The Conviction of Things Hoped For

When I first grasped freedom from the law or what I interpret it to be, I was left no longer knowing right from wrong. Should I murder? God opened the earth and swallowed up 250,000 in one shot. He marched them around the desert until they were all dead. Should I commit adultery? Well David had Bathsheba's husband killed by devious means then took her. He was the epoch King David whom God loved. They begat Solomon who built God's temple; the wisest man who ever lived. Should I steal? Jacob stole Esau's blessing and inherited the lineage to Christ. While this did not inspire me to follow their actions, I did dump my preconceptions of what was right and wrong. I did so because the revelation of freedom from the law had locked down in me and my previous alignment was no longer valid. So I believe our life is to be one of abiding in the Spirit not an orientation to right/wrong. We may think we know the difference between right and wrong but we really can't. I don't think Cain knew shit other than he was pissed. He bashed Abel's head in but there were no rules, no laws, no police. He even displays the attitude. I mean he's talking to God and says stop bugging me, who appointed me the caretaker of Abel. No indication he's bothered one iota.

I think that's what Paul's talking about in Roman 7:21 "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand". The life of a Christian is not about thinking what's right or wrong. Our orientation should be other than that. There's a whole lot in the New Testament about abiding in him. I think that's more the vein of our relationship than any laws or rules.

I think of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as a tree of self consciousness. The first thing that happened was they realized they were naked. Is that a good or evil thing? Before they ate, they didn't know naked from not naked. Prior to that they depended on God for everything because they were innocent. And I think that's the way it's supposed to be. We need to have a childlike relationship with God because really, we don't know anything. The real nature of sin is to say “Hey I’m naked, I better cover up”… cuts God right out of the picture. And what we do know is just shit. Knowledge will pass away!! I kind of Spiritually wandered around at first, walking into a few walls but began to read the Bible in earnest and found the attitudes and actions of the people in the New Testament a guiding light to who I am. I read Matthew one night from start to finish and could feel the dust on my face from the roads in Jerusalem. I believe the Spirit tuned my soul into the realities being described and made them mine. I came away, not remembering a single verse, couldn't quote you a single passage, but I had been there and remembered the tones and attitudes of Jesus and his followers. I also read Luke and the sequel Act's over two nights; same impact. When they began to sing in the prisons after being beaten I had chills run up and down me for minutes (as they are now) Who are these men? What makes them this way? The resurrected Jesus. So that (he)became my guide. Not the individual verses, which are important in defending the faith (apologetics) but the overwhelming tone and character that falls off the pages.

I don't think this would have happened if I had not been engaged by freedom. I would have had answers to my direction question. In fact, it never would have come up. I would have had a guide. Because I was at a huge loss, disposing of my prior determinator of correct behaviour, I was left with a vacuum that needed filling. And fill it he did. One of my favourite verses is Romans 12:2 "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." So through the renewal of my mind and me being obedient to that reality, I will find what the will of God is. When I found I wanted to tell someone about Jesus that became my new reality. If this is my new mind I better live in accord with it. So I told them. It was hard but it was also synchronized with what I truly wanted to do. Same on the subways or with people who gave me rides. Satan would try to attack constantly saying this or that to make it difficult to sort out what I wanted to do but I plodded on praising Jesus and praying to live in accord with my new mind. So it was a struggle but I began to find myself. Without freedom, I wouldn't have looked at things this way. Interpreting what I wanted to do was actually from the Spirit. And this ended up becoming my life. That's why the stories of the New Testament come to my mind so readily because my life is shaped by the attitudes they display. This whole way of thinking is not compatible with rules or right/wrong. What's right is Jesus and what's wrong is Satan. The religious leaders of the day thought Jesus was Satan for exactly what he said and did so the law is not a revealer of God.

If our contexts were the same then I don't think we'd still be hashing this out. Everyone does things that they know are wrong but that's not in the context that Paul writes of in Hebrews. In one sense this validates my points. If Paul is referring to your behaviour, and everyone else's for that matter, then you're all fucked. But is he really referring to you? Doesn't Jesus forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness? But Paul is saying "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins". The New Testament story is God reaching out to us so that we might believe in him and have everlasting life. The key here is the context, and it is unique. It is critical what Paul means by "sin deliberately" and "knowledge of the truth". They are the ying and yang of this passage. The deliberateness is a byproduct of the knowledge. The degree of the knowledge determines the required deliberateness to go against it.

"Forgive them for they know not what they do" Did they really not know what they were doing? They knew Jesus worked miracles, knew people held him to be a prophet, never hurt anyone, claimed to be God, yet here they were nailing him to his certain death. So Jesus doesn't assess them as knowing what they were doing yet on some level they certainly did. I think Paul is talking about a Spiritual knowing and Jesus is talking about a carnal knowing what you're doing. To the spiritual, a carnal knowing what you're doing is an antithesis. Without the Spirit, you just flat out don't know what you're doing. You may have a long list of right & wrongs and some type of religious connection to them but that's is not what Paul is addressing. That kind of, what I will call minor law breaking, is what Jesus died to forgive. When you receive the Spirit, only then do you have an opportunity to know what's going on. Although you don't think I can know this, most Christians are clueless and I think Jesus' forgiveness applies equally to them (as to those who crucified him) because they still don't know. There are a number of people who do know, and know that they know. And Paul appropriately describes the transgression as "throwing away your confidence" (v35) It is rejecting something/someone you are confident about.

And if you haven't recognized it, I am confident. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. It's not a namby pamby "I believe". It's a "this is f'n real, period". I have zero doubt about the reality of Jesus and his resurrection. I am still open to facts and evidence but still have zero doubt. The facts and information are part of the faith road (Jesus came to earth to provide evidence) but the Spirit can/will confirm truths in you which changes it to "the truth" rather than an accurate historical record. So Paul is referring to guys like me, who have confidence that can be thrown away. Thus the dark side looms, in the sense that I could throw my confidence away. I don't know what would cause this, perhaps some combination of sex, money, power, torture, imprisonment but I can't imagine it at this point. What would be the point of me denying anything I know? But every situation that involves another human being brings the potential of Satan's power into my life. Every thought is to be taken captive to obey my mind of Christ.

As to an objective validation whether I have the mind of Christ I can offer a few things. Your statement that “I justify all my thoughts and actions with faith that I have the mind of Christ” is not how it is in me. I do not have faith that I have the mind of Christ. I have a mind. Not my Spirit, not my body, but my mind, which is part of my soul. I know what I think. I can compare it to what Jesus, Paul and the disciples thought. On that front my mind pretty much mirrors the New Testament mentality. And Wycliffe, along with the other TST Colleges, pretty much attempted to obliterate my interpretations from my mind. I accept the Creation (6000 yrs ago), evolution is a doctrine of demons, the resurrection is a real event etc. All that I write is supported by the Bible. The supporting passages follow my initial writings, meaning the thoughts are first and references later. My thoughts make sense of all the New Testament and passages that I once hated (who are you a man to answer back to God) I delight in. At work people like my form of management because it's just, not fair. I don't always tell "the truth" but neither id Jesus in that narrow sense. It depends on who’s asking and why they're asking. He did what he wanted and was God. (told them he wasn't going to the wedding but went anyway) So I compare and check to see if I'm him.I read your concern but you must see I do not share it. As you can read I don't worry about whether my thoughts and actions are pure as Christ. I'm not sure how you'd even do that. And here's where there's a very big difference. At this point I would choke on saying "I can't believe that I have the mind of Christ". That is in my wheelhouse. Not only would I choke but I would definitely be tossing out some confidence, so to speak. I can't - not - say I have the mind of Christ. I must say it. Not because I believe it's true, or hope it's true, or like the sound of it, but because it is true. God has sent the Holy Spirit into me, at my request, to manifest Jesus in me. Some of that work is done and to whatever degree that is, I have the mind of Christ. From my view it's 100%, to Christ it might be a different number, but Jesus will have to show me and I’ll have to be open to see it. I could site numerous passages but I think you'd agree it's a totally warranted position. (1 Corinthians 2:16 to say the least)

You don't mention the Spirit, Soul, Body issue; very significant in my mind. It's the resolution of this type of issue that changes your thinking. If you have a mind and you're so sure it's not the mind of Christ, then what is it? Of course you don't have the question if you think we're just Spirit/Body. And if we are Spirit/Soul/Body then you should wonder where that other doctrine came from.

Living under the Law

So I sit here and consider if I am living under that Law? Am I missing out on the Christian life that Paul and John speak of? That scares me, what if I’m only living a shadow of what the Christian life is supposed to be? That verse from Hebrews also scares the shit out of me because I have done things even though I’ve known them to be wrong. I can’t believe that I have the mind of Christ. Temptations are put before me and I indulge in them. I have thoughts of envy, lust, pride etc. every day. Those are not of the mind of Christ. I can’t say that my mind is sanctified, I can’t pretend that the thoughts that go through my mind are some how pure. Is that what freedom from the law is? You just assume that your thoughts and actions are pure as Christ? Maybe you and I are very different.

"So while my conviction (faith) is a wonderful gift and gives me great confidence in all my dealings, there is a dark side that will constantly loom until the day I shed my mortal body"
I don’t get this? What is the looming dark side? Please explain how this is different from what I was saying about a sanctified spirit with an unshed cursed body.

I don’t see why you have a problem with natural law, not evolved of course but created. I gave the example of Cain saying, “am I my brothers keeper” as proof that he knew there was a guilt to hide. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge between good and evil and since then we’ve all known what’s wrong and right. Oddly it becomes these echelons: tree of knowledge, the law, faith in Christ, true freedom from the law. Why the tree of knowledge wasn’t good enough I have no idea.

This is just top of my head reaction. I still don’t see how doing good/evil is a grey issue in your eyes. I get how a heart of love allows contextual judgments within God’s will but I can’t get around the feeling that you justify all your thoughts and actions with faith that you have the mind of Christ.

The Spiritual Man

A number of projects are off my plate, so it looks like clear sailing for a few days.

Yes, I would say I have an answer. But you see, my views allow me an answer. Prior to that, I had no answer. And yet, I believed I should have an answer. It should make sense; albeit spiritual sense. And I don’t like to jump to our heavenly status because I don’t believe that is what John is talking about. I think he’s defining who we are in a real way. Just as Paul does when he says ‘It is not I’. We are to live on the ‘other side’ so to speak. We are to regard ourselves as saints, not sinners. Not because it makes us feel good but because it’s so. If we aren’t saints, then what has Jesus died for? There’s justification and sanctification. The two are completely different. Most Christians are big on justification a.k.a. my sins are washed away. But they’re very light on sanctification; the process of becoming Christ like. And that’s far more important because that’s how you become ready for heaven in the vein of ‘The Great Divorce’. Not some pretend way like we’re all getting better but a very concrete ‘I am God’ like transformation. We are to be the righteousness of God, here and now. I think the law is part of the shadow and can do nothing to help us here.

Christians have to shy away from any kind of strong statements regarding their sainthood. Living in relation to the law prevents it. In the back of their minds they think they’re not doing too well because there’s a bunch of things they think they should have done and/or didn’t do or vice versa. That is the byproduct of living under the law. It’s continually second guessing and a general malaise about your condition. That’s not how we are told to be. Jesus came “so that they (we) may be one as we (Jesus/Father) are one.” (John 17:11-16) and “We have the mind of Christ.”(1 Cor. 2:16) Just a couple of the 100’s I could pull up. I think all of these statements need to be taken very seriously and not written off to some spiritual mode that doesn’t exist or won’t until heaven.

I acknowledge the validity of the law and that it not being rescinded in any way shape or form. But like everything else the context is everything. Jesus came to fulfill and did fulfill the law. No one will be justified by works of the law. The law simply mirrors our sinfulness. I think that the “until everything is accomplished” is referring to his death and subsequent resurrection. Just prior to giving up his spirit he said, “It is finished”. To me, that was the end of the law’s usefulness in the context of the Holy Spirit being sent to ‘mop up’. From then on it’s new covenant, Spirit, mind of Christ etc.

I think the law is the embodiment of all that Moses handed to the Israelites from God. Instructions that pretty much cover the aspects of life at the time. The current moral codes we live by are all based on the law, whether accurately reflective or not. Pierre Trudeau, as Justice Minister under Lester Pearson, removed the connection between the Canadian legal system and it’s scriptural basis in 1968. From that point on it’s been a slippery slope into anything goes. So I take the law to be any rule, because I believe they all derive from God’s laws given to Moses.

Part of the confirmation of this is the enormous pains historians go through to predate some other historical legal system to the one from the Israelites. The most famous probably being the Code of Hammurabi, which they date to around 1780 BCE. With the exodus incorrectly dated to around 1220 BCE they think it predates the Ten Commandments by about 560 years. But with Velikovsky’s redating, based on historical evidence (Ages in Chaos), 600 years were incorrectly removed from the chronology rendering the revised date of 1800 BCE for the Exodus, which is prior to Hammurabi’s code. (This, not coincidently, matches up to the fall of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, which produced the pyramids) My view is that the historians want to say the laws come naturally (evolve?) and thereby diminish the reality that God handed them down to Moses. I would have to do more research but the prejudice is real and was repeatedly driven home at Wycliffe. I suspect most legal systems are predicated on the Old Testament Law. My interpretation of the meaning of “The Law” is exceptionally wide sweeping based on it being the derivative of almost all moral and legal systems on earth. (Mohammed being tutored by a Christian missionary when he was 14) Thus the final definition is “external criteria for lifestyle” which best refocuses the mind onto the still quiet voice of the spirit inside us. And that is how I think Paul sees the law; simply a “written code” that is set up as a standard for us to meet. That is not a spiritual perspective. We don’t look at written codes, but to Jesus, the pioneer of our faith who fulfilled all the requirements to all written codes.

I would therefore not regard the law as simply being that of not associating with Gentiles. The woman who asked Jesus to heal her daughter was serviced. When she said “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master table” Jesus relented. His initial response was “what is meant for the children is not thrown to the dogs”. So although the Jewish/Gentile division was crystal clear, in a moment Jesus overrides it. I guess it’s similar to picking ears of corn on the Sabbath or as Jesus analogizes “if your mule falls in a well on the Sabbath, don’t you pull it out?” So the Jews of the day, and to this day, twist and turn the law to serve their selfish interest. The law is a shadow of the real attitudes of God. The law is an imprint of God’s purity but it’s not the real deal. Like the difference between watching a pro’s swing then trying to do it, forget it. The rule really was not to associate with Gentiles, but Jesus did it all the time. What gives? The Roman centurion’s faith was greater than Jesus had seen in all of Israel!

So I think the original law was not even the law we think it to be. It was meant to be guided by the greater attitudes of love, compassion, and understanding but not to be diminished in severity. The law has an intent, and we need to understand that intent so that it can be meted out with justice in the different contexts that the rule violations take place. Jesus tells the Pharisees that they violate “honour thy parents” when they allow people to take all their money and give it to the synagogue. There’s nothing wrong with giving your money to the church, but not when it obviates your responsibilities elsewhere. To reiterate, I think ‘the law’ is the broad code of behaviour handed down through the generations.

Although definitions are pedantic by nature, they end up being extremely critical because they are the foundation for the thoughts that later build on them. I would take issue with your paragraph which again shows the heart of the difference in our definitions of law and freedom from it. You state:

When he dies in Christ he is raised into the life of the spirit. Paul is obviously talking about the death and resurrection of the spirit not the body. This is why he goes on to state the war that goes on within him. The resurrected spirit trapped in the sinful body. Christ renews the spirit now and offers us new bodies when our cursed one dies. Thus our spirit is free from the law yet our bodies are still subject to it.

As previously stated, I don’t believe there is a war going on in Paul as you ascribe to him. The Epistles show nothing of this inner conflict as handkerchiefs are taken from his hands to heal those afar. Jesus speaks to him directly. He is not plagued by doubt and concern of his sinful nature. He is dead to it. He is alive to God in Christ. We are to be like Christ, not a ‘spirit trapped in a sinful body’. Did Christ’s sin nature, because he took on the mantle of manhood through conception and birth, hinder his pure expression of the Godhead - Not. We are to be like him. As Paul said he suffered like us so he can empathize with our situation. ‘He who knew no sin, became sin, that we might become the righteousness of God”

I believe your dichotomous presentation of the Christian is necessitated by a perspective of the law I do not share. Also, it is not by coincidence that Watchman Nee begins his tomb ‘The Spiritual Man’ with Chapter 1 – Spirit, Soul and Body. His first Biblical reference is 1 Thess 5:23 “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Nee goes to great pains to qualify this aspect of the make up of human beings. He says the definition of a two part human is from fallen man and regards “it as issue of supreme importance for it affects tremendously the spiritual life of a believer.”

When you seek to qualify “the death and resurrection of the spirit not the body” I am left to wonder, what of the soul? The true battle ground is in the soul where the mind, will and emotions reside. The body pulls one way, the spirit the other but the ‘prism gate’, so to speak, is what determines our final lot on earth and in heaven. Whether the spirit is given rule over our souls and thus our bodies is whether we allow him to or not. If the spirit is trapped, it is because our mind/will/emotions force him there, not because the body is under sin and death. And because the Spirit is love, he will submit to our will whether we are conscious of our quenching or not.

Re: Dangerous Place.
A number of kingdom truths have been confirmed in me. There is a marked difference when I discuss issues with others around me, especially if they’re kingdom related. I’m basically on the nut for these things and I often hear Hebrews 10:26-31 ringing in my ears:

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the Law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

I think this only applies to those who’ve been convicted and tasted the kingdom, then fall away. I think the Annanias and Sapphira situation was an example of people who had been exposed and absorbed a certain level of spiritual truth but turned their backs on it. This is a level of spiritual consciousness that most Christians do not attain. They are still thinking in terms of doing good and bad which is all pretty grey anyway. But the light of the kingdom has shone brightly for me. The good/bad have not applied for many moons. I have a relationship with a friend so real I can taste it. There is not shred of information that does not fit perfectly into his divine creation. For me to deny any of these realities slots me into Paul’s diatribe. Appropriately I do not respond to his message with fear and cowering but with awe and wonder. I will be judged and God is my refuge. If I am turned away I will have deserved the fate which the perfect judge has rendered. So while my conviction (faith) is a wonderful gift and gives me great confidence in all my dealings, there is a dark side that will constantly loom until the day I shed my mortal body. This situation does not exist for most Christians. They do not have enough faith that would warrant such a sentence. They will be sentenced, but it would be mild by comparison if I were to turn on what I know to be true. The danger is not in the subjectivity that is actually a refuge of ‘forgive them for they know not what they do’. The danger is in the overwhelming objectivity where I do know what I’m doing, or better said do know ‘the mind of Christ’.

So while the danger is real, that is not where I look. My eyes are set on Christ and his fathomable work on the cross where he freed me from wrath, sin, law and death to serve him in the new Spirit of life. He will keep me until that day.

Take your time

The speed of my response is due to the fact that I'm not in school anymore. That last post took 3hrs to write in word before I pasted it to the Blog. When I leave a post it becomes a full on bible study. I have to struggle with the scripture I read, the workings of my soul, and the wording of my response.

Upon rereading my last post I would like to clarify that the definition I gave for the law is according to the way that Paul uses it.

Oh, and by the way, with this extra time I read your commentary on Nygren. I recall you mentioning a long time ago something about Nygren not living what he appeared to know and that impersonal aspect. It seems it is only his third book, "Method . . ?"
that you had a problem with. I also finished Rees "Howells Intercessor", I took notes, but that's a whole other post.

Technical Difficulties

Sorry for the delay. Had lots to say and made some notes at work but now I'm on shutdown and haven't got back to it. Surprised by your quick response. Hope to get something out before Friday. Daddio.