Primarily amillenialism. But I can go with a form of postmillenialism, depending upon what one puts into that term. No premillenialism.
Yeah I put that for anyone who may be inclined to believe in a millennial reign. I'm not too keen on escatology so I try to limit my say in the discussion, however I am optomistic enough to consider myself a postmillenialist.
I hope this is just a matter of semantics. Because I can not see any difference between "a pattern of sin" and "habitual sin". A pattern means something one does on a regular basis and it is actually (or at least will become) a habit, right? While I believe that a christian can slip into the ditch, and then rise up again, I do not believe that he can make that as a pattern or habitually. There is a big difference here. The new birth does not only affect our attitude towards sin but also give us power to resist it. The normal status of a christian is dominion over sin.
a "pattern of sin" is differnt from "habitual unrepentant sin" is what I am differentiating. Let me say, I do not believe in such thing as a carnal Christian. Habitual unrepenant has to do with both action and will, whereas a "pattern of sin" is just an action, which really doesn't say much about the will of the person in bondage. Romans 7:19 is clear that ones actions don't neccesarily imply that that is their desire. (whethere Paul was saved or not during that time is irrelivant). Yes we have the power to overcome, but I think if we are honest (or maybe we have yet to encounter that issue), we will agree that there are times when we constantily fall into the same sin, whether it be lust or fornication.
I believe this is totally wrong. The OT absolutely and clearly dealt with internal (or heart/mind) sin as well as external sin. Lust and covetousness was just about as much sin in the days of Noah and Abraham as it was in Jesus' day and as it is in our day. Those who never dealt with internal sin was the school of pharisees (with their man-made traditions and commandments) that always disputed Jesus and which He rebuked. Notice that He always pointed to the Torah and His teachings on the nature of sin when addressing them. The sermon of the Mount has references to the law all over it. Nothing new there.
I disagree, the OT does not tell anyone not to lust, or hate, etc (granted it does tell us not to covet though- that is internal, but for the most part it does not). I do agree that these were just as much sins back then as they are today; but it was not WRITTEN that it was. Through deep reflection on the law im sure it could be discovered that the internal was what God was getting at. Jesus shed light on those things which were not known. Even the Pharasees did not understand that God was really getting at the heart and not the action, even the faithful didnt:
Matthew 15:10-20 -
And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” 12Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14Let them alone; they are blind guides.c And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?d 18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”
I am not teaching that we today are to literally follow all the regulations that pertained to the temple service. I just want to be consequent and in line with pauline doctrine and apply the law in its entire totality to the concept of sin. Else it will be disastrous results.
Im not sure I catch you here...are you refering to the moral law Crossfire was speaking of?
This one is not that easy. There is more but one way to interpret this scripture, its reference in Col.2 does not refer to the law of God for example. Whatever that verse says it does not say that "the OT is abolished".
Yes I agree. But I will say nothing is required to be kept in the OT, but we are to permitted (or required) to gleen from the OT in regards to Christian NT ethics. Perhaps when he speaks of "commandments and ordinances" we can gleen from a verse in the OT and see where, for example, shouldn't suffer a witch to live, but not obey the commands and ordinance to stone them to death. idk if that makes sense to you..
These words are no condemnation against the sabbath or the feasts in and by themselves (Paul kept these feasts himself). He is saying that it is the work of the body of Christ (i e under the leadership of himself and the other apostles) to judge on these issues: not outsiders.
Yes but the principal is that, if one thing is no longer to be kept in the OT, then none is required to be kept. Just like if one thing is to be kept, all of it is. If some is [required to be kept], Paul would have to go throught the whole OT and tell us yes or no or leave it to us to decide and it becomes a subjective thing.
I really do hope you do not ascribe these words to the law of God!!!
I'm not sure I understand you?
I understand where you're coming from. I am of the position that there is actually but one single abrahamic covenant of grace, renewed and fulfilled in the person and work of Christ.
Yes each covenant comes down to salvation by grace through faith, but each coventant has its own exclusive rules. for example, sacrifices for the Old, Lords supper for the New. I'm looking at each covenant distincly and holistically.
Well, literalism might want to put it that way, but, that commandment is actually not literally and strictly "new" as it harmonizes 100% with the two greatest commandments, given in the Torah.
Good point.
I see what you are saying. I do not agree. Paul never claimed to have any authority in and by himself. let alone the authority to abolish laws and come up with new laws. He followed His Lord, Jesus, who said that He had NOT come to destroy the law and the prophets. All the commandments that Paul reiterated were all from the law and the prophets. Nothing new.
Was the gospel also preached in the OT? Yes! Indeed in every book of the OT. Why then would we need a NT? Since the NT highlights the Messiah that was to come, the One that the law and prophets testifies of, fulfilling prophecy and completing the revelation of God and therefore gives more light to children of men.[/quote]
I didn not say Paul was an authority inandof himself, I said "by the HS". He was simply God's scribe. God doesn not abolish the law, like i said - it is my understand that the law is still active now for the jews and those who know of it (they are undoubtedly condemned by it), but NT christians are not, we are under a new law.
Jeremiah 31:31,32 -
31“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.
I think you need to be carful there. The gospel (as we know it) was not preached. repentance and faith was preached, but not christ crucified. Not living in idoltary and obeying the Law (not neccesarrily believeing that the blood of goats would save you...but thats for another forum). It was clear that the gospel was a mystery/not known.
2 Peter 1:10-12 -
10Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
So yes the prophets knew about Christ crucified for salvation by faith, but it was not for there time but for ours in the NT dispensation.
Sorry if there are any typos, i write my responces on notepad then paste them.
