Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[Samie]

3 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I think there are issues with your perception as to what the pure gospel is.  For example, you are hear agreeing with the following:

If you agree that this is what's really important, why do you not speak of it?

Do you hear me daily on what I speak to others? I don't speak about it to those who have already done so, like yourself. Why tell you do what you have already done? What's the point?

[Samie]

Off to breakfast. Will be back...

[pnattmbtc]

2 minutes ago, Samie said:

I am reading you as saying that no one cannot personally hear about Christ.

You should read me as saying what I said!  I said we will not personally meet anyone who cannot personally hear of Christ, because we can tell them.  I don't think there's room hear for disagreement, as this is obviously true.

The point I made is that people who cannot hear of Christ is a theoretical matter, one we will never personally encounter, which should not deter us from our mission.  I agree with you that our mission to proclaim to them the pure Gospel, but I have some issues with what you perceive to be the pure Gospel.  I hasten to add that I would have issues with what I perceive to be the pure Gospel if I knew more than I do, meaning that what I perceive to be the pure Gospel is a work in progress, but the essential point to me is that God is just like Jesus Christ, far better than we can imagine, that His true character has been distorted by the enemy, and our main job is to see that the truth gets out.

I already mentioned one issue, which is that you agree that what's really important is that we receive Christ as our personal Savior, and invite Him into our heart, yet that hasn't been mentioned until now, and only after many questions were asked.  It seems like if it's really important, it should be in the forefront of what we present as the pure Gospel.

Another issue is that I don't see how your view of things fixes what I perceive to the real problem.  The real problem, as I see things, is that there is an enemy who has misrepresented God's character, and God needed to set the record straight, which He did through His Son Jesus Christ.  I never see you talk about this.  When I talk about it, I don't see you agree with me that this is really important.  These are things I wish were different.

[pnattmbtc]

Ok.  Will check back from home.  Off to beat a blizzard on the way home.

[Samie]

42 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

You should read me as saying what I said!  I said we will not personally meet anyone who cannot personally hear of Christ, because we can tell them.  I don't think there's room hear for disagreement, as this is obviously true.

Not everyone I "meet" on the busy streets of Manila has personally heard of Christ. But I cannot stop each one of them just to tell them about Him.

 

46 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

The point I made is that people who cannot hear of Christ is a theoretical matter, one we will never personally encounter, which should not deter us from our mission.  I agree with you that our mission to proclaim to them the pure Gospel, but I have some issues with what you perceive to be the pure Gospel.  I hasten to add that I would have issues with what I perceive to be the pure Gospel if I knew more than I do, meaning that what I perceive to be the pure Gospel is a work in progress, but the essential point to me is that God is just like Jesus Christ, far better than we can imagine, that His true character has been distorted by the enemy, and our main job is to see that the truth gets out.

I already mentioned one issue, which is that you agree that what's really important is that we receive Christ as our personal Savior, and invite Him into our heart, yet that hasn't been mentioned until now, and only after many questions were asked.  It seems like if it's really important, it should be in the forefront of what we present as the pure Gospel.

Not explicitly mentioning it does not mean it is of lesser importance to me. Actually it is one of the given, because I had been emphasizing that it is all because of what God through Christ has done for us all that we are in Him.  I hardly see any element of uncertainty that "Christ is everything to me" as the note that rings all throughout what I present in this forum as the pure gospel.  You will notice that what I am up against is the prevalent notion that unless a person first believes, he cannot be in Christ.  For me it dilutes part of what God through Christ has done for us all, mix it with a portion of man's participation, and then present it as the pure gospel.  And this, I believe, is the brand of gospel currently being proclaimed to the world.  Hence, in response to the mission call, I did not sit back and hold my peace but instead, presented what I think is the pure gospel.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, that when others see the light I am seeing and present this pure gospel to others with whom they come in contact, that a rippling effect will be created, and the world will eventually come to know the gospel Christ wanted preached, and then He can return.

[Samie]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

Another issue is that I don't see how your view of things fixes what I perceive to the real problem.  The real problem, as I see things, is that there is an enemy who has misrepresented God's character, and God needed to set the record straight, which He did through His Son Jesus Christ.  I never see you talk about this.  When I talk about it, I don't see you agree with me that this is really important.  These are things I wish were different.

And I think that with me saying it is all because of what God through Christ has done for us all, is one better way of portraying our good Father in heaven in the analogy of the two (2) fathers, in what Wingnut called my life-raft theory.  Most preachers, to me, have misrepresented the Father as the other father in my analogy.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Not explicitly mentioning it does not mean it is of lesser importance to me. 

Not very likely.  People talk about things which are important to them.  Especially in discussion forums.  Look at what people talk about.  It's about areas they are interested, areas that are important to them.

Quote

Actually it is one of the given, because I had been emphasizing that it is all because of what God through Christ has done for us all that we are in Him.

 

Not in a personal way.  Only corporately.  That's all I've seen you talk about.

Quote

I hardly see any element of uncertainty that "Christ is everything to me" as the note that rings all throughout what I present in this forum as the pure gospel.

Again, not in any personal way.  You can ask what others think to get another opinion besides mine.

Quote

You will notice that what I am up against is the prevalent notion that unless a person first believes, he cannot be in Christ. 

This seems just semantics to me.  What you mean by "in Christ" is different than what anyone else means, so you're talking about something different than everyone else is.

Quote

For me it dilutes part of what God through Christ has done for us all, mix it with a portion of man's participation, and then present it as the pure gospel.

 

I have no idea what made this important to you.  If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I cannot imagine what you entice you talk about something you can't even explain what it means in place of that.  You talk about at the cross our being attached to the body of Christ, and you can't even explain what that means.

Surely, without question, talking about tangible, meaningful things, such as the love of God which would lead Him to sacrifice His Son, or the love of Christ, that would lead Him to give Himself, and the fact that this Christ is alive today and wants to dwell in our hearts trumps an idea whose meaning isn't even explainable.

Quote

And this, I believe, is the brand of gospel currently being proclaimed to the world.  Hence, in response to the mission call, I did not sit back and hold my peace but instead, presented what I think is the pure gospel.

I think you're idea is confused.  Here are some reasons why:
1.The idea comes from Jones and Waggoner, yet you seem not to know what they believed, and your idea is different from theirs, but we have direct endorsements from a prophet, over 1000 of them, proclaiming the truth of their message as light from heaven.  Why not study this light and proclaim it?
2.It doesn't agree with what Ellen White has presented either.
3.It doesn't agree with Scripture, which you youself have recognized, by saying that John had to be "corrected".  This is most damning of evidences, that your own theory leads you yourself to conclude that Scripture is an error.  I can't imagine how you could think that such a theory could be coming from God.  I don't understand why you don't see this.  Surely God wouldn't give us a message from His Word that leads us to proclaim that Gospel writers He inspired need to be "corrected"  How could this possibly be the "pure gospel"?
4.You can't explain what the language you use mean.  You want us to believe something which is indistinguishable from gibberish.  The "pure gospel" should be explainable is words that are simple, easy to understand, that make sense, otherwise it's just gibberish (i.e. meaningless words; that's what these are if you cannot explain their meaning).   What does "at the cross God attached us to the body of Christ" mean?  You can't say.  Yet that which I believe to be the pure Gospel, Jesus' words "when you've seen Me, you've seen the Father" is easy to understand and explain in other words.
5.You can't explain why this should be important.  What I mean is, what difference does it make?  Why would God care about this?  Why would God want us to believe this?  Why would this be important to God?  I can only think of one thing you've said along these lines, which is that we shouldn't be taking credit for what God has done. I agree completely, 100%, with your sentiment here, but there are other ways of arriving at this point which do not require that we believe that what's really important is what God does with objects which don't exist.

Quote

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, that when others see the light I am seeing and present this pure gospel to others with whom they come in contact, that a rippling effect will be created, and the world will eventually come to know the gospel Christ wanted preached, and then He can return.

What does this have to do with God's character?  *That's* what's really important.  When you can present a message which makes clear how great God is, *then* you'll have a message which can accomplish what you're looking for.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Samie:And I think that with me saying it is all because of what God through Christ has done for us all, is one better way of portraying our good Father in heaven in the analogy of the two (2) fathers, in what Wingnut called my life-raft theory.  Most preachers, to me, have misrepresented the Father as the other father in my analogy.

I think there's a good and true aspect of what you're wanting to get at here, but not the way you're doing it.  Ellen White, E. J. Waggoner., A. T. Jones, and Robert Wieland (George Fifield, W. W. Prescott are a couple of other names) have expressed this idea, especially Robert Wieland.  If you're not familiar with what he's said about this, I couldn't recommend highly enough that you research it.  You're hitting on a good point, but it's like your hammer is at a wrong angle, so it's bouncing off the nail.

[Wingnut]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

And I think that with me saying it is all because of what God through Christ has done for us all, is one better way of portraying our good Father in heaven in the analogy of the two (2) fathers, in what Wingnut called my life-raft theory.  Most preachers, to me, have misrepresented the Father as the other father in my analogy.

The Father never thanks people for inventing ways of making Him look better.  Look at how He criticised Job's friends who tried to justify God by condemning Job.

God will not thank you Samie for offering false hope, just as nobody thanks people for calling the Titanic "unsinkable".

Only people with a personal relationship with Him are in God's life-raft (strike "life-raft" and substitute "ark").

 

[Samie]

OK. I just leave it up to you, brother Pnatt, to dwell on your gospel diluted with man's participation. I respect your position. I'll just continue propagating the pure gospel I learned from Scriptures.

Again, my position is we are all in Christ because of what God through Christ did for all of us on the cross. This is all grace. But with freewill not compromised, because man may either choose to overcome evil with good, or be overcome of evil.  And overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.

Your position is we are in Christ because we believed. Grace diluted with works. And what next? You have yet to think it out because I surmise you are not even sure of what comes next.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Again, my position is we are all in Christ because of what God through Christ did for all of us on the cross. This is all grace. But with freewill not compromised, because man may either choose to overcome evil with good, or be overcome of evil.  And overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.

Your position is we are in Christ because we believed. Grace diluted with works. And what next? You have yet to think it out because I surmise you are not even sure of what comes next.

 

It would depend upon what one means by the phrase "in Christ."  If you mean "the body of Christ", then the Scripture are clear that the body of Christ is comprised of believers.  For example:

Quote

 

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

 

This is clearly referring to believers.  If you mean "in Christ" in a more general sense, then there are times when a corporate idea is involved, which I think is well expressed by the following: "To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly life."  It is by the grace of God that we live, which is provided to us at infinite cost.  There is an atmosphere of grace which surrounds us as real as the air we breathe.  The light shining from the cross is drawing us to himself, and if we do not refuse to be drawn we will be led to the cross in repentance of our sins.

There is plenty here which correlates to your raft analogy.  But they way you apply it is such that one would have to reject John/Ellen White/A. T. Jones/E. J. Waggoner to accept your view, and God simply doesn't work this way.  When God reveals new light, He does so in such a way that it does not contradict light He has given previously.

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, Samie said:

OK. I just leave it up to you, brother Pnatt, to dwell on your gospel diluted with man's participation. I respect your position. I'll just continue propagating the pure gospel I learned from Scriptures.

Again, my position is we are all in Christ because of what God through Christ did for all of us on the cross. This is all grace. But with freewill not compromised, because man may either choose to overcome evil with good, or be overcome of evil.  And overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.

Your position is we are in Christ because we believed. Grace diluted with works. And what next? You have yet to think it out because I surmise you are not even sure of what comes next.

Samie says all are "in Christ" (saved) unless they FAIL to do the works (overcome evil).  Samie. How many of these "works" do we have to do?  How much "evil" do we have to "overcome"?  This sounds like perfectionism to me.  The idea that we "saints" must overcome every sinful act or thought. 

Isn't THAT like saying one is "saved by works" ?   (And he says we are the ones preaching salvation by "works", because we say one must believe.) 

I would submit that we all FAIL and continue to FAIL throughout our lives, whether we have come to know Christ - or not.  (Admittedly we sin less.)  The closer you draw near to Christ, the more sinful you appear in your own eyes.  The bar is raised higher, and higher, and higher.  But we are NOT LOST, because we can ask for forgiveness, and then continue to strive (in His strength) to get over the next higher bar, the next test, the next trial. 

I do NOT personally think that believers will reach "perfection" in this age (except the imputed perfection which we have in Christ - His righteousness applied to us).  I think we have NO IDEA how damaged we really are.  It will take many years of recovery before we will truly be "healed" of all our defensive thoughts and feelings.  I do NOT believe Christ will instantly wipe out all of that damage, on the day He returns.  We NEED to think it through.  We NEED our questions answered. 

I personally NEED to ask why He left so many of His children in continual pain.  Intellectually - I think I understand some of the reasons, but I have not come to peace with it. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

What Samie has said in the past is that only God knows whether one is overcoming or not.  I've thought of the following verse:

Quote

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13

and just a couple verses before:

Quote

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 1 John 5:11

I don't see how these texts would tie into Samie's idea.

[pnattmbtc]

Also I don't see where repentance comes into this.  I don't see how we can be reconciled to God without repentance.

[8thdaypriest]

22 hours ago, Samie said:

Your problem is in not seeing that my position talks of us as being ALREADY in Christ, because of what God through Christ has done for us ALL at the cross.  Is that not personal relationship?  Does the infant have no personal relationship with his mom just because the infant does not know her mother's name yet?

One fellow here said that God "can have a relationship, with a four celled embryo". 

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (NKJ)

BEFORE he was "formed" "in the womb" Jeremiah did NOT "know" God.  God "knew" Jeremiah.  God "knew" who Jeremiah would be, and what he would become.  (Sounds like foreknowledge to me, unless you argue that God simply treated Jeremiah differently, so that he would become His prophet.)  The KEY here is that Jeremiah did NOT "know" God before he was formed in the womb, or when he was nursing.  God "knew" Jeremiah.  There was NOT a two way relationship. 

A hungry baby will nurse from ANY breast.  Hence the use of wet nurses. 

Mother's have a "relationship" with their newborns, because they "know" who their babies are, and because of built in maternal instinct.   Young infants DO NOT "have a relationship" with their caregivers - not until they can recognize them, and associate care with the caregiver.  Sort of like my chickens gather at the gate, when they see me coming with the bucket. 

If you want to see people who do - or do not - "have a relationship" with their mothers, just hang out at the nursing home, or the assisted living facility.  See who shows up.  Very few actually do. 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

One fellow here said that God "can have a relationship, with a four celled embryo". 

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (NKJ)

BEFORE he was "formed" "in the womb" Jeremiah did NOT "know" God.  God "knew" Jeremiah.  God "knew" who Jeremiah would be, and what he would become.  (Sounds like foreknowledge to me, unless you argue that God simply treated Jeremiah differently, so that he would become His prophet.)

 

I think your suggestion is possible, but could be foreknowledge too.  The key point about foreknowledge that I've been making is that the future is comprised of possibilities; it's not something fixed, in God's head, or anywhere.  So when God foreknows the future, what He foresees are all the possibilities there are.  God can make predictions based on what He foresees, but these are just possibilities until they become realities.  Now if the possibilities involve Himself, He can, of course, make sure He will do what He said, but sometimes these are conditional, as in Jeremiah 18.

Jeremiah 18 is an interesting passage, because those hearing the message were complaining that they were doomed, their destiny was fixed, but God said if they would repent, He would repent of the evil He said He was going to do, showing the foreknowledge to be conditional.

Similarly for Jeremiah, God had plans for him, but Jeremiah was free to not follow God's plans, in which case one of the possibilities God foresaw (but didn't speak of) would have happened (assuming that there was some possibility Jeremiah wouldn't choose to become a prophet). 

[Wingnut]

Samie

Could you list for me 10 specific ways I could overcome.

[Samie]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Samie says all are "in Christ" (saved) unless they FAIL to do the works (overcome evil).  Samie. How many of these "works" do we have to do?  How much "evil" do we have to "overcome"?  This sounds like perfectionism to me.  The idea that we "saints" must overcome every sinful act or thought. 

It would depend on what God wrote into a person's heart and mind. I believe, that anything that goes against what God has written in my heart and mind are presumably evil and had to be overcome with good.  As to perfectionism, what do you think Jesus meant when He said, "Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"?  But having quoted Him, I just like want to point out that Scriptures tell us we were made holy and perfect on the cross (Heb 10:10-14).

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Isn't THAT like saying one is "saved by works" ?   (And he says we are the ones preaching salvation by "works", because we say one must believe.) 

Again, Having been fashioned into His Body, we all died with Christ on the cross (2 Cor 5:14-15), and were made alive together with Him when He rose from the tomb (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). We are all in Christ, and so are heaven-bound because of what God through Christ has done for us on the cross. This is my position. How is that SBW?  It is pure grace Sister, as against your "believe first to be in Christ", which is grace diluted with human participation.

But what comes next AFTER we are in Christ? My position speaks of overcoming evil with good because we are admonished to (Rom 12:21), and overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL (Rev 3:5).  It's God Who judges who the overcomers are, and only overcomers will be allowed entry into the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27).

How about your position? Do you believe in "once-saved-always-saved", and that since we have believed, heaven is our home no matter what? Or you are not yet even sure of where you stand?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Samie:As to perfectionism, what do you think Jesus meant when He said, "Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"?

What's the context?

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, the reason your position sounds like salvation by works is, well, there's a couple of reasons.  One is, you say nothing about the importance of believing in order to be saved, which is what most (all?) Christians understands salvation by grace to mean.  Another is you say everyone will be saved except those who don't overcome (actually you don't say it like this, but it comes down to this, and everyone who reads what you write understands it this way).  So if you have to overcome in order not to be lost (i.e. blotted out from the book of life), that sounds like salvation by works.  It sounds *exactly* like salvation by works (because faith is omitted, and salvation by works, where faith is omitted, is what people understand "salvation by works" to mean).

You could easily avoid any misunderstanding by pointing out in your posts that overcoming is the fruit of faith (if this is what you believe).

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Samie

Could you list for me 10 specific ways I could overcome.

God has already listed and wrote them down in your heart and mind, my brother. see Heb 10:16, 17.  It could be 10, or less, or more. And it's a dynamic process. Same with me. God is not finished with me yet.

[Samie]

15 minutes ago, Samie said:

Again, Having been fashioned into His Body, we all died with Christ on the cross (2 Cor 5:14-15), and were made alive together with Him when He rose from the tomb (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). We are all in Christ, and so are heaven-bound because of what God through Christ has done for us on the cross. This is my position. How is that SBW?  It is pure grace Sister, as against your "believe first to be in Christ", which is grace diluted with human participation.

But what comes next AFTER we are in Christ? My position speaks of overcoming evil with good because we are admonished to (Rom 12:21), and overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL (Rev 3:5).  It's God Who judges who the overcomers are, and only overcomers will be allowed entry into the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27).

Believing, which is exercising faith, is overcoming the evil of unbelief. Man's participation comes AFTER what God has done for him on the cross.  IMO, to teach that man must first believe to be in Christ, looks like SBW. Just my opinion.

[pnattmbtc]

23 hours ago, Samie said:

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

1 hour ago, Samie said:

Believing, which is exercising faith, is overcoming the evil of unbelief. Man's participation comes AFTER what God has done for him on the cross.  IMO, to teach that man must first believe to be in Christ, looks like SBW. Just my opinion.

It looks like you view believing as a work.

[Wingnut]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

God has already listed and wrote them down in your heart and mind, my brother. see Heb 10:16, 17.  It could be 10, or less, or more. And it's a dynamic process. Same with me. God is not finished with me yet.

But my heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.