Originally posted by godrulz
Post 1676 This merits a discussion paper. I have had Standford's "Green Letters" books for 25 years but never got around to reading the series. I agree with many of the principles in the post.
I believe that The Complete Green Letters by Stanford is the most important single piece of extra biblical literature that I have ever read. It has had more impact on the actual living of my life than any other single work.
Interestingly, I had read it prior to coming to the Acts 9 view and it glazed my eyes over. I can't really say why this is so because Stanford himself was admittedly against any such "hyper-dispensational" view. He was true blue Acts 2 through and through! (Although inconsistently so, I believe.) I actually wrote him once shortly before his death explaining why his reasons for discarding the Acts 9 position was incorrect but I never got a response. Now I marvel at the incredible arrogance of having written such a letter to a man of his years and expertise. I should have been content to have simply kept my place and learned from him and let the rest go. Oh well, now that he's with Christ, he agrees with me anyway! (Just kidding!
).
Anyway, as I was saying, before I read The Plot, The Green Letters bored the heck out of me, but afterward it came alive (as did the Bible) because I could see the unique message of the Apostle Paul and it's direct application to me as a member of the Body of Christ.
The authors would have divergent views on the exact nature of sanctification and the Christian life. We all talk about being dead to sin and having the life of Christ, but may understand different nuances about these concepts/realities. Pulling quotes out of context to support a particular view does not represent their entire teaching which would conflict in some areas. I would not quibble with any of the quotes that sound good on the surface.
Stanford himself makes clear that many of the authors he quotes haven't written much that is worth reading. In fact he recommended NOT reading anything that Watchman Nee wrote aside from "The Normal Christian Life" (An outstanding book by the way). The rest of Nee's material is really good to start fires with but that about it. The point wasn't to say that all these people agree with Stanford's whole theology but that on this particular point, they got it right and did so in a way he thought worth quoting.
The issues of OSAS, water baptism, charismata, etc. stand on their own evidence. Fitting them into a preconceived system might seem consistent on the surface (even as JW, Mormon, Calvinism can be internally consistent, yet completely wrong), but may not stand up to scrutiny.
I don't know how much scrutiny you want to give it but I can tell you that if you are convinced that there is a problem with it, you will find one. One things for sure, you are indeed entrenched in your own charismatic, ordinance following, salvation maintained by works paradigm. I'm afraid that it will indeed take a miracle to dig you out.
Paul's point about the law is true when it comes to our universal condemnation and justification by faith alone. It does not negate his other teaching elsewhere that exhorts us to right and holy living because we are 'in Him' and not in order to get saved to be in Him (including the principles consistent with the eternal moral law of God...e.g. idol worship, immorality, stealing, anger, etc.).
Man! It is so frustrating how close you come to getting this right! You cannot follow the law godrulz, you cannot do it. You cannot be righteous by following the law because following the law does not make you righteous. You have been saved unto good works to be sure but those good works are not defined by the law! The law doesn't have anything to do with it at all! The law was nailed to the cross. Why oh why would you ever want to take it down from there?
If you want to know how to live the Christian life, I can tell you how in two words. LOVE GOD! That's it. Love God, period. Don't concern yourself with a list of things you can and cannot do. Rules won't work, that's the law which your flesh earnestly desires to be under and so break. Your flesh is about what it can see and feel, hear, touch and experience in various other ways. Faith is not about that, it's about trusting in a loving God who did it all for you. You cannot mix the two, at least not in this dispensation.
I would be interested in your take (pretending Mid-Acts does not exist as a template) on the plausibility or probability of the commentator's views on Gal. 2:7 and James 2. If you did not see Mid-Acts personally, would they be a reasonable exegesis?
Well yes and no. No, it would not be reasonable because it is incorrect but it would be typical and short of having any better explanation I would have accepted it, and did for a long time. But I have always seen the contradiction between Paul and James ever since I was in High School and I've always understood why people like Martin Luther didn't think the book of James belonged in the canon. It was always explained away in the same or similar fashion as your posts have, and I habitually said "okay" and let the issue go.
However, I have always (for as long as I can remember anyway) changed my theological positions anytime a simpler, more eloquent and/or complete explanation came along for any issue. There was a time that I actually thought that Paul Crouch was a pretty incredible man of God if you can believe that! And for a while, back in the 80's, I thought that the World Wide Church of God had all the right answers! Good grief! Could I have been any more wrong?!!! But even to this day, if you asked me whether I thought that those people and their ideas are reasonable, I would probably have to concede that they are from their own perspectives. So, do I think you are a total nut job for not seeing it my way? No, of course not. But do I think you might possibly be right? No, not at all.
Resting in Him,
Clete
