Fruit Of The Spirit

[praise_yeshua]

Not elect to salvation.

It being complete rather than incomplete, Christianity, the church, is the one saved (elect) people of God going all the way back to Abraham and the patriarchs (Ro 11:16), the one olive tree of God's people of both OT and NT saints (Heb 11:39, 12:22-23).

It began long before Abraham.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Adamic Covenant?
Noahic Covenant?
Abrahamic Covenant?
How about the Trinitarian Covenant between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
You know, the one from the foundation (creation) of the world? A lamb was slain before God created anything. That Covenant?

The Trinity doesn't need to promise one another ANYTHING. They are perfect. Without division. Covenants are made with sinful things where a superior being promises to do something the other can not do themselves.

It is utterly preposterous to talk of a "Trinitarian Covenant".

You're referencing man made distincts and Systematic Theologies. Traditions of men. Not that I don't believe in covenants, I do. However, such references hold zero value without the Truth that establishes them.

Adam, Seth and countless others are part of the family of God. To state that salvation began with Abraham isn't true. Abraham experienced exactly what Adam, Seth and others experienced. You just read more about Abraham in the Scriptures than others.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Adam was elect.
Even though he was created sinful.

He was not created sinful. He was created peccable and incomplete. Capable of sin. When God said "Let us make man in our own image and after our own likeness, that is when the "process" began. What we read about Adam was not that "target". That "target" was "us" in Christ Jesus. (Which includes Adam and his faithful descendents. The story has evolved over time. (Not changed) but evolved. The purpose of God before this world was ever formed was to fashion man in His own image and after His own likeness. That likeness IS is Jesus Christ.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Paul was dealing with Jews that began the church at Jerusalem and was spreading the Gospel throughout the world. Of course he would be referencing Jews. I'm asking about before Jews even existed. There were countless members of the human race (Adam). What about them?

Enoch was one of these. He is mentioned on the tiny book of Jude. (A Jewish writer)

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Salvation did not start with Abraham. He is included and important but he is not the origins of faith. Adam is. The first to believe God for redemption. That is why Jesus is referenced as the second Adam. NOT the second Abraham.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Anybody before Abraham was in the Adamic Covenant which was a Covenant of Works.
Salvation began with God and then given to Adam.
After the murder of Abel, the Covenant went through Seth's line.
It was disobedient Sethian line (sons of God in Genesis 6) that married the non-Covenant "daughters of men" and had corrupt, disobedient children that became tyrants and bullies in their social order. Or should I say, disorder. After God killed everyone (how's that for the belief in the churches today that God loves everyone?) He had Covenant with Noah. It was only Noah that found grace in the eyes of God. Not his wife, nor his children except Shem, from whom Abraham and eventually Christ derived.

 

[jeremiah1five]

He was not created sinful. He was created peccable and incomplete. Capable of sin. When God said "Let us make man in our own image and after our own likeness, that is when the "process" began. What we read about Adam was not that "target". That "target" was "us" in Christ Jesus. (Which includes Adam and his faithful descendents. The story has evolved over time. (Not changed) but evolved. The purpose of God before this world was ever formed was to fashion man in His own image and after His own likeness. That likeness IS is Jesus Christ.

The image of God is not Adam. Adam was natural (1 Cor. 15), but Christ. There is no better image of a Father than a Son.
There is ONLY ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE.
So, taking these truths, what was the actual make up of the first man? He was fallen short of the glory of God. The word for that is "harmatia" which is translated "sin" or "sinful."
Adam was not holy. Adam was sinful. He just didn't know it, which is why the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil came into play, to give Adam and the woman the KNOWLEDGE of their sinfulness. Sin comes from sinner. Sin does not come from holy. The Second Adam proved this.
It was the command of "Thou Shalt Not [eat of it] in the garden that proves Adam was a sinner before he sinned. Sin comes from sinner.

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sa 24:13.

It is possible this proverb may be as ancient as Adam and Eve.

There is a reason why a lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world. Rev. 13:8.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The Trinity doesn't need to promise one another ANYTHING. They are perfect. Without division. Covenants are made with sinful things where a superior being promises to do something the other can not do themselves.

It is utterly preposterous to talk of a "Trinitarian Covenant".

You're referencing man made distincts and Systematic Theologies. Traditions of men. Not that I don't believe in covenants, I do. However, such references hold zero value without the Truth that establishes them.

Adam, Seth and countless others are part of the family of God. To state that salvation began with Abraham isn't true. Abraham experienced exactly what Adam, Seth and others experienced. You just read more about Abraham in the Scriptures than others.

Three Persons in Trinity. It's not about the Father ordering the Second Person to leave His glory, become man, suffer through life as a man, finally die a horrible death rejected of men on a cross, be buried, and finally as Covenanted be raised in glory and receive a Promise of Betrothal to a Church of people. Or how about ordering the Holy Spirit to come into the world of sinful men whose presence before Him is very, very, offensive.
No, it's not about orders from the Father, but willful entry in Covenant of three Persons with specific ministries that will bring about a new creation for the good pleasure of God in three Persons.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Anybody before Abraham was in the Adamic Covenant which was a Covenant of Works.
Salvation began with God and then given to Adam.
After the murder of Abel, the Covenant went through Seth's line.
It was disobedient Sethian line (sons of God in Genesis 6) that married the non-Covenant "daughters of men" and had corrupt, disobedient children that became tyrants and bullies in their social order. Or should I say, disorder. After God killed everyone (how's that for the belief in the churches today that God loves everyone?) He had Covenant with Noah. It was only Noah that found grace in the eyes of God. Not his wife, nor his children except Shem, from whom Abraham and eventually Christ derived.

There is no such thing as the "Adamic Covenant". That is a man made theological distinction not defined by the Scriptures. It is DIVISION crafted by man.

 

[jeremiah1five]

There is no such thing as the "Adamic Covenant". That is a man made theological distinction not defined by the Scriptures. It is DIVISION crafted by man.

OK. If you say so.
Now, let's get back to the Fruit of the Spirit.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The image of God is not Adam. Adam was natural (1 Cor. 15), but Christ. There is no better image of a Father than a Son.
There is ONLY ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE.
So, taking these truths, what was the actual make up of the first man? He was fallen short of the glory of God. The word for that is "harmatia" which is translated "sin" or "sinful."

He fell. There is no indication of the crafting of sin in Adam. The Breath of God animated weak flesh. Adam was crafted from dust. He had a body that was peccable and corruptible from the very beginning. If you're stating that Adam was crafted with the propensity to sin, then you're overstating the use of "harmatia".

Adam was not holy. Adam was sinful. He just didn't know it, which is why the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil came into play, to give Adam and the woman the KNOWLEDGE of their sinfulness. Sin comes from sinner. Sin does not come from holy. The Second Adam proved this.
It was the command of "Thou Shalt Not [eat of it] in the garden that proves Adam was a sinner before he sinned. Sin comes from sinner.

Adam experienced what God experienced. Adam was gift Eve. Eve was tempted and there is no indication that Eve would have sin if not for the Serpent. Adam willing choose HIS GIFT over God. Which is why ADAM sinned. He willing became what Eve was. From the very beginning the love of Christ is literally expressed narrative of Adam/Eve.

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sa 24:13.

It is possible this proverb may be as ancient as Adam and Eve.

There is a reason why a lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world. Rev. 13:8.

You seem to be a thoughtful person and I acknowledge the fact that you've spent more time than most considering the Truth of God. I enjoy interacting with people such as yourself. I've enjoyed our conversation. I only disagree because I must. I don't have any anger or animosity in what I'm about to say... so don't take it that way. I'm just arguing for the Truth brother...

I can't deny that the proverb is very ancient. Oral traditions have been handed down from the beginning. Solomon may well have gotten it from David who heard it from his father and so forth.

I reject the idea of "before" the foundation. I can accept the word "before" if it is within the context of "accounting". The lamb was "accounted" slain before the foundation of the world. Which means that Christ was as good as dead.... in the purpose of God for humanity before Adam was ever crafted. Which imparts to humanity the remedy for sin before man ever sinned. God has always looked for faith from the sinful.

 

[praise_yeshua]

OK. If you say so.
Now, let's get back to the Fruit of the Spirit.

Okay. We can talk about this some other time some other place. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Three Persons in Trinity. It's not about the Father ordering the Second Person to leave His glory, become man, suffer through life as a man, finally die a horrible death rejected of men on a cross, be buried, and finally as Covenanted be raised in glory and receive a Promise of Betrothal to a Church of people. Or how about ordering the Holy Spirit to come into the world of sinful men whose presence before Him is very, very, offensive.
No, it's not about orders from the Father, but willful entry in Covenant of three Persons with specific ministries that will bring about a new creation for the good pleasure of God in three Persons.

I disagree with your description but we are not very "far" apart on this. I reject "submission" in the Trinity and Incarnation.

 

[fastfredy0]

Regarding the question: Define "Author of Sin" in the context that God is not the author of sin

Isaiah 45:7​

King James Version​

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

Some argue this verse use of ‘evil’ refers to natural disaster. Is a that your interpretation?

Here is a follow up question: Did God know Adam and Eve would sin?

That's an easy one IMO. Yes God knew as God is all knowing.
The crux of theodicies is: How did God know Adam and Eve would sin?

 

[Eleanor]

How many times will you reject the Word of God?

It's not the word of God I am rejecting, it is your erroneous understanding of it.

 

[ReverendRV]

Regarding the question: Define "Author of Sin" in the context that God is not the author of sin

Some argue this verse use of ‘evil’ refers to natural disaster. Is a that your interpretation?


That's an easy one IMO. Yes God knew as God is all knowing.
The crux of theodicies is: How did God know Adam and Eve would sin?

I say the correct meaning of the Verse is Evil, not Calamity. God Creates Light and Darkness; like the Sun creates light and darkness. The Sun does this just by shining, not by going the extra mile to Create something called Darkness. Darkness is the absence of Light, just like Cold is the absence of Heat; in this way Darkness and Cold do not exist. They exist because of the existence of Light and Heat, without Light and Heat creating a Substace known as Darkness and Cold. This is how God Creates Darkness and Light; Darkness is Created Surreptitiously, as an after effect of the Light. God is Light, and therefore pre-existed Darkness. Darkness came into existence when God Created Matter; and Matter casts Shadows, which is Darkness. God Creates Darkness just by being God. It's like the Euthyphro Dilemma; Ethics exist because God exists...

God Creates Peace and Evil; another contrast on the same level as Darkness and Light. This is the Euthyphro Dilemma; Evil exists because God's Righteousness is the Standard. Without the Fall, there would be no Evil but only Peace continually. God Creates Evil Surreptitiously just by being Peace, in the same way Light creates Darkness; as a side-effect. 'WE' create Shadows, 'WE' create Evil. As for you, you meant it for Evil; but God meant it for Good, for Peace. The Sun doesn't mean it's Light and Heat for Darkness and Cold. The Matter the Earth is made of means the Sun's Light for Darkness, and creates your Shadow. Our righteousnesses is as a filthy rag. This is like saying our Fallen self-righteousness is as a Shadow of our express image as a Sinner; we cast a Shadow of Sin. We love Darkness rather than Light; we love Evil rather than Peace...

God Created Darkness just by Creating the Heavens and the Earth; the same goes for God Creating Evil. God isn't Culpable for our Evil; Adam was Created Good. HE cast the first Sinful Shadow...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Regarding the question: Define "Author of Sin" in the context that God is not the author of sin

Some argue this verse use of ‘evil’ refers to natural disaster. Is a that your interpretation?


That's an easy one IMO. Yes God knew as God is all knowing.
The crux of theodicies is: How did God know Adam and Eve would sin?

Correct. Isaiah 45:7 is better seen as "Calamity".....


There are several possibilities. One of those that is often not considers is a combination of current knowledge and probability.

Also, there is the issue of culpability. God culpable "if" He creates something that ultimately operates of "it's" freewill to disobey Him. Also, that disobedience does not "compromises" the Divine Character of God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I say the correct meaning of the Verse is Evil, not Calamity. God Creates Light and Darkness; like the Sun creates light and darkness. The Sun does this just by shining, not by going the extra mile to Create something called Darkness.

If you could, would you take pleasure in creating darkness?

 

[ReverendRV]

If you could, would you take pleasure in creating darkness?

Why not? God Created Darkness before he Created Evil, so the Darkness was Good. Morning and Evening were Good; God saw what he Created and said it was Good...

Would you say that you like to Argue or Debate? There's no Arguing against this...

And if you're on top of your game, I know what your next question is; or should be...

 

[Eleanor]

The Firstfruit is Christ, the Lump is Christ, the Root is Christ.

Christ is the firstfruit of the resurrection, not of God's people, the one olive tree, of which the branches are the people of God.

In botany, the branches do not proceed from the root, but from the trunk.
Proceed in the metaphor of the natural olive tree is about the proceeding of the people of God; i.e.,
the branches (God's people) proceed from the roots, the patriarchs (and spiritually ]I]through[/I] the trunk, Christ).
The NT people of God are in Christ, who is the trunk, as they are in the vine (Christ).

"Jews" are the NATURAL branches.
Gentile believers are the WILD olive tree.

If you can understand text, you will see there is only one olive tree of the people of God, from which tree the branch of Israel has been cut off, and the branch of the Gentiles has been grafted in (Ro 11:1-23).

The firstfruits of God one olive tree of the people of God were the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, its holy (set apart) roots.

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches [Israel].
17 And if some of the [natural Israel] branches be broken off, and thou [Gentiles], being a wild olive tree [Gentiles], wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root [Christ] and fatness of the olive tree;

In botany, the branches partake of the root of the tree through the trunk, in which the branches "abide" (Christ).

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they [Natural Israel] were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? Rom. 11:16–24.

And that's IF, not "when," they do not persist in unbelief.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why not? God Created Darkness before he Created Evil, so the Darkness was Good. Morning and Evening were Good; God saw what he Created and said it was Good...

Creating Darkness "as you've described" would be a character flaw. Not a quality relative to goodness.

Would you say that you like to Argue or Debate? There's no Arguing against this...

Describe how you see the difference between Argue and Debate. They are synonyms. You may well not see a difference. This doesn't mean there isn't actually a difference.

And if you're on top of your game, I know what your next question is; or should be...

Confidence doesn't make anyone right.

 

[ReverendRV]

Creating Darkness "as you've described" would be a character flaw. Not a quality relative to goodness.



Describe how you see the difference between Argue and Debate. They are synonyms. You may well not see a difference. This doesn't mean there isn't actually a difference.



Confidence doesn't make anyone right.

It can't be a Character Flaw. God saw what he Created and said it was Good. He Created the Evening...

As far as Arguing goes, you are now showing that's what you want to do. You should have said, 'Yes, the Darkness in the world before the Fall was Good'. Do not want to win so much, that you ignore the obvious...

And you didn't ask the right question. Maybe Freddy knows it...