Christine -- could you take a second look at my post and give it a more precise answer? Have I captured your thinking on "cleansing." ? Is "salvation" God makes based upon an accounting of our actions as presented in my post?
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:58:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
Hello.
You believe the Spirit is grieved on ech occasion that His well meaning partners mis-speak?
Not arguing -- but it seems an appropriate question.
Regarding my use of the word "sinner." You are correct ot make note of the biblical use of the word.
Those who follow Christ are not called "sinners." But I do not use the word in that light. Where we are at odds, Chritine, is found in the wording of your sentence below:
And if we are sinners, then there is no difference
between us and the unsaved. But truly, we have been
cleansed. Not just forgiven, but washed clean.
between us and the unsaved. But truly, we have been
cleansed. Not just forgiven, but washed clean.
Our theologies are very different when it comes to the observation above..............in spite of the fact that I could easily say "amen" to what you have written. Our words do not have the same meaning, in a pratical sense. When you write "cleansed," I uderstand you to be saying that you are pressing the view that we have been pardoned for past sins and empowered to live without transgression of any kind."
I find that conclusion to be an impossible one. "Cleansing" for me is something that God does IMMEDICATELY and continually upon our desire to serve Him ................................Actually, that is not what I beleive so I will try it again.
The "reconciliation of all things" (Col 1:17) may have secured this consideration for all of mankind -- apart from anyone's
"decision" to "serve." If that is the more accurate statement, then "damnation" is the result of an attempt on our part to live a life autonomously --------- apart from God. It is not a decision that God makes after comparing the good that we would do with the bad that most surely is a part of the lives of us all ................. 99 good things compared to 97 bad things will get us into heaven ........... or is it 99 good things compared to 1 bad thing will find us lost? Maybe yoou could clarify?
"decision" to "serve." If that is the more accurate statement, then "damnation" is the result of an attempt on our part to live a life autonomously --------- apart from God. It is not a decision that God makes after comparing the good that we would do with the bad that most surely is a part of the lives of us all ................. 99 good things compared to 97 bad things will get us into heaven ........... or is it 99 good things compared to 1 bad thing will find us lost? Maybe yoou could clarify?
I would appreciate your response on this rather than your father's.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] We Sinners
JD wrote: > We sinners JD, I have a conscience problem with calling myself a sinner. As a 'son' of God, I partake of the Father's holiness. Now, my knowledge isn't perfect, I am still learning and maturing onto higher levels of Holiness, but it is simply untrue to call a child of God a sinner. When the Israelites made a sacrifice year after year, they remained sinners after they were forgiven. But only one sacrifice has been made. So I (and you, as a son of God) am no longer a sinner. It is putting Christ to an open shame. And if we are sinners, then there is no difference between us and the unsaved. But truly, we have been cleansed. Not just forgiven, but washed clean. I don't wish to pick on your wording, but I beleive many Christians greive the Spirit when they speak that way. Blessings! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That is exactly what I mean by "the truth." We > sinners have so much going for us than creative ways > of doing things wrong. AT THE SAME TIME, we can > be concerned with our physical health, with doing a > better job at work, with helping others with their > needs and expanding on that ministry, with > developing > a deeper prayer life, growing in the ways we > express ourselves to others, increasing our > _expression_ of love, joy, peace, kindness and the > like ---- and more. The list above can be as > long as one has time to write. To imagine that God > zooms in on one consideration, as important as it > may be, to the exclusion of the larger picture (much > larger) of who we are and what we are becoming is > somewhat preposterous, to me. > > Jd > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:46:22 -0400 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha > > > If what you mean by 'the truth' has to do with our > relationship with God through Christ in the power of > the Spirit then, yes and, Amen. > > It is relational in nature and, ought to include TT > to some extent. John 17 ain't reflected herein. Were > the Mormons to be truthful (I just didn't wish for > them to conclude:'see, I told you we weren't like > THEM-(US)) the same diversity and discord is > reflected therein also. > > It's a human thingy. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Sent: June 09, 2005 08:39 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha > > > > The "duh !!" response was the only thing I could > think of at the time. Judy had once again put me in > the category of teaching the doctrine of men, for > some reason, while entering into a discussion of > what she did the other night at church. She defends > this rather unusual procession of thouhgt by giving > me a brief lesson on becoming comformed to the image > of Christ ......................... as if my > primary concern is something other than this. Hence > "duh !!" > > I personally believe that we change because of our > relationship with The Truth more than because of > conceptual correctness. There is the opinion here > on Tt, it seems, that God cannot accomplish growth > in an individual if there exists any sin in his/her > life. If the goal of God is to create a people who > think correctly on all matters, then He has failed > if a single consideration is wrong. But if the > goal is relational in nature and substance, God's > success in our lives will be demonstrated in spite > of our sins or errant thinking. Correct? > > Jd > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:13:31 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha > > > You had implied in the past that you & yours are the > only ones capable of inteligent discussion. Was that > the OLD JD? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you are saying that we are to be like Him, > conformed to His image -- I say "duh !!!!!" > > It appears, howeer that we have regressed into > monologue. > > Jd > > > > > > I'm talking about Truth and what the PCA have done > via the Shorter Catechism is what doctrines of men > are doing constantly - you included JD. Since His > works were done before the foundation of the world > and > it is written that we are predestined to be > conformed to the "image of Christ" then it follows > that this should be the 'chief end of man' doesn't > it? - That is if God's Word means anything to us at > all .... and this has everything to do with > relationship with Christ = jt > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:56:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > I am talking about a realtionship with Christ and > you are talking about what? Sorry, but I miss your > point completely. > Jd > > > > Interesting JD, > I've been attending an introductory class at the > church we have been attending which is PCA. They > identify with the Reformation and they like the > Shorter Catechism. I can't figure out why the first > point in the Catechism does not say that the chief > end of man is to be conformed to the image of Christ > - after all this is what we have been predestined > for and they believe in predestination. (Romans > 8:29) jt > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:12:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > Not too bad of a question. Quite often growth may > appear to be vacillation. If we define new birth > as a putting on of Christ, emphasis on a > relationship, then we might suppose that the > resulting validation marking the difference between > vacillation and growth is the benefit can see in the > occurring changes. If I am a better person, > growth has occurred. If I have become more > distasteful, something is wrong with the > relationship. After all, that is the way > relationships work. Soooo, "truth" can be said to > exist IN THE BELIEVER if that believer becomes more > and more like Christ. > > JD > > > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > JD are you Growing or Vacillating? > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------- "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.
