Matthew 16:24 Take the Cross Deny Self? What does that mean?

[sfortescue]

Verne---
I'm glad you got it right at the very end of your post. I was wondering what an Armenian Universalist was. It's all Greek to me though.

--Joe

As someone pointed out, the five points of Calvinism were in fact drawn up in direct response to the five points of Armenianism, a teaching named after Jacobus Arminius.

Verne
 

I think you missed Joe's point, which is that not all Armenians are Arminian.

Oops! Silly me! Sorry about my spilling...
Just goes to show how dangerous it is to take yoruself (or any one else!) too seriously
Verne

Attached is a picture of John 3:16 in the Armenian language.

This is a good Christmas verse!

I hope that I transcribed it correctly.  The Armenian alphabet is somewhat difficult to learn.

[M2]

Can we please stop with the cheerleading Marcia?  Not that it would be a big loss to this board, but I am not interested in posting if you and others are going to be doing this.  That's just how it is for me.  You choose.  I will still respond, but I will do it on SWTE and that isn't very convenient for the readers.  I know this is an open board, but I'm just telling you what I require if I am going to continue this discussion WITH VERNE. 

Study up and I'll have a discussion with you if you would like.

sj

Hi Sondra,

I won't be offended if you ignore my comments on a thread that you are involved in a discussion with someone else, unless I comment on something that you have posted.  I intended to post that comment yesterday, but let it slip for some reason.

.....
The idea that this involves a design of God that pits two opposing natures against each other is very problematic and makes overcoming sin a question of how one chooses.

The Bible teaches that it is a mater of how one walks!
.....

Verne, you stated something that I have been thinking of recently.
People say things like "I have to choose to whatever".  True, but it almost makes it sound like a "work" though that is not necessarily what they meant.  It is more about walking with the Lord.

Marcia

[M2]

Ok.  I see you are going to have it your way.  I won't be posting anymore then.  Thanks for being honest. 

To explain a little better - I wasn't demanding that no one else post on that thread.  It's not my place.  I am insisting that "this discussion" be between Verne and myself if I am going to discuss it.  Otherwise it gets off point and unmanageable - one comment and another just makes it distracting.  Truth will stand alone without cheerleading.  I sincerely doubt it does much for Verne anyway.  He's interested in truth and not who else thinks it is true. 

Too bad.  I was enjoying the discussion. 

Sondra

Did I miss something here?  I posted my comment on another thread for the very purpose of not intefering with your discussion with Verne.

It's too bad that:
1.  You viewed my comment as cheerleading, which it was not.
2.  and that you have decided not to post anymore.  I was actually quite enjoying the discussion. (sorry if that last comment appears to be cheerleading, but it is truth).

Marcia

P.S.  I will respect your wish to stay out of your discussion on the other thread.  Any comments I make about it, I will make on this thread instead.
Marcia

[M2]

..... p.s. I don't not mind other BB members participating in this discussion at all. I Think we grow and learn by an exchange and dbate of ideas and viewpoint and we certainly do not have all the answers. 

Verne,

I posted a comment at: www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=815.msg24799#msg24799

How do you view it being a matter of how we walk rather than choose?


Sondra,

I have not interfered with your discussion thus far.  The first comment I made set you off.  I have observed that Brent, Moonie, Tom and possibly others have commented in the past, so my lament at this point is "Why me?"  Possibly you were making a statement to everybody, and I happened to be the unlucky one that you chose to use as an example.

Though I can respect your wish to stay out of your discussion, the nature of a public discussion will throw all kinds of wrenches into a focussed discussion.  Go for it, but there is the possiblity that people will PM or EM both you and Verne.  Like I said (cheerleading sounding or not) I was enjoying the discussion between you and Verne.

God bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

Verne, you stated something that I have been thinking of recently.
People say things like "I have to choose to whatever".  True, but it almost makes it sound like a "work" though that is not necessarily what they meant.  It is more about walking with the Lord.

Marcia

I am not sure why the statement in Matthew has become the basis for such elaborate theological theorising about crosses. It is hard for me to believe how so many have taken what is obviously a figure of speech on the Lord's part, and turned it into a system of theology.
The key thing is not so much the act of choosing, but rather what, we choose.
It is clear that  denying self and taking the cross in this context has nothing to do with some notion of a metaphyscial self-crucifixion, whatever that means. it rather simply means accepting God's revealed will, even when it conflicts with ours. It is that simple...really - If it be possible let this cup pass, nevertheless, not my will, but Thy will be done...
Verne

[vernecarty]

How do you view it being a matter of how we walk rather than choose?


God bless,
Marcia

  To answer more specifically Marcia, I have learned that is far safer to base my understanding on what the Bible is teaching on what it actually says, rather than on what others tell me it does.
From a practical standpoint, the Bible seems to suggest that the victorious Christian life is a matter of the walk, rather than of a strong  and disciplined will
Obviously the use of one's will is involved in a life that is pleasing to God and that walks in his ways.
It is my contention that the latter leads to the former and not the other way around.
Now to some specifics.
At the very end of Romans 7, after Paul has clearly laid out the case that mere desire, which is what after all energizes and motivates excercise of the will, is not  sufficient in and of itself effect Godly living.

  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

The only way to miss this monumental proclamation of Romans seven is to insist as some do, that Paul is not talking about believers in this chapter. How anyone can coclude this from the context is nothing short of incomprehensible.

I believe this witness of Romans seven, is indeed the testimony of every believer who has ever endeavoured to live for God's glory.

So Paul opens Romans 8 with a tour de force.

  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I conclude it is a matter of how we walk, rather than how we choose, by comparing Romans eight one, with Romans seven eighteen!

If we can agree on that, then of course the jackpot lies in understanding what Paul is telling us in Romans 8:1, for that is the key - How am I walking?

I hope that helps to clarify my perspective a bit
Verne

p.s. One thing that has helped me in thinking about this is comparing the images conjured by choice, and walk.
Choice is static.
Walk is dynamic.
One conjures up imagery of somehat almost leisurely contemplation of many options.
The other of purpose, flow, movement, direction...
p.p.s Brent will probably appreciate the metaphor of moving the rudder of an anchored vessel...lots of choices...none of significance or impact...

[JimLeast]

I too was uneasy with the usual interpretation of this verse: that believers needed to bear up under their providentially assigned burdens, having the Lord as a model.

The difficulty with this is that the traditional harmonization of John with the synoptics has the Lord stumbling under the burden of the cross and being replaced by Simon of Cynrene.

After many years and some intermittent intensive study, the context caught my eye.

The context is in the revelation to the disciples that the Lord must suffer and die and be raised. (Matt. 16.21.

Matt. 16.24 seems to me to be the prototype of a correct invitation to receive the free gift of eternal life.

The self must be denied or disowned. God is willing to take all our assets and liabilities and obligations, but we must let them go, implicitly through being willing to accept Jesus as Lord if not otherwise.

And one must admit to being a sinner, deserving crucifixion. And, figuratively follow Jesus to Golgatha where the sinners cross becomes the Lord's cross and the list of the sinners sins is nailed to Jesus' cross.

Simon of Cyrene represents all that have thus taken their sins to Golgotha and have had them taken away by the Lamb of God.

[outdeep]

Wasn't Jesus simply telling his disciples (real people who were with him at the time) that he was going to Jerusalem to be crucified and if they wanted to follow him, they would need to prepare for a similar fate?  This would be in contrast with their natural expectation that Jesus' purpose was to overthrow the Roman government and bring in an immediate, political kingdom.

How this applies to us today, 2000 years out of context, is generally a matter of conjecture or speculation.  One could possibly argue from other verses that every Christian throughout the ages should expect some measure of persecution and resistance even to martyrdom.  I think trying to spiritualize the statement to some inner principle of Christian living misses the very literal point Jesus was making to his disciples.