Debbie wrote:
> ... 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?
It is real now.
Debbie wrote:
> Do we need to make it real?
No, we believe God.
Debbie wrote:
> Has the reconciliation happened, and if so,
> can it be undone?
Yes. Man is still free to rebel.
Debbie wrote:
> If by God, why?
Because God is not a tyrant.
Debbie wrote:
> If by me, then how is it a sovereign fact?
Because the move is completely by God. I have children who were made my
children strictly by an act of me and my wife. My children could commit
suicide and cease to be my children, that does not mean that I never created
them (by God's help) in the first place.
Debbie wrote:
> And if it hasn't happened yet, in what sense
> is it a fact at all?
Good question to those who believe it hasn't happened yet. I believe that
it has happened.
Debbie wrote:
> (Ancillary question: if it is a separate transaction for
> each individual, how does it apply to the whole cosmos?)
Good question. It applies to the whole cosmos, but is realized only by
those who believe.
Debbie wrote:
> Another thing is whether I should be focusing
> on my practice of righteousness. ... 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.
No, I do not believe it is good for anyone to look at their practice of
righteousness as a source of certainty.
Debbie wrote:
> ... if we look to this change for assurance of the reconciliation,
> then, in practice, we are turning from grace.
I agree.
Debbie wrote:
> ... 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.]
Not exactly the right interpretation here of what I'm saying. I'm saying
that maybe whent he novelty wears off some, he will be able to see that the
verse is expressing other things that are just as exciting as the part of it
which now excites him. Seeing that the purpose of this reconciliation is to
make us holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight is very exciting
to me.
Debbie wrote:
> 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.
I certainly don't mean that it will wear off completely, but there are times
when a truth hits us so hard that we see almost nothing else except this
truth. This appears to be where John is at right now. As he becomes more
secure in this belief and more knowledgeable about it, some of the
excitement does begin to wane. This does not mean that the concept no
longer interests him, but that he is able to consider other matters and see
how his truth connects to other ideas.
Debbie wrote:
> 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")?
It is not a problem if they see that the "done deal" of their reconciliation
is connected with the purpose of this reconciliation, which is being
conformed to the image of Christ. Seeing this as a "done deal" facilitates
holy living when the fact of reconciliation and the purpose is connected
together. The problem is that some so-called grace adherents think that any
kind of righteousness is self righteousness, so when they begin to teach
that reconciliation is not connected to holiness, that is when we have a
problem.
Debbie wrote:
> 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.
This is a problem, especially among the sinless perfectionist camps
(Pelagianists), which is why I have tried to distance myself from this
label. Nevertheless, if we do not expect holiness to be the purpose and
result of our reconciliation, then there are other problems which are even
much more dangerous.
Debbie wrote:
> 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.)
I think John and I agree upon the idea that Christ died for the sins of the
whole world, not just one segment of it. I believe that God was at work in
Christ in reconciling not only man to himself, but all of creation. This
work is completely sovereign on the part of God. God did this while we were
yet sinners and unable to even see God much less do anything to help.
The perspective I have that I think he fails to appreciate is the role of
faith in our lives to make this a reality. Passages like 1 Cor. 3:9 and 2
Cor. 6:1 speak about us being laborers together with God. There is a
cooperation between God and us whereby we are not only partakers of the
divine nature, but we become co-workers together with God in this world.
Something to think about during this Easter season is how Simon of Cyrene
helped Jesus carry his cross. Is there anybody who thinks this was an
accident? Clearly God is conveying to us a message here of how we all need
one another, and even the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world,
needed someone to help him carry his cross. If Jesus wanted to do it all
alone, he certainly could have. Who would doubt this? But he chose to do
it in a way in which this Simon of Cyrene helped him carry his cross.
Through his sovereign act, he chose to make Simon a co-laborer with him in
carrying his cross.
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.
