Could you state what you believe the two main positions are and what you believe a possible solution is if there is one?

What do you believe the primary disagreement is? How are these two views similar? Are the differences semantic or substantive?

God said that He killed Saul, but He didn't. God says that He created evil, but He didn't! How do we understand these statements? By thinking outside the box of tradition!

As to Job, well, God is talking to Satan. Job isn't present. So either God is presenting Job as He sees him or God is presenting Job as Job sees himself. When we read the whole book we begin to understand that Job justified himself rather then God. It's just that simple!




I think I understand your dismissal of Elihu -- You might have the same problem as Job?

Food for thought,

Rob

John, your statement proves that you are both blind and legelistic. How dare you try to place the believer under law. May I remind you of what Paul said:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

The law doesn't say, "You do your best and I, the law, will make up the difference." Nope...it says you must obey me just like Christ obeyed me! No selfishness...no self-love, just God's selfless agape love and nothing short of it! Comprehend?

Rob

Then you are watering down the demands of the law.




The fact that the OT believers confessed means that they weren't keeping the law. Think man, think! Confession doesn't equal obedience....

Rob

Look at 1 John 1 and 2. There you have Christians being told to confess their sins and the promise that God cleanses us from all unrighteousness. Obviously these believers are not absolutely perfect. Then in chapter 2, it says that John is writing so that his readers "will not sin." That must be possible or there would be no purpose in writing it. In the same chapter, it says very clearly (vv. 3-5) that believers do obey God and keep His commandments.

My point is simply that if we say that no one can possibly obey the commandments, those verses make no sense. It seems to me that you are making the expression "keep the commandments, "etc., to mean something that the Bible is not saying. For one thing it is not talking about keeping the commandments legalistically, or in order to earn salvation. We've talked about this already many times. Yet you keep taking the expression to be a reference to works of law. It means rather works of faith. A person can view the law two different ways: works of law or works of faith.

Let me help you....Here's the rest of the story:

-BC- SC
-TI- Steps to Christ
-CN- 7
-CT- The Test of Discipleship
-PR- 01
-PG- 62


The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been,--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents,--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized.

It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God’s law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned.

So, we are perfect, "in Christ"!

Rob

Good, so far. Now go on and read more of what the Spirit of prophecy says on the same subject. Keep reading.

What does she say about the imparted righteousness of Christ?

What does it mean to experience the righteousness of Christ? What is it to have Christ living in us?

It doesn't mean we are keeping the law and you know it. In order for you to fully reflect Christ (that's the fulfillment of the law) all your earthliness must be burnt away. Your love of self...your pride...your ego...your worldly views...all these must be stripped away. This is the experience of the 144,000....It doesn't save, it demonstrates. What always saves is Christ's righteousness.

Here's what it says:

"their earthliness must be consumed, [why?] that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected."

So you want to impose your view, which is in the minority, on the thousands of those who are reading these posts (the majority)? Not good....

Rob

Verse 7: "the blood of Jesus [i.e., His life, which is our life, laid down in death] cleanses us from all sin.

We stand cleansed from all sin only "in Christ". 1 John 1:8 states the same, but a clearer picture can be found in Col:

"he [God] has reconciled you in Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.....28 We proclaim him [Christ], admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present all men perfect in Christ."

So when we knowingly sin we confess so that Christ will continue to represent us perfect in Himself. That's all John and Paul is stating.




Okay, this one is a bit complicated. How so? It seems to contradict:

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves....If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar,....2:1 ...I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins...."

Do you see the problem? John states that we can't claim to be without sin, then he states "if anyone sins". Well, something is wrong either with our understanding of the verses or with the translation.

Well, let's continue and maybe we can get a clue to how John defines "commandment keeping".

4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him"...

Now go back to 1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us....

So which is it? If I claim to be without sin the truth is not in me, but at the same time if I don't keep His commandments the truth is not in me. I find John, not Paul, rather hard to understand.

Another thing is John switches from the plural to the singular:

"we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments [plural]."

"Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment [singular] to you"

So maybe John is defining commandment keeping as anyone who loves his brother. Like I said, John is unclear on somethings.

Rob