From Jim McGuiggan... This I believe

This I believe

   I believe that God lived in eternal, joy-filled and holy fellowship in what C.S Lewis called "the land of the Trinity". The Father and Son enjoyed fellowship one with another through the Holy Spirit and rising out of that triune fellowship came the purpose to create, that the life and joy of God would be experienced beyond the Godhead.

I believe that Jesus is and was fully and completely and without addition or subtraction a man. But he was and is God being a man. Not a man being a man or an angel being a man or an exalted creature being a man—Jesus is nothing less and nothing other than God being a man.

I believe that as the creation purpose was conceived that "Jesus" was not only the agent by which creation came into being, he was the guiding thought and inspiration that shaped and determined the final form that creation would take. In addition to that, "Jesus" was the one for whom the creation came into being, that is, not only would he be the supreme expression of creation completed he would be the one glorified above all by the creation. This is Colossians 1:15-16.

I believe until the now immortal Lord of all, Jesus Christ, completes this phase of his royal reign by obliterating death for all others as he has conquered it himself that God's creative purpose will not be completed. Genesis 1 was only the beginning of the creation of God that had Jesus ultimately in view.

I believe that with humanity's fall in Adam and Eve the entire creation was dragged under the curse (compare Colossians 1:16 and 2:15) and that God's creative purpose could not be accomplished without the death of Jesus. Paul said (Colossians 1:19-20) that God "reconciled all things in heaven and on earth" to himself through the blood of Christ.

I believe that the life and cross of Christ cannot be separated from the resurrection, glorification and exaltation of Jesus Christ for it is in and through them that the new creation has begun in the person of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, while these are inextricably and essentially linked they are conceptually distinct—the cross is pivotal though never to be isolated.

I believe that in dying (and rising) Jesus accomplished something that is independent of creation's response. It is something already accomplished, fully and without reservation—he has become and is Lord of all! The sovereignty over the entire creation has come into the hands of a human—one human, Jesus Christ, the last Adam and the second man (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47). Nothing has been the same since the death—-–-exaltation of Jesus. By his death has Jesus actually accomplished anything? Yes, he has become Lord over all and because he is the Lord over all there are glorious cosmic consequences. Let me repeat: this has been actually accomplished whether or not humanity confesses it or cares about. Whether or not anyone is saved, by his redeeming life and subsequent glorification Jesus has become humanity's Saviour. If anyone is to be saved it is through him and no one else. His redeeming life, resurrection and glorification may not have changed anyone else, but they changed Jesus because he became the author of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:8-9).

I believe the creation Jesus inherited was not like the creation the first Adam inherited. The creation under the first Adam came to him as "very good" and under his dominion it came to ruin. The creation that came to the last Adam had been estranged from God and he brought it all under his own sovereignty and reconciled it to his Holy Father (Colossians 1:19-20, Ephesians 1:10, 1 Peter 3:22).

I believe that what makes the creation "new" is that Jesus, the second man, is steering and bringing it to what God purposed it to be when he first created it in light of his plan before the world was. What makes it a new creation is the purpose and spirit of Jesus who is Lord of all—he means to glorify his Holy Father in the exercise of his dominion as surely as the first Adam dishonoured the Father. Imagine creation as a King's ship that has been taken over by cruel, ignorant and corrupt pirates who use it as a weapon against the King. The young Prince comes, retakes the ship and sails it to the honour of his Father.

I believe that God's massive enterprise is for the entire human race—without exception. The life and death and exaltation of Jesus Christ was purposed to benefit the entire creation. See Romans 8:18-39.

I believe that to gain his purpose God elected people at various times and places to be his chosen. They were chosen—Israel illustrates—to enjoy life with God in a peculiar relationship that they might bear witness to his creation purpose—a purpose he never lost sight of though humanity sinned. The elect were chosen unto salvation and mission (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and Ephesians 3:10, 21). Their mission is to be a standing witness that God has reconciled the entire creation to himself in Jesus Christ.

I believe that the cosmic reconciliation of "all things" is experienced in various ways depending on the nature of the specific "things" embraced in the "all things". Sinners, for example, are reconciled to God by his not reckoning their sins against them (2 Corinthians 5:19). I believe that the purpose of God is not exhausted in the salvation of the elect but that he offers the fruit of the redeeming, restoring and regenerating work of Jesus Christ to the non-elect (see 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1).

I believe that to take all the texts that speak of the elect and their place and role in God's unfolding of his creation purposes and conclude that that is the complete story is a serious misunderstanding of God's relationship and commitment to humanity. As surely as elect Israel did not exhaust the saving and blessing work of God in pre-Christ ages neither does his NT elect exhaust his saving and blessing work in this the Christian era.

I believe that election is the work of God through his Spirit who brings people to faith in Jesus Christ by the gospel (Philippians 1:29, Romans 10:13-15, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, 1 Corinthians 1:21) and brings them into covenant relationship with God (Ephesians 2:11-22, 2 Corinthians 3:3-6).

I believe that the non-elect who have not heard the call of God by the gospel are not a single group. Along with the millions who care nothing for God or the higher life there are those who look for higher life and that they by patient continuance in well doing will gain glory, honour and immortality through the work of Jesus (Romans 2:6-16 and compare Acts 17:24-27).

I believe that those who hear the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and refuse it suffer eternal loss.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

 

The Sacredness of Marriage by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1237

The Sacredness of Marriage

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Since its inception, the United States of America has been a country whose Founding Fathers recognized the need for God in public life, and the need for Bible principles of morality to govern and structure American society. Our Founding Fathers recognized that if our country ever strayed significantly away from these foundational moral, spiritual, and ethical principles, we would be doomed as a nation. For 150 years, our society recognized the importance of what some are calling the “traditional family,” i.e., a husband and a wife who marry for life and rear their children together. Divorce was almost unheard of in this country. When it did occur, it was regarded as deviant behavior. Family disruption in the form of separation, divorce, and out-of-wedlock birth were kept to a minimum by strong religious, social, and even legal sanctions. Immediately after World War II, most American children grew up in a family with both biological parents who were married to each other.
This state of affairs held sway up through the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, disruption of the traditional American family reached a historic low in the 1950s and early 1960s. But then something happened (see Whitehead, 1993). Beginning in about 1965, the divorce rate suddenly skyrocketed, more than doubling over the next fifteen years. By 1974, divorce passed death as the leading cause of family breakup. By 1980, only fifty percent of children could expect to spend their entire childhood with both their parents. Now half of all marriages end in divorce. Every year a million children go through divorce or separation, and almost as many more are born out of wedlock. People who remarry after divorce are more likely to break up than couples in first marriages. The same is true for couples who just live together.
Overall child well-being has declined, despite a decrease in the number of children per family, an increase in the educational level of parents, and historically high levels of public spending. The teen suicide has more than tripled. Juvenile crime has increased and become more violent. School performance has continued to decline. Some sociologists are now recognizing the incredibly harmful effect these circumstances are having on our country and the homes of America. They are beginning to realize the relationship between family structure and declining child well-being. Some are even admitting that the social arrangement that has proved most successful in ensuring the physical survival and promoting the social development of the child is the family unit of the biological mother and father.
But our society as a whole has been slow to see family disruption as a severe national problem. Why? A fundamental shift has occurred in our culture with reference to religious and moral value. Much of our society has jettisoned the Bible as the absolute standard of behavior. The Bible is no longer considered to be the authoritative regulator of daily living. Many, perhaps most, Americans no longer feel that divorce is wrong. “Irreconcilable differences” and “incompatibility” are seen as perfectly legitimate reasons for divorce—flying directly in the face of Bible teaching. Many Americans no longer feel that a couple simply living together without marriage is morally wrong. By the mid-1970s, three-fourths of Americans said that it is not morally wrong for a woman to have a child outside marriage.
We could debate the causes of this basic cultural shifting. I would argue that the influence of evolution and humanism in our educational system, the impact of feminism, the increased participation of women in the work force to the neglect of their children, the widespread prosperity that we enjoy as a nation (causing us to forget God and to indulge ourselves)—these and other factors have contributed to our moral decline. Hollywood, television, and the cinema have unquestionably glamorized, defended, and promoted divorce, premarital sex, unwed motherhood, abortion, and the use of alcohol, filthy language, and many other immoral behaviors.
Ironically—and tragically—the media have been working overtime to discredit the married, two-parent family by playing up instances of incest, violence, and abuse. If a family has religious inclinations, its members are depicted on programs as weirdoes and deviants. In fact, it is surely disgusting to the sensibilities of the morally upright that what was once mainstream and normal (i.e., the religious, church-going, two-parent family) is being demonized and ridiculed, while behavior that once was considered deviant, reprehensible, and immoral is paraded before society—on TV, in the news, and in the courts—as the social norm. Anyone who lifts a finger to speak against such immorality is berated as “homophobic,” “prejudiced,” “judgmental,” “mean-spirited,” and guilty of a “hate crime.”
Two illustrations of the undermining of the marriage relationship as God intended are the recent decisions regarding homosexuality by the United States Supreme Court and the Episcopal Church. By a 62-45 vote, the Episcopal House of Bishops elected the denomination’s first homosexual bishop on August 5, 2003 (see Duin, 2003). Only days earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional—even though sodomy was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws,” 2003). Sadly, a generation has arisen who simply does not share the values of its parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Sexual fidelity, lifelong marriage, and parenthood are simply no longer held up as worthwhile personal goals.
All of this self-centeredness has taken its greatest toll on the children. The erosion of basic moral values in exchange for pluralism, the growing tolerance of moral and ethical diversity, the shifting of emphasis to choice, freedom, and self-expression, have all inflicted great damage on marriage and the family—especially the children. The fuller body of empirical research now documents a number of startling conclusions:

1. Divorce almost always brings a decline in the standard of living for the mother and children, plus a dependence on welfare; children in single-parent homes are far more likely to propagate the same behavior.
2. Children never fully recover from divorce. Five, ten, fifteen years after a divorce, the children suffer from depression, under-achievement, and ultimately, their own troubled relationships.
3. Young adults from disrupted families are nearly twice as likely as those from intact families to receive psychological help.
4. Children in disrupted families are nearly twice as likely as those in intact families to drop out of high school. Those who remain in school show significant differences in educational attainment from those children who grow up in intact families.
5. Remarriage does not reproduce nor restore the intact family structure. The latest research confirms that stepparents cannot replace the original home.
6. For children whose parents divorced, the risk of divorce is two to three times greater than it is for children from married parent families.

These findings—and many others—underscore the importance of both a mother and a father in fostering the emotional well-being of children. But even more far-reaching effects have been documented—effects that impact society at large beyond the confines of the family. Authorities now are beginning to admit that a central cause of our most pressing social problems (i.e., poverty, crime, and school performance) is the breakup of the traditional American family.
What is even more startling is the fact that as an institution, marriage has lost much of its legal, religious, and social meaning and authority. For most of American history, marriage was one of the most important rites of passage in life. But now, marriage has lost much of its role and significance as a rite of passage. Sex is increasingly detached from the promise or expectation of marriage. Cohabitation is emerging as a significant experience for young adults. It is now replacing marriage as the first living together union. It is estimated that a quarter of unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39 are currently living with a partner, and about half have lived at some time with an unmarried partner. Referring to this state of affairs as “the deinstitutionalization of marriage,” researchers at the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University concluded: “Taken together, the marriage indicators do not argue for optimism about a quick or widespread comeback of marriage. Persistent long-term trends suggest a steady weakening of marriage as a lasting union, a major stage in the adult life course, and as the primary institution governing childbearing and parenthood” (Popenoe and Whitehead, 1999).
Make no mistake: the social science evidence clearly documents the fact that the breakdown of the traditional two-parent, biological husband-wife family is a major factor contributing to the overall moral, religious, and ethical decline of our country. The social fabric of American civilization is literally tearing apart. The social arrangement that has proved most successful in ensuring the physical survival, and promoting the social development, of the child is the family unit of the biological mother and father. America is in deep trouble.
Our society is not likely to solve these massive problems. The liberal elite has been operating with great vigor for over forty years to push our country into “value neutrality” and “political correctness.” The clear-cut restraints and distinctions between right and wrong so typical of American culture in the past have been systematically dismantled. Relativism has taken the place of objective, absolute truth. The glorification of the individual has encouraged people to determine for themselves right and wrong—rather than looking outside themselves to the Transcendent Creator of the Universe. Consequently, whatever the individual feels is right is sanctioned as right—at least for that individual. The absolute standard of moral value and human behavior—that previously governed our nation—has been successfully supplanted. Subjectivity reigns supreme, and God has been effectively severed from human culture. “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:12).

GOD’S VIEW OF THE MATTER

The fact remains that there is a God in heaven (Daniel 2:28). God has spoken to the human race through His written Word, i.e., the Bible. In that inspired communication, He has designated the structure of society. He created male and female with the intention for one man to marry one woman for life (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Here is the foundational building block of humanity. That is His simple will on the matter. He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The only way He permits divorce is if one marriage partner divorces the other marriage partner for the one reason that the marriage partner has committed fornication, i.e., illicit sexual intercourse. Upon that basis alone, God allows the innocent partner to put away that unfaithful mate and form a second marriage (Matthew 19:3-9).
God intended for the husband and wife to produce children who, in turn, are to receive nurturing and care from their parents in a stable, loving home (Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21). In this divinely ordained institution of the home, God intended that children receive the necessary instruction and training to prepare them to be productive, honest, God-fearing, hard-working citizens of their country. The home was designed by God to impart to each succeeding generation proper religious, moral, and social principles that would in turn make their nation strong and virtuous. The Bible is filled with references to the essential ingredients of healthy family life (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:7-9; 6:1-9; 11:18-21; 32:46-47; Psalm 127; Proverbs 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 11:29; 12:4; 14:1; 15:25,27; 17:1,13; 31:10-31), including proper parenting skills (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17; Ephesians 6:1-4).

CONCLUSION

How simple! The solution to the confusion and corruption that has gripped American civilization is simple—if hearts are humbly yielded to the will of God. If we could get our families back on track according to God’s will, we could get our nation back on track. It starts with you and me. We must believe in, affirm to others, and conform ourselves to the sacredness of marriage.

REFERENCES

Duin, Julia (2003), “Gay Bishop Sets Off Talk of Episcopal Schism,” The Washington Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030806-123147-7931r.
Popenoe, David and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (1999), “What’s Happening to Marriage?” [On-line], URL: http//marriage.Rutgers.edu/Publications/pubwhatshappening.htm.
Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.
“Sodomy Laws in the United States,” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.
Whitehead, Barbara (1993), “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic Monthly, [On-line], URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/danquayl.htm.

From Mark Copeland... Freedom From Sin (Romans 8:1-25)

                      "THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"

                       Freedom From Sin (8:1-25)

INTRODUCTION

1. How seriously do we take the problem of sin...?
   a. The guilt of sin?
   b. The power of sin?
   c. The corruption of sin?

2. Do we really appreciate the freedom from sin...?
   a. That we can experience now in our lives?
   b. That we can look forward to in the future?

[In Ro 8:1-25, Paul writes about the freedom from sin that one finds in
Christ.  To appreciate more fully the blessings we have in Christ,
consider that there is first...]

I. FREEDOM FROM THE CONDEMNATION OF SIN (1-4)

   A. THE CONDEMNATION OF SIN...
      1. Everyone is guilty of sin - Ro 3:23; 1Jn 1:8
      2. Even if one committed just one sin (if such were possible!)
         - Jm 2:10-11
      3. Unforgiven sin separates us from God - Isa 59:1-2
      4. The ultimate condemnation is death (esp. the 'second' death)
         - Ro 6:23; cf. Re 21:8
      -- That all are guilty of sin is the main point of Romans 1-3

   B. THERE IS FREEDOM....
      1. From condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus - Ro 8:1;
         cf. Ga 3:27
         a. For in Christ there is propitiation, redemption,
            justification - Ro 3:24-26
         b. For in baptism there is death to sin, newness of life - Ro 6:3-8
      2. Who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the
         Spirit - Ro 8:1,4
         a. Explained more fully later in the chapter (and in this
            lesson)
         b. Also in Paul's epistle to the Galatians - cf. Ga 5:16-26
      3. Made possible by:
         a. The law (principle) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
            - Ro 8:2
            1) Which sets one free from the law of sin and death - cf.
               Tit 3:4-7
            2) The law of sin and death which enslaves, mentioned in Ro 7:21-25
         b. The death of Christ - Ro 8:3-4
            1) Doing what the Law of Moses could not do
            2) Condemning sin in the flesh
            3) Fulfilling the righteous requirement of the Law for us
      -- That justification (no condemnation) is found in Christ is the
         theme of Romans 4-7

[Thus the freedom from sin that we enjoy in Christ involves freedom from
the condemnation of sin.  But there is more!  There is also...]

II. FREEDOM FROM THE POWER OF SIN (5-17)

   A. THE POWER OF SIN...
      1. The problem of sin is not limited to guilt
         a. As if the guilt of sin weren't bad enough!
         b. Sin also has power to enslave a person so they can't do what
            they want to do!
      2. Jesus described the power of sin - Jn 8:31-34
         a. The freedom under consideration is freedom from the slavery
            of sin!
         b. When one commits sin, they become a slave of sin!
      3. Paul vividly depicted his life under the bondage of sin - Ro 7:14-24
         a. He was "sold under sin"
         b. He could not do what he wanted, and what he did not wish to
            do, he did
         c. He found that "sin dwells in me"
         d. Though he desired to do good, "how to perform what is good I
            do not find"
         e. He was brought "into captivity to the law of sin which is in
            my members"
         f. It made him "wretched", crying out for deliverance from
            "this body of death"
      -- Sin has the power to enslave, and mankind needs deliverance!

   B. THERE IS FREEDOM...
      1. For those who live according to the Spirit, not the flesh - Ro 8:5-8
         a. By setting their minds on the things of the Spirit, not the
            things of the flesh
         b. Whereby they can enjoy life and peace, not death
         c. Whereby they can submit to God and please Him, while those
            in the flesh cannot
      2. For those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit - Ro 8:9-11
         a. A blessing for those who belong to Christ - cf. Jn 7:37-39;
            Ac 2:38; Tit 3:4-7
         b. Providing life to our mortal bodies that were dead because
            of sin - cf. Ro 6:12-14
      3. For those who by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body
         - Ro 8:12-13
         a. Who are no longer indebted to live according to the flesh
            - cf. Ro 6:16-19
         b. But can now live according to the Spirit - cf. Ga 5:25; Ep 3:16
      4. For those who are children of God, joint-heirs with Christ - Ro 8:14-17
         a. Led by the Spirit of God, by Whom they cry, "Abba, Father"
            - cf. Ga 4:6
         b. Heirs of glory with Christ, if willing to suffer with Him
      -- With help from the Holy Spirit, we can break free from the
         bondage of sin!

[Freedom from the condemnation of sin and the power of sin!  What more
could we ask for?  How about...]

III. FREEDOM FROM THE CORRUPTION OF SIN (18-25)

   A. THE CORRUPTION OF SIN...
      1. Because of sin, mankind experiences physical death - cf. 1Co 15:22a; Gen 3:22-24
         a. Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden of Eden
         b. Access to the tree of life was lost, thus physical death
            ensued
      2. Because of sin, even the creation was placed under a curse
         - cf. Gen 3:17
         a. Subjected to futility - Ro 8:20
         b. In bondage to corruption - Ro 8:21
         c. Groaning and laboring with birth pangs - Ro 8:22; cf. Isa 24:4-6
      -- The effects of sin has permeated all of creation!

   B. THERE WILL BE FREEDOM...
      1. The glorious liberty of the children of God! - Ro 8:18-22
         a. To be revealed one day - cf. Col 3:4; 2Th 2:10; 2Pe 1:13
         b. Making any present suffering unworthy to be compared
         c. Even the creation will be delivered from the bondage of
            corruption
            1) Note that Paul does not say that the creation will be
               delivered into its own liberty
            2) But into the glorious liberty of the children of God
            3) The present heavens and earth will "pass away", and there
               will be new heavens and a new earth - cf. 2Pe 3:10-14;
               Re 21:1-7
      2. Involving our own resurrection, for which we hope - Ro 8:23-25
         a. The redemption of our body, which we eagerly await - cf. Ac 23:6
         b. Saved for this very hope, for which we wait with
            perseverance - cf. Ac 24:15-16
      -- With the resurrection of the dead, the creation of a new heaven
         and new earth, the corruption of sin will be no more!

CONCLUSION

1. The freedom from sin that is available in Christ involves...
   a. Freedom from the condemnation of sin
   b. Freedom from the power of sin
   c. Freedom from the corruption of sin

2. Unless we receive the freedom from sin found only in Christ...
   a. We remain guilty of sin
   b. We remain enslaved to sin
   c. We remain under the corruptive influences of sin

But by responding to the gospel of Christ with an obedient faith,
freedom from the devastating effects of sin can be ours, with a hope of
glorious liberty when Christ returns...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... A question of inward seeing

Yogi Berra once said:   

You can observe a lot by just watching. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/y/yogi_berra.html)  

This is true!!! However, you can't know everything by just watching.  Consider this picture for just a moment; if you were standing on the rock ledge in the upper part of the picture, you may or may not be able to see the rocks below.  So, where you are standing makes a difference as to what you can see!!!  The same thing is true with people- you may or may not be able to see who they really are; I mean, inside.  Sometimes you can know a person for many years and then they do something that completely surprises you and you to wonder if you ever really knew them at all!  Then, there is this passage from the book of 1st Corinthians...

1 Corinthians 2:1-11 NASB
(1)  And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
(2)  For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
(3)  I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
(4)  and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
(5)  so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
(6)  Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
(7)  but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
(8)  the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
(9)  but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
(10)  For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
(11)  For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

Who am I? This is a question that almost everyone asks at one time or another.  I think that this question changes over time, as we progress in our lives.  And the thing is- no one really knows how you change but you (and of course, God). But, what about God? Do we really know HIM?  The answer is yes and no. Yes, because the Spirit has revealed him through the medium of the Scriptures. And No, because those characteristics that are absolute (such as eternality, purity, omnipotence, omniscience, etc..) are beyond our absolute comprehension because only God has them.  BUT, God did send Jesus, so that we might have a glimpse of what God in human flesh would be and that will have to be enough!!!   And when HE speaks, we should listen...

Matthew 28:18 NASB
(18)  And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

John 12:45-50 NASB
(45)  "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.
(46)  "I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
(47)  "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
(48)  "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
(49)  "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
(50)  "I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

A great part of who you really are (underneath the surface, I mean) is really about the choices you make throughout your life. They define and describe you in ways that simply cannot be seen. Question: Gary (or whoever)- What will you do about Jesus; today?????

From Gary... Cognitive Dissonance

 

Cute cartoon and an excellent comment!!!  Many years ago, I smoked very heavily- several packs of Camel cigarettes, at least two packs of tiparillo's and several bowls of pipe, each and every day.  Even though I saw the terrible effects in my father (whose smoked five packs of Camels a day and later died of a heart attack) and heard myself cough terribly, I would not change because I enjoyed it.  In retrospect, I realize it was stupid, but I was young and no one could tell me anything. Finally, at 21 years of age, I quit and have never regretted it.  But, why did it take me so long to accept reality?  Enter my newly acquired understanding of  the term, "Cognitive Dissonance".  And this is found in Scriptures...


Acts 17:15-34 NASB
(15)  Now those who escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left.
(16)  Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
(17)  So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
(18)  And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
(19)  And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?
(20)  "For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean."
(21)  (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)
(22)  So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
(23)  "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
(24)  "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
(25)  nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
(26)  and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
(27)  that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
(28)  for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
(29)  "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
(30)  "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
(31)  because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

(32)  Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."

(33)  So Paul went out of their midst.
(34)  But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

The Greek civilization brought us many fine things, including beautiful architecture (as the above picture shows, outstanding literature and an emphasis on reasoning that is perhaps their most important contribution.  But, many still held to the concept of Polytheism and when faced with the fact of the resurrection, rejected it as being nonsense. Yet, was it?  Paul writes to another church (1 Corinthians) and says:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 NASB
(1)  Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
(2)  by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
(3)  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(4)  and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
(5)  and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6)  After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
(7)  then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
(8)  and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
Just because you have not seen something with your own eyes, does not mean that it did not occur.  Notice verse 6 above- five hundred people at one time, now that is a witness!!!  And yet some people could actually reject Christianity- AMAZING!!! No, that is not right, its Cognitive Dissonance!!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... WHO OR WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

WHO OR WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

     You hear it throughout the entire biblical witness: “Who am I?”

     If the words aren’t used they’re implied. Sometimes the events recorded speak for themselves and if the words aren’t in the text we ourselves ask the question, “Who are they?”

    

 Abraham with a worn out body and a wife who can’t conceive—how could they father/mother a nation and then a multitude of nations? An Abraham who twice puts his wife in harm’s way to save his own skin—how could he be worthy? A cheating Jacob who can’t trust God’s promises and twice cons his brother—how could he be worthy to become the father of a nation that under God blesses the human family? An impish Joseph who babbles on about his dreams and coming exaltation until even his doting father has had enough of it; Joseph, who ends up in prison—how could he become God’s instrument of blessing to the nations? Moses, a fugitive from Egyptian justice, sulking and refusing to give his firstborn to God, who doesn’t want the job of deliverer—how could he be the one to deliver an enslaved nation and bring it to the promised land? The fearful Joshua who worries about how he can fill the role of “the legend” Moses or Gideon [Judges 6] who in light of the current and ongoing tragedy resents old stories about God’s past deeds in the Exodus and admits he is the least of the least [and then there’s David]—how could these unworthy and unfitted people be the ones through whom deliverance is brought to the enslaved and blind and weak and embittered. How could they bring hope and freedom? In light of the harsh and stubborn facts and in light of the unfitness of the people called by God how could deliverance come? 

   

  In their own way they all say what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16, when he is stunned by the truth that he is a carrier of the gospel that triggers life and death for all who hear and he mutters: “Who is sufficient for these things?” His answer in 3:5, “Our sufficiency is not of ourselves—it’s of God!”

   

  The recurring phrase in the OT texts alluded to above is this: "I am with you.”

    

 In Exodus 3:10 Moses’ question, “Who am I?” is answered in 3:11 by God’s, “I am with you.” Moses gets the message and in Exodus 33:12-17 he pursues God for assurance that in one form or another he will be with him and the nation. “How will it be known that we are like no other nation unless you are with us?” Moses asks and God gives assurance. See the text.

  

   It’s never about our worthiness, fitness or ability—the difference is about who is with us! It's never about our inability or our unfitness; it's always about His being with us!

  

   Our unworthiness and unfitness is an undoubted reality. It takes God—that God—to work it all out and bring his overarching purpose to a glorious finish! [“It is finished!”] Whatever the case is with us, God is always worthy and able!

   

  Deliverance isn’t about our well-heeled academics, our preachers or shepherds or worship leaders or educational directors or programs or our other gifts. It’s about who is with us! The engine that drives God’s redeeming purpose is not his gifts but himself! Abraham came to know that and that’s why he lifted the knife to kill the boy—the gift from God and in whom Abraham’s future seemed to hand. He came to know that that his future lay solely in the hands of the God who watched the old man take that three-day ride into hell [Von Rad].

   

  That constant questioning and God's constant answer comes to its glorious climax at the Incarnation and we hear Jesus called "Immanuel". God is with us! And that is not an event that took place 2,000 years ago and to be left as ancient history. Before he went away saying he would be back [see Acts 1:9-11] he said this:

  

   “Go disciple the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit…and lo I am with you always even until the world (age) ends.” Matthew 28:19-20.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com

The Spirit and Letter of the Law by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225

The Spirit and Letter of the Law

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

All erroneous systems of belief share in common the fact that several “props” are necessary to support them. The fact that the belief system is false, necessarily implies that one or more of the props are false. But the mere presence of an array of props gives the appearance and the impression that the belief system has much “evidence” to support it. One of the props that is marshaled to support the concept known as “situationism” is the notion that a legitimate distinction may be made between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law.” It is argued that sometimes it is necessary, even mandatory, to violate the “letter of the law” in order to act in harmony with the “spirit of the law.” According to this line of thinking, those who insist that obedience to God’s law always is required—without exception—are “hung up on the letter of the law” instead of being led by the “spirit of the law.”
Of course, this kind of thinking naturally breeds and nurtures a relaxed attitude toward obedience. It militates against a desire to be precise and careful in conformity to Bible teaching. One individual explained how his feelings of devotion to Jesus made him feel that as long as he maintained a close sense of nearness to Him, he did not have to fret over “nitpicky” concerns, like whether he was staying within the speed limit when he drove his car. Another person avowed that she did not “sweat the small stuff,” since she was living her life in recognition of God’s grace, and felt certain that Jesus would “cut her some slack.” The “small stuff ” to which she referred included such things as whether God would approve of unscriptural divorce and remarriage, whether God would accept instrumental music in worship to Him, and whether one church was as good as another.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:4-18

The primary passage in the New Testament that is marshaled in an effort to support the “spirit vs. letter” antithesis is Paul’s remarks to the church of Christ in Corinth. The reader is urged to pause and read the third chapter of second Corinthians before reading the analysis that follows. Two phrases typically are excised from the context and used as proof-texts to support a notion contrary to the chapter: “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (vs. 6), and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (vs. 17). These phrases are set forth as proof that Christians ought not to be too meticulous in conforming strictly to New Testament directives. Those who take such a position assume that “letter” refers to the commands of God—the written statements of Scripture that specify and regulate human behavior. They also assume that “spirit” refers to one’s attitude or feelings. Hence, if the individual feels devoted, concerned, and sincere, he or she is deemed in line with “the spirit of the law.” On the other hand, the individual who appears inflexible and rigid, or overly concerned with strict obedience, is perceived to lack “compassion” and “sensitivity,” and too concerned with “the letter of the law.”
Incredibly, if one would take the time to study God’s Word and refrain from mishandling its intended meaning (Acts 17:11; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 2:15), one would see that neither Paul nor any other inspired writer agreed with such thinking. In a pericope dealing with his apostolic ministry, Paul crafted a beautiful allegory—what D.R. Dungan called “the most perfect antithesis to be found in the whole Bible” (1888, p. 349). By arranging the contrasting phrases of the antithesis into two columns, one is able more easily to grasp Paul’s intended meaning:

2 CORINTHIANS 3
Old Covenant	New Covenant
	Ministers of the new covenant (vs. 6)
Of the letter (vs. 6)	Of the Spirit (vs. 6)
The letter kills (vs. 6)	The Spirit gives life (vs. 6)
Ministry of death (vs. 7)	Ministry of the Spirit (vs. 8)
Written/engraved on stones (vs. 7)
Ministry of condemnation (vs. 9)	Ministry of righteousness (vs. 9)
Glorious (vss. 7,9)	Much more glorious (vss. 8,9)
Passing away (vs. 7)	Remains (vs. 11)
Veil on Moses’ face (vs. 13)	Great boldness of speech (vs. 12)
Veil remains in reading O.T. (vs. 14)	Veil taken away in Christ (vs. 14)
Veil lies on their heart (vs. 15)	Veil taken away when heart turned to the Lord (vs. 16)

It should be immediately evident to the unbiased observer “that the two legs of the antithesis are the New Covenant in contrast with the Old Covenant” (Dungan, p. 268). Precisely the same meaning is conveyed by the same terminology in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:29; 7:6). The Old Testament legal system, though an excellent system for what God had in mind (Romans 7:12), was unable to provide ultimate forgiveness for violations of law and, in that sense, “kills.” It took Jesus dying on the cross to make “life” possible (i.e., actual cleansing from sin).
When one recognizes the contextual meaning, it becomes apparent that these verses have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged “spirit vs. letter” contention! In fact, the Bible nowhere postulates such a thing. Like all liberal thinking, one must refrain from thinking too much about it if one does not wish to see the absurdity and nonsensical nature of it. The “spirit vs. letter” contrast is gobbledygook that is “better felt than told.” It makes no sense. On April 3, 1897, J.W. McGarvey responded to just this type of thinking in an article titled, “The Letter That Killeth”:

Just once in the course of his writings Paul makes the declaration that “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:7); and no remark that he ever made has been applied in a greater number of unlicensed ways. If a man insists upon preserving some ordinance in the very form of its original appointment, such an ordinance as baptism or the Lord’s Supper, for example, he is accused of contending for the letter that killeth, while the man who makes the charge, and who changes the ordinance, claims that he is following the spirit that giveth life. All of that large class of writers who make free with the Scriptures while claiming to reverence their authority, employ this device to excuse their departures from the word of God, while those who remonstrate with them for their license are denounced as literalists, or sticklers for the letter that killeth. In all these instances it seems to be claimed that if you stick close to the ordinance as Christ gave it, you will kill somebody. The last example that attracted my attention was in connection with the number of elders that should be appointed in a church. The writer says: “It has been thought to be a greater evil to have a congregation without a plurality of elders than to have an eldership without the requisite qualifications;” and he adds: “This is to do violence to the spirit of the New Testament in an effort to be loyal to its letter.” But which, in this case, is the letter, and which is the spirit? To have a plurality of elders is certainly the letter of the New Testament; that is, it is the literal requirement; and the literal requirement also is to have elders of prescribed qualifications. Where, then, is the spirit as distinguished from the letter? Echo answers, Where? The writer was so in the habit of using this favorite expression where he wished to justify a departure from Scripture precedent that he evidently applied it in this instance from pure habit and without thought. The watchful reader will have seen many examples of the kind (1910, pp. 160-161).

Indeed, redefining the biblical expressions “spirit of the law” and “letter of the law” enables the situationist to promote his agenda under the cloak of Bible backing.
If one wishes to use the expression “the spirit of the law” to refer to a proper attitude, and “the letter of the law” to refer to compliance with the explicit dictates of Scripture, it certainly is true that a person can distort or disregard “the spirit of the law” while following carefully “the letter of the law.” A person may engage in external, rote compliance without heartfelt, genuine love for God and His will. But it is impossible to represent faithfully “the spirit of the law” (i.e., to have the right attitude) while acting out of harmony with the specific details of the law. When Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commands” (John 14:15), He pinpointed the fact that “love” for Him includes “obedience.” It is possible to obey and not love; but it is not possible to love and not obey. One may have good intentions in one’s religious pursuits, but if those religious actions are contrary to God’s specified will, the activity is unacceptable to God. The situationist’s claim that sincerity and feelings of “love” legitimize whatever action “love” takes, is in direct contradiction to Bible teaching.
The fact of the matter is that God always has required that people approach him “in truth”—i.e., according to the divine directives that He revealed to man. The only worship that has ever been acceptable to God has been that worship which has been undertaken with (1) a proper attitude, frame of mind, and disposition conducive to spirituality, and (2) faithfulness to the specific items that God pinpointed as the proper external acts to be performed. Jesus made this fact very clear in His encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:23-24). God never has accepted one without the other. He always has required both. He always has required two facets of response to His will: the right action with the right attitude. Notice the following chart of scriptures:

PASSAGE	ATTITUDE	ACTION
John 4:24	spirit	truth
Joshua 24:14	sincerity	truth
Ecclesiastes 12:13	fear God	keep commands
Acts 10:35	fear Him	work righteous
James 2:17	faith	works
1 John 3:18	word/tongue	deed/truth
Deuteronomy 10:12-13	fear/love—heart	walk/ways
Romans 1:9	with my spirit	in the gospel

To emphasize one dimension of obedience over the other is to hamper one’s acceptance by God. Bible history is replete with instances of those who possessed one without the other, and thus were unacceptable to God. The Pharisees (Matthew 23:3), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2-4), and the people of Amos’ day (Amos 5:21-24) engaged in the external forms, but were unacceptable because of their insincerity. Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:1), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2), and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6) all demonstrated genuine motives, but were unacceptable to God because of their failure to observe the right forms.
Think for a moment of the many people in biblical history who failed to approach God “in truth”—that is, they approached God, but did so without sufficient attention to complying with the details and guidelines that God had articulated. Adam and Eve, regardless of the condition of their attitude, were condemned by God for the external act of eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17; 3:11). Likewise, Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3), the Sabbath breaker (Numbers 15:32-36), Moses (Numbers 20:11,12), Achan (Joshua 7), Saul (1 Samuel 13:13,14; 15:19-23), Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1-7; 1 Chronicles 15:12,13), King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16-18), and Ezra’s contemporaries (Ezra 10)—all experienced the displeasure of God for their deviation from divine directions.
God has not changed in His insistence upon man’s loving obedience to His instructions (John 14:15; 15:14; 1 John 5:3). The Old Testament was written, among other reasons, in order for Christians to learn from the example of those who departed from God’s way (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). New Testament faith, the kind of faith that Christians must possess if they wish to be pleasing and acceptable to God, is obedient trust—trust that conforms to God’s will (Hebrews 11; James 2).
The psalmist understood that God’s truth consisted of God’s written words (cf. Psalm 119:30,43,142,151,160). So did Jesus when He said, “Thy word is truth,” and declared that the basis of judgment would be the words that He spoke (John 17:17; 12:47-48). Worshipping God “in truth” is equivalent to “doing truth,” which entails “deeds” or external actions which are prescribed by God (John 3:19-21; cf. loving “in truth” in 1 John 3:18). When Jesus taught the way of God “in truth” (Matthew 22:16), He related information that accurately represented God’s will. When the Colossians heard “the word of the truth of the gospel” (Colossians 1:5), they heard the specific tenets, doctrines, requirements, and teachings to which they had to conform their lives.
Situationism, antinomianism, and liberalism share in common their mutual aversion to law keeping. Christians must not fall prey to these sinister forces that attempt to soften and obscure the clear call from God to render obedience to His directives. All He seeks from people is conformity to His laws out of hearts full of sincerity, earnestness, and love.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).