Old Testament salvation

[Pleroo]

LOL, true, blame it on her.

As for Yeshua having fulfilled it, He has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, as in doing what was required of HIM to be that sacrifice for us, but He is still fulfilling the Law within and through us, so it's not an immediate thing IMO.
Or else we'd all be grown up the minute we accept His salvation and not sin no more, but you and i both know we all still sin.. so it's an ongoing process of sanctification til we are either dead or stand before God's judgment.


Just my opinion.

Shalom,
Tanja

Okay, this is a bit of a red herring. ( I'm studying logic with my kids lately, so forgive me for getting a kick out of being able to identify that. ) I never said our sanctification was not an ongoing process, so not sure why you're bringing that up. The point we were discussing was that it is Christ's righteousness, not our own, which brings salvation.

[Teke]

Teke, as usual, most of what you're writing is beyond me, so I'll just focus on what I'm getting out of it. If I'm wrong about what you're saying, you can correct me.

What I'm seeing, again, is this idea of leniency. That God looks at us in our weakness and chooses to lower the bar for us, bring righteousness within our grasp. And, hey, if it's still too difficult for us, no worries, because He knows we tried really hard so He'll be even more lenient with us.

Actually, that's what I'm getting from Tanja too. Just try, and try harder and that is how we'll please God and secure His leniency toward us.

Here's the thing -- I don't want leniency. I want salvation! And that is what the Father has promised me in Jesus Christ. In HIM I have righteousness that has not been watered down to accomodate my weakness. His Spirit has come into union with my spirit, making me a new creature. And His Spirit within me is overcoming all within me that is unholy. I have the expectation of total and complete salvation as I abide in Christ, not just a pat on the head and shallow assurances that I tried hard so I'm not going to hell.

That isn't salvation. God, in His mercy, will not leave me as I am, nor leave me to secure my own half-baked salvation from sin. CHRIST'S righteousness within me overcoming everything that separates me from Him -- that is salvation.

Nobody had to do anything for the Incarnation to occur. I tried to explain from the perspective of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and what that means.
It is not my desire to formulate some doctrinal formula for salvation.
The Father revealed the Son to me, and that is all I believe is necessary for me to understand.

You are even further beyond my understanding you if you already know all there is to know about Jesus, and now can move onto greater understanding.

I can only explain scripture in relation to Christ, not mine or yours or anyone else's salvation.

Forgive me if I added to the confusion.

[Jesusinmyheart]

Pleroo,

I ditto the red Hering on your statement:

The point we were discussing was that it is Christ's righteousness, not our own, which brings salvation.

That statement i totally agree, with, but you and Toolman seem to think by my doing God's works i am somehow trying to transfer that salvation to myself, which i am not. I have gone through great lenghts to explain that my position on that is no different than yours, only my understanding of how that comes about and what my part is in that is different.

It is not my own works when i say i'm doing what God told me to do. And if i follow the Word, i'm still not doing my own works, but His, which He laid out to do from the beginning, of which the foundation is Yeshua, who is Love, Grace, Truth, and Life, and many more things.

Shalom,
Tanja

[Jesusinmyheart]

Actually, that's what I'm getting from Tanja too. Just try, and try harder and that is how we'll please God and secure His leniency toward us.

Ok, for that i have 2 quotes, which Project Peter and literaryjoe once used to have as their taglines:

Grace is not opposed to obedience, but to earning Salvation.

IOW obedience constitutes actions that are deeds/works in line with God's Word.

A.W. Tozer said, "To escape the error of salvation by works we have fallen into the opposite error of salvation without obedience.”

You guys just misunderstand how this works out in my Faith in God. (no pun intended)

I think the major problem you have is with the word "works", as if they were something abhorrent and downright evil to God.

Pro 24:12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?

This goes both ways... God will repay each man for his work, according to whether this was evil or good.


Shalom,
Tanja

[drew]

To all those who think that our justification has no dependency on how we actually live out our lives, can you please provide an explanation as to how you deal with such texts from Romans 2 as the following:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

I believe that Toolman argues that this material describes a non-existent category of persons - that this is a description of how we would be saved if indeed we could be saved that way. At the risk of being seen to "pick on" this position, I cannot underestimate how dubious it is to take this position simply because other texts that basically say "we are saved by faith and not works". This produces a very odd exegesis where one is forced to argue that Paul does not mean what he actually says in Romans 2, without any justification at all except that other statements of Paul seem to contradict the Romans 2 stuff, so we will accept those other statements and basically reject the ones in Romans 2.

The critical reader will ask: How do you decide to accept one set and reject the other? Why not do it the other way around - accept Romans 2 and reject as "hypothetical" those "faith not works" statements?

In my view, we must come up with an understanding of justification that makes sense of all the texts.

I guess this post is a restatement of things I have already written. I just think it needs to be made clear at what cost the "works do not matter for justification" position is purchased. It appears to be purchased by saying something like "Paul really did not means what he says in Romans 2".

I am just not willing to go there. Even though the NT Wright position is complex and somewhat obscure, I will take it over what I see as a position that requires that certain texts be relativized.

[Toolman]

In my view, we must come up with an understanding of justification that makes sense of all the texts.

The reformed view of justification does make sense. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean that is not logical and biblical.

[Pleroo]

Nobody had to do anything for the Incarnation to occur. I tried to explain from the perspective of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and what that means.

I'm sorry I have caused you frustration to the point of giving up, Teke. I answered the best I could based on what I understood you to be saying. I also don't know where I said or implied that anyone had to do anything for the Incarnation to occur. I am in complete agreement with you that God has come to us where we are, but I simply don't believe that means He intends to leave us where we are and that was the point I was making.

It is not my desire to formulate some doctrinal formula for salvation.

I hope you don't think I was asking you to. I shared what I did with a passionate gratefulness for God's zeal in saving mankind fully and completely from our fall into sin and self-reliance, and His zeal for restoring us into unbroken union with Him. Honestly, I thought if anyone would appreciate gratitude for restored union, it would be you Teke.

The Father revealed the Son to me, and that is all I believe is necessary for me to understand.

You are even further beyond my understanding you if you already know all there is to know about Jesus, and now can move onto greater understanding.

I apologize that, in my very real joy over the salvation we have in Christ, I came off arrogant or as if I think I know all that there is to know of Him. I certainly don't. If I did, my salvation would be complete and it is not.

I can only explain scripture in relation to Christ, not mine or yours or anyone else's salvation.

Okay. But since salvation is of Christ, then surely we can also explain salvation in relation to Christ from Scripture.

Forgive me if I added to the confusion.

Absolutely. (And I know you also forgive me. )

[Partaker of Christ]

I haven't forgotten anything but only can see what I read you saying and you have consistently stated that we are not justified by faith in Christ alone but by a combination of faith and works we earn something from God.

Paul states clearly against that position in Romans 4:

4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

You are saying that we are saved by God because of a earning not because of grace.



I understand it for what it is. All I can do is read what you state and IMO you have been very clear on your position.



I'm not sure what that means. God forgives sin.



Christ forgives all sin, I don't see His atonement as somehow limited to only our shortcomings despite our best efforts.



If He paid the price for our sin then that is forgiveness



Salvation is made up of 3 distinct, yet inseparable events:

Justification: - We are delivered from the Penalty of sin. The act of God forgiving ALL our sin and lawless deeds and declaring us righteous. This is what puts us in a right standing with God, to be righteous. God declares us just as pure, holy and righteous as Jesus Christ himself because of the sacrifice of Christ. This is also called "imputed righteousness". God gives Christ's righteousness to us, we do not earn it. This act happens at the very moment a person places faith in Christ(trust). All that is required to justify a person before God is to trust in the person and work of Christ alone.
Also called "positional sanctification".

Sanctification: - We are being delivered from the Power of sin. This is the process, in this life, of being conformed to the image of Christ. We come to realize more and more just how sinful and in need of a savior we are. God begins to work in our will to show us our great need for Him and to change our will to follow and obey Him. This is a daily process for the duration of earthly life.
Also called "progressive sanctification".

Glorification: - We will be delivered from the Presence of sin.This is the final part of salvation when God will complete redemption of His believers and actually remove sin and satan, establish His everlasting kingdom and resurrect the saints to their new bodies.
Also called "completed sanctification".

Absolutely correct Toolman!!

Man's problem is not only what we do, but what we are, and were we are.

Sin's we commit are the result (natural works) of our fallen sinful nature.

The Blood of Christ delivers us from the 'Penalty' of our works of sin (fruits of the bad tree)

The Cross delivers us from the 'Power' of the sinful nature (the bad tree)

The Resurection will deliver us from the 'Presence' of sin.

The promises of God are Yes Yes!!

[drew]

The reformed view of justification does make sense. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean that is not logical and biblical.

If this is so - if the reformed view of justification makes sense - then someone should be able to actually articulate it through some means other than simply claiming that in Romans 2, Paul is referring to a hypothetical set of persons of which no human beings are a member.

If there is a better explanation for rejecting the plain reading of statements like....:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

...then by all means, please provide it. As it stands the "reformed view" of justification seems to require that we ascribe a very strange behaviour to Paul here - that he is inventing a category of people that do not exist and then explaining how that category of people, and not us, are justified.

If there is an actual justification for this move - if Paul anywhere actually says that he is now talking about a hypothetical set of people - then the view would have some traction.

Without such justification, this kind of maneuvering can be used to say that any statement in Scripture refers to a hypothetical set of persons that do not exist.

I suggest that we can forge a view that is true to Romans 2 and all the other texts which say "its all about faith". One such view, I suggest, is NT Wright's "present justification - future justification" picture.

[Teke]

I'm sorry I have caused you frustration to the point of giving up, Teke. I answered the best I could based on what I understood you to be saying. I also don't know where I said or implied that anyone had to do anything for the Incarnation to occur. I am in complete agreement with you that God has come to us where we are, but I simply don't believe that means He intends to leave us where we are and that was the point I was making.

I tend to back out of these discussions once they start to be more about formulating and categorizing the text than Christ. So if "lenience" is all you understood from the many scriptures and examples from scripture I gave on "economia" as it relates to God showing His mercy for us by the Incarnation, what else can I say.

But let me address what you've said here. If God put us here, and then comes to us, why wouldn't He not leave us where He put us. IOW why come to us if He isn't leaving us where we are.

I am the same person that I was the day the Father showed me the Son. Have I missed (been left behind) something.

I hope you don't think I was asking you to. I shared what I did with a passionate gratefulness for God's zeal in saving mankind fully and completely from our fall into sin and self-reliance, and His zeal for restoring us into unbroken union with Him. Honestly, I thought if anyone would appreciate gratitude for restored union, it would be you Teke.

Sure we can appreciate the restored union, but do we understand that, which is Christ.
You previously said, "Here's the thing -- I don't want leniency. I want salvation! And that is what the Father has promised me in Jesus Christ. In HIM I have righteousness that has not been watered down to accomodate my weakness. His Spirit has come into union with my spirit, making me a new creature. And His Spirit within me is overcoming all within me that is unholy. I have the expectation of total and complete salvation as I abide in Christ, not just a pat on the head and shallow assurances that I tried hard so I'm not going to hell."

What can I say to one who doesn't want "leniency" (Gr. economia, aka God's mercy). What is salvation except God's mercy shown to us through Jesus Christ.
Righteousness is of God, how does one water down righteousness. He has accommodated (reconciled) our weakness because He is a lover of mankind and has always had compassion towards us (ie. He first loved us).

Okay. But since salvation is of Christ, then surely we can also explain salvation in relation to Christ from Scripture.

Perhaps I missed the boat on this one in my own experience. Let me explain a bit. The Father didn't reveal the Son to me in a sermon about salvation. And when He did reveal the Son to me, I didn't go find a church to explain "salvation" to me. Although that is what all the evangelical churches wanted to do.

I wasn't looking for some sort of behavioral theology science (why would I, God put me in a family who raised me the way He knew would be best for me). I wanted to be baptized and learn about the Son. My seeking Christ has never ceased.

So while I agree we can explain salvation in relation to Christ from scripture, I believe we are to do so by explaining Christ. Explaining Jesus Christ is explaining salvation IMHO. If I can do that, I do not need to explain myself in my salvation.

[Partaker of Christ]

I tend to back out of these discussions once they start to be more about formulating and categorizing the text than Christ. So if "lenience" is all you understood from the many scriptures and examples from scripture I gave on "economia" as it relates to God showing His mercy for us by the Incarnation, what else can I say.

But let me address what you've said here. If God put us here, and then comes to us, why wouldn't He not leave us where He put us. IOW why come to us if He isn't leaving us where we are.

I am the same person that I was the day the Father showed me the Son. Have I missed (been left behind) something.


Sure we can appreciate the restored union, but do we understand that, which is Christ.
You previously said, "Here's the thing -- I don't want leniency. I want salvation! And that is what the Father has promised me in Jesus Christ. In HIM I have righteousness that has not been watered down to accomodate my weakness. His Spirit has come into union with my spirit, making me a new creature. And His Spirit within me is overcoming all within me that is unholy. I have the expectation of total and complete salvation as I abide in Christ, not just a pat on the head and shallow assurances that I tried hard so I'm not going to hell."

What can I say to one who doesn't want "leniency" (Gr. economia, aka God's mercy). What is salvation except God's mercy shown to us through Jesus Christ.
Righteousness is of God, how does one water down righteousness. He has accommodated (reconciled) our weakness because He is a lover of mankind and has always had compassion towards us (ie. He first loved us).





Perhaps I missed the boat on this one in my own experience. Let me explain a bit. The Father didn't reveal the Son to me in a sermon about salvation. And when He did reveal the Son to me, I didn't go find a church to explain "salvation" to me. Although that is what all the evangelical churches wanted to do.

I wasn't looking for some sort of behavioral theology science (why would I, God put me in a family who raised me the way He knew would be best for me). I wanted to be baptized and learn about the Son. My seeking Christ has never ceased.

So while I agree we can explain salvation in relation to Christ from scripture, I believe we are to do so by explaining Christ. Explaining Jesus Christ is explaining salvation IMHO. If I can do that, I do not need to explain myself in my salvation.

Just a quick reply for now:

I think I understand what you are saying. (or may be not )

We can become more concerned about the 'things' of Christ, then Christ Himself.
All what we are and need are 'in Christ'
If we have Christ, we have Salvation, If we have Salvation, we have Christ.
We don't need more 'things', we need more Christ.
The more we see Him, the more we will be like Him, and one day we will see Him, face to face and be fully changed.

Sorry this is rushed but I have to go for now.

[Pleroo]

Just a quick reply for now:

I think I understand what you are saying. (or may be not )

We can become more concerned about the 'things' of Christ, then Christ Himself.
All what we are and need are 'in Christ'
If we have Christ, we have Salvation, If we have Salvation, we have Christ.
We don't need more 'things', we need more Christ.
The more we see Him, the more we will be like Him, and one day we will see Him, face to face and be fully changed.

Sorry this is rushed but I have to go for now.

Well, shoot, if that's what she's saying, I agree. Very succinct, Partaker. (A talent I do not have!)

And I've been applying that very principle to this entire conversation. I very much regret if that is not what has come through my posts.

[Toolman]

If there is an actual justification for this move - if Paul anywhere actually says that he is now talking about a hypothetical set of people - then the view would have some traction.

He does in Romans 3 but as you have said that doesn't make sense to you though he clearly states that the whole world must shut its mouth and is found guilty before God because of the Law.

You can't have some being justified by Law if Paul clearly states that all are guilty because of the Law and must shut their boastful mouths.

Makes perfect and biblical sense to me.

Without such justification, this kind of maneuvering can be used to say that any statement in Scripture refers to a hypothetical set of persons that do not exist.

I suggest that we can forge a view that is true to Romans 2 and all the other texts which say "its all about faith". One such view, I suggest, is NT Wright's "present justification - future justification" picture.

You have presented Wright's position as not justification by Christ's death and resurrection alone and our simple trust in that atoning act but have presented that in the final judgement it is our works that justify us.

Yes, God's Spirit in us guarantees these works (in your position as well as the reformed position on sanctification) but there is a hair's difference between that position and the reformed position and that hair's difference is set on fire of hell.

The reformed position is that man is justified (sin forgiven and death removed) before God simply on the atoning work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection alone and that we are sanctified by His Spirit in us bringing forth His works created for us.

Your position is that man is justified by his works before God because God's Spriit within man guarantees that the believer will perform these works. The atoning work of Christ is completely disregarded in this position. It has absolutely no power or bearing. Christ's blood does nothing to forgive sin. Its is not a propitiation. It is not an atonement. It does not reconcile.
Our works do and that is the difference that returns to Rome and makes your gospel no different than any other religious message of man.

BTW - I'm just addressing what I think is incorrect in your teaching. Nothing personal. I'm sure you are a nice guy

[drew]

BTW - I'm just addressing what I think is incorrect in your teaching. Nothing personal. I'm sure you are a nice guy

Thanks. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a gentleman who can engage in a debate and argue your position without taking things personally. I think we all win when such discussions take place.

I hope to post more later - I do think some of the issues are very subtle.

[Jesusinmyheart]

If we have Christ, we have Salvation, If we have Salvation, we have Christ.
We don't need more 'things', we need more Christ.

That's probably pretty closely explains my position overall. Following the Word is what we all need. And the Word is in the OT as much as in the NT. It is one continuous book.


Overall this has been one of the most peacefull discussions about these things, and i truly appreciate this.

Shalom,
Tanja