Do you really think you are making a point by pretending that my presentation is legalism? You cannot be that ignorant. It is legalism by definition, that preaches compliance with the Law in order to continue salvation. Get it? Obeying the law for the purposes of salvation is legalism. Not obeying the law for purposes of salvation is not legalism.
Your exegetical argument, such as it is, is beyond weak.
My presentation my be off base. We all suffer under that possibility. But there are no unsupported assumptions in my presentation. None.
I say that grace gives one salvation apart from anything one does in terms of obeying the Law. The importance, here, is that if we are saved apart from our obedience, we are saved in spite of our disobedience. The purpose and place of obedience has nothing to do with getting things right with God. It is only and always a demonstration of the God within. We are saved and counted as pure before we act. The glory goes to God in Christ. That is not a loophole, David. You need to leave the ministry if you disagree with this very basic bibilical consideration. Be not many of you teachers is something you need to take a little more serious. May I suggest a sabbatical until you come to a full and complete understanding of unmerited
grace, justification by the substitutionary consideration of faith for right living, and our passive involvement in "getting saved." Obedience is important, but it is the cart, not the horse.
I am always open to meaningful discussion.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:47:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit
The question is not whether or not there is a problem with the failings of mankind. We all agree on that. The question is whether or not Christ has provided a realistic solution to that problem. You present salvation as some kind of legal loophole by a legalistic God rather than as a real and pragmatic solution for our daily living. All of your statements below involve numerous unsupported assumptions and also personal translations of passages that differ from almost every published translation. Should we begin to address them one by one? I doubt you are really interested. You seem to think you have it all worked out already.
Soteriology 4401
Student and servant of all,
David Miller
----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 6:03 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, SpiritThe Bible is replete with references to the failings of mankind. The Older Testament comment that there are none who are [fully] righteous, none who [fully] seek out God, none who truly understand [Him or His ways} is confirmed by Paul to those who are saved, recipients of the same Spirit we have today, fellow saints (Romans 3:10ff). These comments beginning with verse 10 make 3:23 even more difficult to resist: We have sinned and continually fall short of His glory.BECAUSE that is true, God substitutes faith for our righteousness (as Andrew and BillyT say "the faith of Christ") and justification then occurs on our behalf (Romans 4:3). As a result of that blessing, our sins -- past, present and future - are no longer taken into account (Ro 4:8) and the Hebrews passage that tells us His death for our sins was "once and for all time" becomes even more understandable.Works in Ro 4:3 is most definitely the workings of obedience to the law of God. The works found in James 2 are not such.Soteriology 101 , session #2Pastor and resident Smithmeister, JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:00:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit
Bill's life is rather full just now. He's recently commenced a new job. I don't think that he should feel hornswoggled into an overlong and possibly tedious conversation with you on this matter, David. Why not just consider yourself to have the mind of God on this and, the rest of us intellectual mites to be incapable of following the complexity of your arguments? It's that you're too smart; we're too dumb thingy, O great one!
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: October 06, 2005 12:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit
> Lance wrote:
>> Bill Taylor is the one I had in mind.
>
> I don't recall Bill ever making the argument that we will always sin every
> day, or that all of us participate in our relationship with Christ
> inadequately and incompletely. I suspect Bill may recognize that there > has
> been a day or two in his life when he has not sinned.
>
> Bill, will you clarify your theological perspective? Do you have a > Biblical
> argument for the viewpoint that nobody is complete in Christ and that > those
> in Christ will continue to sin on a daily basis?
>
> Peace be with you.&nb sp;
> 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.
>
----------
"Let y our 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.
