Two sides of the same coin!

Buick and Caddy

Caddy is an overpriced GM that most preachers drive
Buicks are same quality but more economical which I drive.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

This preacher has never owned a caddy... I dont even want one... got a Ford Taurus, now!

Now back to the thread!

 

Salt & Pepper

both Used to give flavor

 

Don't everyone suddenly jump out of their skins.

Repent and believe- To change one's mind, the usual definition of 'repent' from metanoeo in the NT, and to believe, which (believe) is also the same as faith. A third word is ( to) trust, again the same as faith.

Second, saved by grace; and saved by faith. Virtually identical, BTW. Scripture speaks of both ideas.

"By grace you have been saved" and "Your faith has saved you".

"Repent of your sins" ; "Make Christ Lord of your life!" In order to be saved, that is. Neither are found in Scripture; neither can therefore be done - because--- Repentance does not concern sin, per se, and God done beat you to the punch at "Making Jesus Lord!"

Everyone take three deep breaths and count slowly to ten to relax! :laugh:

Calvinism and Arminianism- Both are man-made systems, neither can really accept the truth of Romans 4:5 where it is said, "But to him that works not,but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is imputed for righteousness." And both base whether or not one is "really saved" (another phrase not found in Scripture, BTW) on whether or not (in the sight of the one 'deciding', you understand, on whether or not in their opinion) one has really persevered. Neither has any real place for a "righteous Lot", and both deny the Biblical idea of grace!

Till later - Baaa! :tongue3:

Ed

 

Sure they are. The problem is that this is a hard path not the easy path and few will follow it.

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

right and wrong

 

obedience and disobedience

 

Do you understand the meaning of "quotation marks"? Just wonderin'!:tongue3:

Oh yeah, another one similar but different- "straight" and "narrow"

 

I agree but would add that so often the preacher who subscibes to each side also preaches against the very thing he is giulty of doing.

So often those who claim to be steadfast and stand for truith in reality do not and just appear that they do. Lately we have seen loads of preaches in the dog housde claiming to stand for truth yet caught doing quite the opposite. There are other older examples such as Hyles.

So often the preacher who believes truth is not relevant ignores true grace by not giving people the truth of God and therefore does not live out grace.

I believe that the man who preaches truth and lives it out also preaches grace and lives it out. He aslo preaches mercy and lives it out. Tha man will be blessed because he truly knows God. A man who truly knows God also truly knows and understand God's mercy, grace, and truth.

If I do not love I do not know God. I cannot preach grace, truth and mercy without loving the people I am talking with. How can I tell someone about a God who loves if they do not see how God loves me by my demoinstration of love towards them. I cannot truly teach grace, truth and mercy if I do not know God personally and know God's view of those things and live them out.

 

Hope and Faith

Hope is wanting to see something that we dont know exists.

Faith is knowing something exists that we have not seen.

 

What you are talking about is the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang. Most people believe that they are opposites, but this is not true... they compliment each other. Read the essay below, it is quite interesting, especially starting with the third paragraph.

-------------------------------------



THE BASIC THEORY OF YIN AND YANG IN THE ART OF GUNG FU
By Bruce Lee

At first I did not plan to include this section as the book deals only with basic techniques; however, on second though, I believe the reader will greatly benefited by this Chinese view of life. Most likely his technique (no matter what system he is in) will also be greatly improved.

The basic structure of Gung Fu is based on the theory of Yin/Yang, a pair of mutually complementary forces that act continuously, without cessation, in this universe. This Chinese way of life can be applied to anything, but we are interested in its relationship to the art of Gung Fu. The Black part of the circle is called Yin. Yin can represent anything in the universe as: negativeness, passiveness, gentleness, substantiality, femaleness, moon, darkness, night, etc. The other complementary part of the circle is Yang, which represents positiveness, activeness, firmness, substantiality, maleness, sun, brightness, day, etc.

The common mistake most people make is to identify this Yin/Yang symbol, T'ai-Chi, as dualistic; this is Yang being the opposite of Yin, and vice versa. As long as we separate this "one-ness" into two, we won't achieve realization. Actually, all things have their complimentary part; it is only the human mind and his perception that they are being separated into opposites. The sun is not the opposite of the moon, as they compliment and are independent on each other, and we cannot survive without either of them. In a similar way, a male is the compliment of the female, or vice versa. The "one-ness" of Yin/Yang is necessary in life. If a person riding a bicycle wishes to go somewhere, he cannot pump on both pedals at the same time or not pumping on them at all. In order to move forward, he has to pump one pedal and release on the other. So the movement of going forward requires oneness" of pumping and releasing. Pumping is then the result of releasing, and vice versa; each being the cause of the other.

In the Yin/Yang symbol there is a white spot in the black part, and a black spot on the white one. This is to illustrate the balance of life, for nothing can survive long by going to either extremes, be it negativeness or positiveness. Therefore, firmness must be concealed in gentleness, and gentleness in firmness, and that is why a Gung Fu man must be pliable as a spring. Notice that the stiffest tree is most easily cracked, while the bamboo or will bend with the wind. So in Gung Fu, or any other system, one must be gentle yet not giving away completely; be firm yet not hard , and even if he is strong, he should guard it with softness and tenderness. For if there is no softness in firmness, he is not strong; in a similar way, if one has firmness concealed in softness, no one can break through his defense. This principle of moderation provides a best means of preserving oneself, for since we accept this existence of the one-ness (Yin/Yang) in everything, and do not treat ir dualistically, we thus secure a state of tranquility by remaining detached and not inclining to either extreme. Even if we do incline on one extreme, be it negative or positive, we will flow with it in order to control it. This flowing with it without clinging is the true way to get rid of it.

When the movements in Yin/Yang flow into extremes, reaction sets in. For when Yang goes to the extreme, it changes to Yin; and when Yin (activated by Yang) goes to the extreme, it returns back to Yang (that is why each is the result of and cause of the other.) For example, when one works to the extreme, he becomes tired and has to rest (Yang to Yin). After resting, he can work again (Yin back to Yang). This incessant changing of Yin/Yang is always continuous.

The application of the theory of Yin/Yang in Gung Fu is known as the Law of Harmony, in which one should be in harmony with, and not against the force of the opponent. Suppose A applies strength on B, B shouldn't oppose or give way completely to it. For these are but the two extremes opposites of B's reaction. Instead, he should complete A's force, with a lesser force, and lead him to the direction of his own movement. As the butcher preserves his knife by cutting along the bone and not against it, a Gung Fu man preserves himself by following the movement of his opponent without opposition or even striving (Wu-wai spontaneous, or spirit action). This spontaneous assisting of A's movement as he aims ir will result in his own defeat.

When a Gung Fu man finally understood the theory of Yin/Yang, he no longer "fusses" with so-called "gentleness" or "firmness"; he simply does what the moment requires him to do. In fact, all conventional forms and techniques are all gone, his movements are those of everyday movements. He doesn't to "justify" himself like so many other masters have, claiming his spirit or his internal power; to him' cultivation of martial art in the long run will return to simplicity, and only people of half-way cultivation justify and brag about themselves.

Bruce Lee

 

While this is interesting, I don't base my understanding of Scripture on any other philosophy than what is revealed by the triune God in Scripture. Maybe that's just me, but that's how I see it.

Ed

 

You prompted people to start talking about things like salt and pepper which are sometimes perceived to be the opposite, when really they are similar and compliment each other. That's exactly the yin-yang concept. But, I figured somebody would have to freak out at the mention of such a thing... hope you feel better about yourself. :thumbs:

 

Grace takes my place. Mercy restrains Judgment's hand.

 

I am not freaking out, (nor did I start the thread, in addition the only things I put forth are Biblical and/or church phrases or words) but merely stating a fact. I attempt to NOT bring in or import outside ideas into Scripture, as best I can.
And the concept of 'Yin' versus but at the same time also complementing 'Yang' is a non-Biblical idea, at best, at least IMO.

Ed

 

I understand question marks but there are none in your post that I quoted. Tell us CLEARLY what you really mean.

 

I'm a good steward of God's money. I drive a Lincoln. :wavey:

 

RE: Two sides of the Same Coin! Part One

First, I did not say or ask about "question marks", i.e. "?????" That was and is not what I'm referring to.
What I was asking was do you understand exactly what are "quotation marks" - the exact punctuation pair that surrounds the words "quotation marks", in this sentence? And yes, there were three sets in what you quoted from me.

As to the exact words I asked in my own second post, with my emphasis added here, to wit -

All emphases in this and following posts will be mine.
My first post that you quoted, in my response listing things that are similar but different, with this thread titled two sides of the same coin said this -

Your request that I make myself clear is a valid request. I have tried to do that in every post I've put forth on the BB. This one was no exception! But being as you still did not get it, apparently, I'll try one more time.

 

RE; Two Sides of the Same Coin! Part Two

Let there be NO mistake about this. I believe in repentance (noun), the 'state' that happens when one repents (verb). We are commanded to repent. God 'wants' all men to come to repentance. There are Scriptures that are virtual quotes for the last two statements I made. Jesus spoke of repentance, spoke of repent and commanded to repent. Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Apollos, Peter and John, the authors of 25 of 27 books in the NT used the words repent and/or repentance. Only James and Jude do not. So I believe in "repent", " repenting", and "repentance". Are you with me so far?? Do you follow me till now?? (If you are not or do not, I might as well be Don Quixote de la Mancha when he was 'tilting at windmills', or Sancho Panza attempting to prevent Don Quixote from making this mistake.)

Now, I will attempt to put forth what I do NOT believe (in) (and, in doing). I do not believe in forcing our own language on Biblical language. I do not believe it is proper, nor honoring to the Lord, nor does justice to Scripture when we willingly substitute "canonized rhetoric" for the words of Scripture. Nor do I believe we should attempt to define what Scripture is saying by "working 'backwards'" from our own language, in this case, from English back to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Had God wanted to have given our Scriptures in 'English', I'm sure He could have seen to it, as He certainly has that power, that English would have become the language of the world at the time the Lord Jesus walked among us, and if English is/was/had been God's preferred language, the KJVO/anti-KJVO crowd would have absolutely nothing to argue about .
He did not do this. He 'gave' us the Scriptures, first, mainly in Hebrew with a smattering of Aramaic, then in Greek. And while I am thankful that we have many and varied translations and 'versions', both good and not so good, in English, as well as many other languages, we should never lose sight of this. I have no disagreement with translating into any language, and in fact, strongly support and pray for such as New Tribes Missions and Wycliffe Bible Translators, for I should be at a loss, were there no English versions. Not attempting to be preachin' but merely laying some groundwork.