SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Workers Of Iniquity

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Depending on the depth to which we want to answer this I would offer a short answer and maybe come back and try to look at it and answer polemically. Here is my immediate thoughts:

Quote:
It is number 4. which is the point of our conversation. God will judge men according to what standard? It seems from Acts 17 that a man becomes culpable when he knows what he does.



And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:47-48)

The servant knew? Knew what? His Lord's will. How did he know and how much did he know? But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (V49) Given? What were they given? How were they given it? Did they know they were given it? Certainly, the judge of all the earth will do right.

A few questions we can tackle.


God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/17 17:03Profile
Rahman
Member



Joined: 2004/3/24
Posts: 1374


 Re:


Whoa ... Brother Robert ...

You and brother Ron don't waste any time getting into the ionosphere of a topic ... Again, way over my head, feeling dizzy, can't breath ... '0) ... i'm bowing out after this post because i got my epiphany with "In the light's" post ... Have fun with yall's further dissection! ... In the meanwhile i'll be stepping up my alarm to unrepentant sinners (saved and unsaved alike) with the manic intensity of the robot on Lost In Space, "WARNING WILL(FUL) SINNER!!! ... DANGER!!! ... DANGER"!!! ...

Oh, one last question tho ... You stated;
"Let the search for truth begin and may we prayerfully search out the fullness of the plurality of God and His majesty that we may draw near to a right representation and presentation of Him in every situation and to every people".

Other than being triune, is God a "plurality"? ... What do you mean by this, as i've always thought of God as a "singularity" in will, word, way, purpose, the same yesterday, today and forever, tho He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

i guess my problem is i see God to simplistically, as black and white, and even tho we're now under grace i still sense there's a limit as to just how far we can push that envelope of gray, especially when we've went as far as to add our own colors ...

Later,

Bro. R

 2004/11/17 18:40Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Other than being triune, is God a "plurality"? ...



Sorry brother Rahman,

God is Triune. I meant to say "the plurality of God's greatness and majesty, not the plurality of God" (Elohyim)

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/17 20:56Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Quote:
I don't disagree. Certainly we hear his answers, but don't know all the questions involved. However, surely if he was defending the Gospel we can glean a parakaleo from his didache to form a pattern of how the Gospel is kerugma.



That was a bit confusing. :-( Looks almost encrypted or something. I should have proof read it but I was in a hurry leaving.

What I mean to say is I don't disagree that Romans is doctrine (didache), but I would argue that we can glean from Romans a means to both beseech (parakaleo) sinners to turn to Christ (say in personal evangelism) and herald (kerugma) the message of salvation (in the marketplace). Paul is writing out his presentation (euangelizo) of the Gospel in written form. I have no reason to believe he could not have used this as his sermon notes. I see no indication in the opening chapter leading to verse 18 that Paul intended to do anything other than preach the Gospel. We know Paul was set for the defense of the Gospel (Philippians 1:17, etc.), but I don't see that hindering our ability to glean a strategy for preaching to the lost from his Gospel, even if it was written primarily as an apology.

If we look at Paul's common method of preaching, we find it in Acts 26:20; But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. KJV This is near to the message of John the Baptist, if not identical. If we wonder what his means of demonstrating the guilt of the sinner is, we will find it in Romans 1:18. The people hold the truth in unrighteousness. Many of them were aware of at least some of the commandments because of the Diaspora. A little Algebra, again, would be: revelation = responsibility. We are responsible for every measure of light, no matter how we obtained the rays, we have received.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/17 21:53Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2742
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
What I mean to say is I don't disagree that Romans is doctrine (didache), but I would argue that we can glean from Romans a means to both beseech (parakaleo) sinners to turn to Christ (say in personal evangelism) and herald (kerugma) the message of salvation (in the marketplace).Paul is writing out his presentation (euangelizo) of the Gospel in written form. I have no reason to believe he could not have used this as his sermon notes. I see no indication in the opening chapter leading to verse 18 that Paul intended to do anything other than preach the Gospel.



Yes, I believe this start to Romans is very relevant to this topic. Paul makes the incredible declaration of the gospel, of mecry, grace and good news in verse 16 of chapter 1; [i]For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.[/i]

And then Paul immediately launches into the context of our sorry state. Paul is saying that he's delighted to declare the good news because, [i]the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;[/i](v.18)

Paul links God's wrath directly with two words, 'ungodliness' and 'unrighteousness'. Modern man is hardly willing to accept he is unrighteous let alone godless. Modern man accpets that there are problems but doesn't believe they are moral problems. It is just here that the moral law is very valuable in bringing man's condition to light. The law pinpoints and brings sin out of its hiding place.[i] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.[/i](Romans 3:20)


In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/11/17 22:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The servant knew? Knew what? His Lord's will. How did he know and how much did he know? But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (V49) Given? What were they given? How were they given it? Did they know they were given it? Certainly, the judge of all the earth will do right.


Hi Guys
I think the key to this section is that we are dealing with servants. Servants have a responsibility to know their masters will. On occasion the Lord would say 'have ye not read'. [b]Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.[/b] (Rom 3:1-2 NASB) Ignorance of the law is no excuse when the law has been fully published. In the servants in this passage we have servants who knew and servants who ought to have known.

I know this particular reference is not to old Israel but I am using them as an example. To the servants (us) we should know. If we do know and don't do we are blameworth. If we don't know and ought to have known we are also blameworthy.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/18 3:24Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Paul is writing out his presentation (euangelizo) of the Gospel in written form. I have no reason to believe he could not have used this as his sermon notes.

Boy! I would have loved to have heard this sermon! :-? Can you imagine a street preacher using Romans as his notes? I don’t mean an occasional verse, I mean Romans. Remember the original didn't even have chapters let alone verses.

My point was that Romans was not addressed to the crowd but to the ‘converted’. It is explanation not proclamation. You will recall how the Lord only gave the explanation of the Sower parable to his disciples. Romans is ‘mystery’ revealed for the saints. I’m not saying that we can’t use Romans in our evangelisation but just that like most of the scriptures it was a targeted mail shot and the target group is Christians.

Quote:
I see no indication in the opening chapter leading to verse 18 that Paul intended to do anything other than preach the Gospel.

Well he was looking forward to visiting Rome so that he could preach the gospel and although this is the gospel according to Paul it is not at all like the street preaching he would have done in Athens. It is probably much more like the ‘dialogue-ing’ he did in the school of Tyrranus and in the synagogues.

Quote:
If we look at Paul's common method of preaching, we find it in Acts 26:20; But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Clearly the Gentiles were ‘commanded to repent’ as we see in Athens in Acts 17. That is not my question. My question is did he use the Law to induce repentance? [b] Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. [/b] (2Co 4:1-2 KJV) All men have conscience but not all men have the Law.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/18 3:40Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Paul links God's wrath directly with two words, 'ungodliness' and 'unrighteousness'. Modern man is hardly willing to accept he is unrighteous let alone godless. Modern man accpets that there are problems but doesn't believe they are moral problems. It is just here that the moral law is very valuable in bringing man's condition to light. The law pinpoints and brings sin out of its hiding place. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.(Romans 3:20)


Hi Guys
I've just realised that there are two another questions lurking behind the one we are asking.
What is the Law?
To whom is the Law given?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/18 3:45Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro Ron, (Philologos)

Quote:
Boy! I would have loved to have heard this sermon! Can you imagine a street preacher using Romans as his notes? I don’t mean an occasional verse, I mean Romans.



Of coarse Paul had been known for lengthy sermons (Acts 20:9). I’m sure he would have never made it far into the message before he took another stoning or beating in the streets. Reminds me of Richard Wurmbrand when he told of being beaten in prison for preaching and then being thrown back into the cell only to exclaim; “Now where was I?” The synagogues wouldn’t have been much better. People were prepared to swear oaths to the death to kill the man. What was it? Was it his mean looks? It was his message. Certainly not all of it would be included, but the basic content would have. And certainly I’m not referring merely to the Roman’s Road passages. That is a gross over simplification of the message, in my opinion.


Quote:
Well he was looking forward to visiting Rome so that he could preach the gospel and although this is the gospel according to Paul it is not at all like the street preaching he would have done in Athens. It is probably much more like the ‘dialogue-ing’ he did in the school of Tyrranus and in the synagogues.



True. On the streets, as in the various schools, I am sure he would be leaning on the Holy Spirit for direction. With all of the gifts of the Spirit at his disposal he was probably calling out peoples sins like Jesus with the woman at the well. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. (I Corinthians 14:25 KJV)

I think we need to realize that Paul was operating at a very different level than we are today. The Apostles watched people fall dead at their feet and be smitten with blindness at their command. He told the Corinthians that he would not know the speech of the puffed up ones, but the dunamis. He used not enticing words of mens wisdom; 'I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of men's wisdom but in a demonstration of the Spirit and power'.


Quote:
My question is did he use the Law to induce repentance?



I would say he used whatever the Holy Ghost quickened in his mind under the circumstances. He may not have consciously even known that what he was sharing was piercing peoples hearts, and that the Holy Spirit was convincing the people of sin. I have had this happen to me before as I was teaching. People though I was preaching at them, when I was only sharing what the Lord placed on my heart to say.

I think I would concur that the Law of Moses would be of limited use. The 10 Commandments are pretty standard rules of right and wrong as revealed in the conscience. Men knew lying is wrong and murder is wrong and stealing is wrong, etc.

I found an interesting quote last night in George Foxes autobiography. it deals with when he came to America.

And truly his opposing us was of good service, giving occasion for the opening of many things to the people concerning the Light and Spirit of God, which he denied to be in everyone; and affirmed that it was not in the Indians.

Whereupon I called an Indian to us, and asked him whether when he lied, or did wrong to any one, there was not something in him that reproved him for it. He said there was such a thing in him, that did so reprove him; and he was ashamed when he had done wrong, or spoken wrong. So we shamed the doctor before the Governor and the people; insomuch that the poor man ran out so far that at length he would not own the Scriptures.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/18 8:20Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Robert

Quote:
Ron’sQuote:
My question is did he use the Law to induce repentance?

Robert’s quote:
I would say he used whatever the Holy Ghost quickened in his mind under the circumstances. He may not have consciously even known that what he was sharing was piercing peoples hearts, and that the Holy Spirit was convincing the people of sin. I have had this happen to me before as I was teaching. People though I was preaching at them, when I was only sharing what the Lord placed on my heart to say.

I think I would concur that the Law of Moses would be of limited use. The 10 Commandments are pretty standard rules of right and wrong as revealed in the conscience. Men knew lying is wrong and murder is wrong and stealing is wrong, etc.

This is my question restated. I am not questioning the Lord’s right to commission His servants to preach as He wills, or to use the law of Moses or a Poem of Aratus. I am not questioning any man’s inspiration, only their methodology, and especially when that methodology is laid down as [i][b]THE[/b][/i] methodology..

Ps. I love your Fox quotation.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/18 9:11Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy