COMPILED by Keith Hunt
HUMILITY:
Recommended Books - Fruits Of The Spirit, A Shepherd Looks At
Psalm 23 - A Gardener Looks at the Fruits of the Spirit by
Phillip Keller. Obtainable from most Bible Book Stores.
WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS LAW?
Recommended reading - Digest Of The Divine Law by Howard Brand,
LL.B. published by Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass. 01860.
Digest Of The Divine Law points out the fact that we face the
rule of Law or chaos. It sets forth the justice, equity and
righteousness of the Law of the Lord. A Lawyer looks at the
beauty of God's Laws.
REAL REPENTANCE
DR. Herbert Lockyer in his book All The Doctrines Of The Bible,
pages 169 - 176, gives some very sound truths regarding
repentance:
".......We seldom hear the old prophetic cry, 'Break up your
fallow ground, sow not among thorns' (Jeremiah 4:3). This
generation, with all its religion, has lost the sense of sin and
pays preachers to 'Prophesy smooth things.' Repentance is robbed
of its true significance. The plow of conviction is never driven
deep into the human soil. So-called 'revivals' and
'evangelistic efforts' produce shallow results because of the
shallow repentance preached.
Deep mourning for sin, hot, scalding tears of repentance, souls
writhing in agony because of their burden are not common as they
used to be..... The sob of anguish, 'Woe is me, for I am
undone, ' is seldom heard in a religious service today.....
Statistically minded, the church counts numbers. God give her
numbers that count ! We go out for quantity. God seeks quality
...... There are those who cry repentance down, calling it a
LEGAL doctrine, but the Bible is full of this basic doctrine.
Christ preached it ! At His farewell, when He was about to ascend
to heaven, He commanded that repentance should be preached in His
name (Luke 24:47).....
The Bible unhesitatingly and emphatically declares that
repentance is the first step in the soul's return to God: that it
is not arbitrary, but necessary, seeing no soul can be saved
without it. Thus the summons to repent is the dominant note in
God's call to men in both Old and New Testaments..... Because
repentance is indispensable it is imperative that we understand
what it means and implies. It is clearly evident that defective
and counterfeit views are prevalent. Men try to persuade
themselves that something else, or something less, can pass for
repentance(Jeremiah 25:5; Ezekiel 14:6; Joel 2:13,14; Acts
5:6-11).... We confess our sin and turn from it to God. This is
'repentance toward God' (Acts 20:21) and results in remission.
Such a repentance, however, is a condition, not the cause of
salvation. Christ alone can save, and once He blots out our
confessed sin, sin must be forsaken....."
FIRST DAY
For the researchers of Church History and those wanting the truth
of how the first day of the week replaced the original Sabbath,
the following books are recommended.
>From Sabbath To Sunday - Anti-Judaism And The Origin Of Sunday
- Divine Rest For Human Restlessness, by Samuele Bacchiocchi
Ph. D.
These books are obtainable from the author - 230 Lisa Lane,
Berrien Springs, Mich.49103.
Some of the many Reviews on the book " From Sabbath To Sunday "
are:
"The scholarship is not lust impeccable, it is truly a
marvel......" The Catholic Historical Review.
"The book will, I am sure, stimulate a re-examination of long
established attitudes...." Norman Vincent Peale.
"It is a thorough and painstaking piece of research....." Bruce
M. Metzger, Professor of NT, Princeton Theological Seminary.
".....a most impressive, helpful work of first rank
scholarship....." Vernon C. Grounds, President, Denver Baptist
Theological Seminary.
"I appreciated reading From Sabbath To Sunday. Dr. Bacchiocchi
has done his research in a very thorough way with a kind, irenic,
Christlike spirit. It was good to benefit from such a research on
the early church Fathers as it applies to the Sabbath question."
David Pieratt, Director Correspondence Department, Ozark Bible
College.
"Dr.Bacchiocchi's scholarly investigation reveals that the
replacement of the seventh-day Sabbath by the first day of the
week was not the work of Christ, the apostles, or the
Jerusalem church, but that Sunday-keeping was introduced in the
Church of Rome to replace pagan sun worship and to show that
Christians were different from Jewish Sabbath-keepers."
W.Charles Heiser, S.J. in "Theology Digest."
THE RESURRECTION AND THE FIRST DAY
Perhaps the number one reason that has been put forth over the
centuries, for keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, has been the
teaching that Jesus was resurrected the morning of the
first day of the week. This teaching is not only unscriptural but
contrary to a number of Historical sources.
The Didascalia, an early Christian work which is preserved in
Syriac, supports a Wednesday crucifixion day. In this work the
apostles are quoted as saying that it was on Tuesday evening
that they ate the Passover with Jesus, and on Wednesday that He
was taken captive and held in custody in the house of Caiaphas.
Epiphanius, a post-Nicene writer, gives Tuesday evening as the
Last Supper (A.Gilmore, "Date and Significance of the Last
Supper," Scottish Journal of Theology, Sept. 1961, pp.
256-259, 264-268).
Victorinus of Pettau, worked out a chronology that arrives at the
conclusion that Jesus was arrested on a Wednesday. Loc.cit.
There is a certain amount of evidence found in the writings of
the Early Church Fathers for the Last Supper having taken place
on the 13th of Nisan, i.e., Tuesday evening. Loc.cit.
The Dead Sea Scrolls. Writing in " Eternity" magazine, its
editor, Donald Grey Barnhouse, cited evidence from the scrolls
which would place the Last Supper on Tuesday. He also quoted from
a Roman Catholic journal published in France that "an ancient
Christian tradition, attested to by the Didascalia Apostolorum as
well as by Epiphanius and Victor-inus of Pettau(died 304 A. D.)
gives Tuesday evening as the date of the Last Supper and
prescribes a fast for Wednesday to commemorate the capture of
Christ." (Eternity, June, 1958.
Though strongly holding to a Friday crucifixion, The Catholic
Encyclopedia says that not all scholars have believed this way.
Epiphanius, Lactantius, Wescott, Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours
are mentioned as rejecting Friday as the day of the crucifixion.
(Vol.8, p. 378, art. "Jesus Christ.").
The Companion Bible, published by Oxford University Press, in its
Appendix 156 explains that Christ was crucified on Wednesday.
Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Finis Dake has said on his note
on Matthew 12:40: Christ was dead for three full days and for
three full nights. He was put in the grave Wednesday just before
sunset and was resurrected at the end of Saturday at sunset....
No statement says that He was buried Friday at sunset. This would
make him in the grave only one day and one night, proving his own
words untrue." (page 13).
The error in believing Jesus was crucified on a Friday has
largely come about by thinking that the Sabbath that followed
"the preparation" of Mt.27:62 and Jn. 19:31 was the weekly
7th day Sabbath instead of the first Passover Sabbath.
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says, " The day after the
preparation(ASV). Usually explained as Saturday..... However,
this preparation day was the day before the Passover Feast
day (Jn 19:14,31), which feast may have occurred that year on
Wednesday night. Perhaps this accounts for Matthew's not using
the term 'Sabbath' here, lest it be confused with Saturday.
According to this view, the entombment lasted a full seventy-two
hours, from sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday. Such a view
gives more reasonable treatment to Mt.12:40. It also explains
'after three days' and 'on the third day' in a way that does
least violence to either. "(page 984).
The answer is all resolved when it is understood that there were
TWO SABBATHS in the last week of our Saviours physical life.
Ferrar Fenton ( a wealthy Englishman, for about 50 years avoided
reading the Bible in any but the original languages, that his own
translation of the Bible might not be influenced by other
translations ), renders the first part of Mt.28:1 as, " After the
SabbathS.." He states in his foot note that the Greek original is
in the PLURAL.
Fenton translates Lk.24:1 as," But at day-break upon the first
day following the Sabbaths, they proceeded to the tomb
Again in Jn.20:1 " Now on the first day following the
SABBATHS....." And his footnote says,that this is literally as
the Greek reads.
The Greek is very significant in LK.23:54 - 56. In verse 54 Luke
was inspired to write, "A preparation day, and A Sabbath " but in
verse 56 the definite article "the" is used with "Sabbath"
showing that this Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath, thus making a
difference between the two Sabbaths, and showing there was indeed
TWO Sabbath days at the beginning of that Passover week.
Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples on a Tuesday evening.
He was arrested during that night and crucified during the
daytime of Wednesday. At about 3 p.m. in the after-noon He
died - His burial was shortly AFTER sunset (that in itself is
another study). At sunset the high day Sabbath for the feast of
Unleavened Bread began. It lasted till sunset the next day -
Thursday. This was ONE night and ONE day in the tomb. Friday,a
work day before the weekly Sabbath, followed. Now we have TWO
nights and TWO days that Jesus lay in the grave. The night of the
weekly Sabbath was the THIRD night, and the daylight part of that
Saturday was the THIRD day - after a full 3 days and 3 nights in
the tomb,the heart of the earth - Jesus rose from the dead, just
after sunset - exactly 72 hours after being put into the
tomb. It was a first day of the week resurrection, yes, but NOT
on Sunday morning. It was what we call Saturday evening.
As Jesus represented the Wave Sheaf or first of the First Fruits,
cut after sunset of the weekly Sabbath during the
Passover/Unleaven Bread feast and waved before the Lord in the
Temple on the morning of the first day of the week, it was only
fitting that He should be resurrected shortly after the sun had
set to end the weekly Sabbath, after three days and three nights
in the grave.
LUKE and MARK give us the final proof. Luke tells us, "And the
women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and
beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested
the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56).
They had and prepared these spices BEFORE the Sabbath. But notice
what Mark tells us, "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought
spices, that they might come and anoint him"(Mark 16:1). They
bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath was past! Putting the two
Gospel accounts together, it would have been impossible for them
to purchase the spices after the Sabbath, and then to prepare
them before the Sabbath, and rest on the same Sabbath. The
conclusion is inescapable. There were two Sabbaths that week, and
when properly harmonized, everything fits in place.
A note on Mark 16:9 Someone is bound to say that this verse
plainly says that Jesus rose on the first day of the week.
In the Greek the phrase"early the first day of the week" can be
grammatically connected either with the words "having risen" or
with the words "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." The
Expositor's Greek Testament says the phrase "early the first day
of the week" may be either "connected with (having risen),
indicating the time of the resurrection, or with (appeared),
indicating the time of the first appearance."
We have seen that it could not refer to the time of the
resurrection Mark 16:9 should have been translated, "Now having
risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene."
It is rendered this way in the Montgomery translation.
The REPORTER Charles F. DeLoach has written: ".....those who do
keep the Lord's Day have no specific Bible command to do so, but
base their commemoration of it as the day of Christ's victory
over death and the grave. That this observance goes all the way
back to the earliest Christians, PHILLIP SCHAFF, a recognized
authority on church history in the last century, had no doubt. In
his monumental eight-volume work which is still widely used,
Schaff said: ' The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the
RESURRECTION of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic
age..... the Fathers did not regard the Christian Sunday
as a continuation of, but as a SUBSTITUTE for the..... Sabbath,
and based it, not so much on the FOURTH commandment, and the
primitive REST of God in creation, to which the commandment
expressly refers, AS UPON the resurrection of Christ and the
apostolic tradition....... ' " ( emphasis ours).
Phillip Schaff, along with others of his day, believed in 1st day
sanctification not as a divine command from the heavenly Father
or Christ, but from the supposed fact that Jesus rose from the
dead on that day and a presumed apostolic tradition.
Schaff was WRONG on both accounts! As we have seen, the Bible
itself and recorded historical data clearly show Jesus to have
been crucified on a Wednesday, and 3 days and 3 nights later -
just after sunset on Saturday - He was resurrected. Jesus did
not rise from the dead on the morning of the first day of the
week. He was not resurrected on a Sunday morning. AND there is
NO know recorded APOSTOLIC history or tradition from the
apostles of Christ, to either state that, Jesus rose on the
morning of the first day or that Sunday had replaced the fourth
commandment Sabbath.
THE SABBATH - FOR JEWS ONLY?
It is often said or written by some Bible teachers, that the 7th
day Sabbath is " the Jewish Sabbath " only for the Jews, while
Gentiles have Sunday. With due respect to these individuals I
cannot see this reasoning to be logical or scripturally sound.
It is very true that the Lord did enter into a special Sabbath
covenant with Israel (Ex.31 :12-17), but to say the 7th day is
only for Jews or Israelites is an error, and not a small one at
that, as the following facts of scripture will show.
1. The 7th day Sabbath was BLESSED, SANCTIFIED and made HOLY from
the beginning of creation week ( Gen.2:1-3; Ex.20:8-11) before
there were any Israelites or Jews.
2. The religion given to Israel ( which included Sabbath days )
under the OT was not just for national Israel, but the Lord
intended that other nations would learn of His righteous ways
through Israel ( Deut.4:1-14 ).
3. Gentiles could worship the true God under the OT by accepting
the religion of Israel, and so becoming an adopted Israelite.
There was to be only ONE Law for both Israelite and Gentile ( Ex.
12:48,49; Num. 15:13-16).
4. So under the NT there is no difference between Jew or Gentile
- there is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism ( Gal.3:26-29;
Col.3:11; Eph.4:3-6 ) . Jesus Christ is not divided (1 Cor.
1:13 ). The NT is completely silent - nay, completely against
any idea that there is one Sabbath day for the Jew and another,
different day, to be kept by the Gentiles. If this was the
case, such an important institution as which day should be kept
holy by the Jew and which day for the Gentile, would have been
all over the NT.
5. If an ordinance like circumcision could cause so much dispute
( Galatians and Acts 15 ) surely a CHANGE or DIVISION in the
Sabbath would have done as much or more. The apostles and elders
at the Jerusalem conference, in handing down their simple, brief
instructions to the Gentiles ( Acts 15:19-20 ) did not labour the
point, but it seems knew that the Gentiles could learn more about
God, not on the Lord's day but on the Sabbath - indicating the
Gentile Christians around this time in the first century ( 49 A.
D.), were keeping the ancient Sabbath along with the Jews (verse
21). Otherwise it would have been simple for James to have said
that the Gentiles could learn more about Moses on "their Lord's
Day, when he is read."
Further, when Paul in Antioch on the Sabbath was asked by the
Gentiles to preach again to them (the next Sabbath - Acts 13:42),
IF the Christian church or Gentile part was already observing
the first day( as some have claimed ), then Paul could have
easily told them to "come back tomorrow, the Lord's day - I will
preach again." But nothing remotely along these lines was
recorded to have been said by Paul.
6. If a CHANGE of the weekly Sabbath, or IF there were now TWO
Sabbath days - one for the Jews, one for the Gentiles - was
taught either from Jesus or the apostles, then we would expect to
find some clear record of this in the writings of the early, so
called "church fathers." But instead, we find complete silence -
no record - no teaching or tradition from the apostolic church on
this matter has ever been found.
7. Jesus plainly said the Sabbath (7th day) was MADE (it was made
at creation), and it was made not for the Jew, but for MAN -
MANKIND ( Mark 2:27)!
A COMMENT ON THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE 1ST DAY
Some have used the DIDACHE ( written between 80 and 120 A. D. by
an unknown author) the writings of IGNATIUS ( 67-110 A. D. ),
JUSTIN MARTYR ( 100-167) , IRENAEUS(130-200 ) even the epistle
of BARNABAS ( written sometime between 90-120 A. D.) and the
letter of PLINY the YOUNGER to Trajan, to uphold apostolic
sanction and teaching that the 1st day became the Christian
Sabbath from the beginning of the NT church.
To those who are of the Roman Catholic persuasion that TRADITION
is equal to the inspired Word, then there would be a partial
argument in the use of these so called Post-Nicaen Fathers. BUT
for those ( myself being among them) whose faith and salvation
rests ONLY with the infallible and non-contradictable Word of God
- the Bible - then the writings of fallible men or women can
bear no consideration, except where they agree with the inspired
Word. This is especially so, when we consider the facts of God's
own Word as to the early CORRUPTION and falling away from the
teachings of Jesus and the apostles - the turning aside of TRUTH
unto FABLES, LAWLESSNESS and deception (yet calling it Christian)
was everywhere present even before 70 A. D.as the following
scriptures will show.
BOOK WRITTEN ABOUT A.D.
GALATIANS 1:6-7 ——- 49-53
II THESSALONIANS 2:1-3,7— 51
II CORINTHIANS 11:3-4, 13-15— 55-57
ACTS 20:17,18-30-=—— 57-60
COLOSSIANS 2:4,8—— 60-62
I TIMOTHY 6:3-5—— 64-66
TITUS 1:7,9-11—— 64-66
II TIMOTHY 2:16-19—— 67
II PETER 2:1-3,15,18-19—— 65-67
JUDE 3-4—— 65-80
Now if the gospel of Jesus Christ was already being corrupted so
widely before 70 A.D. how much suppose you that it is corrupted
today - nearly 2,000 years later ?
For your further study on the corruption of the Gospel we
recommend the following books:
THE TWO BABYLONS by the late Alexander Hislop. Published by
Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey.
BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION by Ralph Woodrow. Box 124, Riverside,
Calif. 92502.
NOT UNDER THE LAW (Romans 6:14)
"The Law which exacts obedience, without giving POWER to obey;
that condemns every transgression and every unholy thought
without providing for the expiration of evil or the pardon of
sin. But under grace . You are under the merciful and beneficent
dispensation of the Gospel, that although it requires the
strictest conformity to the will of God, affords sufficient power
to be thus conformed; and, in the death of Christ, has provided
PARDON for all that is past and GRACE to help in every time need"
(Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary - emphasis his).
"To be 'under the Law' in St.Paul's language, means to avoid sin
from fear of penalties attached to sin by the Law. This principle
of fear is not strong enough to keep men in the path of duty.
Union with Christ can alone give man the mastery over sin"
(The Life and Epistles of Paul, by Conybeare and Howson ).
"Those in Christ are not under the regime of the Mosaic Law as
the MEANS of attaining salvation. We are under the grace of God
and of Christ. The whole of the OT - the Law, the Prophets, and
the Writings (e.g., Psalms) - certainly brings the knowledge of
sin (Rom.3:20;5:20)..........
When we are under grace, we have a new owner. This fact changes
all of the believer's conduct. Our status under grace is like
that of a woman married to another man after the death of her
husband. It involves a whole new manner of life. Thus, by
analogy, Paul shows why being under grace NEVER ALLOWS a believer
to be INDIFFERENT to SIN" (Wycliffe Bible Commentary - page 1201
- emphasis ours).
"....not under the Law of sin and death, but under the Law of the
Spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus: we are actuated by
other principles than we have been ....... Or, not under the
covenant of works, which requires brick, and gives no straw,
which condemns upon the least failure.... but under the covenant
of grace ....... which requires nothing but what it promises
strength to perform...... that every transgression in the
covenant does not put us out of the covenant ...... grace which
accepts the willing mind, which is not extreme to mark what we do
amiss, which leaves room for REPENTANCE, which promises PARDON
upon repentance: and what can be to an ingenuous mind a stronger
motive than this to have nothing to do with sin? Shall we SIN
against so much GOODNESS, abuse such LOVE ?...... to SPIT in the
face of such love, is that which, between man and man, all the
world would cry out shame on" (Matthew Henry's Bible Comm. Vol.3,
page 955 - emphasis ours).
"We who are Christians are not subject to that Law where sin is
excited, and where it rages unsubdued. But it may be asked here,
what is meant by this declaration? DOES IT MEAN THAT CHRISTIANS
ARE ABSOLVED FROM ALL THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE LAW? I answer, (1)
The apostle does not affirm that Christians are not bound to obey
the moral Law. The whole scope of his reasonings show that he
maintains that they ARE. The whole structure of Christianity
supposes the same thing. Comp. Matt. 5:17-19. (2) The apostle
means to say that Christians are not under the Law as legalists,
or as attempting to be justified by it .
They seek a different plan of justification altogether; and they
do not attempt to be justified by their own obedience, The Jews
did; they do not ...... BUT UNDER GRACE. Under a scheme of
MERCY, the DESIGN and tendency of which is to subdue sin, and
destroy it. In what way the system of grace removes and destroys
sin, the apostle states in the following verses" ( Albert Barnes'
Notes on the New Testament, page 593 - emphasis ours
and his).
A CONCISE SUMMARY FROM HALLEY'S BIBLE HANDBOOK (New Revised
Edition)
"If we are no longer under the Law, and Christ Forgives our Sins,
then why not continue to sin? Keep on Sinning, and Christ keep on
Forgiving. Paul answers that such a thing is unthinkable. Christ
died to Save us from our Sins. His forgiveness is for the purpose
of making us Hate our Sins. We cannot be servants of Sin, and
servants of Christ. We must choose one or the other. It is
not possible to please Christ, and continue at the same time TO
LIVE IN SIN.
This does not mean we can entirely overcome All our Sins,and
place ourselves beyond the need of His Mercy. But it does mean
that there are two essentially different Ways of Life; The WAY of
CHRIST and the WAY of SIN. In heart we belong to one or the
other, but not to both.
Christ, the perfect embodiment of the Law of God, furnishes us
with the MOTIVE, and supplies us with the POWER, to struggle on
unto the attainment for ourselves of that Perfect Holiness which,
by His Grace, ultimately shall be ours" ( page 587 - emphasis
ours and his).
THE BIBLE DEFINITION AS TO WHAT IS SIN
"......Sin is the transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4).
"......I had not known Sin, but by the Law: for I had not known
lust except the Law had said, You shall not covet" ( Romans 7:7).
"......for by the Law is the knowledge of Sin" ( Romans 3:20).
"All unrighteousness is Sin......." (1 John 5:17).
"......for whatsoever is not of faith is Sin" ( Romans 14:23 ).
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and does not do it, to
him it is Sin" (James 4:17).
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
In the book All the Doctrines of the Bible , Dr. Herbert
Lockyer has a very illuminating chapter called 'The Doctrine of
Sin'. He explains the meaning of the many Hebrew words that
are used in the OT to give us a clearer picture of the many sides
and different shades that make up, what the Bible calls sin
I will but quote a few of his last paragraphs here:
"..... The Bible describes so many sins for our enlightenment and
warning. There are little sins (Song of Solomon 2:15); big sins
(Ps.25:11 - a strange plea for mercy); tall sins (Rev.18:5 -
colored iniquity); secret sins (Ez.8:7, 12 - a darkened gallery);
open sins (1 Sam. 2:23 - talk of the town); youthful sins (Job
20:11 - malignant germs); middle life sins (Ps.91: 6 - prayer
book version); old age sins (2 Chron.16:12 - gouty troubles);
ignorant sins (Lev.4:1,35 - a merciful provision); sins against
the light (John 15:22 - a cloakless evil); sins against God
(Ps.51:4 -a royal penitent's wail); sins against man (1 Cor.8:13
- abuse of Christian liberty) and sins against the Holy Spirit
(Matt.12:32). Is it not blessed to know that the blood of Jesus
Christ is able to cleanse us from ALL sin?....
Sin is unrighteousness. When a man sins he ceases to be right. He
becomes crooked and has perverted thoughts of God and His
ways...... Sin is the absolute denial of divine righteousness,
a breaking away from the divine standard and the divine right to
command..............
Christ, then, has made a full provision for the guilt and
government of sin. Through His atoning work, He is able to save
from the PENALTY of sin. Alive for evermore, He is able
through the Spirit, daily to save us from the POWER of sin. When
He returns the second time without sin unto salvation, He will
deliver His saved ones from the PRESENCE of sin WITHIN and
AROUND. Hallelujah, what a Saviour!
.......Christ came into the world to save sinners. He died for
our sins, according to the scripture....... At Calvery, the guilt
of sin was dealt with and forever cancelled by the merit of
Christ's atoning work. Upon the cross, He became a curse for us
(Gal.3:13). Willingly He became the propitiation for our sins (1
John 2:2)....... Dealing, then, with our transgressions,
Christ takes up His abode within us and KEEPS us right with God.
He it is who STRENGTHENS us to do all things right, ENABLING us
to stand perfect and complete in all the WILL of God. IMPELLED by
the Spirit, we keep within the boundary of every divine
command....... Thereafter, walking in the Spirit, the healed one
fulfils the lusts of the flesh no more......
Sin is DECEIT, producing all that is fictitious and FALSE ......
Jesus came as the Lamb, innocent, harmless, CLEAR and
transparent...... To all those deluded by sin, He comes, as He
did to the demoniac of old, to clothe them in a right mind......
Jesus offers the bankrupt sinner the unsearchable RICHES of His
GRACE...... " (pages 157, 158. emphasis ours).
To be continued
|
No comments:
Post a Comment