PaydaySamba

Many individuals visualize there are a regalia of debt relief choices obtainable to them, but how do you go about picking out the precise alternative for your position? The best alternative may depend on your specific situation.

One of the most common debt relief solutions applied today is the debt consolidation solution. This solution is generally employed when the person has a tremendous total of prominent debts to credit card companies and other creditors that are charging them a high interest rate for the balances taken on their accounts. Debt consolidation works by choosing out a individual loan product, whether it is a credit card or a personal loan, and paying off the debt that the person is running with that loan. This method is very efficient when the individual can guarantee a much smaller interest rate for the loan than they were paying on each of their debt accounts.

Debt management can be another choice for you if you are willful to allow somebody to help oversee your debts for you. If you are plannig on applying a debt management system, you should be serious about paying off your debts and be inclined to work with your debt manager on a often basis.

Debt negotiation can be a good choice if you owe a great amount of money to your creditors and you are having difficulty paying your monthly minimum payments. Debt negotiation is often referred to as debt settlement and can often times be the most cost efficient and quickest way to pay off your debts.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

(The word “first” here refers to sacrifices and offerings. He takes them away; that is, he shows that they are of no value in removing sin. He states their inefficacy, and declares his purpose to abolish them.

That he may establish the second – To wit, the doing of the will of God. The two stand in contrast with each other, and he shows the inefficacy of the former, in order that the necessity for his coming to do the will of God may be fully seen. If they had been efficacious, there would have been no need of his coming to make an atonement.

The Second is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the atonement of sin, once and for-all. God, as a person admits sin and a lost status, takes away the former man and establishes the second, eternal man. A change in attitude, structure, appearance and life style. God is willing to accept you as you are but He refuses to leave you as you were. The 1st. or Law, was limited to the House of Israel (The Jews), but the second was perfect, in that, There would be no more need for yearly sacrifices or a human priest-hood to establish laws of Rituals or conduce.

The second was also perfect in fact because a human sacrifice was made. Not just any human tho but a perfect human in every aspect.) 1Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people(Gentiles), but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

(The law never forgave sins but only delayed them for another year.) Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.(Speaking of the Jews, for the Gentiles were never under the law.)

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (The righteousness of man is flawed so that they are not covered under any type of deliverance nor salvation.
The righteousness of man was and still is a deception that leads to death of body and soul.

The righteousness of man was and still is as a filthy rag, not only in the sight of God but also to those that believe in Christ and Gods word. God takes away you sin and gives you deliverance, He takes away your nakedness and clothes you, He takes away your fear and gives you peace, He takes away what you thought you knew and gives you knowledge of the ages. He takes away your unrighteousness and gives you His righteousness. He takes away you confusion and gives you a sound mind.
He takes away the Law of Judgment and gives you the Law of Mercy. He takes away your Mortal life and gives you Eternal life.)
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come,(Jesus) then that which is in part (The Law)shall be done away. (Not done away with but replaced for the adding of the gentile race to be included in the plan of salvation.)
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. (Both the Law of Judgment and the New Testament Law of Mercy were both Glorious. In that they accomplished what they were designed to do.)

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (This is the replacement of the old with the new.)
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Showing that man can fall from grace(Back-sliding) 1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (Not trying to gain those that are not bound by the Mosaic Law with the Law but trying to gain them with the Law of Grace and Mercy.)

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(The Bible tells us that without a Law there is not transgression of any Law and there-by, there is no sin.) Barnes states,”Nay, I had not known sin – The word translated “nay” alla means more properly but; and this would have more correctly expressed the sense, “I deny that the Law is sin.

My doctrine does not lead to that; nor do I affirm that it is evil. I strongly repel the charge; but, notwithstanding this, I still maintain that it had an effect in exciting sins, yet so as that I perceived that the Law itself was good;”
Romans 7:8-12. At the same time, therefore, that the Law must be admitted to be the occasion of exciting sinful feelings, by crossing the inclinations of the mind, yet the fault was not to be traced to the Law. The apostle in these verses refers, doubtless, to the state of his mind before he found that peace which the gospel furnishes by the pardon of sins.

But by the law – Romans 3:20. By “the law” here, the apostle has evidently in his eye every law of God, however made known. He means to say that the effect which he describes attends all law, and this effect he illustrates by a single instance drawn from the Tenth Commandment.
When he says that he should not have known sin, he evidently means to affirm, that he had not understood that certain things were sinful, unless they had been forbidden; and having stated this, he proceeds to another thing, to show the effect of their being thus forbidden on his mind.

He was not merely acquainted abstractly with the nature and existence of sin, with what constituted crime because it was forbidden, but he was conscious of a certain effect on his mind resulting from this knowledge, and from the effect of strong, raging desires when thus restrained, Romans7:8-9.”

“that he had not understood that certain things were sinful, unless they had been forbidden” Many try to say that at the time of Adam and Noah, there was sin, sin of adultery, fornication, polygamy and incest, but how can we justly say that the people at this period of time knew that these things were sin? Can we prove that at this time there was a Law of Judgment or a Law of Mercy? No.

There is no Biblical proof that these people were under any Law. That is not to say that they, if they committed these things, will not be judged, but that they will be judged by their works, weather they were good or evil, this is according to Gods word.
Man will not be judged by his sin but by his works. For we are all, all-ready judged and convicted of sin, ergo, we all must die a physical death. For sin is evil, but had God condoned evil in the days before the law was established? No. James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
1John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Here we see that even at the time before the law God had established evil from righteousness.
The un-spoken Law of God. Here we see judgment established to all men from Adam to this present time. Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 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.

So we see that God has taken away our fear of judgment so long as we abide in His righteousness and that all men from Adam to the end will be judged by their works, which transgress the righteousness of God. ars.

Anthony Smith
Temple of Spirit and Truth Ministries
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/arsmithsermons/

Perhaps you are confused about all of the media attention lately regarding the confirmation of John Roberts to replace the late William Rehnquist as chief justice of the Supreme Court and the nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as an associate justice.

It’s a big deal because President Bush has the opportunity to appoint people who likely will stay at their posts long after he is no longer president–perhaps for 20 years or more. Supreme Court justices tend to be a president’s longest-lasting legacy.

You may also have heard the phrase “strict constructionist” as opposed to someone who “legislates from the bench.” Conservatives want the former, and liberals, though they are embarrassed to ‘fess up, usually seek the latter.

“Legislating from the bench” means that a justice believes the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of changes in contemporary society. This may result in the creation of new laws that have little or no connection to the original Constitution, its duly ratified amendments, or the string of later decisions based on them (what is called “precedent”).

By contrast, a “strict constructionist” seeks to interpret the Constitution according to the way its original framers intended it to be understood. “Strict constructionists” believe that any updating of the Constitution to align it more closely to the “changes in contemporary society” must be done through the amendment process as spelled out in the Constitution itself.

They would interpret the amendments in the same way–according to “original intent”–and as much as possible would maintain a continuity with the reasoning that threads through the 200-plus years of cases associated with each issue that confronts them. But how do the justices determine “original intent”?

The first step is a careful study of the Constitution itself. Each line of the original document must be analyzed in its internal context, that is, according to how it relates to all of the words and phrases that come before and after it within the document (hence, ‘internal’).

The immediate context is most important, but the wider context also plays a role. What words are used in a particular clause, and how are they related grammatically and conceptually to the others words around them? Do these same words occur elsewhere in the document? How are they used there?

A second step would be to research other documents written by or accessible to the framers of the Constitution. Here is where The Federalist Papers become important, for this series of essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain the Constitution and persuade the citizens to support its ratification. Other writings are studied as well, including the works of John Locke and Edmund Burke, among others. These form the external context for understanding the Constitution.

If a clause of the Constitution or its amendment is subject to two or more interpretations, the justices of the Supreme Court have the duty to determine what it actually means. Their written opinions often describe in detail their reasoning leading to the conclusions they reached.

If you are a student of the Bible, you can readily see the parallels between the work these justices perform and the work all of us have to do to interpret the Scriptures. We are faced with similar choices. Will we be “strict constructionists,” seeking to understand the “original intent” of the biblical writers, who speak for the divine Author? Or will we “legislate,” rewriting the text to suit our whims?

Determining “original intent” of a Bible passage involves a great deal of the same kind of work. We look at the internal context, attempting a grammatical and conceptual analysis. We look at how the word or phrase is used wherever it occurs in Holy Scripture. Then we turn to the “external context” of ancient extra-biblical literature, history, and culture.

The result of all of this work is an increased level of confidence in our understanding. The more we study, listen, and learn, the more confident we can be that we are understanding a passage correctly. Of course, you may be confident without such study, but is your confidence worth anything?

It should go without saying that gaining such understanding and such confidence is not the goal, for we are not Gnostics. Our purpose is relationship–with the Lord and with each other–resulting in life-transformation. We learn that we may submit. We submit that God may change us and then use us for His mission in this world. Such transformation cannot happen if we “legislate.” The power of the Bible comes from its Source, and anyone perverting its message thereby cuts off that power.

Copyright ©2005 Steve Singleton, All rights reserved.

Steve Singleton has written and edited several books and numerous articles on subjects of interest to Bible students. He has been a book editor, newspaper reporter, news editor, and public relations consultant. He has taught Greek, Bible, and religious studies courses Bible college, university, and adult education programs. He has taught seminars and workshops in 11 states and the Caribbean.

Go to his DeeperStudy.com for Bible study resources, no matter what your level of expertise. Explore “The Shallows,” plumb “The Depths,” or use the well-organized “Study Links” for original sources in English translation. Sign up for Steve’s free “DeeperStudy Newsletter.”

Weight reduction is something most people contend with sooner or later. The quest for the easiest fat reduction program or the most efficient exercise routine can last for a long time. On the surface, it appears that the search is about more or less looking physically fit for everyone but yourself.

You’ve got to impress “them,” right? In order to be successful, blissful, and appeal to your lifetime spouse, you must look great to them. Hmmmm.

This is partly right, nevertheless, looking physically fit (worthy) is actually just about becoming in touch with your own self-respect, getting at a greater worth that is not obtained from your appearance. “Getting rid of weight” must not be the sole question asked. You should not relinquish the quest to lose weight, but at least try putting this question along side of it: “How can I find a sense of worth and fitness on the inside, no matter my outward appearance?”

You probably are already asking such a question, in your subconcious.

As you do the weight dance, the above question usually dwells beneath the quest you are on. Seeing as how it is there anyway, why not make it top of mind. Make it your obsession (in a good way). simply as equivalent in importance to easy weight loss. Then see what happens.

When you make self-acceptance the goal, together with a good “lose weight diet” method, you open a door towards feeling much better emotionally. You begin to picture that there are different ways to solve this task, beside just dieting and physical exercise. Moving towards true dignity causes you to address the problem directly. You then begin to bring out the nitty-gritty issues.

It is strongly advised you get assistance if many wounds are being exposed. There are many special books and resources on weight reduction, self-pride, body image, and honest self-acceptance that will elevate you to new directions.

But the issue and its solution originate with you. What I am trying to say is that the real problem is not finding the best weight loss program, or what to eat, etc. the real problem is self-judgment. That’s where it must start.

You only feel bad when among others if you are judging yourself. When you take of your “glasses” of self-judgment, no matter how distressful it was, then you will have arrived at the source of the trouble. You come out from that state by electing to do so. You stay away from self-judgment about your body image or about anything for that matter, by noticing how unhelpful it is, and simultaneously learning ways to feel more self-pride.