailor?" It's a good thought.

I've always found it interesting that the only time we see God making anyone's clothes for men and women there is no differentiation made. In Genesis 3 in simply says that God made them tunics. There is no mention made as to the distinction of the cut. I'm sure there may have been differences in color or style, but they were both non-bifurcated garments.

So, I guess men would have to wear tunics, since that is the only garment God actually made himself for a man to wear.

[onefaith2]

Someone preaches a message entitled "What would you wear if God was your tailor?" It's a good thought.

I've always found it interesting that the only time we see God making anyone's clothes for men and women there is no differentiation made. In Genesis 3 in simply says that God made them tunics. There is no mention made as to the distinction of the cut. I'm sure there may have been differences in color or style, but they were both non-bifurcated garments.

So, I guess men would have to wear tunics, since that is the only garment God actually made himself for a man to wear.

Would gave make a garment that would go against something he detests?

Something to think on.

[NotforSale]

I am not avoiding anything I am just going off of what you said they preached.

First, I said Jesus never preached on one outward Standard.

Second, I said that Jesus called those who "Focused" on Standards and Rules; Blind Guides, Full of Dead Men's bones, Serpents and a generation of Vipers, Hypocrites, Fools, Full of all uncleanness.

Nowhere in my post did I say that "They preached" anything...

You're the one that said, "Jesus tells us to do what they preached." What did they PREACH????

You are avoiding the answer!

[Aquila]

The disagreement lies in wording and in meaing. To surrender to Christ is one thing, but to carry that surrender out is something we have to decide to do.

Wrong. To allow the Spirit to work it's work in us is surrender. To determine to carry out that obedience through will power is to walk in the flesh and is the heart of legalism.

That is why Romans 8 is written the way it is. We carry out and work out our salvation through Christ Jesus which manifests in good works, always.

Notice your focus is on what "we must do". The Biblical focus is "what Christ does in us". Yes, you can surrender and confess sin, asking God to change you... and be changed overnight without using will power at all. It's a matter of having a changed nature. Typically this is done through the renewing of our minds by emersing ourselves in the Word of God.

THe source is indeed Jesus but the decision to do it lies with us.

All we must do is surrender, pray, and ask Jesus to take any temptation or sinful inclination away. Like healing it's a prayer built on faith that He who began the good work within us will be faithful to complete it.

We have to desire to do these things.

There we go again, "we have to". No... we are dead. We do nothing. Christ does all. To suggest we must do anything does violence to Christ's finished work upon the cross.

Think of it this way... grace through faith is the DNA of our salvation. If you add anything to that DNA it produces a mutant creature. We are not functioning by will power, guilt, prodding, or desire. We surrender and pray that Christ "change" us. And He does.

What you are talking about regarding failing over and over is a different matter. I'm talking about living out our faith practically following the leading of the Lord and doing good works, as we are saved to do them and shine the light Jesus gives us. That is something we decide to do, God will not ever make us be a peacemaker or help the poor or live holy and separate.

Ah... but therein lies the problem. We have a "new nature". The old man was nailed to the cross. We are partakers in His divine nature. One who is truly born again finds sinful actions to be against their nature. They are uncomfortable, convicted, troubled, and broken over their sin. Why? Their actions are conflicting with their new indwelling nature. They WILL by virtue of the new nature eventually SEEK to sanctify themselves in accordance to that imputed righteous nature. Think of it this way...

A hog will wallow in the mud and filth of the pen without feeling like there is a problem. They love it. It's in their nature to love it. However, a human being is an entirely different creature with a different nature. A human being may fall off the fence into the hog pen. A human being might actually CHOOSE to drop and wallow in the filth of the hog pen.... but eventually they will stand up and say, "Okay, I need to take a shower." Why? Living in such filth is against human nature. Our dog will roll in feces out in the back yard and feels like it's a dream....but if my four year old son steps in it or even chooses to pick it up to play with it he will hop or run into the house asking that I clean him up. Why? He's not a dog and doesn't have the nature of a dog.

The saint of God has the nature of Christ living within them. They might accidently fall into sin or given into temptation. They might even purposefully choose to commit sin...but the new nature of a born again believer will eventually cause them to say, "This is so wrong. I can't do this forever. I need a change. I need to make things right." and they will, by virtue of Christ's indwelling righteousness, by drawn to confession and cleansing.

No... God doesn't "make us" sanctify ourselves. But being "new creatures" with a "new nature" will drive the saint to persevere over sin. If a professed believer is found "wallowing" in sinful filth without conviction or discomfort, we have grounds to question if they were ever truly regenerated and made a new creature through the power of the Holy Ghost.

The truth is... the born again believer is CHANGED and is a new creature. They cannot continue in sin. Read the following slowly:

1 John 3:9-11 (New Living Translation)
9 Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. 10 So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.

A born again believer cannot make a practice of sin (live in continual sin). This is because God's very nature has been imparted to them. Thus, they cannot continue sinning, for they are children of God. And this is how we can tell who are truly born again and who isn't. Those who live in a continual sinful lifestyle are unregenerated children of the devil.

We may feel miserable when we don't do it, but God will not make us do it.

God doesn't "make us" do it, you're right. But the new nature in us prevents a truly born again believer from continuing in sin. Like a man having chosen to work in the hog pen, the born again believer will eventually seek cleansing.

We have to decide to allow Salvation to continue the work in us, or else we will eventually fall into a hardened heart.

If one falls away... they were never regenerated. That is why we are called to make our calling and election sure. If when reading Scripture you discover that you don't find the new nature propelling you to seek and to desire righteousness... something is wrong with your experience. You have to consider that perhaps you've only "tasted" of the heavenly gift and not fully received it in it's entirety.

Helping the poor to make you feel better is your works. Helping the poor because that is what Jesus beckons you to do is His work through you.

No... I would contend that both is works. Helping the poor merely because Jesus commanded it is just as self centered as helping the poor to make you feel better. Doing it because Jesus commanded it is only doing it to avoid being in trouble with God. Now... helping the poor because Christ's indwelling nature moves you to absolute heartfelt compassion and love for the poor, as He loves them through you... that's Christian righteousness.

[AncientPaths]

Either doctrine means something or it means nothing.

Doctrine in general? Doctrine as a concept? Your interpretation of Biblical doctrine?

That statement alone means nothing, I'll give you that.

[Aquila]

Aquila said

"A saved person doesn't have to do any works"

I believe this is a serious statement to make. we are saved by grace through faith and not of works, lest any man could boast. However the nature of our salvation produces in us the will and desire of Jesus, therefore we are saved to do good works.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The very will and desire of Christ Jesus, the one who indwells us flows out naturally through works of love and righteousness.

To say a "saved" person doesn't have to do any works is my opinion is to deny the very work of salvation.

Whoops, that just went off track. The saint doesn't "have to do" anything. It's Christ in the saint that must do. The saint must surrender to the indwelling Christ's desire to do through the saint. For example, if you are on my Facebook you will note that this weekend I served at the Dayton Gospel Mission assisting in preparing dishes, preparing food, serving food, and then cleaning up for five hours. Why did I do that? Did Christ impress upon me that He wanted "me" to do that? NO. Christ impressed upon me, "My son, I want to do this." I didn't choose to do it either. I refused to do it. I prayed, "I am dead Lord Jesus, crucified with you. Nevertheless I live, but not I. It is you who lives within me. Do as thou wilt."... and then signed up to serve. (I have a few decent pictures from the mission on my Facebook if you haven't seen them.) Had I said, "Yes Lord I will do that! After all it is a commandment from you to do so." I'd be operating in the flesh.

For instance

Hebrews 9:14

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God

The very nature of our salvation is to purge our conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God. The only way to serve the living God is by faith and action. We cannot just think "Oh I am serving God today." We actually have to act. Matthew 5 is a pure example of the teaching of Jesus regarding action. Blessed are they that do these things.

Pay close attention to who is purging in the verse you stated. This is because your old man (old nature) was nailed to the cross. That old nature was obliterated and purged from you. Why? So that you might serve the Living God. Why? Because you are now a new creature who will do so by nature.

You have to understand. Being born again I am in union with Christ Jesus, He living in me and through me. He in me and I in Him. Though being human and subject to needing my mind renewed I may not always act like it... but I and my Savior... are one.

[*AQuietPlace*]

You have no idea what you are talking about. OUTWARD HOLINESS IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS. You can wear your sleeves below your fingertips and your dress can drag the floor, and at the same time have an unholy heart. God is just as concerned about the inward man as he is the outside. DRESS CODE IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS. We need to put on the garment of righteousness, clothed in humility.

You missed my point about that guy you saw. I didn't say he was a queer, he is only dressing like one.

My question is why would a rough and tough dude want to look like a queer. I see them all the time and I Never have got it.


I got your point clearly, you missed mine.

You guys are always hollering about holiness - well, what about holiness of speech? Seriously, saying a guy that is wearing a kilt is dressed like a "queer"?? :foottap

[hometown guy]

First, I said Jesus never preached on one outward Standard.

Second, I said that Jesus called those who "Focused" on Standards and Rules; Blind Guides, Full of Dead Men's bones, Serpents and a generation of Vipers, Hypocrites, Fools, Full of all uncleanness.

Nowhere in my post did I say that "They preached" anything...

You're the one that said, "Jesus tells us to do what they preached." What did they PREACH????

You are avoiding the answer!

Ok... Someone that foucses on it must preach it right? or how else would you know that was their foucus
And if you want me to give you an exact scripture of them preaching then I will give it to you as soon as you give me a the scripture that says that Jesus called those who "Focused" on "Standards", Blind Guides, Full of Dead Men's bones, Serpents and a generation of Vipers, Hypocrites, Fools, Full of all uncleanness

[Aquila]

Interesting you would bring this up in bold. It reminded me of a previous comment that Aquila made, which I never commented on. This is his post from another thread:



He overlooks the fact that verses 11 and 12 go together and that verse 13 is not possible if we don't do our part. Yes, God works in us, but we must have a commitment, and a willing and obedient relationship with God for that to happen. Yes, He died on a cross to take away our sin, but if we don't accept that truth and apply it to our lives, through the Gospel, we will not be saved. God does His part, but we must also do ours. It's a mutual relationship, not one-sided.

How does a dead man do anything? Are dead men committed and willing? God doesn't want a legalistic obedience. God wants an obedience that leads to the complete surrender of "self". Not I... but Christ who lives within me. An identification truth embraced, believed, and allowed to bloom on it's own. Good works are not the "fruit of our commitment", or the "fruit of our will", or the "fruit of our obedience", they are the "fruit of the Spirit". Stay DEAD. Let HIM produce the fruit. And I assure you according to the very Word of God... He will.

[onefaith2]

Wrong. To allow the Spirit to work it's work in us is surrender. To determine to carry out that obedience through will power is to walk in the flesh and is the heart of legalism.



Notice your focus is on what "we must do". The Biblical focus is "what Christ does in us". Yes, you can surrender and confess sin, asking God to change you... and be changed overnight without using will power at all. It's a matter of having a changed nature. Typically this is done through the renewing of our minds by emersing ourselves in the Word of God.
.

No the Bible also teaches us to work out our own salvation and to seek the Lord. You live in a fantasy world to say we do nothing but surrender. Tell you want, surrender to the Lord all day long tomorrow and do nothing else and see how many poor you help.. how many kind words you say to people, etc. , Others are going to be living their new life practically by deciding to do good works because that is what salvation beckons them to do. You seem to indicate one cannot "surrender" to the Lord by going to helping someone instead of doing their own thing.



All we must do is surrender, pray, and ask Jesus to take any temptation or sinful inclination away. Like healing it's a prayer built on faith that He who began the good work within us will be faithful to complete it.

.

HOnestly Aquila you are never going to be used of God if that is "all" you do. You may avoid sin but you won't work the works that Jesus asked us to do as in Matthew 5.




There we go again, "we have to". No... we are dead. We do nothing. Christ does all. To suggest we must do anything does violence to Christ's finished work upon the cross.
.

Believing is doing "nothing." This is where you and I part ways in belief. We differ from the very foundation of our salvation. You have a salvation already done for you and you just read about it in the Bible with no action on your part at all aside from reading the Bible and praying. I believe in a salvation that changes my actions, thoughts, and desires to serve the Living God instead of sin.




Think of it this way... grace through faith is the DNA of our salvation. If you add anything to that DNA it produces a mutant creature. We are not functioning by will power, guilt, prodding, or desire. We surrender and pray that Christ "change" us. And He does.
.

You are forgetting the definition of FAITH. Its a strong Committment to something, not a fleeting belief or idea. To Committ means you Do something differently.





Ah... but therein lies the problem. We have a "new nature". The old man was nailed to the cross. We are partakers in His divine nature. One who is truly born again finds sinful actions to be against their nature. They are uncomfortable, convicted, troubled, and broken over their sin. Why? Their actions are conflicting with their new indwelling nature. They WILL by virtue of the new nature eventually SEEK to sanctify themselves in accordance to that imputed righteous nature. Think of it this way...

.

This new nature isn't just about sin Aquila, its about transforming us to serve the Living God, to be salt and light, to manifest Jesus to the world. If we only look at our sin problem, we end up like some Apostolics are today; so worried about their personal salvation that they are not living out their salvation practically by serving.

[Aquila]

Someone preaches a message entitled "What would you wear if God was your tailor?" It's a good thought.

I've always found it interesting that the only time we see God making anyone's clothes for men and women there is no differentiation made. In Genesis 3 in simply says that God made them tunics. There is no mention made as to the distinction of the cut. I'm sure there may have been differences in color or style, but they were both non-bifurcated garments.

So, I guess men would have to wear tunics, since that is the only garment God actually made himself for a man to wear.

Does anyone wonder why we waste so much time wondering and cowering in fear beyond these trivial questions that mean nothing?

Be Jesus.

[hometown guy]

I got your point clearly, you missed mine.

You guys are always hollering about holiness - well, what about holiness of speech? Seriously, saying a guy that is wearing a kilt is dressed like a "queer"?? :foottap

What is wrong or unholy about saying someone is dressed like a queer?.....And do not give me some man made idea or of why it is wrong but give me some bible for it.

[onefaith2]

You have to understand. Being born again I am in union with Christ Jesus, He living in me and through me. He in me and I in Him. Though being human and subject to needing my mind renewed I may not always act like it... but I and my Savior... are one.

So you are basically saying Jesus is serving the poor when you serve the poor? You are not actually doing it at all.

Actually Jesus taught men one time that they didn't feed him when HE was hungry, and or give him drink when HE was thirsty.. they asked when they did not give to Him.

He said when you did not do it to them..

So why would Jesus be feeding Himself or giving drink to Himself? NO its the work of Christ in us that compels us to do good works unto Him.

[Aquila]

No the Bible also teaches us to work out our own salvation and to seek the Lord.

Yes. However, it's not talking about work in the legalistic sense.

Philippians 2:12-13 (New Living Translation)
12 Dear friends, you always followed my instructions when I was with you. And now that I am away, it is even more important. Work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear. 13 For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him.

Who is working in us via that divine nature to do? God. Our acts are acts of God... not self.

You live in a fantasy world to say we do nothing but surrender. Tell you want, surrender to the Lord all day long tomorrow and do nothing else and see how many poor you help.. how many kind words you say to people, etc. , Others are going to be living their new life practically by deciding to do good works because that is what salvation beckons them to do. You seem to indicate one cannot "surrender" to the Lord by going to helping someone instead of doing their own thing.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is a difference between doing something "for Christ" and allowing Christ to do something "through you."

HOnestly Aquila you are never going to be used of God if that is "all" you do. You may avoid sin but you won't work the works that Jesus asked us to do as in Matthew 5.

Not true bro. I was Apostolic for 21 years. I've embraced this truth since January and I've seen awesome victory and service in my life. Why? Because it is no longer me who is trying to live the Christian life. I stopped trying to live a Christian life. I simply surrendered myself and chose to allow Jesus to live His life through me. He in me and I in Him.

Believing is doing "nothing." This is where you and I part ways in belief. We differ from the very foundation of our salvation. You have a salvation already done for you and you just read about it in the Bible with no action on your part at all aside from reading the Bible and praying. I believe in a salvation that changes my actions, thoughts, and desires to serve the Living God instead of sin.

Oh, I care to differ. A new nature leads one to much action. :) More than religious obligation or a self originated desire for mere service ever does. I don't want to do anything "for Christ". I want to allow Christ Himself to do "through me".

You are forgetting the definition of FAITH. Its a strong Committment to something, not a fleeting belief or idea. To Committ means you Do something differently.

I am crucified with Christ. Dead men don't commit. Besides, I don't "commit" to do something that's in my nature to do. I simply surrender my self will to do that which comes as a natural flowing of life from the vine. I am but a branch. Does the branch commit to bear fruit??? No. Union with the vine brings the fruit.

This new nature isn't just about sin Aquila, its about transforming us to serve the Living God, to be salt and light, to manifest Jesus to the world. If we only look at our sin problem, we end up like some Apostolics are today; so worried about their personal salvation that they are not living out their salvation practically by serving.

I agree. It's not just about sin. In fact... it's about almost all that we do in Christ Jesus.

[Timmy]

Does anyone wonder why we waste so much time wondering and cowering in fear beyond these trivial questions that mean nothing?

Be Jesus.

And don't forget to dress like Him. :D

http://www.morethings.com/god_and_country/jesus/healing-jesus-130.jpg

[Aquila]

So you are basically saying Jesus is serving the poor when you serve the poor?

Yes.

You are not actually doing it at all.

That is correct, I was simply a surrendered vessel.

Actually Jesus taught men one time that they didn't feed him when HE was hungry, and or give him drink when HE was thirsty.. they asked when they did not give to Him.

He said when you did not do it to them..

Correct. And those who did were surrendered vessels.

So why would Jesus be feeding Himself or giving drink to Himself? NO its the work of Christ in us that compels us to do good works unto Him.

"Compels" is an excellent word. I fully agree with being compelled. It wasn't a choice to do. It was a compelling driving force from the very core of my being that drove me to surrender and allow Christ Jesus to work through me.

[Aquila]

And don't forget to dress like Him. :D

http://www.morethings.com/god_and_country/jesus/healing-jesus-130.jpg

:lol

More importantly... I want to love like Him.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Not trying to derail the excellent line of thought between Aquila and Onefaith, but I just want to interject this point about some previous comments:

The shellfish abomination vs a man in women's clothing (and vice versa) abomination isn't a good comparison. When God spoke about a man wearing what pertains to a woman, He said it was an abomination to Him. When He told the Jews not to eat shellfish, He said it was an abomination to them. Two completely different views.

Obviously the law is now dead, and we know God told Peter in a vision that it is ok to eat whatever you want, so that is one abomination that is now cleared up. But has anything changed in God that would cause something that used to be an abomination to Him, no longer an abomination to Him? We know God does not change. If something turned His stomach 3,000 years ago, then it still turns His stomach today.

Having said that, there is obviously room for argument as to what in modern days differentiates men's and women's garments. I just think we should be pretty careful about dismissing that verse.
I believe that cross-dressing is still an abomination to God.

[hometown guy]

I believe that cross-dressing is still an abomination to God.

Me too. Men need to wear pants and ladies skirts/dresses and they need not to switch ( cross-dress ) them

[Pressing-On]

How does a dead man do anything? Are dead men committed and willing? God doesn't want a legalistic obedience. God wants an obedience that leads to the complete surrender of "self". Not I... but Christ who lives within me. An identification truth embraced, believed, and allowed to bloom on it's own. Good works are not the "fruit of our commitment", or the "fruit of our will", or the "fruit of our obedience", they are the "fruit of the Spirit". Stay DEAD. Let HIM produce the fruit. And I assure you according to the very Word of God... He will.
Interesting, Aquila. Are you still drinking your wine and smoking a stogie? LOL! I remember you posting, a while back, that you believe in Jewish mysticism.

I was noticing there was a little "action required" on my part. I didn't read that God did any of these thing "for me".

James 4:7 "Submit (subordinate/reflexively to obey) yourselves therefore to God. Resist (stand against, oppose) the devil, and he will flee from you.

Acts 5:32 "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

Romans 2:8 "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,"

2 Thessalonians 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."

Hebrews 5:9 "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Romans 4:19 "Let us therefore follow (press toward, pursue) after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

1 Corinthians 14:1 "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts..."

1 Thessalonians 5:15 "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men."

1 Timothy 6:11 "But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness."

1 Corinthians 9:26 "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

Hebrews 12:1 "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"

Romans 13:13 "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying."

Ephesians 4:1 "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk (tread all around) worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,"

[On The Wheel]

Would gave make a garment that would go against something he detests?

Something to think on.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What the scripture here seems to indicate is that God's antipathy for unisex dress goes beyond the cut of the garment, since both were made the same.

[pelathais]

Would gave make a garment that would go against something he detests?

Something to think on.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What the scripture here seems to indicate is that God's antipathy for unisex dress goes beyond the cut of the garment, since both were made the same.

:heeheehee Wheelie! What a gentleman you are!

And, you are correct. The garments that God made in the garden do appear to have been unisex - as were the garments of fig leaves that Adam and Eve are described as making.

We have to read something else into the text to get at 1F2's ideology.

Besides, since we're all delivered from the sin of Adam and Eve, shouldn't we all just go back to our former "garden state" of undress now? :dunno

[Pressing-On]

:heeheehee Wheelie! What a gentleman you are!

And, you are correct. The garments that God made in the garden do appear to have been unisex - as were the garments of fig leaves that Adam and Eve are described as making.

We have to read something else into the text to get at 1F2's ideology.

Besides, since we're all delivered from the sin of Adam and Eve, shouldn't we all just go back to our former "garden state" of undress now? :dunno

Adam was going uni-sex and put fig leaves on his pecs? :heeheehee

[Praxeas]

You are making my point for me. I don't understand why a tough man would want to wear a womans garment.
Kilts aren't women's garments

[Truthseeker]

I believe I did, because Men wore robs designed to "Gird up they Loins". Where women did not. Also women wore Veils.

What did they do to the skirts to gird up their loins? Wasn't it pulling it up and tucking it in there waistline area? Doesn't take away the fact both genders wore skirts. Why else wopuld priest be commanded to not make alters with steps.

[On The Wheel]

:heeheehee Wheelie! What a gentleman you are!

And, you are correct. The garments that God made in the garden do appear to have been unisex - as were the garments of fig leaves that Adam and Eve are described as making.

We have to read something else into the text to get at 1F2's ideology.

Besides, since we're all delivered from the sin of Adam and Eve, shouldn't we all just go back to our former "garden state" of undress now? :dunno

DOGMA 101

Any scriptures that don't support pet doctrines:

INGNORE!!

[pelathais]

Adam was going uni-sex and put fig leaves on his pecs? :heeheehee

How do you know Eve covered hers?

The root of the word translated as "aprons" in Genesis 3:7, means a "belt" or "for the waist." If we're going to parse it finely then we will see them having covered their genitals and not their pecs or mams.

[pelathais]

I believe I did, because Men wore robs designed to "Gird up they Loins". Where women did not. Also women wore Veils.

To "gird up thy loins" meat to tie a belt around the longer flowing elements of the customary robe in order that one might work or even run more freely. It had nothing to do with your proverbial "bifurcated garment" idea.

"Pants" were a barbarian invention from the colder climes to the north.

[mfblume]

...The amount of time spent on discussing clothing, of all things, in Christianity.

(Still amazed.)

[Sam]

...The amount of time spent on discussing clothing, of all things, in Christianity.

(Still amazed.)

...but we're not materialistic at all, are we?

[Fiyahstarter]

After reading through this thread, there is one very important question that comes to mind that none has yet asked..... and that is:










:banghead


Timmy, doesn't this hurt really bad???

[RandyWayne]

How do you know Eve covered hers?

The root of the word translated as "aprons" in Genesis 3:7, means a "belt" or "for the waist." If we're going to parse it finely then we will see them having covered their genitals and not their pecs or mams.

We know, to use the logic behind the bathroom signs, because all the art work depicts them that way. In fact there are far more paintings depicting our Lady Liberty nearly topless as she leads her army into battle then there is of Eve.

[Praxeas]

But what did God cover?

Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Garments
kuttōneṯ: A feminine noun indicating a coat, a garment, a tunic. It indicates a long undergarment with a collar cut out for one's head (Gen_37:3); the main common garment worn by men or women (2Sa_15:32; Son_5:3). Priests wore a priestly tunic (Exo_28:4; Lev_16:4; Ezr_2:69; Neh_7:70, Neh_7:72). These garments could be of linen or skins (Gen_3:21) and were sometimes embroidered (Exo_28:4, Exo_28:39). They were torn as a sign of grief and mourning (2Sa_15:32). Worn by kings or rulers, they indicated authority (Isa_22:21).

[Aquila]

Me too. Men need to wear pants and ladies skirts/dresses and they need not to switch ( cross-dress ) them

Cross dressing is a form of bending gender identity. That means men wearing women's clothing and women wearing men's clothing as part of a perversion of sexual identity.

For example....

It would be an abomination for a man to wear a pair of women's pants.

[deacon blues]

Read first page and I'm already worn out---dont have the time or energy to read through this old, tired subject.

Easy answer to the beginning of this thread: huge difference between an employer or judge imposing standards of dress and conduct on the job or courtroom and a preacher saying "thus saith the Lord". The first has to do with professional image or preferred conduct and the other has to do with salvation and eternal destiny.

My soul doesn't hang in the balance if I go barefoot into McDonalds or if I get kicked out of the courtroom for wearing a "Jesus Saves" T-shirt.

I am saved by God's grace through faith. Period.

Have fun though trying to keep the rules---and trying to guilt everyone else to do the same! :)

[mfblume]

...but we're not materialistic at all, are we?

Right. :lol

It reminds me of the JW's. I spoke with some of them in depth and here is what they emphasized in all our chats. They focus on a torture stake instead of the cross. The grave for hell instead of fire. No blood transfusions. They leave a campground cleaner than any other denomination as a group. Printing press floors are so clean you can eat off them.

I asked, "What about righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit? What about denying flesh and being led by the Spirit? What about states of the heart?" I commented on how they were so outwardly oriented in what they talk about.

From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

And we see more concern and talk about standards of dress than most anything else from some.

[Timmy]

After reading through this thread, there is one very important question that comes to mind that none has yet asked..... and that is:













Timmy, doesn't this hurt really bad???

Yeah. But is feels so good when I stop! :toofunny

[onefaith2]

:heeheehee Wheelie! What a gentleman you are!

And, you are correct. The garments that God made in the garden do appear to have been unisex - as were the garments of fig leaves that Adam and Eve are described as making.

We have to read something else into the text to get at 1F2's ideology.

Besides, since we're all delivered from the sin of Adam and Eve, shouldn't we all just go back to our former "garden state" of undress now? :dunno

and what is my theology?

[Pressing-On]

Yeah. But is feels so good when I stop! :toofunny

I imagine it would. :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

How do you know Eve covered hers?

The root of the word translated as "aprons" in Genesis 3:7, means a "belt" or "for the waist." If we're going to parse it finely then we will see them having covered their genitals and not their pecs or mams.

Interesting Adam's and Eve's choice (Genesis 3:7), but God shows them how to be properly and completely covered? (Genesis 3:21) Is he introducing and instituting blood sacrifice at this point, Abel knowing what was required in the following chapter?

[Timmy]

:heeheehee Wheelie! What a gentleman you are!

And, you are correct. The garments that God made in the garden do appear to have been unisex - as were the garments of fig leaves that Adam and Eve are described as making.

We have to read something else into the text to get at 1F2's ideology.

Besides, since we're all delivered from the sin of Adam and Eve, shouldn't we all just go back to our former "garden state" of undress now? :dunno

Old paths. :heeheehee

[Aquila]

Interesting, Aquila. Are you still drinking your wine and smoking a stogie? LOL! I remember you posting, a while back, that you believe in Jewish mysticism.

LOL

Jewish mysticism, no. Knowledgeable yes. Intrigued by the book of Enoch, a little. Drinking wine, haven't in a little over a month. Smoking a fine cigar, on occasion. Of course moderate drinking isn't a sin, and smoking isn't a sin either.

I was noticing there was a little "action required" on my part. I didn't read that God did any of these thing "for me".

James 4:7 "Submit (subordinate/reflexively to obey) yourselves therefore to God. Resist (stand against, oppose) the devil, and he will flee from you.

Acts 5:32 "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

Romans 2:8 "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,"

2 Thessalonians 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."

Hebrews 5:9 "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Romans 4:19 "Let us therefore follow (press toward, pursue) after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

1 Corinthians 14:1 "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts..."

1 Thessalonians 5:15 "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men."

1 Timothy 6:11 "But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness."

1 Corinthians 9:26 "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

Hebrews 12:1 "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"

Romans 13:13 "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying."

Ephesians 4:1 "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk (tread all around) worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,"

I think our difference in opinion is based on foundation. Yes, we are to "do" all these things... through Christ. There is a difference between "will power" religion and a deep spirituality in which our strength is derived from our oneness with Christ. I'm simply emphasizing our oneness with Christ.

[Aquila]

...The amount of time spent on discussing clothing, of all things, in Christianity.

(Still amazed.)

These are the frivolous things we're caught up in... better put... in bondage too.

[Aquila]

Is it a violation of God's will for a man to wear women's pants?

[RandyWayne]

Is it a violation of God's will for a man to wear women's pants?

This never seems to be answered!

I take that back... I believe NorCal took a stab at it and his answer was that he would not wear them. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Timmy]

This never seems to be answered!

I take that back... I believe NorCal took a stab at it and his answer was that he would not wear them. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

That almost answers it. Kinda.

[RandyWayne]

That almost answers it. Kinda.

Like I said, he at least attempted to answer it. Most just ignore the question.

I guess to some then women's pants must exist in a sort of limbo where neither women NOR men are allowed to wear them. That is the only reasoning I can come up with.

[Pressing-On]

LOL

Jewish mysticism, no. Knowledgeable yes. Intrigued by the book of Enoch, a little. Drinking wine, haven't in a little over a month. Smoking a fine cigar, on occasion. Of course moderate drinking isn't a sin, and smoking isn't a sin either.
LOL! I was just messin' with you.


I think our difference in opinion is based on foundation. Yes, we are to "do" all these things... through Christ. There is a difference between "will power" religion and a deep spirituality in which our strength is derived from our oneness with Christ. I'm simply emphasizing our oneness with Christ.
We are "one with Christ" when we submit ourselves to Him. You are coming across as though He picks us up and carries us along with or without our consent and I don't believe He does that.

I Corinthians 15:31 "I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily."

Romans 8:13 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

Yes, we do these things with the help of the Spirit, but it must be our decision, in the first place, to submit ourselves to His Spirit.

I have to decide, everyday, that I will give my time to God before anything else. I used to pray in the afternoons. That used to work for me when my children were growing up. Now, I find that I have to commit my time in the mornings. But, it is my decision, and it is like a marriage. If I stop communicating, I cannot keep the relationship together. It has to be my choice. It will always be God's.

Although, I do see Him working in our lives when our flesh seems at odds with Him. From experience, I've seen Him deliver from sin, if in a person's heart, what they are engaged in is something they don't really want to be doing, but feel trapped and can't find a way out. That is when He steps in, but it is because He knows the heart.

So, again, it places the onus on the individual. God will always do His part. I think mfblume spoke about that on another thread concerning forgiveness. If we are not blatantly stumbling into sin with the thought that we can repent later, but are truly sorry for it, He will forgive.

[Timmy]

Like I said, he at least attempted to answer it. Most just ignore the question.

I guess to some then women's pants must exist in a sort of limbo where neither women NOR men are allowed to wear them. That is the only reasoning I can come up with.

I guess we shouldn't try to figure it out. Lean not on your own understanding! :lol

[Brad Murphy]

I guess we shouldn't try to figure it out. Lean not on your own understanding! :lol

You should lean on the understanding of principalities, powers, the rulers... oh wait, wrong verse!

[Timmy]

You should lean on the understanding of principalities, powers, the rulers... oh wait, wrong verse!

Yeah! Gotta rightly divide, man! :lol

[Praxeas]

Right. :lol

It reminds me of the JW's. I spoke with some of them in depth and here is what they emphasized in all our chats. They focus on a torture stake instead of the cross. The grave for hell instead of fire. No blood transfusions. They leave a campground cleaner than any other denomination as a group. Printing press floors are so clean you can eat off them.

I asked, "What about righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit? What about denying flesh and being led by the Spirit? What about states of the heart?" I commented on how they were so outwardly oriented in what they talk about.

From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

And we see more concern and talk about standards of dress than most anything else from some.
Right, they focus on their organizational works.

It reminds me of the pharisees that were proud of their temple..look! Look at the gold. Isn't it beautiful?

I don't mean to bash them but Roman Catholics tend to have the same mindset. They focus on Mary. They focus on cathedrals. My roomies have a flier announcing a pilgrimage to the arch diocese in Los Angeles.

[mfblume]

Right, they focus on their organizational works.

It reminds me of the pharisees that were proud of their temple..look! Look at the gold. Isn't it beautiful?

I don't mean to bash them but Roman Catholics tend to have the same mindset. They focus on Mary. They focus on cathedrals. My roomies have a flier announcing a pilgrimage to the arch diocese in Los Angeles.

Right. All of it is fleshliness. Period. Focus on the outward is walking after the flesh. The overly-liberal who does not think fat is greasy and the ultracon are both fleshly. lol The overly-liberal lets the flesh away with whatever it wants and the ultracon glorifies the flesh in how much the flesh can refrain from. Both are rooted in self being glorified.

[pelathais]

and what is my theology?

I said, "ideology." Not "theology."

As to what it may be, I can only guess from your posts. If you feel that you have been misunderstood, then it is incumbent upon you to clarify and expound. Your readers can only respond to what we seen in the little boxes on our screens.

[pelathais]

Interesting Adam's and Eve's choice (Genesis 3:7), but God shows them how to be properly and completely covered? (Genesis 3:21) Is he introducing and instituting blood sacrifice at this point, Abel knowing what was required in the following chapter?

"Properly and completely covered" is something that we impose upon the text many centuries after humans had existed in hunter-gatherer societies and long after the development of the loom, whose products influenced the phrasing that we read.

As to the blood sacrifice element here, that does seem apparent to me but it is not explicit. However, one must ask, "Did God make the 'new' garments for Adam and Eve because their own garments failed to measure up to His own modesty standards, or did He do so that He might set the precedent for blood sacrifice?"

Adam and Eve "saw that they were naked." This was a "guilt" or "shame" that they themselves are said to have felt even away from the presence of God. They reacted to that feeling by covering up whatever it was that made them feel "naked." As I said, the stem here is "aprons around the waist."

God then is said to make "coverings." The stem here implies something more modest in our modern conventional sense, but then again it can be as ambiguous as "aprons around the waist." Either way, since this is the etiology for any kind of garment at all - it is important to see that "covering" and the idea of modesty is the point and not that Adam was made a fine pair of trousers while Eve was made a pretty gingham dress.

[Pressing-On]

"Properly and completely covered" is something that we impose upon the text many centuries after humans had existed in hunter-gatherer societies and long after the development of the loom, whose products influenced the phrasing that we read.

As to the blood sacrifice element here, that does seem apparent to me but it is not explicit. However, one must ask, "Did God make the 'new' garments for Adam and Eve because their own garments failed to measure up to His own modesty standards, or did He do so that He might set the precedent for blood sacrifice?"

Adam and Eve "saw that they were naked." This was a "guilt" or "shame" that they themselves are said to have felt even away from the presence of God. They reacted to that feeling by covering up whatever it was that made them feel "naked." As I said, the stem here is "aprons around the waist."

God then is said to make "coverings." The stem here implies something more modest in our modern conventional sense, but then again it can be as ambiguous as "aprons around the waist." Either way, since this is the etiology for any kind of garment at all - it is important to see that "covering" and the idea of modesty is the point and not that Adam was made a fine pair of trousers while Eve was made a pretty gingham dress.

I don't think we impose the "properly and completely covered" on the text. The Hebrew word lâbash lâbêsh does define itself as "properly wrap around, to put on a garment or clothe oneself". I do agree that modesty is the point.

I agree that the lesson of blood sacrifice does seem apparent, but not explicit. Thanks for the response!

[Sam]

I don't think this has anything to do with "modesty" as we are using it today. Adam and Eve had made aprons(KJV) or breeches(Geneva) or loin cloths (CJB) or apron-like girdles(Amplified) or loin coverings(NAS) or coverings(NIV) or whatever they are called in other versions.

instead, YHWH the Word or Memra or Logos killed animals and made coats of skins (KJV and Geneva) or long coats(tunics) of skin(Amplified) or garments of skin(NAS and NIV and CJB) or whatever they are called in other versions.

A note in one of my Bibles says, "The same thing was wrong with Adam's apron that was wrong with him. They were both dying-- the leaves because they had been separated from the fig tree and Adam because he had been separated from God. They were both withering while they were walking."

Someone has said:
"This verse gives us a typical picture of a sinner's salvation. It was the first Gospel sermon preached by God Himself, not in words but in symbol and action. It was a setting forth of the way by which a sinful creature could return unto and approach his holy Creator. It was the initial declaration of the fundamental fact that 'without shedding of blood is no remission.' It was a blessed illustration of substitution --the innocent dying for the guilty." Gleanings in Genesis by Arthur W. Pink, copyright 1922 by Moody Press, page 44.

Life was taken, blood was shed, and a covering was provided by the Lord. All Adam and Eve had to do was accept what God provided.

So, I think it is silly to speculate how much of their bodies were covered, whether there were sleeves or not, and if so whether they were three-quarter length or to the wrist and how much leg was visible.

[mfblume]

I don't think this has anything to do with "modesty" as we are using it today. Adam and Eve had made aprons(KJV) or breeches(Geneva) or loin cloths (CJB) or apron-like girdles(Amplified) or loin coverings(NAS) or coverings(NIV) or whatever they are called in other versions.

instead, YHWH the Word or Memra or Logos killed animals and made coats of skins (KJV and Geneva) or long coats(tunics) of skin(Amplified) or garments of skin(NAS and NIV and CJB) or whatever they are called in other versions.

A note in one of my Bibles says, "The same thing was wrong with Adam's apron that was wrong with him. They were both dying-- the leaves because they had been separated from the fig tree and Adam because he had been separated from God. They were both withering while they were walking."

Someone has said:
"This verse gives us a typical picture of a sinner's salvation. It was the first Gospel sermon preached by God Himself, not in words but in symbol and action. It was a setting forth of the way by which a sinful creature could return unto and approach his holy Creator. It was the initial declaration of the fundamental fact that 'without shedding of blood is no remission.' It was a blessed illustration of substitution --the innocent dying for the guilty." Gleanings in Genesis by Arthur W. Pink, copyright 1922 by Moody Press, page 44.

Life was taken, blood was shed, and a covering was provided by the Lord. All Adam and Eve had to do was accept what God provided.

So, I think it is silly to speculate how much of their bodies were covered, whether there were sleeves or not, and if so whether they were three-quarter length or to the wrist and how much leg was visible.

Exactly. Modesty or not? Talk about missing the whole point and greater picture/message!

[onefaith2]

I said, "ideology." Not "theology."

As to what it may be, I can only guess from your posts. If you feel that you have been misunderstood, then it is incumbent upon you to clarify and expound. Your readers can only respond to what we seen in the little boxes on our screens.

What have I expressed in posts? How can I defend what I have no idea what you are assuming? I have posted quite a bit.

Standards are not 1F2's ideology. They are standards that churches have made based on what they read in scripture. So i embrace what I agree with and don't embrace what I don't. What have you gained from my post?

[Pressing-On]

Exactly. Modesty or not? Talk about missing the whole point and greater picture/message!

No one missed the greater picture. We simply were comparing the definition of "apron" and "clothed". I could have copied and pasted the same thing Sam posted. That wasn't what we were discussing. Sometimes you can be so arrogant and insulting.

[Praxeas]

"Properly and completely covered" is something that we impose upon the text many centuries after humans had existed in hunter-gatherer societies and long after the development of the loom, whose products influenced the phrasing that we read.

As to the blood sacrifice element here, that does seem apparent to me but it is not explicit. However, one must ask, "Did God make the 'new' garments for Adam and Eve because their own garments failed to measure up to His own modesty standards, or did He do so that He might set the precedent for blood sacrifice?"

Adam and Eve "saw that they were naked." This was a "guilt" or "shame" that they themselves are said to have felt even away from the presence of God. They reacted to that feeling by covering up whatever it was that made them feel "naked." As I said, the stem here is "aprons around the waist."

God then is said to make "coverings." The stem here implies something more modest in our modern conventional sense, but then again it can be as ambiguous as "aprons around the waist." Either way, since this is the etiology for any kind of garment at all - it is important to see that "covering" and the idea of modesty is the point and not that Adam was made a fine pair of trousers while Eve was made a pretty gingham dress.
The only thing I would point out is in doing the blood sacrifice thingy God did not have to also make clothes for them, but when he did he made coats not aprons

[Aquila]

LOL! I was just messin' with you.

Lol

Thanks okay. :)

We are "one with Christ" when we submit ourselves to Him. You are coming across as though He picks us up and carries us along with or without our consent and I don't believe He does that.

I believe we are one with Him even when we don’t submit to Him. To say that we aren’t is to say that the moment you sin (so much as a sinful thought or curse word in traffic) the Holy Ghost departs from you. You see, we are one with Him through the indwelling of Holy Spirit. As long as the Holy Spirit is present, we are one with Him…even in those moments when we aren’t submitted. Our remaining one with Him isn’t predicated upon behavior, performance, or works. It’s predicated entirely upon His grace. Because if He left it up to you or me… we’d no doubt loose it.

I Corinthians 15:31 "I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily."

Romans 8:13 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

Yes, we do these things with the help of the Spirit, but it must be our decision, in the first place, to submit ourselves to His Spirit.

I have to decide, everyday, that I will give my time to God before anything else. I used to pray in the afternoons. That used to work for me when my children were growing up. Now, I find that I have to commit my time in the mornings. But, it is my decision, and it is like a marriage. If I stop communicating, I cannot keep the relationship together. It has to be my choice. It will always be God's.

If you look closely at what you wrote, you’ll notice that you based your entire walk of faith on what you do. Notice how many times you said, “I”, “me”, “my”. I have a different perspective. I believe that the Lord Himself has laid it upon your heart through the power of the Spirit to give your time to God for prayer. You didn’t just come up with that on your own. It was a leading and prompting of the Spirit. And because you have a new nature, that nature (the nature of God in you) actually “desires” to following God’s leading and prompting. It’s not that you “submit”. That’s like saying you really don’t want to do it, but you “submit”. Your “submission” is grounded in the fact that you have a new nature that breathes obedience, rejoices in obedience, and when you sin or fall short, that new nature is convicted (unlike the unregenerate sinner who wouldn’t care). I’ve been reading the works of Hudson Taylor. He has a lot of insight in this area. You see, Hudson Taylor believed that he was so “one” with Christ Jesus that his very own thoughts were the fruit of the divine mind of Christ, i.e., Taylor literally appropriated the truth of having the mind of Christ Jesus. Thus, according to Hudson Taylor’s perspective it wasn’t Hudson Taylor deciding and choosing… it was Christ in Him. He saw it this way because Mr. Taylor knew he deserved no “pat on the back” for obedience, his obedience wasn’t his choice…but the very fruit and work of Christ in Him. In Hudson Taylor’s mind…Hudson Taylor was no longer alive. He was crucified with Christ. Now it was Christ living in and through Him, totally possessing His very being. It’s a beautiful concept that goes beyond the performance based paradigm of looking at what we are experiencing. Rather, it focuses in on our being changed. It isn’t about behavior or performance… it’s all about our very nature being changed as we partake in the divine nature of Christ Jesus, who lives in us. We are truly NEW CREATURES and literally extensions of Jesus Christ Himself (the body of Christ).

Although, I do see Him working in our lives when our flesh seems at odds with Him. From experience, I've seen Him deliver from sin, if in a person's heart, what they are engaged in is something they don't really want to be doing, but feel trapped and can't find a way out. That is when He steps in, but it is because He knows the heart.

My personal conviction is that this proposes that God is on “standby” waiting on us to sanctify ourselves from sin and the flesh; God only stepping in when we are “trapped and can’t find a way out.” I disagree personally; I believe that from start to finish it is the work of God. God draws whom He has chosen with a relentless grace into Christ. It is by God’s grace that we are kept in Christ. And our sanctification is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit as we renew our minds through the Word.

So, again, it places the onus on the individual.

Exactly. With the onus on the individual salvation is entirely upon the individual’s behavior. That means that regardless of what Christ has done, the individual is their own savior. Also, onus doesn’t account for nature, it focuses on works.

God will always do His part.

I believe that God does it all. He who began the good work in us will be faithful to complete it.

I think mfblume spoke about that on another thread concerning forgiveness. If we are not blatantly stumbling into sin with the thought that we can repent later, but are truly sorry for it, He will forgive.

This implies that if we purposefully sin God will not forgive. Who hasn’t “purposefully” sinned? It could also be looked at this way… all sins are actions based on ignorance. Why? When Christ was crucified He prayed, “Father forgiven them. For they know not what they do.” Certainly they knew they were crucifying Christ Jesus, an innocent man, essentially committing murder. What didn’t they know? First, they didn’t know who He truly was. Second, they didn’t know the full effects of their actions. When we “sin” it’s often the result of loosing sight of who Christ truly is in our lives. Also, when we choose to sin we rarely anticipate the full ramifications of our actions. No one knows the depth of pain and sorrow that their sin will bring. Thus it can be said that it is committed in ignorance, not with regards to the act itself, but with regards to the very nature and power of sin.

I knew a strong holiness preacher who firmly believed in “living for Christ” as opposed to “living in Christ”. He preached that we must be “perfect”, “sinless”, “holy” if we want to go to Heaven. While at Bob Evan’s after a Morning Prayer meeting, this preacher told us men a rather racist joke. I looked at my plate and chose not to laugh. He inquired as to if I was offended. I explained that I believed it was a sin. He laughed and said, “Oh, it was a funny sin! A bad joke is just a little sin anyway.” I was floored. It was one of those initial moments I began to see issues in the holiness mindset. You see… that sinful joke was SIN. Period. That one sinful joke is treason against the Creator. God’s HOLINESS is so great that one sinful joke warrants ETERNAL damnation. Because this preacher believed in works and the need to perform properly (from submission to obedience) he also justified his sins to meet the grace in his own eyes. All of us do that if we’re honest. We all have “sins” that are in our lives as I type this. If we say we don’t, we’re calling God a liar and we have downgraded our understanding of how HOLY God truly is. God is sooooo Holy… a single lustful thought is adultery. When we truly comprehend the Holiness of God and the seriousness of sin… we realize that salvation is only possible by grace through faith, not by any works on our part. For if our salvation depends on works at all on our part… we’ve all horribly failed already. At our very best the only thing we deserve is eternity in Hell.

Our views might be best explained in the following analogies…

Your view has God pulling up with a beautiful new car and inviting us to take the wheel. We sit in the driver’s seat as He sits in the passenger seat. God then tells us what turns to take to get to our destination…but ultimately the choice to follow those directions are ours. If we veer too far off course, God gets out and begins walking away. If we choose to follow His directions we get to our destination safely.

In my view God pulls up in a beautiful new car and invites us to get into the passenger seat. God Himself keeps the wheel firmly in hand and begins driving to the destination. All we have to do is remain seated, doing nothing, trusting that He will get us to our destination. As we ride with Him, He changes us in preparation for the destination. Those who choose to get out, even if to find another car (works based religion) they can drive to Heaven, were never truly His to begin with. Why? Because they want the wheel (control) - even if they want to get to Heaven.

You see… absolute surrender is absolute surrender...even surrendering the right to choose. I can do nothing now. I’m dead, crucified with Christ. When I was a legalist I had the wheel and tried to follow God’s directions as best I could…but I seemed to always find myself off course at some point. I’m so glad God didn’t get out of my car. Instead, I gave into grace and gave Him the wheel and now I sit in the passenger seat doing nothing, allowing our conversation to change me. The desire to have the wheel is an unsurrendered part of self. The holiness believer (legalist) gives God everything but total control. That’s why Paul said that those seeking to be justified by the Law are fallen from grace (Galatians).

Salvation is entirely the work of God. Our salvation his found in three tenses – past, present, and future. We were justified by faith in the finished work of God in Christ Jesus. We are sanctified by the on going work of the Spirit. We will be glorified by the very power of God. We don’t earn it. We do nothing. We simply allow Christ to live His life out through us, in accordance to the righteous divine nature imparted to us by faith.

Birth determines nature and it doesn’t change. I was born a human being. And I am human even if I don’t act like it sometimes. I can’t be a dog. When I was born again the very nature of Jesus Christ was imparted to me, and His righteousness imputed. I was “born again” a saint of God. And that I will always be…even if at times I don’t behave like it.

[*AQuietPlace*]

As to the blood sacrifice element here, that does seem apparent to me but it is not explicit. However, one must ask, "Did God make the 'new' garments for Adam and Eve because their own garments failed to measure up to His own modesty standards, or did He do so that He might set the precedent for blood sacrifice?"





Or did he do so because fig leaves aren't very practical clothing material? They'd soon dry up, get brittle and fall to pieces. He made them clothing that would last.

We can conjecture all day, but the Bible just doesn't say.

[*AQuietPlace*]

No one missed the greater picture. We simply were comparing the definition of "apron" and "clothed". I could have copied and pasted the same thing Sam posted. That wasn't what we were discussing. Sometimes you can be so arrogant and insulting.


mblume arrogant and insulting?? Wow! He's one of the most balanced posters on the board in my opinion. :blink

[Pressing-On]

I believe we are one with Him even when we don’t submit to Him. To say that we aren’t is to say that the moment you sin (so much as a sinful thought or curse word in traffic) the Holy Ghost departs from you. You see, we are one with Him through the indwelling of Holy Spirit. As long as the Holy Spirit is present, we are one with Him…even in those moments when we aren’t submitted. Our remaining one with Him isn’t predicated upon behavior, performance, or works. It’s predicated entirely upon His grace. Because if He left it up to you or me… we’d no doubt loose it.

If you look closely at what you wrote, you’ll notice that you based your entire walk of faith on what you do. Notice how many times you said, “I”, “me”, “my”. I have a different perspective. I believe that the Lord Himself has laid it upon your heart through the power of the Spirit to give your time to God for prayer. You didn’t just come up with that on your own. It was a leading and prompting of the Spirit. And because you have a new nature, that nature (the nature of God in you) actually “desires” to following God’s leading and prompting. It’s not that you “submit”. That’s like saying you really don’t want to do it, but you “submit”. Your “submission” is grounded in the fact that you have a new nature that breathes obedience, rejoices in obedience, and when you sin or fall short, that new nature is convicted (unlike the unregenerate sinner who wouldn’t care).

My personal conviction is that this proposes that God is on “standby” waiting on us to sanctify ourselves from sin and the flesh; God only stepping in when we are “trapped and can’t find a way out.” I disagree personally; I believe that from start to finish it is the work of God. God draws whom He has chosen with a relentless grace into Christ. It is by God’s grace that we are kept in Christ. And our sanctification is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit as we renew our minds through the Word.

Exactly. With the onus on the individual salvation is entirely upon the individual’s behavior. That means that regardless of what Christ has done, the individual is their own savior. Also, onus doesn’t account for nature, it focuses on works.

I believe that God does it all. He who began the good work in us will be faithful to complete it.

Our views might be best explained in the following analogies…

Your view has God pulling up with a beautiful new car and inviting us to take the wheel. We sit in the driver’s seat as He sits in the passenger seat. God then tells us what turns to take to get to our destination…but ultimately the choice to follow those directions are ours. If we veer too far off course, God gets out and begins walking away. If we choose to follow His directions we get to our destination safely.

In my view God pulls up in a beautiful new car and invites us to get into the passenger seat. God Himself keeps the wheel firmly in hand and begins driving to the destination. All we have to do is remain seated, doing nothing, trusting that He will get us to our destination. As we ride with Him, He changes us in preparation for the destination. Those who choose to get out, even if to find another car (works based religion) they can drive to Heaven, were never truly His to begin with. Why? Because they want the wheel (control) - even if they want to get to Heaven.

You see… absolute surrender is absolute surrender...even surrendering the right to choose. I can do nothing now. I’m dead, crucified with Christ. When I was a legalist I had the wheel and tried to follow God’s directions as best I could…but I seemed to always find myself off course at some point. I’m so glad God didn’t get out of my car. Instead, I gave into grace and gave Him the wheel and now I sit in the passenger seat doing nothing, allowing our conversation to change me. The desire to have the wheel is an unsurrendered part of self. The holiness believer (legalist) gives God everything but total control. That’s why Paul said that those seeking to be justified by the Law are fallen from grace (Galatians).

Salvation is entirely the work of God. Our salvation his found in three tenses – past, present, and future. We were justified by faith in the finished work of God in Christ Jesus. We are sanctified by the on going work of the Spirit. We will be glorified by the very power of God. We don’t earn it. We do nothing. We simply allow Christ to live His life out through us, in accordance to the righteous divine nature imparted to us by faith.

Birth determines nature and it doesn’t change. I was born a human being. And I am human even if I don’t act like it sometimes. I can’t be a dog. When I was born again the very nature of Jesus Christ was imparted to me, and His righteousness imputed. I was “born again” a saint of God. And that I will always be…even if at times I don’t behave like it.
Getting ready to head out of town, but what I am thinking is - None of the things we "do" is a work to obtain salvation. It is simply so that we may maintain and grow. We don't ever sit in a passenger seat "doing nothing". That contradicts every admonition in the Bible. Why else would he give the five-fold ministry?

"(11)And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:11-13)

There is so much in this passage. I will simply highlight some of the major points that speak to me.

2 Timothy 2

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

3Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

4No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

5And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

6The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.



9Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.


15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Timothy is charge to "war" a good warfare.


"This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;" (I Timothy 1:18)

We are admonished to "hold fast the profession of our faith".

"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)" (Hebrews 10:23)

As in II Timothy 2:13 "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

He is always faithful and just, that doesn't mean we sit in a passenger's seat "doing nothing". This isn't a OSAS truth.

[Pressing-On]

mblume arrogant and insulting?? Wow! He's one of the most balanced posters on the board in my opinion. :blink
He usually is. I was offended at his remark today. :D

[Aquila]

Getting ready to head out of town, but what I am thinking is - None of the things we "do" is a work to obtain salvation. It is simply so that we may maintain and grow. We don't ever sit in a passenger seat "doing nothing". That contradicts every admonition in the Bible. Why else would he give the five-fold ministry?

"(11)And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:11-13)

There is so much in this passage. I will simply highlight some of the major points that speak to me.

2 Timothy 2

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

3Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

4No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

5And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

6The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.



9Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.


15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Timothy is charge to "war" a good warfare.


"This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;" (I Timothy 1:18)

We are admonished to "hold fast the profession of our faith".

"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)" (Hebrews 10:23)

As in II Timothy 2:13 "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

He is always faithful and just, that doesn't mean we sit in a passenger's seat "doing nothing". This isn't a OSAS truth.

I've discovered that resting in Christ and doing nothing (allowing God to do in me) is the hardest thing to do. It's human nature to try to have some control.

I like Hudson Taylor's perspective....

"The branch of the vine does not worry, and toil, and rush here to seek for sunshine, and there to find rain. No; it rests in union and communion with the vine; and at the right time, and in the right way, is the right fruit found on it. Let us so abide in the Lord Jesus." ~ Hudson Taylor

Without Him, we can do nothing. Even the very prompting of our thoughts and desires and every action should be a work of the Holy Ghost in us. For example, let's say a man wants to repent of abusing alcohol. He hears the Gospel and wants to be set free. Is HE wanting to be free? No...in the flesh he wants the alcohol. It's the spirit that wants free. Why? Because the Holy Ghost is prompting to seek freedom. So the man chooses to stop drinking. Did he "choose" to stop drinking? No. The Holy Ghost chose to deliver Him and brought such conviction on his very soul (and often fire of circumstance) that he was overcome by the Holy Ghost's desire to free him and surrendered. God knows how much it takes to make the human soul cry uncle. No human will is beyond God's ability to break.

[onefaith2]

I've discovered that resting in Christ and doing nothing (allowing God to do in me) is the hardest thing to do. It's human nature to try to have some control.

I like Hudson Taylor's perspective....

"The branch of the vine does not worry, and toil, and rush here to seek for sunshine, and there to find rain. No; it rests in union and communion with the vine; and at the right time, and in the right way, is the right fruit found on it. Let us so abide in the Lord Jesus." ~ Hudson Taylor

Without Him, we can do nothing. Even the very prompting of our thoughts and desires and every action should be a work of the Holy Ghost in us. For example, let's say a man wants to repent of abusing alcohol. He hears the Gospel and wants to be set free. Is HE wanting to be free? No...in the flesh he wants the alcohol. It's the spirit that wants free. Why? Because the Holy Ghost is prompting to seek freedom. So the man chooses to stop drinking. Did he "choose" to stop drinking? No. The Holy Ghost chose to deliver Him and brought such conviction on his very soul (and often fire of circumstance) that he was overcome by the Holy Ghost's desire to free him and surrendered. God knows how much it takes to make the human soul cry uncle. No human will is beyond God's ability to break.

Aquila why didn't you address the scriptures PO posted? A man's word surely doesn't carry more weight than the scriptures themselves. I know you better than that I think?

[Aquila]

Aquila why didn't you address the scriptures PO posted? A man's word surely doesn't carry more weight than the scriptures themselves. I know you better than that I think?

The reason is simple. One can post Scriptures stating that WE are to do something or admonish that WE are TO DO something. Then I could post Scripture regarding how without Christ WE CAN DO NOTHING. How if we seek to be justified by works of the Law we're fallen from grace. About walking in the flesh vs. in the Spirit and absolute surrender to God's leading, to the point of the death of self. Then all that we have is the traditional Pentecostal insanity of saying, "My Scripture cancels out your Scripture and I'm right."

The problem is... BOTH texts are right. Yes, WE are to do and be and act... but it has to be Christ acting through us, in us, and for us.... not we acting through, by, or for self.... even if it's religiously motivated.

[mfblume]

If one notices, all the responsibility we have is in the negative. Not negative in the sense of doing things we should not do, but in the sense of getting rid of and removing things from us. We cannot add anything that makes us ready for glory. God does that part. Do what we do does not save us. What He does saves us.

[UnTraditional]

If one notices, all the responsibility we have is in the negative. Not negative in the sense of doing things we should not do, but in the sense of getting rid of and removing things from us. We cannot add anything that makes us ready for glory. God does that part. Do what we do does not save us. What He does saves us.

Someone bronze this! Excellent post from the gravitationally challenged brother from Canada! :heeheehee

[Aquila]

If one notices, all the responsibility we have is in the negative. Not negative in the sense of doing things we should not do, but in the sense of getting rid of and removing things from us. We cannot add anything that makes us ready for glory. God does that part. Do what we do does not save us. What He does saves us.

We can't mold ourselves. I think that's the point. All we can do is surrender and rest in grace, being obedient to specific promptings of the Spirit.

For example, the smoker says, "I'm going to quit for Jesus today!" And so he quits.... then fails... determines to quit again and fails.... and quits again... and again... and again. He needs to just stop trying. He's acting in the flesh. He's doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons. He has to rest in God's grace and simply surrender the control and timing of his deliverance to God praying, "Lord Jesus, set me free. Change me. Take this desire out of me." Then lay it on the altar and walk away. He might smoke for another six months. Then suddenly one day out of the blue, or perhas suddenly late at night, he'll discover that the very desire to smoke is GONE. He's been changed. Delivered. He didn't TRY. He didn't use effort. All He did was pray and surrender to the Spirit to work His work in His timing. His deliverance was God's work in Him...not His own work or effort.

Even if a man quits smoking through will power. It was an act of the flesh and is frankly rooted in self control, not Christ control.

Will power only changes one's behavior. Christ power changes one's nature.

[onefaith2]

The reason is simple. One can post Scriptures stating that WE are to do something or admonish that WE are TO DO something. Then I could post Scripture regarding how without Christ WE CAN DO NOTHING. How if we seek to be justified by works of the Law we're fallen from grace. About walking in the flesh vs. in the Spirit and absolute surrender to God's leading, to the point of the death of self. Then all that we have is the traditional Pentecostal insanity of saying, "My Scripture cancels out your Scripture and I'm right."

The problem is... BOTH texts are right. Yes, WE are to do and be and act... but it has to be Christ acting through us, in us, and for us.... not we acting through, by, or for self.... even if it's religiously motivated.

That post didn't advocate acting by self. It advocating deciding to follow the Spirit.

[Aquila]

That post didn't advocate acting by self. It advocating deciding to follow the Spirit.

Then where is the disagreement? lol

All that we do should be fruit of the Spirit living within us making us Christ like. Not fruits of self will, self power, or self effort to obey some legalistic law.

[onefaith2]

Then where is the disagreement? lol

All that we do should be fruit of the Spirit living within us making us Christ like. Not fruits of self will, self power, or self effort to obey some legalistic law.

Because you are saying you don't have to decide or choose to follow the Spirit. You are seemingly arguing its automatic, like we are robots programmed once saved to serve God, with no free will or choice in the matter. I argued this with you a couple days ago, remember?

[mfblume]

Because you are saying you don't have to decide or choose to follow the Spirit. You are seemingly arguing its automatic, like we are robots programmed once saved to serve God, with no free will or choice in the matter. I argued this with you a couple days ago, remember?

Not sure if you brethren are speaking past each other or not. But, we do indeed have responsibility to follow the Spirit. What we do as we follow, though, must be understood as activities that do not save us, except acquiescing to His will in a heart decision. He, however, does the work that directly saves us. So we obey so He can save us, but our obedience is not directly the element that gets us into heaven. The direct element is the work of the cross. So, if the cross had not occurred, any act of obedience would leave us lost.

[Sam]

The purpose of the branch is to provide a place for the fruit to be displayed.
The branch does not struggle and toil to produce the fruit.
The fruit is automatically produced by the life that is flowing through and throughout the vine.
As long as the vine abides/continues in the vine, fruit will be produced.

Quite a few years ago I had a couple of tomato plants growing in amongst some flowers. I didn't really take care of them and they didn't produce any tomatoes. A neighbor was kidding me about them and said he had thought about attaching some of his tomatoes to them with clothes pins. This sound like some people who try to "attach" fruit to their lives by their own effort instead of allowing God to produce it as His life flows through them.

Galatians chapter 5 speaks of "the fruit of the Spirit" not about something that we are to artificially hang on the branches just for appearance sake.

Fruit displays that there is life in the branch and in the vine. Fruit will be apparent to the observer. If you are really attached to the vine, His life will produce fruit in your life.

Philippians 2:12-13 speaks of God working in us--both to will and to do of His pleasure. We can do, because God gives us the want to and the how to.

[onefaith2]

Not sure if you brethren are speaking past each other or not. But, we do indeed have responsibility to follow the Spirit. What we do as we follow, though, must be understood as activities that do not save us, except acquiescing to His will in a heart decision. He, however, does the work that directly saves us. So we obey so He can save us, but our obedience is not directly the element that gets us into heaven. The direct element is the work of the cross. So, if the cross had not occurred, any act of obedience would leave us lost.

You said that what we do doesn't save us but then said if we obey, He saves us. So ultimately what we are doing is obeying and that is how HE saves us. Has nothing to do with what we do of ourselves. Some folks though take this to the extreme and say we do nothing to abide in the vine, and that is simply not so.

[snicker1986]

The purpose of the branch is to provide a place for the fruit to be displayed.
The branch does not struggle and toil to produce the fruit.
The fruit is automatically produced by the life that is flowing through and throughout the vine.
As long as the vine abides/continues in the vine, fruit will be produced.

Quite a few years ago I had a couple of tomato plants growing in amongst some flowers. I didn't really take care of them and they didn't produce any tomatoes. A neighbor was kidding me about them and said he had thought about attaching some of his tomatoes to them with clothes pins. This sound like some people who try to "attach" fruit to their lives by their own effort instead of allowing God to produce it as His life flows through them.

Galatians chapter 5 speaks of "the fruit of the Spirit" not about something that we are to artificially hang on the branches just for appearance sake.

Fruit displays that there is life in the branch and in the vine. Fruit will be apparent to the observer. If you are really attached to the vine, His life will produce fruit in your life.

Philippians 2:12-13 speaks of God working in us--both to will and to do of His pleasure. We can do, because God gives us the want to and the how to.

I dont post often - usually lurk - but had to reposnd here...

WOW - that was an amazing analogy - THANK YOU!

[pelathais]

Or did he do so because fig leaves aren't very practical clothing material? They'd soon dry up, get brittle and fall to pieces. He made them clothing that would last.

We can conjecture all day, but the Bible just doesn't say.

This was in the day before Benadryl became available as a topical cream. Perhaps the whole "leaves as clothing" fad was just way too far ahead of its time?

[pelathais]

The only thing I would point out is in doing the blood sacrifice thingy God did not have to also make clothes for them, but when he did he made coats not aprons

If I were to contend further I may find myself in the uncomfortable position of appearing to support the idea of "topless Eves" - when that is not my point at all. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

The original question concerned the "gender specificity" of the garments in question. The aprons of fig leaves and the animal skin garments do not appear to have been sewn in any manner other than that which was necessary to "hide" or cover their shame.

The question of the "blood sacrifice" in the animal skins is something that I generally agree with, however it is not explicit and therefore, for me at least, it serves as a more devotional than a doctrinal point.

[mfblume]

You said that what we do doesn't save us but then said if we obey, He saves us. So ultimately what we are doing is obeying and that is how HE saves us. Has nothing to do with what we do of ourselves. Some folks though take this to the extreme and say we do nothing to abide in the vine, and that is simply not so.
I agree. I like what Sam said.

Jesus said "Consider the lilies, HOW they grow." How does a plant grow? Does it use its little leaves and lift weights and increase strength through self effort? No. It sinks its roots in the earth and DRAWS from the minerals and its leaves draw from the sunlight. It needs to remain rooted in the earth, though. That is just how it works with us. We draw from His strength, but it is up to us to remain rooted.

Paul told the Colossians to ensure they are rooted in Christ. He did not tell them to concoct their strength through ascetic means.

We have a part to play. Remain in the vine, and rooted in Christ. And DRAW from Him by His Spirit. As the sap flows from the vine into the branch and the nutrients from the roots and sunlight from the leaves, we draw on the HOLY GHOST POWER by being PLUGGED INTO CHRIST, like an electrical plug into an outlet. We have the ensure the plug is in the outlet, but the power comes from Christ!

[Aquila]

Because you are saying you don't have to decide or choose to follow the Spirit. You are seemingly arguing its automatic, like we are robots programmed once saved to serve God, with no free will or choice in the matter. I argued this with you a couple days ago, remember?

Not robots, new creatures. When Christ died our old man (old sinful nature) was crucified with Him. When we receive the Spirit of God we become new creatures in that we are now partakers in Christ's divine nature. We have a new nature. This new nature is imparted to us via the Holy Spirit becoming one with our dead human spirit, bringing our spirit to divine life in Christ Jesus. At this point the individual is now one with Christ (the vine). This is “regeneration”. Our soul (the mind) is programmed to live according to the old sinful paradigms. So it needs to be renewed by washing it with the Word of God, bringing the soul in harmony with the spirit that is one with the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. Our bodies still have carnal impulses that are hormonal and rooted in our biology. If the new nature of a fish was imparted to you, you’d love water. You’d swim naturally. You’d be at home in the water. We have the indwelling divine nature. Thus we are at home in that which is righteous and holy. Our spirits are troubled (convicted) when we sin or act out of accordance to the indwelling divine nature. Thus in a way, we are “programmed”, to desire holiness and righteousness. If one doesn’t… they were never regenerated. Period. Whatever they received wasn’t the Spirit of Christ Jesus.

So one’s human spirit is “regenerated”, saved.
One’s soul is being sanctified through the Word.
One’s body will be glorified at the coming of Jesus Christ.

The Father’s purpose and soul desire is to conform us into the image and likeness of Christ. That is the sole aim of the Christian faith as delivered to us by Christ Jesus. No human being can become like Christ. Only Jesus Christ can be Christ. This is why allowing the Spirit of Christ to live the “Christ-life” (Christianity) out through us is essential. Jesus lives the Christian life because as a human being, it’s impossible. If we are “dead”, crucified with Christ, we are dead to the Law. It isn’t binding upon us in any way. The payment has been paid (death) through Christ Jesus and the wrath of God fully satisfied (propitiation). We must rest from trying to be justified by the Law, we’re dead to it. Thus we are taking control from God when working works by effort and will power. All must be done through the indwelling Spirit in accordance to His very nature which we are partakers of. Absolute surrender from sin and toil. The branch doesn’t frantically try to bear fruit. It simply remains one with the vine. The vine’s life flows through the branch bringing fruit. Likewise the Christian isn’t to frantically try to bear fruit, this is operating in the flesh (legalism). The Christian must simply abide in Christ through the Spirit and allow Christ’s own life and power to be manifest in them bearing precious fruit. That’s why these fruit are called the “fruit of the Spirit” and not the “fruit of the believer”.

[onefaith2]

Not robots, new creatures. When Christ died our old man (old sinful nature) was crucified with Him. When we receive the Spirit of God we become new creatures in that we are now partakers in Christ's divine nature. We have a new nature. This new nature is imparted to us via the Holy Spirit becoming one with our dead human spirit, bringing our spirit to divine life in Christ Jesus. At this point the individual is now one with Christ (the vine). This is “regeneration”. Our soul (the mind) is programmed to live according to the old sinful paradigms. So it needs to be renewed by washing it with the Word of God, bringing the soul in harmony with the spirit that is one with the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. Our bodies still have carnal impulses that are hormonal and rooted in our biology. If the new nature of a fish was imparted to you, you’d love water. You’d swim naturally. You’d be at home in the water. We have the indwelling divine nature. Thus we are at home in that which is righteous and holy. Our spirits are troubled (convicted) when we sin or act out of accordance to the indwelling divine nature. Thus in a way, we are “programmed”, to desire holiness and righteousness. If one doesn’t… they were never regenerated. Period. Whatever they received wasn’t the Spirit of Christ Jesus.

So one’s human spirit is “regenerated”, saved.
One’s soul is being sanctified through the Word.
One’s body will be glorified at the coming of Jesus Christ.

The Father’s purpose and soul desire is to conform us into the image and likeness of Christ. That is the sole aim of the Christian faith as delivered to us by Christ Jesus. No human being can become like Christ. Only Jesus Christ can be Christ. This is why allowing the Spirit of Christ to live the “Christ-life” (Christianity) out through us is essential. Jesus lives the Christian life because as a human being, it’s impossible. If we are “dead”, crucified with Christ, we are dead to the Law. It isn’t binding upon us in any way. The payment has been paid (death) through Christ Jesus and the wrath of God fully satisfied (propitiation). We must rest from trying to be justified by the Law, we’re dead to it. Thus we are taking control from God when working works by effort and will power. All must be done through the indwelling Spirit in accordance to His very nature which we are partakers of. Absolute surrender from sin and toil. The branch doesn’t frantically try to bear fruit. It simply remains one with the vine. The vine’s life flows through the branch bringing fruit. Likewise the Christian isn’t to frantically try to bear fruit, this is operating in the flesh (legalism). The Christian must simply abide in Christ through the Spirit and allow Christ’s own life and power to be manifest in them bearing precious fruit. That’s why these fruit are called the “fruit of the Spirit” and not the “fruit of the believer”.

You are talking past me Bro! I am saying that you consciously have to allow this change, it doesn't come natural. I think Bro. Blume and Sam and I would all agree that it does take our decision to abide in the vine, before fruit can truly occur.




John 15
The Vine and the Branches
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

I don't the point of "they were never truly saved to begin with matches this" These vines were "attached" but were thrown away and withered. At one point they were attached.

[Praxeas]

Aquila why didn't you address the scriptures PO posted? A man's word surely doesn't carry more weight than the scriptures themselves. I know you better than that I think?
lol :icecream

[Aquila]

You are talking past me Bro! I am saying that you consciously have to allow this change, it doesn't come natural.

If you’re a new creature, it does come “natural”. Here’s what I mean….

When an un-regenerated sinner sins they feel like it’s just another day. They are being themselves; for example an un-regenerated couple living together out of wedlock. They might feel social pressure to marry from friends and family. But they don’t feel any deep spiritual shame or conviction. If their family doesn’t apply such social pressure they feel like they are enjoying and sharing life together.

But a Christian is different. A Christian is one with the Spirit of God that dwells within them. A Christian is a new creature with a new nature, the divine nature that they now take part in. So if one or both of these un-regenerated Christians becomes “born again” they will begin feel like something is “not right”, something has changed even if they aren’t sure what. As they study the Word of God and the mind of Christ is developed in them, their thoughts regarding sin will come into harmony with what God says about sin. This brings the soul and spirit into moral harmony. During this process their “conviction” may build into “godly sorrow for sin”. At this point they can begin grieving the Holy Spirit by continuing together, or they can repent and plan to marry or separate. If they choose to grieve the Spirit, they are not lost. God will “turn up the heat” to bring the repentance necessary, even if it takes half a lifetime. Time isn’t an issue with God. The loving development of His children is His focus.

Some might feel “religious guilt”, but not deep spiritual conviction. This isn’t the result of being born again. It’s the result of religious social pressure. This is often resisted and the couple will leave church. This couple was never truly born again.

Some might feel “religious guilt”, but not deep spiritual conviction and make “behavioral changes”. For example Muslims and cult members.

I’m sure you’ve experienced what I’m talking about. Every born again believer has. We just don’t always understand exactly what’s taking place. This process is unknown to the un-regenerated sinner. They don’t feel “conviction” like a born again believer does. This is because the born again believer has a new nature. The old nature was crucified with Christ. Here’s how Paul broke it down:

Romans 7:15-25
15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Notice, Paul is describing how his behavior is such that he feels compelled to do things he hates.

16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Notice that Paul indicates that if he is doing what he hates, by hating it he consents to the Law that it is good.

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul now states that it is no longer “him” who is sinning, but the principle of sin that is present with him (that is in his flesh/mind). Why is it no longer Paul that is sinning? Because Paul has a new spiritual nature that hates sin. It’s the un-regenerated flesh that Paul is now warring against.

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Paul affirms this. In his “flesh” (un-regenerated flesh) there is no good thing. To will is present with Paul due to the new nature, but how to perform that which is good, Paul can’t figure it out.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul goes back to his dilemma. Paul’s new nature hates the sin that he commits. This shows Paul that it isn’t him that is sinful, Paul is a new creature with a new nature trapped in an un-regenerated body, it’s the principle of sin working in his flesh that is sinful.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Paul, a new creature with a new nature, now finds that when he would do righteously, the principle of sin (evil) is present with him. Notice Paul doesn’t say that he himself is evil, it’s a principle at work in the flesh (his earthsuit) that he lives in down here. Paul’s regenerated inner man (mind and spirit) has a new nature that delights in the law of God. But there is another law in his flesh warring against his inner man, bringing him into bondage to the law of sin which is in his flesh.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul sees his wretched condition, but thanks God through Jesus Christ. So with the inner man Paul serves the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. The next chapter goes into allowing the Spirit of Christ to live through you for victory.

So yes, a new spiritual nature that hates sin resides in you. Sin comes natural to your flesh… but righteousness comes natural to your spirit. Now you simply have to bring the flesh into submission to that Holy Spirit in you to be whole in Christ Jesus.

When my little boy does wrong he’ll say, “I’m sorry daddy, I’m a bad boy.” That’s when I say, “No buddy, you’re just a good boy who did a bad thing.” In a way this is what we are. We have the imputed righteousness of Christ, through the Holy Spirit residing in us. We are partakers of the divine nature… new creatures. Never before Christ has their existed a creature with a divine spiritual nature in earthly sinful flesh. We are not what we were. We are righteous and holy creatures in regards to the inner man, but the flesh wars against us, and often we sin. Therefore we are saints who sin. My son can walk around on all fours and bark like a dog. That doesn’t make him a dog, he’s a human being acting like a dog. You are a saint. When you sin you’re a saint acting like a sinner, don’t let the devil tell you that you’re a filthy rotten sinner. He’s lying. That’s not your nature any more. Believe the lie that you’re just a “sinner saved by grace” and you’ll be defeated by the flesh every time. You are a saint who is saved by grace. And yes, sometimes you’re a saint who sins. But you are never not a saint. Even if you believe one can loose their salvation… you’ll still be a saint in the depths of Hell (imagine the torments of one existing in Hell knowing they are a partaker in the divine nature. What horror! The sinner doesn’t know what he’s missing….but the saint does!).

If you find your identity in Christ, die to self and effort, and allow Him to live His life out through you via the new nature imparted to you, you’ll have victory. Not a victory that you struggle to attain. But a victory that is born of being a new creature.

Problem is… most of us don’t know who we are in Christ.

[Aquila]

I think Bro. Blume and Sam and I would all agree that it does take our decision to abide in the vine, before fruit can truly occur.


John 15
The Vine and the Branches
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

I don't the point of "they were never truly saved to begin with matches this" These vines were "attached" but were thrown away and withered. At one point they were attached.

I’d compare this to the following passage:

John 6:39
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

The John 15 text is part of a discourse that is an answer to the question from the disciples concerning Christ revealing Himself to them and not the rest of the world. Jesus repeatedly refers to Israel as an unfruitful branch. I believe that in John 15 Christ is giving a parable regarding the nation of Israel. If they do not embrace the Gospel and produce the fruits of repentance, they will be cut off.

If the text is about individual believers we see a few things. First, it is He who cuts them off. They do not cut themselves off. Jesus will cut off all who do not bear fruit…because these are they who were not given to Him by the Father. Because Jesus specifically states that it is the Father’s will that He not lose a single soul given to Him.

John 6:39
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

[mfblume]

Aquila and Onefaith2,

You both are saying true words. But the elements belong in proper category of understanding. The divine nature of the new creature does indeed come through IF we stay rooted in Christ. Cease praying and cease seeking Spirit leading and the flesh rises up and takes over, and we do wrong. Peter said we are partakers of the divine nature through the knowledge he provides us. There are certain ways in which the Spirit works and there are requirements for us to abide by in order for the Spirit to be able to work.

[onefaith2]

Aquila and Onefaith2,

You both are saying true words. But the elements belong in proper category of understanding. The divine nature of the new creature does indeed come through IF we stay rooted in Christ. Cease praying and cease seeking Spirit leading and the flesh rises up and takes over, and we do wrong. Peter said we are partakers of the divine nature through the knowledge he provides us. There are certain ways in which the Spirit works and there are requirements for us to abide by in order for the Spirit to be able to work.

Exactly to the bold! If we stay in Christ, it does come naturally but we don't automatically stay in Christ, due to our flesh nature

[mfblume]

Exactly to the bold! If we stay in Christ, it does come naturally but we don't automatically stay in Christ, due to our flesh nature

Precisely. Amen. Paul said he had to keep his body under, for example. (Phew I spelt NUDER instead of UNDER there at first in a typo! :lol)

[Truthseeker]

Aquila and Onefaith2,

You both are saying true words. But the elements belong in proper category of understanding. The divine nature of the new creature does indeed come through IF we stay rooted in Christ. Cease praying and cease seeking Spirit leading and the flesh rises up and takes over, and we do wrong. Peter said we are partakers of the divine nature through the knowledge he provides us. There are certain ways in which the Spirit works and there are requirements for us to abide by in order for the Spirit to be able to work.

This is why Paul stressed renewing of the mind so much.

We are truely vile and wicked without the life of Christ.

[mfblume]

This is why Paul stressed renewing of the mind so much.

We are truely vile and wicked without the life of Christ.

This reminds me of the Old Testament statement of how no man knows how desparately wicked and deceitful the heart is. But that is speaking of unregenerate man. I wonder if that is applicable to us who are new creatures? I cannot see us truly vile and wicked if we are new creatures. But we do have to keep our bodies under, or else fleshliness will take over.

I see renewing of our minds more referring to the need to think about ourselves in Christ now, and not to think of ourselves as simply religious people not really different than a sinner.

[Truthseeker]

This reminds me of the Old Testament statement of how no man knows how desparately wicked and deceitful the heart is. But that is speaking of unregenerate man. I wonder if that is applicable to us who are new creatures? I cannot see us truly vile and wicked if we are new creatures. But we do have to keep our bodies under, or else fleshliness will take over.

I see renewing of our minds more referring to the need to think about ourselves in Christ now, and not to think of ourselves as simply religious people not really different than a sinner.

I did say without the life of Christ. We are new creatures in our place in Christ but one can still walk in the ways of the old man. That old man is vile and wicked without a doubt. The mindset of old man must be put to death.

I was refering to without Christ we are left vile and wicked, coming from we have no reason for boasting or self righteous because without him we would be just a sinful as the sinner in the world.

[mfblume]

I did say without the life of Christ. We are new creatures in our place in Christ but one can still walk in the ways of the old man. That old man is vile and wicked without a doubt. The mindset of old man must be put to death.

I was refering to without Christ we are left vile and wicked, coming from we have no reason for boasting or self righteous because without him we would be just a sinful as the sinner in the world.

I wondered if that is what you meant.

[onefaith2]

I did say without the life of Christ. We are new creatures in our place in Christ but one can still walk in the ways of the old man. That old man is vile and wicked without a doubt. The mindset of old man must be put to death.

I was refering to without Christ we are left vile and wicked, coming from we have no reason for boasting or self righteous because without him we would be just a sinful as the sinner in the world.

Amen.. that is why even though we are new creatures, we can still choose to walk in the old ways or the new ways. Its a choice we have to make which is what I was expressing to Aquila.

He believes that if someone fell away, they weren't truly saved. I just don't find that much in the scripture in regards to the fruit and the vine. The dividing will take place at the end, so who are we to know who is and who isn't?

The sheep and the goats were together and so were the wheat and the tares.

[Aquila]

Aquila and Onefaith2,

You both are saying true words. But the elements belong in proper category of understanding. The divine nature of the new creature does indeed come through IF we stay rooted in Christ. Cease praying and cease seeking Spirit leading and the flesh rises up and takes over, and we do wrong. Peter said we are partakers of the divine nature through the knowledge he provides us. There are certain ways in which the Spirit works and there are requirements for us to abide by in order for the Spirit to be able to work.

Amen.

I'd like to emphasize however that it is Christ who separates one who has tasted of the heavenly gift... not ourselves. And Christ has assured us that of those given to Him, none shall be lost. Therefore those who are lost were predestined according to God's foreknowledge to be lost. They went out from among us because they were not of us. The true believer will be preserved by the very grace and power of God who is able to keep us from falling.

The very grace that saved us will eternally keep us. So, we should make our calling and election sure. If we see the works of the flesh and no fruit of the Spirit, we should seriously consider if we have truly given all to Christ. Some "think" they are saved right now and aren't.