Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

And 8:2-4 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you* free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,* he condemned sin in the flesh,4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

You neglect the context, which is summarized in the 4th verse…….yet begins in the 7th chapter……

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have DIED TO THE LAW THROUGH THE BODY OF CHRIST, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But NOW WE ARE RELEASED FROM THE LAW , having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve NOT UNDER THE OLD WRITTEN CODE but in the new life of the Spirit.

So……….you’re telloing us that IMMEDIATELY after God has pronounced us FREE from the written Law, He turns around and tells us to KEEP it?? Is He schizoid?? Or are you unfamiliar with even basic exegesis??

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Again, you conveniently ignore the verses that literally SANDWICH this one and give it context.

27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 FOR WE HOLD THAT ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH APART FROM WORKS OF LAW 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

In the 4th chapter we have the story of Abraham as an illustration of Paul’s points about Law. Here is Paul’s summary……

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 FOR IF IT THE ADHERENTS OF THE LAW WHO ARE TO BE HEIRS, FAITH IS NULL AND THE PROMISE IS VOID(OOOPS) 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Here are your next “proof texts”…..

IS 30:8 And now, go, write it before them on a tablet
and inscribe it in a book,
that it may be for the time to come
as a witness forever. [1]
9 For they are a rebellious people,
lying children,
children unwilling to hear
the instruction of the Lord;

And 42:21 The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake,
to magnify his law and make it glorious.

OK……….you do realize there is a New Testament, correct?? That there were NO Christians here, and that Christ’s sacrifice had not yet been made??

1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Your next verse 1 Jn 3:41Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. (And WHAT ARE HIS COMMANDMENTS?? The written Law?? No……..)

1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Hmmmmmm……….nothing about festivals, or Sabbaths, or the written Law at all.

How odd you again forgot to include ALL the pertinent verses.

Again you cite……

Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

How does that prove your case?? Before the Law……….sin, but not counted. During the Law…….sin, but counted. After the Law (under grace) sin, bugt not counted against those who are in Christ and walk after the Spirit. Sin is there BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE LAW. So what??

Oddly enough, you then cite a Scripture that PROVES your case is fundamentally WRONG.You admit to being an adherent of the Law……….so you then kill your own case by citing………

Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Hmmmmmmmmm…….

Next Mt 5:17 is your choice……

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

That’s great………because it WAS all fulfilled in Christ.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the END OF THE LAW for righteousness to everyone who believes.*

1) end

a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time)

b) the end

1) the last in any succession or series

2) eternal

c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue

d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose

Why did the Law end as a means of obtaining Righteousness?? Christ fulfilled it.

We could do this all night……….

You then made this statement which borders on blasphemy……

“You mean to tell me that Pauls writings overide the words of Jesus himself?? When Paul says that we are not under the law, he letting you know that we are no longer under the law of animal sacrifice.”

So then………because you cannot reconcile Paul’s explanation by your theology (and I use that term LOOSELY), you leave us with the explanation that Christ’s Words (inspired by the Holy Spirit) must have precedence??
Goodness knows you can’t believe BOTH Christ’s Words AND Paul’s words because your error is then exposed (Christ’s Words and Paul’s words BOTH inspired by the same Holy Spirit,BTW, and BOTH called SCRIPTURE in the Word).

No……..to hang onto your pet doctrine, you denigrate Paul.

So………is the Holy Spirit double-minded, schizoid, or a liar?? Because one of these must be true to justify your statement. May God forgive you……..

No…….Paul expounds on the Words of Christ BY THE SAME HOLY SPIRIT in an attempt to keep folks from twisting the Word as you do.

And…….please tell me where the Paul restricts our freedom from the Law to animal sacrifice. Good luck………

Here’s some more verses for ‘ya……

Gal 2:15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;16yet we know that a person is not justified* by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,* so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 2:19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.21I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification* were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.

Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, TILL THE SEED (CHRIST) should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come (in Christ), we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Law).

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Enough……….the fact that you are a leader in a church when the very elementals of the Faith escape you is frightening enough.

This is too basic for even Christianity 101.

Heck……..this is too basic to be even considered the milk of the Word. This is the SKIM MILK.

I’ll not go further with you on this……..what I have posted is sufficient to anyone without a doctrinal axe to grind, and who understands the basics of proper interpretation, context, and exegesis rather than eisogesis.

.

There are so many thoughts that went through my mind reading various posts on this website. Rather than explain what background I might bring to my response here, I will simply allow you to read my bio on my site, if you choose.

But I did want to raise several points or questions. Since I never get caught up in blogging or emailing, this may be my first and last visit. Please know that above all, I do commend you for wanting to be a thinking Christian, even if I disagree with some of your thoughts.

1) You may not agree, but I think it is important that not all popular “televangelists” represent the rank-and-file of what used to be known as holiness-Pentecostalism. In fact, some of the books on your lists represent authors — like Clarence Larkin and Arthur Pink — are persons who are quite popular among older Pentecostal preachers, like my late grandfather. Perhaps who think the whole damn lot is damned, but I think many “classical” Pentecostals see their understanding of the Holy Ghost and of God and the Bible prostituted in televangelists, just like those who are against the whole Pentecostal movement. I think, personally, the distinction is important.

2) I wonder from your book list are you a strict Calvinist, dispensationalist? My point is that many folks who consider themselves within the ranks of Orthodox Christianity would take real issue both with Calvinism and dispensationalism. For example, Arminian Christians, as expressed in Wesleyanism and Holiness movements might have a hard time swallowing double-predestination, or an atonement only for the elect. Perhaps I read way too much into where you stand from a book list, but I was trying to figure it out.

3) As one raised Oneness Pentecostal, I will not spend time defending them or rationalizing your experience. I will say that too often heresy hunters and so-called protectors of orthodoxy engage in an intellectual and philosophical discourse to discredit Pentecostals, Oneness or others. And the reality is that most Christians are not intellectuals. When we read Augstine’s De Trinitatae, let’s face it, 99.9 percent of the ancient church had no idea what he wrote, they never read it or believed it. Reading the church fathers is reading an intellectual history of Christianity — not popular practice. At least to gain a hospitable critique of Oneness Pentecostals, I suggest you read Dr. David A. Reed — a Canadian, Anglican theologian, who was raised Apostolic. I don’t suggest reading him to agree, but to simply see how he places their beliefs within the context of popular piety in American Christianity in the early 20th century — which was by and large, very Christocentric.

4) One thing about attacking Jakes and Jones as being “New Agers,” etc, is that Charismatic spirituality has always been a troubled spot in Christian history. Paul’s Corinthian discourse suggest challenges — and yet he said he spoke in tongues more them all. Reading the church fathers, and what we in hindsight call Montanism — this was at one point within the realm of acceptable Christianity… Heresy is often a “hindsight” label. Origen and Tertullian — two HUGE fathers in the doctrine of the Trinity were both declared heretics after their deaths, yet they are foundational for whatever even conservative Christians argue for as “orthodoxy.”

5) Where does orthodoxy end and heresy begin? I am not clear that Charismatic spirituality can be ruled out of hand. It is two prevelant both in the New Testament and the early church. It might not be necessary (eg. initial physical evidence), but it was normal (accepted, expected) in both the NT and the ancient church. Justin Martyr defends the church by talking about the signs and wonders that happened in their midst (prophecies, healings) … and even Augustine speaks of such things. Given the diversity of the church from the very beginning and throughout the conciliar process (eg. Nicea, Constantinople, etc.) … what kinds of lines do you wand to draw? Many who accepted the canon, did not accept that the Holy Spirit is fully God. Or, those who accepted the Trinity also accepted the baptism of infants? While televangelists and Word of Faith folks are an easy target for accusations of heterodoxy, I would be interested in more to see your lines of orthodoxy — who is included, rather than who is excluded.

6) On the trinity — what is the trinity? Three persons, one essence? What does that mean? You and I both know that theological langauge is not plain language — common discourse. Theological language is specialized, technical discourse. Billy Graham said he could not explain the Trinity, but he believes it. Is he a heretic for blind acceptance? I could say so much more here, but I want to say this — the diversity of technical language in the world about the Trinity — even in teasing out the conciliar creeds — poses all sorts of problems. Even Thomas Aquinas — considered the father of systematic theology seems to start with philosophical proofs for the existence of God, God as one, and then proceeds to accept Trinity (sacred doctrine) on faith, though the technical language is not Bible, it’s extrabiblical. Am I trinitarian? (you may be wondering) Sure, I believe in three persons, one essence, but I also believe as Gregory of Nyssa argued that where you see one person of the Trinity, you see all three, and that they are unified in action. Most Apostolics are not theologically or intellectually trained, nor are most Pentecostals or Evangelicals, so a layperson’s explanation of the Trinity (which Billy Graham would not even venture to do) does often end up sounding like tritheism, subordinationism, adoptionism, Arianism, Modalism, or a million other -isms that we could list. Given that reality, that Trinitarian discourse is specialized language, how should we proceed to say Jakes or Jones is not Trinitarian. “Person” is not Biblical language. Hypostatic union is not Biblical language. And given the well-rounded unpopularity of substance metaphysics in late 20th century philosophy, the whole Greek philosophical construct, which supports the one substance, three subsistences rationale of the trinity is itself under great attack. These have led to economic and relational understanding of the Trinity that you might nevertheless find heresy? So, could there be more charity here? The earliest Oneness teachers admitted a threeness in Godself, one even referring to him as the three-One God. As people begin to split and argue, often positions harden over differences, while similarities, which caused such strife in the first place get lost, like what I’m alluding to. Hear, I recommend reading works by Douglas Jacobsen, “Thinking in the Spirit, theologies of early Pentecostals.”

7) Finally, I could keep going on, but let me conclude with this. I recently learned the relationship of Francis Shaeffer to the Christian Right. An Evangelical historian argued at the recent Evangelical Theological Society that Shaeffer was a fundamentalist who greatly formed the intellectual underpinning of of the so-called Christian Right movement in America. I have read of black Pentecostals who respected his writings. However, I thought given what I understand as the anti-black, status-quo, capitalism and American imperialism approving politics of the Christian right, way should black Christians readily embrace these conservative Christian intellectuals without greatly critiquing their work and being selective of its use? Have I gone from Pentecostal heretic to black Political theology heretic — perhaps? But my point is that I think Greg Boyd (who is Ex-Oneness and wrote a trenchant critique) is also right to critique the nationalism and political blindsightedness of much of what passes as good Bible believing theology. And this would go back as far as Puritans like Jonathan Edwards who believed America was the New Jerusalem and the Puritan colonists were “chosen people.” Let’s not get it twisted.

So, more than a mouthful, maybe enough mouthfuls for the year, but I wanted to hit all these issues, or as many as I could at once.

Peace and continue to press on and raise questions!

Regards,

Marlon

(MN: I tried to let it go, but you keep saying the same thing. It’s PULPIT-PIMPS [pulpit dash pimps]. )

Let me tell, you something brother………..if you are going to stay under the law, then for the love of God STAY UNDER IT.ALL of it.

Are you going to Jerusalem 3 times a year?? Don’t like that law?? Well………maybe you’re growing your hair with the long tassels?? No?? I hope you’re not trimming your beard brother……….that’s forbidden (apparently, judging from pics, the one Law Melvin is still under ;-))

Are you wearing a fringed robe?? No?? Got a phylactery tied around you hand and upon your forehead?? Are you bringing your tithes into the Temple in Jerusalem?? Are you bringing sacrifices of sheep, goats, doves,etc??

If you’re going to be a Judaizer, then BE ONE. Don’t come here with your “pick and choose” laws and tell us we’re in disobedience.

King James Version (KJV) Galatians - Chapter 5

Gal 5:1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do THE WHOLE LAW.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal 5:7 ¶ Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

Gal 5:8 This persuasion [cometh] not of him that calleth you.

Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Gal 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Happy Thanksgiving

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?

Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Remember to give thanks to God for having food to eat and family and friends to share it with.

Please pray for those who are less fortunate than we are and do your best to be a blessing to an individual in that predicament.

Thankyou for your work.

Have you seen the Benny Hinn expose posted on Justin Taylor’s

theologica.blogspot.com ?

Colin

Just posting an interesting news article link on the prosperity doctrine. It’s wild how people think their job promotions couldn’t have been successful unless they gave money to Creflo’s ministry. I mean, come one, eventually you were going to get a raise.

It reminds me of those psychics who say, “if you do this or that”, you will get a raise at work or a horoscope that says, “you will see extra money” and the smallest event is attributed as miraculous.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-lidoll1112,0,5446471.story?track=rss