Bonar, who EGW on good days drew from in her library would never allow that our sanctification/holiness had anything to do with our Justification. You are correct He was a great reformed preacher however.
You said more than just the schoolmaster sentence. Here:
We were called heretics (“nor biblical”).
There was massive denial because of the wrongly quoted scripture like @cfowler pointed out.
And again, we were talking about love as motive behind action. And when you read my exchange with @1QOL Pat, you will see that we were talking about the proper place of any law. We are in agreement with the Reformers and the bible and, if of interest, EGW.
No, we are not under OT law, because the law cannot condemn us. Being “under” a law means this law has the ability to condemn us, has power over us, so to speak. When you’re justified “apart from the law”, this law has no power over you. We are already saved, and Christ has took the curse upon himself. That doesn’t mean we don’t read the law, yes, we can and should read this law like the rest of the bible, but now with the lens of Christ, how he and the apostles re-interpreted (or sometimes modified) and applied it. And then we apply it in our day and age. Christ appeared, we don’t live like he didn’t.
And about the specific application of the Ten Commandments, this is not the topic of the article we are discussing. Here at Spectrum people’s application differ. But we all strive to follow God’s will.
edit: I just realized that one of your statements is probably (?) close to what we were talking. The law and being kept in Christ is one of the uses that Pat mentioned. Law shows you your need of a savior. And oh happy day, you have one.
As I said, Kate, you don’t agree with each other. And different ones express their view in different ways.
But many do not agree that salvation is both provisional and conditional and there is a human factor in the salvation process that goes beyond “just accept it.”
Many of you apparently don’t even consider what others are saying and assume it is all the same thing.
Sometimes people accept or reject some idea because they don’t consider the implications of what is being stated.
Dialogue is only helpful if people are open minded and carefully consider the implications of the affirmation. Either positive or negative.
As I evaluate this and other forums, it seems various groups get together and affirm each other in some spirituality that is usually both positive on some level but often with a limited view of all the scripture says about any given subject.
Fulcrum 7 is classic of this fact. But certainly not the only ones who do this.
They deny the doctrine of original sin and can not possibly explain the atonement and its implications nor the words of Jesus, “Ye must be born again.” So they affirm we are born sinless and only become sinners when we willing choose to disobey God. This is the foundation of the Last Generation Theology ministry. It has no affinity to bible truth.
But how many here define “born again” is that it is simply some enlightenment that we were all saved at the cross and our response is limited to “just believe” with no further conditions.
And this was the late Morris Venden doctrine of “sanctification by faith alone”. At which point, Jesus would take over your life and keep the law for you and you need not struggle to “keep the law” just let Jesus do it.
Spiritual mysticism that makes no distinction between the identity of the believer and the person of Christ.
At any rate, God will force all who abandon the bible to admit it and say so in the end.
Not sure what you mean. I never wrote that.
#67 above. You like “their/RCC” understanding.
I pulled down Bonar’s. “God’s way of Holiness” and “Everlasting Righteousness.”
P.190 of the latter has to do with the Holy life of the Justified.
“Nowhere does scripture, either in it’s statements of doctrine or lives of the saints, teach us that here we get beyond need of the blood or may safely cast off the raiment that covers our deformity.”
This is the point Bill, while there is growth in holiness there is no point at which one obtains it wholly in this life.
Our “fitness, holiness through the Spirit and unrighteousness” must all alike be covered by the Righteousness of Christ found only in JBF “alone.”
I re-entered the conversation because you used me as supporting your view. I agree with some things you say. I agree Morris, a great speaker, as much as he was an improvement of the prevailing perfectionism erred in Sanctification by faith alone sentiments. Des had both Justification and Sanctification correct…biblically and reformation wise, I suggest.
But, we can never stand by our inward holiness as right and fit before God. Only our “outside of us” substitute does this. Christ our savior.
Yes, I do. Like and accept are not the same things.
This is not the first time you have put words into my mouth. It makes interacting with you difficult.
I guess it’s how you “define like and accept” on a particular issue.
I think most everyone would think they have two meanings regarding any particular issue.
I can’t think of any case where they’d ever mean the same thing.
Cheers to you. …
I’m not the spokesperson for all posters here. I’m just one voice. Who are the “many” anyway? It’s not a fair argumentation to make generalization about a huge part of the posters here (“many”). Who should deal with the statements, who is part of the many, who shall answer … So, what I will say is just my opinion, don’t judge anyone for this but me if you have to.
I don’t believe in such a mechanical JBF that you criticized: God gives you the gift of eternal life, you take it, then close the door, and go away until resurrection day.
Instead I believe the bible speaks about relationship: God gives me the gift of eternal life which I happily receive. From this point on I am saved. Then of course I want to know the one I will spend eternity with. Why else would I want the gift? So, I get to know him better and better, what he wants/likes/hates etc. In this relationship I am changing, not always without pain, seeing my brokenness can be hard at times. But God is always there to love me the whole way. This is a logical necessary outcome of my gift of salvation.
Take care, too.
I’ve not heard anyone here, or anyone else that I know (or listen to on line) describe it this way. I would describe being born again as becoming a new creation through the power of the Holy Spirit. Our natures are changed, our desires change, our hearts change in such a profound way. I’ve definitely been changed!
One thing is for sure, only God knows the thoughts and Intentions of the heart. He knows the daily walks and hardships and trials each have. He alone judges fitness not human judges and accusers of the breathren.
When one is “born”. They are tiny, helpless, need a lot of care and
attention. Even need their diapers changed, and a daily bath.
Same with a “new born” Christian. Takes a while for the training
activities of the Holy Spirit to make changes.
We expect pre-Adults to make lots of mistakes. Same in the Spiritual
growth. Takes a while to become a mature thinking, mature acting Adult.
Same with becoming a Mature Christian in Christ.
Just like living for humans is, it is a lifetime process to become a “Mature
And Sirge, if anyone wonders which law Paul is speaking of he lets us know here:
Romans 7: 6-7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
This is part of what Paul means by being under the Law/Torah. But, being under Law is also living under its authority, not only ethically, but as covenant arrangement and status. This is what Paul means in Galatians when he confronts the Gentile believers there with, “You who desire to be under the Law/Torah, do you not hear what it says?” They weren’t desiring to be under its condemnation; that would be nonsensical. They were desiring to come under its covenantal authority via circumcision for the status of belonging to the people of God. Paradoxically, the belonging that they were seeking to pursue through the Law is what Paul said would actually alienate them from God, and cause them to fall from grace.
In many ways, and through many metaphors in Galatians, Paul is saying that the time of the Law as an historical, covenantal arrangement to identify the people of God, and to be the letter that was to regulate their lives, was over. It was brought to fulfillment by Christ, and the giving of his Spirit as the one who was sufficient to form, to guide, and to empower the life of the believing community.
It was this that caused such a backlash from Jewish Christians, accusing Paul of preaching an antinomian gospel that would leave Gentile converts morally rudderless…the same accusations that Bill Sorensen is throwing out here. As Paul said, may it never be! The Spirit was enough to produce the fruit that God was seeking, the fruit of self giving and unifying love, against which, there was no law. The love that crossed the barriers of class, gender, ethnicity, and race, all huge gulfs in the ancient world. In fact, Paul said that if he were to preach the law as the condition to belong to the community of faith, bringing people under it again, he would be guilty of actually being a law breaker…putting up the walls that Christ and his Spirit had torn down.
This did not preclude Paul from drawing from the Law and the OT for ethical instruction. He did, as he also drew from other sources. But, he never imposed it, or its outward signs, such as circumcision, food laws, and holy times, upon Gentile believers as covenant condition. It’s nowhere to be found in his letters.
This on the ground 1st c. picture is a far different scenario than what the reformers, the contemporary Protestant church, and Adventism focus on concerning the law, the gospel, faith, and justification. It also leads to different applications concerning the life of the church, and individuals concerning these issues.
In the case of Adventism, it re-erects the walls through its own cherry picked version of Law and Old Covenant signs that Paul says the gospel of grace has torn down. It creates a divisive theology that sadly splits the denomination off from fellow Christian groups over disputable and ancillary matters from the law…as I’ve said many times here.
Also Acts 11 God tells Peter the Jew, hey, new plan for all, including the gentiles.
Frank, I’m still trying to figure out this whole law and covenant thingy. I wish I was as wise as you, but right now I don’t know all the nuances. Thank you for all the arguments! I appreciate your honesty that brings vulnerability. Your post is once more an excellent study manual for me.
No one is denying the power of Amazing Grace, Pat. It’s one of my favorites…and melodically came from a West African sorrow chant. The very melodies that Newton may have heard as a slave trader!