| Author | Message | ||
     Lynn Smith (Lynnx) |
"I counsel thee to buy of me... white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear..." Rev. 3:18 I'd be interested in hearing comments from any SDAs with thoughts about what the robe of righteousness is for, what it covers and what it doesn't cover. When I was TSDA I believed that when wearing it, past --"pre-justification-- sins would be covered and that any behavior that I wasn't yet aware was sinful would be covered, and that I would be allowed to slip up on occasion and still be covered, provided I repented. But I wasn't sure why I would even want to keep doing certain sins if I had really repented. At times I would feel like I had repented and gotten the victory but then it would sneak up on me again and I just couldn't seem to resist even though I knew it was wrong. that Jesus said we should forgive our brother 77 time but somehow when it came to ME, it seemed that believing that would be presumptuous. That it would mean I really wasn't sorry. Jesus said that obeying the law is a matter of the heart, the spirit -- not outward behavior. If you fail in one point you fail in all. A moment of angry rage is just as bad as killing someone, in God's eyes. I appreciated Sirje's points about what keeping the Sabbath really means. -- how many of those who wouldn't think of taking a test or working on the Sabbath really KEEP it holy? Even those who really and truly and honestly try, and are successful to a degree, fall into temptation. Can a leopard change it's spots? No. God is the only one who can cleanse the heart. When the heart is changed, the outward behavior follows. If a person will be lost unless they somehow "get" themselves to outwardly obey the law, that means that it is the act of forcing themselves to obey the law that saves them. There might be other good reasons to outwardly force yourself to obey the law but that isn't going to save you. | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) |
Here is a take on the robe of righteousness which I think is far more Biblical than the traditional version. http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/ROBE.htmThe Robe of Christ's Righteousness or the Covering of Forgiveness Christ's Death a Necessity. For a loving God to maintain His justice and righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal necessity." God's "Justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner's place, according to God's will. The atonement was necessary because man stood under the righteous wrath of God. Herein lies the heart of the gospel of forgiveness of sin and the mystery of the cross of Christ: Christ's perfect righteousness adequately satisfied divine justice, and God is willing to accept Christ's self-sacrifice in place of man's death." 5 (Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines Review and Herald Pub Assn. 1988.p.111 Footnote 5 refers to Hans K. LaRondelle, Christ Our Salvation Mountain View, CA; Pacific Press, 1980 pp.25, 26) ...We are covered with His garment of righteousness. When God looks at the believing, penitent sinner He sees, not the nakedness or deformity of sin, but the robe of righteousness formed by Christ's perfect obedience to the law. 12 None can be truly righteous unless covered by this robe. (P.114 footnote 12 refers to White, Christ's Object Lessons. p.312) One of the interesting tenets of those who hold to the substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ's Righteousness can be imputed into the Christian. One of the methods or illustrations, which is commonly used within the SDA community, is the idea that Christ covers our sinfulness with his righteousness. Using the parable of the wedding feast they determine that the robe the guest puts on is Christ's Righteousness. The parable found in Matt 22:1-14 1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' 5 "But they paid no attention and went off-- one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. 13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen." (NIV) To this the following verse is often related: I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Rev 3:18 (NIV) And Isaiah 61:10 I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NIV) It should be noted that the term Christ's Righteousness or even the Righteousness of Christ are not terms the Bible ever uses. Is the idea, common among SDA's that by accepting the Robe of Christ's Righteousness when God looks at the person, He sees Christ, actually what the Bible teaches? Some in theology call this a legal fiction; in other words we are not really righteous but God pretends that we are, Christ's righteousness substitutes for our sinfulness. The Bible however gives us a far simpler explanation then what the theologians of the past 500 years have envisioned. The Bible in several places speaks of those clothed in White, (Rev 3:4-5, 6:11,7:9,7:13-14,) unfortunately many people are missing the clear picture of the Bible in order to create a complex legal fiction. Let us try for a moment to look at these verses used above in a slightly different light. The light of forgiveness. Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (NIV) The following information on Forgiveness is from _The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7.It should help us see how these concepts work together. The Strong's number have been added in front of the words. "Forgiveness. In the O.T. several Hebrew roots contain the concept of "forgive". The verb 5545 calach (saw-lakh') a primitive root; to forgive: signifies literally "forgive, pardon" (Lev. 4:20, 26: I Kings 8:30, 34: Ps. 86:5: 103:3: Jer. 31:34). The root 3722 kaphar (kaw-far') (cover) which is used to express the idea of atonement or propitiation, in some cases means "forgive" (Ps. 65:3; 78:38;79:9; Isa. 6:7; 22:14; Jer. 18:23; Ezek. 16:63). The root 4229 machah (maw-khaw') signifies that sins may be wiped or blotted out (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 51:1; 109:14; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Jer. 18:23). The verb 3680 kacah (kaw-saw') suggests that sins may be covered or concealed (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 32:1; 85:3). The root 5375 nasa' (naw-saw') (lift up, take away) may also mean "forgive" (Gen. 50:17;Ex. 10:17; 32:32; 34:7; Ps. 32:5; 85:3). God forgives sin, but this presupposes repentance and prayer on the part of the sinner (Ps.51:1-17)." Forgiveness is the covering, the concealment, the blotting out or removal of sins. Think about how well the concept of forgiveness fits with those clothed in White, and those at the wedding feast. "The connection with the O.T. is evident when forgiveness is presented in the language of sacrifice (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:11-28). It is God's gracious pardon to sinful men and is effected through Christ and through faith in him (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18: Eph. 4:32; col. 1:9-14). In divine forgiveness the guilt and debt of sin are canceled, and repentant man is received back into fellowship with the Father. " (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7) continued in part 2 | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) |
Part 2 We who were enemies of God are offered forgiveness and acceptance back into a relationship with God. "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."( Col 1:21-23 NIV) Christ who while enduring physical torture on the cross lovingly offered them His forgiveness. Showing all who are willing to see that God is in fact loving, forgiving, and accepting, the return of his prodigal sons. The author of life killed by His creation, though He was rejected He continues to offer reconciliation, and forgiveness. "You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see." (Acts 3:14-16 NIV) It is the Righteousness of God, the grace, the love which offers us the "garments of salvation" the forgiveness which is offered to all who are willing to accept His gift. A gift at present we can only see by faith based upon the evidence which Christ brought to us by His life death and resurrection. A faith in the character of our God. "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin." ( I Jn 3:2-5. NIV) The following quote from a nineteenth century shows how misleading the doctrine of the Robe of Christ's Righteousness can become. "The Lord Jesus Christ has prepared a covering, the robe of his own righteousness, that he will put on every repenting, believing soul who by faith will receive it. Said John, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Sin is the transgression of the law; but Christ died to make it possible for every man to have his sins taken away. A fig-leaf apron will never cover our nakedness. Sin must be taken away, the garment of Christ's righteousness must cover the transgressor of God's law. Then when the Lord looks upon the believing sinner, he sees, not the fig-leaves covering him, but his own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah." The legal fiction of a God who needs to pretend that the Christian is perfectly obedient to the Laws. Instead of a God who sees our imperfections yet offers us forgiveness and reconciliation out of His love. No games, no legal maneuvers are necessary for God to forgive and accept us back from our wanderings in a far country. Just love. Can God who is righteous just forgive us sinners? Don't we need some sort of legal action such as Forensic Justification to declare us right with God? The answer is found in the nature of God, He is righteous, everything He does is righteous. God asks us to move beyond the challenges which the nation of Israel dealt with. "And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness."(Deut 6:25 NIV) To a righteousness that is based upon who God is. Jeremiah prophesied of that day; "In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'" ( Jer 33:16 NIV) And Paul explained it further; "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-- that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."' ( 1 Cor 1:30-31 NIV) So is forgiveness enough? "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (Gal 2:16 NIV) "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--" (Eph 2:8 NIV) "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God." (Rom 5:1-2 NIV) It may very well be that every person is forgiven by God, yet unless that forgiveness is accepted it does little good. Those who accept the forgiveness understand that they are at peace with God. If a person can have the faith or trust in God to believe that God has forgiven them, they would also have the trust in God that is their hope be a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). To accept forgiveness the person must acknowledge that they have been in rebellion against the ways of God, they are sinners. As Paul wrote: "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" (Rom 2:4 NIV) Remember earlier to poetic words of Isaiah 61:10: I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NIV) A common practice in the Bible literature is the use of couplets, repeating phrases with slightly different words to emphasize the meaning. Notice how the only instance in the Bible where the phrase Robe of Righteousness is used. 1. delight in the Lord.....soul rejoices in God 2. clothed me in garments of salvation.....arrayed in robe of righteousness 3. bridegroom adorns head......bride adorns with jewels. Salvation is the robe of righteousness, as we have seen above the covering is in fact forgiveness. See how John emphasizes his point in I John 1:9-10: " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." (NIV) He forgives us and purifies us from all unrighteousness. We tend to separate the two phrases instead of noticing how they are both saying the same thing (forgive and purify). It calls our attention back to the many Old Testament references on forgiveness. There is clear correlation between the covering symbolism of the Old Testament with forgiveness, but not a clear connection with the concept of imputed righteousness. Imputed Righteousness may and certainly has been developed from other Bible texts. But it does not have the simple direct connection which is found in the symbols of forgiveness. Is the forgiven person safe to save (that phrase so many SDA's love), no it is only those who by faith in God accept the forgiveness of God. That is Justification by faith, not a legal maneuver, but a grant of supreme love which removes enmity between us and God. Demonstrated to all by the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ | ||
| Greg Travillian (Gregtravillian) |
Bill, when you say you keep Christ's commandments found in the Sermon on the Mount, does that mean you would loan me a large sum of money if I asked you for it? Would you not contest it if I sued you? Greg T. | ||
| Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen) |
Bill, when you say you keep Christ's commandments found in the Sermon on the Mount, does that mean you would loan me a large sum of money if I asked you for it? Would you not contest it if I sued you? Greg T. Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it Greg????? But any one who professes the Christian faith and rejects the sermon on the Mt. as non-applicable to themselves is deceived, eh???? How we apply the law in any given situation is relative in the human experience. But every Christian recognizes the principles are not altered just because they "come short". Superfical theology leads to a superfical experience. Some would suggest that when and if your name comes up in judgment before God, Jesus simply inserts himself in your place and you are not judged. Now that's superficial theology. That convolutes justification by faith alone with sanctification by faith and works. It simply uses the gospel to negate the law in the human experience. And such theology is not only superficial, but heretical. And anyone who denies the Christian community must stand before God and have their life reviewed with the purpose of determing who will go to heaven and who will not is a heretic. People may make a correct statement and then draw a faulty, or even heretical conclusion. Such as......"there is no merit in human works." And then conclude human works have no value at all. While there is truly no merit in human works whereby we can earn heaven, there is always moral value in the human response to the gospel. Love has value. So does faith as well as other Christian virtues. Faith has instrumental value for it attaches us to Christ. And love has relationship value that covers a whole spectrum of meanings. Destroy or negate and deny this value and you negate the human response and any value attached to it. The final end is universalism. God saved the world. What does it matter if I respond or not?????? But salvation is more comprehensive than God's work for us in Christ. It includes the human response and the proper form of that response. Thus, sanctification is salvational in its own right. Not that we can merit heaven by sanctfication, but unless we accept the moral obligation to respond in a biblical way to the gospel, we are not saved no matter how many times we affirm our "faith" in the gospel. This truth is being attacked by many in the church God raised up to affirm this very fact. Bible Adventism is a third use of the law system and in perfect harmony with historic Protestantism. But today apostate Protestantism has gained such a strong foothold in our church, people are called "legalists" who defend human accountability in the salvation process. Had the fundmental Brinsmead "awakening" been accepted and acted on we would not be where we are today. And maybe Brinsmead himself would still be a Christian. That's water under the bridge. All we can do now if we hope to preserve the truth in the church is re-affirm our fundmental Protestant message based on first, second, and third use of the law in our Protestant heritage. "The curse causeless shall not come." Solomon Sorensen | ||
| Greg Travillian (Gregtravillian) |
Bill, it sounds as though you are waffling on obedience to those particular commandments (if you can find where Jesus said there were exceptions to these commandments based on the circumstances at hand, please share it with the rest of us). Based on your theology, wouldn't this disqualify you from heaven? Greg T. | ||
| Lynn Smith (Lynnx) |
Ron, an interesting interpretation of scripture that I don't feel inclined to argue with. It does seem irrational to think of God playing with his vision like that (only seeing Jesus'character when he looks at "saved" individuals) why, in order to spare himself the view of his children's real condition, because he can't bear to look at sin?-- when at the same time we're told he sees and is aware of everything. Unless he's schizophrenic? The concept of forgiveness itself brings up a lot of other questions. Like, "Did Jesus really believe the Jews who were asking for his crucifixion didn't know what they were doing and therefore should be forgiven?" "Is there a difference between forgiven and pardoned or excused, in God's sight?" Does "forgiven" equal "saved'? and "Why did Jesus give the disciples the power to remit or retain sins? Doesn't that differ from the Protestant view that only God has that power? In an earlier discussion, Jodi said she thought it could mean that if sins weren't forgiven they would remain as a barrier in a relationship. While there is much truth in that, I'm not convinced that was what Jesus or whoever expressed that thought meant to convey. Any thoughts? | ||
| Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey) |
Bill. Saying there is no merit in the good works necessary to pass the investigative judgement, no merit in the good works necessary to advance far enough in sanctification to be pronounced finally saved and have your sins blotted out, makes NO sence to me. IF the works are necessary for final salvation, the blotting out of sin, the final atonement and passing the investigative judgement, then they most certainly have merit. Adventists who tell me righetousness by faith also includes good works, but they have no merit, or we too believe in sola scriptura or Bible alone or the inspired Word of God is the Old and New Testements only, BUT we also believe the wrtings of Ellen White are inspried just like the Bible and are authoritative just like the Bible and a continuing source of truth in addition to the Bible, may not be heritcs, may not be cultic and may not be legalistic, but they SURE DON'T MAKE NO SENCE TO ME!! The protestant battle cry is: Grace ALONE Faith ALONE Christ ALONE Scripture ALONE. But so nobody is confused, me must break it down. Grace alone doens't really mean the unmerited favor of God or salvation as a gift of God through faith in Christ. It actually means God provides the power through His grace, IF WE CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT, to do the good works we must perform and keep the law, for without those good works and obedience to the 10 commandments, salvation is lost or never really obtained in the first place. Scripture alone means the Word of God was complete with the book of Revelation and it is to be your only authority in matters of the Christian faith and doctrine. But because you don't make the Bible your life's study or you don't understand what it really teaches, God has inspired another set of writings that are authoritative and a continuing source of truth. The writings of Ellen White aka the Spirit of Prophecy. The Bible does not say God will not speak again through the written page and in the endtimes He has. But do not let the apostate Sunday keeping protestant denominations convince you that you have an extra-Bibical authority and are NOT sola scriptura just because you have an extra-Bibical authority. ================= This is like the elephant in the living room that is really not there. It takes up 70 per cent of the room in the room, knocks down the furniture, slings hay all over the floor and sounds like a big horn blowing off and on all night, but you refuse to admit that you have an elephant in your house and you insist to your neighbors that you live alone. ____________________ Also I have never seen anything written by any of the leading protestants from Luther down to Billy Graham that sanctification is by faith plus works or is not by faith alone. In addition, I've been looking through my copy of Questions on Doctrine and so far I haven't found it clearly stated that something salvational, such as sanctification, is by grace plus works or faith plus works. Questions on Doctrine, in not a few places, makes statements about salvation being completely by grace alone. That good works, no matter how many and how wonderful, has any part in obtaining salvation as salvation is not something you earn, it is something you receive. Also Questions on Doctrine says the law ONLY points out sin and shows God's perfection. It has no power to save, to wash, to cleans. On page 102 of Questions on Doctrine we read: We, as Advenitsts, definitely believe that which saves is GRACE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE IN THE LIVING CHRIST. And similary, that which justifies is His free and blessed grace. We likewise believe in WORKS and in full obedience to the will and commandments of God. BUT THE WORKS IN WHICH WE BELIEVE, AND THAT WE SEEK TO PERFORM, are the RESULT, OR FRUITAGE(FRUIT) OF SALVATIION, not a MEANS of salvation, in whole or in part. And the obedience that we render is the loving response of a life that has been saved by GRACE ALONE. Salvation is NEVER EARNED; it is received as a gift from God through Jesus Christ. Otherwise, however sincere the effort on the part of man may be, works frustrate the grace of God." Can you say amen to that quote from Questions on Doctrine? | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) |
lynn wrote: Does "forgiven" equal "saved'? Yes because it takes faith to accept forgiveness, it takes trust to accept that you can be forgiven. It takes the ability to acknowledge that there is someone who loves you, someone who will forgive you and accept you back, reconciliation. In other words to be forgiven is to accept God at his word. It is faith in God. | ||
| Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen) |
On page 102 of Questions on Doctrine we read: We, as Advenitsts, definitely believe that which saves is GRACE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE IN THE LIVING CHRIST. And similary, that which justifies is His free and blessed grace. We likewise believe in WORKS and in full obedience to the will and commandments of God. BUT THE WORKS IN WHICH WE BELIEVE, AND THAT WE SEEK TO PERFORM, are the RESULT, OR FRUITAGE(FRUIT) OF SALVATIION, not a MEANS of salvation, in whole or in part. And the obedience that we render is the loving response of a life that has been saved by GRACE ALONE. Salvation is NEVER EARNED; it is received as a gift from God through Jesus Christ. Otherwise, however sincere the effort on the part of man may be, works frustrate the grace of God." Can you say amen to that quote from Questions on Doctrine? Not unless the statement is qualified to fit the biblical norm, Robert. God has ordained what is known as "means of grace" and these means of grace are mandatory to both become a Christian and to remain one. Paul mentions the "foolishness of preaching" as one of the primary means of grace. We could add, read your bible, pray, go to church, and a host of other Christian activities that make up the "means of grace" that all may come to know Jesus and accept Him. None of these are the meritorious cause of salvation but all are the instrumental cause. If you can not comprehend this concept, then the whole bible must necessarily be a mystery beyond your ken. Now you mention "faith" and I suppose you will admit of its necessity to be a Christian. Are you suggesting there is "merit" in faith since you assume any requirement for salvation placed on man has merit????? You have created a dilemma for yourself if you admit faith is a requirement and then deny faith has merit. According to your theory, any condition or requirement we must act upon to be saved must necessarily have merit. But it does not. Any and all of the means of grace are mandatory to both obtain salvation and also to retain the same. Yet no means of grace is the meritorious cause of our salvation. Thus the reformers reference to Christ was not a denial of the means of grace but a simple affirmation that Christ alone merited our salvation in contrast to Rome who taught that all the means of grace had merit as well. This is why the reformers were very definitive in explaining justification vs. sanctification. And the phrase "righteousness by faith alone" was always justification alone. They never lumped sanctification in the phrase "faith alone" for they knew such a definition would be antinomian. Thus in all the major Protestant confessions of faith is articulated what is know as the first, second, and third use of the law. These clearly defined applications of the law could and would perserve the Christan community from theological apostacy. The third use is almost universally denied in many if not most Protestant communities today. A sad commentary on any denomination who claims to hold the historic Protestant faith. And if you can not understand what is written above, you can never understand bible Adventism which is primarly a third use of the law system of doctrine and theology. We by no means deny the second or the first use of the law. We simply affirm the third use which has special reference to sanctification and a judgment according to the works of the Christian community. Which judgment is the determining factor of true faith and thus determines who will go to heaven and who won't. Sorensen | ||
| Devon Gordon (Pilgrim) |
Bill, Not trying to argue with you, just to share my understanding of faith. I have been taught that faith is necessary for Salvation; this saving faith is itself a gift from God. Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus:
He also wrote the following to the church in Rome:
No one can claim any merit in his lawkeeping, the standard is 100%. Everyone falls short. This line of argument will fall flat with God so we might as well keep our mouths shut, rather than boast about our lawkeeping. To the Galatian church, he wrote:
I believe that as Christians, we are called to a higher standard, and that standard is to walk in the Spirit. Personally, some days this is harder than others, but I have found a direct relationship with my devotional life. Prayerfully read through the entire Sermon on the Mount. I think you will find that the standard is elevated or is much higher than people realize. This is just one last passage for your consideration:
Have you ever given thought to the idea that there is more than one judgment? Judgment as far as Salvation is concerned, is related to one’s acceptance or rejection of Christ. Grace, Peace and liberty, never, ever, license, Devon | ||
| Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey) |
Devon. Good post. It is difficult to argue with Paul:-) Bill. Also a good post. I think I agree with what you presented. And I'm aware the majority of protestants, now and in the past, take the postion that righteousness by faith is justification only. This is the case for two main reasons. One is sanctification has to do with our fitness for heaven and our development or progress in living the Christian life. So it involves good works and obedience. The other is sanctification is never complete in this life. We are still waring in sinful flesh and fall short. Therefore when the Christian dies, the imputed, not imparted, righteousness of Christ is the only thing that stands between the Christian and eternal death. For to stand before a Holy God in heaven someday, we must be holy and perfect. And that is found ONLY in the imputed righteousness of Christ. So my understanding is when God looks upon the Christian on judgement day, He sees perfection and holiness. Not ours though. The holiness and perfection is not ours, for it is alien to us. It is the perfection and holiness of Christ given to us by grace and faith alone. Guess I loose you with the thrid use of the law. I cannot fit a judgement of works for final salvation into my theology at this point. At this point in my theology, good works and obiedence (living the Christian life) is the fruit of salvation in Christ and is what our fellow man sees and our fellow man can judge the person's profession of faith. And I'm not saying our fellow man will not see some failures. A Christian may fall into dark sin. But certainly a real Christian will not be happy there and repent and ask for forgiveness and restoration. But to God, our good works and obedience don't count for anything. No merit. No favor from God. Why? Because it falls short. It's not good enough. Only the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us by the saviour, that is why He is the Saviour, is the only thing the counts. I know an earlier poster rejects that view. I can't remember which one, but it's the only thing that makes sence to me and it is widely accepted in many protestant circles. But I do agree that one can not claim the imputed righteousness of Christ without true conversion. And true conversion involves good works and obedience here on earth. I guess in away the Christian chooses to do those good works and obey Christ as Lord, but the motivation is love from a converted heart. That is why it is called the "fruit" of salvation rather than part of the "cause or root" of salvation. Now is faith or repentance a work or a deed of merit. No I don't think so. Calvin felt a man couldn't even respond to the gospel and repent and be converted unless the person is moved and courted if you will, by the Holy Spirit. In other words, if we were left to just making a mental choice, most, to Calvin's way of thinking, would reject the gospel and remain in control of their lives. Also most protestants feel the heart of the entire New Testement is the book of Romans. There the gospel and the Christian view of salvation is presented unlike it is in any other part of the Bible and certainly in any other book ever written by the hand of man. | ||
| Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen) |
Well, Robert, I would say any illustration from the bible must be understood in the context and the purpose for which it was given. That sanctification is the "fruit" of justification is correct as long as we don't try to push the illustration beyond its biblical meaning. An apple tree has apples and the apples have no mind or will to decide otherwise. This can not be said of sanctification in all its biblical ramifications. An apple on a tree is a natural law "happening". And some aspects of sanctification fit this illustrating. But it hardly fits all that the bible conveys about sanctification. Sanctification is also a moral law imperative whereby a human being is required to choose and act. This aspect of sanctification fits the 3rd use of the law concept whereby the law remains the objective guide to lead a believer into a proper biblical relationship with Christ. All aspects of sanctification are not "automatic". If so.....then all we have to do is believe and no further exhortation is necessary. So while sanctification is the "fruit" of justification in that it follows the gospel, we must not push the illustration beyond its biblical meaning and application. If we do, we will destroy the moral accountability of man and thus no necessity for a judgment according to works. How could we understand Paul who so clearly tells us justification is by faith alone and then exhorts us to "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling....." Unless we understand that in this context Paul is not speaking about justification and a title to heaven, but rather he is speaking about sanctification and how a believer is to obtain a "fitness" for heaven. But you notice he still uses the word "salvation." So salvation is obviously more comprehensive than justification. It is not solely a legal right, but also a moral fitness. As I have often instructed my bible class, we must remember Jesus is both a lawyer and also a doctor. Unless both aspects of redemption are understood in their biblical context we can only convolute the word of God. So no one can obtain a fitness by "faith alone" but must work, strive, and labor to emulate the life of Christ and reflect His image more fully day by day. This is bible sanctification and just as much a part of salvation as justification. So.....contrary to an apple on an apple tree, we must choose not only to accept Jesus but to purpose in our hearts to do His will. An apple does not choose to be an apple. But a Christian must choose to be a Christian. So the natural law illustration has validity only if it remains in its true biblical context. We can certainly affirm certain natural law applications of sanctification in light of the gospel but not to the point of denying the moral law imperatives. And this is what much of modern Christanity is doing today. Morris Venden is classic in the SDA church of perverting and warping the doctrine of sanctification. His doctrine of sanctification by faith alone is typical of antinomian apostacy that has been exposed and opposed by fundamental Protestant scholars down through the centuries. I contend we must be very definitive in expressing and explaining our theology so as not to confuse things that differ, or, seperate that which God has joined together. While Rome tended to mix and mingle the two concepts together and convolute both, modern Protestantism tends to seperate the two in such a way as to have us believe we can have justification without sanctification. Neither view is correct and both are far from the biblical norm. We need distinction without seperation. Each must be explained in such as way that shows the necessity for both without mingling them together in such a way they lose their individual identity. The sovereignty of God and the sovereignty man must be maintained in a proper biblical context. Suffice it to say, man can only be as free as God ordains for him to be. But when freedom comes, we are responsible to act according to the biblical norm or be lost. God will never force the will. He would rather die first. Sorensen |
