| Author |
Comment |
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/16/01 12:08:04 am)
|
new birth
Hello all you happy people!
Thanks Deb, great post! I hadn't
thought about Peter reminding the people of their need for
repentance. These were essentially the same people who cried out
"crucify him" only 50 days prior. They had been turned against their
Christ by the Pharisees, so they definitely needed to repent; change
their attitude, in order to receive God's grace.
Also the point
about the magnitude of their sin and therefore of God's mercy is
great. Like Paul's example, God's Word is designed to let us know
unequivocally there's almost nothing his mercy and grace can't
handle.
You also pointed out something I'd not fully
realized before; that Romans 10:9 & 10 aren't the full story of
salvation. I always felt TWI was too strict or dogmatic on that, but
was afraid to question it. I didn't "do Romans 10:9" to get saved.
Someone told me needing Christ was like a child who'd been out
playing in the dirt and needed to be cleaned up and that Christ
cleaned us. I accepted that simple truth and was saved. But like the
record in Acts, the knowledge of a need for repentance was involved.
And I think our PFAL foundation was a bit weak in its explanation of
the NEED for repentance. Not just because we lack spirit, but
because we're at odds with the Almighty and need to humble ourselves
and have a change of attitude.
And, as Steve Lortz pointed
out, Romans 10 isn't even addressed to unbelievers, it's addressed
to the Church. So it's not a full declaration to the unsaved, it's
more background for the Church specifically relating to Israel and
the Gentiles. Teaching it as VP did essentially takes it out of
context. The records of the Apostles' sermons in Acts are a better
example of how the word of the gospel is preached and
believed.
Perhaps one of the reasons there was so much
licentiousness in TWI is because we downplayed the need for
repentance; we essentially fostered an attitude of impenitence among
God's people which resulted in a lot of puffed up, carnal
Christians.
Again, thanks much for your work and
insights.
Peace
Jerry
Edited by: JBarrax
at: 1/17/01 8:50:58 pm
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/17/01 12:10:38 am)
|
Born again of
Incorruptible Seed
Moving right along, we come in the PFAL book to the topic of
incorruptible seed and the New Birth. This is perhaps one of the
best parts of the class, imo. Yet it too shows signs of VP's
tendency to take verses out of context and ignore some important,
but unpopular truths. Still, there's valuable teaching here. There
are many aspects of salvation that one could select to convey God's
grace and the magnitude of what Jesus Christ accomplished for us,
but few that communicate that as clearly as I Peter 1:23. On page
289, we read;
What does it mean to be born the first time? To be born the first
time one has to have seed planted. To be born again is to have the
seed of God in Christ born within and this seed is spirit and life.
Genesis 3:15 records that immediately following the fall,
God "put enmity [strife] between thee [the Serpent] and the woman
and between thy seed [the seed of the serpent] and her seed [the
seed of the woman]." But woman has no seed; seed always comes from
the male. Why then does Genesis say "her seed"? Because God knew
that the redemptive seed would be born of a woman when she conceived
the Messiah by divine conception. Her seed was God's creation within
woman.
If you study the Biblical usage of the word "seed" you
will find that there is a slight error in the above paragraph. Women
do have seed because women give birth to little boys. Those male
children are referred to in Genesis 4:15 and 16:10 as the woman's
seed. However, the reference in Genesis 3:15 to Eve's seed bruising
the head of the Serpent is a clear reference to the redemptive work
of Christ.
Throughout the Bible, the word "seed" is
associated with agriculture and offspring. The great bulk of the
uses of "seed" in the Scripture refer to descendants; usually those
of Abraham and David. So seed is associated with children and
heritage. When I Peter 1:23 says we are born again of incorruptible
seed, it brings all of those truths together to convey our being
brought into the heritage of faith of our Father Abraham, as well as
being given the life and character of God our Father. But it also
reflects some of the same themes Deb mentioned in Peter's Pentecost
sermon.
I Peter 1:14-23
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according
to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15 But as he which
hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of
conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am
holy.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect
of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of
your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that
ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,
from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb
without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was
foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in
these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God,
that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your
faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified
your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned
love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart
fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but
of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for
ever.
Here we see some of the same truths Peter set before
the Israel on the day of Pentecost. Just as he exhorted those at the
Temple to save themselves, here Peter exhorts these former Gentiles
to turn from their former vain traditions, to respect the sacrifice
of Christ, and to be holy, as God is holy. He congratulates them for
having "purified their souls in obeying the truth". The phrase being
born again of incorruptible seed comes in a context of obedience,
holiness and repentence. This is a bit of a difference from the
context of its presentation in PFAL.
Dr. Wierwille tended to color the Scriptures to make a case against what he deemed
an incorrect theology. His presentation of the verses about seed and
the new birth is designed to counter the doctrine of conditional
works-based salvation. Perhaps his desire to release people from the
bondage of legalism caused him to put a little too much emphasis on
salvation by grace at the expense of a deeper understanding of what
I Peter presents. All of these elements; repentance, the blood of
Christ, his resurrection and our obedience unto holiness, are just
as much a part of the gospel as salvation by grace and the receiving
of holy spirit.
Perhaps this is just another case of
20-20 hindsight, but it seems to me that part of the reason the Way
Ministry became such a haven for carnal Christians is because we
introduced people to the Bible on the premise that repentance and
obedience and holiness were outdated or misguided notions. Many of
us have exhorted ex-way folks to correct the practice but keep the
doctrine. It seems to me the wrong practice is the fruit of wrong,
or at least incomplete doctrine.
Peace
Jerry |
Steve
Lortz
Grease Spot Cafe
Discoverer
(1/17/01 9:34:45
am)
|
the "new
birth"
Up until you reached this section of the PFAL class, Jerry, I
hadn't given much consideration to Wierwille's presentation of the
"new birth". A few years ago, my wife, Zoe, told me she didn't think
the things we had been taught were right. We were busy re-examining
a lot of other issues at the time, and I never got into it any
deeper than that. I've been doing some reading in the PFAL book, and
some tracking through a concordance. I'll present a few of the
things I've found in a day or two. The work you and others have done
on this thread has been very thought provoking, and
enlightening!
Love,
Steve |
Steve
Lortz
Read Menu, Afraid to
Order
(1/18/01 10:26:40
pm)
|
"the new
birth"
How does one eat an elephant? On page 229 of PFAL, Wierwille wrote
"One of the great subjects in the Word of God is the new birth; it
is the crux of Christianity." After wrestling for several days with
the problems of critiquing this one sentence alone, I feel like the
task of analyzing Wierwille's concept of "the new birth" is on a
similar level of magnitude to eating a whole elephant. My hat is off
to you Jerry, for taking on all of PFAL!
Well... one eats an
elephant one bite at a time. So what are the bites?... and where do
we begin?
Before I'm done, I propose to look at every use in
the Bible of the phrases "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born
of God" and other related constructions. We can't just look at the
phrase "the new birth", because it *never* occurs in the Bible!
[Here we see Robbie the Robot flailing his arms and blaring,
"Warning... Will Robinson... Danger... Danger... " The "crux of
Christianity" is *never named by name* in the Bible!?!] That'll be
one bite for us.
Another bite will be to examine exactly what
happened on the day of Pentecost. After all, on page 291 of PFAL,
VPW wrote, "Let us study what happened on Pentecost when salvation,
the new birth, first became available..."
Notice in the
sentence quoted above, Wierwille equated "the new birth", an
extra-Biblical word, with "salvation", a word that *does* appear in
the Word. The bite I propose to begin chewing this evening is the
Biblical definition of "salvation". As we'll see later, our
understanding of this word will be the key to understanding
Pentecost.
So... to commence biting, let's look at Matthew
19:16-25,
Matthew 19:16 "And, behold, one came and said
unto him [Jesus], Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I
may have eternal life?
17 "And he [Jesus] said unto him [the
young man], Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments.
18 "He [the young man] saith unto him [Jesus],
Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness,
19 "Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself.
20 "The young man saith unto
him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I
yet?
21 "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and
sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 "But when the
young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had
great possessions.
23 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples,
Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the
kingdom of heaven.
24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man
to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 "When his disciples
heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be
saved?"
Indeed, who then can be saved? Notice that this
passage uses five different phrases as synonyms; "eternal life" in
verse 16, "enter into life" in verse 17, "enter into the kingdom of
heaven" in verse 23, "enter into the kingdom of God" in verse 24,
and "be saved" in verse 25. Each of these phrases is a slightly
different way of talking about one central idea, the thing we call
"salvation".
First let's look at "eternal life". VPW used the
word "eternal" frequently in his discussion of "the new birth", but
he never examined its meaning from the Bible. The Greek phrase in
Matthew 19:16 is "zoe aionios". "Zoe" means "life", or the perfect
and abiding antithesis to death. "Aionios" is an adjectival form of
"aion" or "age". "Aionios" means "belonging to the age". In ordinary
English usage, the phrase "eternal life" means something like
"endless life" or "life that lasts forever", but in the Bible, it
means "life belonging to the age". What age?
Matthew 12:32
says, "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it
shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world ["en
toutoi toi aioni" = "in this age"], neither in the world to come
["en toi mellonti" = "in the coming"]".
Ephesians 1:21 says,
"Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and
every name that is named, not only in this world ["en toi aioni
toutoi" = "in this age"], but also in that which is to come ["en toi
mellonti" = "in the coming"]."
From these verses we see that
both Jesus and Paul, both *before* and *after* the day of Pentecost,
were primarily concerned with only two ages, "this age" and "the age
to come". Why?
Let's look at Luke 20:32-36,
32
"Last of all the woman died also.
33 "Therefore in the
resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to
wife.
34 "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of
this world ["tou aionos toutou" = "of this age"] marry, and are
given in marriage:
35 "But they which shall be accounted
worthy to obtain that world ["tou aionos ekeinou" = "that age"], and
the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in
marriage:
36 "Neither can they die anymore: for they are
equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the
children of the resurrection."
People in the New
Testament were concerned with the age to come because they knew
that's when the resurrection is going to happen. Notice verse 36
says the people who are accounted worthy to obtain the age to come
are the children of God, being children of the resurrection. Here's
an instance of the Bible explaining how people become children of
God without making any references at all to a "seed" or "new birth".
Notice this passage was also spoken well before the day of
Pentecost, the supposed beginning of the "administration of the
mystery".
Biblically, the phrase "eternal life" means
something very much like "resurrection life in the age to come". I
believe the phrase "enter into life" in Matthew 19:17 is a shortened
way of expressing the same idea as "eternal life". So we see one
component of salvation is resurrection life in the age to
come.
Now, how about the phrases "kingdom of heaven" and
"kingdom of God"? How do they relate to "salvation"?
To the
best of my remembrance (I checked my old syllabus, but I didn't comb
through all the written PFAL material), one of the few places where
VPW set forth an explanation of the "kingdom of God" was on the
chart he used in session 5 of PFAL, labelled "Usage of the Word
'Church'" This chart showed the kingdom of God as an arch,
overspanning three periods of time. He labelled the first and the
last periods as "kingdom of heaven" and the middle period as "the
great mystery".
Wierwille defined "kingdom" as "the reign of
a king". He said the kingdom of heaven is the time when Christ is
personally present to reign upon the earth. On page 82 of "God's
Magnified Word" VPW wrote, "The Bible refers to this period [the
'administration' which preceded the day of Pentecost] as the Christ
Administration or the Kingdom of Heaven." (An aside... this whole
sentence is a lie. The Bible never refers to *anything* as "the
Christ Administration", because the phrase never occurs in the
Bible!?!) Supposedly, the kingdom of heaven is held in abeyance
during the "administration of the mystery". Wierwille taught that
the kingdom of God is God's reign over all.
However, in
Matthew 19 we saw both phrases used synonymously, and entering into
it/them is equated with being saved. What gives?
According to
II Samuel 7:1-16, after having become king, David sat reflecting in
his house one day, and it seemed inappropriate to him that he should
be living in a solid house while God still "dwelt" in a tent. So
David proposed building a house for God.
As part of His
response to David's proposal, God made the following statements,
"...Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And
when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I
will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy
bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house
for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for
ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son... And thine
house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy
throne shall be established for ever."
Even though these
promises found partial immediate fulfillment in Solomon's reign, it
was obvious that they referred to something even bigger. As time
went by and Israel fragmented and succumbed to various corrupt
rulers and foreign powers, God appended many of His promises of
deliverance to the promise of a kingdom He had made to David. The
man who was to rule this kingdom became known as the Anointed One,
or the Messiah, or the Christ. Of the people of Israel and Judaea,
the fraction who believed God looked for hope to the coming of the
promised Messiah and his kingdom. By the time of John the Baptist,
people referred to this hope as "the kingdom of God".
"The
kingdom of God" doesn't mean "the reign of God over all", as VPW
taught. It means "the kingdom promised by God" or "the kingdom
*from* God"! The "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" are
not two separate things. Matthew 19 uses the phrases synonymously,
and it equates entry into this kingdom with "be saved".
In
his book, "The Coming Kingdom of The Messiah", Anthony Buzzard
summarized the expectations of the Jewish rabbis regarding the
Messiah and his future kingdom:
"1. The Messiah is to be
a descendant of the house of David and his purpose is to restore the
Kingdom to Israel and extend it over the world.
"2. In a last
terrible battle for world domination the enemies of God,
concentrated in a single Antichrist, will be defeated and
destroyed.
"3. The establishment of Messiah's Kingdom,
following the defeat of the Antichrist, will result in a spiritual
and political hegemony of Israel, when all the nations will be
taught to accept the unity of God, acknowledge the rule of His
representative, the Messiah, and seek instruction from the law."
In addition the earthly, political kingdom of God will be
characterized by universal justice, peace and
prosperity.
Isaiah 61 states the Messiah's mission and
describes his kingdom. Jesus of Nazareth opened his ministry by
quoting Isaiah 61, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he
hath annointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me
to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives,
and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that
are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."
He
went on to say, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears"
(Luke 4:18-21). By doing so, Jesus put forward the claim that he was
indeed the Anointed One, commissioned to inaugurate the kingdom of
God promised to David.
Jesus' claim to be the Messiah forms
the very basis of Christianity, or "Messiah"-anity, since the words
"Christ" and "Messiah" mean the same thing. The genuine hope of
Christianity is different from the hope of Israel only in this...
believing Gentiles *also* can get in, by grace through faith!
According to I Corinthians 6:9-11 and Titus 3:3-7 God's purpose in
making us clean, baptizing us in holy spirit, is to enable us to
have an inheritance in the kingdom of God, according to the hope of
resurrection life in the age to come! That's
salvation!
Wierwille's "crux of Christianity"!?! Hah! What
unscriptural baloney.
Many first century Judaeans rejected
Jesus of Nazareth's claim because he did not at that time throw off
Roman rule and revive David's throne. As illustrated in Acts
2:34&35, Peter and other Christians of the era responded with
Psalm 110:1, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
until I make thy foes thy footstool." They believed that Jesus had
been received by heaven until the times of the restitution of all
things (Acts 3:21), when he would come again even as they had seen
him go (Acts 1:11), to establish the kingdom of God on
earth.
To quote from Anthony Buzzard's book once more, "At
His [Jesus'] first coming He called and prepared His disciples for
their part in the future Kingdom, and then submitted to death at the
hands of the hostile Jewish and Roman officials. The Resurrection of
Jesus which followed is the guarantee that He has overcome death and
is therefore in a position one day to return to the earth to fulfill
the remainder of the messianic mission and realize the prophets'
vision of peace on earth. Meanwhile He continues at the right hand
of the Father to administer His church, whom He invites to share in
the messianic glory of the Coming Age. The failure of 'theology' to
do justice to this simple biblical scheme lies in its antipathy to
things messianic (and thus to Messiah Himself), and it has therefore
lost sight of the central biblical fact that Jesus is the Messiah
destined not only to die for the sins of mankind but to reign over
the earth in a future theocracy initiated by His Second Coming. The
primary task of churches, if they are to be the Church, is to
proclaim that stupendous Good News."
Enough elephant for one
night. I'll be back.
Love,
Steve
PS - As Crow T.
Robot would say, "Bite me... it's fun!" |
Steve
Lortz
Sampled the Breakfast
Special
(1/20/01 3:38:31
pm)
|
"the new
birth"
I'm working on composing as exposition of what actually happened on
Pentecost. I won't be able to post it until tomorrow (Sunday)
afternoon. Thanks for your patience!
Love,
Steve |
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/20/01 5:16:53 pm)
|
Re: Salvation
and "The New Birth"; Law vs Grace
A word of explanation here is in order; not only because what
follows is a lengthy five-part post, but also because it will
effectively bisect Steve's work. For that I feel I should apologize.
Not only will this post interrupt Steve's I expect it will disagree
substantially with his conclusions. And so I feel obligated to say
that this is not a duel. Deb Mason and I had agreed Wednesday
evening to go in this direction. I formed the outline for this post
on Thursday morning and began thinking it through. In the meantime,
Steve began serving up "elephant bites". Personally, I prefer
brisket :-)
So try not to read this as a debate. This is what
Deb and I feel is the next step in presenting a synopsis of the
material dealt with in PFAL on the new birth. Much of what VP
presented in this part of PFAL was priceless. However, because of
the manner and context in which it was presented, it's tempting to
overlook the value of the underlying message of salvation by grace.
I have been unflinching and, at times even sarcastic, in my
criticism of PFAL. But there are a few major things that VP got
right. I think the 'new birth' and salvation by grace are among
them.
I have been distressed over the past few years by the
tendency of some ex-way folk among us to revert to teaching
legalism. I know we all recognize that the character and teachings
of TWI were destructively licentious, but in this case I think the
pendulum is swinging a bit too far in the other direction. It is for
that reason that I've put so much into this particular post. And
without further ado, here is part one.
I: The wall of Partition and the Fulfilling of the
Law
Ephesians 2:10-16
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in
them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past
Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which
is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in
Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the
blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both
one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of
twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the
enmity thereby:
This passage from Ephesians makes a very important
statement about the dual nature of the redemptive work of Christ.
Jesus Christ made both one by destroying the middle wall of petition
"between us". Between Jews and Gentiles there was a wall, built
under the Law, that kept the Gentiles at a distance from the Temple.
Beyond that wall no Gentile was allowed unless he was first
circumcised and proselytized. The use of the terms "Uncircumcision"
and "Circumcison" in verse 11 reinforce this truth. What is
communicated here is that Jesus Christ destroyed the division
between Jews and Gentiles. But what is further communicated in verse
16 is that Jesus also destroyed the enmity between God and the Jews;
and the enmity between God and the Gentiles. All men were dead in
trespasses and sins and were therefore at enmity with God. So Jesus
brought the Jews and Gentiles together in one body, then reconciled
both unto the Father. He performed this miraculous work by
accomplishing what no man before him had been able to do; by
fulfilling the Law.
Matthew 5:17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Note that Jesus didn't say to Israel that day that he
had come to fulfill the prophets. Verse 17 says "Think not that I am
come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfill". But in the next sentence he spoke specifically of
fulfilling the law. The reason for this is the words of the prophets
have not yet been fulfilled. The prophets include Daniel and his
prophecy of the restoration of Israel, the rise and destruction of
what we have come to know as the antichrist, and of the earthly
reign of the Christ. Jesus said " till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be
fulfilled." So Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Therefore, while Jesus
was on the earth, the Law was still in effect. Therefore "whosoever
shall break the least of one of these commandments," would be least
in the kingdom of heaven which Jesus preached throughout
Judaea.
That Jesus did indeed fulfill the law is
abundantly evident and clearly stated throughout the Pauline
epistles.
Colossians 2:10-14
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all
principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from
the dead.
We are complete in Christ. One reason we are complete
is because Jesus Christ performed a perfect work of righteousness
and gave it freely to us. One of the Biblical usages of the term
"baptism" is identification with someone else. I Corinthians 10: 1-4
speak of the children of Israel having been "baptized unto Moses" in
the crossing of the Red Sea. Since the children of Israel crossed on
dry land, it wasn't the water that baptized them. They were baptized
unto Moses in that they received the benefit of Moses' faith and
were thereby delivered from death. Likewise we, having been baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ, receive the benefits of the faith of
Christ.
Notice also that verse 11 says we were circumcised
with him and verse 12 says we were buried with him. This is the
figure of speech polar merismos where something broad or
complex is represented by naming the two extremes thereof.
Circumcision was the first act required by the law in the life of an
Israelite. Burial was the last. Meaning that the law held sway over
a man's life from circumcision to burial. So when Colossians says we
were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands and that
we were buried with him by baptism, what God is saying is that Jesus
Christ completely completely fulfilled the law and that, by baptism,
that complete fulfillment of every legal requirement of God is ours.
Hallelujah! Verse 12 tells us that we receive this completeness not
by our works but "through the faith of the operation of God who hath
raised him from the dead"; by believing that God raised Jesus Christ
from the grave. We receive the benefit of Christ's work by our
faith..
Colossians 2:13 & 14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision
of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven
you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took
it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
We receive completeness by faith because we couldn't
receive it any other way. We were dead in our sins. We had been
judged and condemned and were sentenced to death. Not only because
we were sinners, but because we were Gentiles. The uncircumcision of
your flesh was a curse because the wall of petition kept the
Gentiles away from the sacrifices and atonements available to Israel
under the law. Jesus Christ broke down the middle wall of petition.
Colossians 2:14 conveys the same truth with a different figure
referring to the law as the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us. When Jesus was crucified, God laid our iniquity upon him
and that sin, that uncleanness died on the cross with Him.
Therefore, we can live also with him in the resurrection and, having
been baptized into Him, we are established in Heaven and clothed in
righteousness Christ earned on our behalf.
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/20/01 5:19:50 pm)
|
Re: Law vs
Grace:Part II
II. Abraham's Faith and Moses' Curse.
Christ completely fulfilled the law. The prophecies
of his kingdom are yet to be fulfilled but the Law has been
fulfilled and set aside. The next thing we need to understand is how
the law relates to God's promises to Israel. Volumes could be
written on this topic, but there is a great synopsis of it in
Galatians chapter three.
Galatians 3:6-10
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye
so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by
the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it
be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the
Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of
the law, or by the hearing of faith?
It is of paramount importance to realize that we are
not saved by the works of the Law, but by "the hearing of faith". As
Colossians also revealed, we are saved by faith in the resurrection
of Christ. Therefore, it is folly to think that we should attempt to
grow spiritually by works of the flesh. With this in mind, we can
now receive God's wisdom about the relationship between the Law and
the Promise
Galatians 3:6-10
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him
for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are
of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the
scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee
shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of
faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as
are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them.
We are saved by faith not works. Therefore we are
called children of Abraham. Ask yourself this question. Why are we
not called the children of Moses? Moses was a great man of God, one
who "knew God face to face". Moses lead God's people out of bondage
in Egypt and prophesied of the Messiah. Indeed Christ was
prophetically compared to Moses. So why are we not called the
children of Moses? Because Moses brought the Law and "as many as are
under the law are under the curse." Abraham simply believed God.
Abraham's faith is the example we are to follow. This is why verse
eight says God "preached the gospel" before to Abraham. The central
tenet of the gospel is salvation by faith.
Verse 10 is
crystal clear. As many as are under the law are bound by a curse to
do the whole thing. This is a very important point because the
legalists of the First Century Church weren't advocating that the
new Christians; former Gentiles keep the Passover, attend the
feasts, make all the required sacrifices; only that they be
circumcised. This is a deceptive teaching. A little legalism is easy
to sell. But a little bit of law is nothing but a curse. Even Moses
suffered the curse of the law. He himself was denied access to the
Promised land to which he had lead God's people. He ended his life
doing God's will, leading God's people. His heart never departed
from God. Yet he ended his life in view of the Promised Land, but
unable to enter.
God's will is to bless us, not curse us.
This is why Christ fulfilled the entire law for us and this is why
we are baptized into him and circumcised and buried with him. There
is absolutely nothing Christ has not done for us. God's blessing is
complete. Any denial of that completeness will only produce a curse.
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/20/01 5:22:35 pm)
|
Re: Law vs
Grace:Part III
III. The Curse of the Law
So far
we have seen from God's Word that Jesus, in fulfilling the law,
eliminated the enmity between the Circumcision and the
Uncircumcision. But remember, he reconciled both unto God in
one body by the cross. And, as we have just read, Galatians refers
to the law as a curse. This is because the law was against not only
the Gentiles, who were outside the Court. It was also against the
children of Israel. Peter referred to it as "a yoke... which neither
our fathers nor we, were able to bear" (Acts 15:10). Paul wrote
volumes about the limitations of the law and its deleterious affect
on Israel. In II Corinthians 3, we find one of the most descriptive
oxymorons of the Bible where Paul refers to the law as "the
ministration [diakonia: ministry] of death" and "the ministration of
condemnation". The law was a yoke, a ministry of death and
condemnation. Why? Because it codified God's righteousness and set a
standard of conduct for every facet of human life. And because man
is inherently corrupt. Something in the sin of Adam passed on a
corrupt nature that still lives in man today. Without the specific
standards of God's righteousness staring man in the face, that
corruption was glossed over. But when the Law was given it exposed
that corruption. It exposed sin, and in so doing sins,
transgressions multiplied. And, as a result, many sinners died. This
is the testimony of Romans chapters five through seven.
Romans 5:12-14
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin
is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him
that was to come.
Sin entered into the world when Adam disobeyed. Death
passed upon all as a consequence of that one sin. Sins however, were
not imputed, pointed out, recorded, because there was no law. Sin is
not imputed when there is no law. In the absence of rules, we can't
break any. Chapter seven begins with an extended analogy of the Law
regarding marriage and widows.
Romans 7:1-6
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know
the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as
long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is
bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if
the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if
her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she
is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by
the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to
him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit
unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of
sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring
forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from
the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should
serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Guess what the context is. THE LAW. Specifically the
truth that we have bee delivered from its dictates just as a widow
is released from the authority of her deceased husband. This is a
remarkable figure of speech because it carries more than one level
of meaning. There is also a bit of a paradox in the comparison. A
widow was loosed from the law of her husband. This analogy is
carried over in vers 4 to the newness of the Church by the reference
to our being married to another (Christ). But in this analogy we
cannot truly be compared to the freed widow, because that would make
the law analogous with the dead husband. The law is a part of God's
Word which liveth and abideth forever. It cannot die. That's why, in
verse 5, the roles are suddenly switched. "Ye also are become dead
to the law". And verse six, properly translated, should read, "But
now we are delivered from the law having died unto that wherein we
were held".
Anyway, the context is THE LAW. By the way,
we're delivered from it. No longer under it. This context continues
throughout the chapter as another compelling analogy begins. We must
keep in mind that the context of chapter seven is not the Church of
the body of Christ, but the state of Israel under the law. Otherwise
we will fall into the common error of interpreting this as Paul's
assessment of his personal life.
Romans 7:7-11
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I
had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except
the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking
occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was
alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was
ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin,
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Notice the change of voice in verse seven. "I' had not
known sin. Who? Surely Paul is speaking of himself. Surely not. If
this passage is autobiographical, Paul is attesting to having lived
before the law came and having died. This is obviously not true and
therefore the use of first person here cannot be interpreted
literally. Paul is not saying that he personally had not known sin,
but by the law. The use of the word "I" in this passage represents a
fictitious, allegorical man, an "everyman" of Israel. It
figuratively represents the experiences of the thousands upon
thousands of the children of Israel who died in the wilderness when
the Law was given. "When the commandment came, sin revived and I
died.". The remainder of the chapter deals with the agony and
frustration of godly people living under commandments that were
designed to expose their inherent inability to please
God.
Romans 7:12-17
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and
just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death
unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working
death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might
become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is
spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that
which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I
hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I
consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no
more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Verse 14 is not talking about a man with a carnal
mind, as is the case in Roman 8:7. It says I am carnal, sold under
sin. The word "sold" means to be exported as merchandise. The word
"under" is hupo, meaning completely overshadowed or covered.
The statement, I am carnal, sold under sin, literally means that man
is inherently wicked and dominated by sin. This is not a state of
mind. It is the consequence of Adam's disobedience. "By one man's
disobedience many were made sinners". Verse 15 is poorly translated.
The word "do" appears three times and each time it is a different
Greek word. The Greek words are katergazomai, prasso, and
poieo. Katergazomai means to cause. Prasso means
to practice or do habitually, and poieo means to produce,
make, or manifest. The word "allow" should be translated "approve".
So a better translation of verses 15-17 would be:
For that which I cause I approve not; for that which I would
that practice I not; but what I hate, that produce I.
If
then I produce that which I would not, I consent unto the law that
it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that cause it, but
sin that dwelleth in me.This is a summary of the state
of men and women who lived under the curse of the law. They were
unable to keep up the standards of the law because of the indwelling
sin; the carnal nature of man. They could acknowledge the
righteousness of the law, but could not practice it. A detailed
teaching on the rest of this chapter would be enlightening but is
beyond the scope of this post. Verses 18-21 reiterate the above.
Another summary of Israel's plight is given in verses 22 & 23,
which I think have been largely misunderstood.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But 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.
The "inward man" is not holy spirit. The context here
is still the law and the flesh. The inward man is the mind, which
consented unto the law that it is good. The other law in the members
is the carnal nature, sin itself. It is called "another law" to
fully portray its ruling power over men. "The law of my mind" is the
law of Moses, to which the inward man, the mind, consented. The use
of the words ‘warring" and "bringing me into captivity" are a
military figure comparing the battle between the Law and sin to a
war between two kingdoms. Obviously the kingdom or law of sin won
because man was taken captive as a prisoner of war. As a captive of
the law of sin, all the saints of Israel could do was look forward
in hope to the coming of the redeemer, who would free them from the
bondage of sin. Those who looked forward to the Messiah as a
political deliverer had a lesser understanding of what God had
promised.
Psalms 51:9-11
9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine
iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and
renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from
thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Romans 7:24 & 25
24 O wretched man that I
am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I
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.
The prophets and saints of the Old Testament not
only sought the Messiah's delivering power from the enemy without;
but form the enemy within; the law of sin. Christ provided that
deliverance by fulfilling the law and sacrificing his earned
righteousness so that it could be given to us. "He made him to be
sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness
of God in hm.[II Cor. 5:21]" Those who walk in the faith of Abraham
humbly accept Christ's sacrifice and walk in the grace of God. But
those who did not understand the fulness of the Messiah' mission
failed to receive it.
Edited by: JBarrax
at: 1/20/01 4:31:28 pm
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/20/01 5:30:12 pm)
|
Re: Law vs
Grace:Part IV
IV. The Righteousness of Faith
Remember Ephesians 2 said Christ had broken down the
middle wall of partition and had reconciled BOTH unto God in one
body. He reconciled the Jews as well, by removing the Law and its
curses. Romans 7:6 said But now we are delivered from the Law,
having died unto that wherein we were held. Hallelujah!....Now
what?
Romans 8:1-5
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are
in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath
made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the
law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might
be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the
things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things
of the Spirit.
There is now no condemnation because we are delivered
from the law. [I believe Romans 7:7-25 are a parenthesis explaining
why deliverance was needed] The law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus is the rule of holy spirit in our lives. We are no longer
captives, sold under sin, brought captive to the law of sin, because
of two great realities. We have been freed from the law and we have
been given holy spirit, which we receive by faith.
The law
of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus is different from the law of
sin and death not only in its nature, but also in that we are not is
unwilling subjects. The spirit of Life rules only with our consent.
This is the primary difference between chapter 8 and chapter seven.
7:14 says "I am carnal". 8:5 says they that are after the flesh
do mind the things of the flesh. but they that are after the
Spirit [do mind: dwell on ] the things of the Spirit. We have a
choice. We can dwell on the flesh and fail to receive the benefits
of Christ's work and sacrifice and redemption or we can dwell in the
spirit and walk by faith, receiving and sharing the manifold
benefits of God's grace. Of course not everyone received this
magnificent deliverance. Some of those to whom this gospel was first
preached did not understand or receive it. Because they had become
so focused on the law, they were unable to receive salvation by
faith. As we know from previous study, their unbelief opened the
door for God to extend that same grace to the Gentiles, that
salvation might be made available to all. Romans 9:30-10:10 put this
in perspective for us.
Romans 9:30-10:7
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed
not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the
righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which
followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the
law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it
not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they
stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written,
Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and
whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that
they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have
a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they
being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish
their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the
righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth.
As long as Israel trusts in the law they will remain
unsaved. Salvation is only available today by faith in Jesus Christ
for Christ is the end of the law. As Colossians 2:12 and Romans 7:4
stated, this salvation is received by believing that God has raised
Christ from the dead. And as Deb taught from Acts, it is preceded by
and understanding that man is in dire need of repentance. We are
still dead in sin. We still have a sinful, carnal nature. But we now
have the ability to walk with God as He intended, not by relying on
the flesh and the works of the law, but by accepting the gospel of
faith.
Romans 10:6-10
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this
wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that
is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall
descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the
dead)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in
thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we
preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart
man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is
made unto salvation.
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/20/01 5:33:04 pm)
|
Re: Law vs
Grace:Part V
V. Born From Above: Incorruptibe Seed
Salvation is eternal life. Both are received by
faith not by works. To be saved is to receive eternal life. Eternal
life and salvation have always been available. But the means by
which salvation is received changes according to what commandments
are given. Adam and Eve had eternal life available by keeping one
simple commandment. As we know, they blew it and condemned
themselves and their offpsring to sin and death. Eternal life was
receive by Enoch, who walked with God and was translated. Eternal
life was received by Abraham and the Patriarchs faith in God's
promises. Eternal life was received by Israel by keeping the
commandments of the law. And Eternal life is received by all today
by repentance and by faith in the resurrection of Christ. But we, by
the faith of Jesus Christ, and the immeasusurable grace of God,
receive more
I Peter 1:18-25
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation
received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation
of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the
dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth
through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye
love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is
as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass
withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the
word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by
the gospel is preached unto you.
The gospel, the good news is that we have
received
not only eternal life by the grace of God and the sacrifice of
Christ, but we are also "born again". Born from above
(anageneo) by Incorruptible seed. This seed is the gift of
holy spirit. As VP accurately taught in PFAL, it is called seed
because it is from our Father God and it is our permanent connection
with Him. We are children of God because we have received seed.
Corruptible seed is that which we pass on to our children. The
bodies that grow from that seed, wondrous though they may be, will
eventually die and decay if the Lord tarries. But the seed by which
we are born of God will not die nor decay. And it is by that seed
that we are assure of a new body; a spiritual body raised in
incorruption and immortality.
I Corinthians 15:35-43
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and
with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou
sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which
thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare
grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed
his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there
is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of
fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial
bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is
one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There
is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another
glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in
glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is
sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is
sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it
is raised in power:
I can hardly wait.
Peace
Jerry
|
evanpyle
Most Likely to Post in ME ME ME
(1/20/01 11:49:45 pm)
|
Re: Law vs
Grace:Part V
First a comment about the new birth formula espoused by
Wierwille...that being Rom 10:9. Jerry already brought up the
context of this verse. Reading Romans carefully reveals that
salvation is given by grace through *faith* in Christ. Not a word is
whispered about 'confess with your mouth' outside 10:9. So what
about faith? Faith itself is a gift of god and is supplied the
called saint (Eph 2:8).
Romans predominantly characterizes salvation as
righteousness. The critical issue, time and again, is righteousness.
The wages of sin is shown to be death. But God's righteousness,
received by faith is the big deal. Hmmm.
Oh, and repentance,
the forgotten word of the Bible for VP, is a very big
deal...
I'll comment later with some thoughts on what is
meant by saved and what happens when a person is saved. And when I
have time I have comments on seed...incorruptible &
corruptible...
Later
|
Steve
Lortz
Sampled the Breakfast
Special
(1/21/01 8:24:19
pm)
|
the "new
birth"
God bless you all, in the name of Jesus Christ! What a wonderful
discussion this thread continues to be.
I started out my last
post with references to eating an elephant. So this time, I'll start
out with references to describing one.
It seems that there
were five blind men who set out to describe an elephant. One blind
man got hold of the elephant's tail, one leaned up against the side
of the elephant, another one wrapped his arm around the elephant's
leg, yet another felt the elephant's ear, while the last blind man
caught the elephant by the trunk.
The blind man who got hold
of the elephant's tail said, "An elephant is like a
rope".
The one who leaned up against the side of the elephant
said, "An elephant is like a wall".
The one who wrapped his
arm around the elephant's leg said, "An elephant is like a
tree".
The one who felt the elephant's ear said, "Yes, and it
has very large leaves".
The last blind man who caught the
elephant by the trunk said, "An elephant is like a
snake."
Each of the blind men was right, from his own limited
perspective, but each was also wrong because he couldn't apprehend
the big picture.
VPW gave us a very limited picture of what
the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is all about.
I'm
feeling around the parts of the Bible that are within my reach, and
reporting back what I find. Others are doing the same thing on this
thread, only because of differences in our experiences, and our
leadings from the Lord, we seem to be reporting back different
things. That's okay. As we each consider what the others have to
say, we'll come up with a better rounded picture of the truth than
if we all sat in rows of stringed chairs and listened to a "MOG"
drone on endlessly.
The reason I brought up Matthew 19 in my
last post was not to imply that we have to do the works of the law
in order to earn salvation. That requirement was done away with when
Jesus Christ mediated the new covenant. Now, salvation is received
by grace through faith. Your posts, Jerry, demonstrate this
beautifully. However, Matthew 19 does show what the Biblical meaning
of salvation is; entry into the coming kingdom of God promised to
David in II Samuel 7, and resurrection life in the age to come
(those of us who remain alive until the Lord appears will be
changed, rather than resurrected).
Regarding "eternal life",
VPW wrote (PFAL, pg 290), "To be born again is to have that seed of
God in Christ in you." (PFAL, pg 291) When it says *incorruptible*,
it means *incorruptible*. One might now accuse me of believing in
eternal security... He does not mean eternal security, he means life
- eternal life - because it is incorruptible and it is seed." (PFAL,
pg 292) That is why His seed is eternal life. It is eternal because
God is eternal, and it is life because God is life."
What the
heck does all that mean? *Now*I can admit that I just don't know.
How can I sort it out to compare with what's actually written in the
Word? That's what I'm trying to do here, and I'm mighty thankful for
all of you, that I no longer have to try doing this all by
myself.
The phrase "eternal life" has picked up a lot of
ambiguous baggage in the centuries since the Bible was written. Many
Christian "leaders", not just VPW, have taken advantage of that
ambiguity to promote things which, boiled down to their essence,
turn out to be gobbledy-gook.
It appears to me that the word
"aionios", as used in the Bible, means "belonging to the age", and
the only age I see detailed in the Bible, other than "this present
evil age", is the age to come. If someone can expand my
understanding by means of chapter and verse, I will welcome that
expansion.
In this post, I want to look at what the Bible
*actually says* about the events of Pentecost. I will get to uses of
"born again", etc., in a future post.
On page 291 of PFAL
Wierwille wrote, "How does the new birth occur? How do we have
Christ's seed born within us? This original phenomenon occurred on
Pentecost; and since we are still living in that same
administration, we are included in and effected by the greatness of
that event. Let us study what happened on Pentecost when salvation,
the new birth, first became available so we can understand its
application to us." The following discussion in PFAL is anything
*but* a study of Pentecost!
First, what was
Pentecost?
Deuteronomy 16:16 "Three time in a year shall
all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he
shall choose; in the feast of the unleavened bread, and in the feast
of weeks [called 'Pentecost' in the New Testament], and in the feast
of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the Lord
empty:
17 "Every man shall give as he is able, according to
the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given
thee."
Exodus 34:22a "And thou shalt observe the feast of
weeks, of the first fruit of wheat
harvest..."
Deuteronomy 16:10 "And thou shalt keep the
feast of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a freewill
offering of thy hand, which thou shalt give unto the Lord thy God,
according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee."
So we
see that Pentecost was an annual feast, celebrating the first fruit
of the wheat harvest, when every male of Israel was to offer a free
will offering as he was able, of that with which the Lord had
blessed him. We note that Pentecost celebrated the first fruit, or
the *beginning* of the wheat harvest.
Peter explained what
was happening on the particular Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. He
said "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Wierwille
fudged Peter's saying very badly in PFAL. VPW said Peter meant "This
is *like* that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." However, there
isn't the least grammatical or textual reason for VPW to change
Peter's words. Why did he do it?
The dispensationalism
Wierwille taught, originally developed by John Darby, erroneously
holds that the Christian Church is a "wholly new thing", and demands
that it be considered entirely separate and discontinuous from
Israel. To make this separation, Darby twisted Paul's words to come
up with dispensationalism's "administration of the mystery", a
secret period of time parenthetically inserted into God's timetable
of salvation. Darby arbitrarily chose to open his secret parenthesis
at the day of Pentecost.
Darby taught that, since the entire
period of the Church's existence was a mystery, first revealed to
Paul, no prophecies of the Old Testament or of the Gospels could be
applied to the Church. Since Darby claimed the Church was "born" on
the day of Pentecost, no prophecies of the OT or the Gospels could
be applied to the events that happened on that day,
either.
So, according to Wierwille's mistaken
dispensationalism, Peter *couldn't* have meant "This is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel." VPW tried to obliterate Peter's
bald statement of truth by adding the word "like", changing Peter's
statement into a simile. So much for Wierwille's self-vaunted
devotion to the accuracy and integrity of God's wonderful, matchless
Word!?!
Let's look at what Joel had to say, the passage of
God's Word Peter quoted on the day of Pentecost:
Joel
2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my
spirit upon all flesh; and you sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see
visions:
29 "And also upon the servants and upon the
handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 "And I
will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire,
and pillars of smoke.
31 "The sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible
day of the Lord come.
32 "And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for
in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord
hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall
call."
Notice that "whosoever shall call on the name of
the Lord shall be delivered" is *not* the end of the passage. Verse
32 continues, saying, "for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be
deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord
shall call."
Joel says that deliverance... or salvation, as
Peter would translate it... shall be in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem.
If the events of Pentecost took place at the Temple, as I continue
to believe, then Peter was standing "in mount Zion and in Jerusalem"
even as he spoke. When Peter expounded on God raising Jesus from the
dead, on God making him both Lord and Christ, and on the outpouring
of holy spirit, I believe Peter was explaining Joel's "for in mount
Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance." Peter was explaining
how the beginning of salvation had come that day.
Joel
concluded with "and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." This
brings us to the concept of the believing remnant of Israel, and the
practice of baptism.
[Please don't go ballistic on me here.
Since the believing remnant of Israel is now under the New Covenant,
being identified with the remnant does *not* mean being identified
with Israel under the law, or any kind of legalism. The believing
remnant of Israel is what it *now* is by grace through faith. That's
why it's the *believing* remnant!]
The idea of a believing
"remnant" goes back to I Kings 19:18, where God told Elijah, "Yet I
have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not
bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." The
"remnant" featured from time to time in the writings of the prophets
from that time forward.
Between the time of the Maccabbees
and the first century, a few generations later, Judaism split into
the various factions we find mentioned in the New Testament and
Josephus; the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc. Many of these
factions regarded themselves as the believing remnant of Israel. The
Essenes, at least, practiced water baptism as a rite of
initiation.
Water baptism was one of the things a person born
Gentile had to undergo if he wanted to convert to Judaism. The
process was a ritual purification preparatory to intiation into
God's covenant people. When John the Baptist was preaching for
people to repent and be baptized, he was preaching to people who
were *already* Jews! What was he initiating them into, if it wasn't
the true believing remnant?
This also explains why Jesus had
to be baptized. Not to wash away any sin he might have had, but to
identify himself with the remnant.
Joel concluded, "And in
the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Peter concluded in Acts
2:38&39, "...Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our
God shall call."
What promise? The promise of salvation in
Joel 2:32.
Called to what? To the believing remnant of Israel
(under the grace of the New Covenant).
One way to highlight
what happened when holy spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost
is to contrast it with the time holy spirit was poured out on
Cornelius and his household.
Regarding the day of Pentecost
the Bible says:
(1) that Jesus said he would send the promise
of the Father upon his followers (Luke 24:49),
(2) that
Jesus' followers would be endued with power from on high (Luke
24:49),
(3) that Jesus said "John truly baptized with water;
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence"
(Acts 1:5),
(4) that Jesus said, "...ye shall receive power
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:
,
(5) that they (the apostles and/or disciples) were all
filled with holy spirit (Acts 2:4),
(6) that they began to
speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance (Acts
2:4),
(7) that Peter said this occurrance was that which was
spoken by the prophet Joel (acts 2:6),
(8
that
Jesus, being raised from the dead and exalted by the right hand of
God, received of the Father the promise of holy spirit (Acts
2:32,33),
(9) that Jesus poured out that which was seen and
heard on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33),
(10) that Peter
said, "Repent and be baptized... in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"
(Acts 2:38) ,
because
(11) "the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call." (Acts 2:39),
(12) and that they who gladly received
Peter's word were baptized.
Notice that the Bible never
directly associates the words "born again", "seed", etc., with the
events of Pentecost. It *does* use the word "promise" 3 times, and
the word "baptize" 4 times, regarding that day.
The Bible
says the following things about the conversion of Cornelius and his
household:
(1) that the substance of the revelation given to
Peter was "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (Acts
10:15),
(2) that holy spirit fell on Cornelius and his
household (Acts 10:44; 11:15),
(3) that the gift of holy
spirit was poured out on them (Acts 10:45),
(4) that Peter
and his witnesses heard them speak with tongues (Acts
10:45&46),
(5) that Peter said, "Can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized..." (Acts
10:47),
(6) that Cornelius and his household had received
holy spirit (Acts 10:47),
(7) that they received the Word of
God (Acts 11:1),
(8 that
they were saved (Acts 11:14; 15:11)
(9) that God gave them
the like gift as He gave to those who originally believed on the
Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:18)
,
(10) that God granted them repentance unto life (Acts 11:18)
,
(11) that God bore them witness (Acts 15:8),
(12) that God gave them holy spirit (Acts 15:8) ,
and
(13) that God purified their hearts by faith (Acts
15:9).
[There might be other things I haven't yet noticed.
Thanks for your patience.]
Notice again that the Word of God
itself never directly associates the words "born again", "seed",
etc., with the conversion of Cornelius and his household. Peter used
the word "baptize" once, and the word "promise" never appears at
all. I think that's because Cornelius and his household were
Gentiles, and the salvation of Joel 2 was never promised to
Gentiles. It wasn't until later that Paul received the revelation of
the mystery, that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the
same body, and partakers of his *promise* in Christ by the
gospel.
What happened on Pentecost was the *beginning* of
salvation (the *first fruit* of the wheat harvest) which had been
promised to the remnant in Joel 2:32, as signaled by the outpouring
of holy spirit. People were initiated into the remnant, being
baptized with holy spirit, their hearts being purified by faith. We
know that salvation is not yet "complete" ("Complete" is not exactly
the word I want here, but my time is too short to come up with a
better. Perhaps some of you can help me out after you finish reading
this paragraph.), because Ephesians 1:13,14; and II Corinthians 1:22
and 5:5 tell us that the gift of holy spirit is only the "earnest"
or down-payment (or maybe even "security-deposit") of our
inheritance in the Kingdom of God. And Hebrews 6:5 intimates that
we've only "tasted... of the powers of the age to come".
The
events of Pentecost did not constitute the "birth" of some
previously secret, "wholly new thing", as dispensationalism teaches.
Rather, the predominant theme was the arrival of the long-awaited
promise. The Bible itself never directly associates the words "born"
or "seed" with Pentecost. It was *not* the "birthday of the Church".
Receiving the gift of holy spirit meant that people's hearts,
beginning with believing Jews' first and adding believing Gentiles'
later, were purified by faith so that they could be counted among
God's covenant people, the believing remnant, and accounted worthy
to obtain an inheritance in the Kingdom of God, and resurrection
life in the age to come.
That's all I can post right now.
This seems real sketchy to me. I'm looking forward your help in
correcting these ideas if they need correcting, and in fleshing them
out.
Love,
Steve
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/22/01 8:30:50 pm)
|
Re: the "new
birth"
Hi Steve, God bless! Thanks for taking the time to share your work
and thoughts.
A few questions and observations:
1) I too have always been a little uncomfortable with VP adding
the word "like" to Peters' comments. However, there is a problem
with equating the prophecy of Joel to the events of Pentecost and
this time.
Acts 2:19 & 20
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven
above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour
of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
How does that prophesy fit with what happened on
Pentecost? Not only was it not fulfilled on Pentecost, it has yet to
be fulfilled almost 2 millennia later. I think that maybe the reason
for the apologetic insertion of "...this is like that..."
2) Peter, who gave the sermon on Pentecost, is the same one
who wrote of being born again of incorruptible seed. If that
experience of receiving incorruptible seed was not received on
Pentecost, what is the difference between the two? Remember also
that I Peter is addressed, not to Judaeans, but Gentiles; that is,
members of the Church who had been Gentiles. Therefore, they shared
the same heritage as Cornelius and his household. So again, if
Cornelius and company were not born again of incorruptible seed,
what is the difference between them and the Gentiles to whom Peter
wrote those words.
3) Remember, God expects us to put
like principles together.
Isaiah 28:9 & 10
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned
from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept
must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line
upon line; here a little, and there a little:
So we cannot
assume that because the words "born again" and "seed" are not used
in Acts that they do not apply to what Acts records. The phrase
"eternal life" is not used in Acts chapters two or ten either. But
we agree that those who received Peter's word on Pentecost, as well
as those in Cornelius' household did indeed receive "life in the
coming age". That's an apt description of eternal life by the way;
well done.
There were a couple more questions I had, but
I've forgotten what they were. Maybe
tomorrow...
Peace
Jerry |
Sunlight8
Polishes the silverware
(1/22/01 10:17:01 pm)
|
Re: the "new
birth"
Hmmmm. Haven’t been here in a few days. Just a few comments.
Forgive me if I cover ground already gone over, but the sheer length
of some of the posts I found to be a bit of an
impediment.
First, Jerry you raise some logical
points.
Jesus Christ defined the new birth.
John
3:3-7
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he
is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be
born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I
said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Birth involves
seed. New birth involves seed as attested to by I Peter 1:3, and
implied here. What determines being born again is the presence of
holy spirit according to Jesus. From that we know if a person
receives holy spirit, they are in fact born again, whether that is
specifically mentioned or not. The Bible simply doesn’t repeat
everywhere every detail involved every time something is mentioned.
The real point is receiving holy spirit. We can call it whatever we
want, but the result is eternal life and everything that goes with
it.
Not real technical, but I think in simple
terms.
Deb |
Mark
Sanguinetti
Had Fries with Gravy
last night
(1/22/01 11:14:07
pm)
|
Re: the "new
birth"
Hello:
I think you guys are doing a very good job with your
biblical work here. I also like your attitudes. I have pasted a
portion of a teaching that I did that pertains to Joel's prophecy as
quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost. The part on Joel is short,
but to the point. I had forgotten about VPW's erroneous claim
regarding Joel's prophecy until Steve reminded us of this. I am also
adding a link to my entire 5 page teaching here called "Prophecy and
Prophets The Gift of Holy Spirit." God bless you all.
www.waychrist.com/prophecy.htm
Acts
2:12-16 continues,
12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one
another, "What does this mean?"
13Some, however, made fun of
them and said, "They have had too much wine."
14Then Peter stood
up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd:
"Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain
this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not
drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16No, this is
what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
And then Peter in Acts
2:17-21 proceeds to quote from the old testament scriptures, Joel
2:28-32.
Acts 2:17-21,
17"`In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and
daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both
men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and
they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of
smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to
blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the
Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will
be saved.'
Incidentally, this scripture from Joel was a
foretelling prophecy by him. Joel had no way of knowing this by his
own mind or reasoning alone. Some of the last parts of this prophecy
with verses 19 and 20 have not yet been fulfilled. For the
fulfillment of this prophecy in the future see Revelations 6:12-13.
However, verses 17 and 18 were fulfilled beginning with this day,
and would continue to be fulfilled in this age of grace through the
working of the holy spirit. It must be noted that in old testament
times only the prophets were known for their prophecy. However,
Peter boldly proclaims that now even your sons, daughters and
servants will be able to prophecy. Peter may have had these
scriptures memorized, but I am sure that the holy spirit also helped
to bring this to his mind. Jesus Christ taught his disciples, and
not just the 12 apostles, that once they received the holy spirit
that it would bring to remembrance the words of life and truth. This
is important to remember when endeavoring to receive and then speak
any message from God such as with prophecy. The holy spirit will
give it when we need it.
Edited by: Mark
Sanguinetti at: 1/22/01 10:19:19 pm
|
Steve
Lortz
Likes the Lunch
Menu
(1/22/01 11:15:44
pm)
|
the "new
birth"
Thanks for your kind response, Jerry. I still have a lot of
questions myself.
Do I think the set of ideas God intended to
communicate with the complex of "born" and "seed" phrases are
important? Yes, I do.
Do I think they are the *same* set of
ideas that Wierwille taught in PFAL? No, I do not.
Up to this
point, I've been pointing out differences between what Wierwille
taught and what I see written in the Word. I expect when I get into
details of particular uses of the "born/seed" words, our viewpoints
(yours, Jerry, and mine) will come back into more apparent harmony,
in a binocular, depth perception sort of way. We actually need to
have at least two different views in order to achieve perception of
depth.
Does the fact that the sun didn't go dark and the moon
didn't turn to blood on the day of Pentecost invalidate Peter's
statement "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel"? I
don't think so, for several reasons. I'm writing off the top of my
head, so I present these reasons in no particular order.
There are at least a couple of different promises in Joel
2:28-32. One of them was that deliverance would be in Mount Zion,
and in Jerusalem, and in the remnant that the Lord would call. One
was that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. One was that
the sun would go dark and the moon would turn to blood *before the
great and the terrible day of the Lord come*.
Just because
the sun didn't go dark and the moon wasn't turned to blood on the
day of Pentecost, that doesn't mean those things still aren't going
to happen *before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come*.
And it definitely does *not* mean that the outpouring of holy
spirit, and the deliverance in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and in
the remnant, which happened on the day of Pentecost were any
different from the ones prophesied by Joel.
In your
theological readings have you come across the phrases
"eschatological tension" or "the already/not yet". These phrases
refer to what some people who study the Bible see as the tension
that is set up in our lives by the fact that some aspects of God's
promised salvation are already operative in our lives, while others
will not be until Jesus Christ appears again. I believe that tension
is real and biblical as evidenced by the fact that the gift of holy
spirit is called the "earnest" of our inheritance, and the fact that
we still live in this present evil age, even though Hebrews suggests
that we have tasted of the powers of the age to come.
Living
in constant tension is a *bitch*, if I may revert to Anglo/Saxon
colloquialism. I think that's part of what Paul was writing about in
Romans 7&8. A multitude of theologians down through the
centuries have proposed various interpretations that would collapse
the tension between "the already" and "the not yet". I think that's
part of the appeal of dispensationalism. None of those
interpretations have withstood the test of careful
scrutiny.
Another aspect of Pentecost that seems to me to
indicate an element of tension between "the already" and "the not
yet" is the fact that it celebrated the *beginning* of the wheat
harvest. The *end* may still be a long way off by our reckoning.
Every once in a while, usually when things aren't going so
well, I get into a head-butting mood with the Lord, and think things
like "How come you're taking so long? It's been 2,000 years already!
Are you ever *really* gonna come back?" When I put His reply into
words, it's usually something like, "Well, where do you think *you*
would be if I'd come back in 70 AD?"
God's patience is a sign
of His willingness for as many as possible to be saved, not that He
doesn't care about our present sufferings. He does... more than we
know.
You asked about the fact that Peter, who spoke on
Pentecost, was also the one who wrote about incorruptible seed. I
can't give you any well-thought-through answer right now, because I
haven't yet studied that passage from I Peter as well as I want to.
But I can say this, if God wanted to elevate the idea of the
incorruptible seed coming on the day of Pentecost, why didn't He
have that same Peter say *anything* about incorruptible seed *on*
the day of Pentecost?...
...even before I finished that last
sentence, I realized that Peter *might* have talked about
incorruptible seed on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:40 says "And with
many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves
from this untoward generation."
Your last question was about
precept upon precept, line upon line. I think if we examine the
things we were taught in PFAL (as you have been doing so well in
this thread), we find that precept upon precept, line upon line was
exactly what Wierwille was *not* doing, at least from the
Bible.
I have enjoyed writing this post. It's like having a
reasonable conversation. I thank God for your life, Jerry, and for
the lives of the other posters on this thread, and for the work
you've all done on it!
Love,
Steve
|
Rafael
Olmeda
Polishes the
silverware
(1/22/01 11:39:39
pm)
|
Re: the "new
birth"
This is not my opinion (yet), but has anyone given thought to the
idea that the "incorruptible seed" of which Peter writes is, in
fact, The Word of God, and not a synonym for holy
spirit?
Just a thought. If I follow through on it, I might
write more. Don't hold yer breath.
|
evanpyle
Most Likely to Post in ME ME ME
(1/23/01 8:04:26 am)
|
Re: the "new
birth"
Thanks for your enjoyable & informative post, Steve. Hope i
have time to post more on this myself...
|
JBarrax
Only likes sourdough
(1/23/01 2:05:48 pm)
|
Re: the "new
birth"
Hi Rafael,
Yes, I've thought about it, but not long enough. You
know how a phrase will just catch your eye while you're reading and
stick in your mind? That's what happened with the phrase "by the
Word of God which liveth and abideth forever" in I Peter 1:23. It's
possible that the phrase which liveth and abideth forever is
expounds on the incorruptibility of the seed.
If this is the
case it should be compared with the parable of the seed and the
sower, in which the seed is the Word of God. I'd say you've brought
up a good point that bears further consideration.
Jerry
|
Sunlight8
Likes the eggs Scrambled and runny
(1/24/01 1:07:46 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Upon reflection, I find I have to disagree with myself on my last
post….
Here’s a new wrinkle concerning seed. There is a HUGE
difference between birth and conception. The comparison Jesus made
in John three when he said what is born of flesh is flesh and what
is born of spirit is spirit; he wasn’t talking about conception, but
birth. When birth occurs is when the first breath is taken. That
would logically be when a person receives the spirit of life since
it is used in connection with breath.
Further, the word for
seed of I Peter 1:23 is a verb as best as I can determine, and
should be translated “sowing.” I don’t think being born again can
properly be thought of as seed.
I Peter 1:23-25
Being
born again, not of corruptible seed (sowing, an action), but of
incorruptible, by (the method) the word of God, which liveth and
abideth forever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory
of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower
thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for
ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you
What is being contrasted in the first verse is
perishable life with eternal life. It is received by the word of
God. I don’t think that is referring to the written word. The
written word doesn’t put eternal life in us. Verse twenty-five can’t
be talking about the written word either because it says it endures
forever. After the gathering together and everything comes to pass,
we won’t be needing a written word….By His word, God brings to pass
as He wills. That I think is what is being described. God’s will as
partly communicated in the written word doesn’t perish as the grass,
and we can count on it.
I Corinthians 15:53
For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality.
The incorruption is sown and will be fully
realized later.
Verse 42:
So also is the resurrection
of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption:
Well, now I’m mulling, as I’m starting to
see some things in I Cor. 15, I didn’t see before. Will post more if
I can put it together.
In any case, it is clear to me holy
spirit isn't seed but the guarantee of eternal life, otherwise, I
Cor. 15 is quite confusing.
Deb
|
|
