Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12854 | ||
Bill: Okay...guess this has to be a two-parter! First of all, you didn't address my complete quotation from Matthew 5, the very words of Christ Himself. We have to understand Paul's teaching on law by reconciling it to Christ's claim that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The Law still exists in a moral sense. It is the sacrificial and ceremonial aspects of the law which were fulfilled in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. God's morality still exists as a standard for believers to attain to. The fact is not that the law has disappeared, but that Christ fulfilled all the requirements of God's moral law in himself. Those who are not in Christ are still under the requirements of God's morality (and still fall short -- Romans 3:23). I never argued that we are saved (i.e. justified) by law. No one ever was (Romans 3:20,28-30). What I am arguing is that the holiness exemplified by the moral aspects of the Law is definitely is the goal of our progressive sanctification. Let me address each of the points you made (and by the way, the three contentions are not mine, but those of John Calvin): You wrote: "The Holy Spirit now convicts the believer of sin and points us to Christ as sufficient - not the Law." Yes, the Holy Spirit convicts the believer of sin, but the Holy Spirit acts in concert with His revealed word. Therefore, the Holy Spirit employs Scripture (i.e. law) that He inspired to convict people of sin, just as he did at our coversion (Romans 3:20). Note that I am not saying that the ceremonial aspects of the Law are needed today, but God's moral commandments are still in effect and reveal the holy character of God and what righteousness is. (Romans 7:12). The fact that we cannot keep them without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit does not mean that God doesn't care whether we are moral or not. More in the next episode... --Joe! |
||||||
2 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Bill Mc | 12900 | ||
Dear Joe, Please see my "Are Positional and Practical truths true?" posting before you read this one. Once again, brother, you are trying to redefine the terms. In the last posting, you redefined sanctification into 3 facets. Here you do the same thing with the Law. The Scriptures I mentioned only say " the Law." You don't believe it so you have redefined the Law into your own 3 terms: "The Law still exists in a moral sense. It is the sacrificial and ceremonial aspects of the law which were fulfilled in Christ's life, death, and resurrection." So, you've taken the word 'Law' that Scripture uses and relegated it to: 1. Moral law 2. Ceremonial law 3. Sacrificial law This way YOU can decide for yourself which of the three has been fulfilled and passes away. Joe, why not accept what God says for what it says? It has been my experience that God says what He means and means what He says. He does not stutter. And, Joe, if Christ kept and fulfilled the Law (you pick which one), and you are in Him, then haven't you also, by your union with Him, fulfilled it? Look at Romans 5:19 - Because of Adam's disobedience, we were all made and born sinners, right? Is this a positional truth or a practical truth? Are we born as positional sinners or practical sinners? Do we positionally sin or practically sin? The verse continues by saying, "even so through the obedience of the One (Christ) the many (us) will be made righteous." Is this positionally righteous or practically righteous? If God says that, because of Adam's sin, our old nature is sinful, then, using the same hermanuetic, our new nature is righteous, right? When are we made righteous, Joe? When we die? What does death have to do with your identity? Those 'in Adam' are sinners because of their birth, not because of their destination - hell. We are righteous because of a new birth, not because we will one day get to heaven. Birth, my friend, determines your identity - not where you end up. I'm going to heaven because Christ has MADE me righteous, not to be made righteous. Rest in that, won't you? In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
3 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12904 | ||
Why don't you try addressing the Scriptures I presented rather than dodging my very cogent arguments? The idea of God's law having different dimensions is not my own, but has been held by the majority of Christians throughout church history. That includes Catholics and Protestants, Reformed and Dispensationalists, etc. What you are promoting is a heresy called antinomianism (i.e. "lawlessness") which has been condemned time and again throughout the history of the church. But I assume you presume to know more about the Bible than Calvin and Luther and Augustine and Edwards and Spurgeon and all of the others who have condemned your view. The very reason that the sacrifices have ceased is because Christ is our ultimate sacrifice. Most of the ceremonial aspects of the Law were shadows of the ministry of Jesus to come. Obviously, they have been fulfilled as well in the person of Christ. He even fulfilled the moral requirements of the Law, which the Jew could not do. However, Paul makes quite clear in Romans 4:9-25 and Galatians 4:17 that the covenant of grace both pre-dates the law and replaces the larger covenant of works that God established with Adam and his descendants. But God still very much cares how we conduct ourselves, even as believers. That comes from the Scriptures, including the Ten Commandments. Jesus makes that so very plain in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, which you continually fail to address when I bring it up. You constantly refer to Galatians, which is not an attack upon God's moral requirements (which are present in the Law), but rather a refutation of the idea that the Galatians must even enter into the Mosaic Covenant in the first place! Remember, that these are not people who had been subjects of the Law of Moses at any time (they were uncircumsized). Therefore, they were never under Mosaic Law, but they still were subject to the righteous demands of God which are found in the Law. Our trust in Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection does not mean that God just nods and smiles when we violate the Ten Commandments. Otherwise, every moral command in the New Testament is rendered completely meaningless. He is very much interested in purifying us in our daily lives and the way we live them, and it is all for His glory. As far as sanctification is concerned, the three dimensions of sanctification are doctrine that has been held by the majority of Christians throughout church history. That includes Catholics and Protestants, Reformed and Dispensationalists, etc. The fact is that even though Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us (i.e. been put on our account), we are not 100 percent righteous now in practice. Do you sin, Bill? That is unrighteousness, and clear evidence that the work in us in not completed. Our final perfection (ultimate sanctification) has not occurred and will not until we pass from this life to the next. Looking at Romans 5:19, you should pay attention to tense: "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." The first clause is past tense (WERE made), and the second is future tense (WILL BE made). The very verse you quote as "support" for antinomianism belies your view. We are already sinners. We will be made completely righteous in the future. You seem to stress that the Christian life is one solely of "resting," Bill. Why do Christ and the apostles speak of it as "pressing on," (Philippians 3:12-18 -- incontrovertible passage on the fact that we are still a "work in progress"), "striving," (Luke 13:24; Romans 15:30; 1 Timothy 4:10; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 1:29; Hebrews 12:4) "labor," (1 Timothy 4:10), and "suffering" (Philippians 1:29, 1 Peter 3, 2 Timothy 3:12, etc.)? Don't get me wrong, salvation is assured for those whom God has set apart (which is what "sanctified" literally means). However, that is not the end of the ball game, for God has called us to righteous living as His ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) and to glorify Him through righteous works (Ephesians 2:10) which the Spirit enables us to do (Romans 8:7-9) as he conforms us to the image of His Son (Romans 12:1-2) in accordance with his moral law (his righteous demands which reflect his character and are pointed out in the Law of Moses -- Romans 7:7-12). Therefore, your last sentence is a false one. You are still a sinner in practice, not a righteous, perfect person. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." --1 John 1:8 --Joe! |
||||||
4 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Bill Mc | 12913 | ||
Dear Joe, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Contrary to your conclusion, my friend, I am no longer a sinner. I am a saint, a child of God, who occasionally still sins. But Christ has changed my identity. I was a sinner. Now, I am a saint. 63 times in the New Testament believers are called "saints." Beleivers are NEVER called sinners in the NT. Even the Corinthians who, admittedly, had a lot of sins in their midst, are called saints. It costs Christ His life to change my identity to a saint. I will not insult what He has done by saying that I'm still a sinner. My actions do not determine my identity. My birth does. And because Christ is a righteous, perfect person, and I am IN HIM, I am righteous and perfect before God. And I never said that I don't sin. But my sin has been dealt with by Christ, once for all. As to anti-law, I already adressed that issue. I am not against it. It leads us to Christ. It's wonderful at pointing out a sinner's need for a Savior. When it has done that, it has fulfilled it's purpose. I'm joined to the Reality, not the shadow. I do believe in law - it's called the law of the Spirit of Christ Jesus (check Rom 8:1,2) and it has set me free from the law of sin and death. Paul calls it "the law of Christ" - love. Well, brother, I feel we've probably taken this as far as is profitable. You can cling to what you allege that Catholics, Protestants, Reformed, Dispensationalists, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Edwards, and Spurgeon say. I'm going to "rest" in Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, Joe, thanks for your correspondence. I understand your opinion. I was taught it and believed it for 30 years of my life. But I pray, Joe, that you, being rooted and grounded in love (not Law), may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth , and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. In Him, Bill Mc |
||||||
5 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12918 | ||
You wrote: "I am a saint, a child of God, who occasionally still sins." What do you think the term "sinner IN PRACTICE" means, Bill? Someone who commits sins (and if your life is like mine and most of those I know, I hope that "occasionally" is an understatement). You wrote: "Well, brother, I feel we've probably taken this as far as is profitable. You can cling to what you allege that Catholics, Protestants, Reformed, Dispensationalists, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Edwards, and Spurgeon say. I'm going to 'rest' in Sola Scriptura." Now you are both demonstrating ignorance and arrogance, Bill. Where do you think "sola Scriptura" came from? Where do you think it would be today without God's intervention through the lives of Luther and Calvin? Do you not realize the way in which Augustine and Edwards and Spurgeon preserved and passed on the biblical idea of grace? To spit on their contributions in the way you do really makes me think much less of you, because somehow you think that you have become wiser than all the saints who have come before, and that there is absolutely nothing to be gleaned from their application of "sola Scriptura." Speaking of sola Scriptura, there didn't seem to be much Scriptura in your post here, while mine seems to be replete with it. And I must confess that your view seems to be anything but the whole counsel of God. It's more like "sola the Scriptura that I am comfortable with." Your NT must be a lot thinner than mine, because while you reject law wholesale, I see that the God of the New Testament very much cares whether believers worship him alone, refrain from stealing and cheating on their spouses, reject the building of idols, abstain from blaspheming, tell the truth, and honor their parents. Your view is the one that has been the most disastrous to evangelicalism in America, and is the primary reason why the Church is the fat, lazy, impotent element of society that it is, looking very much like the world we are supposedly so set apart from. "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" --1 Peter 4:17 --Joe! |
||||||
6 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Bill Mc | 12929 | ||
Well said, Joe. Untrue, but well said. The church fathers which you so highly regard "rested" their cases upon Sola Scriptura. As you know, Martin Luther was converted due to the fact that a man is justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ, and not works (keeping the Law). But, brother, since we are on the subject, let's look at a quote from Spurgeon: "According to this gracious covenant, the Lord treats His people as if they had never sinned. Practically, He forgets all their trespasses. Sins of all kinds He treats as if they had never been; as if they were quite erased from His memory. O miracle of grace! God here does that which is certain aspects is impossible to Him. His mercy works miracles which far transcends all other miracles. Our God ignores our sin now that the sacrifice of Jesus has ratified the covenant. We may rejoice in Him without fear that He will be provoked to anger against us because of our iniquities. See! He puts us among the children ; He accepts us as righteous; He takes delight in us as if we were perfectly holy. He even puts us in places of trust; makes us guardians of His honor, trustees of the crown jewels, stewards of the gospel. He counts us worthy, and gives us a ministry; this is the highest and most special proof that He does not remember our sins. Even when we forgive an enemy, we are very slow to trust him; we judge it to be imprudent to do so. But the Lord forgets our sins, and treats us as if we had never erred. O my soul, what a promise is this! Believe it and be happy. - Charles H. Spurgeon Even Spurgeon believed in a PRACTICAL, not positional forgiveness. He said that God ignores our sin now the the new covenant was ratified. Maybe Spurgeon's NT was thinner than yours... I still feel that you misunderstand my position. Let me try, one more time, to clarify it. At salvation, conversion, the new birth, we are MADE, in our spirits (our identities), holy, righteous, acceptable, saints, because of our exchange with Christ. He became sin for us, we become the righteousness OF God (not our own) in Christ. We now, as Christians, get to live out through our souls and bodies what we have been made spiritually (you would probably call this practical sanctification). This 'living out' is a process of having our souls (minds, wills, emotions) renewed through Scripture and the Holy Spirit to conform us outwardly to the image of Christ that we have already been made inwardly in our spirits. Brother, you have tried to redefine every Scripture I have mentioned into practical and positional qualifications. So you are dismissing them out of hand. You're implying that, "Yes, God sees me as positionally righteousness but that's not what I really am." Further quoting of Scripture is pointless if you don't believe them anyway. And, Joe, if you're going to redefine the Scriptures, then further discussion is, unfortunately, unprofitable for us both. But, I think no less of you. You know your Scriptures. I admire that. Unfortunately, I confess, I don't know very many. Though I have been a Christian for 30 years, most of that time has been spent listening to others interpret it for me instead of relying on the Holy Spirit and other Scripture to reveal it to me. So, practically (hey, I used that word), I have a way to go. So, I may be ignorant but arrogant? Anyway, I guess until I'm better equipped, I'll not debate this particular issue with you, brother. In the meantime, I'll search my thinner NT for where God describes His church as a fat, lazy, impotent element of soceity. Interesting view...maybe in Revelation cahpters 2 and 3... In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
7 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | kalos | 12935 | ||
To Whom It May Concern: Anyone who thinks Reformer Joe redefines, distorts, dismisses or disbelieves the scriptures just doesn't know what he is talking about. Such a one is very much mistaken. (It was said to Reformer Joe: "Brother, you have tried to redefine every Scripture I have mentioned into practical and positional qualifications. So you are dismissing them out of hand. You're implying that, "Yes, God sees me as positionally righteousness but that's not what I really am." Further quoting of Scripture is pointless if you don't believe them anyway. And, Joe, if you're going to redefine the Scriptures, then further discussion is, unfortunately, unprofitable for us both.") --JVH0212 |
||||||
8 | I'm sorry, Readers, and Reformer Joe | Ex 1:1 | Bill Mc | 12951 | ||
I'm sorry, Readers and Joe, if my comments about Reformer Joe came across as an insult to him or his doctrinal beliefs. That was not intended. I do not personally know him, but I was not attempting to undermine the body of work that Joe has contributed to this forum or call his character into question. I know it could be taken that way. We do need to learn from each other. I was seeking to get Joe's reasons for his interpretation of the words 'sanctification' and 'the Law.' We, if you have been following this thread, obviously disagree on a few things. But we are still brothers in Christ, and, Joe, if you're reading this, I'm sorry. We are all entitled (and responsible) for our interpretations of Scripture. I was seeking to accertain where the concept of positional/practical truths is taught. Perhaps I missed something, I don't know. None of us are infallible. But I would urge everyone to be a 'Berean' and search these things in the Scriptures to see if they are so. And to let God's Word speak for itself. I'm sure Reformer Joe would agree. |
||||||
9 | I'm sorry, Readers, and Reformer Joe | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12980 | ||
No offense taken, Bill. What I would like to know is that if I have interpreted Scripture erroneously, what is your interpretation of the Scriptures I presented? I especially refer to those which are in answer to your statement that "God does not want us to be righteous." I am always open to correction, but you need to be detailed in showing me just how I have misapplied the list of Scriptures I gave in my post, rather than just implying that I am pulling something out of thin air in my use of them. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||