Faith is
an invitation to die to all worldly and personal
concerns.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “When Christ calls
a man, He
bids him come and die” (Call to Discipleship).
Truth will
always suffer. Christ’s life demands the death
of all
that is not consistent with Him. so it is my fate to sir , it will come be ready
will,” Jesus said (Jn. 3:8). Christian
faith takes everything out of our hands.
We are not in
control.
We “go with the flow” of His grace. people need to stop
assuming and playing God start listening to what faith wants us to do, by
learning how to know the differences !!
Faith is
antithetical to probability and predictability,
making our own plans
and charting our own course. If it
fits in the realm of
probability, then it probably is not
faith. Faith is
unpredictable, and prompts us to live in
the spontaneity of
imaginative passion.
Such can only be the case if we have
accepted an
inadequate understanding of Christian
faith … if we
have allowed “faith” to
deteriorate into the meaning of
“mental assent to data,” or belief
in propositional and
doctrinal statements to form our
own opinions. most often the case
today!!
Then, in
adaptation to the world’s thinking, we
acquiesce to the
premise that
“anyone can believe whatever they want to
believe, for we
live in a diverse and pluralistic society
that tolerates
any and all the beliefs of others.” “ the theme ark we live in
now sir
Christian faith
is of an entirely different order. It’s not really about what one believes
objectively and
rationally with
their mind. Faith moves beyond the intellectual, cerebral sphere of thought. In
fact, if it is
something you can
figure out with you mind, then it is not likely to have anything to do with
faith!
Faith is
experiential. Faith has to do with life, with the subjectivity of our being and
existence, and can
therefore be said
to be existential. Faith has to do with who we are, and who we are becoming.
Faith is not the static assent of a belief‐system, but is rather the dynamic of “our receptivity of His activity.”
Faith is the
surrender of
one’s entire being to Another,
In this total venture of abandonment to another
(what Kierkegaard calls “the leap of faith), the Other becomes one’s life, one’s
new identity, one’s new self.
Natural understanding would regard this to be psychological suicide, but the
Christian discovers the blessedness of an intimacy whereby we live by the life
of Another in “the availability to His ability.” We only venture into faith in
the context of what by natural
means could only be considered absurdity.
Consider the
“offense of faith” in relation to the reasonableness of the Christian gospel and
Christian
faith. Trying to
play on the rationalist’s playing field, we have developed “Christian
apologetics” to attempt to logically defend what will inevitably
offend human reason. Faith ventures all, despite how unreasonable
the rationalists consider the gospel to be. Faith
is an offense to the quest of the human mind to
understand everything, and arrive at a goal of
knowledge. The classic Latin motto was, “credo utintelligam” (“I believe in
order to understand”). Christian faith does not seek to mentally
understand,
but only to
“stand‐under” the Lordship of Jesus
Christ.
Faith is offensive to objectivity and
external verification. Christian faith is willing to suspend
the
detached perspective of objectivity, in
order to subjectively enter into the story – HIS story. Faith
is
inwardness, and the story is HIM (and us
encompassed in HIS story).
The deeply introverted religion must go
away!
Faith wrecks havoc in family loyalties. Those
closest to
us cannot understand why our faith takes us
where it
does. Jesus even said, “If anyone comes to
Me, and does
not hate his own father and mother and wife
and
children and brothers and sisters, yes, and
even his own
life, he cannot be My disciple” (Lk.
14:26).
breaking the introvert out of self into
faith!
Faith is an offense to all religion with its
demands to
“believe‐right” and “do‐right” in regard to
correct
doctrines and proper behavior. Christian faith
takes us
beyond such, sometimes to rejection of religion,
in
order to follow HIM.
What is the opposite of the “offense of
faith”? How
about the “obedience of faith” that Paul
refers to in Rom.
1:5; 16:26. I was quite surprised to
note in the thesaurus that the antonym of “offense” was
“obedience.” Faith is offensive to
human reasoning and normal social practice, but the “obedience of faith” is
pleasing to God. Faith is an offense to all insubordination
and rebellion of those who want to “go their own way,” and
“do their own thing.”
In faith we “listen under God”
(hupakouo) in obedience to ascertain what Christ wants to do
next in our lives, and in faithful “receptivity to His activity” we allow Him to
do
whatever He wants as the contemporary
Christ expression in our behavior, unto His own glory.”
Christian faith is always
exercised in the present, in the experiential “now” (which is always offensive
to the world’s inculcations to projected planning and
probabilities). And we are often forced into faith in the crises of life, in the utmost of extremity, at the point of desperation,
wherein we are willing to “give up” and say, “I can’t; only
He can; I choose to let Him do whatever He will in my life.” This does not
happen at a singular, punctiliar point in time, but
day‐by‐day, moment‐by‐moment. There is initial faith and continuing faith. “As you received Christ Jesus (by faith); so walk in
Him (by faith)” (Col. 2:6).
Rationalistic, Rosicrucian evangelical !!!!
enlightenment‐based theology has advised
western Christians that “mystery” is connected to
mysticism and esoteric pursuits of ambiguous
abstractions of fanciful speculations and
projections,
and
they have cautioned western Christians not to be
“so
heavenly‐minded, they are of no earthly good.” In so
doing
they have steered Christians away from “the
mystery of the gospel” (Eph. 6:19). al chemical wedding and other additives. http://www.christinyou.net/pdfs/ChristianityNotReligionEbook.pdf
Chapter 4
What Went Wrong?
Living Organism to Lifeless
Institution
We have seen that Christ imparted to His followers by
word and deed that in His kingdom there was to be no hierarchy, no power-plays
and no titles. Instead, there was to be mutual foot-washing, modeled by the Lord
Himself.
Then it was shown that Jesus is building His ekklesia on earth. Christ told the
disciples that when His resurrected body went back to the Father, they would
continue His body (His life) all over the earth. They were to continue His
legacy of a kingdom in which all were brothers and sisters, and no one was
“over” others.
But the history books reveal that something went wrong,
dreadfully wrong. Before we get into
some details, here’s a snapshot of some key moments when what Jesus initiated
was completely derailed.
**Around AD 150 Clement made a
distinction between “priest” and “laity.” This set in motion the divide
of “clergy” and “laity,” the “ordained” and the
“parishioners.”
**Around AD 250 the practice of “one-bishop rule” took
root, and each bishop’s rule was defined territorially (see Judy Schindler, Part
2, Chapter 2).
**Around AD 325 the emperor Constantine made Christianity
the official religion of the Roman Empire. From this point on, the civil rulers
would have a heavy presence in what occurred in the visible church.
Thus, what began as a Christ-driven, Spirit-led formation
of ekklesias morphed into a
power-based, hierarchy-fed institution.
The expression of Christ through gifts of the Spirit
functioned in a beautiful way in the early church. There was no "institution" at
the beginning.The "institution" started taking shape from AD 150 onwards. As
this unfolded, spiritual gifts became unnecessary, for the "institution" saw
itself as the dispenser of grace. This is not to say there were no spiritual
gifts anywhere, but it is to say that as the "institution" became more and more
powerful, the Holy Spirit became less and less a part of the
mix.
The Striking Features of the First Century
Ekklesia
First century pagan religions and Judaism all had these
basic characteristics: (1) specific experts who led the religious practices; (2)
specific places (temples) where the people came to practice the religion; and
(3) specific religious rituals that were carried out at designated ways and
times.
It is precisely these three marks that were absent from the early church. They
functioned with no “clergy” (all of the saints were “clergy,” the Lord’s
“inheritance”), no religious buildings (they met “home to home”), and no set
rituals (“each one of you has a song, a teaching, etc.”).
However, as was mentioned above, this simplicity was
compromised in the Second and Third Centuries with the introduction of the
leader/people distinction, and the increasing focus on the “bishop” as the one
to whom submission must be given.
The third major capitulation occurred in the Fourth
Century when the church was recognized as the central religion of the Roman
Empire by Constantine, and granted special privileges by the
State.
From that
time on, the relation of the Christian Church to secular rulers, as well as the growth of the
Church’s own secular power, was
bound to influence the development of the Christian religion itself. (O’Grady, p. 73)
Constantine:
The Fusion of Church and State
Constantine was an opportunistic person. From AD 306 –
337 he was the leader of the Roman Empire. The evidence points to the fact that
he saw in Christianity a way to hold his vast empire
together.
It is
probable that Constantine became convinced that hope for the future lay in the determination
and orderliness of Christianity, and that
he wanted to enlist its growing strength in
the service of the Empire. His aim in government was to preserve some form of unity, and it may have been partly
for such reasons of policy that he
accepted the Christian religion. (O’Grady, p.
75)
For a number of years before Constantine took the throne,
the bishops had been having heated squabbles over the person of Christ – was He
of the same essence as the Father, or was there a time He did not exist? In
response to this in-fighting, Constanine
Needed
Christianity to be doctrinally consistent and centrally organized if it was going to help him
hold together the vast empire he
had inherited. Hoping to create a strong sense of unity and cohesion among his subjects, he
summoned some three hundred
bishops . . . To a meeting in the Turkish city of Nicea. (Valantasis,
p.
Xxii)
The Council of Nicea in AD 325 “formulated a credo, a
pledge that all Christians could recite that affirmed their basic beliefs.”
(Valantasis, p. Xxii)
It must be underscored what happened here. A powerful
civil ruler is calling church leaders together, and putting heavy pressure on
them to come up with a statement that will significantly contribute to the unity
of a worldly empire. “After the Council of Nicea, the imperially sanctioned and
militarily supported separation of Christians into two camps, heretical and
orthodox, began.” (Valantasis, p. xxiv)
Of course, the unity Constantine tried to create at Nicea
failed miserably. Nevertheless, he kept asserting his authority by intervening
in church affairs in hopes of calming the theological
storms.
In his
opinion, the Emperor, by virtue of his office, had the right to intervene in such controversies and to
preside over the councils
convened to settle them . . . . Constantine, himself, wanted to show
that, by virtue of his Imperial
office, he was supreme in
ecclesiastical affairs, hoping thereby to mould the Church into an instrument for consolidating the
absolute power of the Emperor.
(O’Grady, p. 75)
The truth is, after the Council at Nicea there was a lot
of confusion. Theological unanimity was a joke. Some exiled for their views were
called back; some once viewed as heroes were exiled. All this had nothing to do
with Christ. It was about raw power and control. HE THEM BY THEIR NECKS
SIR.
Doctrinal
and personal quarrels multiplied and the Emperor intervened either to support or to
exile the leaders of the
conflicting parties. Three years after accepting the decrees of the Council of Nicea, Constantine changed
his mind, recalled Arius from
exile and supported the anti-Nicene party until the end of his reign. (O’Grady, p.
92)
Once the State was subsidizing the church, the power of
the bishops kept expanding.
By the
time Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, the power of the bishops had become
enormous. In his diocese the
bishop commanded almost supernatural prestige; he was the popular choice of the people and he
now had official powers of
jurisdiction over his clergy, and over any other case brought before him. Because the Church in the
fourth century, through this
far-reaching power of the bishops, had become an indispensable part of the social
welfare of the State, it seemed at
times that it would even become an organ of the Imperial Government. (O’Grady, p.
77)
So by AD 350 the original vision of Jesus Christ was
totally abandoned, and had been replaced by a human organization calling itself
“church,” which had jumped into bed with the State.MONEY LOVE, “The Church was
taking Roman organization, philosophy and jurisprudence into its service.”
(O’Grady, p. 61) The church had become a
business, a bureaucracy, and was now consumed with preserving and perpetuating
its religious accoutrements. As the Cardinal said to Christ in Brothers Karamazov, “We took from him, the wise and mighty spirit of the
wilderness, what You rejected with scorn – Rome and the sword of
Caesar.”
“Orthodoxy”
We hear the word “orthodoxy” and generally think, “that
which is right (orthodox) in contrast to that which is wrong (heterodox).” But
it is just not that simple. Remember, the primary impetus to have “Christianity
doctrinally consistent and centrally organized” came from a self-aggrandizing emperor.
Constantine presided at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Do you think the bishops
could be objective about the issues before them with the Emperor sitting there?
How many were exiled for giving the wrong answers?
An “Orthodoxy” in concrete was being formed by bishops as
ecclesiastical power was being centralized in Rome more and more, and civil
emperors shaped the agenda for the church. Those who questioned “orthodoxy,” or
stood outside of it, found themselves facing many dangers.
But,
already in the fourth century, a persecuted Church had turned persecutor. Those who disagreed
with ‘orthodox’ teachings were stripped of their
authority and exiled. In one
instance, when all persuasion had failed to bring the dissenters back into the fold, Church and State
joined to put them down by
force. These dissenters were the Donatists. (O’Grady, p.
79)
In the Fourth Century the Emperor had the upper hand in
church affairs. It came to be a deadly assumption that the civil leader would
take the helm in theological matters.
So the
institution by the Emperor of ecumenical councils was considered to be the act not of a
political leader, but of the leader of
the Christian people. The Emperor was automatically asked to intervene in theological arguments.
The general councils were
summoned and guided by imperial authority. (O’Grady, p.
90)
Wrangling with Words and Each
Other
The visible church became a battle ground for one
controversy after another. One Greek letter left in or omitted became the source
of endless in-fighting. When the bishops should have put their hands over their
mouths, they kept going on and on into areas of speculation to refute the
“heretics.”
The
Greeks, who adopted the new religion, brought with them their love of disputation and logical
definition. (O’Grady, p. 89) The
attempt to combat Gnosticism with definitions was to give rise to further definitions, and then
to further arguments about those
definitions, and so to accusations and counter-accusations of heresy . . . . But once the questions
were raised and other ‘heretics’
gave their response, it seemed that an official answer had to be given. It may have been
necessary to have definitions,
but it is possible that the very act of defining distorts the understanding of that which lies
beyond logic. (O’Grady, p. 33)
In
studying these controversies and the Councils that attempted to settle them, it often seems that their
endless dissentions,
condemnations and counter-condemnations were merely theologians’ quarrels about the
detailed use of words, and about
minute differences in the ‘expression of the inexpressible.’ St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing to the
Emperor Constantine complained
that “Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible
Mysteries.CULT We research that junk out here ,,done, we defend those who
repent, we anathematize those whom we
defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or our own in that of others;
and, reciprocally tearing one another
to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin.” (O’Grady, p.
89)
It Was Always
About Power and Control ,,coming back to our true
faith..
With the increasing definition of “orthodoxy,” the
“bishops demanded from their faithful” a “blind faith” and “mindless trust”
(Valantasis, p. 126). From cradle to grave the dark cloud of the church hovered
over them, packaged in seven “sacraments” and a labyrinth of other religious
rituals and duties. Is it any wonder that when civil liberties emerged much
later, people exited from the churches? Henri Nouwen made these pointed
observations:
When I
ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the church during the past decades in
France, Germany, Holland, and
also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the
history of Christianity is that its
leaders constantly gave in to the temptation of power – political power, military power, economic
power, amen true fully corrupted !!!!!!or moral and spiritual power – even though they
continued to speak in the name of
Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are. We keep
hearing from others, as well as
saying to ourselves, that having power – provided it is used in the service of God and your fellow human
beings – is a good thing.
With this rationalization, crusades took place;
inquisitions were organized; Indians were
enslaved; positions of great
influence were desired; episcopal palaces, splendid cathedrals, and
opulent seminaries were built; and much moral manipulation of conscience was engaged in. Every time we see
a major crisis in the history of
the church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth
century, or the immense
secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power
exercised by those who claim to be
followers of the poor and powerless Jesus. (In the Name of Jesus, pp.
75-77)
Power
offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God
than to love God easier to control people than to love people, easier to own
life than to love life. Jesus asks, “Do you love me?” We ask, “Can we sit at
your right hand and your left in your Kingdom?” (In the Name of Jesus, p.
77)
The long
painful history of the church is the history of people ever and again tempted to
choose power over love, control over the cross, being a leader over being led.
(In the Name of Jesus, pp. 78- 79) wellsaid for sure it is deeply immersed in
the it’s poison sir..
One thing
is clear to me: The temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is feared.
Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop
healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead.
Many Christian empire builders have been
people unable to give and receive love. (In the Name of Jesus, p.
79)
An Example of “Outside the
Box”
“Montanus was the male founder” of a movement, and he
“began to prophesy in Phrygia, in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) sometime around 170
C.E.” (Valantasis, p. 100)
This “group of Christians who broke away from the main
Church in the second half of the second century were the Montanists . . . . they
sought a return to the purity of original Christianity, declaring that the rules
governing the ethical behavior of Christians were not given through the
authority of bishops and Church institutions, but by God alone, speaking through
the inspired prophets . . . . His [Montanus] declared mission was to bring about
a return to the simplicity of the early Church, and to announce the fulfillment
of the prophecy of Pentecost.” (O’Grady, p. 60)
“Montanus called forth a vision of a church renewed –
filled with the Holy Spirit, alive with fresh prophecy, and eagerly awaiting the
imminent return of Christ.” (Valantasis, p. 100) “The Montanists . . . aimed at
a freer, more emotional form of religion.” (O’Grady, p.
60)
Women fully participated in this movement. (Valantasis,
p. 102) “Woman after woman, then man after man, would channel words from God,
while the others listened attentively.” (Valantasis, p.
99)?
“The Montanists understood their new prophecy as a
renewal movement for an increasingly decadent church.”(Valantasis, p.
101)
They did not challenge the main church’s sacramental and
hierarchical system. (Valantasis, p. 102) “Their fervency for reform did not
extend to their church’s structure,” and thus they ordained women and men as
“deacons, presbyters (priests) and bishops.” (Valantasis, pp. 103, 102) “The
famous North African Latin theologian Tertullian (160-225) converted to the
movement and wrote energetically from a Montanist perspective.” (Valantasis, p.
105)?
My purpose here is not to defend or condemn what the
Montanists practiced. Rather, it is to underscore that this “outside the box”
group deeply disturbed those in power in the “orthodox” church. “Obviously the
leadership of the church could not have people claiming to channel the divine
voice directly . . . and so the Montanists eventually were excommunicated.”
(Valantasis, p. 104) true they were ,
“Mysticism in an organization leads to a crisis of
authority, and many of the internal disputes of the first three centuries of the
Christian church concerned the problem of revelations.” (Fanning, p.
19)
“The reaction of the anti-Montanist Christians indicates
that the mainstream of Christianity no longer experienced possession by the Holy
Spirut as a normative feature of the faith . . . . The promise of the
unmediated, indwelling divinity within the believer offered a means of bypassing
the authority of the emerging hierarchy of bishops . . . . Moreover, the
prominence of the prophetesses was considered to be unseemly by the male
clergy.” (Fanning, pp. 20-21)
Church people had to be watchful of anything “that
challenged in any manner the authority of the ecclesiastical leaders, or of its
increasingly specific and narrowing orthodox faith.” (Fanning, p. 21) As I.M. Lewis put it,
“direct claim to divine knowledge is always a threat to the established order.”
(Fanning, p. 21) true!!!
By the fourth century “there was a conflict between those
who saw Christianity as a religion of the mind, a system of beliefs about God
that was governed by the Scriptures, and those who saw Christianity as an
experience of God.” the unchanged ones.(Fanning, p.
34).
The Montanists vividly illustrate what happened to any
group in the future – like the Donatists -- who pursued things in a different
way, outside of the “orthodox” hierarchy.
Did Christ Build This Mess?never the
ancient mysteries were enter the people were kept ignorant to just recently as
the nature of the perversion taking place about truth,, into that was the toxin
that would produce the powerless estate you now see sir. cult mix sir is what quenches the
spirit , Israel had to lean it as well as we are going to, out get saved by fall
sleep in lethargic condition to their surroundings no spirit warfare abilities
other than voting good Luck in the world of Hegelians dialectic state
religions ....fs
I have given above a concise, condensed summary of some
key characteristics of the post-apostolic church
–
**that civil rulers became the controlling factor in
church affairs;called stupid
**that a central church hierarchy and a doctrinal system
called “orthodoxy” were put into place in order to control peoples’
lives;
**that those outside of the hierarchy and “orthodoxy”
were viewed as “heretics” who were harassed and often killed; Satanism with in,
he is murderer, liar,as Jesus said he was and is, sir Jesus does not murder
his kids man does fs
**that in all these matters and more, what began when
Christ came to the ekklesia in the
Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was long-lost after AD 150 in a growing
ecclesiastical bureaucracy. they milked the people for money and their lives fs
Now I have a critical question for you to consider. But
before the question, I want to set before you a little snapshot of “church life”
in the fifth century.
A Council
was summoned at Ephesus in 431. The city mob
demonstrated violently against the ‘opponents of the Mother of God.’ The Emperor intervened, and, at
one time during the roceedings, imprisoned both Cyril and Nestorius. Churchmen condemned each other; the common
people rioted; the Imperial
civil servants carried on intrigues between both parties. Finally,
[Emperor] Theodosius dismissed the Council saying, quite rightly, that it had
failed to achieve reconciliation. But Nestorius himself was condemned as a
heretic, deposed and exiled. (O’Grady, p. 103 a few saw deep lies , amen
So “church” then consisted of
Emperors changing their theological views pragmatically, depending on various
circumstances, and “bishops changed sides according to who was Emperor.”
(O’Grady, p. 106) Keep in mind that “three years after accepting the decrees of
the Council of Nicea, Constantine changed his mind, recalled Arius from exile
and supported the anti-Nicene party until the end of his reign.” (O’Grady, p.
92) it never stopped doing it either sir ,about it
now... easy to do when the masses are so institutionalized, the ability to
think for themselves is nill at best ... not good.
The vital question is this: are you prepared to equate Christ’s words,
“I will build My ekklesia,” with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformation
churches? Do we really believe that Christ was the Architect of these
Institutional Churches? Did He build these religious bureaucracies or did humans
craving power and control?man sir purely man... sir and in this case lost in
it...
I know this: Christ has always been building His
ekklesia, but not in organizations that are intertwined with State power,
not in organizations that depend on State support and backing for their
existence, and not in organizations that murder people “outside the box” in
Jesus’ name. amen we are free here sir.... few there be all that matters what
is with me is worth the purest gold to come sir, What happened in AD 451 in those riotous mobs, in those
theological fights, and in the Emperor’s presence at the Council was not Christ. It was flesh; it was
control; it was power.
Just because an institution calls itself “Church” does
not mean it has anything to do with Christ. We need to come to terms with this
reality. When Jesus builds something, it is Spirit, and it is Love. Further, Christ builds out of weakness, not fleshly power and control.
As Nouwen put it so well –
Root search out truth by all means, we mist do so,
[yet] who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.*
do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.q
O stupid* Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?a 2I want to learn only this from you:b did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?* 3Are you so stupid?c After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?* 4Did you experience so many things* in vain?—if indeed it was in vain. 5Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard?d 6Thus Abraham “believed God,e and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
What Faith Has Brought Us.* 23Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed.v 24 Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian* for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.w 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.x
this helps get rid of the legal trolls trying make you live in perpetual guilt>>>> defeat one save your in Christ we all struggle even the legal tolls, doubt means to double think it;s the absence of faith ...
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.a 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.b
* [3:1–14] Paul’s contention that justification comes not through the law or the works of the law but by faith in Christ and in his death (Gal 2:16, 21) is supported by appeals to Christian experience (Gal 3:1–5) and to scripture (Gal 3:6–14). The gift of God’s Spirit to the Galatians came from the gospel received in faith, not from doing what the law enjoins. The story of Abraham shows that faith in God brings righteousness (Gal 3:6; Gn 15:6). The promise to Abraham (Gal 3:8; Gn 12:3) extends to the Gentiles (Gal 3:14).
* [3:1] Stupid: not just senseless, for they were in danger of deserting their salvation.
* [3:2] Faith in what you heard: Paul’s message received with faith. The Greek can also mean “the proclamation of the faith” or “a hearing that comes from faith.”
GALATIANS 3:10 All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the Law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The Law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (NIV)
GALATIANS 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the Law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the Law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (ESV)
GALATIANS 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace. (NKJV)
No comments:
Post a Comment