JD wrote: > Do you really think you are making a point by > pretending that my presentation is legalism? > You cannot be that ignorant.
Think about your case, John. Doesn't it focus upon the legal problem rather than the root cause? If a criminal was only concerned about a pardon and not about what caused him to be convicted of a crime in the first place, we would say that he was only concerned about the legalities of his case. We would hope that the criminal would do something about his criminal behavior and not just deal with the legal problems caused by it. In like manner, your presentation is only concerned with the legal problems, not with the behavior that caused it to come about in the first place. JD wrote: > It is legalism by definition, that preaches compliance > with the Law in order to continue salvation. Get it? This is only one type of legalism, called Judaism. We use to have some people who thought this way on TruthTalk, but I'm not sure we have anybody like that anymore. JD wrote: > Obeying the law for the purposes of salvation is legalism. Yes, this is one type of legalism. JD wrote: > Not obeying the law for purposes of > salvation is not legalism. Wrong. Go back and read that article that you shared sometime back that warned about the doctrine of grace becoming another form of legalism. JD wrote: > Your exegetical argument, such as it is, > is beyond weak. I have not presented any exegetical argument yet. That takes time and effort, which I do not put forth unless there is value to do so. JD wrote: > My presentation my be off base. We all suffer under > that possibility. But there are no unsupported assumptions > in my presentation. None. One of your unsupported assumptions is that Jesus died for sins past, present, and future. Romans 3:25 speaks of the remission of sins that are past. I know of no Scripture which speaks of sins present or future that are automatically remitted. Experience tells us that future sins are not covered, because otherwise we would not experience any guilt whatsoever when we do sin after coming to Christ. Furthermore, if the sins were already taken care of, we would never have to repent or ask forgiveness ever again because they would have already been forgiven before we did them. JD wrote: > I say that grace gives one salvation apart from anything > one does in terms of obeying the Law. I say the same thing. JD wrote: > The importance, here, is that if we are saved apart > from our obedience, we are saved in spite of our > disobedience. Fair enough. JD wrote: > 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. Exactly. We know that God is within and that we are in God when we do not continue to sin. JD wrote: > We are saved and counted as pure before we act. Right. JD wrote: > 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. You may suggest it, but there is somebody else who I have promised to obey all the time and whenever he calls, so I cannot make any commitments like this that might interfere with his commands. JD wrote: > I am always open to meaningful discussion. I wish this was true. How many times I have wanted to discuss things with you, only to be berated and maligned. 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.
