Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Imputed Righteousness | Rom 4:6 | Reformer Joe | 52920 | ||
"We are already spiritually glorified. Rom 8:30 - and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also GLORIFIED - past tense." Traditionally, the church has understood that the past tense of "glorify" is more or less a past tense demonstrating the certainty of a future event. The reason (aside from the obvious one that we are not like Christ in His glory) is that although all of the actions are in the past tense, not all of them have been completed yet. For example, there are those whom he foreknew and predestined who have not been called yet (the unborn elect and those who are still enemies of God but will be converted). There are those who have been predestined but not yet justified, such as those who will receive Christ tomorrow afternoon. Christ is the only one who has been glorified so far in the truest sense of the word, being the firstborn from among the dead. So even though Paul uses the past tense in all of the verbs, it is clear that in time and space that these actions are not complete for all of those whom He foreknew. But thanks to God's sovereignty, it will happen. You wrote: 'Our righteousness comes as a gift from God to us. As long as it is not yours, it does you no good whatsoever. But, as a gift to you, not because of obedience, but because of faith, it is yours. If you think that you are righteous in God's sight depending on your obedience to the Law or "Christian" principles, then you still don't understand righteousness or even Luther's revelation. He recognized that we receive God's righteous SOLELY by faith, apart from our works, before or after salvation.' See? It is statements like these which show you haven;t been reading what I have written at all. Please show me where I have said that I will be righteous in God's sight by keeping His law. And please do not try and get Luther on your side on this one, because he argued vehemently and specifically against what you are putting forth in your posts. And please explain to me how receiving a gift makes the gift part of my inherent nature. If I get a new pair of shoes, I am not that new pair of shoes. They are mine, but there is still a distinction between me and the gift. And that is the distinction you fail to observe. We receive Christ's righteousness as a gift when we are converted. You are taking it as axiomatic that possessing Christ's righteousness makes US righteous. The two are not the same thing, and neither Scripture nor the historic teachings of evangelical Protestantism share your view. You wrote: "That's too bad, Joe. You obviously don't understand either justification or sanctification because you don't understand your union with Christ." Well, I am certainly glad I have you here to straighten me out with your post. Here I have been going along with the understanding held by the vast majority of the greatest teachers of evangelical Christianity over the past 500 years (not to mention the teachings of the early church), and all I needed was the "true light" from ChristLifer2001! Boy am I glad you have taken the time to show me how God's church has been so wrong and you in your vast wisdom are correct. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Imputed Righteousness | Rom 4:6 | ChristLifer2001 | 52931 | ||
Joe, I've tried to offer my thoughts concerning the "apparent" discrepancies between past, present, and future sanctification by demonstrating that there is biblical justification for examining man's components - spirit, soul, and body. The same analogy would apply to the righteousness that we have as Christians. Our new spirit is righteous, our soul is being made righteous, and we will one day have a righteous body to indwell. However, you will not hear or consider any of this, despite the cited scriptures. You obviously feel that it is the teachings of "the greatest teachers of evangelical Christianity over the past 500 years" that is the standard and revealer of all truth although the Holy Spirit makes it explicit that that is what He does in us. The majority vote does not determine truth. Neither does the minority vote. Truth is determined by what God says. Period. Concerning Romans 8:30, you wrote: "Traditionally, the church has understood that the past tense of "glorify" is more or less a past tense demonstrating the certainty of a future event." This demonstrates the type of interpretation twisting that "tradition" does to nullify the Word of God. God's Word says in Romans 8:10 that we HAVE BEEN justified, that we HAVE BEEN glorified. Even when it is there before your eyes in black and white that this is glorification is past tense, you deny it. You cry "foul" and must resort to the teachings of the church or to commentaries because you obviously feel that God's Word cannot be understood apart from the illuminating work of the church. The difference between my approach and yours is that I am just naive enough to take God at His Word and say, "Lord, You say that I have been glorified, would You teach me what this means." Tradition says, "Impossible! Despite the text, this cannot be true. My experience is the standard of truth and I have not yet experienced this. Therefore, God cannot possibly mean what He says and I must seek the hidden meaning." And for some reason you feel that you must resort to undue sarcasm of me and my simple faith in taking God at His Word. That is your choice. But I will not engage you further in exchange. There are many people who come to this forum seeking the truth of God's Word not the "teachings of the church". Probably an overwhelming majority are here because the church offers no real answers and it is the church that causes the confusion in the first place. All it can offer is denominationalism and self-righteous attitudes that condemn anyone who does not agree with their traditions and teachings. It is quite obvious that you have set up yourself and your "traditions" as the standard of truth here on this forum and woe be to anyone who does not agree with you. They are categorized, labeled, and demeaned in front of the whole forum. All in the name of Christ. How sad. ChristLifer2001 |
||||||
3 | Imputed Righteousness | Rom 4:6 | Reformer Joe | 52933 | ||
You wrote: 'This demonstrates the type of interpretation twisting that "tradition" does to nullify the Word of God. God's Word says in Romans 8:10 that we HAVE BEEN justified, that we HAVE BEEN glorified.' "If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness." --Romans 8:10 The words "justified" and "glorified" do not even APPEAR in this verse! The spirit being alive refers to regeneration. Rather than ranting about tradition, how about commenting on my argument on its merits (or lack thereof). Your ambivalence to "the teachings of the church" is unscriptural in itself. The teachers of the church are men gifted by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of -- you guessed it -- teaching. 'The difference between my approach and yours is that I am just naive enough to take God at His Word and say, "Lord, You say that I have been glorified, would You teach me what this means."' If that is your SOLE means of determining the meaning of the message of Scripture, then that is indeed naive. "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues." --1 Corinthians 12:28 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers" --Ephesians 4:11 The teaching ministry of the word is a God-ordained means of grace and an avenue by which the Holy Spirit reveals to us His truth. It is sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is our source of revelation) but not "solo Scriptura" (just me, the Spirit, and my Bible). Take a look in the New Testament at the warnings to heed sound teaching. You wrote: 'Tradition says, "Impossible! Despite the text, this cannot be true. My experience is the standard of truth and I have not yet experienced this. Therefore, God cannot possibly mean what He says and I must seek the hidden meaning."' Bad tradition does that. Good, Bible-based tradition says, "We the church have examinied this issue thoroughly, and this is what we together, studying the Scriptures, have concluded." Because of the traditions of the church, we do not have to go through and argue about things among ourselves such as the deity of Christ or the Trinity. It is sheer arrogance to insist that those thousands of individuals who have studied the Bible their whole lives in the original languages, whom God has used in important junctures in the history of the church to preserve His truth, and whose fruit puts both of ours to shame do not understand justification and sanctification, two of the most fundamental elements of the faith. You wrote: 'There are many people who come to this forum seeking the truth of God's Word not the "teachings of the church".' You speak as if those two are separate things. The teachings of God's church are based on God's word, not thought up in a vacuum. To insist that the two are diametrically opposed shows your disdain for what God has built for the last 2000 years and a false sense of adequacy to "go it alone" apart from the means God has established for your understanding. "And for some reason you feel that you must resort to undue sarcasm of me and my simple faith in taking God at His Word. That is your choice. But I will not engage you further in exchange." I agree that it would be fruitless, seeing that you are unteachable. The sarcasm is not undue, however, because you are guilty of precisely the things that I have brought to your attention. You have accused me and the majority of the evangelical church of Jesus Christ of misunderstanding, of basically ignoring the Bible in defense of false teachings. You have consistently misinterpreted the biblical (and the church's) view on sanctification as "works-righteousness." My guess is that you did not even look at one of the articles I provided for you, having already concluded that you couldn't possibly be wrong. If that isn't pride, I certainly must be wrong on that one, too. You may feel demeaned, but that is nothing like how you demean the utter righteousness and holiness of the Lord Jesus Christ by saying that we are identical to Him in our spirits. Horrible and blasphemous. --Joe! |
||||||