Rukkus

Not all disease can be healed...however certain things can. If God wants us to be healed then we shoudl rely on the doctors He has given us in order to be healed. Such as, someone suffering from cancer can rely on the technology available to fight cancer and if they are healed, wonderful. If not, then they simply are not. There is a line from a Brave Saint Saturn song that sums it up: He fought to stay, but always dreamed he could leave this place Basically, we want to stay on this earth and will fight to stay (in order to help those who need help), but at the same time, if we don't, then we are healed. Either way, whether we are healed through medicine, no medicine, or death, God's Will has been done. So the reasoning you use here is that whatever happens, whether healing, or death, God's Will has been done . . . The only problem with this reasoning is it assumes that whatever happens is God's Will. And when you try to apply that to other areas of Christian living . . . . Say sin for instance, then you assume that because a CHristian sins, that it was God's Will? Where is the line drawn? Is everything that happens God's Will?

I've seen that the majority of Christians do not believe that it is God's Will for everyone to be healed. Yet these same Christians will take medicine and go to the doctor when they get sick in order to get well. Why are they trying to obtain something that may not be God's Will for them? Why are they fighting God's Will?

I got it . . . I'll pm you

Drive by posting I guess . . . Too bad, cause it really seemed like you had some good input on the subject

Brandli, were you going to reply to my post?

Brandli, thanks for giving such an in depth response. There were a few issues I was wondering about though . . . Brandli: Sheol / Hades is a realm with two divisions (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27-31), RA: This is where I start to have a hard time following you. I read all the scriptures you gave. Where in any of them does it say that Hades is in two divisions? Like, could you quote the verse and then say specifically where it you're referring to? Brandli: the abodes of the saved and the lost. The abode of the saved was called

Isaiah . . . Well if you define spiritual death as being seperated from God, then Jesus died spiritually, according to that definition because the BIble says in Matt 27:46 that God forsook Jesus.

Acta 2:31 doesn't say anything about Jesus going to hell? Hmmm . . . We must be reading different Bibles. Thanks for the comments, anyway

Well, I think we get into trouble when we start looking at biblical subjects from the point of view of someone's "doctrine" because we begin associating it with a person or movement, rather than just looking to see if it's in the Bible or not. I'm not interested in Copeland's or Hagin's doctrines. I'm interested in whether I can read it for myself in my own Bible. As far as Jesus dying spiritually . . . Since this phrase "spiritually dead" does not occur in the Bible, you would have to first define it before I could answer.

Dakota . . . I think it's defenitely an interesting study as to what Josephus said about hell or hades. But I don't believe it compares to what Jesus said about it. That's why I'm interested only in what the Bible teaches us concerning it. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but you won't find what Josephus wrote about hell and Abrham's bosom eternally established in the heavens, like you will Jesus' words (Ps 119) 23: And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24: And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. (Luke 16) Verse 23 says the rich man was in hell. Then Jesus goes on and uses two words to describe hell (hades) torments and flame. This same Greek word for "hell" can be found in Acts 2:31 in reference to where Jesus' Soul went.

Well . . . Like I pointed out in the article . . . Jesus described in Luke 16, the place that He went. A place of torment and flames. And I have heard plenty of people say that there is a paradise side to Hades . . . But Luke 16 does not say this. Luke 16 says the rich man went to hell (hades) and Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom. Just because they could see eachother from where they were does not mean they were in the same place.

Hey Guys, what do you think of this article? I wanted to get a good discussion going . . . _______________________________ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:10) Notice the part that says God would make the Soul of Jesus an offering for sin. So we see what God did with the Soul of Jesus. He made it an offering for sin. This shows us that it wasn

SuperJew said . . . This is why i don't like Strong's. First off, "I am" is not a word in Greek, it is two words (like in English) of ego eimi. If Paul wanted to say, "I was" then it would have been written ego emen (the imperfect indicative form), however that is certainly not the case. He clearly uses the present, meaning that it is taking place in the present world. Well, as I said, that same word is used in the NT but translated past tense . . . But I'm going to look more into this. As for you attempting to pull context, doesn't work. This is where I got the past, present, future idea. Who Christ came to save. The word "save" here is sozo, however when placed inside the sentence and given the context it is spelled sosai. This indicates that Paul meant it to be understood in the Aorist tense. While most translations have the Aorist as a past tense, this is inaccurate. For one, it's impossible to translate it into English, the idea simply doesn't correlate into our language and there is no perfect way to translate it. In essence, Paul is saying it was a work that was started (where we get our past tense) but does not indicate an ending for it (which can mean it is ongoing). Well, I'm going by what can actually be read in the Bible. When you reference the Greek, you're getting off into something that you need to verify with sources, because I'm not going to take your word for it. In essence, the context screams that Paul was the worst of sinners and still is the worst of sinners (at least in his mind, it doesn't make it true, simply that Paul was using hyperbole to prove a point). Well, people read different things into the context, I'm just referring to the text itself. This corresponds with various verses talking about the frailties that Paul had, specifically the giving into things that he did not want to do. Well, I don't know about it corresponding with various verses concerning Paul's infirmities. I would say it doesn't. Like 1Cor 4:4. And in another place he says he has wronged no man. As far as giving into things he didn't want to do . . . That's Romans 7, in which is described a man who is carnal, sold under sin, and without the Holy Spirit dwelling in his flesh (read verses 14, and 18). But then one chapter later clearly shows that he has been set free from that law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), by the power of the law of the Spirit of Life. And that there is a way by which you can destroy the works of the flesh, through the Spirit (verse 13). People quote Romans 7 like Paul spent his whole life there. But all you gotta do is read one more chapter, and you see the outcome isn't bondage to sin, but freedom from that law of sin and death.

SuperJaw . . . Are you going to respond? Or was this a hit and run?

Mark said . . . Just because Paul was saved/Justified, he never ever gave the impression sin was not possible. thats pretty silly to think that. Right, I didn't say Paul ever did give that impression. Just pointed out that people who think Paul was calling himself just chief of sinners, need to read which sinners he refers to in 1Tim 1:15. Not sinners who remained in their sin, but sinners who were saved from their sin (Matt 1:21).

SuperJaw said . . . I'm secure enough in my knowledge of it that I felt no need to consult a concordnance. However, if you want, you can look at blueletterbible (I think is what it's called) and it will show the Greek tense. Likewise, seeing as how you are the one going against the commonly accepted translatation (changing the status quo of translation) it is up to you to provide the proof that something is false..I don't have to validate what $8,000 paid for...that's my validation right there. Alright My apologies. When I wrote that I was ignoring the indicative. After re-reading it I see where the confusion is drawn. The indicative mood is a statement of fact (no idea where i got the past, present, future...that's a different tense all together). In other words, if something is written in the present tense, it is a statement of fact at that moment. My apologies once again. Well thank you, that does clear up alot about what you said. But that fact that Paul referred to himself in the present tense doesn't really cause a problem, because he's referring to sinners that were saved and delivered out of their sins. So it is a present tense fact that Paul considered himself chief of sinners to be delivered from his sins (not to remain in them). In other words, the verse doesn't read "Christ Jesus came into the world to leave sinners in their sins, of whom I am chief." But that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (from their sins, Matt 1:21) of whom I am chief." Do you see what I mean? It makes all the difference in the world that he refers to sinners that Jesus was setting free from sin. Also . . . According to Strong's the word "I am" could also be translated "I was" . . . .Which would really flow better with the context which is about before his conversion. It also would not conflict with what he said in 1Cor 4:4, that he knew of nothing against himself.

SuperJaw said . . . I did supply the Greek though... the protos eimi ego is the present indicative. I don't know what concordance you want me to turn to...I'm reading it straight out of the Greek.

Superjaw said . . . Like I said, it was a present indicative mood. This indictes, past, present, and future action. Meaning Paul said he was, is, and would be the chief of sinners. What verse are you referncing when you say that Paul said he was chief of sinners? You can argue with the Greek language all you want, but it's highly specific and for it to have been written in this form means something. No, I don't want to argue with the Greek. I want you to give your references that make you believe this from the Greek (that is, concordances, actual quotes etc). I'm not going to take your word for it. Now, if you end up being right, then I applaud you. But first, you have to back up what you say about the Greek. You also ignored the analysis that I gave at the end. Yes, I did. Mainly, because claiming he was using hyperbole (or however you spell it) is an opinion. I'm not interested in opinions

Specifically in Romans 5:10, but generally in a number of verses in the New Testament. The process of being saved in Christ's life is called "sanctification," and is is also called "transformation" (Although transformation is part of the overall process of sanctification). Sanctification is not just being "separated from" in the positional sense that the Greek word implies. In terms of our inward nature sanctification is also the process by which we are being made holy. In the example I used above with the children of Israel, they were sanctified positionaly from Egypt by the crossing of the Red Sea, which signifies baptism (1 Cor. 10:2), and while they were in the wilderness they were being sanctified dispositionaly by the manna, which was the heavenly food. You see, although the children of Israel had been delivered from Egypt by God, they still brought the element of Egypt out into the wilderness with them. They had lived in Egypt for about 430 years, and had been eating the same food as the Egyptians. So God had to purge that Egyptian element from them by feeding them upon a heavenly diet. In this example Egypt typifies the world, with Satan as its ruler. While we were yet a part of this world we absorbed all the worldly elements, which kept us stupefied and anesthetized (1 john 5:19). Both positionaly and dispositionaly we were of the world - we were in the world and the world was within us. When we first believed into the Lord Jesus and called upon His name we were saved from the power of sin and the might of the ruler of this world (1 John 4:4; Heb. 2:4; 2 Tim. 1:10), and when we were baptized into the death of Christ we became positionaly sanctified from the world (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27), just as the children of Israel. However, we still have the element of the world within us, and it is that element that causes us to be attracted to the things of the world. It is the might of the flesh (The fallen nature), which influences the mind and the will, and causes us to sin (Romans 7; cf. Num. 11:5-6)). Therefore we need to be constantly renewed int he spirit of our mind (Eph. 4:23, cf. Rom. 8:6; Rom. 12:2; Col. 3:10; Titus 3:5), and we need to be transformed by beholding Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), and taking Christ as our daily portion, our real manna - the bread of life (John 6:35, 47-51). Christ is our heavenly diet saving us from the element of the world, sin, death, and even Satan. That, in brief, is the process called sanctification. It is a process that we are all in, if we take Christ as our daily manna, our bread of life. This is also called, "Daily salvation," or as I term it, "Organic salvation" because it involves a kind of spiritual feeding for growth in life. Well . . . For me, the bottom line is that no matter what, you can't conclude that Paul ever said he remained chief of sinners. That verse specifically references sinners who Jesus came to set free from sin. So if you want to say "Paul called himself chief of sinners" in order to be accurate to the text, you would have to say "Paul called himself chief among sinners to be delivered from their sins." Because those are the sinners Paul references. SuperJaw said . . . protos eimi ego is all I need. That is what is said in 1 Timothy 1:15 and it is in the present indicative form, which means that is is speaking about the present and is a matter of fact, it has happened and is going to happen. It is speaking to both the past, present, and future actions. What further proof is needed than that? Does this mean that Paul is the actual worse sinner of all time? No, Paul is using hyperbole to get them to acknowledge that they are not perfect and are still being worked on. We are being saved by Christ, thus we are still prone to sin. Paul goes to the extreme to say that he is the worst of all sinners (again, hyperbole to prove a point, very common in the Hebrew and Greek paradigm) to prove that only the grace of God can ultimately set us free. The bottom line is that no matter what, you can't conclude that Paul ever said he remained chief of sinners. That verse specifically references sinners who Jesus came to set free from sin. So if you want to say "Paul called himself chief of sinners" in order to be accurate to the text, you would have to say "Paul called himself chief among sinners to be delivered from their sins." Because those are the sinners Paul references. It can't be ignored what was happening to those sinners spoken about in 1Tim 1:15. They were being delivered and set free. From what? From sin (Matt 1:21) To conclude that Paul remained in sin, is to conclude that what Jesus came to do, did not work. But I believe it did.

Yomo said Ok. Look at the first post. Alright . . . What am I supposed to be looking for?

Ovedya said . . . I think that the misunderstanding lies in the way that you are saying what you are saying. Sinners saved by grace are being saved from sin, that is a fact according to the Bible. Well . . . Where does the Bible say we are being saved from sin? For someone to say that he considers himself to be the foremost among sinners does not mean that he is not in the process of being saved from his sin. It is merely an acknowledgment - a realistic assessment - of his condition. So there's really no contradiction in what Paul is saying in the passage. What would give you the idea that Paul was being saved from his sins, instead of present tense freedom, mentioned in Romans 6? Also, don't you believe that what God says is the highest form of truth? So if someone wanted to be realistic, they would have to say what the Bible says. In Christ the believers have been saved (judicially), they are in the process of being saved (organically), and they will be saved from the judgment seat of Christ. This is the process of full salvation. Well, let me demonstrate briefly with a few scriptures what I mean when I talk about Legal and Vital. the Bible says in Ephesians 3 that we should be walking worthy of what God says about us. So while it's true that God says we are free from sin (1Tim 1:15 ref with Matt 1:21, also Romans 6, 1Jn chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and a whole host of other scriptures) It is our responsibility to take that deliverance, to take that freedom, and walk worthy of it. To become doers of God's Word (Jms 1). God said we are free, we ought to act on it. It's our responsibility to take that salvation (which includes freedom from from sin) and work it out (Phil 2, which in Greek means 'to bring to full manifestation, to work fully') so while it may be a present tense reality that we are saved, it's up to us to work that, and put it to work. So if you're saying Paul was making a confession about the fact that he was not fully enjoying his freedom from sin . . . I would be unsure to answer, since the verse under discussion refers to people delivered from their sin, not people remaining in it (1Tim 1:15) And also 1Cor 4 indicates that Paul knew of nothing (not one single thing) against himself. That sounds to me like he was enjoying his freedom from sin. We can look to the children of Israel as an example of this. When the children of Israel were wandering the desert they had been saved from Pharoah, they were in the process of being saved through learning to depend absolutely on God for everything, and they were looking forward to the promise of full salvation represented by the good land. So you see how God's process works? We are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. But acknowledging the fact that, like the children of Israel, we still have the propensity to fail so many times and in so many ways, doesn't mean that God's process is not working. And niether does it bring the effectiveness of God's salvation in life, by His blood, to nothing. See what I'm saying? Sorta.

Yomotalking said I honestly do not see the reason for such an nargument. Paul said he was the Chief of sinners. Ok. No he didn't. Nowhere in ALL the Bible does Paul say "I am chief of sinners" If you find it, let me know. And why would he say he knew of nothing against himself in 1Cor 4:4? Certainly, if you were sinning more than any sinner alive, you'd be able to think of something that you had done wrong, wouldn't you? And yet he wrote and said "I have wronged no man." (2Cor 7:2) And how about Romans chapter 6? In there Paul tells the Church not to yield their members to sin. Well, if Paul was chief of sinners, that makes him the biggest hypocrite alive. Going around telling others not to sin, and that sin shall not have dominion over you, all the while living in sin, and calling yourself the foremost among sinners. If I'm wrong about these conclusions, then let me know. Just be precise, and use scripture.

Ovedya said . . . Brother, I think that I initially came off as being a little bit harsh in my first response here. Having read the thread in which you were debating thepoint of sinlessness, I honestly thought that you were again trying to promote this same thing. I sincerely apologize for that. I need to learn to take each thread by themselves, instead of assuming that there is a certain agenda or goal. In any case, I think that the point you are trying to make is valid, and I think there is support for in the Scriptures. However, I also think that your point might have been better supported from other passages, instead of this one. Although I understand that there are many things we can "dig out" from the Scriptures for the building up of the Body of Christ, I also think that it's important to try and stay "on point" with what the writers were trying to impart. That matter of salvation from sin is an important one to discuss in the church. And the matter of the two aspects of our salvation is definately a vital one. We have been saved, and we are being saved, and eventually we will be saved. Much grace, Well thank you. I'm sincerely not trying to promote anything other than what the Bible says. No agendas, just trying to get to the truth. It's a big mistake for people to read 1Tim 1:15 and come to the conclusion that Paul was saying he was chief of sinners. Paul makes reference to sinners who are delivered from their sins. I don't believe Paul stayed a sinner, for the simple fact that in that verse itself it says that Jesus came to deliver them out of their sins (ref Matt 1:21). If it read "Christ Jesus came into the world to leave sinners the way they are, of whom I am chief." Then you could conclude that Paul was saying he was chief of sinners, with no deliverance. But as I say in the article, the fact that Paul references sinners that are being delivered from their sins . . . . Makes all the difference in the world. p.s. This article is for our "IIOpinions" page in which we talk about commonly held beliefs of the church that are not actually supported by scripture. The reason I brought up this particular article, is because just recently we had someone contact the ministry and make all sorts of accusations about how we were wrong on this article, but before we could respond to them, and pinpoint where they were coming from, they left and stopped talking to us. So I ventured onto these discussion boards to see if I could get someone to pick up where this person left off, so that I could see if there was something that truly needed to be corrected in the article. Thanks

Alright, I think I'm gonna call this one quits. Just a note though . . . If I come on here asking for biblical correction, and you leave before the conversation is finished, I take that as meaning that you had no more objections. Now, on the other hand, if you leave the conversation with an objection that you failed to make while we talked, then the responsibility is on you to tell me. I'm a brother in Christ seeking correction. If you deny me that, then that isn't my fault, it's yours. So basically what I'm saying is that I get alot of you guys high tailing it out of here when I respond to what you say. But I would suggest you offer as much biblical insight as you know, and if after that, I still don't accept it, just say so. Just say, "Rukkus, I've told you all I know to tell you. I hope it was helpful." Don't get all bent out of shape and leave without saying anything Anyway, I'll stop by to see if anyone else posts anything . . . Thanks again

Jusme Thank you for the response. But, did you find anything specifically wrong in my article? If so, could you point it out and tell me why?