Saw This Link By Beameup And I Dont Understand It

[No Nicolaitans]

1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Brother "NN", I have to admit, this is the first time anyone ever suggested I have said something which sounded "calvinistic", there's a first time for everything, lol.
Rather than "calvinistic", I believe what I said (about the Holy Spirit leading/guiding) is Biblical.

If the Holy Spirit causes us to do things pleasing to God (which is how I interpreted what you said), that sounds Calvinistic to me. I'm not saying you're a Calvinist...I'm just saying that if our actions are determined by God, that's Calvinistic. I don't know maybe it's "Determinism". Whatever the case, it removes freewill.

Look at all of those verses that you posted again; none of them say that the Holy Spirit leads and guides our actions.

He will lead us into truth; therefore, he will convict us of what is right (and wrong) to do, but what we do is up to us. The new nature that we receive wants to do what pleases God.

[Jim_Alaska]

Nothing Calvinistic about being led by The Spirit (Holy Spirit)  Especially since the war between the new nature and the old still rages on. If a Christian "walks after the Spirit" then it stands to reason that they are led and guided by that same Spirit.

Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 
 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 
 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 
 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 Rom. 8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 

[John81]

Yes, but to be led by the Holy Spirit requires our willingness to follow, which is the point NN seems to be making. The Holy Spirit will lead us, if we allow Him to, but the Holy Spirit doesn't force us to follow Him. I think that's the distinction.

[No Nicolaitans]

Okay. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. What I interpreted from Ronda was that the Holy Spirit causes us to do things pleasing to God. If I misinterpreted what she was saying, I apologize.

[MountainChristian]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 10:11 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Concerning Genesis 3:15

1.  ". . . And her seed" - A child born of a woman, apart from a man's seed.

2.  "It shall bruise thy head." - The destruction of that old Serpent, the Devil, by the work of the woman's Seed."

3.  "And thou shalt bruise his heel." - The death of the woman's Seed."

Somehow from those verses Job said,

Job 19:25-27 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

so where did Job get the doctrine of the resurrection? We can see God is going to come and stomp Satan, but Job knew dead people was gong to be raised with some kind of new flesh!  

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

16 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Somehow from those verses Job said,

Job 19:25-27 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

so where did Job get the doctrine of the resurrection? We can see God is going to come and stomp Satan, but Job knew dead people was gong to be raised with some kind of new flesh!  

 

Concerning Job 19:25-27

1.  "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth." - An everlasting Redeemer.

2.  "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." - A bodily resurrection.

3.  "Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." - A personal salvation and an eternal redemption. 

Also consider the preaching of Enoch - Jude 1:14-15

1.  "Behold, the Lord cometh . . . to execute judgment upon all . . . ." - A coming judgment before the Lord.

2.  "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints . . . ." - An eternal salvation for sinners.

[John81]

The OT saints knew much more than we often give them credit for.

[wretched]

1 hour ago, John81 said:

The OT saints knew much more than we often give them credit for.

Howdy John,

IMO this might be true but only assuming that God revealed more to them than what He told them to write.

It is clear that the general picture of the Gospel was given, IE a kinsman redeemer suffering for the sins of Israel to redeem them back to God. However it was revealed (as far as we can possibly know) in small pieces to the prophets (none of which got the whole generalized picture) over 10 to 100+ years apart from each other. With absolutely no details provided in any way.

IMO we err when we try to put our hindsight glasses on the OT prophets or anyone else in the OT. There is a reason why God did it the way He did, I recommend folks stop second guessing Him.

What saved them is that they believed God no matter what He said to them. In addition, He audibly told them much of the OT and showed signs and wonders through visions, dreams, Angels and even He Himself.

The works based justification nonsense aside. There were still differences in how God dealt and will deal with us between the OT ages, the Gospels, now and the future

 

[Ronda]

11 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

If the Holy Spirit causes us to do things pleasing to God (which is how I interpreted what you said)

 

12 hours ago, Ronda said:

We still have free will (otherwise there would have been no need to say "grieve not the holy Spirit of God"), when we choose (by free will) to go against what the Holy Spirit is guiding/leading us to do it grieves the Holy Spirit. 

I never said, nor did I mean to even insinuate that the Holy Spirit causes or in any way forces us to do things pleasing to God. It is more of a leading/guiding and drawing us towards good and away from evil. The free will is still ours to CHOOSE whether to do what's right or what's wrong. 

[John81]

10 hours ago, wretched said:

Howdy John,

IMO this might be true but only assuming that God revealed more to them than what He told them to write.

It is clear that the general picture of the Gospel was given, IE a kinsman redeemer suffering for the sins of Israel to redeem them back to God. However it was revealed (as far as we can possibly know) in small pieces to the prophets (none of which got the whole generalized picture) over 10 to 100+ years apart from each other. With absolutely no details provided in any way.

IMO we err when we try to put our hindsight glasses on the OT prophets or anyone else in the OT. There is a reason why God did it the way He did, I recommend folks stop second guessing Him.

What saved them is that they believed God no matter what He said to them. In addition, He audibly told them much of the OT and showed signs and wonders through visions, dreams, Angels and even He Himself.

The works based justification nonsense aside. There were still differences in how God dealt and will deal with us between the OT ages, the Gospels, now and the future

 

Indeed things were different in how the Lord dealt with the people but salvation has always been through faith, as you and others have rightly pointed out.

I don't believe the OT saints knew all we know, but they did know God was sending a Redeemer, they were looking for the coming Messiah, Christ. They knew they could trust God with their lives on earth and their lives after death and that faith in God was what was required, not sacrifice or works.

[Ronda]

On 3/2/2016 at 10:04 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

No.  I was not attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage. 

So it means physical life/death in this passage (according to you) AND then you deny you said it. This coming from a pastor is very upsetting. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Ronda
spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 10:04 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

No.  I was not attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage. 

25 minutes ago, Ronda said:

So it means physical life/death in this passage (according to you) AND then you deny you said it. This coming from a pastor is very upsetting. 

That is not correct.  Please follow the grammar of my sentence.  It appears that you took my above statement as if it read the following -- I was NOT attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but [I WAS attempting to indicate] that it means "physical life/death" in this passage. 

However, such is NOT what I actually said.  Grammatically, in my actual statement both "that" phrases are modifiers for the infinitive "to indicate," wherein they serve as a compound direct object for the verbal "to indicate."  Grammatically, in my actual statement the infinitive "to indicate" initiates an infinitive phrase, in which is included the entire rest of the sentence, and which serves as the direct object for the main verb of my statement "was attempting."  Grammatically, in my actual statement that main verb of my statement "was attempting" is negated by the adverb "not."

Main statement -- I was NOT attempting to indicate . . .

That which I was NOT attempting to indicate -- That "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage.

EVERYTHING that I presented following the word "that" is what I was denying as my attempted indication. Therefore,

1.  I was NOT attempting to indicate -- that "soul" does not mean "soul."

And

2.  I was NOT attempting to indicate -- that "soul" means "physical life/death" in this passage.

[Ronda]

Sir, As per your apology in regard to tone. Apology accepted. 

I will agree that #1 you may not have been saying that soul does not mean soul

However, I respectfully disagree with #2, as the word in the verse is "soul" and as such you stated this descriptive:

4 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

it means "physical life/death" in this passage

I again accept your apology. However I still do not agree in full. Hopefully we can agree to disagree. I do not care to continue this discussion, unless you want to pursue it further in which case I will likely answer for myself if I feel compelled.  I understand that you do not interpret scripture the same way I do...We both believe we are taking the scripture literally.  I can agree to disagree, but as always, I cannot agree with something I do not in fact agree with (as I would not expect you to either). However, I do hope we can regain/return to the civil, mostly respectful manners in which we addressed each other before. Thank you again for your courteous discussion.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

23 minutes ago, Ronda said:

I will agree that #1 you may not have been saying that soul does not mean soul

However, I respectfully disagree with #2, as the word in the verse is "soul" and as such you stated this descriptive:

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 10:04 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

it means "physical life/death" in this passage.

 

Sister Ronda,

It is not legitimate for you to remove a portion of my statement out of the grammatical context of its own sentence in order to make me say something different than I actually said.  Is you above quotation of me accurate as to the wording?  Yes.  Is that quotation of me accurate as to the entire sentence?  No.  For the entire sentence was as follows:

I was not attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage. 

It appears that you are simply unable to understand the grammatical construction of that sentence, even though I attempted to explain it above.  Please remember that it is very likely that I would know better than you would know, what I was seeking to communicate with MY OWN sentence.  So then, such is the grammar of my statement:

1.  "I was not attempting . . . ."

2.  What was I NOT attempting?  ". . . to indicate . . . ."

3.  What was I NOT attempting to indicate?  ". . . that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage."  (By the grammatical construction of the sentence, this entire portion is what I was DENYING.)

When above you quoted just the phrase, "it means 'physical life/death' in the passage," you chose to interpret it OUT OF its grammatical context.  Even so, you came to a false interpretation of what I said, by which you then attempted to tell me what I myself meant.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Bro. Markle,

I agree (unless I am misunderstanding your above post) that the wording "that 'soul' .............. 'death' in this passage" is to be taken together as a single thought. Please remember, however, that most people tend to read as they think (or as they speak). This causes a natural tendency to insert an assumptive phrase as follows: "...but  [I am saying] that it means ..." (italicized insertion is that added thought).

Though such misrepresentation is sometimes intentional, many times it is unintended.

 

I know that may have been as clear as mud, I hope not.