"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Robert]

And WHEN were they saved?[ Paul says: "For by grace you have been saved (provided at the Cross, yea, even in eternity past) THROUGH FAITH."

[Robert]

No one is justified without faith in Christ, nor are they redeemed or reconciled.

Then faith is the Savior....No, according to Paul, "all men" were justified unto life..."all men" died in the body of Christ some 2000 years ago.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

And WHEN were they saved?[ Paul says: "For by grace you have been saved (provided at the Cross, yea, even in eternity past) THROUGH FAITH."

You are jumping ahead...you are ignoring the previous context. We were (past tense) saved "in Christ" when we were "dead in our transgressions and sins". We were justified...saved by grace.

Quote:

The provision was there but not possessed UNTIL the sinner accepts the gift.

It's not provisional....It's something already complete. You can't add to it, but you can certainly reject it.

I've said it a few times. What Jesus did can't be added to nor subtracted from. But it's not yours or mine until we accept it. That's what a gift is - to be received or rejected. And that happens at a point in time. So if it's not yours or mine until accepted or rejected, then it must be provisional! Are God's promises unconditional? The Bible is full of "IFs". God is not a dictator who imposes His will on the unwilling. No one will be in the kingdom that didn't want to.

[Robert]

What Jesus did can't be added to nor subtracted from.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

What Jesus did can't be added to nor subtracted from.

And what did Jesus do? He unconditionally saved the human race in himself. It wasn't a vicarious atonement...He really took the human race into Himself and past tense saved it. From God's point of view you were saved "in Christ" 2000 years ago.

Unconditionally? Are you saying then that not one will be lost in the end?

[Woody]

Quote:

With respect I say, pray that God would open your eyes.

I will pray for you also Norman.

[Gerr]

Quote:

But it's not yours or mine until we accept it.

We owe even our earthly life to the cross of Christ. Every morsel of food...every breath we breathe is because of the cross.

TRUE!!! God surrounded this planet with an atmosphere of grace the moment sin came into this world, not at the Cross. That's how efficacious grace is! But grace was extended to give man a chance to repent and accept the gift. Salvation is not the possession of the sinner until he accepts it. God is not a bully to force himself in. Besides, Satan would cry "FOUL" if human sinners are saved unconditionally while he & his followers are excluded.

[Woody]

Quote:

You are confused....I just quoted Jack....Go read him and then repent for your bias against him....You and others have accused him of something he does not say....

"'a lie will go around the world while truth is putting on his boots.' " 1T 463

[Woody]

Quote:

Jack S. does not know what the real gospel is, but he knows how to slaughter it.

Let's perform this exercise:

Just insert your name in place of Jack. Like this:

Billiter does not know what the real gospel is, but he knows how to slaughter it.

Do we really need this kind of hate and abuse on this forum? I think not. If one can't respectfully discuss the issues then it is best not to post period.

[Guest]

Amen!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I have pointed out differences and you don't see it. I can't help you with that. With respect I say, pray that God would open your eyes.

No, it is not wrong to say that her writings are being attacked by Satan through this teaching if it causes people to doubt the testimonies or part of them or to start judging them as not from God. If someone disagreed with the Bible and wrote contrary to it that would be considered an attack that would be dangerous. But here it is done in a subtle way by claiming to have the same message when they are very different and opposed.

As plainly as I can put it, this is what I see. JS teaches that the world is saved in Christ and he is not saying just given a chance to make a choice because we have physical life, he means eternal life is given to all. EGW on the other hand does not teach this and neither does the Bible. The reason this teaching is believed is because of a misunderstanding of which law is being spoken of in the NT, which has also led the 1st day keeper to disregard the Sabbath.

What happened at the cross was that every man was saved to have a probationary life to see whether or not they would accept Christ and receive the 2nd birth, (born again) since we had no choice in our first birth. We have been redeemed from Satan and provision has been made for us if we would accept Christ and His sacrifice, life, death and ministration. WE reveal this fact by our love for God and our love for people.

Love is the foundation of our life. Love and truth guides us as we commit ourselves every day to Him who loved us. We can do nothing but what He asks us to do as we love Him because He first loved us. How did He define that love? By a commitment, an oath, a proclamation, by principle, by keeping the commandments of God. When He is in us, we will do the same because we have the Spirit of His Son "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9b and if someone does not they reveal these things, they have not received Him and are still in need of accepting Him and the provision made for them. They are none of His means they have no part in Him at all and are without not just subjectively as they teach, but lost.

I think you're confused in thinking there are differences where they're aren't. Or, to say it another way, the differences appear to me to be semantic. Your penultimate paragraph seems to me, for example, to be very well stated:

Quote:

What happened at the cross was that every man was saved to have a probationary life to see whether or not they would accept Christ and receive the 2nd birth, (born again) since we had no choice in our first birth. We have been redeemed from Satan and provision has been made for us if we would accept Christ and His sacrifice, life, death and ministration. WE reveal this fact by our love for God and our love for people.

I really doubt Sequeira would disagree with this. I know Wieland better than Sequeira, and could virtually guarantee a hearty "Amen!" from him if he read or heard this. Similarly for many other I know who agree with the "in Christ" motif that was first made clear to us through the 1888 message.

Regarding this statement:

Quote:

The reason this teaching is believed is because of a misunderstanding of which law is being spoken of in the NT, which has also led the 1st day keeper to disregard the Sabbath.

The theological underpinning of the "in Christ" motif is developed primarily by considering the statements of John and Paul which speak of Christ's corporate work. None of the primary statements, which include John's "Savior of the world" comments (John 4:14 I think, and in his first epistle), 1 John 2:2 ("not our sins only, but the sins of the world"), 1 Tim. ("savior of all men, especially those who believe"), Romans 5:12-18, 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19 deal with which law was being kept.

I would be *very* interested in hearing your develop your thought here. I really have no idea what connection it is your seeing between which law is being spoken of and the "in Christ" motif. I'd like to hear it!

A final point is, it appears to me that your thinking and arguments are the same as those who opposed Jones and Waggoner back in 1888. Do you agree with my characterization? If not, why not? I'm basing this comment and having seen the arguments you've presented up to now, and being familiar with "The Gospel in Galatians" and "The Glad Tidings," by E. J. Waggoner, which has the correct treatment on this subject, I believe.

[pnattmbtc]

God surrounded this planet with an atmosphere of grace the moment sin came into this world, not at the Cross.

The atmosphere of grace that surrounds this planet is by virtue of the cross. As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

God surrounded this planet with an atmosphere of grace the moment sin came into this world, not at the Cross.

The atmosphere of grace that surrounds this planet is by virtue of the cross. As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior.

At the Cross of 2000 yrs ago? [Which as I understand it Robert seems to think when we were all justified and saved.] I have already stated a few times that Cross can be pushed back into eternity past, since the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, in which case I agree with you.

[pnattmbtc]

I think a large part of the difficulty is in the realm of communication. That is, one area has to do with what one really means, and another area has to do with what is understood from what one communicates. In regards to the grace that surrounds this planet, I think we're on the same page, given your comment in regards to being able to push the cross back. Here's something from "The Glad Tidings" which brings out the theme I had in mind in a way I really appreciate:

Quote:

No one was ever saved simply by looking forward to a cross to be erected and a Christ to be crucified at some indefinite time in the future, and no one can now be saved simply by believing that at a certain time in the past Christ was crucified. No; if men would see Christ crucified, they must look neither forward nor backward, but upward; for the arms of the cross that was erected on Calvary reach from Paradise lost to Paradise restored, and embrace the whole world of sin. The crucifixion of Christ is not a thing of but a single day. He is "the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8, R.V.); and the pangs of Calvary will not be ended as long as a single sin or sinner exists in the universe. Even now Christ bears the sins of the whole world, for "in Him all things consist;" and when at the last He is obliged to cut off the irreclaimably wicked in the lake of fire, the anguish which they suffer will be only that which the Christ whom they have rejected suffered on the cross.

I love this! If this resonates with you as well, we're probably on the same page.

Regarding our being justified or saved in Christ, did you read what I wrote about the bus? If not, I can repeat it.

There is a sense in which one could say that we were justified or saved, but it's very important that what is meant not be misunderstood. Prescott, as far back as 1895, spoke of our (i.e., the world) being "justified". This was at the 1895 GC session, during a time when Ellen White was strongly endorsing him. What he meant by that is basically the same thing that's been being said, which is that Christ did a corporate work which:

1.Gives physical life to each one.

2.Makes it possible for anyone to be saved, if they choose to be connected to Christ.

I think everyone is agreeing with this.

Regarding that all were saved, Ellen White says this very thing. She says that Christ "saved the world." Now it makes sense that if Christ is "the Savior of the world" or "the Savior of all mean," as John and Paul respectively put it, that Christ "saved the world" (as Ellen White put it). So that these things were said are incontrovertible. So when Robert says that we were all saved, he's correct, provided he has the same thing in mind that John and Paul and Ellen White did.

The point I'm making is that there's nothing wrong with the statement that "we were all saved by Christ" (or "in Christ," if one prefers), provided it's clear what the statement is designed to communicate.

Personally, I find some of these theological constructions a rather difficult, or forced, way to communicate. I appreciate Ellen White's counsel that we should make things as simple as possible. I think Ellen White followed her own advice when she wrote the following:

Quote:

Our Lord has said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. . . . For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55. This is true of our physical nature. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. The bread we eat is the purchase of His broken body. The water we drink is bought by His spilled blood. Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ.(DA 660)

She says, "Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ." Also, "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life." I think these statements are very clear. They bring out that Christ, by His death, did something which is effective for every human being. Not simply those who accept Christ, but all human beings are benefited by Christ's death.

And this in a crucial aspect of the Good News. It's the difference between saying, to the emancipated slaved, "You are free, provided (whatever)" and saying "You are free! The president signed the emancipation papers!"

Although the slaves were legally free, they couldn't personally benefit from that freedom, unless they believed the good news and responded.

[Gerr]

I love that, thanks! Yes, I think we're on the same page!

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

And what did Jesus do? He unconditionally saved the human race in himself. It wasn't a vicarious atonement...He really took the human race into Himself and past tense saved it. From God's point of view you were saved "in Christ" 2000 years ago.

Unconditionally? Are you saying then that not one will be lost in the end?

No...some will reject that unconditional love....

[Robert]

Satan would cry "FOUL" if human sinners are saved unconditionally while he & his followers are excluded.

Satan and his band of not so merry angels fully hardened their hearts in heaven.....They can't be reached by the HS.....

[Robert]

I have already stated a few times that Cross can be pushed back into eternity past, since the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, in which case I agree with you.

God knew the cross would be successful....He can read the future...He is omniscient....Therefore as far as He was concerned it was a done deal....However, the cross "legally" justified all men in the doing & dying of Christ. It answered the law....Without the cross God couldn't forgive sinners....

[Gerr]

Quote:

Unconditionally? Are you saying then that not one will be lost in the end?

No...some will reject that unconditional love....

Well, then. If some will reject it and be lost, that means those who are saved would have to accept it? And until they accept or reject it, they are neither saved nor lost?

[phkrause]

Quote:

Unconditionally? Are you saying then that not one will be lost in the end?

No...some will reject that unconditional love....

Well, then. If some will reject it and be lost, that means those who are saved would have to accept it? And until they accept or reject it, they are neither saved nor lost?

Good point Gerry

pk

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Satan would cry "FOUL" if human sinners are saved unconditionally while he & his followers are excluded.

Satan and his band of not so merry angels fully hardened their hearts in heaven.....They can't be reached by the HS.....

Therefore, in order for a sinner to be saved, he/she has to be wooed and reached by the Holy Spirit? And that before he/she is reached by the HS, he/she is lost regardless of what happened at the Cross?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Satan and his band of not so merry angels fully hardened their hearts in heaven.....They can't be reached by the HS.....

Therefore' date=' in order for a sinner to be saved, he/she has to be wooed and reached by the Holy Spirit? And that before he/she is reached by the HS, he/she is lost regardless of what happened at the Cross?

[/quote']

All men are enlightened by the Spirit of God concerning the cross.....You need to find that text...

[Gerr]

Quote:

Unconditionally? Are you saying then that not one will be lost in the end?

No...some will reject that unconditional love....

Well, then. If some will reject it and be lost, that means those who are saved would have to accept it? And until they accept or reject it, they are neither saved nor lost?

Or I should have said, since all are "children of wrath" and that those who are not believers are condemned already, they are in a lost condition.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I have already stated a few times that Cross can be pushed back into eternity past, since the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, in which case I agree with you.

God knew the cross would be successful....He can read the future...He is omniscient....Therefore as far as He was concerned it was a done deal....However, the cross "legally" justified all men in the doing & dying of Christ. It answered the law....Without the cross God couldn't forgive sinners....

[karl]

If sinners are not dead in their transgressions and children of wrath, then they wouldn't need grace or Christ as Savior, would they?

So then, when were they saved from this condition? Notice that Paul says "they used to live when [they] followed the ways of this world..." "All of us also lived This tells me that at one time they were living in transgression but at some point they left that lifestyle. At some point they were "dead" but then made alive. At some point they were aliens, strangers to the covenants, without hope, once afar off, but then brought near. When did come into possession of these blessings? According to Paul in Rom 3:24,25, this redemption is to be received by faith. And in Rom 10, he says that this faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Excellent conclusion, Gerry.