| Author | Message | ||
| Max |
Bill, is it arrogant to say, "I am sinless," meaning sinless forever in Christ alone? I've been saying that for a long time on this web site .... and you never read it? | ||
| Max |
And why did Paul call the recipients of his letter to the Colossians "holy and faithful brothers in Christ" when they had not yet "put to death" their "sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed"? And had not yet rid themselves of "anger, rage, malice, slander, and flthy language"? And were still lying to each other? (Colossians 3:5-9.) Why would Paul still call them "holy and faithful brothers in Christ"? Any daring souls out there? | ||
| Patti |
Max, Why are you always throwing down the gauntlet? Why so confrontational? Why can there not be objective discussion with out all the provocative language? | ||
| Max |
Blessings, Patti! | ||
| Graceambassador |
Well, Max, welcome back! Perhaps you have to admit that less than 12 hours ago you were denying everything you wrote above! I will still keep a certain degree of caution. That and chicken broth have never done anybody any harm. ----------------------------------------------- Many in this forum know that I separate the Epistles of Paul entirely from any other portions of the Bible. Why? Because Paul's revelation of Grace is the crown of Revelations. It is different and superior to the text of James, it is addressed to US gentile Christians and according to Paul's own words, "it was a mistery revealed to him and now being revealed to others by him" (summary of what Paul says about the mistery in different passages). Also, Paul refers to his revelation as "my Gospel" and "our Gospel". Of course I believe that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired. But, scriptures have a timing within God's administration of time. That's why we do not kill lambs today. The book of James, for example, was written with the council of Jerusalem in mind. It was addressed to the Jews of the diaspora who needed to know how Christianity would get along with Judaism. That is also over! That's my problem when I see people mixing James and Paul as though they had the same theme. That's why people confuse "deeds" and "fruits" etc. Read Acts 15, 1 Cor 8, Galatians 2. You will find that Paul's Revelation is superior and supressing! It is superior to the text of the Council of Jerusalem when James attempted to put a limit on the Gentiles eating flesh sacrificed to idols. We see that difference in 1 Cor. 8. It is superior in purpose and calling since the Jewish apostles maintained the original text of the Great Commission to preach and baptize but Paul delcares that he was NOT CALLED TO BAPTIZE (although he baptized some that he does not even remember) in 1 Cor. It is superior because not only proclaims the needlessness of judaism but also its suppression since it is a "shadow" of something that had already been revealed. It is superior ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT PLACES: SALVATION AND ITS MAINTENANCE SANTIFICATION FAITH WALKING THE CHRISTIAN WALK solely dependent upon Jesus. No one can help any of the above without Jesus Christ. He is our everything. It is superior, finally, because it teaches in Romans 6,7,8 and other texts that although I am a wretched man with a rottening cadaver tied to my back (a practice in the Roman empire to punish murderers by binding the body of the dead person to the murder's body until it rots away and the rot starts to eat away the body of the living man) I can "vs 25, of chapter 7 - THANK GOD FOR JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. SO THEN WITH THE MIND I MYSELF SERVE THE LAW OF GOD; BUT WITH THE FLESH THE LAW OF SIN. It also declares that the life we now live we live in the faith OF THE SON OF GOD. In this TYPE OF GRACE FAITH TO WALK THE WALK AND TALK THE TALK IS IMPARTED! THIS FAITH HAS BEEN AUTHORED AND FINISHED BY CHRIST (HEB 12. It is not our own Cheap Grace? Easy believism? When you get to heaven go to the customer service desk and complain to the manager. I did not inspire Paul to write it, I did not write myself. I know, however, who inspired him and I study the inspiration. That's all I do! And by the way, I am not one bit concerned if current SDA will think that formers believe in a "cheap Grace". Cheap is a relative word. PERHAPS THEIRS IS TOO EXPENSIVE, THUS INEXISTENT AND OXYMORONIC (EXPENSIVE GRACE...HA! HA!). THAT'S WHY WE DO NOT WANT IT! I am not a former and formers should not fear that either! Now you, Max, seem to agree with this. Less than 12 hours and 5 minutes ago you APPEARED to be denying it! Hence the confusion Grace Ambassador | ||
| Max |
Thanks, Grace Ambassador. I appreciated your response. Anybody else as game as GA? | ||
| Rayna |
Max, you deny one minute what you preach the next. Total confusion. Rayna | ||
| Patti |
Max, I have been asked (very lovingly and wisely) to be silent. Which is excellent advice. However, I will say one thing before I go. You are seriously hindering fellowship here, Max, with the way you have taken over the forum, serving as both MC and commentator on everything that is posted. It is not that we do not want to hear your thoughts. Your thoughts are exactly what we want to hear, but you merely treat us as if standing in line, waiting for your permission and approval to post here. People go to great lengths to express their beliefs, to back them up with Scripture, and you cannot even do them the courtesy of a straight answer. If you do not wish to answer, then so be it. In such a case, DON'T SAY ANYTHING, instead of merely dismissing our words with a catch phrase or another passage of verses that is not related to what the person said. In short, Max, treat us as fellow adults, as your equal, instead of trying to control us as you would a class of kindergartners. Do us the courtesy of talking to us not at us or around us or past us, answering questions with thought instead of merely dismissing us as just another customer, the ink of their words not even dry before you summon someone else with, "Next in line, please..." | ||
| Bruceh |
All you guys All of you have such a strong desire to defend the Gospel. That is why you react. Could be a little Flesh, we all seem to have a problem with this. Especially me!!!! Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Max |
Patti, blessings! Rayna, blessings! Bruce, blessings! | ||
| Terry |
Patti, I am a peace-keeper...sorry if I made you feel like you "need to be silent." If we can all grow by constructive argumentation, then so be it. Please don't go away...you have SO much to contribute...like I said this morning...Your study on Hebrews 4&10...awesome! I appreciate all of you, as I am, as Max quotes, so full of lusts, greediness, anger, drug addiction,etc..yet I am "holy and faithful and perfect" in Christ. We all need each other, I mean we REALLY do need each other! Terry | ||
| Billthompson |
Max, Your questions regarding sinners being called "saints" and "holy and faithful", etc. would seem to me to be great examples of the fact that true believers are saved by the "Imputed Righteousness" of Christ rather than "Imparted Righteousness". If this is the point you are making, I agree. As for true believers being already sanctified in the context you quoted it means "set apart". That is my understanding. Max, I am also glad to see you did not object to my statement that you are not bothered by people who have the assurance of their own salvation. I knew you surely could not resent people for this. At one time in my life I resented people who said "I am saved" but that was because I had no assurance of my own salvation and did not understand the Gospel. Now that I have a firm assurance of my own salvation I not only do not resent people saying "I am saved", I say it often myself and wish that everyone else could have this same assurance. I have no problem with your statement "I am sinless" in Christ alone since I am sure you are referring to the "Imputed Righteousness" of Christ rather than "Imparted Righteousness". I confess I do not follow this forum consistantly and I am not that familiar with all that you write, Max. Maryann was shocked when we were talking privately by e-mail a while back. She mentioned your name and I said "who is that?" She could not believe I did not know the famous "Max". Sorry about that :) | ||
| Max |
Greetings Bill, I do not like either the term "imputed righteousness" or the term "imparted righteousness" because: 1. They are not found in Scripture. I prefer to use scriptural terms because they are already contexted in the word of God, whereas these others -- like "the trinity" -- are contexted only in the words of human beings. 2. They are worn-out cliches that have been misused and abused for centuries. I do not object to their original usages dating back to Reformation times. But they have accreted too much "sticky stuff" through the ages for my taste. And so I prefer to make a clean break and a clean start each study with Scriptural terms alone. The way they were bandied about by the halitosis of windy legalists during my SDA years nauseates me still. I remember sitting in theology class at La Sierra University and hearing the "glass of water and oil" theory expounded: This legalistic theory works like this: You are an empty glass when you meet Christ. Oil represents imparted righteousness, water imputed righteousness. Upon baptism your glass is completely filled with oil (imputed righteousness). But as you progress in your Christian experience the water of your own good behavior (imparted righteousness) fills up the glass and floats out the oil. Until finally all the oil is gone and only water fills your glass. Ergo: you stand before God without a Mediator. But if you unplug those unscriptural terms, then this illustrating metaphor falls apart, for it confuses imparted righteousness with one's own self righteousness. And purely scriptural terms smash the glass metaphor to smithereens: For, "By one sacrifice he has made PERFECT forever those who are being made holy" (He 10:14). But I try not to be too rigid about those terms. And so, you are exactly right in that when I say "I am sinless" I am indeed referring to "imputed righteousness" rather than "imparted righteousness." By the way, I apologize for mistakenly assuming that you had been associated with this web site for a longer unbroken stretch of time than is evidently the case. Maryann exaggerates way beyond my limited comprehension of the situation. Peace. | ||
| Billthompson |
Max, Thanks for the above statement. I was pretty certain that is where you were coming from. I do not use those terms (imputed vs. imparted) in my own conversations either. I am always thinking in terms of the concept of "imputed righteousness", however when I discuss salvation. I only brought up the two terms to try to help build a bridge between the two sides who seemed to be at odds in this forum. As I read through the posts, I thought, "They are both saying the same thing but accussing each other of saying the opposite." I thought defining our terms might clear the fog a bit. Example: Two professing Christians can say they are trusting in the righteousness of Christ alone for their salvation. It sounds like they are in complete agreement, but because one is thinking "imputed righteousness" saved me and the other is thinking "imparted righteousness" saves me, they are not in agreement at all. They are actually talking about two separate ways of salvation, one true the other false. Here in this forum we had the opposite problem in my observation. We had two groups who both believe we are saved by "imputed righteousness" but each side was unsure what the other side was saying and assuming the other side was meaning what they were not. It is grand to see peace restored. Long may it last. God Bless, Bill Thompson | ||
| Max |
Thanks, Bill. Your contribution seems to have started turning the tide. But God was in control all along. | ||
| Billthompson |
Max, Indeed God is in control. I do not desire to take any credit for things He accomplishes. If He can use a broken vessel such as I, in performing HIS mighty works, then I am blessed by that. I know quite well, He could could use any number of more worthy vessels, however. | ||
| Max |
God uses people even against their wills sometimes, don't you think? I'm thinking of Nebuchadnezzar, for example, who served as "the rod of God's wrath" against Israel who had rebelled for too long against Yaweh. | ||
| Billthompson |
Yes, I guess you are right about that. Also, even those of us who desire to be used by Him may be used in ways or at times we did not anticipate or would not have chosen on our own. I am glad He is in control! | ||
| Graceambassador |
Max: A lighter note. A personal question, perhaps out of a secret desire to be like you... Where do you work? Who is your employer? Does he provide you with a computer all day and allow you to use it to discuss in a "religious" forum ALL THE TIME? If he does, does he look over your shoulder to check if your views are like his... It they're not, do you have to "kinda" shift them to satisfy him and then comes back to your best when he is away? I am assuming that you do have an activity in life and that you work in and for something. And I AM ALSO ASSUMING that your boss may be a great Christian since he allows (or even determines) that you spend so much time in Christian foruns. Ohhh! I forgot! Perhaps he even pays you for it! If that's the case, can you tell me the denomination of your employer? Oh God... Make me like Max and give me a Grace Believing Boss in a good mainstream denomination! Please, answer if you want, but please, do not gloat...  ... Grace Ambassador | ||
| Max |
Hi GA, Speaking of the lighter side, here's a question for you: What's worse than being just annoyed? Answer next post. |
