Bill Taylor wrote:
>>> The question is, why are they [infants] safe?
David Miller wrote:
>> Simple. They have not sinned.
Jonathan wrote:
> For all have sinned and fall short of the
> glory of God. This 'all' word seems to give
> you problems.
Not a bit of problem. Consider the context of Romans 3:23 that you
quote, and you will see that the message being communicated is that both
Jew and Gentiles have sinned and stand guilty before God. The point is
that just being a Jew and a child of Abraham does not excuse them.
We have talked about this word "all" before, and how it must be
understood in context with the meaning meant to be conveyed. Otherwise,
we will wrest the Scriptures to say things that they are not at all
saying.
Jonathan wrote:
> Are you saying that this sin that Paul
> speaks of is not enough sin to condemn
> us?
The sin that Paul speaks of, actual sin which a person commits, is
certainly enough to condemn. The point is that infants have not sinned
and are therefore not guilty before God.
Jonathan wrote:
> Note that I do not believe that babies are
> condemned as I am approaching it in the same
> fashion as Bill here.
Then if you try to use Romans 3:23 to argue that infants have sinned,
you need to use it to argue also that infants have fallen short of the
glory of God. Be consistent. If an infant has fallen short of the
glory of God, then such an infant is condemned. But you don't believe
that, so clearly you do not take Romans 3:23 as applying to infants
anymore than I do.
Nevertheless, I believe that the infant, as it grows, will commit sin.
At that point, Romans 3:23 applies to it. If you believe that the
infant is born already in Christ, then like the Pelagians, you must
think it possible for the infant never to sin, but to let the glory of
Christ live through him his whole life. Is that what you believe?
Jonathan wrote:
> A light bulb just clicked on for me. This helps me
> understand why you put so much primacy on works
> instead of the work done by Jesus Christ.
Interesting. I never considered myself to put a primacy on our works,
but rather on the work of Christ done for us and through us. If it
appears to you that I put a primacy on the work of Christ that manifests
itself through us, then perhaps that is the aspect of the gospel which
you have neglected? In other words, perhaps it is glaring at you, not
because I emphasize it, but because it is the area in which we differ.
David Miller wrote to Bill Taylor:
> You don't seem to make a distinction between the
> person who has committed sins deserving of death
> and the infant who has committed no sins. The
> former needs a way out of his problem, whereas
> the latter does not.
Jonathan wrote:
> This sounds much like how the RCC makes a difference
> between mortal and venal sin.
Not at all. I am saying that the infant has committed NO SIN, neither
mortal nor venial.
Jonathan wrote:
> How many categories of sin do you have?
Several.
Jonathan wrote:
> Some sins are worthy of death and others are not?
Right. 1 John 5:17, "... there is a sin not unto death."
Jonathan wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a 'white' lie?
> Are there different levels of sin?
> Where is the line that states one is now
> due judgment? When is a sin not a sin?
You are getting off subject now. :-) I can't tell if you are being
serious.
David Miller wrote:
> The gospel is for those who have found themselves
> sinners, those who have heard the law and have
> been convinced of their deserving damnation.
> Infants don't need any gospel, either first or second.
Jonathan wrote:
> Please note that it appears to me that you do have
> a second gospel. It would be the condition of faith
> (something the infant did not have). But I think you
> are saying here that infants do not need the gospel
> (meaning that they do not require Christ to do anything
> for them?).
Infants certainly need the work of Christ, but not that work that comes
through the gospel. The gospel leads to faith which then connects that
person to Christ and puts that person IN CHRIST and CHRIST IN THAT
PERSON.
The gospel without faith is dead and vain. It does nothing. Preach the
gospel to an infant until you are blue in the face. Will the preaching
of that gospel profit that infant? Certainly not. The gospel profits
those who can hear it and understand it and believe. Even those who
hear it and do not believe are not profited by the gospel. Without
faith in the hearer of the gospel, the gospel is useless. You might as
well read Shakespeare.
Jonathan wrote:
> We need to be careful with the flesh/spirit dualism that
> you have created here. I believe it is more appropriate
> to speak of humanity being born again, not just the spirit
> (or body).
And I think you need to be careful with ignoring the flesh / spirit
dualism that is taught in the Bible (esp. Romans 7). :-) It is very
clear to me from my study of Scripture that we are born again now in the
spirit, and we will be born again in the flesh in the resurrection.
There is a salvation of the spirit and there is a salvation of the body
(flesh). The salvation of the spirit happens now, immediately upon
believing and obeying the gospel. The salvation of the body happens
later, in the resurrection.
If you think you have been born again in both spirit and body right now,
I think you are sadly mistaken.
Bill Taylor wrote:
> He is our blood relative, the one who through his
> lineage is qualified to represent us all; thus
> when he defeats sin, death, and the devil, in his
> flesh he defeats these things in all flesh. All
> humanity is included in his humanity. When he died,
> we died. When he was raised we were raised. When
> he ascended we ascended. Our ontological status
> is in Christ Jesus:
David Miller wrote:
> Amen! This is Bible. ... I have preached this
> for decades. How do we get in Christ Jesus?
> By faith. We come into Adam by natural birth.
> We come into Christ by spiritual faith.
Jonathan wrote:
> I must disagree with you here. I very much doubt
> that this is what you have preached for decades.
> You add the condition of faith to what Bill said.
What kind of faithless gospel are you harping on? I don't mean that as
an insult, but to wake you up. Why would you want to REMOVE FAITH from
the preaching of Christ?
The Bible teaches that it is faith which puts us into Christ.
"That Christ may dwell in your hearts BY FAITH ..." (Ephesians 3:17 KJV)
"Therefore being justified BY FAITH ..." (Romans 5:1 KJV)
"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision BY FAITH,
and uncircumcision THROUGH FAITH." (Romans 3:30 KJV)
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16 KJV)
Now keep in mind that I do not always mention the need for faith when I
preach, but I believe it even when I don't talk about it.
Jonathan wrote:
> That addition is huge and completely changes what
> Bill said as well as your preaching.
If you read what Bill said, you should be able to see that my speaking
about faith does not change what Bill said one bit. I have preached
exactly what Bill has said many times and never added the idea of faith
to my message. Bill and I might indeed differ about what faith is and
how it operates, but we do not disagree on anything he said in my quote
of him given above.
Jonathan wrote:
> I think that you would rewrite it to state all
> who by faith accept Christ are included in his
> humanity.
I feel no desire at all to rewrite it. The gospel is not some formula
that we give out, and as long as all the i's are dotted and the t's are
crossed, it works. Many people in today's culture, when hearing what
Bill wrote, can respond with faith without even talking about it. While
I believe that faith is that necessary virtue that connects them to
Christ, I don't believe it is always necessary to harp on it. What is
important is its practice. Even if you were to claim that faith is not
necessary, and that is what you would truly believe, from my perspective
you could not be saved without it. If you said that you were saved and
yet at the same time maintained that you were not saved by faith, I
would conclude that either you practiced faith without believing in it,
or you were not really saved.
Jonathan wrote:
> That is radically different (and not Bible).
What is not Bible? It is not Bible to believe that faith places us in
Christ? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that we are
justified without faith? Do you believe that the faithless have eternal
life? What are you saying exactly. This is getting way out there.
Jonathan wrote:
> Let me confess something here. I have (as I would
> think most others have as well, at least any that
> I have spoken to about the subject) a stereotype
> of what a street preacher is like. Works and
> judgment and as much fear as possible are all
> wrapped up within the gospel that most who hear
> it are unable to see it. It does not appear as
> good news to them since there are a rare few in
> society that think that judgment and works are
> good news.
Well, that is a stereotype in certain situations, but not all. As
messengers of Christ, we tailor our message depending upon the venue.
When I preach in a city park to hundreds of homeless guys, your
characterization of my preaching is not at all right. Most of them know
they are sinners and have done wrong, so the law gets minimal time. On
the other hand, if I preach in front of the night clubs where Christians
go to party before going to church on Sunday, looking to get drunk, to
lust after flesh, or looking for someone who would like to fornicate
with them, then, yes, you will seen an emphasis on the law rather than
the gospel. This is because before a person can see their need for
Christ, they need to see first that they are sinners. Many there are
hypocrites in a vain religion, or they are not involved with religion at
all. The law acts like a plow, turning the soil, so that they might be
able to receive the gospel at a later time.
Also, please keep in mind that not all street preachers are the same or
minister the same. There are many who are not saved at all, but they
preach Christ out of contention and vain glory.
I remember once a young man rebuking me for preaching in a night club
district of Tampa called Ybor City. He was from a large church in Tampa
called, "Church without Walls" operated by Randy and Paula White. He
told me that he use to preach like me, and that he came to understand
that he was wrong and that it was the wrong approach. He argued that
what I was doing turned people away from Christ, and he pleaded with me
to stop. I told him that to subvert the way of a man in his cause, the
Lord did not approve. I appreciated his concern, but I had to obey God.
The problem was that he never really saw me preach. He never saw the
fruit of what I was doing. So as I continued on, he observed from the
back of the crowd. The next week, he returned with about 10 people. He
was telling everyone how I was a man of God and that they needed to
listen to what I was saying. What happened? Well, he said that his
first reaction to me was all based upon some guy who about a half mile
down the street told him some preacher over there was condemning
everyone for getting tattoos. So he ran down to straighten me out based
upon the reaction of that person. The truth was that someone in the
crowd kept pressing me to address tattoos. I was preaching within a
stone's throw of a tattoo parlor. So, I finally obliged him and read a
text from Leviticus and gave them God's perspective from the law
concerning tattoos. I instructed them that their bodies were created
not for fornication, not for markings and piercings, but to be temples
of the Holy Spirit of God. If they destroyed their bodies, or marked up
their bodies according to their own lust and desires, they were
destroying the Temple of God. So, yes, I had addressed this issue, but
not in the manner in which this man had thought. He never did hear me
address this issue himself, but he heard how I was ministering and he
saw the fruit of it in those who heard me. He became convinced that I
was indeed anointed of God to preach what I was preaching. The lesson
here is that this man apparently did not preach right and in time became
convicted and convinced of that, but he made the mistake of thinking
that all street preachers must be wrong. When he saw the anointing and
how it worked upon the hearts of people, he changed his mind and got
behind what I was doing.
Jonathan wrote:
> There are two major doctrines that run
> through scripture: justification and adoption.
> ... Adoption always comes first (tis grace).
> I think you would put justification first as well.
> 2 Cor 5:19 states: "For God was in Christ,
> reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting
> people's sins against them. This is the wonderful
> message he has given us to tell others." This is
> what Torrance is talking about, the gospel.
You are right. You cannot have adoption without justification, as this
passage you quote also says ('no longer counting people's sins against
them' = justification).
Peace be with you.
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
----------
"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.
