"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Robert]

Put simply, if it was possible for Christ to sin, then it was possible for Christ to fail. It wasn't a "done deal" until Christ actually won the victory. There was risk involved.

I know your view...I just disagree....There were risks, but God knew Christ would come forth victorious.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

So... where do people get off proclaiming they're being credited with all kinds of merits and proclaiming that people are saved when they are actually wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked?

When you figure out how to totally absolve mankind of any participation in salvation without producing universalism or calvinism in the process, please post it here. [/quote']

I am not quite sure why this post was directed at me Karl?

Yeah, that was not for you. That was for the JS proponents.

[karl]

Me:Unbelief is something the lost have done (as opposed to a default status).

karl:Come on, now. Basic English. Un is not. It isn't something that "is." Unbelief is not an action. It is the lack of an action. It is the pre-action status. The default status.

[pnattmbtc]

I know your view...I just disagree....There were risks, but God knew Christ would come forth victorious.

This is self-contradictory. If God knew Christ would come forth victorious, there was no risk involved. Risk and certainty cannot co-exist (that's why insider trading rules exist).

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

I know your view...I just disagree....There were risks, but God knew Christ would come forth victorious.

This is self-contradictory. If God knew Christ would come forth victorious, there was no risk involved. Risk and certainty cannot co-exist (that's why insider trading rules exist).

Then sin took God by surprise....For example, God had no idea Lucifer would sin.

[pnattmbtc]

No, you are savaging the entire thrust of Scripture and SOP to claim that man is saved until he is lost. It is clearly the other way around.

"Restored to favor" in your quote obviously does not mean "belief" nor does it mean "saved" when compared side by side with what EGW says elsewhere. Yours is a strained interpretation and you know it.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This is self-contradictory. If God knew Christ would come forth victorious, there was no risk involved. Risk and certainty cannot co-exist (that's why insider trading rules exist). [/quote']

Then sin took God by surprise....For example, God had no idea Lucifer would sin.

No, this doesn't follow. God was aware of the possibility of sin. However, God did not create Lucifer with the certainty that Lucifer would sin. In this case, there would have been no risk involved in the creation of Lucifer, but, instead, a certainty. That is, sin, in this case, would have been inevitable.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

No, this doesn't follow....

Well, that's your view....I disagree....

[SivartM]

How could something surprise God? He's omniscient.

[Gerr]

Quote:

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

I'm not sure what you mean but I'll take a stab at it.

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." Gen 6:3

"the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." Rom 8:27 ESV

John 16:8 "And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment..."

[Woody]

Quote:

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....

Thank you for articulating this. What a blessed Truth. Oh what Love He has bestowed on us ... sinners.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

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.

[Gerr]

Thanks Norman. The Cities of Refuge is another beautiful illustration of the Plan of Salvation. The City of Refuge was provided by God. There was nothing any Israelite could add or subtract. But the one guilty of an inadvertent crime was

not safe UNTIL he entered the city AND REMAINED there. If he ventured OUT, he was liable to be caught by the avenger of blood. There is no yo-yo assurance here. The sinner is safe as long as he REMAINS in the city. The provision is constant. It is the sinner that plays the yo-yo when he goes in & out of the city gate.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Thanks Norman. The Cities of Refuge is another beautiful illustration of the Plan of Salvation. The City of Refuge was provided by God. There was nothing any Israelite could add or subtract. But the one guilty of an inadvertent crime was

not safe UNTIL he entered the city AND REMAINED there. If he ventured OUT, he was liable to be caught by the avenger of blood. There is no yo-yo assurance here. The sinner is safe as long as he REMAINS in the city. The provision is constant. It is the sinner that plays the yo-yo when he goes in & out of the city gate.

Amen! Gerry

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

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.

Hi pnattmbtc,

I have said before that I am not interested in talking about Jones, Waggoner or Weiland at this time. I have one goal that I have already stated.

Here's a statement by EGW that reveals several things. The first is that she understood the Gospel and has clearly spelled it our in a lot of her writings and this statement uses OT laws, all of which were a shadow of things to come and which were the school master of those who were under that law.

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway. :)

[teresaq]

Quote:

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....

Thank you for articulating this. What a blessed Truth. Oh what Love He has bestowed on us ... sinners.

i believe God forgave us long before He created us.

i believe He couldnt pardon us until the cross.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

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....

Thank you for articulating this. What a blessed Truth. Oh what Love He has bestowed on us ... sinners.

i believe God forgave us long before He created us.

i believe He couldnt pardon us until the cross.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

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....

Thank you for articulating this. What a blessed Truth. Oh what Love He has bestowed on us ... sinners.

i believe God forgave us long before He created us.

i believe He couldnt pardon us until the cross.

All men? Not without faith.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

God could not have forgave anyone before He created them. No one has forgiveness until they meet the conditions. The Bible does not teach that.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Pardon is the same as forgive.

Pro 28:13 He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.

Lev 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

[pnattmbtc]

"Forgive" and "pardon" are synonyms.

[Robert]

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

[karl]

Thanks Norman. The Cities of Refuge is another beautiful illustration of the Plan of Salvation. The City of Refuge was provided by God. There was nothing any Israelite could add or subtract. But the one guilty of an inadvertent crime was

not safe UNTIL he entered the city AND REMAINED there. If he ventured OUT, he was liable to be caught by the avenger of blood. There is no yo-yo assurance here. The sinner is safe as long as he REMAINS in the city. The provision is constant. It is the sinner that plays the yo-yo when he goes in & out of the city gate.

Some would claim that the sinner starts out inside the city of refuge. He starts out as a non-sinner. Perfect.

He is not conceived in iniquity, contrary to what David wrote. He is made by the hand of God - perfect - just like the first Adam.

[Twilight]

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

Hello Norman :-)

I have no problem with the "in Christ" motif at all.

My concern is when people claim they can be "in Christ" and willfully sin.

This is the danger.

This is where the error of JS and co appear to be leading.

Whenever a beautiful truth arrives, the enemy tries to lay a counterfit down, so that people get carried away on the rong railroad...

Mark

[Woody]

The Gospel is so clear and simple ... yet Satan has tried to counterfeit this beautiful Truth by using his minions to smear this beautiful Truth of Salvation. And he thus causes many to go down the path of destruction.

We must resist this error. And as our prophet has so well spoken ... we should spend a thoughtful hour each day on the life of Christ.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Norman

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

Hello Norman :-)

I have no problem with the "in Christ" motif at all.

My concern is when people claim they can be "in Christ" and willfully sin.

This is the danger.

This is where the error of JS and co appear to be leading.

Whenever a beautiful truth arrives, the enemy tries to lay a counterfit down, so that people get carried away on the rong railroad...

Mark

Well said Mark! Amen!