Unashamed of Grace

Saturday, September 01, 2007

What is the condition for salvation?

posted by Rose - written by Antonio

I read this in the comments on the bluecollar blog (I see now it is also in the comments here) - Antonio had written a long comment and I thought this was such a great snippet, I did not want anyone to miss it. This is exactly why I see a problem with some of the current teaching on salvation. There seems to be a contradiction. I am not sure how one can deny the easy logic in the paragraphs below.

Antonio said:
First off, if someone is told that they must repent in order to “come to Christ” ...how is it in their minds that they do not see this as a requirement for whatever "coming to Christ" means?
And if they see repentance as something they do, how is it they will not consider it their part of the salvific transaction?
And if they consider is their part in the salvific transaction, how is it that they are not in some degree relying upon their repentance for the intented result, the ... “coming to Christ to be saved”?

You may answer, "Well, God will supply the repentance." Why preach it then, when invariably the psychology of the hearer will consider repentance as indispensible for “coming to Christ for salvation”? He will consider it a condition to this salvation in addition to simple faith in Jesus.

Therefore it takes at least two things for eternal life:
#1 repentance and
#2 faith in Jesus.

#1 is an action that one does
#2 is passive reliance upon Jesus

Therefore, psychologically, how is this person not relying both upon self and God for salvation, when he is being told that repentance is a condition for salvation?

49 Comments:

A great comment.

And I really liked the rest of what he said in that comment too.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:58:00 AM
Hi Rose,

An apple tree bears apples because it is an apple tree. We know that an apple tree is an apple tree because it bears apples.

We know that a sinner (and not just a desiree after eternal life) wants to be saved from the curse and chains of their sin when they express their faith and repentance. We have no problem, it seems, with the faith issue here i.e. that they need to trust Christ alone to give them salvation. On this matter of repentance, it seems to me that you think that we old time Evangelicals who insist on it want to see the working evidence i.e. a change of habits before the sinner is changed. This is not so and it never was so. We make it clear to the enquiring sinner that he cannot have Christ and his love of sin. The two don't mix. He expresses his guilt and confesses his desire to change his ways. He looks to Christ and receives eternal life. He then practically turns from his sin (an ongoing life time work) because (to go back to the opening illustration above) he is an apple tree. How do I know he is what he says he is i.e. a Christian? Because (illustration again) he bears apples.

I have never heard any old time Evangelical who holds these views (and this is the Old Time Evangelical viewpoint) say that his salvation depended on the strength or depth of his repentance. Nor for that matter on the strength or depth of his faith. The universal consensus (so that it became the definition of then Old Time Evangelical) is that it is the total strength of Christ's work alone that saves.

By Colin Maxwell, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 7:24:00 AM
Rose, you are working from a false paradigm which supplies you with a false premise from which to build your case. Your system fails to provide Biblical information to the lost, spiritually dead, rebellious, sin-loving God-hater, who is walking according to the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience, that slave to sin who is by nature a child of wrath, who walks according to the weather vain of this world. The gospel of John, which gospel begins in chapter 1 to present Christ as God, the Perfect Representative of the Father; the One Who unfolds the Father as a scroll to a world that has not retained God in its knowledge. Romans one through three is clear on this. The world is now in the grasp of the evil one and has fully rejected its Creator. We are saved by being in Christ the Person. Coming to Christ means taking His yoke upon you and learning of Him. (Yep, I just appealed to Matthew 11:28-29, for, you see, I believe there are FOUR gospels, not just John).

Your system dichotomizes where the Bible does not authorize you. You have split faith and repentance which clearly belong together. In the Great Commission faith, (Mk.16:16) and repentance, (Lk.24:47) are to be preached together. If I believed the building I was standing in were on fire I would seek the fast escape. So it is with those who are told that they are in rebellion against their Creator and His Christ. That person is commanded by scripture to repent and believe the gospel - IOW, turn from following the spirit of this age, and take Christ's yoke upon you to learn of Him.

I'm sorry old friend, but this "right dividing" of the word causes one to present an other than right message to the world and is to be refuted.

Mark

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:53:00 AM
Mark, I agree with you. This FG teaching has nothing to say to the sinner as a sinner. The sinner can even brazenly deny that he is a sinner and still, if he believes all that the FG camp require (and that is being hotly debated among them), be a candidate for eternal life.

Or am I reading this wrong?

By Colin Maxwell, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:00:00 AM
Rose, your system, in all practicallity, treats men as if there were no issue of original sin, no love of sin and hatred of God, no rebellion against the Creator. Calvinists and nonCalvinists alike agree that repentance flows from the genuine believer. How many times have you people at UOG blog seen this explained only to revert back to your old arguments.

Oh well...

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:04:00 AM
Hi Folks:

Just a point to consider.

There is a BIG difference between what is coming from the GES and what the vast majority in the Free Grace community believe about the Gospel.

The GES: Wilkin, Hodges, Myers, da Rosa have reduced the Gospel to a point that it has little if any resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

They go further by claiming that His titles, "Son of God" and "Christ" do not mean or indicate His deity.

Just want to make sure many good men in the FG community, who have left the GES over what is coming from its leadership, are not painted with the broad brush.

In the opinion of most men in the FG community the GES no longer speaks for or represents them, and many of them have departed for safer doctrinal ground.

Thanks,

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 12:15:00 PM
Mark,
false false false. OK.

The gospel of John, which gospel begins in chapter 1 to present Christ as God, the Perfect Representative of the Father; the One Who unfolds the Father as a scroll to a world that has not retained God in its knowledge.

I am not sure what the point of this sentence is. I don't follow what you are saying to me in it.

Mark, I also believe there are four gospels.

Actually, I see what you have done. You just pasted a comment you wrote to Antonio and posted it to me! Um ... I am not a California resident, I am not male, and I have a monosyllabic last name.

Thanks for the visit?

By Rose~, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:21:00 PM
Calvinists and nonCalvinists alike agree that repentance flows from the genuine believer.

I would probably even stipulate to that, Mark. WHere we differ is that I do not expect repentance to flow from the non-believer before they can come to Christ for salvation.

By Rose~, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:24:00 PM
Rose, a couple of points:

1)No where in scripture does justifying faith happen without repentance also being evident. IOW, repentance always shows in the life of the believer. So, I say, nowhere in scripture do we see an unrepentant believer.

2) Let's look at Christ's accomplishments and their effects on the believer - Because of Christ's cross-work Paul was entrusted with a message that would "open eyes,turn people from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins... " Acts 26:18-20. The Father has "conveyed us into His Son's kingdom" where there is redemption (being bought back from Satan's dark rule)and forgiveness of sins. Col. 1:12-14. Also Romans 6 teaches that we were once slaves of sin, but now, because of Christ's accomplishments on the cross, we are slaves of righteousness and of God.

Because of Christ's cross-work His telling people to repent through those servants of His who preach His word accurately is like His having commanded that lame man to stretch forth his crippled hand, and when he has done so it is whole.

Justification is not the whole of the picture. Conformity to Christ is. This conformity, though not automatic, is inevitable, and begins at the moment of regeneration; hence the need to preach repentance to the unsaved.

Let me know if this helps explain my position, my friend. I'll be back to talk more if you like.

Peace.

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:35:00 PM
Also Rose, this is how that statement should have read to you... "The gospel of John, begins in chapter 1 to present Christ as God, the Perfect Representative of the Father; the One Who unfolds the Father as a scroll to a world that has not retained God in its knowledge."

In that statement I was trying to drive home the point that Christ is the One to be looked at for salvation. The world has rejected its Maker and His Christ. The world has thrown off God's rule in their lives. See the second Psalm. Faith and repentance results in the believer being brought into the Kingdom of God, and away from the rule of Satan.

Please keep in mind I have terrible wrist problems and must often resort to cut and paste. I can assure you that I meant NO harm. I am deeply sorry if I offended you here. Please forgive me.

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:50:00 PM
Good night, my friend.

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 6:43:00 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Colin Maxwell, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 2:04:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Lou Martuneac, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 6:10:00 AM
Mark, if you preach repentance to the lost as a requirement to eternal salvation, it seems to me that you have yet to deal with the logic of the contention in the opening post.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:49:00 AM
Colin,

If you have some misunderstandings about my position, please feel free to ask. But when you post seriously false information about me and my beliefs, it will not be tolerated here. This is a warning. If you wish to continue to dialogue here, please be respectful of characterizing people's positions correctly.

I have enjoyed our conversations and have considered them beneficial, and would hope that you could retain your civility and remain intellectually honest when representing my positions.

Furthermore, this thread is about Lordship Salvation's insistence that repentance, that is man's part in the salvific transaction, be performed by the lost for eternal life.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:58:00 AM
Lou,

This is your last warning. Your rants and tirades are for your own blog.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 8:04:00 AM
Antonio:

I have never had a blog removed in my life on the charges that you are setting forth here. I simply responded to another's comment appreciating where he stands for a fundamental of the faith i.e. that only the NT Jesus (and not the Jesus of the cults) can give eternal life. At worst, we got off topic. Perhaps commenting on several posts around the same time has led to this.

I do not know Lou M. We have never met nor "spoke" until the last post. His conflict with you is of little concern to me, outside the fact that he denies that the Jesus whom the Muslims and the JWs etc., talk about is the Jesus of John 6:47. That is exactly my position. If I remember right (for the post is now gone) he wanted several of us to know that there is big differences within the FG camp and that not all take your position. He wanted us to refrain from tarring you all with the same brush. If there were internal politics at work elsewhere or personal differences, this is (again) nothing to me. On this one fundamental matter, I said that I appreciated his stand.

There are differences in all camps. It is grossly unfair, for example, to tar all Calvinists with the one brush. Some Calvinists deny man's responsibility and the free offer of the gospel etc., I spend time trying to spread the truth that they are hyper Calvinists and rejected by the vast majority of Calvinists. Occasionally, I get emails from non Calvinists appreciating the good things that I do stand for i.e. wherein we are in agreement on evangelism etc.,

I cannot remember even mentioning your name in what I wrote. In fact, I don't even have a copy of what I wrote, for I wrote it direct unto the comment box and it is now deleted. I have no desire to misrepresent anyone - I utterly loathe the very thought. If my comments here or elsewhere have been gutsy, especially in relation to the idea of the Muslim paradise, then remember your own style is pretty gutsy too. As a total outsider in your debate with Lou M, I think that you can help yourself greatly here by just coming out straight and saying that Muslims who believe in a second fiddle Jesus gives them a lust filled eternal life with 72 virgins are damned, unless they turn to the Biblically defined Jesus of the NT. If any one doubted my position and were seeking to attribute to me a belief that such Muslims are heaven bound, I would be on steroids to deny it. I WOULD USE BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS TO SHOUT AND EMPHASIS THAT SUCH IS NOT MY POSITION.

By Colin Maxwell, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 8:47:00 AM
Antonio, there is not one place in scripture where a genuine believer wasn't also a repentant believer. No Where.

Your contention that repentance should not be preached to the unsaved is based on a false premise, a premise that resulted from false dichotomimizeing of the word. Your brand of dispensationalism is the culprit.

YES, I PREACH REPENTANCE TO THE LOST, as did Jesus and Paul before me, because God has once granted me repentance to life, eternal life.

Your friends here on this blog and I have gone round and round on this topic for nearly two years now. We just go in circles. Enough is enough. Unfortunately when people do nothing but disagree it is wise to just move on.

Matthew, Jodie, Rose, I wish you peace!

Antonio, I wish you the best. May the Lord Jesus be glorified in your trip to India next month. I admire your desire to take Christ there.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 9:48:00 AM
Colin,

I am bold to say that anyone who believes in the Jesus who spoke the words of John 3:16 and 6:47 for the gift of everlasting life has it. These promises are universal and sweeping.

If a Muslim has misconceptions about the Jesus who spoke the words of John 6:47, considering Him second fiddle to Mohammed, yet believes Him in His promise, why would you have Jesus deny His own promise whereby He gives an oath ("Amen, Amen") to give eternal life to all who believe in Him?

If a Muslim entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of the Christ, why would you invalidate such reliance?

If a Muslim considers the Jesus of John 6:47 to be his certain hope of escaping judgment and eternal separation from the presence of God, why would you have him damned?

I'll tell you why.

Salvation is not a gift to you. It is not the result of simply receiving a gift.

Your gospel requires navigating a complex theological and psychological obstacle course that few have the ability to complete. And in so doing, you shut up the kingdom of God from people, unawares.

Rev 22:17

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
NKJV

John 7:37-38
On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
NKJV

You believe that no one can simply come to Jesus, and this is sad. Jesus' offer is crippled by the myriad qualifications that you put on it.

Jesus is clear: come to me and drink. THAT IS IT! THEN you will get the Holy Spirit who in time, with the word of God and members of the body of Christ, can lead men and women out of their doctrinal confusion, for without correct doctrine, one cannot grow, or stand at the judgment seat of Christ.

Your post was deleted for intellectual dishonesty. You have attributed lies to my position, and I will not tolerate it here. Truth is at stake and people who do such things will give an account of their flippant and careless remarks concerning the positions of sincere servants of God.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:13:00 AM
Why did the blog administrator remove my comment?

By Anonymous, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 1:07:00 PM
Antonio: I cannot apologise for what I have written (assuming it was wrong) for I am unaware of what I wrote which you are so offended about. As I say, the record of it is clean gone forever. So you must forgive me that one.

Secondly, the matter of debate seems to centere round the whole issue as to whether or not the Muslim does believe in the Jesus of John 6:47. Suppose you are right and he does. I express my doubts, but time will tell the tale. Sooner or later, the Muslim will come, will he not,to the place whereby he renounces his faith in the Second Fiddle Jesus perception that he has. He will come to the place where paradise is seen to be a place of holiness and not a place of sensual lust. By expresing my caution, I am not doing this man any great harm. The matter is highly debateable as this blog and others show, even within the FG movement. Again, I am only standing where the church for 1500 years has stood.

On the other hand, if I am right and you are wrong, then I am doing this man a great favour, while (at the same time) you are doing thim a great wrong. I am robbing him of nothing, but (indeed) helping him to face reality. But what are you doing, if you are wrong? Telling him that he is a Christian (when he is anything but) and although you might be anxious to debrief him of his error, yet (and correct me if I am wrong) if he still insists that he is a follower of Jesus who (as he insists) is still only a prophet and second to Muhammad, who never died on the Cross, and the giver of Eternal Life i.e. supplier of 72 young and desireable virgin sirens...you will not tell him that his belief will take him to hell. Where does that leave you in the light of the Judgement of God?

If the Muslim comes to Christ as in John 3:16/6:47 and all those verses, then he is saved. Of course, he is and I have never said otherwise. (Do I detect here your ability to play fast and loose with words?) But as I say, if he comes in the state that you say he can i.e. willingly ignorant of these basic Bible truths and even rejecting them i.e. the Cross and the holiness of Heaven etc., then we may hotly debate whether he has indeed come to Christ at all. I'm sorry, Antonio, I cannot buy it. A man may say that he is doing something when he is doing anything but. I don't have to believe him if what he says he is doing fails to measure up to the Bible. standard.

By Colin Maxwell, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 1:20:00 PM
Antonio:

I do not aplogize for anything in my comment you deleted along with others.

It was factually correct, which leaves me puzzled as to why you found it necessary for deletion. I was replying to GoodNight, whose post you also deleted. Then without it being there, it is mislabeled as a "rant."

The position you hold on the Gospel, which originated with Zane Hodges, is under intense scrutiny.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 3:16:00 PM
Mark,
Can I ask you a clarifying question? I just want to see if I understand you right - I am hoping maybe we have an error in communication.

Must a person who goes to bars every weekend and is presently hearing the gospel of the great gift of Christ ... must this person be ready to stop drinking and carousing ... in order to recieve Christ?

...or can he come just as he is and place his faith for his entire eternal future into the nail scarred hands, having been convinced that Jesus made a way for him anda ccomplished the wrok of the cross? Can he come to Christ regardless of his plans to stop drinking or to continue on the party scene?

By Rose~, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 3:37:00 PM
Rose, I was won to Christ through what would be called today "Lordship" evangelism. I was taught to come to Christ, and to take His yoke upon me and learn of Him. I was a fighter who loved hurting people. When I came to Christ I knew those days were over. I had Christ as my Master now. Now I had to turn the other cheek as my Master had commanded. I now had to love my enemies, and pray for them.

I was justified the very moment I believed Christ was my only hope, that He died for my sin and rose three days later; but that justifying faith brought me into a union with Christ as my Master, my Lord, my King.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:06:00 PM
Mark,
I am glad you came to Chrsit and laid down your anger and propensity to fight. Indulge me a bit, though - I am not in this question asking about you. Can you look at the question and see if you can answer that scenario?
Thanks.

By Rose~, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:14:00 PM
... even with all the typos ....

By Rose~, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:25:00 PM
"Can you look at the question and see if you can answer that scenario?
Thanks."

I've read your testimony, Rose, so that person in your hypothetical is no mystery person to me. I remember that "Joe" told you not to worry about that lifestyle, that it would change over time. No doubt that Joe was a product of classic dispensationalism, and that he was doing right in his own eyes by presenting you the gospel that way. I believe he was in error. He did not preach repentance along with remission of sins as seen in Luke 24:47.

You see, there are at least two models of sanctification for christians to follow today. One is the "Keswick" model that can have Christians come into a deeper union with Christ at some point after salvation. I believe Chafer subscribed to this model, and hence, many a classic dispy after him.

The second model is the reformed model that has the new Christian immediately becoming a new creation and is converted at the moment of regeneration. From that very moment the new Christian is on course to being conformed to the image of Christ.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:31:00 PM
OK, Mark.
Well, I guess I can just say that I am glad Joe did not preach the reformed gospel to me then. I was unregenerate. I was not interested in ceasing my chosen sin and I believe I would have been uninterested in such a 'gift.' After Christ came into my life and I learned of Him, He made a difference. I am glad I was not prevented from entering in by this condition of repenting from drinking. Aren't you?

(I do not really like doing this based on personal experience, but the post did not seem to make any sense to you.)

BTW, the way you describe the reformed model, it still sounds as though preaching repentance to the unconverted would be ill-timed because they are not yet a new creation.

By Rose~, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:45:00 PM
"I am glad I was not prevented from entering in by this condition of repenting from drinking. Aren't you?"

You still don't understand, do you?

When Christ commanded that man to stretch forth his hand, and he did so, it was whole. In the very same way when Christ commands an unsaved person to repent, that person does so by the power of regenration.

You see the Holy Spirit is at work in that person's life even before regeneration, separating that person from the world and unto Christ, 2 Thess.2:13; 1 Peter 1:2. The Father is also at work in that person's heart before salvation, teaching that person about His Son, and drawing that person to the Son. John 6:35-65.

My friend, in your above statement you do misrepresent my position.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:01:00 PM
When the elect here the message of repentance and remission of sins, they do come in repentance. God commands it, and it happens.

Repentance does not warrant salvation. God's command that we believe in His Son is our warrant to salvation. 1 John 3:23. He commands that we believe and we do so. His command alone is our warrant for salvation.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:07:00 PM
Now, if you will, please articulate my position back to me. I want to check for accuracy in your understanding.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:11:00 PM
Well, goodnight from Rochester.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:43:00 PM
I will try.

You think that when the "elect" (a secret group chosen in the past) hear the message that you bring: "give up your chosen sin (repent) and turn to Christ who has satisfied God's requirements" ... those elect will not be confused by the idea that they are being told to do something good (give up a sin) at the same time they are being told that Christ did it all. They will not be confused because they are elect ... and they will become regenerated upon hearing your message and will repent (give up their chosen sin) *and* believe the gospel. They will do this and will not have any trouble, because God commands it and He brings it to pass in His elect. While opthers may hear your message as doublespeak, the elect will see it perfectly. You will say to them that they can be saved by Grace through faith in Christ alone once they are willing to turn from their sin. They will want to turn from their sin because God wrought a work in their heart, teaching them to hate sin even before they were born again, and so they will be ready and able, by divine power, to turn from whatever sin they are most entranced by. They will do this simultaneously upon (or shortly before or after)believing the gospel, which I think you also define as the perfect and complete provision *by God* through Jesus Chrsit for our justification.

Do I have it?

By Rose~, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 6:37:00 PM
"They will want to turn from their sin because God wrought a work in their heart, teaching them to hate sin even before they were born again, and so they will be ready and able, by divine power, to turn from whatever sin they are most entranced by. They will do this simultaneously upon (or shortly before or after)believing the gospel, which I think you also define as the perfect and complete provision *by God* through Jesus Chrsit for our justification."

That was fair. For the most part that was pretty good.

Now, parralell your definition here with your testimony and see how it matches up. I think you'll see a PERFECT match. Hence, Rose Cole is the regenerate person that she is in spite of the incomplete message she heard at first.

See, Rose, Your testimony is not all that different than mine because in both cases Christ ended up as Lord and Master of our lives.

You are my sister in Christ.
Mark

By mark pierson, at Monday, September 03, 2007 8:08:00 AM
I must repeat again that it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate repentance from faith. When one hears that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God he is, if elect, struck with awe. He then realizes that his life is in opposition to God and His Christ, hence repentance takes place.

Spurgeon was told only to look; but that simple message followed 5 long years of conviction of sin. Read his testimony some day. Try Arnold Dallimore's "Spurgeon: A New Biography.

By mark pierson, at Monday, September 03, 2007 8:57:00 AM
Good morning, Mark.

Now, parralell your definition here with your testimony and see how it matches up. I think you'll see a PERFECT match.

It doesn't match up. I did not see that drinking was a terrible sinful and destructive lifestyle, nor did I see that immorality was so bad until months after I was saved. I knew I was going to hell because the perfection required of God was shown to me. It was easy for me to see that I did not match that perfect standard. I received the gift of life from Christ after seeing that He had done all that was required for me to be on right terms with God, because He was perfect and had stood in my place.

Now, as I said, personal testimonies not what we should use to define our theology. Not mine, not yours, not Spurgeon's either. I need to look to the Bible.

One could cite several passages written after it was all clearly understood (this was Paul's specialty), but I think quickly of Romans 4:

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin

Mark, you said:
See, Rose, Your testimony is not all that different than mine because in both cases Christ ended up as Lord and Master of our lives.

Dear Mark, I have sadly not arrived yet at having made Christ the Lord over everyhting in my life. I still can be very selfish and unkind. Jealousy and pride get in my way and I know they are not what Christ would have me walk in. Can I rightly say that I have submitted wholly to Christ in these areas - even now? I am not comfortable saying that. It seems that it would be presumtuous of me to say that I have fully made Christ my Master. I am OK with declaring from the hilltops though, that I can stand before my Creator because of what Jesus Christ has done. Tetellesti! He completed the work. When I am translated or resurrected, I will be perfect then ... and it will all be because of what He has done.

This is good news, isn't it?

Have a fine labor day.

By Rose~, at Monday, September 03, 2007 10:10:00 AM
Like I said Mark...you had me with Goodbye:-)

I just get tickled with how much you get stirred and say goodbye and then hello:-)

Methinks you to be like me a bit, but Rose always felt you to be a more reasonable blogger than I:-(

Tickle:-}

I agree brother, but we must remember. We are not Spurgeon either. We did not get caught up in a swamp of a lifetime of hearing threats through some of the Puritans whom by his own admission went to far at times. We need to stop finding ourselves in other preachers.

As you tried to get Rose to see, we are all differant, but the grace of God begins working in us when we believe in the awesome wonder of what Christ did for us when he took our sins upon himself on the cross, but you and I both have had our backlidden times in the past and there are times when we havent always turned the other cheek so this is why the truth of ONLY LOOK TO CHRIST is their to meet sinful man at whatever stage in life he is in and we are to exhort men to believe on the one who gives us the power in His resurrection life to turn from sin as we behold his lovely face that tempts us away from our sin and helps us see how much we hate sin in our identification with Him.

"Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world"

By Only Look, at Monday, September 03, 2007 10:15:00 AM
"I am OK with declaring from the hilltops though, that I can stand before my Creator because of what Jesus Christ has done. Tetellesti! He completed the work. When I am translated or resurrected, I will be perfect then ... and it will all be because of what He has done."

Rose, it seems that you don't think that I would agree with that statement or that it is something I need to hear. I am sorry for that. I honestly don't know where the break-down in communication is here. We just go 'round and 'round here, don't we?
(sigh)

Peace.

By mark pierson, at Monday, September 03, 2007 11:30:00 AM
Brian -

"is why the truth of ONLY LOOK TO CHRIST is their to meet sinful man at whatever stage in life he is in and we are to exhort men to believe on the one who gives us the power in His resurrection life to turn from sin as we behold his lovely face that tempts us away from our sin and helps us see how much we hate sin in our identification with Him."

AMEN!

By mark pierson, at Monday, September 03, 2007 11:33:00 AM
No, Mark, I was just contrasting that which I am not comfortable saying with that which I am comfortable with saying. Get it?

By Rose~, at Monday, September 03, 2007 11:41:00 AM
"I can stand before my Creator because of what Jesus Christ has done. Tetellesti! He completed the work. When I am translated or resurrected, I will be perfect then ... and it will all be because of what He has done."

Amen, sister. I appreciate and admire your stand here.

Peace.

By mark pierson, at Monday, September 03, 2007 12:16:00 PM
As do I.

By David Wyatt, at Monday, September 03, 2007 2:36:00 PM
Thank you, Mark. I am glad that you are least willing here to say that you find my thoughts "admirable", even if you won't say that on your own blog. I do find it interesting that people totally misunderstand ... and think that my statements here are "admitting defeat" or "leaving doors open to sin." That is not what I am talking about, but I suppose that I can see how one with a certain frame of mind could lend itself to taking it that way. Jesus is LORD! Whether you and I have arrived at total submission or not doesn't make Him any less LORD, praise God.

BTW, I have never said discipleship was easy. God bless.

Thanks, David.

By Rose~, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:40:00 PM
BTW, I find it admirable that people want to follow Christ. That is what He wants. I am glad you have decided to do this.

By Rose~, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:45:00 PM
Rose, I think you could beat Mark in an arm wrestling match. :)

By Kris, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:00:00 PM
Yes, but she'd have to put little Levi down, first.

By David Wyatt, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:40:00 PM
Someone, about 10 years ago, once asked a member of the Glasgow Celtic team that won the 1967 European Cup if his side would beat the (then)current, all conquering Glasgow Rangers side. The oul lad stroked his chin thoughtfully, and replied; "It would probably be a draw ... but then, some of us are heading for sixty."

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:59:00 PM
Kris and David,
I may not be able to beat him in arm wrestling, but I bet I could out-cook him in the kitchen.

I didn't feel like it was a debate - just two Christians trying to come to an understanding. Which I think we did! :~)

Colin,
He is only ten years older than me. :~) nowhere near 60.

By Rose~, at Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:39:00 AM
Rose would DESTROY me in a match. I'm a very, very, very old man. I would be no match for her.

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:10:00 PM