In article , Loren says...


>Matthew Johnson  wrote in message

>...

>> In article , Loren
says...


>> Begin quote-------------
>> He who believes the Lord, fears punishment.But he who fears
punishment,
>> restrains himself from passions.

>But this isn't the good news.
Yes, it is. It is good news, because as the Psalm says:

  There is no lack for those who fear Him (Ps 34:9)

That sounds like good news to me. It sounds like it to a lot of people.
Why
can't you see it for the good news that it is? Isn't it good enough for
you?

["Fear" as in awe, not as in fear of wrath.  The Law requires perfect
obedience.  Grace operates under a completely different premise.  The
premise is that the Law has been fulfilled by Christ and it is that
righteous fulfillment which is imputed into the account of the
believer.  There is no fear of losing that righteousness for it is as
sure as are the promises of God.]

>This is OT LAW.
No, it is not. You can make this error only because you _ignore_ the
Scripture
that:

the fear of the LORD is clean, ENDURING FOR EVER;
the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. (Psa
19:9 RSVA)

Now pay attention this time, Loren. It says FOR EVER.

[This is the distinction I made above.  The "fear" of losing one's
salvation has nothing to do with being "wowed" by God in a positive
sense.  It is, rather, the dread of eternal separation. There is no
"good news" in that forecast.  The goodnews is that we "now oida that
we have eternal life.
SNIP

There are two kinds of 'fear of God':

[I'm glad you finally came to that realization.  Now you just have to
apply that distinction properly in the context of the discussion.]

And:

SNIP

> The gospel is that a
>new heart has been regenerated in the believer and now he has the
>desire to do what is right. It isn't fear.
But wait a minute: aren't you the on who admitted elsewhere that this
regeneration is not complete in this life? Didn't you admit that this
is not
completed at the time of justification, but only at the end of
sanctification?

[No.  Plain and simple, no.  This was what you, CLH and myself
discussed a while back.  I stated that regeneration was a one time
event which occured prior to the moment of the believer placing faith
in Christ.  Regeneration is not justification nor sanctification.  You
really dont understand the Protestant position do you?]

Besides: if you are going to make this claim, then we cannot believe
that you
have been regenerated. For your desire is clearly not to do what is
right, as
you have illustrated time and time again by slandering others as
'idolators' in
these NGs.

[Well, I will gladly leave that judgment up to Christ.  Idolatry is
rooted in having the wrong concept of who God is.  If you base an
entire denomination off of an incorrect view of what God has revealed
Himself to be, then that denomination is idolatrous.  That doesn't
marry to say, as I have been careful to point out, that each and every
individual member of that denomination is an antiChrist.  Rather, it
infers that the likelihood of that membership being those who referred
to in Mt 7 is much greater.  Those who place their faith in an
ecclessiastical order instead of in Christ Himself, will have a rude
awakening on the day of their judgment.  I do not say any of this
lightly.]

>1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear,
>because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not
>perfected in love.
In case you didn't notice, I had just commented on the verse two before
that.
And I showed it does CANNOT mean what you so recklessly claim. For
there is a
'fear' that is FOR EVER.

[You interpret from inference, not from necessity.  The distinction
between fear meaning awe and fear meaning wrath are here to be made.
There is no fear in suffering loss of salvation or the wrath of God for
"we are His workmanship."]

>So Mad Max here counters the NT distinction that we are not under
>grace.

No, he 'counters' the Protestant eisegesis that _claims_ to be the "NT
distinction". But it is not.

And here you have again shown clearly that your desire is not to do
good. It
cannot be out of any desire to do good that you call a _saint_ 'Mad
Max'. After
all, this saint _did_ show his regenerated heart by tirelessly teaching
the
truth, even when threatened with torture.

[sacrifice does not make a saint.  Just ask any of those Palestinians
who blow themselves up when you greet them on the other side.]

>Poor is the wife who keeps her house clean and a hot meal on
>the table when her husband gets home just so she doesn't get a
>beating. No, this is not a NT answer.
No, it is a false analogy. But you have again misread the Saint just as
badly as
you misread Scripture. How could you miss it Loren? The Psalm and the
saint
agree: there is a 'fear' that is ALWAYS yoked with love of God. We
never outgrow
that, it is never outdated.

[it depends which "fear" you are talking about.  This whole reply of
your is based on a false distinction and application.  What you infer
in the above paragraph is groundless.]


>But you are still under Law.
But not the Law you fancy. For you ignore the distinction the Apostles
taught
between the OT Law and the Royal Law of James 2:8:

  If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture,
  "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well. (Jam 2:8
RSVA)

The fear I am talking about is FOREVER, it is _part_ of the Royal Law.

[Stick to discussion within the thread.  You have not only failed in
applying the two distinction meanings of "fear" but you have also
failed to distinquish the relational difference between Law and Grace.
The individual's attitude in each are polar opposites even as the two
meanings of "fear" are polar opposites.]

>Law involves merit and demerit.
Not _this_ Law. Otherwise how could James still have referred to it?
Yet he
does.

[And this is the distinction I made when I distinqushed between
Christ's offer of fulfilling the covenant promises to the Jews and His
institution of the new economy within the scope and attitude of "My
commandments."  The "law" of Grace is different.  It has no fear of
failure because it is God who is at work in the life of the believer,
"both to will and to do."  There is not fear of loss of salvation
because ""God has not destined us unto wrath" for "there is now
therefore no condemnation."  The Law of Christ is that we have had our
wills regenerated such that we are now able to operate out of the
restored ability to do the things that we should to please God out of
love, not necessity.  My analogy of the poor wife was not false, it is
dead on.  It illustrates the difference between sola gratia and
everything else.]

>Fear and certain punishment.
Which you have forgotten to your own loss. For since you are still so
attached
to worldly things, you have never acquired that love of God (agape) the
Saint
speaks of.

[and the attitude your replies exhibit are so divine, we all feel as if
we are communing with God Himself.]

>It was imperfect in that it did not
>regenerate in the follower the ability to love God.
A love you have yet to learn, if you deny the eternal fear of God that
comes
with it.

>Also, you are guilty of the very thing which Luther accused Erasmus'
>semi-pelagianism.
Ah yes, follow that old witch hunt again! I knew I could count on you.
But who
do you think you can fool? IT is obvious to every reader in the NG that
this
insane love of witch-hunts of yours shows you are still a stranger to
the love
that casts out fear.

[What is a witness to is your refusal to take your own presuppositions
to fruition.]

>You have never explained your tenet that grace is not separate from
>merit and demerit.
Well, no, of course not. Because that IS NOT MY TENET. How many times
do I have
to repeat this before you get a clue?

[now you are as inconsistent as Sarah use to be.  Own up to what you
have declared previously.  I have often declared that grace and
merit/demerit have no relationship.  You have often opposed that
statement.  But you, as here, refuse to explain, let alone defend, your
objection.]

>You have gotten POed because I constantly lump EOC with the RCC, yet
>you continually
>expose yourself as sleeping in the same synergistic bed.
Because they are NOT the 'same synergistic bed'. If you could get out
of your
witch-hunting mode and actually pay attention, you would have noticed
this years
ago.

[Sorry.  But if you refuse to disclose why, the objection still
stands.]

>"work out your salvation" is beter understood "bring to
>fruition/completion."
Wrong. Pure eisegesis.

[TDNT.  Yes?  Did you say something?]

>It does not teach what you would like to bring
>into the context,
No, rather, it does not teach what _you_ would like to bring into the
context.

[My dad can beat up your dad.]

Besides: after your false accusation that _I_ have only 'negation', you
have
done the same thing here. But what you have done is far worse; for you
have
nothing other than negation of the ENTIRE GOSPELS to base your claim
about
'fruition' on.

[Declaration without documentation.  "My dad can beat up your dad."]

>that the will of man is only spiritually infirmed,
>rather than spiritually dead. Synergism all over again.
Because synergism IS what the Gospel teaches. So does Paul. Despite
your smears,
'synergism' is NOT a dirty word.

[Ah!  Now you HAVE placed yourself in the same semi-pelagian bed as the
RCC.  You are like the witness who does not know when not to
elaborate.]

>> > Other sources must be referred to in order
>> >to gain a complete and true understanding. In so many words, these
>> >other sources are often corralled under the term "traditions."

>> But who does this 'corralling'? Don't you know that people do tihs
same
>>referring to others sources for _any_ philological undertaking? For
any serious
>> interpretation of any great work?

>Oh no. You are quite mistaken for there is no comparision as
>regarding application of interpretative authority.
So says you. But I don't believe you. Why should I? You have given me
and the
whole NG more than enough reason to disbelieve you.

["the whole NG?"  At least you are remaining consistent with "all the
early fathers" defensive stratagem.]

>> >And because only the Scriptures themselves are "God-breathed",


>>AHA! But Scriptures NEVER makes this claim! So for you to make it,
you must be
>> relying on something outside of Scripture. You hypocrite!

>2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is *inspired* by God and profitable for
>teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

>"in-spired" = "in-breathed" by God.

>With your objection so utterly bombshelled by this single verse, can
>you tell me why anyone should listen to you further?
Because it is NOT 'utterly bombshelled' by it. Of course not. Really,
Loren, do
you really think I don't already know this verse? Are you that naïve?
Of course
I know it. Why, I even knew ahead of time how you would _misintepret_
it to
_try_ to 'bombshell' my objection.

And misintepret is _exactly_ what you did. For it says 'inspired', it
says
'profitable', it does NOT say 'self-sufficient'. Why, it doesn't even
say
'sufficient'. It doesn't even say that ONLY the Scriptures are
'inspired'!

[all arguments from inference and silence.  You have not offered any
support for your position let alone offered anything to counter mine.]

Once more, as SO often, you are reading into the verse what is simply
NOT there.
And as if this wasn't bad enough, you then act shocked when I don't see
your
mirage!

[TDNT  Perhaps you would care to provide an real exegetical arguments
(for once) which would counter what was stated.  Go back and read what
I quoted.  I quoted my statement and then your response.  I then
specifically adressed your objection.  You did not.  Rather you spewed
a tangical objection.  "God breathed", the orginal claim, was proven by
the scriptural quote.  Yet you did not address this.]

>> > only
>> >Scripture can in the end finally interpret Scripture.

>> Of course, Scripture never says this either. On the contrary:
scripture even
>> _refers_ the reader to other books books that have disappeared.

>Can you not stick to the context of the discussion?
Of course I can. And this IS in the context. For this shows that
Scripture
itself does NOT claim to be self-sufficient. How could it, if it refers
the
reader to other books?

>It does not refer to them concerning interpretation.
So what? That is irrelevant.

[This is where I refuse to continue.  You do not discuss.  You cannot
even debate fairly.  It would seem you get so upset that your thought
processes display the loss of understanding befell mankind in the
garden.  Study does not regain it.  Only a personal relationship with
Wisdom does.]

> Even his Mt. of Transfiguration experience is placed under
>the foot of Scriptural Truth.
Not true. He said no such thing.

[Ill bet you have a very long neck, run very fast with those long feet
and lay huge eggs too.]


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/7/04 10:08:54 PM