Should we read our Bible?

[JonC]

I don't know what you mean so I will explain how I see it as it relates to what you are saying, Jesus gave his flesh for our flesh, or in place of our flesh. Death had to happen as a result of sin, for the wages of sin is death. Death was going to happen to us. Instead he chose to take it on himself. So he gave himself for us. When you say solidarity that is not why he did it, he did it to save us, not to relate to us or to have a sense of shared interests or unity, it was to pay the price that the law deamands for sin. If you get a speeding ticket, and I pay the fine, the law is still satisfied. To say he reconciled us, would depend on the meaning of reconcile since it seems it has several, he didn't die to bond with us, he died to save us and to pay the price for sin that was due to us. Are you saying God who can do all things could have done it another way so it was to bond with us? God can do all things, but he deemed true justice demanded that price be paid, did he not?



I don't understand what you mean "only in the sense this was always God's design", how would it not have been his design? What are you saying here, you have to mean something I am missing. I am learning you guys who know more can have a lot of reasons why you choose specific words that aren't apparent to me until I learn them.

I'm still in the first chapter and think I need to reread to be able to better connect to your comments.

I don't mean there was a way it wasn't in God's design. I mean we do not possess a salvation prior to the moment we first believed. There are no elect persons who are unbelievers.

I mean His flesh for our flesh, not instead of. We were purchased by His blood.

I do believe that Christ died to reconcile man and God (solidarity). But I also reject penal substitution in favor of medical substitution.

 

[JasonF]

Okay, I wouldn't know about when one possess salvation, but it would seem that it wouldn't happen before faith since by faith we are saved. But God is in control of all things, so he purposed in himself from before the world began who he would save, and save them he will. Is that the idea?

Flesh for our flesh, I still think you might have something I am not grasping. We were indeed purchased by his blood, but he still took the punishment we deserve for/in place of us. How would you word it otherwise? God owns everything, he didn't need to purchase humans for them to belong to him did he? Aren't we purchased in that, I don't know im confused now, but he took the punishment we deserve because someone had to take it right? I don't like saying it that way, it seems a little not honoring him enough to say it that way, but I don't know how to say it, someone had to pay the wages of sin which is death right? death is the wages, it is what is due for sin, and since we sined, we were owed death, and it was given to him, not us... is this right?

I also don't understand all the words being used for doctrine. I mean of course we are under the new covenant and the Bible seems to be about primarily the two covenants, Mosaic and by the new covenant by the Lord Jesus Christ's blood.

 

[JonC]

I think we have to be careful when it comes to God in "eternity past". He is eternally above us, so we can only know Him as He has revealed Himself to us. The fullest revelation of God to man is Christ Himself.

In Scripture there are two primary covenants - the Mosaic Covenant (the Law) and the New Covenant.

But people can come to different conclusions based on how they read the two in relation to one another

Some read the Old Covenant as defining the terms of the New Covenant. To them Jesus came to obey the Law and to enact in a meaningful way the Old Covenant system.

Others read the Old Covenant as being established and defined by the New Covenant (I am in this camp). We view Jesus not only as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant but also as the One who establishes the Old Covenant.

 

[JasonF]

How do you mean in terms of the word establish.

Why do you think it's either or both things you said seem correct.

Well again i don't know what your words mean, neither description is clear to me now that i look again.

 

[JonC]

How do you mean in terms of the word establish.

Why do you think it's either or both things you said seem correct.

Well again i don't know what your words mean, neither description is clear to me now that i look again.

Paul tells us we are not under the Law. He says that we establish the Law and the prophets.

Rather than viewing Jesus as coming in perfect obedience to the Old Covenant I believe it best to view the Old Covenant as a shadow pointing to Christ.

 

[JasonF]

So you are saying the laws are the laws they are because that is how Jesus lives, not that Jesus came to be obedient?

I mean again i think both are true in certain ways.

But i find your words hard to understand, is it the topic or just my brain.

 

[JasonF]

Maybe this conversation shouldn't continue. Or you can give me the names and resources of what you believe, you have no need to try to explain everything.

 

[JonC]

So you are saying the laws are the laws they are because that is how Jesus lives, not that Jesus came to be obedient?

I mean again i think both are true in certain ways.

But i find your words hard to understand, is it the topic or just my brain.

I am saying that Jesus became obedient to the Father.

But that the Law itself is based on the New Covenant-the Law of Christ- Christ Himself.

Love God. Love one another. That is the foundation of the Law.

If you do that what moral laws would you break?

 

[JasonF]

I'm sorry but funny we know this try things are the foundation since Jesus said so when he was asked about the commandment. But your saying instead of it being because that is what God says I'm the Old Testament but because of Jesus. God is one so I'm not sure i really see the difference.

 

[JasonF]

How is your mom doing?

 

[JonC]

How is your mom doing?

Out of surgery and in critical care. Surgery went good but we really won't know a prognosis for a week.

Thank you for asking.

 

[JasonF]

Thank you for the update. I think i need to read the Bible through a few times before getting into all this stuff much

 

[JesusFan]

Looking over threads in this board it is obvious that many have an interest in theology and Bible study. That is good.

But at the same time it seems that many (most?) do not read God's Word.

Instead they approach Scripture like one would an encyclopedia (for those younger than me, an encyclopedia was a big book with a lot of topics we used before Al Gore invented the internet).

They study topics, they indoctrinate themselves into "camps", follow preachers, listen to teachers....but they have never taken the time to read the Biblical narrative.

I believe it is important for the Christian (once the gospel is understood, once that person is "in Christ) to playfully read the story of the Bible.

Ignore Reformed Theology, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, Christus Victor, Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, NCT.....all the ways men express their understandings.

Read with understanding but without studying (at least the first time), jotting down places you need to look into more. Read God's redemptive history.

I don't mean chapter a day, or read your Bible in a year. The Bible is longer than a novel, but it can be read in a few months quite easily if people would devote the time it takes every day to watch a TV show.

Read the Bible as a narrative (as if you were reading any other story) to get the flow of Scripture.

If people would do that then many of the theological positions that exist today probably wouldn't be around for long.

It is when we pick a subject and use the Bible as a research book to support or expand on a position that we start leaning more on our understanding than on God's Word.

We really meed to know what the inspired scriptures teach and speak to in doctrines before getting into what those gifted by God to write theologies have to say to us!

many would know what Calvin, Spurgeon, Wright et all have written on a subject, but not so much knowing what bible stated!

 

[JonC]

We really meed to know what the inspired scriptures teach and speak to in doctrines before getting into what those gifted by God to write theologies have to say to us!

many would know what Calvin, Spurgeon, Wright et all have written on a subject, but not so much knowing what bible stated!

I agree. Too many people rely on writers who "tickle their ears" (who say what they want to hear). We have to rely on Scripture, on what is written in God's Word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you are saying the laws are the laws they are because that is how Jesus lives, not that Jesus came to be obedient?

I mean again i think both are true in certain ways.

But i find your words hard to understand, is it the topic or just my brain.

I think you need to understand that the Lord Jesus does not have a different set of laws to His Father. In the Sermon on the Mount He gives the true interpretation of the law; He doesn't create a new set of laws. And saying, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength" will not necessarily teach you to avoid idolatry. You have to go to the Decalogue for that.

 

[JonC]

saying, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength" will not necessarily teach you to avoid idolatry. You have to go to the Decalogue for that.

Actually, that is not true

Jesus teaches us (in His words recorded in Matthew 22) that the Law and the prophets (the entire Hebrew Scripture) depend on obedience to these two greatest commandments (Loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and your neighbor as yourself).

If one obeys those two commandments then they needn't look to the Law of Moses for guidance because they will establish the Law.

The issue is we do not love God perfectly. We do not love our neighbors perfectly

The moral aspects of the Mosaic Law are useful to show us when we do fall short. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.

That is why we never teach disobedience to God's commands. But a heart focused on sin and obedience to the Mosaic Law is a heart that cannot be saved. Repentance must come first.

 

[JasonF]

I can't see how going about trying to keep the 10 comments isn't frustrating the grace of God, not saying i have it all figured out though.

Galatians 2:21 KJV — I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

 

[MrW]

JonC, have you read “The Normal Christian Life” by Watchman Nee?

We don’t become sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners, due to being in the First Adam. Sin and death came by him.

All in Christ, the Second and Last Adam, are saints. Life and righteousness came by Him.

There are only two “races”. One is in Adam, or one is in Christ.