Righteousness Defined

[Lafon]

In Strong's Concordance's Greek Lexicon , the English word "Righteousness" is defined as:

#1343 - dikaiosune dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay from #1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:...

#1345. dikaioma dik-ah'-yo-mah from #1344; an equitable deed; by implication, a statute or decision:--judgment, justification, ordinance, ...

#2118. euthutes yoo-thoo'-tace from #2117; rectitude:...

Seeing God has said, by the words of the prophet ...

"I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD" (Jeremiah 9:24),

and, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ commands us to "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;... (Matthew 6:33)...

and, whereas we find it noted in the words of Psalms 89:14 and 97:2 that "righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne," and in Psalm 145:17 it is written "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works,"

and, seeing that there prevails such disparity of beliefs even amongst saints today when it comes to their understanding of all that the word "righteousness" entails, then I must wonder... Do we, individually and collectively, really have a proper understanding of everything this word encompasses? I would enjoy reading how others define it. Here's what has motivated me to ponder this matter ...

In October 1987, I occasioned to hear a UPCI minister preach, during which he mentioned the abundance of "messages in tongues" and their "interpretations" which were received during the famed Azuza Street revival meetings in the early 1900s. One such "message" which had become of utmost interest to him, considering the "times" in which we are presently living, went something like this: "As the time of the end draws near, greater emphasis would be placed upon worship than upon righteousness."

This caused me to wonder - Are we witnessing the fulfillment of this prophecy in our day? I think so!

Note the admonition put forth in the words of this "message" is NOT that "worship" isn't important, or that it is something which should, or can, be discarded altogether, rather it's a matter of it's importance in regards to those things which we accept, embrace, and propagate as truth. This is to say, if our "worship" is not being done in accordance with truth, as Jesus explicitly decreed must be done (see John 4:24), then it is not acceptable to God for He will not honor any of our worshipful words or deeds which contains error (i.e., 'unrighteousness'). Why? Because John the apostle has written to inform us that "All unrighteousness is sin:..." (II John 5:17).

What's your opinion concerning this issue?

[Pressing-On]

#1343 - dikaiosune dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay from #1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:...

Still pondering this subject.

Looking at equity - "the quality of being fair or impartial".

In effect, you are saying, "the quality of being fair or impartial in character or act".

Looking at the root, which of course is righteous:

dikaios
dik'-ah-yos
From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).

You would then, in effect, be saying, "the quality of being fair, impartial, innocent and holy in character or act".

There are quite a few scriptures to go with that and I don't have them all together in my mind. But, I do agree, I see a lot of what many call worship in which righteousness is not a part of the equation.

[Lafon]

My "take" (i.e., understanding) from the words contained in the "interpretation" of the referenced Azuza Street "message in tongues," was not that its main substance, or essence was upon "worship," rather the manner in which "righteousness" would be relegated, albeit unwittingly I would hope, to a place of secondary prominence; when, in fact, according to the words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 6:33) explicitly command that "righteousness" MUST be our primary objective, after which ALL other things wll be added thereto. Thus the question: Are we, individually and collectively, as the saints of the Most High, truly obeying Jesus' commandment in ALL of the things we do; whether it be worship (which most equate with singing, praying, etc.), to make "righteousness" first? I fear that we are not!

Yes, I agree, we MUST insure that all of what we do and call it "worship" is done in accordance with truth, however, my primary concern is that we are not as diligent as we ought to be when it comes to all of the other things we do (e.g., what we believe and publish as truth about the fundamental "doctrine of Christ"). (see Hebrews 6:1-2 and 2 John 1:8-10)

Case in point: Recently, during a mid-week Bible Study, taught by an elder retired Missionary, and the story of "a certain rich man and a beggar named Lazarus" was the focus, he began his discourse by asserting that the premise of Jesus' words MUST be construed as a depiction of an historical event, and NOT as a parable (as many "assume"). I knew right then and there that practically everything he would have to say afterwards would most likely be amiss. But rather than interrupt him, and perhaps create discord among my fellow saints that were in attendance, I decided to sit and "hear him out."

He then proceeded to place the "rich man" in what I like to refer to as "Apostolic Pentecostal Purgatory," asserting that for an unknown length of time, the wretched man has been tormented by the "flames" of Hell's fire. Oh! What "unrighteousness" such a public assertion by a "man of God" could publish! Why? Because Jesus' telling of this story was NOT a depiction of an actual event, rather it was a parable. Here's how one determines this:

In the words of Mark 4:33-34, we find it written that Jesus ALWAYS spoke in parables to ALL those outside of His inner circle of disciples (see also Matthew 13:10-14, 34-35). Besides this, we find it written in John 5:22 that Jesus said, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."

Thus the question: Seeing that our Lord NEVER spake "openly" to ANYONE "outside" of His inner circle of disciples, and, the Father has committed ALL judgments to be rendered by the Son (an event which lies in the future), then where's the "righteousness" (i.e., equality of judgement/justice) in the Missionary's public assertion that Jesus' story of "a certain rich man and a beggar named Lazarus" MUST be construed as a depiction of an historical event? It simply is NOT there, for we find it written in Luke 16:14 that Jesus was NOT speaking to His disciples, rather He was telling this parable to the Pharisees!

Not only has this retired Missionary's complete disregard for the principles inherent in "righteousness" (i.e., equality of justice/fairness in rendering judgment upon the un-named rich man) feel compelled to "suspect" every thing I might occasion to hear him say after this incident, but it was the damage which he inflicted upon those in attendance who were/are not as knowledgable about the truth as I, to wit.....

A sister-in-law, who is not of this like precious faith, but who happened to be in attendance on that occasion, told me afterwards (because it just so happened that she and I had, on a previous occasion while visiting at her home, became engaged in a conversation about this same topic, during which I had shown her in the Bible the manner in which one properly discerns this matter), saying, "If I was confused before, NOW I am REALLY confused!" for even she had recognized the error inherent in the Missionary's premise. And she was right, for what the retired Missionary had done was add "confusion" to her mind, and that is NOT of God, for He is not the author of confusion. Upon hearing this is when I recalled the message from Azuza Street - "As the time of the end draws near, greater emphasis will be placed upon worship than upon righteousness!"

May God helps us all to recognize the need to insure that "righteousness" is at the fore of our thoughts in ALL that we do and publicly proclaim as truth!

[Sean]

Lafon, I do not agree with you on this one..The missionary was right...This was not a parable, but an actual event. Notice an actual name was used(Lazarus).

Jesus was just kind enough to not give the name, for the descendants sake, of the rich man in hell. (his family may have been know in Israel at the time)

[Godsdrummer]

It should not matter, if this is a parable or not. The problem comes in missing the whole point of the lesson that is to be learned from the story. And I for one agree with Lafon, this was a story. In attempting to make it about a real person the missionary twisted the lesson Christ was making.

[Lafon]

Lafon, I do not agree with you on this one..The missionary was right...This was not a parable, but an actual event. Notice an actual name was used(Lazarus).

Jesus was just kind enough to not give the name, for the descendants sake, of the rich man in hell. (his family may have been know in Israel at the time)

Did you read the words which Jesus spake that are recorded in John 5:22?

Disagree with me, if you like, for that is your choice. But, none can disagree with Jesus' words! Seeing that He has explicitly stated that "THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN, BUT HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON" (Yes, that's right! I'm shouting!)

For any man to assert, suggest, or even intimate that the Spirit, who is the Father, at some unspecified moment in the ancient past, has judged and un-named rich man to torment in the flames of Hell's fire, there to await final judgment and be thrown into the actual lake, is "unrighteousness"!!

Satan and his wicked band of angels have NOT yet been committed to such torment, and they were the FIRST in rebellion against God (read Matthew 8:28-29). Seeing that God hath NOT chosen these to be tormented (as many allege to be so with an un-named rich man), rather He has "reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (that is, that judgment which occurs at the end of the coming millennial reign of Christ Jesus upon the earth - see Revelation 20:7-15), then would it not seem to "unrighteous" for God to inflict such punishment (as alleged) upon man when He has not done so for those who first rebelled against Him?

If such were true, that is, that a man (whether it be "a certain [un-named] rich man," or any other, is presently being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire while awaiting final judgment, then such a man would be justified in accusing God of displaying "respect of persons," and we know that that is something which God simply cannot do!

You appear to be "assuming" far too much, and give no scritural evidence in support of such, whereas I have, at least, attempted to do this in support of by belief about the matter. I encourage you to carefully re-read my last post, and after taking into consideration the words of our Lord (especially), as well as those mentioned above, then tell me how you see things. Hopefully, it will be different and more aligned to what the Bible states.

Regards, Lafon

[Lafon]

Addendum to previous post:

For the sake of discussion, let's "assume" that Jesus' telling (to the Pharisees) about "a certain rich man and a beggar named Lazarus," actually depicts the fate of these two men.

The issue, or so it seems to me, is whether it be true that our Lord was stating "this" was something which took place at some "previous" moment in history. As I have attempted to show, by the Scriptural references given, such could NOT be the case!

If it were true, then this would also imply that God (i.e., the Father, who is Spirit, apart from His manifestation in human flesh as the Son), did, at some point in times past, establish a "precedent" which would demand that every wicked person who dies thereafter MUST also be sentenced to the same fate as it is alleged the un-named rich man presently experiences. As noted by Jesus' own words, ONLY Himself possesses the power of rendering such a judgment!

Admittedly, my "take" on Jesus' story about a certain rich man's fate, does, indeed, give us a vivid picture of the eventual fate of ALL the wicked who will be cast "alive" into the "lake of fire." Therefore it IS a depiction of a REAL event, albeit NOT one that has already taken place!

That being said, let's note the fate of the wicked following final judgment:

1.) They will be fully awake and aware of the insurmountable consequences of the punishment that has been imposed upon them, knowing there is no escape EVER!

2.) They will have the "eyes of an eagle" (able to see events happening at a great distance), gazing across the gulf which separates them from, able to see "what could have been."

3.) They will be ALONE, with no one near to communicate with or with whom they might share their miserable state.

Oh! What a place of loneliness, devastation, deprivation, eternal torment and overwhelming despair Hell will be for the wicked! Let us be busy about the business of assisting the unsaved amongst us to understand the "truth" about this Biblical story! Perhaps in so doing, we might "others (to be) saved," even if be by "fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (see Jude 22-23).

[Carl]

Did you read the words which Jesus spake that are recorded in John 5:22?

Disagree with me, if you like, for that is your choice. But, none can disagree with Jesus' words! Seeing that He has explicitly stated that "THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN, BUT HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON" (Yes, that's right! I'm shouting!)

For any man to assert, suggest, or even intimate that the Spirit, who is the Father, at some unspecified moment in the ancient past, has judged and un-named rich man to torment in the flames of Hell's fire, there to await final judgment and be thrown into the actual lake, is "unrighteousness"!!

Satan and his wicked band of angels have NOT yet been committed to such torment, and they were the FIRST in rebellion against God (read Matthew 8:28-29). Seeing that God hath NOT chosen these to be tormented (as many allege to be so with an un-named rich man), rather He has "reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (that is, that judgment which occurs at the end of the coming millennial reign of Christ Jesus upon the earth - see Revelation 20:7-15), then would it not seem to "unrighteous" for God to inflict such punishment (as alleged) upon man when He has not done so for those who first rebelled against Him?

If such were true, that is, that a man (whether it be "a certain [un-named] rich man," or any other, is presently being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire while awaiting final judgment, then such a man would be justified in accusing God of displaying "respect of persons," and we know that that is something which God simply cannot do!

You appear to be "assuming" far too much, and give no scritural evidence in support of such, whereas I have, at least, attempted to do this in support of by belief about the matter. I encourage you to carefully re-read my last post, and after taking into consideration the words of our Lord (especially), as well as those mentioned above, then tell me how you see things. Hopefully, it will be different and more aligned to what the Bible states.

Regards, Lafon

Amen Lafon, never have more assumptions been made about a scriptural passage than this one.

[Carl]

Did you read the words which Jesus spake that are recorded in John 5:22?

Disagree with me, if you like, for that is your choice. But, none can disagree with Jesus' words! Seeing that He has explicitly stated that "THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN, BUT HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON" (Yes, that's right! I'm shouting!)

For any man to assert, suggest, or even intimate that the Spirit, who is the Father, at some unspecified moment in the ancient past, has judged and un-named rich man to torment in the flames of Hell's fire, there to await final judgment and be thrown into the actual lake, is "unrighteousness"!!

Satan and his wicked band of angels have NOT yet been committed to such torment, and they were the FIRST in rebellion against God (read Matthew 8:28-29). Seeing that God hath NOT chosen these to be tormented (as many allege to be so with an un-named rich man), rather He has "reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (that is, that judgment which occurs at the end of the coming millennial reign of Christ Jesus upon the earth - see Revelation 20:7-15), then would it not seem to "unrighteous" for God to inflict such punishment (as alleged) upon man when He has not done so for those who first rebelled against Him?

If such were true, that is, that a man (whether it be "a certain [un-named] rich man," or any other, is presently being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire while awaiting final judgment, then such a man would be justified in accusing God of displaying "respect of persons," and we know that that is something which God simply cannot do!

You appear to be "assuming" far too much, and give no scritural evidence in support of such, whereas I have, at least, attempted to do this in support of by belief about the matter. I encourage you to carefully re-read my last post, and after taking into consideration the words of our Lord (especially), as well as those mentioned above, then tell me how you see things. Hopefully, it will be different and more aligned to what the Bible states.

Regards, Lafon

Amen Lafon, never have more assumptions been made about a scriptural passage than this one.

[Sean]

Did you read the words which Jesus spake that are recorded in John 5:22?

Disagree with me, if you like, for that is your choice. But, none can disagree with Jesus' words! Seeing that He has explicitly stated that "THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN, BUT HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON" (Yes, that's right! I'm shouting!)

For any man to assert, suggest, or even intimate that the Spirit, who is the Father, at some unspecified moment in the ancient past, has judged and un-named rich man to torment in the flames of Hell's fire, there to await final judgment and be thrown into the actual lake, is "unrighteousness"!!

Satan and his wicked band of angels have NOT yet been committed to such torment, and they were the FIRST in rebellion against God (read Matthew 8:28-29). Seeing that God hath NOT chosen these to be tormented (as many allege to be so with an un-named rich man), rather He has "reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (that is, that judgment which occurs at the end of the coming millennial reign of Christ Jesus upon the earth - see Revelation 20:7-15), then would it not seem to "unrighteous" for God to inflict such punishment (as alleged) upon man when He has not done so for those who first rebelled against Him?

If such were true, that is, that a man (whether it be "a certain [un-named] rich man," or any other, is presently being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire while awaiting final judgment, then such a man would be justified in accusing God of displaying "respect of persons," and we know that that is something which God simply cannot do!

You appear to be "assuming" far too much, and give no scritural evidence in support of such, whereas I have, at least, attempted to do this in support of by belief about the matter. I encourage you to carefully re-read my last post, and after taking into consideration the words of our Lord (especially), as well as those mentioned above, then tell me how you see things. Hopefully, it will be different and more aligned to what the Bible states.

Regards, Lafon




Lafon, the rich man was BEFORE Jesus and under the Law.

[Sean]

Amen Lafon, never have more assumptions been made about a scriptural passage than this one.



Its a pretty graphic parable if you are right, Jesus name Lazarus and Abraham by name.

He at least was kind enough to not give the name of the rich man. That would be devastating to the descendants and even the brothers of the rich man to hear of their brother in hell.

Abraham told the rich man that his brothers had the Law to go by to stay out of hell.

[Godsdrummer]

Lafon, the rich man was BEFORE Jesus and under the Law.

This statement only affirms Lafons view. Passage after passage in the OT tell us that the dead are not raised until the parousia of Christ when he judges the dead some to everlasting life and some to eternal damnation.

[Sean]

It would be a crack up to see you guys comment on Jesus' simple words the way you do if you lived in His days.

I could see it now...

Jesus says...Luke 16:19-31
King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.



And you guys, as his disciples, explain to all listening after Jesus says these words above..."What the master really means, is that this is just a story. This is only ficticious. It didnt really happen. It is just a parable. I realize that Jesus used actual names, but it is just symbolic of something else. Jesus says many things that do not mean what you may think it means (parables). The master is an amazing story teller..just look at how detailed he was here. But it just did not actually happen".



Thank God that this line of thinking was not among his disciples in those days....The disciples did not use these ridiculous commentaries we use these days. They just believe the words of Jesus.

[Lafon]

Sean, could you define a PARABLE?

What does one infer/imply when they say "this or that" story which Jesus told was a parable?

Moreover, what "purpose" does a parable serve (that is, what is it meant to depict?

[votivesoul]

I've always understood righteousness to mean "moral innocence, purity, and perfection", i.e. that just, eternal state of God, which can now be imputed to us by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have likewise heard of that century old prophecy. I think it was a legitimate declaration from the Spirit.

I have seen all manner of oddities and exhibitionist displays made in an attempt to "worship". I have stood next to adulterers, liars, Jezebels, and many others long since born of the Spirit, who would "worship" the Lord with amazing displays of devotions, but their hearts were impure, polluted by lusts and vanity.

So what matters more? Dancing like David or living like him? I would rather see a body of believers lift up pure hands with a pure heart and not be given over to what so many assume is true, spiritual, Pentecostal worship (which is often excessive and disorderly), instead of watching a bunch of carnal pretenders shouting with the voice of the flesh as they throw down their praise at a useless altar.

[votivesoul]

Regarding the teaching on Lazarus and the rich man, however we interpret it, and in whatever way we think someone has erred and led others into, at best, confusion and uncertainty, and at worst, outright deception, I heartily recommend we remind ourselves of James 3:1-2,

1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

We all need to be careful to presume to teach the Word of the Lord because as James said, in many thing, we offend all. We are all prone to error, no matter how sincere or upright of character we believe ourselves to be.

There is a big difference between a false teacher (i.e. someone who's character and motives are deceitful) versus someone who's innocently in error and doesn't know the mistakes they are making with the Word, but might come around if taught (e.g. an Apollos).

So, we must give grace, considering our own selves. I've not always believed everything I currently believe, and so, in times past, have taught things differently than I now teach them. Did that make me an unrighteous false teacher?

I hope not! Rather, I should hope that I was an upright man still learning and being led into all truth by the Spirit.

From this I have learned to give much grace and mercy to those who teach, even when I think they've got things wrong. If I know the character of their heart, I dwell with them in peace, praying privately for them to receive a more accurate understanding of the Word.

But if and when I discern that the heart of a man is wicked, even if what he is saying is accurate truth, I won't amen that fellow no matter how much his doctrine is correct.

See the difference?

[Michael The Disciple]

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. The firstfruits of them that slept. The only one who has immortality.

Its obviously a parable. Where was God in Abes Bosom? He is not even mentioned! Who gets prayed to in Abes Bosom? Abraham! Where did Adam go before Abraham lived, died and came into his Bosom? Where did Noah go?

[Godsdrummer]

It would be a crack up to see you guys comment on Jesus' simple words the way you do if you lived in His days.

I could see it now...

Jesus says...Luke 16:19-31
King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And you guys, as his disciples, explain to all listening after Jesus says these words above..."What the master really means, is that this is just a story. This is only ficticious. It didnt really happen. It is just a parable. I realize that Jesus used actual names, but it is just symbolic of something else. Jesus says many things that do not mean what you may think it means (parables). The master is an amazing story teller..just look at how detailed he was here. But it just did not actually happen".

Thank God that this line of thinking was not among his disciples in those days....The disciples did not use these ridiculous commentaries we use these days. They just believe the words of Jesus.

I just say WOW, I repeat what I said earlier, "It should not matter, if this is a parable or not. The problem comes in missing the whole point of the lesson that is to be learned from the story.

What difference does it make today if this is a parable or story of an actual person? What we should be trying to understand was why did the writer Luke include this story in his book, and what are we to learn from this story?

I am reminded of the words of Jesus, when he spoke to the Pharisees "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel".
Just believe the words of Christ indeed, Jesus always had a reason for relating any story. What was Jesus reason for telling this story?

[Godsdrummer]

Good points Votive soul.

[Godsdrummer]

I've always understood righteousness to mean "moral innocence, purity, and perfection", i.e. that just, eternal state of God, which can now be imputed to us by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have likewise heard of that century old prophecy. I think it was a legitimate declaration from the Spirit.

I have seen all manner of oddities and exhibitionist displays made in an attempt to "worship". I have stood next to adulterers, liars, Jezebels, and many others long since born of the Spirit, who would "worship" the Lord with amazing displays of devotions, but their hearts were impure, polluted by lusts and vanity.

So what matters more? Dancing like David or living like him? I would rather see a body of believers lift up pure hands with a pure heart and not be given over to what so many assume is true, spiritual, Pentecostal worship (which is often excessive and disorderly), instead of watching a bunch of carnal pretenders shouting with the voice of the flesh as they throw down their praise at a useless altar.

I agree. Too much emphasis is put on outward appearances, and not on the inner attitude. Righteousness and holiness is not defined by the keeping of certain codes of dress, statutes of man, but rather the inner man of the heart. All those things are a form of out ward worship. Which do not show forth the true spirit of Christ, (righteousness) Love joy peace longsuffering, goodness, gentleness, meekness, faith, temperance.

[Sean]

Brethren, I wrote my last post to try to "shock" us to see what we have become in our generation. If we lived even 100 years ago, we would have simply believed these things and would not try to "spiritualize" the actual words and literal meanings of the Bible. I believe we are overreading(over thinking) the Bible these days.

Case in point, I used to work at an all JW company. We would debate the issue of hell. I would bring up Mark 9 and they said it is only a parable. I would bring up this passage and they said it is only a parable.

That was their counter argument to prove to me there is NO hell.

When I see brethren saying like things, knowing that mainline churches in my area are adopting this new position,(of a non existent hell), I stirs me up and reminds me of the slippery slope that the churches are sliding down.

I personally am one that believes in a "literal" interpretation of Gods word. (as much as possible).

You absolutely cannot go wrong with this "cave man" approach to Gods word.

Harold Camping was a master of "spiritualizing" the Bible. That man could have written a commentary on the Bible that would in no way resemble any likeness of the actual literal words that were written. All slanted in "his" point of view, with nobody to oppose him(he owned family radio).

Men like that make me want to get back to the good old fashioned.... "read it and believe it" way of life.

Trust me, you will NEVER go wrong using simple interpretation of the Word.

[Sean]

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. The firstfruits of them that slept. The only one who has immortality.

Its obviously a parable. Where was God in Abes Bosom? He is not even mentioned! Who gets prayed to in Abes Bosom? Abraham! Where did Adam go before Abraham lived, died and came into his Bosom? Where did Noah go?



Brother, that place was a holding tank for ALL the dead(with a great gulf between sinners and believers of God), Abrahams bosom was a name given for the place, Abraham was the "curator" of the place.

[Sean]

When Jesus resurrected, he took some of these folks out of there.(when the graves were opened, thief on the cross included )

[Sean]

Just a thought to swirl around. We dont expect to go to Abrahams bosom nowadays when we die, but directly to the "bosom" of Jesus. Could it be that when Jesus got the "keys", He took over the place as "curator"...?

Your opinion is welcome.

Iron sharpens iron....

[Sean]

Sean, could you define a PARABLE?

What does one infer/imply when they say "this or that" story which Jesus told was a parable?

Moreover, what "purpose" does a parable serve (that is, what is it meant to depict?



Lafon, according to Mark 4, a parable is words meant to educated the sincere soul and baffle those that are not sincere.(it would seem like nonsense to them).

Very simple stories that had a spiritual application.



This passage we have been talking about in no way resembles a parable

[Carl]

When Jesus resurrected, he took some of these folks out of there.(when the graves were opened, thief on the cross included )

If Abraham's bosom was the place of the departed righteous then why did Jesus not take them all out?

[Carl]

Brother, that place was a holding tank for ALL the dead(with a great gulf between sinners and believers of God), Abrahams bosom was a name given for the place, Abraham was the "curator" of the place.

It sounds like a terrible place to be, being able to look over and see the others that are in torment.

[Sean]

If Abraham's bosom was the place of the departed righteous then why did Jesus not take them all out?



He did remove the righteous

[Sean]

It sounds like a terrible place to be, being able to look over and see the others that are in torment.





Yeah, I dont like it either, but I didnt create it.
I just dont want to go there!

[Lafon]

I've always understood righteousness to mean "moral innocence, purity, and perfection", i.e. that just, eternal state of God, which can now be imputed to us by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

This was also the manner I (sort of) understood righteousness for a very long while. But after carefully noting the manner in which it (with the exception of the element of "just") conflicted with the definition given in Strong's Concordance, I knew I must take action to reconcile this. Strong's and I could NOT both be correct, but who's wrong? I arrived at the answer by endeavoring to authenticate my understanding by applying it to the numerous instances in the Scriptures wherein the word righteous and righteousness appears. And once again, it seemed that something just wasn't fitting up correctly.

As I fasted, prayed, and searched the Scriptures in an attempt to comprehend whatever esoteric implications might be "hidden" in this word, then it seemed to strike me like a jolt of lightning ..... "moral innonence, purity, and perfection" might be said to best describe the attributes of the Almighty's character; whereas "equality, justice, fairness, and impariality" seemed to be more fitting as a principle, or rule that God established to direct the manner in which He would "administer and regulate" all of His judgments. (After all, the words of Proverbs 25:2 do advise us that it is God's glory to conceal a thing, but that our honor comes from searching out [to discover] the truth of the matter.)

Upon discovery that righteousness prevails as the very foundational principle upon which the knigdom of heaven has been built (Psalms 89:14 and 97:2), and that Psalm 145;17 advises that ALL of God's works are done in accordance with this same principle/rule, then I felt compelled to abandon the manner in which I had previously esteemed righteousness, and accepted it as I've noted here (i.e., God MUST exercise impartiality [equality] in His administeration of justice [judgments], without exceptions).

It is with this understanding that my conclusions concerning the manner in which Jesus' telling of the story about the eternal fate of a certain un-named rich man and a beggar named Lazarus MUST be construed as a parable. Does this story depict a historical event? Of course not! It does, however, depict a significant truth though, for it describes the eternal fate that the wicked, as well as the righteous, can expect to receive as a consequence of their life while on earth.

[Sean]

It certainly does depict a historical event. It is an event that was judged under the Law of Moses, so we can at least know it was before Jesus died and After Moses received the Law(thats historical because it is within a time frame).

Also, there are too many specifics to "label" it a Parable...compare it to the mustard seed, the unjust steward, the sower, the hidden treasure, the prodigal son, etc. No proper names or time frames are even alluded to in these parables.

[Lafon]

Votivesoul
Regarding the teaching on Lazarus and the rich man, however we interpret it, and in whatever way we think someone has erred and led others into, at best, confusion and uncertainty, and at worst, outright deception, I heartily recommend we remind ourselves of James 3:1-2,

Quote:
1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

We all need to be careful to presume to teach the Word of the Lord because as James said, in many thing, we offend all. We are all prone to error, no matter how sincere or upright of character we believe ourselves to be.

There is a big difference between a false teacher (i.e. someone who's character and motives are deceitful) versus someone who's innocently in error and doesn't know the mistakes they are making with the Word, but might come around if taught (e.g. an Apollos).

So, we must give grace, considering our own selves. I've not always believed everything I currently believe, and so, in times past, have taught things differently than I now teach them. Did that make me an unrighteous false teacher?

I hope not! Rather, I should hope that I was an upright man still learning and being led into all truth by the Spirit.

From this I have learned to give much grace and mercy to those who teach, even when I think they've got things wrong. If I know the character of their heart, I dwell with them in peace, praying privately for them to receive a more accurate understanding of the Word.

But if and when I discern that the heart of a man is wicked, even if what he is saying is accurate truth, I won't amen that fellow no matter how much his doctrine is correct.

See the difference?

Oh yes, I do "see the difference," however, there are certain aspects of what you've stated, to which I must question their veracity and Scriptural merits.

I would be quick to agree, that is, "We all need to be careful to presume to teach the Word of The Lord ... (because) we are all prone to error, no matter how sincere or upright of character we believe ourselves to be."

Such was the situation that confronted righteous Job (albeit he was unaware of it; just as I am confident was the case with the retired Missionary's act of unrighteousness that I mentioned in a previous post)! But because even Job (painfully) was made to recognize, and acknowledge that even a righteous man can hold to, and publicly proclaim "things" of which they are not fully knowledgable about, Job expressing this in repentance, saying,

"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not." (Job 42:3).

I also agree that "There is a big difference between a false teacher ... versus someone who's ... in error and doesn't know the mistakes they are making with the Word ..." I do not agree, however, that the one committing such an act is "innocent" (as God allowed Job's sufferings to make him aware of his error indicates).

Indeed, in the incident I've noted with the words of the retired Missionary which I am persuaded were in error, I sensed a "grieving" of the Spirit as I sat listening to him publicly express the things which he did. Nevertheless, I do not, and will not, declare his act of unrighteousness as being "innocently" committed. He, above all others, in my opinion, should have insure the truthfulness of the assertions which he made PRIOR to saying them publicly! Our Lord did admonish, as I'm confident you're well aware, that "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:36-37).

Neither do I concur in your conclusion that Apollos can serve as an example, for we must remember, Apollos had not yet been converted when Aquila and Priscilla "took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-26). If it be that Apollos stated things after his conversion which did not align perfectly with the Word of The Lord, well ... then the same thing would apply to him, but not in his un-converted state. In that condition, he was just another sinner, much like you and I before we were converted.

I beg not to be misunderstood! The retired Missionary whose error I have noted, is a very dear friend of mine. As such I do not, in any manner whatsoever, condemn him because of his words, rather I have, since that occasion, been earnestly seeking guidance from The Lord concerning the proper approach (and words) I should use in helping him to be better informed about the matter. In time, I am confident this will happen.

You see, I do believe that we owe it to a fellow saint to help him/her to see, and understand whatever error we might detect in the things which they say or do, and with love, do whatever the Spirit leads us to do to make them aware of their error, so they might take steps to correct it. I would certainly want, yea, even demand that another do the same for me! While it is true that we are all capable of making a mistake, and we do (including myself) is why John wrote to advise us that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).

It's just that, more often than not, we are susceptible of embracing and publishing things concerning God's Word which isn't proper, and in such cases we desperately NEED another, when they become aware of that fault in us, to step up and tell us. One cannot correct something lest they know about it, right? That is what's called "brotherly love"!

[Sean]

Now brother Lafon, who in the world said anything about anybody being a false teacher. We are just comparing notes, before we go out into the world and teach what we believe to be truth. We are all already saved here.(except cjmanzell)...LOL(he called me an idiot and prophecied bad stuff to me)...LOL

You are a very gracious brother and I respect you, but from time to time we disagree. Regarding the rapture subject for instance, you refer to our beliefs as doctrine of devils.

In my opinion, that is a way to cancel out your opposition in your mind. If everyone that I disagree with heard me tell them they were teaching doctrines of devils, they would begin to marginalize me and not dialogue with me.

Brother, it is ok to disagree. I am picking up tidbits from folks here that dont even believe Acts 2:28, or oneness.

If somebody shows me I am clearly wrong in a particular subject, he is my hero for the day. I hope you feel the same way bro.

[Lafon]

It certainly does depict a historical event. It is an event that was judged under the Law of Moses, so we can at least know it was before Jesus died and After Moses received the Law(thats historical because it is within a time frame).

Also, there are too many specifics to "label" it a Parable...compare it to the mustard seed, the unjust steward, the sower, the hidden treasure, the prodigal son, etc. No proper names or time frames are even alluded to in these parables.


Sean, you still don't get it! Jesus explicitly stated, as it is written in John 5:22 ...

For the Father judgeth NO man, BUT hath committed ALL judgment unto the Son."

In order for, and IF it were true, that the un-named rich man in Jesus' story to have been "judged" and found worthy of being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire "under the law of Moses" (as you so adamantly proclaim), then it could ONLY mean that Jesus Christ was not truthful when He made the statement that is written in John 5:22 (which we both KNOW could NOT be the case at all).

It truly is just that simple! But .... Jesus' telling of this story was NOT describing a Historical event! That IS the difference between your understanding and mine about this matter... nothing more or nothing less.

Maybe this will help you to better comprehend what was happening when Jesus told this parable...

"...even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be NOT as thou they WERE" (Romans 4:17).

As the Almighty Spirit in flesh (being eternal and NOT restricted by time), Christ Jesus could, and often did, speak of things which have NOT yet taken place, as though they had already transpired. An example: In Luke 10:18 it is written that Jesus Christ said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Has Satan truly been cast down from heaven yet? Of course not! We find it written in Revelation 12:7-12 that THIS will NOT happen until the prophesied "war in heaven" occurs, and that is an event which is yet in the future!

Should this not aid in our understanding of the "timing" of the events which Jesus described in the story of the un-named rich man and the beggar named Lazarus? Of course! Both Satan's casting down to the earth AND the event which Jesus described in the parable noted, represent Him speaking, not as the Son of man, but as the Father who can, and does, "speak of things which be not as though they were."

Hope this helps.

[Sean]

Sean, you still don't get it! Jesus explicitly stated, as it is written in John 5:22 ...

For the Father judgeth NO man, BUT hath committed ALL judgment unto the Son."

In order for, and IF it were true, that the un-named rich man in Jesus' story to have been "judged" and found worthy of being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire "under the law of Moses" (as you so adamantly proclaim), then it could ONLY mean that Jesus Christ was not truthful when He made the statement that is written in John 5:22 (which we both KNOW could NOT be the case at all).










Now we are getting somewhere...You seem to be saying, prior the Jesus, nobody was ever judged.
So God (did not) judge Sodom or Noahs world?
Then did Jesus judge them?
Did all of wicked mankind prior to Jesus get a "free pass" from Judgement?

Kinda looks like to me that Jesus was there to judge the world of "His" day.

[Lafon]

Now brother Lafon, who in the world said anything about anybody being a false teacher. We are just comparing notes, before we go out into the world and teach what we believe to be truth. We are all already saved here.(except cjmanzell)...LOL(he called me an idiot and prophecied bad stuff to me)...LOL

You are a very gracious brother and I respect you, but from time to time we disagree. Regarding the rapture subject for instance, you refer to our beliefs as doctrine of devils.

In my opinion, that is a way to cancel out your opposition in your mind. If everyone that I disagree with heard me tell them they were teaching doctrines of devils, they would begin to marginalize me and not dialogue with me.

Brother, it is ok to disagree. I am picking up tidbits from folks here that dont even believe Acts 2:28, or oneness.

If somebody shows me I am clearly wrong in a particular subject, he is my hero for the day. I hope you feel the same way bro.

I'm "marginalizing" myself by using the phrase "doctrine of devils" when referring to a teaching which I am persuaded is false? That phrase is biblical, you know, for Paul the apostle tells us that it was the Spirit that "expressly" uttered such a phrase. Would that not also allow His saints to do the same?

Secondly, I've accused no one of being a false teacher (except, of course, maybe those who truly are such), but most assuredly NOT my retired Missionary brother! I do charge him with publicly proclaiming certain statements which are not true though. This is simply saying that he was amiss, wrong in some of the things which he said about this matter.

I've been either a silent observer or a member of AFF for quite a number of years now, and if you hang around here long enough, you will witness even more of things which just might cause you to question the truthfulness of some, even whether they are truly a saint of God.

I recall one brother, who after reading some of my posts, sent me a private message, asking what he has gotten himself into, for he had believed that (according to the forum's title) this would be a place where he might interact with others to perhaps "sharpen" his understanding of some things. After advising him, as I do here now to you, he never did remain an active member for very long afterwards, departing being utterly disappointed.

My advice, that is if you will lend deference, is to be careful in what you accept as truth from others (including me), and rely upon the Holy Ghost and his Word to guide you in all things! If you do that, you will never go amiss.

Warmest regards, Lafon

[Pressing-On]

Sean, you still don't get it! Jesus explicitly stated, as it is written in John 5:22 ...

For the Father judgeth NO man, BUT hath committed ALL judgment unto the Son."

In order for, and IF it were true, that the un-named rich man in Jesus' story to have been "judged" and found worthy of being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire "under the law of Moses" (as you so adamantly proclaim), then it could ONLY mean that Jesus Christ was not truthful when He made the statement that is written in John 5:22 (which we both KNOW could NOT be the case at all).

It truly is just that simple! But .... Jesus' telling of this story was NOT describing a Historical event! That IS the difference between your understanding and mine about this matter... nothing more or nothing less.

Maybe this will help you to better comprehend what was happening when Jesus told this parable...

"...even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be NOT as thou they WERE" (Romans 4:17).

As the Almighty Spirit in flesh (being eternal and NOT restricted by time), Christ Jesus could, and often did, speak of things which have NOT yet taken place, as though they had already transpired. An example: In Luke 10:18 it is written that Jesus Christ said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Has Satan truly been cast down from heaven yet? Of course not! We find it written in Revelation 12:7-12 that THIS will NOT happen until the prophesied "war in heaven" occurs, and that is an event which is yet in the future!

Should this not aid in our understanding of the "timing" of the events which Jesus described in the story of the un-named rich man and the beggar named Lazarus? Of course! Both Satan's casting down to the earth AND the event which Jesus described in the parable noted, represent Him speaking, not as the Son of man, but as the Father who can, and does, "speak of things which be not as though they were."

Hope this helps.
Yes, that did help. I didn't know what all the fuss was about, but I understand you better now. Good post, Lafon!

[Lafon]

Sean, you still don't get it! Jesus explicitly stated, as it is written in John 5:22 ...

For the Father judgeth NO man, BUT hath committed ALL judgment unto the Son."

In order for, and IF it were true, that the un-named rich man in Jesus' story to have been "judged" and found worthy of being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire "under the law of Moses" (as you so adamantly proclaim), then it could ONLY mean that Jesus Christ was not truthful when He made the statement that is written in John 5:22 (which we both KNOW could NOT be the case at all).




Now we are getting somewhere...You seem to be saying, prior the Jesus, nobody was ever judged.
So God (did not) judge Sodom or Noahs world?
Then did Jesus judge them?
Did all of wicked mankind prior to Jesus get a "free pass" from Judgement?

Kinda looks like to me that Jesus was there to judge the world of "His" day.

NO, not saying that God (Spirit) did NOT judge certain things, or even the actions of certain individuals PRIOR to His manifestation as the Son in human flesh. However, what I am saying is this .... the souls of NONE of those whom He did so judge were sentenced to being tormented by flames in Hell's fire, for that is an ETERNAL judgment which Jesus said the Father has committed ONLY to Himself. Accordingly, the judgment which Jesus Christ will render does not take place until the LAST DAY.

[Sean]

Amen, my brother. I really am enjoying this interaction with the brethren. Even though I stick my neck out with my core beliefs(like my view of the Godhead). I am willing to do that, because I am looking in the back of my mind for a better position than mine. Then I will jump ship. Im that open minded about things these days(believe it or not).

[Sean]

NO, not saying that God (Spirit) did NOT judge certain things, or even the actions of certain individuals PRIOR to His manifestation as the Son in human flesh. However, what I am saying is this .... the souls of NONE of those whom He did so judge were sentenced to being tormented by flames in Hell's fire, for that is an ETERNAL judgment which Jesus said the Father has committed ONLY to Himself. Accordingly, the judgment which Jesus Christ will render does not take place until the LAST DAY.




Lafon...How do you know that God did not put those souls that were judged prior to Jesus into hells fire?

[votivesoul]

This was also the manner I (sort of) understood righteousness for a very long while. But after carefully noting the manner in which it (with the exception of the element of "just") conflicted with the definition given in Strong's Concordance, I knew I must take action to reconcile this.

Well, Strong's is not the end all, be all of Bible lexicons. Other very good Bible dictionaries exist. While Strong's has its place and merits, I would never recommend using it as the sole resource for studying the original languages of the Scripture.

Strong's and I could NOT both be correct, but who's wrong?

See above. Additionally, however, there might be more agreement between you and Strong's than at first determined. See below:

As I fasted, prayed, and searched the Scriptures in an attempt to comprehend whatever esoteric implications might be "hidden" in this word, then it seemed to strike me like a jolt of lightning ..... "moral innocence, purity, and perfection" might be said to best describe the attributes of the Almighty's character; whereas "equality, justice, fairness, and impartiality" seemed to be more fitting as a principle, or rule that God established to direct the manner in which He would "administer and regulate" all of His judgments.

When looking at the Greek term most commonly translated as righteous/ness in the New Testament, the definition I gave is accurate. However, when looking at the Hebrew word most commonly translated as righteous/ness in the Old Testament, the definition you gave comes to the forefront.

Do we then conclude that the Bible's meaning of righteous/ness differs according to the covenant in place at the time? I don't believe that's the case.

Rather, I think there is great unity between the two (apparently different) meanings. Here's how I reconcile them:

The character of God (i.e. that He is righteous, or morally perfect, pure, and innocent), which can be imputed to a believer by faith, causes God to be equitable, just, fair, and impartial, to wit, than any believer who has been made righteous by God through faith, will consciously act in the same manner, vis a vis, they will be equitable, just, fair, and impartial as well, thus demonstrating that the character of God, i.e. His righteousness, has truly taken root and been developed in such a person (Consider Ephesians 4:24, in which we are told that the new man of a Christian believer is created "after God in righteousness...").

We see then, no real disagreement between saying that righteous and righteousness ought to be understood as either moral perfection, purity, and innocence or in the way you describe it.

They are hand in glove with each other, reflecting one another, proving one another. An equitable, just, fair, and impartial man is only so because his moral character in Christ has been perfected, purified, and declared innocent by God through faith.

Likewise, a man demonstrates that his character is righteous (i.e. morally perfect, pure, and innocent) by acting equitably, justly, fairly, and impartially.

It's the heads and tails of a single coin.

Upon discovery that righteousness prevails as the very foundational principle upon which the knigdom of heaven has been built (Psalms 89:14 and 97:2), and that Psalm 145;17 advises that ALL of God's works are done in accordance with this same principle/rule, then I felt compelled to abandon the manner in which I had previously esteemed righteousness, and accepted it as I've noted here (i.e., God MUST exercise impartiality [equality] in His administeration of justice [judgments], without exceptions).

Yes, indeed, God does so adminster his justice. But why? Because of the moral attributes assigned to Him by the Word, i.e. that His character and nature are innately perfect, pure, and innocent.

One begets the other.

Think of it this way:

1.) There is a process of being made righteous, i.e. of becoming righteous

2.) There is a state of being righteous (once so made by God through process)

3.) There is a a manner of acting righteously (i.e. the outgrowth of the process and state)

These all happen sequentially, but then, once they've happened, they become a cyclical reinforcement for each other. By being made righteous, a person obtains a righteous status with God. By obtaining such a status, they go about doing righteous things. By doing righteous things they maintain their righteous state. By maintaining their righteous state before God, they justify God and prove that He was righteous in initially justifying them upon conversion (i.e. making them righteous through the process of faith -- See, e.g. Romans 3:26).

[votivesoul]

Votivesoul


Oh yes, I do "see the difference," however, there are certain aspects of what you've stated, to which I must question their veracity and Scriptural merits.

I would be quick to agree, that is, "We all need to be careful to presume to teach the Word of The Lord ... (because) we are all prone to error, no matter how sincere or upright of character we believe ourselves to be."

Such was the situation that confronted righteous Job (albeit he was unaware of it; just as I am confident was the case with the retired Missionary's act of unrighteousness that I mentioned in a previous post)! But because even Job (painfully) was made to recognize, and acknowledge that even a righteous man can hold to, and publicly proclaim "things" of which they are not fully knowledgable about, Job expressing this in repentance, saying,

"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not." (Job 42:3).

I also agree that "There is a big difference between a false teacher ... versus someone who's ... in error and doesn't know the mistakes they are making with the Word ..." I do not agree, however, that the one committing such an act is "innocent" (as God allowed Job's sufferings to make him aware of his error indicates).

Indeed, in the incident I've noted with the words of the retired Missionary which I am persuaded were in error, I sensed a "grieving" of the Spirit as I sat listening to him publicly express the things which he did. Nevertheless, I do not, and will not, declare his act of unrighteousness as being "innocently" committed. He, above all others, in my opinion, should have insure the truthfulness of the assertions which he made PRIOR to saying them publicly! Our Lord did admonish, as I'm confident you're well aware, that "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:36-37).

Neither do I concur in your conclusion that Apollos can serve as an example, for we must remember, Apollos had not yet been converted when Aquila and Priscilla "took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-26). If it be that Apollos stated things after his conversion which did not align perfectly with the Word of The Lord, well ... then the same thing would apply to him, but not in his un-converted state. In that condition, he was just another sinner, much like you and I before we were converted.

I beg not to be misunderstood! The retired Missionary whose error I have noted, is a very dear friend of mine. As such I do not, in any manner whatsoever, condemn him because of his words, rather I have, since that occasion, been earnestly seeking guidance from The Lord concerning the proper approach (and words) I should use in helping him to be better informed about the matter. In time, I am confident this will happen.

You see, I do believe that we owe it to a fellow saint to help him/her to see, and understand whatever error we might detect in the things which they say or do, and with love, do whatever the Spirit leads us to do to make them aware of their error, so they might take steps to correct it. I would certainly want, yea, even demand that another do the same for me! While it is true that we are all capable of making a mistake, and we do (including myself) is why John wrote to advise us that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).

It's just that, more often than not, we are susceptible of embracing and publishing things concerning God's Word which isn't proper, and in such cases we desperately NEED another, when they become aware of that fault in us, to step up and tell us. One cannot correct something lest they know about it, right? That is what's called "brotherly love"!

There is a lot here, merited all. But instead of a point by point response, I feel led to only say the following:

James, the author of the very passage I quoted, was known by his fellow Jewish countrymen as James the Just, or in Hebrew Ya'akov haTzadik meaning Jacob the Righteous.

This was a man who, though not a Levite, was permitted to enter into the Holy Place of the Temple, where he often knelt in prayer for hours on end making intercession for the Jewish people before God, who was eventually martyred by confessing his own half-brother, Jesus, to be the Savior, on the Temple Grounds in 62 AD (and subsequently, God destroyed the Temple because of his murder, as it was believed in the 1st century, at least), who was featured prominently in both the histories of Flavius Josephus and Hegessipus, was humble enough to write in his general epistle that he and the other apostles were sometimes prone to error.

If such a righteous man can admit to the possibility of frequent error, and still be considered righteous, both back then by the world at large, and now, by the Christian world at large, then surely if another brother in the Lord is given over to similar, frequent errors, we can still think of them as righteous (in the eyes of the Lord), if not actually and specifically "right" in regards to something they presumed to teach.

We don't have to go around being the doctrine police for everyone who presumes to teach the Word. Each one of us has a Master to whom we rise or fall, who is fully able to help us stand up again should we ever fall.

As the Lord said, we must first cast the beam out of our own eye before we can ever hope to help a brother remove the mote from his. While we're sitting in constant judgment of the teaching of others, we tend not to effectively judge the merits of our own teaching.

If we presume to go correct someone's understanding, how is it that we know we are right on the subject and they are wrong, considering the real possibility that we are often wrong on many subjects, as well?

Now, I'm not talking fundamental truths obviously recorded in the Word. If someone attempts to teach something opposed to sound doctrine (for example, that Mary is Co-Mediatrix with Christ), then by all means, attempt an apology.

But in esoteric matters, in which, upon an honest and unbiased assessment, the Scriptures are clearly unclear, then why do we go about trying to make a brother convert to our way of thinking? I'm referring of course, to Lazarus and the Rich Man. Is it literal and historical? It is parable only?

It's not clear. The only thing that is clear is that the two opposing views divide and conquer the Body. If we're going to get up in arms about something, how about we contend for the faith of the Son of God and the doctrines of Christ? Why get all out of sorts and heated over whether or not a small passage in the middle of a book with 24 chapters, one of the longest documents in the entire Bible, is literal or metaphorical?

Further, why assume the Holy Spirit is grieved when we hear a teaching on such an esoteric concept in the Bible? Maybe it's us who are grieved because we don't agree, thinking as we often do, that we have more of an understanding of Truth than someone else?

What good does it do to try and make a person believe the story from Luke is a parable versus a true history? It doesn't serve the Kingdom any good. It just causes fights and debates, and, even worse, causes us to question the level of righteousness, i.e. moral perfection, purity, and innocence, of a fellow saint who presumes to teach a view which opposes our own.

Because the fact is, such wrangling disagreement is anything but equitable, just, fair, or impartial.

[Lafon]

Votivesoul, I appreciate the expression of your opinion on these matters (as well as all of the issues you address in your "most interesting" Blog, albeit I've not read them all, but I'm working at it), and I am NOT trying to be an "Apostolic Doctrinal Police" by seeking ONLY to find fault with the words of others. But having said that, I am persuaded to believe we each owe a debt of responsibility to one another; to take whatever the appropriate action might entail/warrant to help them to recognize, acknowledge, and correct any error we might be made aware of in their understanding of the pure Word of The Lord. Allow me to cite just a few recorded instances wherein even God did this when He finds such error in the thinking/belief system of a "righteous" man:

First (and seeing that I've already noted this, it could "go without repeating"), is the case with Job. God readily acknowledged Job's righteousness, explicitly informing Satan of such, and this not once, but twice (Job 1:8, 2:3), nevertheless, as evidenced by His inquiry of Job (see Job 38:2), God also let Job know that he was guilty of having committed unrighteousness by "darken(ing) counsel without knowledge" (i.e., Job was guilty, albeit unwittingly, of publishing words [which we aren't told] that apparently weren't correct.

Secondly, we find Elihu (who spoke on God's behalf "He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous: but with kings are they on the throne; yea, he doth establish them for ever, and they are exalted.
And if they be bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of affliction; he sheweth them their work, and their transgressions that they have exceeded.
He openeth also their ear to discipline, and commandeth that they return from iniquity.
If they obey and serve him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasure.
But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge"[/b] (Job 36:7-12).

Let us also note the words which God commanded Ezekiel concerning acts of unrighteousness which a righteous man commits:

[i]"Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul" (Ezekiel 3:20-21).

To the saints of the 1st Century Church at Laodicea, Jesus Christ commanded John the apostle to write, after He had informed him of the apathy being displayed by those members, saying,

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent" (Revelation 3:14-19).

Although we are not told of the manner in which such chastening by God of the righteous transpires (we must look elsewhere in the Scripture for such information), it is clear that He is the one who chooses to employ chastening as a means of correction.

Through Elihu's words to Job we also discover the various "means" through which the Spirit endeavors to assist a righteous man to become aware of whatever act(s) of unrighteousness he might be guilty of having committed; all taken in an effort to "withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man... (to) keep back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword... (and) to shew unto man his (God's) uprightness" (Job 33:17-18, 23). The "means" by which God seeks to make man aware of his acts of unrighteousness (i.e., iniquity) are:

"For God speaketh once, yea, twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction" (Job 33:14-15).

By this we discover that among the first actions which God takes in an effort to assist a righteous man to become aware of an act of unrighteousness (iniquity/sin) that he has committed, and for which he must acknowledge, repent thereof and correct, is by giving that righteous man instructions by way of dreams (note its plurality, implying more than one).

If the righteous man fails to perceive such instruction given to him via dreams from God, then He takes the second phase of His action designed to correct the righteous man's iniquity:

"He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: so that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.
His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.
Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers" (Job 33:19-22).

But, if after all of these things, the righteous man still does not recognize and acknowledge the acts of unrighteousness (iniquity) that he has done, God does not forsake him, for there is one final step which He undertakes to withdraw the righteous man from his unrighteousness:

"If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness :
[i]Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom" (Job 33:23-24).

So, what should we conclude from these? Is it not that God uses one's fellowman (i.e., a brother in Christ) as the instrument by which He seeks to make a righteous man to become aware an act(s) of unrighteousness (iniquity/sin) which he has committed? If you or I should ever be found guilty of such, it is evident that we surely should not expect the resounding audible voice of God from the heavens advising us of our wicked deed! Nay, such words of correction will be given us by one (or perhaps even more) of our brethren in the church to whom the Holy Ghost had made aware of such iniquity done by our brother.

And, as evidenced by the following, such words of correction must come by means of the written Word of God:

"...Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not have spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Lastly, I would be remiss should I fail to note the verbal chastening Paul the apostle penned to the saints of Corinth, wherein he explicitly explained the reason for the "divisions" among them; and informing them (as well as we today) of the "reason" why God has chosen to employ human instruments to correct error within the teachings of the righteous:

"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Corinthians 11:17-19).

By this should we not conclude that there will be someone among the assembly of saints to whom God will make aware (i.e., approved) of whatever element of heresy (i.e., unrighteousness/iniquity) might be manifested (whether it be by word or deed) by another, or others in the church? Of course! God always employs human instruments; one's fellowman, as His spokesman, to convey righteous instructions to mankind.

Don't you think Paul first sought to insure the accuracy of his claim (i.e., he sought to first insure there was no "log" in his own eye) before endeavoring to assist the saints at Corinth to remove the "splinter" from theirs? Was he not an "approved" vessel whom The Lord had made aware of the cause for the divisions that prevailed among them? Of course! Again, this is the manner in which God works ... He always uses men as the instruments to assist others to become aware of their errors!

Has He not commissioned you and I to act in such a role in delivering the gospel of salvation to our fellow Gentiles? Absolutely! And it is no different when it comes to assisting a brother in Christ to recognize whatever act of unrighteousness God causes/allows us to become aware of that has been committed.

[votivesoul]

Thank you for your very thorough reply, Brother Lafon. I appreciate and now better understand your meaning.

So, in the interests of clarification, which tenders greater unity, just allow me to say the following:

I am all for Biblical correction and the administering of reproof when a brother or sister has sinned. To not be for such would be antithetical to the cause of Christ and His Body.

That being said, I see correction, reproof, and even rebuke, in terms of an act or acts of unrighteousness more so in the committal of actual, provable sin.

If a brother or sister simply shares a point of view on the Word that I find to be in error, I don't see the need to confront them and correct, reprove, or even rebuke them for what I perceive to be their error, in the same way a brother or sister MUST be confronted if the life they are living is in the flesh.

I mean, if I went around addressing, confronting, and attempting to correct someone every single time I thought they made an error, I would have no other time in the Kingdom to do anything else.

And let's face it, such confrontations rarely if ever do any good. At best, the only thing that happens is a "I'll pray about it" with no evident change ever taking place, to at worst, an outright fight, even to the point of two righteous saints wrangling and debating the Word so fiercely, that by the end, both have lost their righteousness before God through a very real work of the flesh called in the Greek eris, translated as "variance" in Galatians 5:20. In an effort to fix someone's doctrine, two brothers in the Lord can almost come to blows.

Now, if the contention is for the Gospel, then yes, there are times to defend and contend for the faith.

But in those unclear areas of Scripture, I see no need to go out correcting someone. Rather, I do the following, and God has blessed:

I take my concerns to the Lord in secret. And I pray, interceding for God to, through His Spirit within them, to amend their understanding and teaching.

It's a slower, much longer process that takes great patience while waiting for God to work on them, but I have seen it happen. God has done it. And when God, and not me, has done the work, it lasts.

To me, this is a greater love. This is the kind of intercession James made for his Jewish countrymen. He knew they didn't have it right regarding Jesus the Messiah. And yet he dwelt with them in peace, was accounted as righteous by them, and only in the end, when denying the Lord became a real possibility, did such a drastic confrontation have to take place, and it cost him his life.

[Sean]

Lafon, Votivesoul, I am sorry if you may feel I am being petty and divisive over the subject of the rich man in hell.

I just had different experiences with people that seem to have a new theme of "there is no such thing as hell" these days. This(rich man story as a parable) is one of their main doctrinal points they try to use. If they can convince us this is a fact, then they can begin to erode Mark 9 and the rest and say that hell is only "Greek lore".

There is a big sign in front of a mega church by my house that denounces the idea of a hell altogether...for all to see that drive by.

Again, my apologies here. It was alarming in my perspective and possibly petty in your perspective. (its all in our experiences of life I guess)

[votivesoul]

I didn't take it as offensive or petty. Whatever is a concern to you is valid. We all may feel strongly about any number of topics. It is good to be zealously affected in a good thing!

[Sean]

Amen

[Lafon]

I didn't take it as offensive or petty. Whatever is a concern to you is valid. We all may feel strongly about any number of topics. It is good to be zealously affected in a good thing!

Ditto!

[Lafon]

Recognizing, and acknowledging that our Lord has commanded that the very FIRST thing we MUST "seek" to possess AFTER attaining citizenship in the kingdom of God (i.e., being "born again" of the water and of the Spirit - John 3:5) is His "righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), then it would seem, to me at least, that ALL other things pertaining to His kingdom must be "centered" upon "righteousness," else all of our pursuits and endeavors to attain the "perfection" which He requires of us (II Timothy 3:17) will fall short.

The greatest fear that I have for my brethren is that they fail to recognize the importance of "righteousness" in their walk with God, believing that just because they have obeyed the dictates of Acts 2:38, they have attained "righteousness" as somewhat of an added measure of grace. Yet I find nothing in our Lord's command of Matthew 6:33 which alludes to such being true. Instead, it appears that to attain the "righteousness" of which our Lord, as well as Paul spoke about, requires an "added" effort on our part AFTER we have taken heed to and obeyed the command to be "born again."

In other words, I believe our obedience to the dictates of Acts 2:38, albeit an essential act, is only the "visa" (or initial step, if you will) which authorizes (enables) us to begin our journey to the portals of that eternal city of new Jerusalem, but it will be our acts of "righteousness" that we perform afterwards which will actually be the determining factor authorizing our entrance into its portals when we appear before the coming Judgment Seat of Christ and He inspects our Passport (i.e., the "Book of Life"). This is why I struggle so very much in trying to comprehend all that the word "righteousness" entails. I want my "Passport" to be honored by Him when I must appear before Him, as well as that of my brethren.

[votivesoul]

Recognizing, and acknowledging that our Lord has commanded that the very FIRST thing we MUST "seek" to possess AFTER attaining citizenship in the kingdom of God (i.e., being "born again" of the water and of the Spirit - John 3:5) is His "righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), then it would seem, to me at least, that ALL other things pertaining to His kingdom must be "centered" upon "righteousness," else all of our pursuits and endeavors to attain the "perfection" which He requires of us (II Timothy 3:17) will fall short.

The greatest fear that I have for my brethren is that they fail to recognize the importance of "righteousness" in their walk with God, believing that just because they have obeyed the dictates of Acts 2:38, they have attained "righteousness" as somewhat of an added measure of grace. Yet I find nothing in our Lord's command of Matthew 6:33 which alludes to such being true. Instead, it appears that to attain the "righteousness" of which our Lord, as well as Paul spoke about, requires an "added" effort on our part AFTER we have taken heed to and obeyed the command to be "born again."

In other words, I believe our obedience to the dictates of Acts 2:38, albeit an essential act, is only the "visa" (or initial step, if you will) which authorizes (enables) us to begin our journey to the portals of that eternal city of new Jerusalem, but it will be our acts of "righteousness" that we perform afterwards which will actually be the determining factor authorizing our entrance into its portals when we appear before the coming Judgment Seat of Christ and He inspects our Passport (i.e., the "Book of Life"). This is why I struggle so very much in trying to comprehend all that the word "righteousness" entails. I want my "Passport" to be honored by Him when I must appear before Him, as well as that of my brethren.

An understandable desire, to be sure.

But a thought occurs. We are taught by the Scriptures that righteousness is imparted by faith in Jesus Christ. Indeed, we are told that God saves us, not by any acts of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy.

These two concepts cause me to wonder what you mean by:

"...but it will be our acts of "righteousness" that we perform afterwards which will actually be the determining factor authorizing our entrance into its portals..."

Do you mean to say that we, apart from imparted righteousness by faith and the mercy of God, must be the ones to earn our place in the Holy City?

I assume not, but for others who read and aren't sure, could you give an answer?