Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59
  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    47,890
    Quote Originally Posted by LawDog View Post
    I say this sternly, but with love and respect.
    OK...and yet...every other Man of God in the Bible had all of the qualities of man. Fully Man and Fully God cannot be partially anything. As to whether a wife was there and left out or not I don't know and don't think it would change the message at all. I will leave that to the guys that sharpen knives for Pre-Trib - Post-Trib discussions.

    The incredible thing to me is the notion that sex is somehow sinful unless it is intended to produce new church goers, and another person in authority says it is OK.

    I say this with equal respect.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    47,890
    Quote Originally Posted by LawDog View Post
    If you want to be a Christian Warrior, you have to live up to both sides of the name.
    I think these days brother...I am more interested in being a capitalist warrior because at least they actually DO something.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,492
    Respectfully, I have to completely agree with LawDog here. I'm not sure what I can add to what he said, other than Gabe is certainly creating a Christ and Christianity that suits his own agenda. He's not alone in this.

    The ideal of the Christian Warrior is not a Warrior who happens to be a Christian; its a Christian who happens to be a Warrior. A few things that Jesus himself said come to mind: the parable of the pearl of great price and the one about the man who found a great treasure in a field, went out and sold ALL that he had joyfully in order to buy the field and possess the treasure. Who or what is our true treasure?

    Jesus and Paul (off the top of my head) both talk about the exceedingly surpassing value of the Kingdom being so overwhelmingly great, that those who would grasp it will gladly exchange what they have for it. If this doesn't sound all too familiar to us, it's undoubtedly because we have yet to see the "surpassing glory of knowing Christ."

    Ultimately, I could quote at least a dozen different scriptures to make my point, but I'll conclude with this statement: Christianity is not what you, me, the Pope, or any man says that it is; Christianity is what Christ says that it is. Jesus put it succinctly, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I say?"
    Last edited by georgeib; 09-27-2021 at 02:49 PM.
    "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself." ó Augustine

    "That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is your god." ó Martin Luther

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NW Washington
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by LawDog View Post
    Part of me thinks I should wait longer before responding to this; part of me thinks this needs to be addressed immediately. I'm going to listen to the 'act now' side of my brain.

    Do you think that Jesus Christ had a wife and she was simply left out of the Bible? If he did not, then the suggestion here is that Christ engaged in a casual sexual relationship; that he committed the sin of fornication. He was not simply a man. He was the Son of God. He was the perfect and sinless man. If Christ sinned just as we sin, then his sacrifice would be worthless. The atonement of Christ's blood only works because he was without sin.

    Did He get pissed off? Yes. The Bible says as much. Which gives us evidence that being angry is not in and of itself a sin.

    Of course he ate and urinated. That's part of taking on an earthly form. While crapping may be "dirty" in the biological/disease sense, it isn't sinful.

    Whether he ever insulted someone is a very complex question. It's a lot deeper than it looks at first glance. His dismissive treatment of the Pharisees could be considered insulting, but he did not do so in order to belittle them. He did it to bring glory to the Father; to point out their errors and guide people to the truth.

    Christ is indeed the model of a man. We should strive to be like Christ, despite knowing that we will come short. To declare that for Christ to be "a man" he would have to be guilty of your preferred sins crosses the line into blasphemy. You should give this some thought, reconsider your words, and clarify this. If you want to be a Christian Warrior, you have to live up to both sides of the name.

    I say this sternly, but with love and respect.
    I think this is very well said and absolutely spot on. Thanks for your insight.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    OK...and yet...every other Man of God in the Bible had all of the qualities of man. Fully Man and Fully God cannot be partially anything. As to whether a wife was there and left out or not I don't know and don't think it would change the message at all. I will leave that to the guys that sharpen knives for Pre-Trib - Post-Trib discussions.

    The incredible thing to me is the notion that sex is somehow sinful unless it is intended to produce new church goers, and another person in authority says it is OK.

    I say this with equal respect.
    I concur entirely with LawDog and georgeib. I have a few of my own thoughts as well, ones I've been pondering how to express for some time now, not only because of discussions on here but because of issues in play among humanity more generally. The initial paragraph below lays out the Scriptural, doctrinal predicates for the issues raised in this thread, so bear with the description that those of here who are orthodox Christians probably all agree on—I think it helpful to describe the uncontested ground, if for the sake of nothing else but thoroughness.

    The key and critical difference between the preceding "men of God" in the Bible and Jesus the "God-man," as I have seen some aptly put it, is that Jesus was begotten by God, not endowed with divinity after being born within the sin-laden strictures of human conception. That means He was completely free of original sin and thus uniquely capable of fulfilling God's law in all its particulars, the necessary predicate to salvation. As Paul explained in Romans 3 and 4, humanity lies under the curse, an indictment, of sin, one that no human can ever escape by keeping the law, because no human (who is only human, that is, not God) can ever keep it perfectly. Its role, therefore, was to illuminate the fact of sin and our own inability to escape that curse by our own merits. Absolution of sin does require work by a person, however, since sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and likewise by one man (Jesus, the Christ) came salvation, through His propitiatory work of death on the Cross, burial (and descent into Sheol to release the captives awaiting His revelation), resurrection on the third day, and ascension into Heaven. (See generally Rom. 5–8.)

    Because Jesus was God, He could have no sin alloyed with His perfectly divine nature. In the case of sexuality, this meant necessarily He either was married—a dubious proposition, given the entire absence of any mention at all of such a monumentally important covenant between Him and a woman, in the entire Bible—or that He never had sex. The latter follows because the Scripture, from start to finish, is replete with both express commands against sexual activity of any kind outside of a marriage between one man and one woman (Deuteronomy chapters 5 and 22 say as much in the Old Testament law, and 1 Corinthians addresses this subject at length in the New Testament) and foundational principles that lead necessarily to this conclusion (God instituting marriage between one man and one woman, whose sexes and their sexuality He defined, in Genesis 2). This is also why the formality of a marriage ceremony is important, because God instituted that formality. This is not a matter of looking to the pastor for permission to now have sex. This is obeying God's command to withhold sexual relations until after the performance of that formality because the formality is critically important. The preacher may not arrogate the authority to tell couples that they may now have sex, or how to do so (although a pastor has disciplinary authority to call out members of his congregation over sin, including sexual practices disobedient to God's Word), and no proper marriage ceremony does so. The formality does not request the pastor's permission but God's.

    As LawDog pointed out, I presume relying on Paul's insistence in Romans and in Galatians (among other places), insinuating Jesus may have committed a sin, here fornication, blasphemes Him and makes His now-imperfect sacrifice on the cross of no account. That's a dangerous step to take. It may in some manner be a pleasant idea to suppose that Jesus was not "bound to" the laws that others made up, but that's just the thing—He lived according to His Father's perfect law, not according to the ways the Pharisees and others had perverted the law by the time He walked the Earth incarnate.

    And there lies the great point: We can safely say that He was fully man but without indwelling sin because He was fully God—and thus would not have committed any sin at all, including fornication—and rely on the work that His Spirit, given to all believers post-Pentecost in Acts 1, performs in the hearts of all believers to reveal the meaning of God's Word to us. So, no, we don't have to rely on another human being to define it for us, which means we can safely disagree with Catholic doctrine that rests all conflict-resolving authority in the pope (a position I categorically reject, which is principally why I'm not Catholic) and with pussyfooting pastors who don't want to face the sometimes "ungentle," if you will, statements in the Bible. (One that comes to mind, and one of my favorites, is Jesus commanding His followers to sell their spare garments and buy swords, in Luke 22.) True, many leaders in the current evangelical church are poor leaders indeed, and some are actually false teachers. We should reject their false teachings, and we should call them to account.

    That does not, however, justify doing what Paul specifically commanded against in I think 1 Corinthians as well (not certain on that citation), which was to decline to assemble with other believers for what we would now call church. Now trust me, I totally get the reticence to join most churches. My wife and I were "church-hunting" earlier this summer, which is a stressful, unpleasant exercise. And it's hard to find a doctrinally sound church. Despite having grown up in a Southern Baptist-affiliated church and still having the lion's share of my theological leanings satisfied in those churches, I detest most Southern Baptist churches—there's Southern Baptist and then there's SOUTHERN BAPTIST. (And don't even get me started on what's going on in the SBC.) But it was important to ensure we attend a church devoted to faithful teaching and discipleship.

    Money and freedom don't change the fact that at the bottom of all suffering and hardship in the world is sin. Sin is remediated only and solely by the work of the Spirit indwelling the Christian justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God, following the Word of God in the Scripture. That also means that suffering and despair are, ultimately, remediated only by that same work. Money can be a blessing, yes; I'm dreaming of a 6-speed manual Audi S4, on my attorney salary after I graduate law school and start working next summer. Probably won't happen any time soon, and it might never happen. That's okay, because contentment isn't in things, it's in peace with God. Peace with God comes only through the instantaneous work of justification and the continual work of sanctification, with its final consummation in glorification on the day we meet Christ (whether through death before He returns to judge and restore the Earth or when His Church meets Him in the air on that day).

    Jesus did all sorts of things, none of which involved what His Father and He, as the Word Incarnate, denominated "sin." Including sex with someone not His wife. His work also means the only hope for anyone in any country, culture, nationality, etc., is in saving surrender to Him. That means we can still keep and, when necessary and appropriate, use our guns. I have no problem swinging my modern-day katana, and I train to be strong and fit, both as a fighter and as a man after God's own heart. None of this requires we roll over before tyranny, either. Frankly, lately I've been pondering and struggling in my head about what that means with regard to civil authority and Romans 13. I would love to see LawDog's analysis of the issue. I know it doesn't demand we do whatever the government tells us because God does not ordain government to enforce evil but good. How we act with regard to organized, group disobedience is another issue in my mind that I don't know how to resolve. But I do know and am perfectly comfortable with the fact that if someone who isn't supposed to be there comes to my home and my family, I will defend them, to the death, which means I will kill the attacker and will, if necessary, die trying. No question.

    Don't know whether that makes me a "Christian warrior" or not, but I'll certainly try. And that also means putting God in His proper place, describing Him faithfully as He has revealed Himself, and affirming the only hope He has revealed.

    I, too, wish to say all this with respect to all readers. I know direct language is understood and accepted here, and I have tried to use that appropriately and helpfully.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    47,890
    Well...it seems I have outgrown my own subforum. Henceforth I shall leave you to your own thoughts here as apparently I have become excessively open minded to fall into line, to offer anything of value.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    Well...it seems I have outgrown my own subforum. Henceforth I shall leave you to your own thoughts here as apparently I have become excessively open minded to fall into line, to offer anything of value.
    Respectfully, this has nothing to do with being "openminded" or not offering anything of value but with authority, specifically the authority that refutes what you have said about Jesus and God's law more generally (either directly or by implication). As a professed believer, that means you, as well as we, are subject to that authority and must be called to account for what that Word says.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    47,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Faramir2 View Post
    Respectfully, this has nothing to do with being "openminded" or not offering anything of value but with authority, specifically the authority that refutes what you have said about Jesus and God's law more generally (either directly or by implication). As a professed believer, that means you, as well as we, are subject to that authority and must be called to account for what that Word says.

    Good bye.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    8,673
    I forget what it was call... I learned about it in a bunch of classes I had to take before the catholic church would let me marry my wife because they didn't think I was catholic enough or some bs. It was a big get together where a bunch of people got together to decide, yes decide, what was going to be in the bible. There was a bunch of gospels they didn't want to include for one reason or another. If man has decided that then whats to say they didn't alter other stuff. Man is fallible and will twist things to suit their own need.

    So saying "ItS NoT In ThE BiBlE!!! REEEEEE" considering there is a ton of stuff they didn't want to put in it doesn't hold water.

    Oh also the commie piece of shit we have for the pope.

    Tell me people in power haven't altered things for their own benefit.

    Always question the validity of everything.
    Geek Warlord
    Dungeons & Dragons & Deadlifts

    Muscle Wizard Casts: Fist


    CRG-1 DPS
    CRG-2 CRG x 2
    SGF-1 Shotgun Gunfighting
    Trauma care under fire
    Spetsnaz Sniper
    HRO-5 Terrorist & Active Shooter Interdiction
    HRO-6 CQB: Fighting in Structures
    CRG-4 Force on Force
    HRO-5 Terrorist & Active Shooter Interdiction - 3 day
    TWOTU edition
    Trauma Medicine for the CCW Operator
    Pistol Ground Fighting (Taint Shooting Progressions)

    TWOTU since May 2015

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    47,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorkface View Post
    Always question the validity of everything.
    Hmmm. Alone...it seems I am not.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •