Category: Ralph Haulk

Corky continues to privde excellent fodder for a bit of intellectual cud chewing.

Does anyone today have “the spirit of Christ”, of the “Holy Spirit”? Even if there is a chance they did, it would be impossible to prove, so the argument would be similar to the atheist’s argument concerning God. Since there’s no evidence of such a being, we can safely conclude that no one possesses any spirit of God, or spirit of Christ, or Holy Spirit today.

Corky brings up a solid point regarding Romans 8:7 Might as well quote it to get into the “spirit” of things.

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be”.

And Corky quotes the next compelling statement: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his”.

But who exactly is Paul referring to here? Who is “ye”? The qualifying statement here is “IF so be that the spirit of God dwell in you”.

Notice also just below that in Romans 8:11: But IF the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you…”

Qualifying statements that lack definition. Paul refers to “IF” and then refers to “WE”, as he writes about the “spirit of God” or the “spirit of Christ”.

How would we even begin to possibly identify these people? IF the natural mind is enmity against God, what possible process would we use to know who is the “we” to whom Paul refers?
If you took my word for it, how would you know I was telling you the truth? If I took your word for it, how would I know for sure, since our natural minds are enmity against God? How could I possibly prove that “you” somehow have knowledge that “I” don’t possess?

Corky gives pretty much the correct answer: you can’t know. There is no way of knowing. And even if someone told you truly that he had the “spirit of Christ”, it would be meaningless to you in any certain, definable terms.

If you follow Paul’s argument from this point and you believe he’s going to say, it’s a matter of free will choice, you will be disappointed, because in verse 20 he begins:

“For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.”

Notice then that Paul refers to “ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the spirit…”

Paul writes of a group having “firstfruits of the spirit”, and Corky seems to agree in principle with this by saying that if anyone claims to have the “spirit of Christ’ he’s a liar. I’ll agree with that, except to say that, from any possible proof he might offer, he’s VERY PROBABLY a liar.

Of course, if he told me, “I have the Holy Spirit, and you must follow me”, I could say with authority, “You’re a liar”.

This is so because, as Corky pointed out in quoting Romans 8:9, the big word is IF. And how do we know who is in possession of this “spirit”?

Well, Paul gets to his big “gotcha!” in Romans 8:29-30:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be comformed to the image of his son….”

So how do you know if “so be that his spirit dwell in you”? You don;t, since God seems to be the only one who makes the choice.

Paul closes off all avenues. First he says the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God’s laws, and then he takes it to the conclusion that God foreknows, predestines, calls, and glorifies his children. And to top it off, he knew who they were from the very beginning(Ephesians 1:4).

So, where is the “free will” or freedom in that? There is only one possible freedom that can be gained from it. You are free from the proposed religions of all humans. Paul’s logic completely cancels all possibility, not only of you knowing by your process of reason which is the true church, but even if you could, God already knows who they are! Consequently, as Corky points out, you must be free of all religions!

In other words, any choice you make will simply be your choice, and that’s the very best you can say about it. If you get a bunch of people to agree with you and they give you a lot of money, I applaud your salesmanship, but I’m not going to be following you, because I know better.

Paul declares this freedom from men in Romans 8:33: “Who can lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth“.

Who ARE God’s elect? Nobody knows! Nobody CAN know! Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, by any standard you wish, to say, “I am born of God”, and no government can say otherwise!
You’re free from men and from the governments and religions of men!

You think not? Prove to me there is no God. You can’t! I can’t prove there is one, so, all I have to do is say I believe in God, and you cannot say other wise except by legalizing your authority with the force of arms, “mobocracy“.

I am not bound to any humanly organized religion because Paul says it’s impossible to know which is the true religion, and God does the choosing anyway. Jesus says if any man says “Here is Christ, or there, believe it not”, so I don’t have to accept anybody’s statement that s/he represents God.

1 Corinthians 7;23: “ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men”
1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I be free from all men…”

1 Corinthians 10:29: “…why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?”

Colossians 2:8 “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”.

“After Christ”? What did he teach? Not to follow any man who said “here is Christ”. No point in it, because you couldn’t prove it if he did serve Christ.

Col. 2:16: let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, of of the sabbath days”.

Oh, and here’s one for the “nice” people: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind”.

Col 3:3: ”

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God”.

Dead? No law can punish a dead man, neither human law nor God’s law. That’s total habeas corpus. No law can “have the body”.

In terms of liberty, freedom, and free will, there is only one correct choice you can make: freedom from men, freedom from the ideas of men, freedom from the religions of men, and freedom from the governments of men.

How do you choose freedom from “God’s will” when you can’t even prove there is a God?

Answer me that.

Comments

Again, I’m not picking on Corky, but pointing out that he actually does elevate the whole discussion to a level wothy of dialogue. And his points are excellent. Good, well reasoned responses to get folks to reach for that higher level of understanding.

Of course he and I don’t agree, but that’s what intelligent discussion is all about. It’s about growth, learning, dialogue and sharing.
The points Corky makes that really intrigues me is in regard to government and law. For example, he points out that the Sadducees urged the people to submit to Roman law, not to revolt, but to have patience, that the “zealots” were the ones that usually caused trouble.

In fact, the Sadducees were not well thought of by the general population of Israel. They were considered the Quislings of the Roman government, puppets who ruled simply by the permission of the Roman Empire.

Even worse were the publicans, or tax collectors, who were generally lumped together with “sinners” in the New testament. Jesus associated with “publicans and sinners”.

In fact, Jesus told his followers in Matthew 18 that, if a person didn’t want to settle matters within the peaceful and non-vengeful treatment of the church or community, that person was to be shunned as a “gentile or tax collector”. Not much of a statement in support of Sadducee government.

Pharisees, on the other hand, in spite of their general legislative popularity, were condemned as “Hypocrites!”. Jesus said to call no man rabbi, and rabbis were Pharisees. Even though they sat in Moses’ seat, they were not to be called “rabbi’ or “master”. In fact, Jesus accused them of “taking away the key of knowledge” from the people. Pharisees said that certain among them, with proper training and discipline, could understand and define the law of God. Jesus said they were pretentious, that the “key of knowledge” was as much the property of the people as of the Pharisees, and Paul completely insulted them by saying that the natural mind cannot be subject to God’s laws, period.

The Sadducees were eliminated finally by the Pharisees, who waged “jihad” against the Roman Empire, only to see themselves scattered to the winds yet again. As Corky pointed out, the zealots gained absolutely nothing.

Why? because they believed something that simply wasn’t true. They were NOT God’s appointed representatives to establish God’s kingdom on earth. It was impossible for any human to claim that right.

And, neither are the “Christians” of today given that right, when you get down to it. If no natural mind can be subject to God, then it logically follows that no “natural” kingdom of God on earth can be established by human will. Can’t be done!

There is no “true church of God’ organized by any human, nor can there be. To assume there is, one would have to assume that his/her natural mind is the exception to the rule of Romans 8:7.

“I know Paul says that the natural mind cannot be subject to God’s law, but my mind is the exception, and I can decide otherwise”. Yeah, right. That’s pretty much the same attitude attributed to “Lucifer” in the Old Testament. “I will ascend into heaven, I will establish my will…” It’s also pretty much what the Pharisees stated, with the very best of intentions. They believed that their minds, with proper training and discipline, actually could be subject to God’s law, and they would represent God faithfully to the people. Jesus called them hypocrites, and Paul said it couldn’t be done. And so did Kurt Godel about 1900 years later.

Corky’s conclusions are correct except for one important point: the bible already pointed these things out.

Comments

Corky, you bring out good statements and scriptures worth examination.

First, Romans 10. First, we see that Paul is addressing himself specifically to Israel, as he does also in Romans 11. “They have zeal of God, but not according to knowledge”.

That in itself is an interesting statement. They had the law, they had knowledge of what was expected of them, and they obviously had dedication, but not, apparently, knowledge. Jesus allegedly made a similar statement in Matthew 11:13.

In verse 6-8, this same scripture is also used by Jews to show that the “word of God” is among them, and that they have the right to follow the precepts of that government. In fact, there is an ancient legend among Talmudist Jews that at one point, they were undecided on what was the truth of a particular matter, so they put it to a vote. The majority ruled, based on a lack of clear scriptural guidance, the majority ruled. God, however, came down and told them that in this case, the minority was actually correct. But the Talmudist said that God was “out of order” and quoted from Deuteronomy 30:11-13. They had the law, they were charged with the obedience and upkeep of that law, and it was not for God to constantly interfere with his own creation.

According to the legend, God said “my children have defeated me”, and returned to his own place.

This, in essence is the same scripture which Paul uses, yet applies it to the life of Jesus, of which the Jews claimed no knowledge.
Verse 19: “Did not Israel know?” They certainly knew the law. It was right there before them, yet history shows that they continually added to the law and created a class of “masters” called Rabbis, who taught according to the oral traditions given to Moses.

Was the message there? Paul says yes it was, but Israel apparently didn’t get it.

Corky, you argue there was a choice, yet following into Romans 11, we see that there was no choice. Israel didn’t believe in anything having to do with Jesus. By choice?

Romans 11:7: “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.

Election? Those who were born as Isaac was, those born of the promise, foreknown, predestined, called, and chosen, as I examined earlier. Free choice? Apparently not to Israel.

And yet we see this in Romans 11:26: “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob”.

And of course we have Romans 11:32 “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all”.

So we see as a continuation of Romans 10 nothing about Jews going to hell, nor anything about them being able to freely “choose Christ”.

So now we look at John 3;15-19. What was Israel all about? LAW. Law brings “wrath” as Paul wrote. So if people believed in Jesus and his life, they were free from “condemnation”, from judgement and the authority imposed by men. That is the entire essence of freedom from law by simply accepting that we are “born of God”.

let’s forget about the religious mumbo jumbo and mystery BS. As we see from John 1:12-13, if you are “born of God”, then you are not born of the will of men. No man can judge or condemn n you, as you are Innocent of all charges. or as Paul said in Romans 8:33: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth“.

The biblical margin I have refers that back to Isaiah 50:8, which says that in any accusation, the accused has the right to face his accuser, and God is on the side of the ACCUSED, not the accuser. In other words, by accepting your “birth of God” by the acceptance of Jesus, you can claim you are not subject to the judgement of men.

That creates a very practical application in terms of law. If you believe in Jesus, then you believe that Jesus came “not to condemn, but that the world through him might be saved”.

So, in terms of law, what is gained by this belief? Freedom from “mea culpa“, the enforced confession of guilt, the right against self incrimination, the right to claim your freedom before men. The right to live free.

“But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought of God”.

If you go before the laws of men, therefore, you can claim to have been free of the imposed obligations of law. You are not condemned. This is the example Paul gave in quoting from the OT, “cursed is he that hangeth on a tree”.

So, what is it exactly that you’re choosing? To live freely before men, to declare that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that no government of man can determine your guilt by its own accusation. That is the essence of OT law and its protections, not just for Israel, but for all, the ‘stranger within thy gates”.

As Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas pointed out, mea culpa belongs between man and his God. It is a confession that cannot be extracted from free men by the state. That, you see, is truth.

The deception and confusion of Christianity is the idea that we can choose strict and legalistic methods to condemn our neighbor, to judge him according to collective efforts, but that is not given, either by Jesus or Paul who taught us not to practice an “eye for an eye”. The judgement of “wrath” is reserved ONLY for the state, and the state, as we see, is controlled by Satan(Matthew 4, Luke 4).

Jesus actually challenged the collective birthright promise to Israel when he told Nicodemus “ye must be born again(from above)”.

By that choice, you may “see the kingdom of God”. And
who, exactly, are those people? As we see in John 3:8, no one has a way of identifying them, which means, there is no legal authority of man to claim jurisdiction over those “born again”. If you are “born of God”, you are not born of “the will of men(John 1:13)”, which means that your choices and your life exists OUTSIDE the collective jurisdiction of the “will of men”.

Does the U.S. Constitution recognize this? of course it does. Simply look at the First Amendment. To “believe on Jesus” is simply to believe that you are NOT under condemnation of God, and if not under condemnation of God, certainly no government of man can condemn you unless you actually harm another, and that person must accuse you, not the government.

That is the basis and foundation of common law. As I remember, you stress John 3;19: Obviously, if any man is Innocent and has harmed no other, then that man, under BOTH Old and New Testament, has the right to face his accuser with the full vindication of God(Isaiah 54:17). That means anybody and everybody who chooses this freedom and this lifestyle.

So, Corky, you mention Titus 1:13: “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”

What faith? A human concept of religion that is by its very nature limited? A religion that seeks to curse or condemn those who don’t believe as it does? Not at all. A belief that men are free to live within simple guidelines of love, as James writes, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world(James 1:27)”.

HWA said we had to keep certain tenets of the law, and by those tenets, we concluded we were ‘elect’, yet Paul clearly and repeatedly wrote that those ‘elect’ were one and the same as those born of promise to Abraham, as Isaac was(Gal. 4;28), and that it was simply impossible to make such a choice for ourselves(Romans 9:16-22).

Consequently, the only way to “follow Christ” is to claim freedom from the authority structures, ALL authority structures, of men. “Presumption of innocence”.

Titus 2:15: These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. let no man despise thee.”

What things? How about verse 14; “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from ALL iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”.

God works? How about James 1:27? And yet, we see from Ephesians 2;8-10, that works do not earn us any special ‘elect” place. Nothing earns us “salvation”. It’s a free gift.

So, what “authority” would a “government of God’ have? Presumption of innocence before men, also known from common law and identified by Chief Justice Edward Coke of England as “due process of law”.

How do we know that? because the US Supreme Court, in “Miranda vs Arizona”, footnote 27, acknowledged that this right against self incrimination in our 5th Amendment has its analogue in the bible. In fact, that is the very essence of the New Testament, that all humans are free from the condemnation of men.

Can I speak that with authority? Of course I can. Anyone can. “We hold these truths to be self evident…”

And, Corky, as you pointed out, of course Jesus told us not to follow others who came in the nbame of Christ, since he told us to follow him. But in words attributed to Jesus himself, what happens if we follow him and seek to obey the law? Matthew 10:34-38.

What is the whole essence of Jesus teaching? he came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. Saved from what? Well, sin. And what is sin? lawbreaking. And since he died innocently having broken no law, he became the example of freedom before the law, for every person on this earth.

It’s all about freedom.

Comments