ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[1Way]

godrulz,
You said

Jesus did not stop with telling the rich man to keep commandments. It was implicit that He was making a point and that salvation would entail rejecting his selfishness and gods to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Jesus preached salvific truth, as did John, Peter, and Paul. There messages were Christocentric. Faith, not faith + works has always been the criteria for salvation (you are not following Paul's arguments in Romans).

Please specifically explain the meaning of Jesus's response at the second half of verse 17 and how the context remains consistent in the following verses that Jesus was being literal and sincere about salvation.

Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’
19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"
20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
27 Then Peter answered and said to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?"
28 So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
30 "But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

If Jesus was not honest and literal, then please explain why when the context shows that Jesus even followed up His response as though it was honestly about salvation. See verses 23, 24, 25. It is one thing to "claim" that scripture does not mean what it says, but if you don't substantiate that claim from the bible, it most likely will be construed as man voiding or contradicting scripture. Please explain.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--Godrulz is right about James not preaching a faith + works salvation. James was talking not about works as a means of salvation, but about works always accompanying any faith that is genuine.

A faith that is without works is not genuine, and that kind of faith is false and can save no one. Works have no saving power in themselves, but they always accompany true faith.

This is a more reasonable explanation of an ALLEGED discrepancy. Luther said James was a straw gospel and rejected it. This is a wrong response. Mid-Acts is a possible, but not necessary or plausible solution.

Faith is the root; works are the fruit. We are justified before God by faith. Man cannot see heart faith, so the evidence of our justification before God in the eyes of man is a genuine faith that is not mere mental assent, but has the fruit of works ('justified' in the eyes of man). Faith has always been the criteria for salvation. It is an OT and NT heresy to say we are justified by faith + works (Galatians). Works as visible evidence of genuine faith (faith= knowledge, love, trust, obedience contrasts with mental assent only like the devil has) does not mean we are saved by the works. Paul and James would agree with this. Jews were ultimately saved by looking ahead to the Messiah. Until He came, their faith was evidenced by external issues. The external issues never saved them. Animal sacrifices, keeping the law, good works, tithing, etc. never saved them. They were conditions and evidence that they were trusting God. They were an expression of love, faith, trust, and hope in the future coming. Likewise, if believers do good works today that glorify God, it does not mean that we are saved by them. It is just evidence that we have a vibrant, transforming faith rather than sitting on a hill wearing white robes gazing at our navels until Christ returns.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

• Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Resting in Him,
Clete

Exactly. James was talking about the fruit of genuine faith and being 'justified' by works in the eyes of MAN, not God.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz,
You said Please specifically explain the meaning of Jesus's response at the second half of verse 17 and how the context remains consistent in the following verses that Jesus was being literal and sincere about salvation. If Jesus was not honest and literal, then please explain why when the context shows that Jesus even followed up His response as though it was honestly about salvation. See verses 23, 24, 25. It is one thing to "claim" that scripture does not mean what it says, but if you don't substantiate that claim from the bible, it most likely will be construed as man voiding or contradicting scripture. Please explain.

I do not see what the problem is. Jesus used the Law to show that we all fall short of the glory of God. We cannot save ourselves through works or commandment keeping. His message was die to self, leave, forsake, stop sinning, repent, etc. AND come, follow ME. The work of God is to believe on me.

The story of the rich ruler illustrates Christ's dealings with one man. To another, He talked about living water. Another, be born again. Another, leave your nets and follow me. The common denominator is John 3:16. These are stories do not contradict the essence of the Gospel. They just show that Jesus did not use a canned approach when drawing people to Himself. He went after the god or thing keeping people from God in their lives (differs with everyone), exposes and smashes it, then replaces it with Himself. He alone can give abundant and eternal life through faith in Him. Notice He did not tell everyone to keep the commandments nor everyone to sell everything they have. Understand the principles He taught rather than reduce things to legalisms or prescriptions.

Whoever comes in repentant faith in Christ and His finished work will be saved (whether looking forward to or back to the cross by FAITH). This message is universal from the time He walked on the earth and was foreshadowed from Gen. 3 ff. prophetically. Different dispensations do not change the heart of the message: faith in Christ alone.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Exactly. James was talking about the fruit of genuine faith and being 'justified' by works in the eyes of MAN, not God.

Oh brother!

YOU have got to be kidding?

For someone who claims the importance of the Greek language in understanding the message of Christ, YOU sure have butchered the meaning of "justified" to fit your convoluted theory.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You quoted my post WITHOUT THE SCRIPTURE, and then said

(1) I do not see what the problem is. (2) Jesus used the Law to show that we all fall short of the glory of God. (3) We cannot save ourselves through works or commandment keeping. (4) His message was die to self, leave, forsake, stop sinning, repent, etc. AND come, follow ME. The work of God is to believe on me.

And you also said

(5) Notice He did not tell everyone to keep the commandments nor everyone to sell everything they have. (6) Understand the principles He taught rather than reduce things to legalisms or prescriptions.

YOU NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!! It is disturbing for you to quote me, and then act like you answered my question when in fact you completely avoided it.

Please explain what the second half of verse 17 means if it isn't Jesus being literal and sincere about how man becomes saved.

As to your statements above.

(1) Then simply answer the challenge, what does the end of verse 17 mean?

(2) That is tangential, try to answer what has been placed before you and what you quoted as though you were answering it. Simply answer the challenge, what does the end of verse 17 mean?

(3) That is tangential and argues against a very ridiculous claim. No one here has remotely suggested that man can save himself, let alone do so through works of the law. Please, simply answer the challenge, what does the end of verse 17 mean?

(4) That is tangential. Please, simply answer the challenge, what does the end of verse 17 mean?

(5) That is false. Jesus taught fully consistent with circumcision and law teachings. He said that anyone who lives with Israel shall live by the same commandments as they live by. Also, just because Jesus was truthful about how to get saved to this one man, does not mean that He would lie to others about how to get saved. However, this is tangential. Please, simply answer the challenge, what does the end of verse 17 mean?

(6) Taking God's word at face value as being honest and faithful and true is not worthy of such a slanderous judgment. However, this attack is tangential. Please, simply answer the challenge, what does the end of verse 17 mean?

 

[1Way]

Sozo,
You make it sound like when we examine the bible's use of words (bolded) like,

• can faith alone save you
  
  God teaches that you must have faith to become saved
  
  A dead faith is more analogous to damnation than it is eternal life
  
  Justification is central to salvation and God teaches that it is His standards that matters, not what seems right in the eyes of men

that one should naturally assume all that has to do with salvation in God's eyes. I fully agree.

Or do you think that maybe James was teaching that we should seek justification from men, and that a good example of doing that would be to kill your own child because you think God told you to do it, therefore, hmmm, maybe your neighbors will think highly of you. Oh, and which neighbors was involved with Abraham's justification??? I thought it was God who justified him... Man, I'll have to ask Godrulz for his (extrabiblical?) references for where I can turn to find his teachings because I just don't see them in God's word.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Exactly. James was talking about the fruit of genuine faith and being 'justified' by works in the eyes of MAN, not God.

Where does it say that? Where?
Show me where it says that Abraham was justified in the eyes of man when he offered up Isaac. Show me in James, show me in the Old Testament, show me anywhere you like in the Bible where it teaches that Abraham was justified BEFORE MEN by having offered up Isaac because that is the example James gives to illustrate the point he is making.

James asks in reference to a faith without works, "Can such a faith SAVE him?" Are you saying that he was talking about being saved from or before men? That doesn't even make any sense!
How about just reading James and letting it speak for itself. It's not a difficult book to read or understand. James meant exactly what he said; that if you do not have good works you are not saved. Which, by the way, is the exact same thing you are saying and which is also in direct opposition to that which Paul clearly teaches. Once such distinction are pointed out between the two teachings, they are unmistakable. One must bury their head in the sand not to see it. It's right there in black and white; as clear as can be all you have to do is read it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Oh brother!

YOU have got to be kidding?

For someone who claims the importance of the Greek language in understanding the message of Christ, YOU sure have butchered the meaning of "justified" to fit your convoluted theory.

Context and flow of the argument are as relevant as one word study. It is an exegetical fallacy to not recognize that words can be used in more than one narrow sense.

The trite truism is that we are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. i.e. faith is more than head knowledge...the devil has this and he is not saved. Genuine faith has content, substance and can produce loving works to the glory of God and for the good of man. What do you guys have against helping old ladies cross the street? What do you have against not murdering and not stealing? We are not saved by this, but it is evidence that we no longer live self-centered lives. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. Paul talks about works in a positive light. Put it in perspective.

We do not need to be 'justified' in the eyes of man. Being justified before God is what counts. James is revealing practical Christianity that feeds the poor, etc. This does not contradict an implicit understanding that we are saved by grace through faith alone. 'Justified' (not the quotes) before man is an implicit concept, not a quoted verse. If we flesh out what genuine faith (root) is (Eph. 2:8-10) and its right relationship to the fruit of works, we do not have to see a contradiction between James and Romans. It resolves the issue as much as Mid-Acts supposedly does. Context, not just one word.
You guys are hurting my feelings...boo hoo.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You said

Context and flow of the argument are as relevant as one word study. It is an exegetical fallacy to not recognize that words can be used in more than one narrow sense.

It is wrong to suggest that words are as relevant as the context the are subservient to. The supremacy of meaning flows from the widest context, to more narrow contexts, to things like passages, and paragraphs, then to sentences, to partial sentences, to sayings, to phrases, to words, to letters and punctuation. When you generate or read communication, the process is not reversed although you have to write out or read each word one letter at a time, but the communication process is concerned with the integrity of the overall message, not just what any single word may mean. The context trumps lesser aspects of communication.

(I thought we have been over this issue before.)

Then you said

The trite truism is that we are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. i.e. faith is more than head knowledge...the devil has this and he is not saved. Genuine faith has content, substance and can produce loving works to the glory of God and for the good of man. What do you guys have against helping old ladies cross the street? What do you have against not murdering and not stealing? We are not saved by this, but it is evidence that we no longer live self-centered lives. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. Paul talks about works in a positive light. Put it in perspective.

Wow, talk about throwing out everything we have said and replacing it with false assumption. So now we who believe in salvation by faith alone and not of works, we somehow deserve your corrective teaching that we should not be against doing good deeds and not murdering and stealing. ?!?!?!

Praise God, when you preach the gospel unto salvation according to the dispensation of Mystery and Grace of God, the legalists come out of the woodwork and suggest that we are saying that it's ok to sin which is like a litmus test for uncircumcision gospel purity! Paul got the same treatment, yet to this day, if you teach strong Pauline gospel unto salvation, they just can't help themselves, they ask if we are saying that it's ok to sin.

Thank you Godrulz for helping us Grace gospel people biblically validate our faith! Please see Paul's answer to your challenge against saved by faith alone and not of works for a fitting response.

 

[servent101]

Rolf

Servant101--I apologize for being unclear in what I was speaking of when i said "your rejection of it is far from usual.It is very unusual."

I was referring to an earlier post wherein I understood that you were rejecting the idea that the prohibition against adding to or taking from God's word applied to the whole bible as well as to Revelation. That seemed to be the gist of what you had earlier said.

Many times on forums such as this people talk past one another, one of the reasons being a tendency to assume that the other person still has an earlier part of aq conversation on the top burner, waiting for a response in regard to it. The verse I quoted, "...add not to His words..." I drew from the old testament to show that the prohibition applied way back when as well; and my statement "...far from usual, it is very unusual" was to say that the belief that God's prohibition against adding to or taking from His word applied only to Revelation was "unusual."

I certainly did not mean any ill or insult toward you, for you have certainly done nothing to deserve such treatment. So again, I apologize for speaking carelessly.

As for my speaking of Eastwood, I did not do so in the context of Scripture, nor did I try to make a scriptural point by quoting Eastwood. I don't even admire the man, and do not even know the film in which he made that statement. He has been quoted by others saying those words so frequently that I am not even certain I heard them from him.

In my opinion when the people who put the letters of the various Writers of the Bible together and “added to them” that they were the ONLY source of Spiritual knowledge – changing verses like All that is Written is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness – To - All Scripture is….

And as well changing the very description of what was Written The Good News to the Gospel – because when taken as they interpret it, it seems to strange to say the Good News, cause it definitely is not.

Then there is the Gospel Truth – the blind acceptance to the literal pattern of though that most orthodox insist is the key to the right interpretation – yet the first four books – which were written for people to know about the Good News – are completely free of instructions on how to use an exegesis on the matter – and no where in the letters are there instructions to confine all Spiritual knowledge to one book.

These concerns are anything but

rejecting the idea that the prohibition against adding to or taking from God's word

And what the common orthodox held apologetics are in fact

rejecting the idea that the prohibition against adding to or taking from God's word

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by godrulz

Mid-Acts proof text Gal. 2:7? ("The Plot" key verse)

"On the contrary, they saw that I had been given the task of preaching THE GOSPEL to the GENTILES (uncircumcised), just as Peter haad been given the task of preaching (the same-rulz) THE GOSPEL to the JEWS (circumcised)."

2:9 "They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews".

(one Gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ to two different ethnic and religious groups; this is like 1way preaching to truckers and myself preaching the same gospel to paramedics; there were controversies and concessions in regard to their previous background without compromising the core message of the cross e.g. Gentiles did not have to be circumcised, but who did Paul circumcise to avoid him being a stumbling block, though circumcision does not save? Was it Timothy? I cannot remember).


i) two gospels to two NT groups of believers? (not just Judaism vs Christianity, but Judaism, circumcised believers in Christ and uncircumcised believers in Christ= 2 different 'gospel' messages with 3 groups, including OT saints). ??

ii) one Gospel to two different groups of believers (one group had Jewish background, while the other group had Gentile background= ONE gospel to two different target audiences...in addition to the Old Covenant)? Check.

Bible Knowledge Commentary (I just checked it to see if other's see what I see or if Mid-Acts is on the radar; I formulated my observations first, then checked another's ideas)

"Further, James, Peter, and John recognized that Paul had been divinely commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had to the Jews. Thus Paul jolted the Judaists by declaring that the leaders in Jerusalem approved of his mission to the Gentiles.

It should be noted that Peter and Paul DID NOT PREACH TWO GOSPELS, as might be inferred from the KJV rendering, "the gospel of the uncircumcision" and the "gospel of the circumcision". There was ONE GOSPEL though it was preached to TWO distinct groups of people. The reason the apostles concluded that Paul's commission was equal to Peter's was the fact that God gave success to both as they preached. This was sealed by James, Peter, and John in their extending to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. This was a sign of agreement and trust and an indication to all present that they endorsed the division of labor whereby the Jerusalem apostles were appointed to evangelize the Jews and Paul was entrusted to carry THE Gospel to the Gentiles."

This is plausible and probable. Apart from a few, obscure ministries, Mid-Acts does not seem to be self-evident in Scripture or as a legitimate view throughout church history. It is not needed to make sense of this verse or the transition in Acts or Paul's unique calling and emphasis. (The same could be said of Open Theism, so this does not mean it is not true).

F.F. Bruce "Commentary on Galatians" goes into greater detail (two pages of fine print including grammatical exegesis), but essentially says the same thing: one Gospel to two target groups by two ministries.

"But a remarkable parallel is drawn between Paul's divinely empowered mission to the Gentiles and Peter's to the Jews..."

"

Peter evangelized Jews, but on one occasion he evangelized Gentiles (Acts 10;11;15). Similarily, Luke gives Paul a limited mission to the Jews (Acts 9;26). One Gospel preached to Jew and Gentile, who are now becoming one in Christ. Paul's distinctive mission was to the Gentiles.

"...the demarcation of the Jewish and Gentile mission-fields was based on the recognition that his own Gentile mission and Peter's Jewish mission were equally attended by signs of divine power which set the seal of divine approval on the one as the other."

****"Peter's gospel for the Jews may have had different emphases and NUANCES from Paul's Gospel for the Gentiles, but plainly these did NOT make it in Paul's eyes a 'different gospel' in the sense of 1:6-9. It was based on the same recital of saving events as Paul's and, like Paul's, it proclaimed the grace of God brought near in Chrst for men and women's acceptance by faith (I Cor. 15:11). The agitators in the Galatian churches might well have said that they too believed the gospel which Peter and Paul preached IN COMMON, but they disagreed with Paul's particular INTERPRETATION of it- in particular, with his insistence that it abrogated the requirement of circumcision for membership in the people of God....revelation....Peter...gospel FOR the circumcision (i.e. for the Jews) but NOT in any sense a gospel OF circumcision.....therefore in Paul's sight a perversion of the true gospel and completely inadmissible (Judaizers), whereas the Gospel preached by Peter was acceptable."

At this point, Mid-Acts may be a preconceived theology that is more deductive and colors interpretation of specific verses and books. Read at face value, these stand on their own and do not contradict Pauline thought.

 

[Clete]

godrulz,

You're right back where we started then. Why Paul? Where was the need for Paul if nothing had changed? Did Jesus not command the twelve to go unto the whole world and preach the gospel? Why did they directly disobey that command and make an agreement with Paul to remain in Jereusalem and minister only to the Circumcision?
Why was there a need for the Jerusalem counsel if what Paul was preaching was the same as what the twelve were preaching? Why the controversy over circumcision?

And as for taking the text at face value and letting it stand on it's own, why not do that with Gal. 2:7? In fact, taking texts at their face value without having countless contradictions is one of the Acts 9 Dispensational system's strongest points! It effortlessly resolves several important, seemingly unrelated doctrinal debates while leaving the reader with no problem texts without having to make countless verses say something other than what they seem to say. As I said before, I don't know what better argument could be made for any systematic theological system.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Out of 10 conclusions based on Mid-Acts (Plot), these are the things I would make a case from Scripture are valid vs dispensationalize away (can I be a consistent Mid-Acts person and hold to the following?):

I reject unconditional eternal security (OSAS).

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is a valid ordinance for NT believers (believer's baptism as a step of discipleship).

I believe in a Pentecostal hermeneutic. Speaking in tongues is for the edification of the believer and the Body and is a normative gift for NT believers, including today. Miracles and healings are not assured, but are very much in evidence today.

Believers are not 'under' the Law (especially ceremonial), but they do not live contrary to the moral law (decalogue). This does not mean we are saved by keeping the Law. When we are conformed to the image of Christ we will 'be holy, as He is holy."

 

[godrulz]

Within 24 hours, I will share a thought about James and works that I have never heard before. It seems plausible, in addition to my previous thoughts.

Post 1683.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz
I reject unconditional eternal security (OSAS).

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is a valid ordinance for NT believers (believer's baptism as a step of discipleship).

I believe in a Pentecostal hermeneutic. Speaking in tongues is for the edification of the believer and the Body and is a normative gift for NT believers, including today. Miracles and healings are not assured, but are very much in evidence today.

You cannot hold to any of these without having a boat load of problem texts. I on the other hand can say with confidence that we cannot loose our salvation prior to the day of redemption, water baptism is an ordinance and is therefore not for the Body of Christ, and that miracles are earthly and were for Israel who had an earthly calling and are thus not for the Body of Christ who's calling is heavenly. And I can say all of this without having even a single problem text. There are plenty of texts which say things that are contrary to these positions but they are no more problems for me than Genesis is when it teaches that we must be circumcised. In spite of the teaching of Genesis, I do not teach that we should circumcise our kids or become circumcised ourselves and Genesis gives me no trouble at all and I don't have to explain it away; it says what it seems to say and means just that. The same is true with virtually the entire Bible (including the book of James). It is as straight forward as can be and easy to understand and very little effort needs to be expended in attempting to figure it out. Just read it, that's all.

Believers are not 'under' the Law (especially ceremonial), but they do not live contrary to the moral law (Decalogue).

Especially the ceremonial law? Are you kidding? Doesn't Paul explicitly say that if you obey the law in one point, you are a debtor to keep the WHOLE LAW? The Law is an all or nothing deal. If you keep any of it, you must keep it all. If you break it is one respect you are a law breaker and guilty of it all. You cannot have it both ways.

This does not mean we are saved by keeping the Law. When we are conformed to the image of Christ we will 'be holy, as He is holy."

No sir! You are holy NOW!
If you don't want to take my word for it, allow me to quote a few folks, some of which you might trust more than me.

• Evan H. Hopkins: "The trouble of the believer who knows Christ as his justification is not sin as to its guilt, but sin as to its ruling power. In other words, it is not from sin as a load, or an offence, that he seeks to be freed—for he sees that God has completely acquitted him from the charge and penalty of sin—but it is from sin as a master. To know God’s way of deliverance from sin as a master he must apprehend the truth contained in the sixth chapter of Romans. There we see what God has done, not with our sins—that question the Apostle dealt with in the preceding chapters—but with ourselves, the agents and slaves of sin. He has put our old man—our original self—where He put our sins, namely, on the cross with Christ. ‘Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him’ (Rom. 6:6). The believer there sees not only that Christ died for him—substitution—but that he died with Christ—identification" (Thoughts on Life and Godliness, p. 50).
  
  Andrew Murray: "Like Christ, the believer too has died to sin; he is one with Christ, in the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:5). And as the knowledge that Christ died for sin as our atonement is indispensable to our justification; so the knowledge that Christ and we with Him in the likeness of His death, are dead to sin, is indispensable to our sanctification" (Like Christ, p. 176).
  
  J. Hudson Taylor: "Since Christ has thus dwelt in my heart by faith, how happy I have been! I am dead and buried with Christ—ay, and risen too! And now Christ lives in me, and ‘the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me’ [Gal. 2:20]. Nor should we look upon this experience, these truths, as for the few. They are the birthright of every child of God, and no one can dispense with them without dishonoring our Lord" (Spiritual Secret, p. 116).
  
  William R. Newell: "To those who refuse or neglect to reckon themselves dead to sin as God commands, we press the question, How are you able to believe that Christ really bare the guilt of your sins and that you will not meet them at the judgment day? It is only God’s Word that tells you Christ bare your sins in His own body on the tree. And it is that same Word that tells you that you, as connected with Adam, died with Christ, that your old man was crucified, that since you are in Christ you shared His death unto sin, and are thus to reckon your present relation to sin in Christ—as one who is dead to it, and alive unto God" (Romans, Verse by Verse, p. 227).
  
  Lewis Sperry Chafer: "The theme under consideration is concerned with the death of Christ as that death is related to the divine judgments of the sin nature in the child of God. The necessity for such judgments and the sublime revelation that these judgments are now fully accomplished for us is unfolded in Romans 6:1-10. This passage is the foundation as well as the key to the possibility of a ‘walk in the Spirit’" (He That Is Spiritual, p. 154).
  
  Ruth Paxson: "The old ‘I’ in you and me was judicially crucified with Christ. ‘Ye died’ and your death dates from the death of Christ. ‘The old man,’ the old ‘Self’ in God’s reckoning was taken to the Cross with Christ and crucified and taken into the tomb with Christ and buried… Assurance of deliverance from the sphere of the ‘flesh’ and of the dethronement of ‘the old man’ rests upon the apprehension and acceptance of this fact of co-crucifixion" (Life on the Highest Plane, Vol. II, pp. 78,79).
  
  Watchman Nee: "The Blood can wash away my sins, but it cannot wash away my ‘old man.’ It needs the cross to crucify me … the sinner… Our sins are dealt with by the Blood, but we ourselves are dealt with by the Cross. The Blood procures our pardon; … the Cross procures our deliverance from what we are" (The Normal Christian Life, pp. 31,32).
  
  L.E. Maxwell: "Believers in Christ were joined to Him at the cross, united to Him in death and resurrection. We died with Christ. He died for us, and we died with Him. This is a great fact, true of all believers" (Christian Victory, p. 11).
  
  Norman B. Harrison: "This is the distinctive mark of the Christian—the experience of the cross. Not merely that Christ died for us, but that we died with Him. ‘Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him’ (Rom. 6:6)" (His Side Versus Our Side, p. 40).
  
  F.J. Huegel: "If the great Luther, with his stirring message of justification by faith, had with Paul moved on from Romans 5 to Romans 6 with its amazing declarations concerning the now justified sinner’s position of identification with his crucified Lord, would not a stifled Protestantism be on higher ground today? Might it not be free from its ulcerous fleshiness?" (The Cross of Christ, p. 84).
  
  Alexander R. Hay: "The believer has been united with Christ in His death. In this union with Christ, the flesh, ‘the body of sin’—the entire fallen, sin-ruined being with its intelligence, will and desires—is judged and crucified. By faith, the believer reckons (counts) himself ‘dead unto sin’ (Rom. 6:3-14)" (1V.T. Order for Church & Missionary, p. 310).
  
  T. Austin-Sparks: "The first phase of our spiritual experience may be a great and overflowing joy, with a marvelous sense of emancipation. In this phase extravagant things are often said as to total deliverance and final victory. Then there may, and often does, come a phase of which inward conflict is the chief feature. It may be very much of a Romans seven experience. This will lead, under the Lord’s hand, to the fuller knowledge of the meaning of identification with Christ, as in Romans six. Happy the man who has been instructed in this from the beginning" (What Is Man? p. 61).
  
  J. Penn-Lewis: "If the difference between ‘Christ dying for us,’ and ‘our dying with Him,’ has not been recognized, acknowledged, and applied, it may safely be affirmed that the self is still the dominating factor in the life" (Memoir, p. 26).
  
  William Culbertson: "Who died on the cross? Of course, our blessed Lord died on the cross; but who else died there? ‘Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him’ (Rom. 6:6-8)" (God’s Provision for Holy Living, p. 46).
  
  Reginald Wallis: "God says in effect, ‘My child, as you reckoned on the substitutionary work of the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation, now go a step farther and reckon on His representative work for your victory day by day.’ You believe the Lord Jesus died for your sins because God said so. Now take the next step. Accept by faith the further fact that you died with Him, i.e., that your ‘old man was crucified with Him’" (The New Life, p. 51).
  
  James R. McConkey: "Because He died ‘death hath no more dominion over Him,’ and because of our union with Him ‘sin shall not have dominion over you,’ even though it is present in you. Our ‘reckoning’ ourselves dead to sin in Jesus Christ does not make it a fact—it is already a fact through our union with Him. Our reckoning it to be true only makes us begin to realize the fact in experience" (The Way of Victory, p. 16).

I quoted several because it is so totally vital that you get this. This is the whole reason I keep bringing this topic up with you. We cannot become holy by following the law. We cannot gain victory in our Christian walk by following the law. We cannot be better than we are by following the law. WE ARE NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW, PERIOD!

Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

I understand that you have a passion for good works. You think it is a good thing to help old ladies across the street and to be an asset to your friends and neighbors rather than a burden, and of course you are right to think that. But if you think that it is doing those things that makes you good or that you are better because you have done them or you do them because you believe that you are constrained or commanded to do so, then you are fooling yourself and Christ will profit you nothing because you have placed yourself under law. What you must come to understand is that you are already as good as you will ever be or could ever be. You have been declared holy, righteous and blameless by virtue of the price paid by Christ at Calvary. It is only by resting in this Biblical fact, reckoning it to be so in spite of appearances to the contrary that God can begin to work into your character that which yields true Spiritual fruit. As emohaslove pointed out to you yesterday on another thread, a tomato plant does not toil to produce its fruit; it doesn't try or put forth any effort, it simply sits there and by virtue of the fact that it is a tomato plant it produces tomatoes. It is the same with the Christian. If we abide in the Vine, which is the very source of our life (Gal. 2:20), good fruit will be the result, not by effort but by nature.


The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:

• "To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
  
  "To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
  
  "To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
  
  "To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…

Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:

• "To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
  
  "To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
  
  "To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
  
  "To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
  
  "The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
  
  "To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Everything in this post that is indented was taken from Principles of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
You said

Out of 10 conclusions based on Mid-Acts (Plot), these are the things I would make a case from Scripture are valid vs dispensationalize away (can I be a consistent Mid-Acts person and hold to the following?):

I reject unconditional eternal security (OSAS).

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is a valid ordinance for NT believers (believer's baptism as a step of discipleship).

I believe in a Pentecostal hermeneutic. Speaking in tongues is for the edification of the believer and the Body and is a normative gift for NT believers, including today. Miracles and healings are not assured, but are very much in evidence today.

Believers are not 'under' the Law (especially ceremonial), but they do not live contrary to the moral law (decalogue). This does not mean we are saved by keeping the Law. When we are conformed to the image of Christ we will 'be holy, as He is holy."

I would think that mid Acts dispensationalism should be considered if you are to question whether or not you are a mid Ax'er or not. These are all tangent although strongly and logically subsequent issues to the mid Acts view. But because they are closely related to the view, I have to wonder if you really understand what the mid Acts view is and what it implies.

Here's a quiz to help us understand your level of understanding of the Mid Acts view.

1. Please explain what scriptures are specifically directed to us who are believers in this dispensation of Mystery and Grace
   
2. Please explain what part of God's word (or what writer) do most Christians identify that most clearly teaches OSAS?
   
3. Please explain why God started up the dispensation of Mystery and Grace
   
4. How do we know that the teachings for this dispensation of Mystery and Grace are unique to what was already revealed in scripture
   
5. Please explain what is the role of Israel in this dispensation
   
6. What aspect of our current dispensation is searchable in the (non-Pauline) scriptures, and what is not searchable?
   
7. Please explain why miracles and signs and wonders are associated specifically with Israel
   
8. Please explain what Paul means when he says that we are not under the law, and give a bible example of just how much we are not under the law
   
9. Please explain why scripture says that "even if we become faithless, God remains faithful, He can not reject Himself"

Best wishes in you explaining these answers according to your own understanding. I don't want to know what others believe, I want to know what you understand about these things. Fair enough? I'd much rather you do poorly and yet simply sincerely according to your own understanding without "studying up" on the questions, it is important to find out your own understanding and not your ability to go discover answers.

 

[1Way]

servent101,
You said

Then there is the Gospel Truth – (1) the blind acceptance to the literal pattern of thought that most orthodox insist is the key to the right interpretation – yet the first four books – which were written for people to know about the Good News – are completely free of instructions on how to use an exegesis on the matter – and (2) no where in the letters are there instructions to confine all Spiritual knowledge to one book.

(1) I'm not sure what you are getting at. How is what you said different than someone saying that

• One should accept God's word at face value, (more) literally, until given a solid bible based reason to take it (more) figuratively.

(2) Are you saying that the bible is not the only holy scriptures?

Lastly, would you please name even one reputable Christian Apologist who rejects the idea that it is wrong to add or subtract from God's word. Again, I do not understand what you are getting at by saying that the common orthodox apologetics reject the prohibition against adding or subtracting from God's word. Please explain, thanks.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Servant101--Re: your post #1671: I see that we were, to an extent, talking past one another. To what extent, I have yet to be sure.

Your #1671 post shows me that to some extent, at least, when you spoke of adding to or taking from scripture you were speaking of adding books to the canon of scripture or taking books away from the canon. In that regard, we are in agreement. The admonition to John on the Isle of Patmos was not a prohibition against the church forming the canon of Scripture. It was, I believe, a warning against changing the CONTENT of a book in the canon of scripture--altering the contents of a canonical book.

I now am beginning to think that there may be nothing that we really disagree on. From what has just happened in this regard, I am impressed that when I see something that seems real strange to me, I first need to makie sure I really understand what the other fellow is talking about. Mea culpa!!

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--The last line of your post #1659 indicates that you believe there is a contradiction between what Paul and James say about salvation in regard to faith and works. Is that true? Do you believe they contradict one another?