David, I'm glad that you have swept away some
of the misrepresentation that seems, as I listen, to be bogging down the
conversation about reconciliation and holiness.
I think I understand that you, at
least, do not believe that it is your acts of righteousness that
initiate or effect your reconciliation to God. (I am not quite as sure
of that where Judy and Terry are concerned, but am prepared to
trust). And I have understood all along that John does not
believe in an unchanged life on the part of those who understand their
reconciliation. Those are misrepresentations we can put to rest
now.
But I genuinely need clearing up yet on one or two
things. One is the distinction David is making between the fact of
reconciliation and its "realization". Is the reconciliation which is
effected by God real now, or not? Do we need to make it real? Has the
reconciliation happened, and if so, can it be undone? If by God, why? If by
me, then how is it a sovereign fact? And if it hasn't
happened yet, in what sense is it a fact at all? (Ancillary question: if it is a
separate transaction for each individual, how does it apply to the whole
cosmos?)
Another thing is whether I should be focusing
on my practice of righteousness. David and John seem to agree below that
the same grace which effects the reconciliation produces the righteousness.
David says that it is not myself, and that it is only when I cease to
strive that grace can do its work. (This is, BTW, the same as saying that
we are "helpless and without ability to rise above the power of sin.") But he
also seems to be saying that I should look to my practice of righteousness as a
source of certainty about my reconciliation, and that's where I think the
problem lies between him and John.
What I understand John to be saying is
that reconciliation makes us ontologically different and can therefore
be expected to result in perceptible change in how we live, but
that if we look to this change for assurance of the reconciliation,
then, in practice, we are turning from grace. Because how much change, at any
given point, is enough for me to know that I am truly reconciled? How good
to I have to be, and by when, and by whom does it need to be recognized, in
order for it to qualify as evidence? And if I regress to some degree later on,
should I doubt that I am reconciled? Once we start down that
road, subscription to a theology of grace does seem somewhat nominal.
I don't believe you yourself actually live on that road, David, but you can
(hopefully) see why one might be puzzled.
On the other hand, if I am completely secure in my
reconciliation, it by no means follows that I will become uninterested in
pursuing righteousness. On the contrary. In relationships, the greater the
security, the greater the desire and sense of accountability--the deeper the
level of response. The "position" (I am dropping the word "legal"
because it is unnecessary and loaded) does lead to the life, and
uncertainty about the position interferes with the life. I've seen this
in myself and in my own children and students. In this connection, David, you said something to John that I find
worrisome: "Perhaps after the excitement and novelty of being justified by grace
begins to wear off..." [he will be more aware of the importance of holy living
as proof of our reconciliation--right? I am interpreting.] I don't think the
novelty and excitement of justification by grace can or should wear off! The day
it wears off for me is the day I will cease to be interested in obedience to
Christ.
Is David, or Terry, or Judy, worried that if people
rely too much on the "done deal" of their reconciliation, they will ignore sin
in their lives ("be blind to wickedness")? I still sin quite noticeably; I
don't know whether, from some people's perspective, I am one of those who sin
more than such people would feel is consistent with a profession of faith. If
so, I must respond that I do not concern myself with their (or my own) judgment.
I trust God to complete the work begun in me; he has until the Day of Jesus
Christ (and may well do a hefty passel of it right
then!). I on the other hand am worried that if people think
of their righteous lives as proof of their reconciliation, they will
either learn to hide their sin from others and deny it to themselves, or
live in constant doubt and consequent paralysis. I think that may be John's
concern as well. Perhaps both sets of our fears are groundless. I hope
so.
To conclude: David, you have said to John, "I don't
think there is anything you believe passionately that I do not believe. The
problem is that there are some perspectives that I have that you seem to be
oblivious toward." For my sake, could you
please identify those perspectives in a way that fairly recognizes and answers
what has been said above, without misrepresenting? I have tried hard not to
misrepresent you. Please set me straight if I have. (You too,
John.)
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Judgment
>> ... my Brief paid equal attention to all aspects
>> of the text
>
> No it did not. I asked you a very specific question about verse 23, and you
> spent several paragraphs talking about everything but this verse. Then when
> you finally got to this verse, you gave only a very short paragraph. You
> never really addressed my question.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> ... It is Paul who emphasizes the fact of reconcilation
>> in the first part of the text and its purpose in the remaining
>> text.
>
> LOL. This coming from the man who had just wrote:
>
> John wrote:
>>> It is never "this is what the Bible says." Rather, the truth
>>> of the matter is found in these words, "this is what I believe
>>> the Bible says."
>
> Please don't forget that we are discussing what we believe that Paul meant
> when he wrote these words. More importantly, we are discussing what we
> believe the Holy Spirit is meaning to communicate through this passage. For
> someone who rails upon others who say, "the Bible says...," I find it
> strange that you would try and establish your perspective by claiming that
> IT IS PAUL who emphasizes the fact of reconciliation. Yes he does emphasize
> this fact of reconciliation, but not without connecting it to Holiness,
> Unblameableness, Unreproveableness IF WE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> Your omission remains a critical error,
>> in my estimation.
>
> I don't see how you can think this when we agree already upon that omitted
> phrase. You just keep rehashing the same old same old, perhaps hoping that
> nobody will notice that you are not dealing adequately with the rest of the
> passage.
>
> I entered this discussion because you kept arguing that people needed to
> just read this passage. Now it appears that you do not want them to read
> the entire passage.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> Actully, [sic] you do have a problem with this concept
>> because you do not think this event, the fact of reconciliation
>> to be a sovereign event.
>
> Nonsense. Stop telling me what I believe. Reconciliation is a completely
> sovereign event that results in transformed individuals.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> In just a few sentenses, [sic] 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.
>
> Nonsense. The fact is contingent upon HIS activity in us. What I believe
> is that the sovereign act of God is reflected in us. The evidence of his
> work is what he does within us, transforming us from the children of Satan
> into children of God. Any good that I do is not me. It is not MY activity
> but rather it is God's activity within me.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> You simply must have your performance as (nearly) important as God's.
>
> Nonsense. Stop trying to tell me what I believe. My performance always
> leads to death. Only when I die and consider myself dead in Christ can he
> then find his _expression_ through me. Only when I stop trying to perform can
> God then live and work within me
>
> John S. wrote:
>> By definition, legalism is a dependence upon
>> personal performance.
>
> What definition is that? I use the term legalism in the sense of being a
> strict adherence to laws or rules, and in regards to Scripture to refer to
> being strict to particular phrases, sometimes without adequate consideration
> of other qualifying phrases. This is why I have tried to communicate that
> from my perspective, you appear to be very legalistic in your approach to
> Scripture. You seem to be very concerned, even pedantic, about making
> everyone reconciled to God based upon certain key phrases in the Bible, even
> to the point of being blind to wickedness on the part of those you consider
> reconciled to God.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> In this allowance, you actually suggest that God
>> did not reconcile the world unto Himself.
>
> Nonsense. You continually misrepresent my theology. I believe that God has
> reconciled the world unto himself, but the manifestation of that
> reconciliation is only experienced by those who believe.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> And that is why I said that we are world's apart.
>> Our theologies are not the same.
>
> You seem to strain real hard to make us world's apart. I still do not see
> much difference in our theology. I don't think there is anything you
> believe passionately that I do not believe. The problem is that there are
> some perspectives that I have that you seem to be oblivious toward.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> You are not a grace based student.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> The fact that you resist every statement posted in
>> regards to our continuing sin situation is proof of that.
>
> Nonsense. Grace is God's enabling power. Grace is what God bestows upon us
> when found in the condition of sin, not so that we might continue to wallow
> in sin, but that we might be delivered from it. What kind of grace is this
> that you seem to believe in that leaves us helpless and without ability to
> rise above the power of sin?
>
> John S. wrote:
>> I most definitely believe that Christ in us produces changes
>
> Sometimes it is hard to remember this with some of the things you write.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Nonsense. Stop telling me what I believe. We are all growing in Christ. I
> do not believe that we are all full grown and mature the moment we believe
> in Christ. How foolish it would be for anyone to think that I would ever
> have such a mindset.
>
> David Miller wrote:
>>> I see holiness and manifested by living like Christ.
>>> You seem to see it as a legal position in Christ.
> John S. wrote:
>> David, it is not going to work - you casting me
>> as the legalist. Good try, however.
>
> I'm just trying to explain to you how you appear from my perspective. You
> seem to be focused almost completely upon our legal position in Christ based
> upon the work of Christ, and you manipulate favorite proof texts from
> Scripture to make yourself feel good about your perspective.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> I would say that the fact of reconciliation has a purpose.
>
> I agree. That is my point as well.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I say that if the purpose of God is not accomplished, then we might question
> whether we have understood the fact correctly. If I understood you to tell
> me that you had 10 children ages 1 to 12 and I went in your house and found
> no pictures of children, no toys, no bikes, no beds for children, no
> evidence whatsoever that you have children, then I would question the
> assertion that you had 10 children. You seem to want to throw out reason
> and accept your understanding of what God says even if facts were contrary
> to your understanding.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Au contraire. I do believe this. Stop trying to tell me what I believe or
> don't believe.
>
> John S. wrote:
>> You believe that this is somehow conditional.
>
> I believe that our experience of it is conditional upon faith. The work is
> entirely of God, but we must believe God to experience it. Jesus taught us,
> "he that believeth not shall be damned."
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
>
