John S. wrote:
>... my Brief paid equal attention to all aspects
>of the text
No it did not. Actually, I did, David. In fact I gave this verse more attention than all but two of the verses in this passage. Your specific question was a rather simple one: "Do you see it differently?" Perhaps I should have just said "kind of." But I thought I would be more specific. Understand, David, that this Brief of Col 1 was not just written for your benefit. In fact, you did not benefit from it, except in your criticism of it. But I did answer your question and I did spend considerable time on this passage. 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.
Here is your question: This passage seems to indicate that faith leads to being UNBLAMEABLE and UNREPROVABLE.� Other passages also would lead us to understand that faith does this by producing the fruit of righteousness, obedience, and good works rather than wickedness, disobedience and evil works.� Do you see it differently?�
Here was my comment on v 23: v. 23 .....if we continue !! Finally, a condition. But this condition applies to the purpose and not the fact of reconciliation. Holiness is, indeed conditional. And we must be careful here. We are saved by "faith." It is His faith AND ours. Faith unto faith. But God the Father sees us IN CHRIST. We are asked to practice righteousness, but God the Father sees us in CHRIST. It is His faith the Father sees, and because of that, the promise for the New Covenant is the pronouced blessing that God will bring to mind our sins NEVER MORE (Jere. 31:34).
In Eph 4: 20-32, Paul describes this process of holiness and righteousness as a part of a completing nature. He asks them to "lay aside the old self WHICH IS BEING CORRUPTED in accordance with the lusts of deceit ......... [and be] renewed in the spirit of your minds" (vv.22,23). Clearly, the picture in Ephesians is one of a whole congregation of The Reconciled involved in the process of conversion. We are being converted from the old to the new. And that effort involves a willing partnership on our part. But this conversion takes place BECAUSE OUR VERY EXISTENCE HAS BEEN CHANGE.
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."
I am not sure what your point is here, David. I knew that I was going to write in a rather definite style. That is the way I speak and write. And that is exactly why I prefaced my comments with the quote above. Are you thinking that I should have written "IMO" after each sentence in addition to the preface? This is one of the area where you waste a considerable amount of time -- trivial and contrived criticism. Petty, petty, petty. (think Senator Bird)
Please don't forget that we are discussing what we believe that Paul meant
when he wrote these words.
After reading my Brief, you think I need to reminded of the above ????!!! did you actually read my memo? You do not see it as a very specific explanation of what Paul meant when he wrote these words? Strange. Perhaps a creative reading class is due.
More importantly, we are discussing what we
believe the Holy Spirit is meaning to communicate through this passage.
You can discuss whatever you want, David. Whatever blows your skirt up is fine with me. I used your single and brief question as a reason for taking the time to exegete this passage. It should help you to understand what or why I believe what I believe about this idea of reconciliation.
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.
O.K., I will bite. Since you decided to give my preface no credit, how would you think I should have written what I did in view of my preface? Leave off Paul's name. Write in such a way as to NOT answer any questions. Burden the reader --------- that would be the guy who actually read my preface ----------- with "IMO" after each sentence or thought? Let's not be silly, David. Let's solve this rather simple problem you have with my words above. Cut and paste this into the appropriate place, David :-) ... Smithson almost always writes and speaks as if his answers are THE answers to the issues at hand in spite of the fact that he ackowledges this to be only a style of communication. He acknowledges that his answers are not the final word. he knows that when one says " I know," one does not yet know as he ought. I will refer to this as the humility statement of 3/29. Now, lets move on to something important.
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. Ah, we "agreed." Book, chapter and verse on that one, King David. Perhaps it is under the pickle? Alas, it ain't there at all. 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. Boy, you are onto something now. I wrote that single sentence as a smoke screen.......................David, are you going to get to a real comment or question? So far, just drival.
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. Will you please quote me on that? You are making up stuff, now. And that goes to your sense of honesty --- is that what you wanted me to say? I don't know, but are you really being honest when you write things that you cannot support? Interested readers want to know.
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.You really do not understand "sovereign" as I do. To me, it means that the fact of reconciliation is a circumstance that is established by God apart from any other other influences. You do not believe this -- preferring to argue that if one does not accomplish the purpose of reconciliation, the fact of reconciliation is in doubt. Nothin sovereign about that circumstance. Nothin at all. But I do agree with word "nonsense."
John S. wrote:
>In just a few sentences, 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. What in the world are you talking about? I am talking about the fact of universal reconciliation. The establishment of that fact has nothing to do with God at work within us. You have unwittingly changed the direction of this discussion. 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. Well, no argument here. But that has nothing to do with my comment quoted by you in the above. Nothing.
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 Even with the Spirit in your life, David, you continue to fall short of the Glory; you continue to need the benefit of confession; you continue to deal with a fleshly nature that is corrupting itself even as we speak (Eph 4). The Spirit's influence in your life does not circumvent growth. And In "growth," there is "failure."
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. Ah, exactly what I said above. 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. I am going to copy this: and the next time someone accuses me of being a liberal, I will use this on them. Smithson is a legalist !! Love it. You and I are maybe not THAT different, then.
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. Nonsense. The manifestation of the fact of reconciliation is manifested only (?) in REVELATION. Didache, David. The PURPOSE of reconciliation is fulfilled in our holiness. The purpose nor the fact of reconciliation are DEPENDENT upon your response.
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. Well, here on TT, do we all agree with this? Is there anyone who will speak up and say that David and myself think perhaps 90% similar? 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. Given me an example.
John S. wrote:
>You are not a grace based student.
Nonsense. You are not. I know you want to be - but this is not the case at this time IMO.
John S. wrote:
>The fact that you resist every statement posted in
>regards to our continuing sin situation is proof of that.
Nonsense. Nonsense??? Everything in this post is a rebuttal. Everything I write you rebutt. No problem, but do not pretend otherwise. What is the point? Grace is God's enabling power. Grace is God's forgiveness and provision. The Spirit is His enabling power. That is how I would see it. 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? Not what I believe.
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. I only mirror you belief statements. 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. True. So we continue to fall short of His Glory. Glad you agree.
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."
