Theosis

Well. that is classic meaning of being omniscient and existing outside of time.

With all other things, while we can learn apostle Paul to be very liberal and general with the non-essentials thing, it is still a frustration to the God's New Testament
economy.

The decision made by the conference of the apostles and elders in Acts 15 to solve the problem concerning circumcision was not fully satisfactory to him. Therefore, in going to Jerusalem, Paul might have intended to clear up the Judaic influence on the church there. However, God had His own way to deal with the situation. In His sovereignty He allowed Paul to be arrested by the Jews and imprisoned by the Romans. He then allowed the terrible mixture of the grace with the law in Jerusalem to remain until the city was destroyed by Titus with his Roman army in A.D. 70. That mixture was terminated approximately ten years after the events recorded in Acts 21. It is with this, the Jewish mixture lost its influences as time goes.

Secondly, the Lord knew what was in Paul’s heart. He also knew that Paul was faithful but was not able to help the situation. Instead of helping it, Paul was trapped in it by compromising with it. However, the Lord used the uproar described in 21:27-23:15 to rescue Paul. The Jews seized him and were seeking to kill him (21:30-31). But a commander of the Roman cohort intervened, laid hold of him, ordered him to be bound with chains, and inquired concerning the situation (21:31-33).

In His sovereignty the Lord caused Paul to have a dispensational transfer. Paul was in favor of such a transfer. He came to Jerusalem with the positive intention and strong purpose to help the believers there to experience this dispensational transfer. However, instead of helping them, he himself was eventually trapped in a situation of mixture and compromise. If Paul would have gone with the Nazarite ritual, it will invalide everything he said. Thus his imprisonment was of the Lord's soverighty in rescuing him.

This post has been edited by pehkay: Oct 11 2019, 05:08 PM

IMO, I think we are too set with the parable as if the Lord Jesus wants us to love our neighbor as ourself. That reading is too natural with our common ethical thoughts. XD

We just have to accept the twofold was of the truth and its mysteries. There is no way to systematize the truth.

You have verses like these on God’s sovereignty:


“Lydia…whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul” (Acts 16:14).

“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

“God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13).

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).



And man’s responsibility and free will:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed” (Acts 17:11, 12).

“Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40).

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:38, 40).

“Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish” (Acts 13:40, 41).

But the best is this:

Acts 2:23: This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you [we are responsible], with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Scripture affirms that God foreknows human actions as aspects of his plan; while these actions are certain as to their future occurrence, human beings are nonetheless ethically responsible for their personal actions.

We just have to be simple and amen His word.

This post has been edited by pehkay: Oct 19 2019, 07:28 PM

Yes we can . We can answer this in 2 ways:

First way

First, salvation is not merely regeneration. It encompasses our entire Christian life from regeneration to glorification.

According to the Scriptures, there are three aspects of justification. We can cover 2 for this post. The first aspect is before God, which we obtained when we believe. In other words, once we are saved, we are justified, or we may say that once we are justified, we are saved, since God’s salvation includes justification. A justified person is a saved person (Rom 3:24, Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20 etc).

Second aspect of justification, the Bible shows that the second aspect of justification is before men - after salvation. We obtain this gradually after we are saved.

1. “A man is justified by works” (James 2:24).

When we were saved, the justification we obtained before God was by faith and had nothing to do with works. But after we are saved, our justification before men is by works, not by faith. Faith caused us to be justified by God at the time of our salvation; works cause us to be justified by men after our salvation.

2. “Let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works” (Matt. 5:16).
3. “We exercise foresight for what is honorable not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men” (2 Cor. 8:21).
We should exercise foresight for what is honorable in the sight of men in order to match our justified status. Otherwise, even though we may be justified before God, we will not appear to be justified before men.

4. “He who serves Christ in this is well pleasing to God and approved by men” (Rom. 14:18).

Second way

Not so recent Finnish scholarship on Luther's writing -> Christ is present in faith.

Justification by faith is not merely forensic but involving a union of the divine life. It is not something that we are convinced of in our mind; it is something that we receive when we are joined to the Lord as one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). When the living Christ indwells us, His faith becomes our faith. We believe because He is faithful, and He cannot deny Himself in us (2 Tim. 2:13). In our organic union with Him, His faith becomes our faith, and our faith is His faith.

The Christ who is preached to us is infused into us through the word of the gospel. Rather it is the apprehended reality of what is preached; Faith comes from hearing the word of Christ, and this word is not simply about Christ but that which bears Christ into us. The ability to believe that is infused into us (work) is actually Christ as our faith.

This faith is the faith of Jesus Christ in us, which has become the faith by which we believe in Him, as in Rom 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph. 3:12; and Phil. 3:9. This can only be understood in the union of Christ as faith. It is He who justifies but the abitily to believe out of free will is an operation of his Person as faith infused into us. And tis is faith is in us that God justifies us.

It is a mystery. The twofoldness can only be experienced in the mysterious union with Christ in the Spirit.

This post has been edited by pehkay: Oct 19 2019, 10:17 PM

Ah haha this is a prickly subject. Personally, I don't have burden to discuss secondary truths in that (sadly) stirs up believers to fight over secondary things ... which is pretty not profitable. So I will keep it short (not sure if I can) and direct us all to the central things.

Firstly, (I am a minority) the clergy-laity system is a degraded system that we inherited ever since. God's original intention was for all His people to be His priests. God had no intention of separating His people from His priests. He wanted the whole nation to be a kingdom of priests. God's people and God's priests should have been one. This is clearly seen in Numbers 11:29 where Moses exclaimed, "Oh that all Jehovah's people were prophets, that Jehovah would put His Spirit upon them!". This prophecy was promoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians and will be fulfilled in God's New Testament economy.

But because of Israel's failure, the functions went to the tribe of Levi only but this is not what God desires. But with the coming of the New Testament age, we find salvation and redemption reaching all men. Now we hear the word: "You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5).

In 1 Peter 2:4-7, we have become the living stones and are joined and built up to become a spiritual house. We also have become a holy priesthood to God. It is as if a voice from heaven burst forth announcing, "All who are saved are now God's priests. All the living stones, those who are part of the spiritual house, are now priests of God."

Right then a promise which had been set aside for fifteen hundred years was recovered by God. What the Israelites lost has been recovered by the church. The universal priesthood was lost to Israel. In the New Testament age, it is as if a voice from heaven bursts forth with the promise that the universal priesthood is with us once more. All the saved ones are called to be priests. We can all pray, sing, preach, shepherd, teach .... we all have a functions as members in the Body.

This at least covers on the matter of pastor thingy.

Regarding sisters ...

In the church meetings the sisters should be silent in giving teachings. First Corinthians 14:33b-35 says, "As in all the churches of the saints, let the women be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but let them be subject, as the law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." The phrase "in the churches" means in the meetings of the church. According to 11:5, women can prophesy (of course, in public) with their head covered, and Acts 2:17 and 18 and 21:9 confirm that there were women prophesying (speaking for God and forth God). But in 1 Timothy 2:12 women are not permitted to teach, that is, to teach as an authority (there teaching is related to the exercising of authority), defining doctrine. Hence, according to the New Testament principle, for women not to be permitted to speak in the church meetings means that women are not permitted to teach with authority concerning the defining of doctrine. In this sense they should be kept silent in the church meetings. They are not permitted to speak because they should be subject to man.

I would like to consider this subject from a much broader perspective (perhaps not addressing this matter directly). There are two systems of God in the universe.

A. The System of Grace

The church, our salvation, the brother-sister relationship in the Lord, and our being God's children—these are all items within the system of God's grace. Everything related to the church, the Holy Spirit, and redemption belongs to the system of grace. The centurion and the Syrophoenician woman both received grace from God. Peter received grace, and so did Mary. Lazarus could be resurrected, and Martha and Mary could serve. In the system of grace, man and woman are placed on equal footing. We are all sons of God in the divine life. We are all females as the Bride of Christ.

B. The System of Government

There is another system in the Bible which we call God's government. This system of government is altogether different from the system of grace. The system of God's government is separate from the system of grace; it is another system altogether. In this system, God operates according to His own pleasure. This is regards to creation of man first, woman second. The order is according to His government. Man's food before the flood is fruits and after the flood, meat. This is government as well. More can be said for many other things.

We see both aspects of God's work being present at the same time. The system of God's grace continued to operate in the world. At the same time, the system of His government also operated. The priests and the prophets belonged to the side of grace; they maintained the system of grace. The kings and the leaders of the Israelites belonged to the side of God's government; they maintained the system of God's government.

On the one hand, when the Lord Jesus was on earth, He was the Savior to deliver men from sin. This was His work under the system of grace. On the other hand, God's desire is for the Lord Jesus to establish His authority and heavenly kingdom through the work of the cross, with the result that heaven's reign will be brought to the earth.

The significance of head covering is that one puts himself under God's government; he acknowledges this position. He would never annul God's government just because he has received His grace. He would not even allow such a thought to come into him. He would, on the contrary, acknowledge God's government. Just as Christ accepted God as His Head, so also every man should accept Christ as his Head. In like manner, the woman should accept the man as her representative head. Head covering means that one covers his head as if he had no head.

(More can be said)
--------

Regarding Deborah, the people of Israel had never had a female leader. Then, suddenly, God raised up a female judge. Whenever God does something which stands out as being extraordinary, it is very significant. It indicates, first, man’s failure, and then, God’s excellent act. At the time of Judges 4, all the men of Israel had failed, so God raised up a woman. That raising up of a female changed the entire condition of Israel.

In God's governement, a proper female indicates one who is in submission to God, one who keeps God’s ordination. This is the position that Israel should have taken before God, but the situation in Israel had become fully abnormal. The men had left their position before Jehovah. Hence, Israel violated God’s ordination, leaving her position as God’s wife and forsaking Him for hundreds of idols. This brought Israel into a miserable situation and condition.

According to God’s creation, Deborah was a very capable person. By reading her song in chapter five, we can see that she was full of ability, capacity, insight, and foresight. But such an excellent person was very submissive. God made her the leader, yet she kept the proper order and took Barak as her covering (4:6-9).



She realized that she needed a man to be her covering. Actually, Barak did nearly nothing, yet Deborah took him as her "head covering." When she took this kind of standing, the whole nation became different. In their miserable situation no one would take the lead to fight for Jehovah’s interest, and no one would be willing to follow. But when this excellent, extraordinary woman took the lead to practice the female submission to the man, the entire country came into the proper order. Everyone returned to his or her proper position.

This post has been edited by pehkay: Oct 20 2019, 09:36 AM

It is much more than just that .... It expresses a profound principle. Again, wearing it out of habit or culture is as bad as well. There must be spiritual reality behind the outward practice.

For the sisters to cover their heads means that they take the position Christ takes before God and the position every man takes before Christ. God's intention is for women to cover their heads as an expression of His government on earth. He asks only the women to cover their heads. A woman does not cover her head for her own sake but for the sake of representation.

A woman covers her head for herself, because she is a woman. She also covers her head as a representative, because she represents every man, and she also represents Christ. A woman represents every man before Christ. She also represents Christ before God. The woman's covering before God is equal to Christ's covering before God. In the same way, the woman's covering before Christ is equal to every man's covering before Christ.

First Corinthians 11:6 states it is for the sake of the angels. The unique controversy in the universe is because there is one who rebelled against God's authority, thus creating a principle of rebellien - the denial of God's authority.

When we have the sign of submission on our head, that is, when we cover our head, we are rendering the best testimony to the fallen angels. Head covering puts Satan to shame. We are doing what he did not do before God. What God did not obtain among the angels, He has obtained in the church.

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

I guess one must see a revelation (spiritual unveiling), that it is never about man's need or woman's rights or sinner's salvation, etc but rather God's need (it's never about you ). From the very beginning, God has been trying to usher in His governmental system. He will continue this work until the very end. Grace always goes along with government. Because man fought and rebelled against the system of government, the system of grace was brought in. The system of grace brings us to salvation and restoration so that we will obey God's system of government. Grace is given to supplement God's system of government. The system of grace perfects the system of government. The system of government is not for the system of grace; rather, the system of grace is here to perfect the system of government.

It is not an either or.

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of [a]the Lamb, 2 in the midst of the street thereof. The divine life flowing out (The Triune God flowing Himself into us as life for our enjoyment - grace - is from the throne (authority or government). Authority is just God Himself (issues out for His God's own being). It is meaningful that in Greek, authority... is εξουσία - ek = out of ; ousia - essense of God.

On that day (new heaven and new earth), both systems will become one.

I think .... it depends on the definition of sin when discussing. Now most believers will always associate sin with moral sin in which, is just one of the aspect, then no, it is not sinful in that way.

In the Old Testament God instituted marriage before sin came into the world. In the New Testament, Paul said that marriage not only is allowed but also is a necessity because of the presence of sin (1 Cor. 7).

Marriage can prevent sin. This is why Paul said that men should have their own wives and women should have their own husbands. This is to prevent the sin of fornication (v. 2).

According to principle in 1 Cor 7, we can say that the best thing for a brother to do is to marry a sister in the Lord. If it is not possible to do this, it is best if he does not marry at all. However, if he must marry, we still would be happy to see him marry. Even if the other party is an unbeliever, we still would like to see him marry.

This is not a dogma ... but the praticality of it ... IMHO .... er ...

IMHO (I could be wrong but be general), I would rather see a person commit a sin against God's government (lawlessness - you can say) rather than a moral sin. If by not marrying I fall into sin, I commit a moral sin. If I marry an unbelieving woman, I commit a sin against God's government.

He or she should realize that serious problems lie ahead. It is particularly hard for a believer to marry an unbeliever. Problems come when one decided to be absolute for the Lord ... then, the differing goals will conflicts. XD


But this is not a hammer to throw around ......... XD

Your question ah? Why so weird one?


You want ”Strengthen your resilient Faith in God the Father in Christ as the Spirit.” ?

I think from academic point of view: there is a good reference: The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity.

Here are the list of scholars who present from Judaism to Greco-roman to early Christianity.




Basically, this selection of papers allows us to conclude that the Name of God and its revelation to Moses constitute a major theme which runs from the book of Exodus through the Old Testament, early Judaism, and early Christianity. It also attracted pagan philosophical interest, both positive and negative. One of the most important results to emerge from this volume is the insight that the Name of God was not only perceived from an insider’s perspective, but also provoked a reaction from outsiders. The combined perspectives show the fundamental importance of the divine Name for the formation of Jewish and Christian identities.

Even the critics from the Greco-roman world knew and assumed that is what the early Jewish believes.

1) The classical world e.g. te philosopher Pythagoras dependent on the mysteries of Moses-Mochos, and characterized Moses’ God, in an ontological way, as ‘He who is’, as ‘the noetic light’, and ‘the highest God’. These authors considered him unnameable and invisible, called him the ‘one true God’, ‘He who is above the seven celestial spheres, i.e. the creator’, and named him1 not only ‘Iao’ (Greek for ‘Yahweh’) and ‘Sabaoth’ but also ‘Dionysus’ and ‘Jupiter Sabazius’.

2) Greek philosopher Numenius of Apemea shows Moses holds a special status as a Platonist avant la lettre, and that the episode of the revelation of God’s Name as ‘Being’ (ontology).

3) Numenius, a Platonist philosopher, has positive evaluation of Moses, the Jews and their God contrasts sharply with the attack by another second-century ce Platonist, Celsus, on the Christian Origen. This issue is treated in a
Whereas Numenius considers the Jews to stand out from the other peoples who claim to possess age-old wisdom, Celsus criticizes the Jews and the Christians for claiming a monopoly in this. He argues ‘that the Jews and the Christians were wrong not to worship Zeus, for this
is in fact the same god as theirs, be it that the Greeks just happen to call him differently.’

The Greeks knew what the Jewish was talking about.

It is no surprise that in this Gospel of John, Jesus is presented as the Old Testament Kyrios, YHWH.

I end with this quote on John:

First of all, Jesus’ I am-sayings allude to the Old Testament name of God. Like many other exegetes, David Mark Ball associates these sayings not in the first place with Exod 3:14 LXX (§g≈ efimi ı vÖn), but predominantly with Deutero-Isaiah (cf. also Lietaert Peerbolte, this vol., §4 on the Deutero-Isaian background of Phil 2:9), where yna, awhAyna, and awh ykna frequently occur as sayings of YHWH, which were translated in the Septuagint as §g≈ efimi. 14 We will look at some of the I am-sayings in the Gospel of John.

In John 6:20 Jesus says, when he walks on the water and a strong wind was blowing: §g≈ efimi: mØ fobe›sye. 15 Ball points to several Old Testament texts where YHWH combines the very same expressions, ‘I am’ and ‘do not be afraid’ (Gen 26:24; 46:3; Jer 1:8; 1:17; 26:28 LXX = 46:28 MT; 49:11 LXX = 42:11 MT).16 One might add that the story that Jesus walks on the water also corresponds with YHWH trampling the waves of the sea, according to Job 9:8 and Ps 89:10.

In John 8:12 Jesus says: ‘I am the light of the world’. Thus the evangelist identifies him with the Logos in the Prologue, who is called the light of men ( John 1:4–9).17 In the Old Testament YHWH is repeatedly called the light (Exod 13:21–22; Ps 27:1; Isa 60:1; 60:19).

In John 8:18, 24, and 28 Jesus again says §g≈ efimi; in vv. 24 and 28 it is used without predicate. Ball interprets these texts as allusions to words of YHWH in Deutero-Isaiah (43:10; 43:25; 52:6).18

In John 8:56–58 Jesus refers to Abraham who rejoiced to see ‘my day’, after which he says: ‘before Abraham was, I am’. The day that Abraham saw may be interpreted with regard to the three angels, one of whom was YHWH, who visited Abraham and Sarah (Gen 18:1–15),19 but the day of Jesus has also been identified as the eschatological day of YHWH.20 In the commentaries Abraham’s vision of Jesus’ day in John 8:56 is often related to Isaiah’s temple vision of Jesus ( John 12:40–41), but it must be admitted that the purport of John 8:56 is less precise.21 In any case, in John 8:58 Jesus clearly alludes to his pre-existence. Since §g≈ efimi occurred in John 8 several times already, and since these words could be interpreted as references to YHWH, it may be assumed that in John 8:58 as well
the Johannine Jesus alludes to his essential nature.2

John 10:11, ‘I am the good shepherd’, refers among other texts to Ezek 34, where YHWH is the shepherd who will take care of his people (Ezek 34:12–22; 34:31; only in 34:23 the shepherd is David). Some other texts that depict YHWH as a shepherd are Pss 23:1–4; 79:13; 80:1; Isa 40:11.23

In John 18:5–6 Jesus’ twofold saying ‘I am’, without predicate, was so impressive that those who had come to arrest him drew back and fell to the ground. This looks like a theophany. In John 18:8 Jesus confirms his ‘I am’ for the third time.2

Ball concludes from these and other texts in the Fourth Gospel that by the application of §g≈ efimi to the Johannine Jesus, an identification with the words and salvation of the God of DeuteroIsaiah, i.e. YHWH, is implied.25



Urk, the quotes are hard to copy paste. But the point is clear. Cheers!

That you have to cautious not to mis-represent the Christian view.

There is a need to understand and research on the essential and economical Trinity, though, this is more of a "cream" understanding of the text.

The Biblical text is clear.

On the one hand, the Father did not die on the cross but the Son did.

But due to coinherence and co-existing and co-working of the Trinity in each of the manifested hypostasis, we can say that God also died on the cross (Acts 20:28 - due to Christ's humanity).

Yet, we cannot say the Father died but only the Son.


That is the simplest that I can say.

This post has been edited by pehkay: Mar 20 2020, 09:56 AM

I felt this analogy is quite deficient. Ever heard of Docetism? One of the heresy?

One of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.

This is hard because there is no known analogy that can describe this. We just have to clear of the nuances and subteties as presented in the Scripture and those before us.

Firstly, we have to be clear what is coinherence. Coinherence refers to the mutual indwelling of the three of the Divine Trinity. In the Gospel of John the Lord repeatedly told His disciples that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10, 20; 17:21, 23). The coinhering oneness of the Divine Trinity is fundamental to understanding how the Father, the Son, and the Spirit can be one God. The coinherence of the Divine Trinity is beyond illustration, as it has no example in the physical universe. Even more, it is beyond the ability of man-made systems of logic to explain. It is the greatest mystery concerning the Triune God and shatters all attempts to neatly explain the Trinity.

This is one of the "architecture" of the Triune God.

The coinherence of the three of the Divine Trinity is eternal and immutable. It did not cease when the Son of God became a man through incarnation, nor was it limited to the brief time when the Son lived on earth in His humanity. The Bible tells us that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily (Col.
2:9) and that He was God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16) and was God with us (Matt. 1:23). It does not say that the fullness of one-third of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily, nor does it say that one-third of God was manifested in the flesh or that He was one-third of God with us.

What does this mean is:

This oneness of essence explains the fact that, while Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as respects their personality, are distinct subsistences, there is an intercommunion of persons and an immanence of one divine person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed …to either of
the other, and the manifestation of one to be recognized in the manifestation of the other. I think this quote is from Strong.

The persons of the Holy Trinity are not separable individuals. Each involves the others; the coming of each is the coming of the others. So, the coming of the Spirit must have involved the coming of the Son.

1) We must be careful to avoid understanding that the Father (or the Spirit) was the subject of the suffering in the death of Christ,

2) but we must be equally careful to avoid understanding that the Son was separate from the Father and the Spirit in the crucifixion.

What we must maintain is that in the visible death of Christ the three of the Trinity operated so as to make manifest the distinct activity of the Son on the cross. It was indeed the Son whom we should identify as the subject of the death of the God-man (even though we confess that God Himself does not die!), but we must hold at the same time the realization that the Father and the Spirit were also in operation and that the operation of the three made the distinct action of the Son possible.

Thomas F. Torrance, an esteemed Scottish reformed theologian, also said the same things to the involvement of the entire Triune God in the work of redemption:




This is why Paul can say: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood (Acts 20:28)

This post has been edited by pehkay: Mar 21 2020, 08:06 AM

Try to read my last two posts slowly.

I can put it in another way:

The God who died for us is not the God before incarnation. Prior to incarnation, God certainly did not have blood, and He could not have died for us. It was after the incarnation, in which God was mingled with humanity, that He died for us. Through incarnation, our God, the Creator, the eternal One, Jehovah, became mingled with man. As a result, He was no longer only God, He became a God-man. As the God-man, He surely had blood and was able to die for us

When the God-man died on the cross, He died not only as man but also as God. The One who died on the cross was the One who had been conceived of God and born with God. Because He was a God-man, the very element of God was in Him. The divine element was mingled with His humanity.

In the conception of the Lord Jesus, the God-man, the divine essence out of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18-20; Luke 1:35) was generated in Mary's womb. Such a conception of the Holy Spirit in the human virgin, accomplished with both the divine and human essences, constituted a mingling of the divine nature with the human nature and produced the God-man, One who is both the complete God and a perfect man, possessing the divine nature and the human nature distinctively, without a third nature being produced. This is the most wonderful and excellent person of Jesus.

The conception and birth of the Lord Jesus was God’s incarnation (John 1:14), constituted of the divine essence added to the human essence, hence, producing the God-man of two natures - divinity and humanity. Through this, God joined Himself to humanity that He might be manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16) and might be the Savior (Luke 2:11) who died and shed His blood for us.

Now that is the awesome good news ~~~

Well, the four horses has been running since the Lord's ascension .... it will be intensified.

True, it can be always two-sided .... The Greek word is the same for both temptation and test. With God it is a test; with the enemy it is a temptation. When we pass through the temptation of the enemy, we pass through the test of God to be approved by God ...

Just to add that in recent years, there is a small shift ...definitely a small group of understanding toward righteousness by participation in Christ's in justication

If those who are interested ...

In Christ Present in Faith: Luther's View of Justification, Tuomo Mannermaa speaks of this reality:



In other words, justification by faith is not merely forensic but involving a union of the divine life. It is not something that we are convinced of in our mind; it is something that we receive when we are joined to the Lord as one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). When the living Christ indwells us, His faith becomes our faith. We believe because He is faithful, and He cannot deny Himself in us (2 Tim. 2:13). In our organic union with Him, His faith becomes our faith, and our faith is His faith.

Ruth is a lovely book.

The central thought is that a Gentile, even a Moabitess, could be joined to God’s holy elect and become an heir to partake of the holy inheritance through her union with the one of the holy elect who redeemed her.

This is not merely a type but a complete prefigure of the Gentile sinners' being brought, with Israel, God’s elect, into the divine inheritance through the redemption of Christ (prefigured by Boaz) in their union with Him. XD

This post has been edited by pehkay: Apr 2 2020, 03:56 PM