John S. wrote:
>Colossians 1:21-23
>And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies
>in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
>in the body of His flesh through [His] death... to present
>you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
>If ye continue in the faith...
>
>You, David Miller, have unwittingly left off a most important
>consideration within this text and I have added it back into
>the text (highlighted in bold print). I would venture to say
>that you have omitted this portion of the passage because you
>did not see it as being important to the discussion at hand.
>What other noble reason could there be for the omission???
My reason for using the ellipsis and omitting the phrase was to draw
attention to the part of the passage that you seem to omit in your reading
of it. Your error here is called an error by emphasis. You so emphasize
one point of the passage that you cannot see other aspects of the passage.
Actually, my "error" is called effective exegesis. The fact of the matter is this, my Brief paid equal attention to all aspects of the text .............. that is the very reason why I went from one verse to the next. It is Paul who emphasizes the fact of reconcilation in the first part of the text and its purpose in the remaining text. Your omission remains a critical error, in my estimation.
John S. wrote:
>You misunderstand (IMO) the teaching of this Col.
>passage AS EVIDENCED by this omission.
The omission was to try and keep us on track on the part of the passage that
you overlook. I have no problems with this work being done through the body
of his flesh and through his death.
Actully, you do have a problem with this concept because you do not think this event, the fact of reconciliation to be a sovereign event. In just a few sentenses, you are going to write " ....... but if the purpose is not accomplished then we might question the fact upon which the purpose supposedly springs forth. Here, you allow for the possibility that the fact is somehow contingent upon my activity. You are a very well spoken legalist, David -- and here is good evidence of this reality. You simply must have your performance as (nearly) important as God's. By definition, legalism is a dependence upon personal performance. In this allowance, you actually suggest that God did not reconcile the world unto Himself. And that is why I said that we are world's apart. Our theologies are not the same.
I could write volumes more about it
too. However, you seem to overlook the result and purpose of this work,
that we are presented HOLY and UNBLAMEABLE and UNREPROVEABLE ... IF WE
CONTINUE IN THE FAITH.
I am startled that you would say this. I made it clear, David, that the fact of reconciliation made for the purpose as seen in our ultimate holiness. And I accept the condition -- as long as we apply it to the purpose and not the event.
In the event, we have this result (and I quote myself -- how's that for arrogance, Judy) " We are in Him whether we care to make that admission or not. To "re-capitulate" is to put us back into that ontological state of affairs -- our ontology is relational in nature and cannot be understood apart from our inclusion IN Christ. WE HAVE LOST OUR VERY EXISTENCE IN HIM .................. It all works because He is the one holding to first place as the Creator and Incarnate God. All are in Him because of who He is. The ontology of God is the very supply of all that exists ! This has nothing to do with our effort. A denial of this is a denial of the very sovereignty of God, not to mention Col. 1:15-23.
John S. wrote:
>Well, our (yours and mine) theological construct is entirely
>differeent -- as different as two world religions. I am of
>the unmerited grace based, Jesus-did-it-all religion and you
>are not.
I would not characterize my perspective this way. I too am of the unmerited
grace theology. The difference is that I see that grace works a real work
within us that changes us into his image. To deny this is to deny the power
of Christ.
You are not a grace based student. The fact that you resist every statement posted in regards to our continuing sin situation is proof of that. I most definitely believe that Christ in us produces changes ----------- but you believe that these changes occur all at once, upon the reception of the indwelling Spirit, and I accept that the Spirit accomplishes this change a bit at a time - and does so in each of us.
John S. wrote:
>In this passage (Col 1:15-23 for those of you are following along),
>I see the fact of reconciliation and the purpose of reconciliation .
>The fact of reconciliation cannot be separated from the purpose,
>in my thinking, and the following will demonstrate that point.
>But first, let's establish the fact of reconciliation as present in
>this passage.
No need to because I already accept this fact. I don't find much of
anything significant to disagree with in what you have presented about the
fact of reconciliation. What we seem to agree about is that the fact of
reconciliation leads to the result of holiness. It is our understanding of
holiness that is different. I see holiness and manifested by living like
Christ. You seem to see it as a legal position in Christ.
David, it is not going to work - you casting me as the legalist. Good try, however. Quoting from the immediate above statement, this illustrates our disagreement: What we seem to agree about is that the fact of reconciliation leads to the result of holiness. It is our understanding of holiness that is different. I see holiness and manifested by living like Christ. You seem to see it as a legal position in Christ. I would say that the fact of reconciliation has a purpose. And that is important. You say that the fact of reconciliation has a result (the performance of the individual) -- and because the individual fails, you question the fact. I would never do that.
John S. wrote:
>And there is a purpose for this relational success.
>We have been reconciled for a purpose.
>For a purpose. Holiness. Blamelessness.
>A life above reproach.......in His sight .............
>v. 23 if we continue !! Finally, a condition.
>But this condition applies to the purpose and not
>the fact of reconciliation.
I agree, but if the purpose is not accomplished then we might question the
fact upon which the purpose supposedly springs forth. You agree and then, immediately turn it around !! You do not believe in the fact of reconciliation as a sovereign act of Divine Intervention for the whole of creation, things visible and things invisible, things in the earth and things in the heavens. You believe that this is somehow conditional. And your next paragraph proves my point. I do not question the fact -- and never will. I don't care how many are out there denying the purpose as they live unto themselves. They are reconciled, redeemed and without excuse. Their judgment is self imposed and only recognized by the Father when He judges all In Jesus Christ.
John S. wrote:
>... the two (fact and purpose) CANNOT be separated.
>The latter is accomplished in the fact of the former --
>and all the blessings of salvation are therein.
I agree that the two cannot be separated. This is why I said that he put a
condition upon our REALIZATION of this reconciliation. Now if the fact and
the purpose cannot be separated, then the realization of us being holy and
unblameable and unreproveable must be true if the fact of our reconciliation
is true. The difference between us is that when I realize that this cannot
be separated, then I reason that if holiness and unblameableness is lacking,
then what you call fact (our reconciliation) must not be a reality.
David, let me clarify something. The two (fact and purpose) are not to separated. That does not mean they are the same !!! Extremely poor exegete here. The "if" clause allows for a separation, does it not? And what is the result of this separation? What happens when one separates the two? A challenge to the fact of reconciliation? Or self-destruction?
I think
Paul points to this in this passage when he says, "IF YOU CONTINUE IN THE
FAITH." He even identifies the fact of their alienation by their wicked
works (Col. 1:21), so therefore, he also identifies the fact of their
reconciliation by their holiness IF THEY CONTINUE IN THE FAITH. And in so doing, you deny reconciliation for the earth, the heavens, the visible and invisible. Our reconciliation is tied to the reconciliation of ALL THINGS. When you insist that the fulfillment of the purpose of reconciliation is crushed by those who have been redeemed but live unto themselves, you deny the fact of reconciliation for all things -- our reconciliation is inextricably tied to the reconciliation of all things.
I think because of your Church of Christ background, you constantly
misunderstand my theology and perspective. You have trouble understanding a
holiness that is real that is apart from works of the law. You seem to
think that holiness is some kind of state of being regardless of wicked
works. You do not seem to understand that faith results in good works and
righteousness. This Colossians passage brings these concepts together so
clearly, I do not know how you can miss it. Perhaps after the excitement
and novelty of being justified by grace begins to wear off, you might be
more open to seeing other aspects of this passage. I recently received some
email correspondence from a Church of Christ man who went street preaching
with me several times back in the 1990's. He is explaining how he is moving
away from the Church of Christ legalism and becoming more liberal. I can't
help but think that I have influenced him this way and that is why he is
writing me now after all these years. Some of what he says makes me think
of you. I find much of what you write to be extremely legalistic and
academic. You seem to be more concerned about our legal standing before God
rather than our being a new creature who lives like Christ. LOL. You a liberal -- me, one of Gregory's pec's.
JD
