Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment

[Knpraise]

In a message dated 3/30/2005 11:00:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
>You have argued against universality
>in the past.   I missed the change or
>are you just trying to prove how much
>you and I agree?

I'm tempted to start yelling at you for misquoting me, but I realize that
you simply misunderstand me.  I have argued against universalism (the idea
that all will be saved) in the past, not against the idea that Christ has
died for the sins of the whole world.   Is this the same as saying that God in Christ has reconciled all of humanity to Himself in a single and sovereign Christ Event apart from any effort of man?  

John wrote:
>That we are saved before any of this happens
>is a pretty good deal, as well.

You never established this idea at all.  You carry a lot of baggage in your
mind when you read this passage that we have not yet discussed enough.  Neither was your perspective in evidence at any time until that last post.    Didn't establish this idea, at all?   What do you think the reconciliation of mankind is if not the salvation of all before any of our effort takes place?????    They are very much the same to me.  David, get off the personal crap and just discuss the issues at hand   ---------------------    I am not one of the issues.   If you want to get personal,  that will happen pretty quickly.   You have a personal issue with me  --  write me a private post.   

John wrote:
>Does your voice lower in tone when you are
>talking down on someone?   I'm curious.

No, usually just the opposite.  I tend to raise the tone in my voice when I
talk down to someone.  Thanks, that gives me a more accurate mental image next time to do this to me, perhaps sometime within the next few sentences.  

John wrote:
>The fact of reconciliation is not conditioned on
>faith and any resulting holiness.

The realization of this reconciliation in our lives is conditioned on faith
(Col. 1:23).  This is not only what this passage teaches, but also many
other passages in Scripture.   Please establish, exegetically, your "realization of .....reconciliation"  with the Colossian text.   Where, specifically, is this in the text? 

John wrote:
>One never finishes  -- in this life -- with the
>effort to become holy, blameless and above
>reproach.

Becoming holy, blameless, and above reproach is not an effort.  If you think
it is, you are still under the law.  The more you talk, the more you sound
like a legalist, like someone who has not yet experienced the grace which
you so much want to experience. Actually, the truth is this: the more you talk , the more I sound like a legalist.   Righteousness, holiness, blamelessness,
being above reproach, is all a gift of God, something done as a sovereign
act of God apart from anything we can do. Does the word Robot mean anything to you?   Because you are not saying what it sounds like you are saying and this very next sentence makes my point.     We simply cooperate with him by
believing his Word.  When we do that, we experience the reality of it, in
this life.  Why does Paul tells us to "renew our minds"   --------   should he have addressed that to the Spirit since we are just along for the ride after the Spirit indwells and takes over?   Want me to look up and list scripture that teaches that we expend effort?   You are almost right, David.    God does, in fact, accomplish righteousness for us   --   accepting the exchange of "faith" for "righteousness.'  We are, indeed, "righteous" apart from our own effort  ---------   apart from effort of ANY KIND.   But sense you agree with me 90% of the time,  you probably are nobbing your head and saying "Amen" in your usual high pitched voice.  
John wrote:
>Consequently,  we are always in need of unmerited
>grace as seen in the fact of reconciliation.

I agree.

John wrote:
>We do not see things  the same.

I agree, but our differences are not as great as you think they are.

John wrote:
>Your ARE a perfectionist salvationist.

I'm tempted to start blasting you for "misquoting" me so you could see how
it feels to be on the receiving end, but I realize that you simply do not
understand me.  I am not a perfectionist salvationist.  I preach that
salvation is by grace through faith, not of works.  I teach men that they
cannot and should not become good before they come to God, but rather that
they should come to God that they might become good.

John wrote:
>I would like for you to answer this question:
>The comments below seem to have you saying
>that we agree on most things  -- it is our perspectives
>that are different.  I have no idea what this means.
>Can you explain?

Again, I am tempted to yell at you for "misquoting" me, but I realize that
you simply misunderstand what I have written and have reworded it in an
inappropriate way.  What I said is that there are some perspectives that I
have which you seem to be oblivious toward.  For example, I perceive
Christ's Spirit to be imparted to us when we believe upon him, and that
Spirit is a righteous Spirit which in turn makes us righteous.  I expect the
power of Christ to keep me walking in his righteous ways, according to the
promises of Scripture.  You seem to perceive righteousness as a state of
being, a position before God, a legal standing before God.  You seem to
perceive that Christ causes God to see you as righteous and consider you
righteous even when you are not.  I would consider that deceiving God, but
you see some kind of gracious merit in it.