"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi pnattmbtc,

for some reason last night I could not do an EGW search to find where you got the quote you posted below. I knew that if I looked it up I would find something that would contradict what you were saying. Why would I do that? Because I have found without exception that those who believe in JS's teaching twist, misquote and leave out important facts to make their points. I do not trust any one who does this. In my eyes what is being done is worse than lying, because it takes part of the truth , twists it and then pushes confusion as truth.

If it is not intentional, then it reveals a person that should be a learner of spiritual heart matters rather than a person of knowledge; otherwise the appearance is given of one that is ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

I find it disgusting that this goes on, especially in the name of Christ! I can see how people are turned off of Christianity with this kind of behavior. This is what the people who believe in an eternal hell do and it repulses people and turns them away from Christ. This will have a worse effect because, if they join the remnant on the basis of these teachings, and then they find out that what was taught them is a lie... they may turn away from God in total confusion thinking who knows what.

Below is what you have posted; following I posted the statement in it's context, which paints a different picture than you have presented. Which was there is no difference between what EGW and JS are saying. Interestingly enough it starts by referring to what I was saying about the law being the method that taught the Israelites about Christ, a schoolmaster if you will.

This is your post.

Quote:

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.

This is the comment in context: What you posted in underlined.

Quote:

Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church (1898), page 17, 18 paragraph 1-4

The whole worship of ancient Israel was a promise, in figures and symbols, of Christ; and it was not merely a promise, but an actual provision, designed by God to aid millions of people by lifting their thoughts to him who was to manifest himself to our world.

In Christ the world beheld the invisible God. "I am in the Father," he said, "and the Father in me." "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." In all our acts of true devotion, we fix our eye of faith upon our Advocate, who is standing between man and the eternal throne, waiting to meet our every effort, and by his Spirit assist us to a more perfect knowledge of God.

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.

"And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." Christ brought human nature into a personal relation with his own divinity. Thus he has given a center for the faith of the universe to fasten upon.

The complete letter can be found online.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

[pnattmbtc]

Norman, you wrote this earlier:

Quote:

Why am I concerned about this "in Christ" teaching? Because of what I saw it doing to me when I believed it and what I have seen in my friend's lives who believe it.

It's part of a bigger teaching that will, in the end cause you to twist scripture or give it up, twist SOP or give it up, give up the Sabbath and the sanctuary teachings or come up with the strangest excuses for what you believe.

This teaching can take the effects of law away from the conscience and where no law is(or effects of the law that points out of sin) there can be no mercy and/or it can lead to a presumptuous attitude that all is well when they are rebelling against the truth. I care for people too much to just ignore that. I hope that what I post can help someone understand what this teaching is about and where it will lead.

The teaching mainly stems from the writings of Paul. It takes a verse here and there and leaves out the context to promote a form of spiritualism. It also appeals to those who once were legalistic in their lives, I know I was one.

They get much of their teachings from the book of Romans. Here's how that happens, watch carefully and you'll see it. In Acts 15 Paul and others go to Jerusalem to find out what to do about the Jews who followed him just about everywhere teaching that you could believe in Christ but you need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. These two things are what was done away with at the cross. there was a big discussion and a decision was made.

So here you appear to have someone specifically in mind. Your recent posts say you don't want to say specifically who you agree with or who you don't. I can understand this in regards to living people, but I don't see why you wouldn't say if you agree with Ellen White, W. W. Prescott., E. J. Waggoner, or A. T. Jones on this subject (of course, I can take EGW for granted, but knowing your opinion of the others is helpful, just on the basis of communication).

You state things you disagree with that I've never read. This again makes it difficult to respond, other than to say that it appears to me that you've misunderstood what you read or heard. Unless you quote something, it's difficult to go beyond that.

My understanding of the SOP is that she teaches that Christ's death accomplished a work for every human being. By Christ's death, we have physical life, and thus every we have or do we owe to Christ's blood. When this dawn on us, that my life is not my own, but bought with a price, and that even if I reject Christ, I owe even that to Him, the result of this is that I should, in gratitude, give myself to him who died for me.

I'll also quote from W. W. Prescott.

Quote:

I want your minds to grasp the truth, that, no matter whether a

man repents or not, yet Jesus Christ has borne his griefs, his sins,

his sorrows, and he is invited to lay them on Christ. If every sinner

in this world should repent with all his soul, and turn to Christ, the

price has been paid. Jesus did not wait for us to repent before He died

for us. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "Herein is

love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son

to be the propitiation for our sins." Christ has died in behalf of every

single soul here; He has borne their grief and carried their sorrow;

He simply asks us to lay them on Him, and let Him bear them.

CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Furthermore: every one of us was represented in Jesus Christ when

the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We were all there in

Jesus Christ. We were all represented in Adam after the flesh; and

when Christ came as the second Adam, He stepped into the place of

the first Adam, and thus we are all represented in Him. He invites

us to step into the spiritual family. He has formed this new family,

of which He is the head. He is the new man. In Him we have the union

of the divine and the human.

In that new family, every one of us is represented. "And as I may

so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For

he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

When Melchisedec went out to meet Abraham returning from the

spoil, Abraham paid to him a tenth of all. Levi was still in the loins W. W. Prescott

of his father Abraham; but inasmuch as he was a descendant of

Abraham, what Abraham did, the Scripture says that Levi did in

Abraham. Levi descended from Abraham according to the flesh. He

had not been born when Abraham paid tithe; but in that Abraham

paid tithe, he paid tithe also. It is exactly so in this spiritual family.

What Christ did as head of this new family, we did in Him. He was

our representative; He became flesh; He became we. He did not

become simply a man, but He became flesh, and every one that should

be born into His family was represented in Jesus Christ when He

lived here in the flesh. You see, then, that all that Christ did, every

one who connects himself with this family is given credit for as doing

it in Christ. Christ was not a representative outside him, disconnected

from him; but as Levi paid tithe in Abraham, every one who should

afterwards be born into this spiritual family, did what Christ did.

Prescott was the first to really formalize these concepts. In the 1895 GCB Prescott spoke of, I think the term he used was "justification of blood" which applied to the whole of humanity. "Justification by faith" has always been referred to as in individual experience, wherein the individual is born again, and only by this means can one receive salvation. All who have written on the "in Christ" motif have emphasized this.

So there is not idea that you don't have to do anything to be saved, if that's the idea you're arguing against. There's also no reason why believing in the "in Christ" motif should lead one away from the sanctuary doctrine. It never did for Prescott, who more or less invented it.

A reason I'm mentioning Prescott here is because these teachings were presenting during the time when Ellen White was strongly endorsing him.

Another reason is to make clear that the "in Christ" ideas, including such arguments as Levi being in the loins of Melchizedek, is nothing new.

To conclude the general idea:

1.Christ's death was effective for every human being, in every sense except that which has to do with a person's individual response (i.e., no one, who is of age and able to make eternal decisions for himself, will receive eternal life without personally responding to the Holy Spirit, who presents Christ to each one).

2.Christ's death is effective salvifically for all who accept Him as personal Savior (but not for those who reject Him).

I'll await your comments.

Oh, regarding the text we were discussing, about Christ's sitting in heavenly places, I don't think it matters to our discussion as a whole, so I'm letting it drop. That is, I think the important thing is the two points I laid out, and I can see one accepting these two points regardless of how they chose to interpret the "has made us to sit in heavenly places" text.

[pnattmbtc]

Some basic logic helps here. If God can save people without their cooperation, why go to all the trouble He went to?

[karl]

Quote:

This is an example of the straw man argument I was referring to. Here's a description of how one is saved:

pnattmbtc,

I see your agreement above - that we must co-operate with God in our own salvation, ("one's response is essential to salvation.")

So... why do you call this point you agree with a "straw man argument?"

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

This is an example of the straw man argument I was referring to. Here's a description of how one is saved:

pnattmbtc,

I see your agreement above - that we must co-operate with God in our own salvation, ("one's response is essential to salvation.")

So... why do you call this point you agree with a "straw man argument?"

Because the "in Christ" idea is not that we can receive eternal life apart from our personal involvement.

What many people say is something like, "Yes, Christ died for everyone, but it doesn't do you any good unless you accept it." Indeed, there are several examples of people saying this on this thread. This isn't correct, as Christ's death benefits everybody.

There are two errors one could fall into on this:

1.Christ's death only benefits those who accept it.

2.Christ's death benefits everybody, therefore everyone will be saved.

#2 is the straw man argument, as nobody suggests everybody will be saved. Clearly, if we were saved without our cooperation, either everybody would be saved, or we'd have a form of Calvinism where God elects who will be saved, and their cooperation is immaterial. Nobody is suggesting either of these things, so #2 is a straw man.

However, people really are saying #1, so this is an actual error that should be corrected. It's true that Christ's death only benefits a person insofar as receiving eternal life is concerned (assuming we're talking about people of age who are able to make decisions regarding things of eternal consequence), but that's a *far* cry from saying it doesn't benefit a person.

So a bit of the problem here looks to be a lack of communication. This is something I've been trying to express for awhile. I see all of these posts going back and forth, with little effort put it to define what's actually being discussed. That is, what are the actual disagreements involved?

[karl]

What many people say is something like, "Yes, Christ died for everyone, but it doesn't do you any good unless you accept it." ...

It's true that Christ's death only benefits a person insofar as receiving eternal life is concerned (assuming we're talking about people of age who are able to make decisions regarding things of eternal consequence), but that's a *far* cry from saying it doesn't benefit a person....

I agree wholeheartedly

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

What were the Pharisees condemning her of? Right' date=' 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']

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

Jesus delivered us from under the law because no one (including you) is meeting it's demands for selflessness. To place on this woman "the whole law" would be to her a yoke of bondage. Christ met this woman where she was at....He didn't weigh her down with all the law. Her besetting sin was that of adultery.

If Christ means all the law, then you must apply the same towards yourself. You must be perfect, as God is perfect. You must be selfless....There must be no self-seeking and self-love in your life or no heaven for you. That's a yoke of bondage because even though you've grown, you've not measured up.

Rob

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

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.

You couldn't have had the opportunity do say "yes" because if it weren't for the cross you would have died "in Adam"....

[Woody]

You are his #1 FAN, Robt. Any t-shirts available?

I can give you the link for Ellen White t-shirts.

[Woody]

Quote:

She would be contradicting herself if she meant what you are saying.

Of course then I need to ask you ... what is wrong with contradicting herself. We all know she contradicted herself. Even prophets reverse themselves and experience growth.

Don't be afraid. This does not take away from her prophetess status. There were even times when she admitted she had made mistakes. There is nothing wrong with that unless one has the idea that a prophet or prophetess has to be infallible.

[Steve Billiter]

I want a Ellen White T-shirt, where's the link? or are you joking?

[Woody]

http://www.cafepress.com/+ellen_white_tshirt,18294987

[pnattmbtc]

karl, glad we agree.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Pnattmbtc,

What Prescott wrote and all of the writings of EGW are based on condition. I have been looking for a comment she made in a letter to A T Jones, you may know about it, what she tells him that "there is something we must do for our salvation". Obviously she was not saying we add to Christ's complete work but something else and that was a response to the provision that God made available in Christ. I see this provision in Prescott's writing.

Quote:

You see, then, that all that Christ did, every one who connects himself with this family is given credit for as doing it in Christ.

But when I read the Gospel in a nutshell, study his lessons, listen to a bunch of tapes, read some of JS's books and see him in NC or SC for a w/e seminar (where I met Rob - very nice guy in person) I don't get the same thing. It's just not there. I struggle and prayed over this for a long time. I had to leave alone for a while because I was not going anywhere but confused.

I prayed and fasted and finally one day it was clear to me so I then had to have the courage to stop believing this teaching. I have close friends who believe this and for a while I could not tell them.

I eventually did and we are still friends although we don't talk much due to distance I guess.

Anyway the reasons I say this is to tell you I know what JS teaches and what I have brought out is seen by not just me. The things I said about the his teaching leading people to reject the sanctuary teaching, Sabbath and EGW writings is something that will eventually happen. Why? Because she does not support this teaching and neither does the sanctuary and part of the sanctuary teaching involves the Sabbath.

Also I say this to tell you that I had no one in mind, only the teaching. I obviously know who believes it by the posts but I have gone through the posting battles with those folks and we I guess just don't see any reason to continue that.

I haven't been on CA for a while and because of the insight I have been given on this teaching through study and the Holy Spirit I realized it would be better to do this than start up what I used to do in the past.

AS for all those other folks you want to bring into the discussion I just don't have the interest in dealing with what they have to say in this thread. I really just wanted to stick to the Bible and a few EGW quotes.

Anyway it's late and I stink of smoke due to repairing a security system, in a bar of all places.

in Christ and His service

Norman

Norman, you wrote this earlier:

Quote:

Why am I concerned about this "in Christ" teaching? Because of what I saw it doing to me when I believed it and what I have seen in my friend's lives who believe it.

It's part of a bigger teaching that will, in the end cause you to twist scripture or give it up, twist SOP or give it up, give up the Sabbath and the sanctuary teachings or come up with the strangest excuses for what you believe.

This teaching can take the effects of law away from the conscience and where no law is(or effects of the law that points out of sin) there can be no mercy and/or it can lead to a presumptuous attitude that all is well when they are rebelling against the truth. I care for people too much to just ignore that. I hope that what I post can help someone understand what this teaching is about and where it will lead.

The teaching mainly stems from the writings of Paul. It takes a verse here and there and leaves out the context to promote a form of spiritualism. It also appeals to those who once were legalistic in their lives, I know I was one.

They get much of their teachings from the book of Romans. Here's how that happens, watch carefully and you'll see it. In Acts 15 Paul and others go to Jerusalem to find out what to do about the Jews who followed him just about everywhere teaching that you could believe in Christ but you need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. These two things are what was done away with at the cross. there was a big discussion and a decision was made.

So here you appear to have someone specifically in mind. Your recent posts say you don't want to say specifically who you agree with or who you don't. I can understand this in regards to living people, but I don't see why you wouldn't say if you agree with Ellen White, W. W. Prescott., E. J. Waggoner, or A. T. Jones on this subject (of course, I can take EGW for granted, but knowing your opinion of the others is helpful, just on the basis of communication).

You state things you disagree with that I've never read. This again makes it difficult to respond, other than to say that it appears to me that you've misunderstood what you read or heard. Unless you quote something, it's difficult to go beyond that.

My understanding of the SOP is that she teaches that Christ's death accomplished a work for every human being. By Christ's death, we have physical life, and thus every we have or do we owe to Christ's blood. When this dawn on us, that my life is not my own, but bought with a price, and that even if I reject Christ, I owe even that to Him, the result of this is that I should, in gratitude, give myself to him who died for me.

I'll also quote from W. W. Prescott.

Quote:

I want your minds to grasp the truth, that, no matter whether a

man repents or not, yet Jesus Christ has borne his griefs, his sins,

his sorrows, and he is invited to lay them on Christ. If every sinner

in this world should repent with all his soul, and turn to Christ, the

price has been paid. Jesus did not wait for us to repent before He died

for us. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "Herein is

love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son

to be the propitiation for our sins." Christ has died in behalf of every

single soul here; He has borne their grief and carried their sorrow;

He simply asks us to lay them on Him, and let Him bear them.

CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Furthermore: every one of us was represented in Jesus Christ when

the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We were all there in

Jesus Christ. We were all represented in Adam after the flesh; and

when Christ came as the second Adam, He stepped into the place of

the first Adam, and thus we are all represented in Him. He invites

us to step into the spiritual family. He has formed this new family,

of which He is the head. He is the new man. In Him we have the union

of the divine and the human.

In that new family, every one of us is represented. "And as I may

so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For

he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

When Melchisedec went out to meet Abraham returning from the

spoil, Abraham paid to him a tenth of all. Levi was still in the loins W. W. Prescott

of his father Abraham; but inasmuch as he was a descendant of

Abraham, what Abraham did, the Scripture says that Levi did in

Abraham. Levi descended from Abraham according to the flesh. He

had not been born when Abraham paid tithe; but in that Abraham

paid tithe, he paid tithe also. It is exactly so in this spiritual family.

What Christ did as head of this new family, we did in Him. He was

our representative; He became flesh; He became we. He did not

become simply a man, but He became flesh, and every one that should

be born into His family was represented in Jesus Christ when He

lived here in the flesh. You see, then, that all that Christ did, every

one who connects himself with this family is given credit for as doing

it in Christ. Christ was not a representative outside him, disconnected

from him; but as Levi paid tithe in Abraham, every one who should

afterwards be born into this spiritual family, did what Christ did.

Prescott was the first to really formalize these concepts. In the 1895 GCB Prescott spoke of, I think the term he used was "justification of blood" which applied to the whole of humanity. "Justification by faith" has always been referred to as in individual experience, wherein the individual is born again, and only by this means can one receive salvation. All who have written on the "in Christ" motif have emphasized this.

So there is not idea that you don't have to do anything to be saved, if that's the idea you're arguing against. There's also no reason why believing in the "in Christ" motif should lead one away from the sanctuary doctrine. It never did for Prescott, who more or less invented it.

A reason I'm mentioning Prescott here is because these teachings were presenting during the time when Ellen White was strongly endorsing him.

Another reason is to make clear that the "in Christ" ideas, including such arguments as Levi being in the loins of Melchizedek, is nothing new.

To conclude the general idea:

1.Christ's death was effective for every human being, in every sense except that which has to do with a person's individual response (i.e., no one, who is of age and able to make eternal decisions for himself, will receive eternal life without personally responding to the Holy Spirit, who presents Christ to each one).

2.Christ's death is effective salvifically for all who accept Him as personal Savior (but not for those who reject Him).

I'll await your comments.

Oh, regarding the text we were discussing, about Christ's sitting in heavenly places, I don't think it matters to our discussion as a whole, so I'm letting it drop. That is, I think the important thing is the two points I laid out, and I can see one accepting these two points regardless of how they chose to interpret the "has made us to sit in heavenly places" text.

[John317]

What Prescott wrote and all of the writings of EGW are based on condition. I have been looking for a comment she made in a letter to A T Jones, you may know about it, what she tells him that "there is something we must do for our salvation". Obviously she was not saying we add to Christ's complete work but something else and that was a response to the provision that God made available in Christ.

Is this it?

Faith and Works, pages 111-113.

"... You [A.T. Jones] repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions.... You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ.... It is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works..."

Elsewhere she writes that while we are not saved by good works, no one will be saved without good works.

That is similar to saying that while faith is not what saves us-- God's grace does-- no one will be saved without it.

Some people have a difficult time understanding and accepting this, so they reject it and call it heresy, but it is the true gospel.

By the way, Norman, it's great to see you posting again! Thanks for the PM and the address. I plan to get back to Chatta next year, and would love to buy you and your wife dinner, a return of the favor. :-)

[John317]

My understanding of the SOP is that she teaches that Christ's death accomplished a work for every human being. By Christ's death, we have physical life, and thus every we have or do we owe to Christ's blood.

Yes, without a doubt none of us would even be alive today if Christ hadn't given his life for us. Because of that one sacrifice, all life on earth continues, and God blesses everyone to some degree. God even keeps Satan alive every moment. Satan owes his existence to the One he murdered. How insane is that! Yet virtually all humanity--except for those who have been born of the Spirit of God and have His seed in them-- would do the same if they could.

Systematic theology ordinarily makes a distinction between natural grace and saving grace. Natural grace is that grace of God by which He extends to all humanity such things as air, water, food, etc. Saving grace, of course, is that grace which results in a person's actual salvation in His kingdom, beginning with regeneration, justification, and continuing on to glorification.

It's exciting to think that every human being, whether they realize it or not, owes their existence to God. When people really grasp this, it can't help but have a profound spiritual affect on them.

[John317]

Jesus delivered us from under the law because no one (including you) is meeting it's demands for selflessness. To place on this woman "the whole law" would be to her a yoke of bondage. Christ met this woman where she was at....He didn't weigh her down with all the law. Her besetting sin was that of adultery.

If Christ means all the law, then you must apply the same towards yourself. You must be perfect, as God is perfect. You must be selfless....There must be no self-seeking and self-love in your life or no heaven for you. That's a yoke of bondage because even though you've grown, you've not measured up.

You make some good points, Robert, but I believe you are still approaching the law of God from a legalistic viewpoint. The gospel commands us believers in Christ to obey God's will but not for the purpose of earning merit or salvation. Jesus said, "You are My friends if you DO whatever I command you" (John 15: 14). Verse 16 says that believers are appointed to "bear much fruit," something no one can do unless they are "abiding" in the vine, Christ (vv. 1-5). Verse 6 of that same chapter says that those who do not abide in Him will be cast forth as a branch and thrown into the fire.

Ellen White wrote, "It is ever the purpose of Satan to make void the law of God and to pervert the true meaning of the plan of salvation. Therefore he has originated the falsehood that the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary's cross was for the purpose of freeing men from the obligation of keeping the commandments of God. He has foisted upon the world the deception that God has abolished His constitution, thrown away His moral standard, and made void His holy and perfect law. Had He done this, at what terrible expense would it have been to Heaven! Instead of proclaiming the abolition of the law, Calvary's cross proclaims in thunder tones its immutable and eternal character. Could the law have been abolished, and the government of heaven and earth and unnumbered world of God maintained, Christ need not have died. The death of Christ was to forever settle the question of the validity of the law of Jehovah." Faith and Works, pp. 118, 119.

[Robert]

the obligation of keeping the commandments of God.

Romans 7:6 But now, by dying [in the body of Christ -see verse 4] to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Gal 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law [in bondage], locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: John317

the obligation of keeping the commandments of God.

Romans 7:6 But now, by dying [in the body of Christ -see verse 4] to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Gal 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law [in bondage], locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Some of these translations interject the beliefs of the translators.

The law provided only condemnation to those who did not keep it. It provided no Way to keep it. No transforming, indwelling Christ is announced in the law.

Christ and the apostles did not annul the law. They magnified it. They RAISED the bar. Instead of prohibitions, they presented exhortations to a much higher calling and promised the grace to make it happen. Every thought is to come under the control of Christ.

The requirements of grace far exceed the requirements of the law.

Press on toward the mark, for it is God that worketh in you. He is able. Satan wants us to give up on God because all we see are defects in ourselves and in others. But we must live by faith, not by sight.

Courage, brothers and sisters. Fear not. Faith, hope, charity.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Romans 7:6 But now' date=' by dying [in the body of Christ -see verse 4'] to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Gal 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law [in bondage], locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Some of these translations interject the beliefs of the translators.

[karl]

True, the law has not been annulled instead I died to the law in the body of Christ. Hence I am not under the law. I am not obligated to it.

The enablings of grace far exceed the requirements of the law, and grace certainly breaks none of the law's requirements.

When you live in grace, you're not condemned by the law because the mind of Christ in you fulfills the law... and much more.

[pnattmbtc]

Norman, regarding #309157, does JS reject the sanctuary doctrine? What's the connections between his teachings and rejecting the sanctuary doctrine?

I'm not saying I see things the same way he does. This isn't saying much, since we are all individuals, but I try to understand what others are saying, and be fair to what they are intending to communicate. It seems to me that JS is wishing to communicate the two things I've been mentioning:

1.The death of Christ is effective for every human being, in terms of having physical life, and the opportunity to respond to Christ.

2.Only those who accept Christ (or, conversely, do not reject Him) are those who will be individually saved.

So Christ corporately saved the human race (because the human race would have been corporately lost, had Christ not agreed to be the Savior of the race) but individually any person (who reaches the age of accountability and has the ability to do so) can choose to be lost.

Here's an analogy I use. Imagine a bus heading off a cliff. Somehow a person is able to prevent the bus from going over, at the cost of his own life. Everyone on the bus would owe a debt to that person who gave his life that he might be saved. The person can still use that gift of life to choose to jump off the cliff, but his life was saved. Christ corporately saved the bus, but the individuals within the bus can still choose to be lost.

At any rate, Norman, I appreciate the concern you have. You appear to be very sincere, and appreciate your attempts to discuss things in a reasonable tone. I especially appreciate your stopping to use pejorative terms, as I requested. I understand completely the temptation to do so when communicating about things regarding which one feels passionately.

However, I'm not seeing the connection to danger that you are seeing. Perhaps you could flesh things out a bit, as well as respond to my analogy, if that makes sense to you, and if it seems similar to what JS is trying to say.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: karl

Some of these translations interject the beliefs of the translators.

I quoted NIV....The other translations say the same.

Quote:

Christ and the apostles did not annul the law.

True, the law has not been annulled instead I died to the law in the body of Christ. Hence I am not under the law. I am not obligated to it.

What do you mean by saying you are not obligated to the law? Since the law is not a sentient being, this could not, in any case, be literally true. To obligated to the law can only mean, it seems to me, obligated to keep the law. So is this what you mean, that you are not obligated to keep the law?

If so, this seems to me to be very prone to be misleading. Is what you mean that you are not obligated to keep the law in order to try to earn God's favor, or to try to earn salvation. If so, I agree completely. However, if you mean that you not in any way obligated to keep the moral law, in the sense that you have carte blanche to break it, that's another story.

[John317]

The law provided only condemnation to those who did not keep it. It provided no Way to keep it. No transforming, indwelling Christ is announced in the law.

Christ and the apostles did not annul the law. They magnified it. They RAISED the bar. Instead of prohibitions, they presented exhortations to a much higher calling and promised the grace to make it happen. Every thought is to come under the control of Christ.

The requirements of grace far exceed the requirements of the law.

Press on toward the mark, for it is God that worketh in you. He is able. Satan wants us to give up on God because all we see are defects in ourselves and in others. But we must live by faith, not by sight.

Courage, brothers and sisters. Fear not. Faith, hope, charity.

Thank you, karl. Excellent post. There is dynamite power in the blood!! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who have genuine faith in Christ.

[karl]

Romans 7:6 But now, by dying [in the body of Christ -see verse 4] to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Gal 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law [in bondage], locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.