| Author | Message | ||
| Billthompson |
Amen Terry! I ask everyone's forgiveness if I have in any way contributed to the ugliness. Bill Thompson | ||
| Max |
Hi Cindy, I appreciated your post SO MUCH. You even told me I was more effective than your coffee, which you drank groggily, whereas my posts woke you up! CEV Matthew 5:9 "God blesses those people who make peace. They will be called his children!" And you are truly his child making peace always. Yes, I've noticed! And I wish I had your gift. And so I add my blessings to Christ's. And, no, I'm not planning to check out of here any time soon. NIV Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 31 What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Max, Still of the Cross | ||
| Patti |
Terry and Bill, I understand and respect your positions, and if I need to leave, I will. And if I am asked to be silent about my full salvation in Jesus Christ, then I will definitely leave. (I find myself quite busy, anyway, on other, SDA and non-SDA forums where people are quite interested in hearing the Gospel.) What you are seeing is a microcosm of the Reformation. Whenever the Gospel of our Lord is preached, it polarizes the listeners, just as it did during the Reformation, just as it does in the SDA church, just as it does here. I am not afraid of conflict, because Jesus Himself said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.": The Gospel causes conflict! When we preach the Gospel, we will be met with hostility and persecution! If we are not, then we are not preaching the true Gospel. When people are directly confronted with the Gospel, they must take a stand. Not that is necessarily an irrevocable stand, but there is no middle ground. Either we believe in salvation by the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf alone or we add something else of our own making to it. I also find it interesting that folks have sat back silently and let Maryann and Max say what they wish about those who are preaching Gospel, but at the first sign of someone answering them back, then we hear admonitions about ugliness. Is that quite fair? It is not fair what Maryann said about Rayna. Is it not the Christian thing to do to stand up for someone being maligned? Or maybe we want peace at all costs. Like Maryann seems to want. While admitting I preach the Gospel, she seems to be asking me to stop so that peace will prevail. And others seem just to want to sweep everything under the rug so that we do not bring these hard issues out in the open so that we can arrive at some sort of conclusions. Nothing productive ever comes at turning one's head and pretending things do not exist. There are very real differences here. They are not imagined any more than the differences between the reformers and the RCC, between Brinsmeand and the SDA church, between Paul and Ellen White. Shall we then just "kiss and make up" and pretend like we never had any differences of opinion? Just how productive has that tactic proven to be in the SDA church? These are not merely rhetorical questions. I am truly interested in your answers. Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Max |
KJV Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. | ||
| Billthompson |
Max, I am still curious about how you would answer the question I aksed at 7:55am today. "Do you believe a person who has truly been, born again, sealed with the Holy Spirit, a new creature in Christ, can this person lose their salvation?" I am not being contentious in any way with this question. I truly wonder about how you personally view this doctrine. I do not think you have to believe exactly the same way I do about this in order to be saved and thus, I am in no way questioning your salvation, I just wonder what your perspective is on this. Max, I have great respect for you and no desire to argue with you. I would appreciate a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the above question, however. I will not argue with you which ever answer you give. I'll simply have a better understanding of where you are coming from. | ||
| Billthompson |
Patti, Please do not leave because of my statement. I am very confused about the seeming controversy here. It seems to me that you, Rayna, Maryann and Max all believe the same plan of salvation (Gospel) by Grace and not by works. I know Max has wanted to stress what comes AFTER salvation more than the salvation message itself. I would prefer your idea of putting the Gospel first and in fact that is my own way of doing things, however, I have not seen Max promote a different plan of salvation (Gospel). I am still waiting to see if he believes one can lose salvation. If he does believe this then I can see why he wants to emphasize what comes after salvation. I do not believe a truly saved person can be lost. I think you believe the same way, Patti. This may be where we differ with Max. I am not sure. I am still waiting for his answer. | ||
| Billthompson |
Patti, I was away from this forum for awhile, as you may have noticed, and just returned very recently. Perhaps there were conversations I am not aware of. I see there seems to be disagreement with you and Rayna on one side and Maryann and Max on the other, but for the life of me I see no difference in the plan of salvation all 4 of you believe in. I think Maryann has said this same thing. Max does seem to wish to discuss something other than the plan of salvation. Again, he seems to wish to discuss what comes after salvation but that difference in emphasis is not a different plan of salvation. Again, I may have missed some crucial points made a couple of weeks ago when I was not involved with this forum. Enlighten me my dear friend. What did I miss? | ||
| Patti |
Hi, Bill, I probably overreacted. I usually do. If I had a problem with what you say personally, I would write you directly. I have enough faith in our relationship that I could disagree with you to your face! Let me tell you what I see is going on here, and feel free to disagree: I have tried to "know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Max began to counter every statement with Gospel with the implication and sometimes direct statement that we (Rayna and I particularly) are preaching "cheap" and "bogus" and "false" grace. And these accusations are continued in spite of the fact that Rayna and I both defined grace as God's infinite mercy toward undeserving sinners. To include in the definition of grace the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit is to accept the other gospel of the RCC. It is to take the focus off of the finished work of Christ in our behalf and to place it on the believer. It is to relegate the saving act of Jesus Christ to "mere" salvation, and to imply that there is some higher, greater, more profound truth than being saved by the historic, once-for-all work of Jesus Christ in our behalf. As far as losing our salvation is concerned, for me it is not so much a matter of whether we "can" lose our salvation as to whether we would choose to do so even if we could! Why would we, who have see how totally hopeless we are in ourselves, who see the perfection of Jesus Christ and His saving work for us, who live daily in the awe and wonder of being totally reconciled to God, turn and walk away from so great a salvation! Personally, I cannot see how anyone could do this! And, on top of this, we have Christ's promise that He will never leave us nor forsake us, and that no one can snatch us out of His hand. Sounds pretty definite to me. I, too, would be very interested to hear Max's answer. Thank you for your (always) kind remarks, Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Billthompson |
Patti, As I understand it, the RCC definition of "Grace" is quite different. The defining point may be in the question, "When is a person saved?" The RCC, SDA and many others with a false gospel see salvation as a future thing. My understanding is that every work that needed to be done for my salvation was accomplished about 2000 years ago. I have a choice to believe and accept this plan of salvation and the moment I do so by faith, then I am saved for all eternity at that very moment. The Bible does say that at that moment I am a new creature in Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit. There is no denying that. The difference comes in the "when" of salvation I guess. The RCC, SDA and others see it as a future salvation which will come if you live a certain way after first believing. I'll fight against this teaching anytime, anywhere. I don't think Maryann believes in the RCC and SDA gospel. I have not found where Max does but do find him quoting some of the same passages of scripture that people of that persuasion often do to try to make their point. There may be some miscommunication here. I hope that is all it is. | ||
| Patti |
Re: The RCC doctrine of grace This is a bit off the subject. I just wanted to show you what SDAs (and RCCs) believe about grace. This is from another forum: SDA statement: And the grace of God which you refer to, includes power for obedience, which obviously you choose to deny, My reply: I deny it! And so did the Reformers. Grace is the great mercy that God offers to undeserving sinners who believe in Jesus Christ ONLY. The Catholics, on the other hand, see salvation just as you present it! From the Council of Trent: CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. In other words: It is heresy to say that we are saved (justified) solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the forgiveness of sins alone, to the exclusion of the regeneration of the heart by the infused grace of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, it is heresy to say that this grace is only the unmerited favor of God toward the believer. That is good RCC doctrine. And this is what I am hearing from Max. | ||
| Max |
Greetings Bill, I never go beyond Scripture. NIV Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' NIV Hebrews 10:26. If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? NIV Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. NIV Matthew 13:18 "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22 The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23 But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." 24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, `Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 28 "`An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, `Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29 "`No,' he answered, `because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'" From Scripture alone, I have to conclude that no one but God knows for sure who is elected. You may have the assurance of permanent salvation (sinlessness) in Christ by faith alone in real grace alone. I conclude from Scripture alone that: (1) No one who is lost ever truly believed in the first place, and God knows in advance who these are. (2) There are many deceived grace-claimers who listen to false Christs teaching false grace. But they are lost because they never truly believed and thus were never truly saved in the first place, and God knows in advance who these are as well. Grace and peace to you. | ||
| Billthompson |
Imparted righteousness vs. Imputed righteousness Imputed righteousness is all that is needed for salvation. It is only the imputed righteousness of Christ which can stand up to the perfection which God requires in judgement for salvation. Changes in the life of a new creature in Christ are a wonderful blessing, old harmful habits which a Christian may see victory over, etc. To call these changes "righteous" is to not understand the righteousness God requires, however. We may make changes for the better after being saved but these things do not save us and are wrongly named if called "righteousness". There is no true "righteousness" (not by God's definition and standard) in us and thus the term "imparted righteousness" is a false hope. It implies the hope of sinless perfection among human beings. We are indeed "born again" at the moment we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit but we will never be perfect in this life on earth. We have a source of power available to us that we did not previously have, namely the Holy Spirit, but we will never be perfect. The imputed righteousness of Christ (as contrasted with imparted righteousness) is our only hope for salvation. | ||
| Lorinc |
BillThompson wrote (to Patti): >Please do not leave because of my statement. >I am very confused about the seeming controversy >here. It seems to me that you, Rayna, Maryann >and Max all believe the same plan of salvation >(Gospel) by Grace and not by works. I second that !! (both the "don't leave" and the "I'm confused!") In fact, I've stayed away from this forum for several days because I got frustrated listening to people arguing when they actually agree --- kind of like, "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!" "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!" :-) Until I see Max and Maryann state in their own words that they think our salvation depends even one iota on our own works, and until I see Patti and Rayna declare their intentions to live lives of deliberate debauchery in order to demonstrate God's superabounding Grace, I just don't see the problem here. It's not that I want us to suppress our differences, it's just that I don't *see* them! (Call me a clueless male -- I'm good at it!) As Colleen so lovingly pointed out elsewhere, our variety of backgrounds gives us a variety of perspectives -- and that can be a good thing! Standing with you all at the foot of the Cross, Lorin | ||
| Patti |
Lorin, I understand your perspective. Sometimes it has not been clear for me either. But for those of us who have come out of a system of bondage and law for the sake of the Gospel of salvation for the sake of the work of Jesus Christ for us, we cannot be drawn back into a situation of focusing on our own works in any way, shape or form. That is what is going on here. The Gospel is not what Christ can do in us. It is what He has done FOR us, and for all who believe in Him. It is like Geoffrey Paxton says (paraphrased): Whenever there is no clean and clearcut delineation between Christ's saving work for us (justification) and His work in us (what is called sanctification), sanctification will always take the spotlight. In most of Christendom today, the emphasis is not on the marvelous saving work of Jesus Christ, but about what He will do IN us. When we elevate ourselves and our own righteousness even if we give credit to the Holy Spirit, we place the saving act of Jesus Christ in the background. When we "witness" to our own regeneration, not only are we losing an opportunity to yet again uplift Jesus Christ and Him crucified, but we are witnessing to an incomplete and sin-permeated work. I hope that you begin to see the difference. It is no small one. It prompted the Reformation. God bless, Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Max |
NIV Hebrews 10:10: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." NIV Hebrews 10:10 with indicated interpolation: "We have been made holy [100% sanctified and 100% sinless] through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all [all people and all time, past, present and future]." | ||
| Patti |
By faith. By faith alone. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. | ||
| Billthompson |
Max, Thanks for the answer. You believe as I do that a truly saved person can not be lost. You believe in the sovereignty of God where salvation is concerned. I am not sure why you could not just let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no" (if you need a scripture reference for this it is Matthew 5:37) but you answered me just the same and I thank you for that. It seems we are all talking about the same plan of salvation and you and I are even talking about the same security in salvation. I was away from this forum until very recently. Where did the bitterness come from? There must have been some miscommunication at some point and it has grown way out of proportion I think. I hope no one here resents people who have the assurance of salvation. I believe 1 John 5:13 says we can have this assurance. A true child of God should be an exclamation point not a question mark. How can we boldly witness for Christ and live for Christ without assurance of our own salvation? How do we spread the Good News to people if we are not sure of our own salvation? As an SDA I resented hearing Christians say "I am saved". It seemed arrogant to me since I believed in salvation by grace plus works back then. I also hated to hear them say it because I had no assurance of my own salvation. After all, it is NOT arrogant to say "I am saved" since my salvation is all about what Christ has done, not about what I have done. Saying "I am saved" is an expression of my faith in Him, not bragging on myself. I am not worthy of His free gift but I accept it with open arms. Max, you are delighted that people have the assurnace of their own salvation, aren't you? We agree on this don't we? I am just sure this is true of you. I am not sure where all this miscommuncation started. I look forward to a time when we can rejoice in each other's salvation and praise our Lord and Saviour together. | ||
| Max |
Anyone on this web site care to comment on the reason why Paul called the Corinthians saints, "sanctified in Christ Jesus," when they were: 1. jealous, quarreling and worldly (1Corinthinians 3:3) and were 2. tolerating "sexual immorality ... of a kind that does not occur even among pagans" (1Corinthinians 5:1)? Why did he still call them saints? | ||
| Max |
Paul still called the recipients of his letter to the Ephesians "saints" (Ephesians 1:1) when they were still living did the Gentiles (Ephesians 4:17-19) who were indulging "in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more." Why did he still call them "saints"? | ||
| Max |
And why did Paul call the Philippians "saints" (1:1) when two of them -- Euodia and Syntyche -- were locked in an argument so violent that Paul heard of it in prison in far-off Rome (4:2) and when a certain "loyal yokefellow" was refusing to help certain needy women who had "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel" (4:3)? Why did he still insist on calling these folks saints? Any takers? |
