Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17845 | ||
Dear Joe, You're correct, salvation has always been by faith and never by works. Before the cross, OT saints were saved by faith in whatever God's Word and revelation was to them - Heb 11. After the cross, we are saved by faith in God's Final Word, Jesus Christ - Heb 1:2. So, no, the Law could not save. But Peter's life was bridged in the OT and the NT. He became Jesus' disciple under the OT, while Christ was incarnate on earth- Gal 4:4. Was he saved at this point? Yes. But he was not a NT believer. After Christ died, the NT went into effect and Peter then became a NT saint through regeneration (crucified, buried, and resurrected with Christ - Rom 6:4, Gal 2:20), with the indwelling of God Himself at Pentecost. We see no record whatsoever of Peter denying Christ after Pentecost. In fact, tradition says that he was crucified upside-down. What caused such a change in this beloved apostle? The indwelling Christ. My post never said that Peter was not saved before the cross. I said that he was not a NT believer - those who are reconciled, redeemed and regenerated by Christ's Himself - until after the cross. You may feel that I am splitting hairs here but the distinction is not mine, it is God's - Rom 8:9. Paul makes it clear, by revelation from Jesus Christ Himself, that after the cross, the Holy Spirit is the seal, the guarantee of what God has done in redeeming and saving us. It is non-negotiatable, either you are a Christian because Christ is in you and you are in Him, or you are not. In light of that truth, I was asking John not to gauge his relationship with God upon Peter's unregenerate example. He needs to gauge his relationship with God upon the secure work of Christ on the cross, not on his feelings or experiences. Feelings and experiences will 'catch up' as we place our faith and trust in the facts of the redemption that our Lord has provided. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
2 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17852 | ||
Joe, I forgot question number two. Yes, we persevere until the end. But we do not do it apart from Christ and His work in us. As we have received Christ (by faith), we are to walk in Him (by faith). This is not by our works. This is by His works in us and through us. We get the privelege, as Christians, of 'working out' the salvation that God has 'worked in' us. God has predestined that we walk and persevere in the works that He has prepared for us. But we, like Christ, are not to do it in the flesh. Rather, we are to depend upon Christ as He depended upon His Father. Jesus said that He didn't do any works unless the Father told Him to. He didn't say anything unless the Father told Him to say it. And then He told us, "Apart from Me, you can do nothing." This is not a passive walk. It is an active walk relying upon Christ as our total sufficiency. Sanctification is not something we do. It is something that Christ does and continues to do in us. The end result? 1 Thess 5:23,24 - "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit, and soul and body be preserved (sealed) complete without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and HE ALSO WILL BRING IT TO PASS." He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it. He does it. He does it in us and through us, but He does it. Grow in grace, Bill Mc |
||||||
3 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17854 | ||
Wow...a lot of what you say sounds very Reformed for a dispensationalist! :) My question about works addresses not that we do it on our own (the Westminster Confession states that it "is the work of God's free grace"), but that sanctification will always accompany justification. Therefore, we can agree with James that "faith" without works is a dead faith which does not save anyone at all. It is our faith that justifies us; but a true, saving faith is ALWAYS accompanied by sanctification. And THAT is something that every Dallas Seminary-trained preacher that I ever sat under denied. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17861 | ||
Joe, I agree that sanctification always accompanies justification. God 'sets you apart' when you are 'made right with Him.' Scripture is pretty clear on this point - 1 Cor 6:11. Yes, I agree with James - true saving faith will result (if given time) in works but they are Christ's works. But I am not Reformed, I am a new creation in Christ. God didn't reform me. He crucified my 'old man' (not my father) with Christ, and caused my spirit to be born united with Christ's Spirit. My confession has nothing to do with Westminster (that I know of). And I don't think that I am a dispensationalist. Nor am I a Calvinist or Armenian. I'm AM a little frustrated with this forum's tendency to try to stick everyone into nice, neat little boxes :) but, nonetheless, if we can get past the labels, we will find many things in common if we adhere to Christ alone and sola scriptura. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
5 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17897 | ||
Bill: Don't get frustrated with "neat, little boxes." They are merely shorthand to categorize beliefs. The reason I assume that you are a dispensationalist is due to information in your posts and in your profile. You attend a Bible church in Texas, which most likely means that your elders and/or pastor have an affinity for the theological distinctives of Dallas Theological Seminary, making a distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church and characterizing much of Jesus' teachings as "Old Testament," not applicable to "New Testament" believers. That is dispensationalism, in which the Bible is divided into "OT performance" and "NT grace." Now that dispensationalism is defined, you probably don't have a problem with the label so much. My problem with what you have written in this and other posts is that you seem to be trying to ride two horses at the same time. Have all men always been saved by God's grace through faith? I think that what you have stated is that, yes, they are. I agree. So how could the Old Testament be characterized as "performance" and not for the "New Testament believer" if even the Old Testament saints were not saved by the works? I realize the passing away of the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel is concurrent with Christ's atonement; but it has always seemed quite a stretch for me that Jesus was singing one tune during his whole ministry (the OT one), and then suddenly meant everything he spent three years teaching to be null and void after He rose again. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17904 | ||
Joe, thanks for your reply. Thanks for the dispensationalism definition. The OT is not all performance. My prior posts have stated that all men for all time are saved by grace. On that point I think you and I concur. I don't view the OT as entirely performance but I do feel that man has a propensity to take the Law (which Jesus said pointed to Him) and substitute it for a living relationship with God. We take the sign and worship that instead of the One to whom it points. You have to admit that by the time Jesus came along, the Jewish religious leadership felt that they had no need for Christ. They were busy worshipping the Law. Jesus told them that they searched the scriptures (OT) because they thought that that was how they would inherit eternal life - by keeping the Law. Then He said that they wouldn't come to Him, even though all the scriptures spoke about Him and Moses wrote about Him, to get true LIFE. Hebrews says that the Law couldn't impart life. It could illuminate sin but it could not redeem. Paul calls the Law the ministry of death, the ministry of condemnation BUT he says, the Law is good, righteous, and holy. The problem with the Law is not the Law but US. Man could not keep it perfectly. Paul says that the Law is good if it is used properly (to point people to their need for a Savior) and that it is not made for the righteous (saints) but for the ungodly, to show them that they are sinful. Should we still teach the Law? Yes, sinners still need to be convicted of their sin. And yes, Joe, my church does have an affinity for DTS but I disagree with my church's stance on some issues - 1 John 1:9, Pre-trib rapture, 2 natures of the believer, the significance of the Lord's Supper. My pastor, as much as I love him, will say that Christians are not under Law and then turn around and preach tithing out of Malachi. So, we are all on a journey. Please understand this about my viewpoint: I am not trying to ride two horses at the same time. But, as I see it, there are 2 main 'horses' described in the Bible. The first 'horse' was a shadow that pointed to the better 'horse' that was to come - Heb 10:1. Hebrews says that the Law could not justify anyone - it couldn't make you right with God. If it can't make you right, it can't keep you right. But people, in general, would rather ride the first 'horse' because it then appears that they are the ones doing it. 'See how well I ride, watch this, aren't I a wonderful rider?' And James said that if you fall off even one time then you are disqualified. We have all 'fallen off.' You may disbelieve it, but in riding the second 'horse', I am under tighter constraints that the first. The Law said, "Don't commit adultery." The law of Christ says, "Don't even lust." The Law said, "Don't murder." The law of Christ said, "Don't hate your brother, and when you got that down, love your enemies." So people who think that 'gracers' are not under any law are misinformed. But His law is not burdensome because, as I rest in Him, He fulfills it, not me, but Christ in me. So it is not that I am trying to ride two horses. But I do believe that there is progressive revelation in the Bible. Does what Paul wrote supercede what Jesus said? Yes, in some cases. Why? Because Paul didn't really write it. He said that what he (Paul) received, he received from the Lord Jesus Himself. He wasn't taught it, he didn't go to Peter and say, "Hey, Pete, fill me in on this Jesus guy." Paul's revelation IS Christ's revelation. To dismiss 2/3's of the NT is a travesty. Most Christians know the 10 Words, the 4 gospels, and 1 John 1:9. And that is all they know. There is much more to being a believer than trying to keep the Law, immitating Jesus, and trying to keep yourself forgiven when you inevitably fail. Christ is alive and in us. We are to live out of that relationship. Will we fulfill the Law? Yes. But we will go far beyond it as we walk in the Spirit. Grace and peace to you, Joe. Bill Mc |
||||||
7 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17916 | ||
BTW, those nice, neat little boxes may appear to be helpful but I feel that they are damaging to the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit did not baptize us into nice, neat little boxes but into one Body - Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 12:13,27; Eph 5:30; Col 1:24. Our identity, as Christians, is His body, the church. We are children of God. Nothing more and, certainly, nothing less. Our beliefs about who we are and what we believe should rest on Christ and scripture alone. To categorize believers into Calvinist, Armenian, Dispensationalist, Baptist, Catholic, Reformed, and any of a thousand other names is neither warranted nor supported by scripture. In fact, this was one of Paul's rebukes to the church at Corinth. "I hear that divisions exist among you...for there must also be factions among you." Then he went on to reitterate how the Lord's body, the church, is one loaf but consists of many members. He pegs modern Christianity in 1 Cor 1:12: "Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Only we say, "I am of Calvin, I am of Armenius (or whatever his name was), I am of Luther, I am of the Westminister Confession." These things are, but they should not be. The end result is that when a person comes to this forum seeking an answer from the Bible, we resort to: 'As a Calvinist...' then an Armenian has to reply, 'As an Armenian...' So instead of getting an answer straight from the Bible, we post responses from other people. This is because we do not trust God to reveal Himself to US through scripture. We think that you have to be a Scofield, a Ryrie, a Luther, a Calvin to correctly understand scripture. The Holy Spirit said that He would lead us into all truth. Do we believe this? I think not or we wouldn't be so quick to identify ourselves with others whom God has spoken to. I mourn for the church of Jesus Christ because most of us have no idea who were are. When will we understand that you are either in Adam or in Christ? When we will reply, "As a child of the living, true God, here is what the scripture says concerning this issue...?" When will we come out from behind our false identities, leave behind our platitudes, and respond with truth in love? This is not meant as a personal rebuke against you, dear Reformer Joe. This is meant as an observation for all those who name the name of Christ. I hope and pray as Christ did in John 17:21 - "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." A child of God only by His grace, Bill Mc |
||||||
8 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Sir Pent | 17918 | ||
Dear Bill Mc and Reformer Joe, I hesitate to jump in on your discussion here, but felt that it was important. You are both bringing up many good points about the original purpose of this thread regarding salvation. However, I must disagree with this last post regarding "labels" within Christianity. Perhaps I misunderstand you Bill Mc, but it seems to me that you are saying two things. The first is that it is purely divisive to have Christians call themselves by labels such as Calvinist or Armenian. The second is that by doing so they are neglecting the fact that they are either "in Adam or in Christ". First of all, I would like to say that I have purposely stayed out of any discussions thus far on this forum regarding Calvinism/Armenianism, and I don't want to start another one here. However, I do not think that it is the label that causes the division. The division is caused by the fact that there are two (at least) interpretations of the scripture which both appear to be valid and reasonable. The only thing that the label does is save time typing and reading. One could say, "becuase you believe blah, blah, and blah" (with each blah being an entire paragraph itself). However, it is much easier to say, "becuase you agree with the interpretation of so-and-so". This is especially important on this forum. Because of the different perspectives that people have, they have different answers to the questions people ask. They also have different ideas as to what specific verses mean at times. I agree with you that this is at times unfortunate, but not always. Sometimes it is helpful to see things from a different angle. Also, I believe that it is inevitable. True believers have debated some of these theological points for centuries without comming to a consensus. I find it unlikely that all Christians in the world will ever believe the same thing about everything until we get to heaven. This is because right now we only see in part, but then we shall see completely (1 Cor 13:12). I do want to agree with you on one important point and that is that each Christian needs to really search the scriptures to discover what they personally believe. It is not healthy to just accept the interpretations of another person (Calvin or Armenius) or even church without reflection. However, after a Christian discovers what they believe, they will probably be aligned relatively closely with at least one orthodox perspective, and I see no reason that they should not for efficiency sake, be opposed to identifying with others who think the same thing. |
||||||
9 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Morant61 | 17921 | ||
Greetings Sir! I join in agreement with you on this point. Label may not be perfect, but they are convient. I use the label Arminian (proudly) because by using it everyone knows where I am coming from in a particular discussion. It definitely saves a lot of time in discussion! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
10 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17940 | ||
These labels indeed are convenient. They just are not scriptural. How are they edifying or unifying? Paul's remarks still stand. The followers of Apollos, Cephas, Paul, etc. would have used the same exact arguments i.e. they help others to understand whose (men's) teachings I adhere to. As for Paul, he had more teaching credentials on Old Testament Law than anyone on this forum, and he still insisted on preaching Christ and boasting solely in the Lord. Oh, well, the Lord did call us sheep...Baaaaaa! | ||||||
11 | Where is our unity to help? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17943 | ||
This thread has proven my point. JohnK came here seeking answers as to his security. Although many good answers were given, this thread has turned into an Armenian/Calvinist and Grace/Law debate. I am just as guilty. JohnK has not responded to any of the answering posts. He probably figured that if the user's of the most accurate, literal translation in the English language couldn't help and can't agree, than there is no way for him to know if his is saved or not. Shame on us, myself included. JohnK, if you're reading this, I'm sorry. Please seek help from a godly person who genuinely cares for your soul. We are too often concerned with whether or not we are right and proving our points rather than helping those in true need. It is no wonder that the world is dying and going to hell. We can't even agree on what salvation is or whether it is assured. Still, in Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
12 | Where is our unity to help? | Heb 6:4 | Bill Mc | 17952 | ||
Removing question from the queue. | ||||||