Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is it Right: The New Perspective on Paul?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it Right: The New Perspective on Paul?

    A theologian whose views are becoming very prominent today is Bishop N. T. Wright. His views are different from the mainstream denominational views in the sense that they align with the New Perspective on Paul, which teaches that Paul never criticized those who continued in Judaism for works righteousness, the need for works being compulsory in order to be saved, but that he criticized them for continuing in following the Old Covenant, and even there, following it erroneously. They only followed "works of the law", those requirements that identified Jews, that made Jews different from others: circumcision, dietary restrictions and ritual purification like washing of hands. They reasoned that since promises were made to Abraham to bless his children, whoever could be identified as such would receive those promises. However, each rabbi had a different set of requirements, as seen by the discovery of parchments in the Dead Sea caves, which listed out requirements taught by a person called "The Teacher of Righteousness". These requirements were needed to be followed, were halakhah, upon which a believer would be recognised as a true follower of God, be justified.

    Quote
    Halakhah, (Hebrew: “the Way”) also spelled Halakha, Halakah, or Halachah, plural Halakhahs, Halakhot, Halakhoth, or Halachot, in Judaism, the totality of laws and ordinances that have evolved since biblical times to regulate religious observances and the daily life and conduct of the Jewish people.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Halakhah


    Even in the New Testament, Jews were seen to be making choices of which rabbi to follow, because not only was the result of a wrong choice a bad future judgement, it also meant a bad present outcome. To avoid wrath, perishing from a tower collapse at Siloam and being used as sacrifices that contaminated the Temple by Pilate, Jews were running to John the Baptist. The axe was even then falling at the root of the bad trees.


    However, there are many versions of the New Perspective being taught. Wright's version is even being seen as heretical, unorthodox, by the Reformed Community, because the Old Perspective originated with Luther, the Reformer. He, Wright, has been accused of reverting back to Papist doctrine, teaching that works were required to be saved. Fellow Anglican Bishop Paul Helm is particularly critical about him on this issue.


    Basically, Wright says justification is God's acknowledgement that some one is clean, can remain in the Camp of the People of God, based on which he will inevitably produce good works, which in turn will assure a good future judgement. In other words, justification is not a description of how to get into the group called the People of God, or how to stay in, but how believers will know whether to have table fellowship with a person or not. Yes, Wright can be difficult to understand, you need to unpack many of his statements. Maybe even question them, because he is still an observant Calvinist, and some of his denominational bias may still be influencing his views, even if he does not believe that they may be contradictory of those views. He tends to deflect or seemingly be obfuscatory when questioned.


    However, there are some theories he puts forward that can be framed to compare with mainstream models to check if they are good changes, in relationship to what Scripture teaches. After all, the Reformation, following Barth, who followed Augustine, recommended ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, the Reformed Church, always reforming, right?


    Wright says the Gospel is not that Jesus has now created a Way for believers to go to Heaven, but a Way for them to have the right Vocation. He states that the idea of going to heaven is a Platonic deviation from the faith taught by Scripture, which says Creation was good. Platonism, which influenced Christianity when the power center shifted from Jerusalem to Rome, teaches a dualism of treating the world as material and bad, and heaven as spiritual and good, which by the way is common with all other pagan faiths.


    God made a Temple,and the last step was placing Man in it, so that he could reflect His image into the world, in turn causing Creation to be drawn to submit to God. In this, Wright says he was influenced by the interpretation of Genesis by Prof John H. Walton, emphasing God declared His Creation as good.


    Which view follows Scripture better, Wright's NPP or mainstream, considering the following?

    Mainstream: The Gospel is the news we can finally go to Heaven, escaping the evil material bonds of the body.

    Wright: The Gospel is the news we can finally be pleasing to God through perfecting, subduing, Creation, which God declared as good.
    Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 01:33 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by footwasher View Post

    Which view follows Scripture better, Wright's NPP or mainstream, considering the following?

    Mainstream: The Gospel is the news we can finally go to Heaven, escaping the evil material bonds of the body.

    Wright: The Gospel is the news we can finally be pleasing to God through perfecting, subduing, Creation, which God declared as good.
    I don't think either of those views has much basis in Scripture.

    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      I don't think either of those views has much basis in Scripture.
      Would you agree what is given below is what Christians generally believe about the Gospel?

      Quote
      It therefore comes as a something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven — at least, not in the way that millions of Christians understand the term. In his new book, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne), Wright quotes a children's book by California first lady Maria Shriver called What's Heaven, which describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." That, says Wright is a good example of "what not to say." The Biblical truth, he continues, "is very, very different."

      Wright, 58, talked by phone with TIME's David Van Biema.



      TIME: At one point you call the common view of heaven a "distortion and serious diminution of Christian hope."

      Wright: It really is. I've often heard people say, "I'm going to heaven soon, and I won't need this stupid body there, thank goodness.' That's a very damaging distortion, all the more so for being unintentional.

      TIME: How so? It seems like a typical sentiment.

      ,,,,,,

      TIME: Has anyone you've talked to expressed disappointment at the loss of the old view?


      Wright: Yes, you might get disappointment in the case where somebody has recently gone through the death of somebody they love and they are wanting simply to be with them. And I'd say that's understandable. But the end of Revelation describes a marvelous human participation in God's plan. And in almost all cases, when I've explained this to people, there's a sense of excitement and a sense of, "Why haven't we been told this before?"


      http://content.time.com/time/world/a...710844,00.html
      Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 10:11 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by footwasher View Post

        Would you agree what is given below is what Christians generally believe about the Gospel?

        Quote
        It therefore comes as a something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven — at least, not in the way that millions of Christians understand the term. In his new book, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne), Wright quotes a children's book by California first lady Maria Shriver called What's Heaven, which describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." That, says Wright is a good example of "what not to say." The Biblical truth, he continues, "is very, very different."
        I would agree that a ton of so-called "Christians" have fluffy, ignorant beliefs along those lines. Wright was certainly not the first to note such views are ridiculous. Most Protestants with even a modicum of knowledge would immediately notice, unfavorably, the "if you're good throughout your life" part. That is flat-out wrong. The other stuff is just fanciful, probably owing to our vague conception of Heaven as "up there." The Scriptural presentations of "Heaven" are varied, but I don't know of any that present it as people "sit(ting) on soft clouds and talk(ing)."


        Wright, 58, talked by phone with TIME's David Van Biema.



        TIME: At one point you call the common view of heaven a "distortion and serious diminution of Christian hope."

        Wright: It really is. I've often heard people say, "I'm going to heaven soon, and I won't need this stupid body there, thank goodness.' That's a very damaging distortion, all the more so for being unintentional.

        TIME: How so? It seems like a typical sentiment.

        ,,,,,,

        TIME: Has anyone you've talked to expressed disappointment at the loss of the old view?


        Wright: Yes, you might get disappointment in the case where somebody has recently gone through the death of somebody they love and they are wanting simply to be with them. And I'd say that's understandable. But the end of Revelation describes a marvelous human participation in God's plan. And in almost all cases, when I've explained this to people, there's a sense of excitement and a sense of, "Why haven't we been told this before?"


        http://content.time.com/time/world/a...710844,00.html
        The parts you've quoted are not enough for m to comment sensibly. I'll try to read the article later.
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Nationalist.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

          I don't think either of those views has much basis in Scripture.
          I don't think either of those views are an accurate representation of what is believed by either side of the discussion, though the view ascribed to Wright is at least orthodox.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by footwasher View Post

            Would you agree what is given below is what Christians generally believe about the Gospel?

            Quote
            It therefore comes as a something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven Wright: It really is. I've often heard people say, "I'm going to heaven soon, and I won't need this stupid body there, thank goodness.' That's a very damaging distortion, all the more so for being unintentional.

            ,,,,,,

            TIME: Has anyone you've talked to expressed disappointment at the loss of the old view?[/B]

            Wright: Yes, you might get disappointment in the case where somebody has recently gone through the death of somebody they love and they are wanting simply to be with them. And I'd say that's understandable. But the end of Revelation describes a marvelous human participation in God's plan. And in almost all cases, when I've explained this to people, there's a sense of excitement and a sense of, "Why haven't we been told this before?"
            I agree with Wright's emphasis that our ultimate benefit is the bodily resurrection. I do not reject people speaking of going to heaven. I interpret heaven to be a synonym for paradise or for being present with Jesus. I haven't really encountered discussions where Christians say the flesh and physical are bad -- at least not in an obviously platonic fashion. It would certainly be unChristian to follow the Platonic concept.

            Most of the NPP doctrine seems to take discussions on weird trails. Of course, part of the NPP goal was to take remove unjustifiable negative assessments about Jews and Judaism overall. Still, it is worthwhile to examine things from a different vantage point if perhaps we have developed wrong doctrines. Yet, the NPP does not seem to have advanced much in a good direction.

            One thing I see wrong with Wright's position is concerning the idea that Christians are saved through the community. This point seems to be countering the individuals being saved by faith. Wright's position seems to be more Romanist. But really there is no strict "community" (in a visible form) that we join. You can be a Christian without a church group, albeit this is not the ideal situation.

            I may think of other issues later.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

              I don't think either of those views are an accurate representation of what is believed by either side of the discussion, though the view ascribed to Wright is at least orthodox.
              Sure, I may have articulated the situation clumsily, but if you think about it, the impression of what is generally believed could be expressed as such. There is a discussion on going on the NT Wright group on Facebook where these issues have repeatedly been raised. Even his supporters have a problem with some of his views.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              One thing I see wrong with Wright's position is concerning the idea that Christians are saved through the community. This point seems to be countering the individuals being saved by faith. Wright's position seems to be more Romanist. But really there is no strict "community" (in a visible form) that we join. You can be a Christian without a church group, albeit this is not the ideal situation.

              I may think of other issues later.
              Abraham was promised that his descendants would be a blessing to the world. It seems to be a restoration of Adam's mandate to harness creation, make it useful for God, its owner. It wasn't that God couldn't do it, He just used the project as a canvas on which humanity's righteousness, manifestations of which give Him pleasure, could be expressed. Israel was promised the Land. It's a disconnect not to view that both the promises were related. In other words, entry into the Land was the Way that people could be blessings to the world.

              This is why Israel strove to return: all NPP scholars view the dissatisfaction expressed in the text as a realisation that even though Israel had returned from Exile, they were still not fully restored to the Davidic ideal: freedom to worship in the Temple as they interpreted Torah required. Besides, Jerusalem was ruled by a succession of foreign powers, and that was an abomination. Messiah needed to come. Israel was nothing, without proper Land residency observance. Being in the Land properly was important to God too. He sent lions to kill even the surrogate inhabitants who lived there improperly, people the Babylonian king sent to maintain it, in the absence of the Israelites taken away into captivity.

              Jerusalem is the type, foreshadowing of the extension of the Camp to the Ark, the Tabernacle, then the Temple, then the entire City of God, the Jerusalem from above. Even though not directly stated, it finds it final expression in the Body of Christ, the invisible Church. That's why we need to be IN Christ. 2 Cor 5:21 is explained very well by Wright.
              Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 07:36 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Quote
                Three final reflections. First, this way of reading the second half of the crucial verse
                may perhaps provide an additional reason for taking the second occurrence of (hamartia)

                in
                the verse as a reference not just to “sin” in general but to the “sin-offering.”
                13
                I have argued elsewhere for this meaning for in Rom 8:3, and I think it is likely, granted the more context-specific reading of the verse which I am proposing, that Paul would intend it here too.
                14
                This, if correct, would not water down the striking
                impression of the first half of the verse, as is sometimes suggested, but would rather give it more specific direction. The verse is not an abstract, detached statement of atonement theology (Paul nowhere offers us such a thing); rather, it focuses very specifically on his own strange apostolic ministry. Insofar as this ministry is a thing of shame and dishonor, it is so despite Paul’s intention, and the sin-offering is the right means of dealing with such a problem. Insofar as it is the means of the divine covenant faithfulness being held out to the world, it is because, in Christ, Paul has “become” the (dikaiosune theou)
                -
                (“righteousness of God”). This is only a suggestion, which could perhaps be taken up in subsequent discussion.


                Second, some will no doubt object that I have missed the point entirely. Paul, it will
                be suggested, was here simply drawing on a traditional formula, only loosely integrated
                into his own flow of thought. In reply, I think it is certainly possible that behind our
                verse there lies a regular early Christian way of expressing something about Jesus’ death
                and its effect. Almost all things are possible within the very shadowy world of pre-
                Pauline early Christian history. But I do not think it is very likely. The verse as I have
                read it fits so closely into Paul’s argument, and employs such characteristic language in a characteristic way, that I think it far more probable that we have here an instance of
                something which scholars, even those who spend their lives in his company, are
                singularly slow to grant that Paul may have possessed: the ability to produce a pithy
                phrase on his own account and to draw together a complex line of thought in a telling and
                memorable epigram. We scholars, so often preferring learned obscurity to pungent
                clarity, sometimes project this image, among others, on to the apostle. It is not only the
                Corinthian church that tries to insist on the apostle’s coming up to its ill-conceived
                expectations.


                Third, this reading of 5:21 has tied it in quite tightly, I think, to the whole argument of
                chaps. 3-5. This suggests to me that, although of course the first half of chap. 6 grows
                organically out of just this conclusion, it is misleading to treat 5:19 as though it were the
                conclusion of the long preceding argument and 5:20 as though it were the start of the new
                one. When it is read in the way I have suggested, 5:20-21 forms the natural climax to the
                entire argument of the preceding three chapters, with 6:1 being the point where Paul turns
                to address a specific appeal to the Corinthians. They have, after all, already been
                reconciled to God (5:20);
                15
                now they need to be urged not to receive this grace in vain
                (6:1). Moreover, they now have a significant new motive to heed this appeal: the one
                who speaks is not simply an odd, shabby, battle-scarred jailbird, but one who, however
                surprisingly, is a revelation in person of the covenant faithfulness of God.

                https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/05/07/...fNW6MVlVm_9mGM
                Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 08:02 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by footwasher View Post

                  Abraham was promised that his descendants would be a blessing to the world. It seems to be a restoration of Adam's mandate to harness creation, make it useful for God, its owner. It wasn't that God couldn't do it, He just used the project as a canvas on which humanity's righteousness, manifestations of which give Him pleasure, could be expressed. Israel was promised the Land. It's a disconnect not to view that both the promises were related. In other words, entry into the Land was the Way that people could be blessings to the world.

                  This is why Israel strove to return: all NPP scholars view the dissatisfaction expressed in the text as a realisation that even though Israel had returned from Exile, they were still not fully restored to the Davidic ideal: freedom to worship in the Temple as they interpreted Torah required. Besides, Jerusalem was ruled by a succession of foreign powers, and that was an abomination. Messiah needed to come. Israel was nothing, without proper Land residency observance. Being in the Land properly was important to God too. He sent lions to kill even the surrogate inhabitants who lived there improperly, people the Babylonian king sent to maintain it, in the absence of the Israelites taken away into captivity.

                  Jerusalem is the type, foreshadowing of the extension of the Camp to the Ark, the Tabernacle, then the Temple, then the entire City of God, the Jerusalem from above. Even though not directly stated, it finds it final expression in the Body of Christ, the invisible Church. That's why we need to be IN Christ. 2 Cor 5:21 is explained very well by Wright.
                  Sorry. I cannot find a central point and supportive evidence behind whatever point you intended to make.

                  The aspect of being in Christ refers to being in the vine. The term, as used in Rom 8, emphasizes that we are in Christ when we are behaving properly rather than in the flesh.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                    Sorry. I cannot find a central point and supportive evidence behind whatever point you intended to make.

                    The aspect of being in Christ refers to being in the vine. The term, as used in Rom 8, emphasizes that we are in Christ when we are behaving properly rather than in the flesh.
                    Here BELIEVERS are being asked not to fail in entering Christ:

                    Hebrews 3:12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a wicked heart of unbelief that turns away from the living God. 13But exhort one another daily, as long as it is called today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.

                    14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly to the end the assurance we had at first. 15As it has been said:

                    “Today, if you hear His voice,

                    do not harden your hearts,

                    as you did in the rebellion.”e

                    IOW, entering Christ is compared to entering Rest, the Promised Land, reaching the desired result/destination, being blessings to the world, God's way of being faithful to His promise to Abraham.

                    Wasn't Abraham tested before he entered Rest? Wasn't Caleb similarly tested, seeing if he would be obedient in facing the Amalekites, before he entered Rest? Yet none of these who proved their faith received what was promised, because God planned something better for us, so that only together with us would they become perfected, sanctified, enabled to be blessings to the world.

                    Hebrews 11:39These were all commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. 40God had planned something better for us, so that together with us they would be made perfect.
                    Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 08:25 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't see that much of Wright in the commentaries. His friend, Dunn, is more often in the discussions. Mostly, the ideas of Wright are identified for the problems rather than the contributions. This may be due to sort of the experimental examination of ideas along the NPP. It does seem that Wright has a ton of knowledge about language , biblical history, theological history and other areas. However, when it gets to actual commentaries, it seems that he does not make such solid arguments.

                      Dunn also suffers the same thing but also seems to write stuff that he later says is being misunderstood. Dunn tends to argue that he holds many conventional views. One thing from Dunn is his advocacy that the issue of works was about Jewish identity markers. However, when pressed, he says he recognizes also that Paul is against doing the Law for justification.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        I don't see that much of Wright in the commentaries. His friend, Dunn, is more often in the discussions. Mostly, the ideas of Wright are identified for the problems rather than the contributions. This may be due to sort of the experimental examination of ideas along the NPP. It does seem that Wright has a ton of knowledge about language , biblical history, theological history and other areas. However, when it gets to actual commentaries, it seems that he does not make such solid arguments.
                        This explains why people resist the NPP: it's too much work for the brains, by being more nuanced, complex. The mainstream explanation appeals to the simplicity people want.

                        The police in this story have a very satisfying explanation: motive, opportunity and the lack of an alibi on the part of the suspect, who has been arrested. However, when Holmes asks about unanswered questions, they protest that these are irrelevant. The fact that the dog did not bark in the night:

                        Quote
                        Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
                        Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
                        Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
                        Holmes: That was the curious incident.


                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...f_Silver_Blaze

                        Similarly, God promised Abraham he would be a blessing to the world. This was after he expressed dissatisfaction about living a meaningless life: being alienated in the Old Adam.

                        Question
                        Why did God promise to give land to Israel?

                        How does this curious disconnect relate to the promise to Abraham?

                        There is a package here, an entire schema, an ordo salutis. Which do we chose: the simple one or the complex one?
                        Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 10:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          Dunn also suffers the same thing but also seems to write stuff that he later says is being misunderstood. Dunn tends to argue that he holds many conventional views. One thing from Dunn is his advocacy that the issue of works was about Jewish identity markers. However, when pressed, he says he recognizes also that Paul is against doing the Law for justification.
                          Explanations are more difficult to understand being more complex. That seems obvious, and it explains why people repeat their views in different ways, seen even in the Gospels. Entering Rest, Land, the Kingdom, Christ all mean the same thing: sanctification, setting apart, being of God, enabled to do the works He prepared in advance, when He created evil, made things in Scripture dark. So that when made good, explained, the world would be
                          ​​​drawn to Him:

                          John 9:1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

                          3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
                          ......

                          John 12:And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
                          Last edited by footwasher; 11-03-2020, 11:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by footwasher View Post

                            This explains why people resist the NPP: it's too much work for the brains, by being more nuanced, complex. The mainstream explanation appeals to the simplicity people want.
                            Nah. The rejections are based on the NPP arguments being made. The letters of Paul are not to involve some abstract point that is hard to figure out. Paul had to write letters that the recipients would understand. and would be pertinent to the circumstances of the recipients.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                              Nah. The rejections are based on the NPP arguments being made. The letters of Paul are not to involve some abstract point that is hard to figure out. Paul had to write letters that the recipients would understand. and would be pertinent to the circumstances of the recipients.
                              Well the text says otherwise: God intentionally created problems and made Scripture difficult to explain, so that when these problems were solved, people would be drawn to Him. These are the works God created in advance, that believers may do them.

                              Isaiah 45:7I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.
                              .....


                              John 9:1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
                              ......

                              3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
                              ......

                              John 12:And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

                              ......


                              John 3:1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
                              .......


                              Joshua 2:10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites across the Jordan, whom you devoted to destruction. 11When we heard this, our hearts melted and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in the heavens above and on the earth below.

                              This is why we must pick up our crosses every day, so that God's work may be displayed in our lives, leading to the world being drawn to Him:

                              John 10:31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
                              .........

                              Mark 1:
                              21Then Jesus and His companions went to Capernaum, and right away Jesus entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and began to teach. 22 The people were astonished at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.
                              Last edited by footwasher; 11-04-2020, 12:29 AM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by brightfame52, 12-27-2020, 12:50 PM
                              155 responses
                              545 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Dave L
                              by Dave L
                               
                              Started by Kenneth Roberson, 11-08-2020, 09:37 AM
                              27 responses
                              388 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post footwasher  
                              Started by Hornet, 08-31-2020, 01:22 AM
                              122 responses
                              739 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Dave L
                              by Dave L
                               
                              Started by Hornet, 04-08-2020, 09:01 PM
                              154 responses
                              4,279 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Dave L
                              by Dave L
                               
                              Working...
                              X