Guest Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 He did not say: I am only forgiving your sexual sins. That's baloney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Quote: Doesn't matter...the point is she didn't repent before Christ accepted her.... [color:blue] At the Cross God offered a general amnesty/forgiveness, but this does not do any sinner any good until the sinner makes it his own. Babies who died before accountability didn't make it their own....Those who do not have the law, but yet comprehend something greater than themselves, did not make it their own.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yes, UNIVERSAL forgiveness/amnesty was declared at the Cross, but does no one any good until we accept it personally. False.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 He did not say: I am only forgiving your sexual sins. That's baloney. What were the Pharisees condemning her of? Right, adultery!!! They, according to the law, insisted she be stoned (obey & live, disobey & die). Christ, because He is the Savior, told her "neither do I condemn you".....He didn't condemn her, according to the law, instead he gave her grace, but He also wished her to leave her life of adultery....Hence, go and sin no more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 The truth as it is "in Christ" by Jack Sequeira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 You are his #1 FAN, Robt. Any t-shirts available? :) Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I'd rather have a hat, if I have a choice Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (I hope this isn't perceived as blasphemy..) Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted December 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted December 16, 2009 Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo Yes, UNIVERSAL forgiveness/amnesty was declared at the Cross, but does no one any good until we accept it personally. False.... Because you said so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (I hope this isn't perceived as blasphemy..) Nah...just be careful not to feed the drama queens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 You are his #1 FAN, Robt. Any t-shirts available? I can arrange one for you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Originally Posted By: Robert False.... [/quote'] Because you said so? Nope...Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnattmbtc Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 The death of Christ does everyone who lives good in that it gives physical life (which means everything we have, since if we were dead, we couldn't do anything and wouldn't have anything). So even the possibility of rejecting Christ is the purchase of His blood. As EGW puts it, "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." (DA 660) Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnattmbtc Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Regarding the woman caught in adultery, two points stand out to me. One is that Christ told the woman He was not condemning her before she had done anything. She had not repented. She had not done anything at all, in regards to Christ. But He told her He did not condemn her. This tells us something about God, as Christ came to reveal the Father. A second point is that Christ told her to go and sin no more. Why? Because sin is destructive. Sin is what got her into the mess she was in in the first place. It's the same as with the paralytic. Christ healed the paralytic, and forgave him his sins, without the paralytic doing a thing. Then He told him to not sin anymore less a worse thing happen to him. His sin had caused the problem he had from which Christ healed him, and would likely, it seems to me, have caused his death (what else would be worse than being paralyzed?) had he returned to it. So Christ was telling the woman to "sin no more" so that she would not be destroyed by it. Surely Christ had in mind principally the sin she had been committing. This wouldn't exclude other sins, of course, as any sin is destructive, but I'm sure the woman would have understood Christ as saying "Go, and don't do what you were doing any more" as opposed to "Go, and don't every commit any sin of any kind as long as you live." At any rate, the important point of the "Go and sin no more" comment is that it makes clear that Christ was not countenancing sin. Christ forgave sin freely, but He never OK'd it, which He could never do, because sin is destructive. It would be like, for example, forgiving a child for using drugs. One could do that, but one would never say (as a good parent) that it's OK to use drugs, because drugs are destructive. If you love someone, you don't want to see them destroy themselves. (e.g. "Oh Israel; thou hast destroyed thyself.") Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted December 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted December 16, 2009 Then let's hear what Paul said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Byers, N.D. Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 Originally Posted By: Norman Hi pnattmbtc, (I've deleted some of this to keep it short - I just kept your last paragraph so people will know what I am replying to) My contention is with what is being taught by those who believe the false "in Christ" interpretation. You have me taking sides against Weiland, Wagoner and Jones and EGW. Let's just stay with what I am talking about, please.... There is a difference in what JS is saying and what EGW is saying. He is applying it to the world and she is saying that it is for those who are one with Christ as He is one with the Father. She is not making any reference to the "Objective Gospel" and never does. These verses are only referring to God's people. The 2nd paragraph is referring to those who have accepted Christ and are living by the Holy Spirit. I'm not seeing the difference. JS says: Quote: What God did for us in Christ is God's gift to mankind, but because God created us with a free will, there has to be a human response. That response is faith. So JS makes clear that Christ did a work for all of humanity, and that there must be an individual response of faith in order to be saved. So what's the problem? In terms of the verse you're speaking of, Paul is speaking in the past tense. That is, we "were" raised up in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Who is the "we" here? Since this happened before we were born, and thus before we could exercise any individual choice, doesn't this have to be a corporate work? Quote: The Lamb of God is represented before us as in the midst of the throne of God. He is the great ordinance by which man and God are united and commune together. Thus men are represented as sitting in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is the appointed place of meeting between God and humanity (MS 7, 1898). Here EGW refers to this verse in the context of a meeting place "between God and humanity." I don't see how this could be interpreted in other than a corporate way. Also, from your comments above, it appears to me that you agree with Wieland, Waggoner, Jones and EGW on this subject. You're saying that these four were on the same page in terms of the concepts we're discussing? It seems to me you are implying that this is what you think, which, if it is so, I agree with. So I'm concluding that you see Sequeira as disagreeing with these four? Is this correct? Quote The unconditional pardon of sin never has been, and never will be. PP 522 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Appreciate your shedding the light on the false "in Christ" teaching, Norman. Some basic logic helps here. If God can save people without their cooperation, why go to all the trouble He went to? Why not just declare them good and be done with it? Why all this painful and costly work of persuasion???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Byers, N.D. Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 This is s statement not directed at anyone individual. Here's an example of what is going on. Take two words; "Loving Christ" and tell two groups of people to prove that this is so. One group will determine that this is referring to the love that Christ has. The other group will determine that this is all about how we are to love Christ. Then when you ask for the findings you'd have two completely different subjects and you really would not be able to find fault with what was written by either group. Why? Because there was nothing attached to these words no setting or context. That's where the similarity ends though. We have context. The problem is some people want to strip sentences and statements out of their context to prove their darling theory. It disappoints me a lot to see this kind of thing happening. In Christ and His service, Norman Quote The unconditional pardon of sin never has been, and never will be. PP 522 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Byers, N.D. Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 Appreciate your shedding the light on the false "in Christ" teaching, Norman. Some basic logic helps here. If God can save people without their cooperation, why go to all the trouble He went to? Why not just declare them good and be done with it? Why all this painful and costly work of persuasion???? Hi Karl, if I can help anyone to see something or get something that can be used to help someone else, I thank God. Norman Quote The unconditional pardon of sin never has been, and never will be. PP 522 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Byers, N.D. Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 Check out my website and read this http://www.icompel.com/index_00000d.htm Loyalty to the law is loyalty to God. Norman Quote The unconditional pardon of sin never has been, and never will be. PP 522 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Regarding the woman caught in adultery, two points stand out to me. One is that Christ told the woman He was not condemning her before she had done anything. She had not repented. She had not done anything at all, in regards to Christ. But He told her He did not condemn her. This tells us something about God, as Christ came to reveal the Father. A second point is that Christ told her to go and sin no more. Why? Because sin is destructive. Sin is what got her into the mess she was in in the first place. It's the same as with the paralytic. Christ healed the paralytic, and forgave him his sins, without the paralytic doing a thing. Then He told him to not sin anymore less a worse thing happen to him. His sin had caused the problem he had from which Christ healed him, and would likely, it seems to me, have caused his death (what else would be worse than being paralyzed?) had he returned to it. So Christ was telling the woman to "sin no more" so that she would not be destroyed by it. Surely Christ had in mind principally the sin she had been committing. This wouldn't exclude other sins, of course, as any sin is destructive, but I'm sure the woman would have understood Christ as saying "Go, and don't do what you were doing any more" as opposed to "Go, and don't every commit any sin of any kind as long as you live." At any rate, the important point of the "Go and sin no more" comment is that it makes clear that Christ was not countenancing sin. Christ forgave sin freely, but He never OK'd it, which He could never do, because sin is destructive. It would be like, for example, forgiving a child for using drugs. One could do that, but one would never say (as a good parent) that it's OK to use drugs, because drugs are destructive. If you love someone, you don't want to see them destroy themselves. (e.g. "Oh Israel; thou hast destroyed thyself.") Good.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Then let's hear what Paul said. I've been giving him to you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook He did not say: I am only forgiving your sexual sins. That's baloney. What were the Pharisees condemning her of? Right, adultery!!! They, according to the law, insisted she be stoned (obey & live, disobey & die). Christ, because He is the Savior, told her "neither do I condemn you".....He didn't condemn her, according to the law, instead he gave her grace, but He also wished her to leave her life of adultery....Hence, go and sin no more.... So she was free to commit all other sins except adultery? Because that was the only one Jesus dealth with? Please clarify this point. :-) Mark Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted December 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted December 16, 2009 The death of Christ does everyone who lives good in that it gives physical life (which means everything we have, since if we were dead, we couldn't do anything and wouldn't have anything). So even the possibility of rejecting Christ is the purchase of His blood. As EGW puts it, "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." (DA 660) I was talking about salvation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted December 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted December 16, 2009 Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo Then let's hear what Paul said. I've been giving him to you.... Sorry, you haven't been giving Paul; you've been feeding us baloney. Here's what Paul said: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God," 2 Cor 5:17-20 ESV On the one hand, Paul says God reconciled (past tense in English, aorist in Greek) us to himself through Christ, and then in the next breath he says, "be reconciled to God!" Why? Because the reconciliation at the Cross was a general amnesty that God declared. It was a finished and complete sacrifice. But only a potential boon in terms of salvation for each particular individual. If it were not so, why would he say, "be reconciled to God," if it was a completed/accomplished fact? Furthermore, what is the point of entrusting Paul or anyone the message of reconciliation if nothing more needs to be done since everyone was reconciled at the Cross? So when does the reality of reconciliation take place from the sinner's standpoint? Let Paul answer it. "for all have sinned and fall short of and are justified [present tense] by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus [that took place at the Cross], the glory of God, and are justified[present tense] by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." Rom 3:23-25 ESV IT IS NOT YOURS UNTIL YOU RECEIVE IT BY FAITH!!! "For as in Adam all die [present tense not 2000 or 6000 yrs ago], so also in Christ shall all be made alive [future not 2000 yrs ago]. 1 Cor 15:22 ESV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.