3- Transformation (Conversion) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness)

[Grip Docility]

Continued from (2- Looking in a mirror) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness) <- Active Link

2 Corinthians 3:18 We all, with unveiled faces, are looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit.​

There are 4 major spiritual concepts being discussed within this Pauline sentence.

1- Having an unveiled face
2- Looking in a mirror at Jesus Christ (Jesus is the very Glory of God / Effulgence or Visible Light)
3- Transformation (Conversion)
4a- The inner working of the Holy Spirit
4b- The inner working of the Holy Spirit

3- Transformation (Conversion)​

Romans 12:1,2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind​

2 Corinthians 4:5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.​

2 Corinthians 11:1 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.​

​

1 Peter 2:25 For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.​

​

Hebrews 6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, ​

​

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,​

​

The presence of God within our Souls is the very provisional Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son.​

John 14:43 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling with him.​

We all want to be without sin. Sin destroys. It is the Moth and Rust that destroys lives. But, we aren't God and this world is full of pain. We fail, daily. This is true and honest. We hold on to the promise that we will receive when we give up our Ghost (Soul). At that moment, when the Ghost is given up. We suffer here, in these mortal coils. Humility and Faith bind us to Faith, Hope and Love.​

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.​

Rosh Hashana (The Festival of the Trumpets, Leviticus 23:23-25) ​

The last Trumpet of Rosh Hashana is to remember the Resurrection. (This isn't an eschatology post, so the when is up to your conviction.) Me, personally? I believe we do not die, but enter into glory upon death.​

​

I implore you to finish this OP by turning away from your flesh, forgetting the sins, failures and trials that bring us sorrow, have faith in Jesus Christ alone by trusting in HIS goodness and righteousness, instead of our perpetual failures and promises to not mess up again. I encourage you to picture your life buried in Jesus' Tomb, incapable of being judged by Moses, as we look to the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ that dwells within us, and Him, alone. We are Darkness and He is the light that shines from out of us. No exegesis under any the closing words. He, God is in You, the Potter to our Clay (Souls). He is shaping our souls, though these dying bodies are pressed in upon by all sides within this world.​

​

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.​

​

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.​

​

13 It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and therefore speak, 14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. 15 All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.​

​

16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.​

​

OP Part 3 Complete. Next OP Part to come...​

 

[Josheb]

Prep Post - Under Construction

Continued from (2- Looking in a mirror) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness) <- Active Link

2 Corinthians 3:18 We all, with unveiled faces, are looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit.​

There are 4 major spiritual concepts being discussed within this Pauline sentence.

1- Having an unveiled face
2- Looking in a mirror at Jesus Christ (Jesus is the very Glory of God / Effulgence or Visible Light)
3- Transformation (Conversion)
4- The inner working of the Holy Spirit

3- Transformation (Conversion)​

Romans 12:1,2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind​

There are few needed corrections.

For example, and I am confident you already know this, but it is always inappropriate to single out one individual verse and make it speak in isolation, especially in neglect of all else scripture states, beginning with the immediately surrounding text in which the selected verse is written. Second, point #2 is incorrectly stated. What the Christian is looking at is Christ's glory, not Christ. The person looking in the mirror sees him/herself. The observing Christian is Christ's glory. Third, transformation should not be thought of as an (strictly) episodic condition, but as a lengthy process that culminates in our resurrection. Scripturally speaking, for example, 2 Corinthians 3 does not teach anything different, irreconcilable, or contrary to what was previously stated 1 Corinthians 15. The fourth needed amendment springs from the third, that being transformation is not identical to conversion. There is overlap so a false dichotomy should be avoided, but so too should conflation. When "converted, for example, we are brought from death to life (dead in sin to alive in Christ) but that does not preclude further transformation (such as that entailed in justification or sanctification, or that already noted to occur in resurrection). Perhaps most importantly, though, the idea that antinomianism is not lawlessness definitely needs some clarification if not wholesale rejection and discarding. The word "antinomian" literally means lawless (anti = against; nomos = law) or against-the-law!

There are others but those four points should be sufficient to prompt a re-examination and clarification of the post. If the person is looking at himself in the mirror and he is the glory of Jesus that he is seeing in the reflection, then that is going to lead to a much different set of thoughts and a much different case than if Jesus is the one seen in the mirror. Simply put, cases built on flawed premises end up being flawed cases leading to incorrect conclusions. Factual errors cannot be asserted as facts or truth with an expectation what ensues will be valid and veracious.



I see this is the third op on the subject and it is said to be "under construction." I have perused the other ops, but not considered them in detail. I find in my perusal similar warrant for clarification and change in those ops, too. I will, therefore, encourage you to do three things: 1) take the time to clarify your thinking and establish your thesis and then 2) post it in a succinct manner, beginning with the thesis, so everyone else can understand how the particulars should be viewed and then 3) avail that post to critical examination by others..... giving what others bring to bear on it sincere consideration.

 

[Grip Docility]

There are few needed corrections.

For example, and I am confident you already know this, but it is always inappropriate to single out one individual verse and make it speak in isolation, especially in neglect of all else scripture states, beginning with the immediately surrounding text in which the selected verse is written. Second, point #2 is incorrectly stated. What the Christian is looking at is Christ's glory, not Christ. The person looking in the mirror sees him/herself. The observing Christian is Christ's glory. Third, transformation should not be thought of as an (strictly) episodic condition, but as a lengthy process that culminates in our resurrection. Scripturally speaking, for example, 2 Corinthians 3 does not teach anything different, irreconcilable, or contrary to what was previously stated 1 Corinthians 15. The fourth needed amendment springs from the third, that being transformation is not identical to conversion. There is overlap so a false dichotomy should be avoided, but so too should conflation. When "converted, for example, we are brought from death to life (dead in sin to alive in Christ) but that does not preclude further transformation (such as that entailed in justification or sanctification, or that already noted to occur in resurrection). Perhaps most importantly, though, the idea that antinomianism is not lawlessness definitely needs some clarification if not wholesale rejection and discarding. The word "antinomian" literally means lawless (anti = against; nomos = law) or against-the-law!

There are others but those four points should be sufficient to prompt a re-examination and clarification of the post. If the person is looking at himself in the mirror and he is the glory of Jesus that he is seeing in the reflection, then that is going to lead to a much different set of thoughts and a much different case than if Jesus is the one seen in the mirror. Simply put, cases built on flawed premises end up being flawed cases leading to incorrect conclusions. Factual errors cannot be asserted as facts or truth with an expectation what ensues will be valid and veracious.



I see this is the third op on the subject and it is said to be "under construction." I have perused the other ops, but not considered them in detail. I find in my perusal similar warrant for clarification and change in those ops, too. I will, therefore, encourage you to do three things: 1) take the time to clarify your thinking and establish your thesis and then 2) post it in a succinct manner, beginning with the thesis, so everyone else can understand how the particulars should be viewed and then 3) avail that post to critical examination by others..... giving what others bring to bear on it sincere consideration.

Did you read the other two portions of this OP that this prep post which hasn’t been developed yet, hinges on?

(1- Having an unveiled face) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness)

2 Corinthians 3:18 We all, with unveiled faces, are looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit. There are 4 major spiritual concepts being discussed within this Pauline sentence. 1-...

www.christianforums.com

(2- Looking in a mirror) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness)

Continued from (1- Having an unveiled face) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness)

www.christianforums.com

 

[Grip Docility]

There are few needed corrections.

For example, and I am confident you already know this, but it is always inappropriate to single out one individual verse and make it speak in isolation, especially in neglect of all else scripture states, beginning with the immediately surrounding text in which the selected verse is written.

I don't know how to respond to this in a way that sounds humble. I deeply appreciate your expression of your concerns. I want you to know that I respect your response and desire to further understand what you are saying. I'm having difficulty following your post, because it is in response to part 3 of this incomplete writing. I want you to know that I am listening and am willing to be responsive. I think more dialogue with you is required to fully understand and listen to you in a way where I am certain that I understand your perspective. I mean this, that I desire to meet your desires as much as I can in consistency with the convictions of the Holy Spirit within me.

Thank you for responding.

In honesty, within the starting point of this OP I did state the following...

"A- Paul authored 13 epistles that can be drawn from in totality to discern any 1 epistle authored by Heavenly Jesus Christ, through Paul. A major concept that gives this validity is that the flow of pouring in all of Paul's writings together follows the direct flow of any given large multi-paragraph flow of any of his writings. A specific compass to accomplishing this without "twisting Paul" to bad results is to remember that Jesus doesn't like it when Spiritual teachings are reduced to "Commandments, Rules, Ordnances".

B- The Holy Spirit of Christ that indwells believers is the single most incredible provision of God unto mankind which required God, by God's perfect Judgment, providing the availability of His blood unto all mankind through His giving of His Everything unto mankind.

C- Jesus Christ is the MEAT of all SCRIPTURE.

D- Scripture is scriptures only true commentary, in conjunction with the provision of the Holy Spirit of Christ."

Second, point #2 is incorrectly stated. What the Christian is looking at is Christ's glory, not Christ. The person looking in the mirror sees him/herself. The observing Christian is Christ's glory.

I look to Christ and away from self. Could you kindly provide a scripture that states we should look to self, instead of Jesus Christ?

Third, transformation should not be thought of as an (strictly) episodic condition, but as a lengthy process that culminates in our resurrection. Scripturally speaking, for example, 2 Corinthians 3 does not teach anything different, irreconcilable, or contrary to what was previously stated 1 Corinthians 15. The fourth needed amendment springs from the third, that being transformation is not identical to conversion. There is overlap so a false dichotomy should be avoided, but so too should conflation. When "converted, for example, we are brought from death to life (dead in sin to alive in Christ) but that does not preclude further transformation (such as that entailed in justification or sanctification, or that already noted to occur in resurrection). Perhaps most importantly, though, the idea that antinomianism is not lawlessness definitely needs some clarification if not wholesale rejection and discarding. The word "antinomian" literally means lawless (anti = against; nomos = law) or against-the-law!

Only Jesus Christ is Good by the Law. Jesus is our Sabbath Rest. Moses shows us our need for Jesus and nothing more. Do we disagree on these points?

There are others but those four points should be sufficient to prompt a re-examination and clarification of the post. If the person is looking at himself in the mirror and he is the glory of Jesus that he is seeing in the reflection, then that is going to lead to a much different set of thoughts and a much different case than if Jesus is the one seen in the mirror. Simply put, cases built on flawed premises end up being flawed cases leading to incorrect conclusions. Factual errors cannot be asserted as facts or truth with an expectation what ensues will be valid and veracious.

I look to Jesus because I am a sinful retch in need of Jesus. I step before God boldly clothed by His work, not mine. I have put on Jesus Christ, as you have. I'm not certain where you are specifying error. I will be the first to tell you that what mankind speaks outside of cannon is merely opinion, which includes my every word.

I believe that you are saying you disagree with my OP overarching points. Am I understanding you, correctly?

I see this is the third op on the subject and it is said to be "under construction." I have perused the other ops, but not considered them in detail.

I would suggest that being quick to listen on this matter and slow to speak, might be a better approach than expressing error within something you haven't even studied out in full, yet. Disagree with me, for certain. But, do me the kindness of studying out all that is written so far, before making heavy handed suggestions.

I have no issue with you expressing counter point or any of the sort that you are convicted to express and am always glad to agree to disagree with any sibling in Jesus Christ like yourself, but please hear me out, before you give counter point. It would help. I have no issue seeing from your perspective, even if we disagree.

I find in my perusal similar warrant for clarification and change in those ops, too. I will, therefore, encourage you to do three things: 1) take the time to clarify your thinking and establish your thesis and then 2) post it in a succinct manner, beginning with the thesis, so everyone else can understand how the particulars should be viewed and then 3) avail that post to critical examination by others..... giving what others bring to bear on it sincere consideration.

I'm exegeting, not writing commentary. I can write commentary and even though I fancy myself an absolute ignoramus, I find that the Holy Spirit can make those words sound well. However, I prefer to just lay the spiritual points out for others to draw from, if they enjoy reading large passages of scripture and supporting statements to the idea.

I want to clarify that I appreciate your constructive criticism, yet am uncertain what direction you are coming from, because you seem to be declaring error, when you haven't even considered every word of what was written. This is confusing to me.

You also seem to desire to give me a format that you would enjoy reading this in. Is that what you are asking? I can pour out the OP to conclusion then rewrite it for you based on a format you provide. Would you be willing to format a summarized format for me that I can draw from, to then reconfigure the exegesis and examples into a format more suitable for your reading desires?

I am more than willing to respond accordingly and place effort into this, it's just that I need a deeper example of what you are desiring.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, my helpful Sibling in Him

P.s. I thought of a good perspective question to ask you in relation to scripture to see where you stand on this topic.

When Jesus Christ, through Paul states, in Galatians 4; "Cast out the Slave woman and her son", how do you interpret that statement?

 

[Grip Docility]

OP Part 3 Complete. Next OP part to come...

 

[Josheb]

Did you read the other two portions of this OP that this prep post which hasn’t been developed yet, hinges on?

I have already answered that question.

Do you understand what that means? It means you are asking me a question pertaining to whether or not prior posts were read, I have already answered that question........ indicating my posts was not read! Why ask a question to which you already have the answer? How well do you think asking already-answered questions will serve the discussion?


Please take greater care. Read the posts in their entirety and heed the details. Keep the discussion about the posts, not the posters.




At the time of my reply to this op I had only perused the two prior ops. I have since read them in their entirety. Everything I posted here still stands.

I don't know how to respond to this in a way that sounds humble.

I don't care about "humble." Your pride or humbleness is not the subject of this op. Neither is mine. If we mutually and collaboratively stick to the facts in evidence, then we will not have any problems.

I deeply appreciate your expression of your concerns. I want you to know that I respect your response and desire to further understand what you are saying.

Then please do not ask me questions I have already answered. That is disrespectful.

I'm having difficulty following your post, because it is in response to part 3 of this incomplete writing.

Yes, I understand that. My reply to this op is partially intended to provide the opportunity to refine or amend some of the problems before further writing is done. Cases built on flawed premises end up being flawed cases and the conclusions to those cases end up being wrong (either logically or factually, or both).

I want you to know that I am listening and am willing to be responsive.

Then do not ask me questions I have already answered. That shows I was not heard.

I think more dialogue with you is required to fully understand and listen to you in a way where I am certain that I understand your perspective. I mean this, that I desire to meet your desires as much as I can in consistency with the convictions of the Holy Spirit within me.

Great. Let's do it.


Because the above has nothing to do with the topical content of your three ops I am going to take up the rest of Post 4 separately.

 

[Josheb]

Thank you for responding.

In honesty, within the starting point of this OP I did state the following...

"A- Paul authored 13 epistles that can be drawn from in totality to discern any 1 epistle authored by Heavenly Jesus Christ, through Paul. A major concept that gives this validity is that the flow of pouring in all of Paul's writings together follows the direct flow of any given large multi-paragraph flow of any of his writings. A specific compass to accomplishing this without "twisting Paul" to bad results is to remember that Jesus doesn't like it when Spiritual teachings are reduced to "Commandments, Rules, Ordnances".

B- The Holy Spirit of Christ that indwells believers is the single most incredible provision of God unto mankind which required God, by God's perfect Judgment, providing the availability of His blood unto all mankind through His giving of His Everything unto mankind.

C- Jesus Christ is the MEAT of all SCRIPTURE.

D- Scripture is scriptures only true commentary, in conjunction with the provision of the Holy Spirit of Christ."

That is a pile of irrelevant word salad that adds things to scripture nowhere found explicitly stated therein. Paul's inspiration is not in question. Neither is the indwelling of the Spirit. Both can and should be treated as a given, and certainly doesn't need a paragraph to establish consensus between us. The sentence "Jesus is the meat of scripture" is ambiguous and ambiguity has no place in this discussion. The irony here is that these posts contradict "Scripture is scripture's only true commentary." You cannot logically claim scripture is the ONLY true commentary of itself AND add your own views.

And, according to the views of many reports in many forums, I am very good at forensic analysis.

So, if you do not want me pointing out these errors take more time and re-read your own posts before clicking "Post reply." Do not give me the reason or opportunity to point out the contradictions, fallacies, hypocrisy, and/or double standards. If my perspective really is valued then don't get defensive (or adversarial) when the obvious is pointed out, either.

I look to Christ and away from self.

Irrelevant. You are not the subject of this op. Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Be careful here because the moment you make yourself the topic of discussion you justify everyone weighing in you personally. If that happens your op will be lost. Avoid that trap.

Could you kindly provide a scripture that states we should look to self, instead of Jesus Christ?

No. That has nothing to do with the subject of this op.

Furthermore, the question is based on a false dichotomy. My self and Christ in me are not two mutually exclusive conditions. Scripture tells us to crucify the self, and decries selfishness BUT scripture also explicitly states we are to love others as we love ourself. The self is a creation of God. It's a good thing. Fleshly selfishness is a perversion of that creation. Some religions (like Buddhism) espouse the eradication of the self but that is NOT Christianity.

Only Jesus Christ is Good by the Law.

The Law is not the sole measure of goodness. Many people cite 1 John 3:4 as THE definition of sin but scripture elsewhere provides at least three other definitions of sin. Restricting "goodness" or sinfulness to the Law is not whole scripture. It implicitly contradicts and defies your earlier point scripture is the only commentary of scripture.

Jesus is our Sabbath Rest.

Again, you must think these things through if you are to avoid justified criticism. Jesus is the extra-egal or extra-Law rest. We can and should find our rest in him and his work 24/7365, not just one day per week.

Moses shows us our need for Jesus and nothing more.

This too is incorrect. Moses does show us the need for Jesus BUT that is not all that Moses shoes. When you say, "nothing more," you are adding to scripture, and NOT using scripture's commentary of scripture. Take, for example, what we do learn from the whole of scripture when ALL of the New Testament's commentary on the Law is compiled ad read as a whole. We instantly learn things like the Law is good, the Law is spiritual, the Law helps us understand sin, the Law was fulfilled by Jesus (both legally and prophetically), justification and righteousness are not found therein, and much more. In other words, Moses shows us much more than just the need for Jesus.

Do we disagree on these points?

Mostly. The problem with the last statement is that it is an over-generalization, and the over-generalization is extra-scriptural and logically fallacious. God may be extra-rational, but He is never irrational. As far as exegesis goes, Scripture never states or implies Moses shows us nothing more than the need for Jesus so while it is true Moses does point us to the need for Jesus, it is not true that is all he does.

I look to Jesus because I am a sinful retch in need of Jesus.

You were.

You are now an adopted son of The Most High God, blessed with all the power and authority inherited in Christ. You are a royal priest and a mamber of God's holy nation. The ld is gone the new has come.

2 Peter 1:3-10 ESV
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

You have been washed clean from past sin and now have everything you need to live a godly life.

Act like it.

I step.....

I am going to stop here because you are talking about yourself, not the op. It is, ironically, decidedly selfish and not humble (so I understand why the concern for humbleness was posted).


Your ops are about transformation and antinomianism. Post #2 addresses both. Pick one of the points I made and let's discuss it using scripture NOT your anecdotal personal experience.

Start over.

 

[Grip Docility]

I have already answered that question.

Do you understand what that means? It means you are asking me a question pertaining to whether or not prior posts were read, I have already answered that question........ indicating my posts was not read! Why ask a question to which you already have the answer? How well do you think asking already-answered questions will serve the discussion?


Please take greater care. Read the posts in their entirety and heed the details. Keep the discussion about the posts, not the posters.




At the time of my reply to this op I had only perused the two prior ops. I have since read them in their entirety. Everything I posted here still stands.

I don't care about "humble." Your pride or humbleness is not the subject of this op. Neither is mine. If we mutually and collaboratively stick to the facts in evidence, then we will not have any problems.

It matters to me. Humility is most important.

Then please do not ask me questions I have already answered. That is disrespectful.

This is kind of received as aggressive. I'm wondering if we can have a more gentle dialogue on this. I'm not comfortable with the tone that is set here. I do sincerely desire to dialogue with you, but it needs to be mutually respectful of each other's perspectives, which clearly differ.

Yes, I understand that. My reply to this op is partially intended to provide the opportunity to refine or amend some of the problems before further writing is done. Cases built on flawed premises end up being flawed cases and the conclusions to those cases end up being wrong (either logically or factually, or both).

I mean this respectfully, but this is presumptive on your part. Your perception that I am in error, doesn't mean that I am in error. What we are finding is that we have differing opinions. This is okay. I'm not really certain why you believe it's okay to ask people to amend their writings.

I shared my opinions and it is fine and well if your share yours. I appreciate that. I think I'm receiving that you would like me to trade my convictions in for yours. In all kindness, this isn't a realistic model of discussion. I do respect that you have a differing opinion than mine. I also appreciate the time you've taken to share it.

Maybe we can start here. I don't speak for God. I speak what I believe the Holy Spirit of Christ has led me to in scripture. I want to make it clear that my words are opinion, as I believe all who speak about cannon and God should acknowledge, for the sake of peace.

Are we both willing to start discussion there? We are sharing our opinions with one another and neither of us speaks directly for God as those in Cannon do.

Then do not ask me questions I have already answered. That shows I was not heard.

I apologize if you didn't feel heard. I do know your stance, understand your stance and believe that you may be accidentally coming off more confrontational than discussional. I desire discussion, but in a peaceful manner. I'm willing to have this discussion peacefully. This is the best way to ensure we are both mutually respected, in my opinion.

Great. Let's do it.

What are we trying to accomplish?

Because the above has nothing to do with the topical content of your three ops I am going to take up the rest of Post 4 separately.

I will be listening. I just want to ensure that you know that I enjoy dialogue as long as both parties or all parties involved can peacefully agree to disagree. It has taken me a long time to arrive at this approach, but I don't really find any other way profitable, now.

I hope we can peacfully discuss this.

All Respect and Love to you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, sibling in Him.

 

[Josheb]

I apologize if you didn't feel heard.

My feelings are irrelevant and it is abusive of you to ignore the facts in evidence, make this about my feelings and then post a politician's apology. No one can or should apologize for another's feelings. You apologize for your own wrongdoing.

Furthermore, did you know apologies are not scriptural? Yes, they are an accepted social convention but they're not one the New Testament teaches. In fact, the only "apologies" found in the NT occur when pagans wrongly abuse Christians. The scriptural standard is much more demanding: confess your sin, purpose to change (repent), provide restitution or amends where appropriate, seek and grant forgiveness, and be reconciled.

If we post godly here in this discussion, then there will not be occasion for any of that.

It matters to me. Humility is most important.

It is not the subject of this discussion.

Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism without making the discussion about yourself, or not? Let me know now.

 

[Grip Docility]

That is a pile of irrelevant word salad that adds things to scripture nowhere found explicitly stated therein.

I find this response void of compassion.

Paul's inspiration is not in question. Neither is the indwelling of the Spirit. Both can and should be treated as a given, and certainly doesn't need a paragraph to establish consensus between us.

With all kindness, I haven't at any point asked for your consensus. I am willing to listen and understand your perspective, but I'm not receiving Grace in your words.

The sentence "Jesus is the meat of scripture" is ambiguous and ambiguity has no place in this discussion.

I politely disagree with your statement here.

The irony here is that these posts contradict "Scripture is scripture's only true commentary." You cannot logically claim scripture is the ONLY true commentary of itself AND add your own views.

I express opinion and use scripture only. I will be the first to express that my opinions are just that. 1 John 2:27 is a most important scripture for certain. The Bereans are the types of folks that I hope read my OPs. I desire people to take my ideas as opinions and challenge them with scripture. That is righteous.

And, according to the views of many reports in many forums, I am very good at forensic analysis.

I'm genuinely not following why you are commending yourself in discussion.

So, if you do not want me pointing out these errors take more time and re-read your own posts before clicking "Post reply." Do not give me the reason or opportunity to point out the contradictions, fallacies, hypocrisy, and/or double standards. If my perspective really is valued then don't get defensive (or adversarial) when the obvious is pointed out, either.

You are free to reply with your opinion of my opinion any time you desire. You are free to do this on any of my OP's.

Irrelevant. You are not the subject of this op. Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Be careful here because the moment you make yourself the topic of discussion you justify everyone weighing in you personally. If that happens your op will be lost. Avoid that trap.

?

No. That has nothing to do with the subject of this op.

?

Furthermore, the question is based on a false dichotomy. My self and Christ in me are not two mutually exclusive conditions. Scripture tells us to crucify the self, and decries selfishness BUT scripture also explicitly states we are to love others as we love ourself. The self is a creation of God. It's a good thing. Fleshly selfishness is a perversion of that creation. Some religions (like Buddhism) espouse the eradication of the self but that is NOT Christianity.

I believe this is response to my asking for a bible verse that encourages us to look to self instead of Jesus Christ?

The Law is not the sole measure of goodness. Many people cite 1 John 3:4 as THE definition of sin but scripture elsewhere provides at least three other definitions of sin. Restricting "goodness" or sinfulness to the Law is not whole scripture. It implicitly contradicts and defies your earlier point scripture is the only commentary of scripture.

Galatians is clear on this, is it not?

Again, you must think these things through if you are to avoid justified criticism. Jesus is the extra-egal or extra-Law rest. We can and should find our rest in him and his work 24/7365, not just one day per week.

Hebrews 4. Jesus is our Sabbath rest. "Today" I apologize if you misunderstood my words. I will chalk it up to not writing more comprehensively on my statement.

This too is incorrect. Moses does show us the need for Jesus BUT that is not all that Moses shoes. When you say, "nothing more," you are adding to scripture, and NOT using scripture's commentary of scripture. Take, for example, what we do learn from the whole of scripture when ALL of the New Testament's commentary on the Law is compiled ad read as a whole. We instantly learn things like the Law is good, the Law is spiritual, the Law helps us understand sin, the Law was fulfilled by Jesus (both legally and prophetically), justification and righteousness are not found therein, and much more. In other words, Moses shows us much more than just the need for Jesus.

I was quoting Galatians without using the exact verbiage of Galatians. I was drawing out the School Master analogy with as few words a possible. Again, I apologize for not being more descriptive about this.

I will answer with John 5:39

Mostly. The problem with the last statement is that it is an over-generalization, and the over-generalization is extra-scriptural and logically fallacious. God may be extra-rational, but He is never irrational. As far as exegesis goes, Scripture never states or implies Moses shows us nothing more than the need for Jesus so while it is true Moses does point us to the need for Jesus, it is not true that is all he does.

I try to keep things simple and on point. If I were expressing a point to counter all possible objections an OP would take a year to write. I appreciate your criticism, but to be genuine, it seems a bit nit picky. Moses shows that we sin. Jesus is the solution. Gospel simplicity shuts the door to bringing the discussion away from Jesus, in my opinion.

You were.

I do not and will not ever claim to be without sin. I haven't exited this mortal coil, yet. 1 John 1:8. I am a saved sinner, only sainted by Jesus Christ. I do not use Jesus to hide the fact that I genuinely need Jesus. I am bound to honesty. I fail, daily. I need Him perpetually.

You are now an adopted son of The Most High God, blessed with all the power and authority inherited in Christ. You are a royal priest and a mamber of God's holy nation. The ld is gone the new has come.

2 Peter 1:3-10 ESV
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

You have been washed clean from past sin and now have everything you need to live a godly life.

I am aware of this. I exalt Jesus, not myself. I do not preach myself, I boast of Jesus Christ. I'm not certain why you are taking this direction in discussion.

Act like it.

Josheb, I take my marching orders from Jesus Christ. You, my sibling in Jesus have no power over me. I'm not certain why confrontation is on the menu in this discussion.

I am going to stop here because you are talking about yourself, not the op. It is, ironically, decidedly selfish and not humble (so I understand why the concern for humbleness was posted).

With all kindness, I don't see this as kind. I said the following.

"I look to Jesus because I am a sinful retch in need of Jesus. I step before God boldly clothed by His work, not mine. I have put on Jesus Christ, as you have. I'm not certain where you are specifying error. I will be the first to tell you that what mankind speaks outside of cannon is merely opinion, which includes my every word."

I believe that you are saying you disagree with my OP overarching points. Am I understanding you, correctly?

This idea of admission of opinion, being a sinful retch in of Jesus and such forth is again me pointing to Jesus and not myself. Is there a chance that we can maybe not approach this discussion from a standpoint of condescension? I do desire to be respectful to you, but in all honesty, this discussion is a bit to antagonistic and assumptive for my taste.

I will continue to discuss this, but I'm having difficulty understanding why much that I am responding to is coming from a stance that is complicated to receive. I genuinely do want to discuss this, but I want to ensure that you know that I respect you, desire kindness in our words to one another and would hope that we can discuss this with a bit more seasoning of salt.

Your ops are about transformation and antinomianism. Post #2 addresses both. Pick one of the points I made and let's discuss it using scripture NOT your anecdotal personal experience.

I kindly disagree with you. The very words "By Beholding we become Changed" are in each OP title. My overarching point is that we Behold Jesus Christ and nothing else. This is the key to biblical transformation, in my opinion.

Start over.

?

 

[Grip Docility]

My feelings are irrelevant and it is abusive of you to ignore the facts in evidence, make this about my feelings and then post a politician's apology. No one can or should apologize for another's feelings. You apologize for your own wrongdoing.

Can we get back to the OP in discussion, please?

Furthermore, did you know apologies are not scriptural? Yes, they are an accepted social convention but they're not one the New Testament teaches. In fact, the only "apologies" found in the NT occur when pagans wrongly abuse Christians. The scriptural standard is much more demanding: confess your sin, purpose to change (repent), provide restitution or amends where appropriate, seek and grant forgiveness, and be reconciled.

Can we get back to the OP in discussion, please?

If we post godly here in this discussion, then there will not be occasion for any of that.

Can we get back to the OP in discussion, please?

It is not the subject of this discussion.

I wrote the OP that you are expressing your counter perspectives on. Humility is one of the most overarching points of this series. Are you suggesting that you are arbitrating this discussion?

Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism without making the discussion about yourself, or not? Let me know now.

A New Command I give you; Love one another as I have Loved you. Love one another as you Love yourselves. By this, all will know that you are My disciples.

 

[Josheb]

Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism without making the discussion about yourself, or not? Let me know now.

A New Command I give you; Love one another as I have Loved you. Love one another as you Love yourselves. By this, all will know that you are My disciples.

That is not an answer to the question asked.


Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism op-relevantly without making the discussion about yourself or others?

Can we get back to the OP in discussion, please?

Can we get back to the OP in discussion, please?

Can we get back to the OP in discussion, please?

Waiting on you. Post 2 cites several areas warranting discussion (and correction). Post 11 ignores it all.

I wrote the OP that you are expressing your counter perspectives on. Humility is one of the most overarching points of this series. Are you suggesting that you are arbitrating this discussion?

No. I am telling you outright a discussion on humility can and should be had without appeals to personal anecdotal experience, especially if scripture is the only true commentator of scripture. Every time you do otherwise the antitheses of humbleness are demonstrated. In other words, in any conversation about humbleness in which a person self-aggrandizes the exact opposite of humbleness (pride, selfishness, self-elevation, hypocrisy, double standards, falsehood and possibly deceit, antinomianism, a lack of transformation, etc.) is demonstrated. It also violates the forum's rules, or terms of use. It is not possible to violate the agreed upon rules and claim humbleness (because the violator pridefully holds themselves above the rules).

Method is just as important as content.

So please answer the question asked. Please do so without further delay or obfuscation so the discussion of the op may continue.


Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism (or humbleness) op-relevantly without making the discussion about yourself or others?

.

 

[Grip Docility]

That is not an answer to the question asked.


Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism op-relevantly without making the discussion about yourself or others?

Waiting on you. Post 2 cites several areas warranting discussion (and correction). Post 11 ignores it all.

No. I am telling you outright a discussion on humility can and should be had without appeals to personal anecdotal experience, especially if scripture is the only true commentator of scripture. Every time you do otherwise the antitheses of humbleness are demonstrated. In other words, in any conversation about humbleness in which a person self-aggrandizes the exact opposite of humbleness (pride, selfishness, self-elevation, hypocrisy, double standards, falsehood and possibly deceit, antinomianism, a lack of transformation, etc.) is demonstrated. It also violates the forum's rules, or terms of use. It is not possible to violate the agreed upon rules and claim humbleness (because the violator pridefully holds themselves above the rules).

My Sibling in Jesus, I am against the teaching of sinless perfection. Jesus Christ is not a promoter of Sin. Jesus died because we are sinners, not so that we could enjoy sin.

The Moral Law is exemplified in the Ministry of Death, Chiseled in Stone. By Deuteronomy 4:2, we know that the entire Law is comprised from Deuteronomy 4 - Deuteronomy 31:26. It is against God to separate any part of the 613 Mitzvah's from one another.

I do not set aside grace, for if Righteousness could come through the Law, Jesus Christ died for nothing.

I find the words within these written responses too harsh for my taste.

I wish you all of Jesus Christ's Love, Compassion, Blessings and Peace.

Method is just as important as content.

So please answer the question asked. Please do so without further delay or obfuscation so the discussion of the op may continue.


Are you able to discuss transformation and antinomianism (or humbleness) op-relevantly without making the discussion about yourself or others?

.

My sibling in Jesus Christ, I have patiently replied to your thought provoking posts with as much Love, Kindness, Peace, Self-Control, Joy, Patience, Goodness, Faithfulness and Gentleness as permissible. The words that I have been responding to in your posts are not compatible with a peaceful conversation. Please, sibling in Jesus, write whatever you desire in response to your convictions. I feel impressed to step aside from discussion with you on this OP series. This concludes my participation with you in this discussion.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, sibling in Him

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Just shaking my head reading this discussion. One of you very badly needs to humble himself while I applaud the patience and humility of the other. I don't think I need to tell anyone which is which here since it is quite obvious. Only the prideful one probably will not know which is which.

 

[Josheb]

Just shaking my head reading this discussion. One of you very badly needs to humble himself while I applaud the patience and humility of the other. I don't think I need to tell anyone which is which here since it is quite obvious. Only the prideful one probably will not know which is which.

Got anything op-relevant to contribute?

 

[Josheb]

My Sibling in Jesus, I am against the teaching of sinless perfection. Jesus Christ is not a promoter of Sin. Jesus died because we are sinners, not so that we could enjoy sin.

The Moral Law is exemplified in the Ministry of Death, Chiseled in Stone. By Deuteronomy 4:2, we know that the entire Law is comprised from Deuteronomy 4 - Deuteronomy 31:26. It is against God to separate any part of the 613 Mitzvah's from one another.

I do not set aside grace, for if Righteousness could come through the Law, Jesus Christ died for nothing.

I find the words within these written responses too harsh for my taste.

I wish you all of Jesus Christ's Love, Compassion, Blessings and Peace.

My sibling in Jesus Christ, I have patiently replied to your thought provoking posts with as much Love, Kindness, Peace, Self-Control, Joy, Patience, Goodness, Faithfulness and Gentleness as permissible. The words that I have been responding to in your posts are not compatible with a peaceful conversation. Please, sibling in Jesus, write whatever you desire in response to your convictions. I feel impressed to step aside from discussion with you on this OP series. This concludes my participation with you in this discussion.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, sibling in Him

Got anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Got anything op-relevant to contribute?

Ah, did you figure out who I was talking about? Interesting. I didn't mention any names. I think it's more important for me right now to tell you to humble yourself because scripture teaches that pride comes before a fall and those who exalt themselves as you do WILL be humbled. Better to humble yourself now than to have God humble you later.

Luke 18:9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Which of the people in this parable do you identify with?

 

[Josheb]

I think it's more important for me right now to tell you to humble yourself...

No, it is not more important. What it is...... is hypocritical breaking-the-forum-rules arrogance that violates one of THE most basic precepts of cyberspace netiquette and functional internet forum discourse: Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. As I endeavored to highlight for this op's author every time the posts are made personal the forum's tou is violated. Now you come into the thread and ignore the specified topic seeking to make the entire discussion about the posters and expecting me to collaborate.

Even when explicitly asked if you had anything op-relevant to post!

It is most definitely NOT more important for you to push God out of His position as Judge and presume you can judge complete strangers over the internet. It's not just unadulterated foolishness; it's idolatry. I do not care what either of you think of me personally. The method to my seeming madness may not yet be understood but it's there to be seen for the discerning. I can assure the two of you if you post something that is op-relevant and pertains to any of the points I made in Post 2 neither of you will have problems with me.

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic​

Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.​

This op is about transformation, conversion, and antinomianism. I find it poorly worded, poorly reasoned, and wanting in its exegesis. The inability or unwillingness of @Grip Docility to keep his composure and stay on topic in his own op when valid and op-relevant concerns are broached, is observable, and uniformly observable multiple times. The irony of the subterfuge is that is very relevant to transformation and antinomianism. Now you're consciously choosing to post in neglect of the op. The invitation to post ANYTHING about the topic specified in this op has been extended and refused in favor of judging others.

Let's try the invite a second time.....

Have you, @Spiritual Jew, got anything op-relevant to contribute to the discussion of this op?


.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, it is not more important.

It is. I follow God which takes precedence over any rigid following of forum rules. Jesus worked on the Sabbath. I imagine you would have told Him He shouldn't have done that? I suppose you also never go even 1 mph over the speed limit?

If a person is acting arrogantly as you are doing, I will call it out every time. Go ahead and report me for it if you want. I say again, humble yourself. You are not worth my time until you do.

 

[Josheb]

It is. I follow God which takes precedence over any rigid following of forum rules. Jesus worked on the Sabbath. I imagine you would have told Him He shouldn't have done that? I suppose you also never go even 1 mph over the speed limit?

If a person is acting arrogantly as you are doing, I will call it out every time.

In other words, you will ignore this forum's rules and the covenant you made with every member of this forum, usurp the mods, and arrogantly act as judge of those you've never met. Got it. I completely understand what was posted. I do not care. What I'm interested in is the subject matter of this op..... whose author also found it very difficult to stay on topic when problems in the op were cited.

Last chance: Do you have anything op-relevant to contribute to this discussion?

.