Bob Hill's bottom line?

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
When I trusted in Jesus Christ as my Savior, I put my trust in Him. I went from a slave to sin to an adopted son. Gal 4:3-5 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

What does this adoption mean? I read in Gal 3:13-18, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’, 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant [or will], yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.

The Galatian cities were under Greek law. A covenant could not be revoked. It was different Rome under ancient Greek law.

The greatest archeologist of Turkey, William Ramsay, wrote this about adoption in his Historical Commentary of Galatians, pp 349-355. Here is what he wrote.
“An illustration from the ordinary facts of society, as it existed in the Galatian cities, is here stated: ‘I speak after the manner of men’. The will (diatheke) of a human being is irrevocable when once duly executed: hence the Will of God, formally pledged to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in his seed, i.e., in Christ, cannot be affected by the subsequent act of God executed centuries later, vis., the giving of the Law. The inheritance of blessing comes from the original Will, and cannot be affected by the subsequent Law. . . . The question as to the sense of the Greek word Diatheke in this passage must be carefully distinguished from the far more important question as to its general Biblical meaning. Here the word is used in allusion to every-day life among ordinary men. The Biblical usage is a different topic. . . . That the word must in this passage be taken in the technical sense of Will is shown by the following reasons. In the first place the Diatheke is proved to indicate a Will by the fact that an inheritance, klayronomia, is determined by it, 3:18. Secondly, Paul says that he is speaking “after the manner of men,” 3:15. He therefore is employing the word in the sense in which it was commonly used as part of the ordinary life of the cities of the East. What this sense was there can be no doubt. The word is often found in the inscriptions, and always in the same sense which it bears in the classical Greek writers, Will or Testament. But, if Paul is speaking about a Will, how can he say that, after it is once made, it is irrevocable? It is this difficulty that has made the commentators on this passage reject almost unanimously the sense of Will. They do not try to determine what was the nature of a Will among the Galatians, but assume that an ancient Will was pretty much of the same nature as a modern Will. Our procedures must be very different. We have to take the word Diatheke in its ordinary sense “after the manner of men”: then we observe what is the character attributed by Paul to the Galatian Will: finally we investigate what relation the Galatian Will bears to the known classed of Will in other ancient nations, and so determine its origin. In Hellenized Asia Minor, at the time when Paul was writing, the Diatheke or Will was a provision to maintain the continuity of the family with its religious obligations. . . . It is here plainly stated that when the Will has been properly executed with all legal formalities, no person can make it ineffective or add any further clause or conditions. . . . We are confronted with a legal idea that the duly executed Will cannot be revoked by a subsequent act of the testator. Such irrevocability was a characteristic feature of Greek law, according to which an heir outside the family must be adopted into the family; and the adoption was the Will making. Galatian procedure, evidently, was similar. The appointment of an heir was the adoption of a son, and was final and irrevocable. The testator, after adopting his heir, could not subsequently take away from him his share in the inheritance or impose new conditions on his succession. That is a totally different conception of a Will from our modern ideas. We think of a Will as secret and inoperative during the life-time of the testator, as revocable by him at pleasure, and as executed by him only with a view to his own death. A Will of that kind could have no application to God, and no such analogy could have been used by Paul. But the Galatian Will, like God’s Word, is irrevocable and unalterable; it comes into operation as soon as the conditions are performed by the heir; it is public and open. Such also was the original Roman Will; but that kind of Will had become obsolete in Roman law. It could have been familiar to no one except a legal antiquary; and neither Paul nor any other Provincial is likely to have known anything about that ancient Roman idea. . . . Galatian law was evidently of kindred spirit to Greek law and unlike Roman, just as we found to be the case in regard to adoption and heirship. The exact sense of [verse] 15 must be observed. Paul does not say that a supplementary Will (epidiathaykay) cannot be made; but that the new Will cannot interfere with or invalidate the old Will. . . . The Roman-Syrian Law-Book . . . well illustrates this passage of the Epistle. It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son, and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth; yet it was so. . . . When diathaykay is understood thus, the paragraph becomes full of meaning; but this sense could hardly have existed except in a country where Greek law had been established for some considerable time. . . . The expression in v. 15, “when it hath been confirmed,” must also be observed. Every Will had to be passed through the Record Office of the city. It was not regarded in the Greek law as a purely private document . . . It must be deposited, either in original or in a properly certified copy, in the Record Office; and the officials there were bound to satisfy themselves that it was a properly valid document before they accepted it. If there was an earlier will, the later must not be accepted, unless it was found not to interfere with the preceding one.

That’s why Ephesians 1 tells us of the security of our adoption. Eph 1:3-7,11-14 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons . . . by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."

We enter into the full status of our inheritance and enjoyment of our adoption when the rapture takes place. We receive our glorified body then, so the time of our adoption is shown in Rom 8:14-23 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father.’ 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

The present results of adoption are wonderful. Gal 4:4-7 “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

We are sealed until the day of redemption when we receive our adoption. So we are indeed secure in this dispensation no matter what sin we might commit.

In Christ our Savior,
Bob Hill
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Turbo said:
Why?

And if you oppose the profane use of God's name, why did you repeat someone else's profane use of it without censoring it?
Stop pretending to love God, Turbo. If you loved God, you'd find a way to stop sinning.

It's not a sin to use a word, legalist. You have misused the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain.

Why not have respect for the people that think writing God instead of G-d is taking the Lord's name in vain? Don't you care about how they feel? Why do you write "God" and take the Lord's name in vain? Why don't you use the proper Hebrew names as written in the Bible? See how far this legalism can be taken? You ought to think about that if you're going to play the legalism game.

The question is why you can filter words like **** and *** and ****, but couldn't set the filter to edit the word that sooooooooo offends you. That's your fault, not mine.

I just quoted someone's statement where they used a certain word that you are only now suddenly making a BIG DEAL out of because you are trying to find any way you can to accuse me of a sin, like a legalist.

Did you think to PM me and tell me that you thought I made a mistake when I posted that DAYS AGO. No! Why not? Because it wasn't a big deal until today.

However, in the past when I described an aspect of child birth, you PM'd me immediately to tell me not to be graphic. I guess you find female anatomy offensive, too. :rolleyes:

You have a major legalism problem, Turbo. Too bad your clique, the Order of the Sinning Christian is more interested in stroking your ego than helping you.

Fortunately, I care enough about you to rebuke you for sinning before all so others may fear. May God break you and heal you.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Poly said:
Don't get your hopes too high. elohiym gets to sin all he wants and if you are offended by his sin, he can simply call you a legalist. Wow, talk about convenient.

You are a disgrace elohiym. You don't have the respect for the Lord, teenagers, women and other Christians who are offended at having to see God's name used in such a way. And if that weren't bad enough, you try to make it seem as if there is something wrong with those offended who simply have a desire to see Him respected in the way He should be. Shame on you! :down:
You are selectively indignant, Poly. It's disgusting.

And don't try and teach me, woman. You should take Paul's advice.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
CRASH said:
Your thinking is broken. You should repent for this post. It is offensive to me and more importantly our Lord and God.

It is sin for which you should repent. Blasphemous!
You are a legalist. Learn what it means to take the Lord's name in vain.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
elohiym said:
You are selectively indignant, Poly. It's disgusting.

And don't try and teach me, woman. You should take Paul's advice.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Pointing out where another person is being blasphemous and offensive toward God is not usurping authority over a man.

You've already shown that you try and justify your sin by claiming that those who point it out to you are legalists. And now you go even further to justify sin in taking advantage of misusing Paul's words here in order to at least shut up the women who happen to point out your sin.

You have no authority to take God's name in vain and be blasphemous. Therefore you have none for me to usurp.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
elohiym said:
You are a legalist. Learn what it means to take the Lord's name in vain.


Using the Lord's name in vain is commonly understood to be using it as a swear/curse. There is more to it than that. For example, a false prophet claiming to speak from the Lord would be using His name in vain. Claiming divine inspiration for our subjective fleshly ramblings would also be using His name in vain. Claiming to be saved when you are not may be deception, but I do not think that is the original context. Cultists sincerely think they are saved and following the God of the Bible. This is not necessarily malicious use of the Lord's name. Their false prophets who should know better and claim to speak as divine prophets may be guilty of this.
 

azrael777

New member
Elohiym, you seem to be misinformed on what "taking the Lord's name in vain" actually means.
The original Hebrew text uses the word Shav'. The definition of Shav' is

emptiness, vanity, falsehood
emptiness, nothingness, vanity
emptiness of speech, lying
worthlessness (of conduct)

When you use the Lord's name in an empty or worthless manner you have used the Lord's name in vain. That can be as you said someone who is not a christian that pretends to be. But it can also be other things. You have to ask yourself, "was my use of the word empty? or worthless?" In other words, did you use God's name to address Him? Did you use God's name to further His kingdom? I am not indicting you, just pointing something out.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
azrael777 said:
Elohiym, you seem to be misinformed on what "taking the Lord's name in vain" actually means.
Oh, really? I don't? Then why do you contradict yourself by stating:

azrael777 said:
When you use the Lord's name in an empty or worthless manner you have used the Lord's name in vain. That can be as you said someone who is not a christian that pretends to be.
That's right. So why are you lecturing me because I interpreted the commandment correctly?

azrael777 said:
In other words, did you use God's name to address Him?
I quoted an author who used the expression, which means "God cursed". It does not mean God is cursed. It is not a word that even takes the Lord's name in vain, except in Turbo's, Poly's, and CRASH's minds.

2 Thessalonians 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Some people are damned by God. Do you believe that I cannot say it is the God damned wicked? :doh:

The author I merely quoted on another thread I started used it to express that is was the scariest "God cursed" film he had seen this year. That's what it means when God damns something. Do you disagree?

azrael777 said:
Did you use God's name to further His kingdom?
I just quoted a movie review, and I intentional replaced the word that means "God cursed" with *** in the title of my thread because I don't believe the film is damned by God.

Had this actually been a sin, shouldn't Turbo have PM'd me at that time to ask me if I was profaning God's name, instead of waiting over a week before bringing it up only to falsely accuse me like the devil does?

Also, since Knight admits on this thread that he still sins but doesn't feel like he needs to ask for forgiveness because he repented in the past, why on earth should his friends have an expectation of repentance on my part, but not his part. That is pure hypocrisy, and lunacy.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Poly said:
You've already shown that you try and justify your sin by claiming that those who point it out to you are legalists. And now you go even further to justify sin in taking advantage of misusing Paul's words here in order to at least shut up the women who happen to point out your sin.
You are trying to teach me that something is a sin when it isn't. You have no business instructing a man. You reject Paul's counsel.

Poly said:
You have no authority to take God's name in vain and be blasphemous. Therefore you have none for me to usurp.
I didn't take the Lord's name in vain. It is not taking the Lord's name in vain to quote someone when they are claiming that a film is "cursed by God". However, it is taking the Lord's name in vain to claim you are born again yet continue in sin...

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

That works for both dispensations.

Face it, Poly, you just hate me, and you would like to find some way of accusing me. Your hatred of me equates to murder.

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
ebenz47037 said:
Elohiym, who gave you authority to rebuke another man's wife (Poly)?
God.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
 

ebenz47037

Proverbs 31:10
Silver Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
elohiym said:
God.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

The problem with that is that she wasn't sinning by pointing something out to you. :nono: And, I kind of doubt that NarrowWay gave you authority to rebuke his wife.

Now, before you say something else that is equivalent to sticking your foot in your mouth, both Poly and I (and the other female moderators/admins on TOL) have been given authority from the owner of the site (Knight) to admonish, rebuke, and punish (ban) anyone who is doing/saying anything wrong.

One more thing, you are neither my father, husband, or pastor. I know that none of those three men gave you authority over me. And, those are the only three men that have had authority over me.
 

Spitfire

New member
elohiym said:
I know. That's why you're a Catholic.
I would say that's more because I'm Catholic, not why I'm Catholic. Anyway, going to church now so you needn't worry about me speaking out of turn for a little while at least. :p
 

ebenz47037

Proverbs 31:10
Silver Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Spitfire said:
Put me in a church and I will suddenly become perfectly silent! Like magic.

You know, Spitfire has the right idea there. As a woman, I have no authority in a church. So, I remain silent in church (and no, I'm not catholic). If I have questions or disagree with my pastor, I go to him privately to discuss what I have a problem with.

And, as an aside, elohiym, I don't remember saying that I believe that a Christian cannot sin. But, instead, I explained your belief as "darkness cannot dwell in the light." I might be wrong about what I said. But, that's how I remember it right now. As to the question of whether Christians can sin or not, I haven't decided what I believe on that yet.
 

azrael777

New member
elohiym said:
Oh, really? I don't? Then why do you contradict yourself by stating:

That's right. So why are you lecturing me because I interpreted the commandment correctly?

Part of the truth is not the entire truth. Do not take my words out of context, you have only a partial understanding which I accredited to misinformation, now I will accredit it to ignorance and willfull ignorance at that.

elohiym said:
I quoted an author who used the expression, which means "God cursed". It does not mean God is cursed. It is not a word that even takes the Lord's name in vain, except in Turbo's, Poly's, and CRASH's minds.

I dont care what the original post was, you gave a false definition of what "taking the Lord's name in vain was"


elohiym said:
2 Thessalonians 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Funny you should use this verse, given that you will not believe the truth concerning your own actions.


elohiym said:
Some people are damned by God. Do you believe that I cannot say it is the God damned wicked? :doh:

The problem is that you have no authority to know who is or is not damned. This authority is left to God. I believe you can say what you want to say but if you spout off ignorant or partial translations on the bible, I can and will call you on it.


elohiym said:
Had this actually been a sin, shouldn't Turbo have PM'd me at that time to ask me if I was profaning God's name

I dont pretend to know what is or is not appropriate for Turbo concerning his duties to this website. It could be that he overlooked it because you claim to be a Christian and then called you on it when you acted the opposite.


elohiym said:
, instead of waiting over a week before bringing it up only to falsely accuse me like the devil does?

The devil also twists scripture for his use.


elohiym said:
Also, since Knight admits on this thread that he still sins but doesn't feel like he needs to ask for forgiveness because he repented in the past, why on earth should his friends have an expectation of repentance on my part, but not his part. That is pure hypocrisy, and lunacy.

Knight can claim whatever it is that Knight wants to claim. I have yet to see him misuse or misinterpret scripture, if I had seen it I would call him out just like I called you out. I am not asking for your repentence, I am asking you not to define scripture in a partial or false manner.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
ebenz47037 said:
The problem with that is that she wasn't sinning by pointing something out to you. :nono:
She was falsely accusing me of something I didn't do. That is a sin. Need I show you the scripture.

She accused me of taking the Lord's name in vain, and attempted to lecture me about that. Problem is that it isn't taking the Lord's name in vain to say God damns somthing, and it is certainly not a sin when I was merely quoting an author saying it.

The most pathetic part was when I played Turbo's game by changing the word to G-damn (still not profanity), yet he hasn't edited that post to remove the supposed profanity. It's pure hypocritical lunacy.

ebenz47037 said:
And, I kind of doubt that NarrowWay gave you authority to rebuke his wife.
I can, and will rebuke those that sin. That is my obligation. I don't let Poly get away with it because her husband isn't here.

Should I not rebuke sinners now? Are these new TOL rules you want to make us all aware of, along with "don't say God damns anything"?

ebenz47037 said:
Now, before you say something else that is equivalent to sticking your foot in your mouth, both Poly and I (and the other female moderators/admins on TOL) have been given authority from the owner of the site (Knight) to admonish, rebuke, and punish (ban) anyone who is doing/saying anything wrong.
Do what God leads you to do. I hope he leads you to rebuking these people who claim to be Christians yet continue in sin. You have expressed to me that you think I am correct on the sin issue, so I hope you will muster the courage to speak the truth in love.

ebenz47037 said:
One more thing, you are neither my father, husband, or pastor. I know that none of those three men gave you authority over me. And, those are the only three men that have had authority over me.
I am a minister of God. You can listen to me or ignore me. That's up to you; but I do have the authority. Sorry if that bothers you, Nori.

This is about life and death issues, and I don't want to see any of you perish. Now, if you want to ban me because you feel I've crossed some subject line, your constantly shifting standard, depending on the person, then do it.

Frankly, you should do it, because this place, and most of the posters here absolutely disgust me, and if I stay I will continue to rebuke the hypocrites when I find them.
 
Top