Salvation by Faith

[D28guy]

Amy G...

"May I take a stab? We are righteous in that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us because of our faith in Him. We are justified. Holy means to be set apart for God. I doesn't mean we are perfect. We have been set apart for God because of our righteousness through Christ. As we grow and mature in our spiritual walk, we will sin less and less and become more and more like Christ. We are holy, as in separated for God's purposes (to be conformed to the image of Christ), not holy in the sense of perfection."

I couldnt have said it better myself! Isnt it just magnificently wonderful the provision our God has made for us?

God bless,

Mike

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: I guess that would be why I show the Calivinists their errors from Scriptures, eh?

HP: Ok. You have an opportunity to shine.

Would you consider the post by Amy (not to pick on her by any means, but just as an example) Calvinistic in leanings? If so, how would you refute her presentation? Is she wrong about imputed righteousness and positional holiness? If so, what approach would you take to present the truth to her and illustrate her error?

 

[Hope of Glory]

You were made "Holy"...set apart...the moment you were born again. The sinlessness of Christ was imputed to you.

By "born again", I'm assuming you mean spiritually saved.

So, do you mind backing up your assertion with Scripture?

I just gave a whole bunch of verses that show otherwise, and you have replied with a "no it isn't!" type of argument.

Where's the Scripture that says that every saved person is a saint?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Would you consider the post by Amy (not to pick on her by any means, but just as an example) Calvinistic in leanings?

No, I would not consider her views that she's expressed here as being Calvinistic. From everything she has posted, she seems to post from her understanding of Scriptures, not from worshipping a man-made doctrine.

Does what she posts line up with Calvinism? Some do, some don't.

She's also pro-life, and that doesn't make her Catholic.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

"HP: I desire to be a saint."

D28guy: The good news is...You ARE one! You are indeed a "saint" of the most high God.

HP: I was not making a statement meant to indicate my actual desires, or whether or not I have obtained them. I simply was using myself as an example. (Do you suppose that the Apostle Paul could have employed much the same tactic in Romans 7? Just a thought.)

HP: "How holy is holy?"

D28guy: You were made "Holy"...set apart...the moment you were born again. The sinlessness of Christ was imputed to you.

HP: Would you have a verse to support that?

HP: "How much sin can I get by with and still make the grade of saint?"

D28guy: Of course I know you dont mean that literally, you are making a point. But the answer is that when you sin it has no effect whatsoever on you being a "saint".

HP: You should know something else by now as well, in that I do not believe that to be the case.

HP: When Scripture speaks of the fellowship of the saints, am I to believe that that is some exclusive club of a few spiritual elite, or could that possibly involve all the blood washed thong?"

D28guy: The latter...all who are blood washed...are saints. Even with their imperfections and problems.

HP: This depends on what one sees an imperfections and problems. Yes, we are human, as I so aptly had the honor of demonstrating for the list recently, when I misunderstood HOG and made statements that were as one that beateth the air and had to apologize. Sin is entirely a different matter. I can say before God and man that I was indeed not trying in any way to misrepresent his thoughts, yet I clearly did. Although I did not sin in doing so, (although I was repeatedly called a liar) once light arrived to my conscience, I felt the need to make amends the best I could and pray that I might not repeat the same mistake again.

Willful rebellion against a known commandment of God is the only true definition of sin according to Scripture. If I harbor sin, without sincere repentance, I do not believe that I can hold a sure hope of eternal life, and entertain the confidence that I will be found in Christ in the last day. Sin and holiness, sin and righteousness, are mutually exclusive ideas. “.1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” "Without holiness, no man shall see God."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: No, I would not consider her views that she's expressed here as being Calvinistic.

HP: OK. So she is not Calvinistic to you. How would you refute the positional righteousness and positional holiness she employed in her post, and present your view as being significantly different? Did not you say that you do not hold to such 'positional' concepts?

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Ok. You have an opportunity to shine.

Would you consider the post by Amy (not to pick on her by any means, but just as an example) Calvinistic in leanings? If so, how would you refute her presentation? Is she wrong about imputed righteousness and positional holiness? If so, what approach would you take to present the truth to her and illustrate her error?

Oh boy HP, you've gone and done it now! :laugh: Calvinistic? Paaaalease! Hope of G was right. What I believe is my interpretation of scripture. I'd never even heard of Calvin or Arminius until I joined the BB a few months ago.

 

[Hope of Glory]

HP: OK. So she is not Calvinistic to you. How would you refute the positional righteousness and positional holiness she employed in her post, and present your view as being significantly different? Did not you say that you do not hold to such 'positional' concepts?

Who says that I would refute it?

I would ask her a question, though:

I agree that Scriptures state that we are made righteous forever when we are born from above (no works involved).

However, we're also commanded to be righteous (based on works or behavior in the present tense; durative action).

Why do we need to be rightous if we're already made righteous forever?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: I agree that Scriptures state that we are made righteous forever when we are born from above (no works involved).

HP: If that is not the heart and soul of positional righteousness, the Pope is not a Catholic.
You state that it is done with “no works involved…forever.” Let me ask you a question. Why would one have to be worried about doing something today if in fact it was all settled for eternity when one is saved, or as some state it, from eternity past? If works have nothing to do with righteousness, that is a clearly ‘positional righteousness” position, is it not? It is accomplished as you say, with “NO WORKS INVOLVED,” and it is settled “FOREVER?”

Can you answer, in light of your own stated position, your question to Amy, which was “Why do we need to be righteous if we're already made righteous forever?” Can you hope to be more righteous than you already positionally have been made?

 

[D28guy]

Hope of Glory,

I said...

"

You were made "Holy"...set apart...the moment you were born again. The sinlessness of Christ was imputed to you."

And you responded...

"By "born again", I'm assuming you mean spiritually saved.

So, do you mind backing up your assertion with Scripture?

I just gave a whole bunch of verses that show otherwise, and you have replied with a "no it isn't!" type of argument.

Where's the Scripture that says that every saved person is a saint?"

You will find tons of scripture in this excellant material...

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_38.htm

Here is an excerpt...

"2. This righteousness is not man's obedience to the gospel as a new and milder law. The scheme of some persons, if I apprehend it right, is this, that Christ came into this world, to relax the old law of works, and to mitigate and abate the severities of it, and to introduce a new law, a gospel law, a law of milder terms, a remedial law, the terms and conditions of which, are faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, which though imperfect, is through Christ and for his sake accepted of, in the room of a perfect righteousness. The whole of which scheme is entirely false. For, in the first place, Christ came not into the world, either to destroy, or relax the law of God, but to fulfill it, which he did completely, by his active and passive obedience to it. He fulfilled every jot and tittle of the perceptive part of the law, which required a holy nature and perfect obedience, both which were found in him. He bore the whole penalty of the law, in the room and stead of his people, all its exactions, requirements and demands were answered by him; all its severities were executed on him; he was not spared or abated any thing, and hereby he magnified the law, and made it honorable. He indeed freed his people from the curse and condemnation of it; but has not either abolished or relaxed it, but keeps it in his own hands as a rule of life and conversation to them, and has left it in its full mandatory, cursing and damning power over others without the least mitigation, relaxation, or infringement of it. Moreover the gospel is no new law, it: is no law at all, there is nothing in it that looks like a law, it is called (Acts 20:24), The gospel of the grace of God; because it is a discovery of the exceeding riches of God's grace in his kindness to lost man, through Jesus Christ It is called the gospel of our salvation, because it reveals the Savior, it gives an account of his person, office, and grace, and of the great salvation he has wrought out; and points out the persons who shall share in it, and be everlasting possessors of it, as the word

euggelion itself translated, gospel, signifies good news, or glad tidings. Now what is there either in the name, or thing, that looks like a law. The gospel is no other than a pure promise, a free declaration of peace and pardon, righteousness, life, and salvation to poor sinners by Jesus Christ. The sum and substance of it is, that this is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).
Again; faith and repentance are not the conditions of the new covenant, or terms of any new law, as duties incumbent on us, they belong to the moral law, or law of works, which obliges us to obedience to every thing God does or shall reveal as his will. As graces bestowed upon us by God, they are parts, they are blessings of the new covenant of grace, and not conditions of it. Besides, if they were terms or conditions of this new law, or gospel law talked of, which indeed is a contradiction in terms, they would not be more easy than the terms of the law of works were to Adam in innocence. Nay it was much more easy for Adam to have kept the whole law of works, than it is for any of his fallen posterity to repent and believe of themselves. And how does this appear to be a remedial law, or a law of milder terms, as it is called.

"5th. Something else is represented, as the righteousness by which a sinner is justified before God. The people of God, are said to be justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and some times by the blood of Christ, and at other times by the one man's obedience (Rom. 2:24; 6:9-19). Now, faith is not the redemption in Christ Jesus, nor is it the blood of Christ, nor is it his obedience either active or passive, and therefore is not that which is imputed for justification. Nevertheless, faith must be allowed to have a very great concern in the business of justification. Hence we are said to be justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not by faith either as a work performed by us, or as a grace wrought in us, but we are justified by it relatively or objectively, as it respects, apprehends, and lays hold on Christ and his righteousness for justification; or we are justified by it organically, as it is a recipient of this blessing, for faith is the hand which receives the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of our salvation. Faith is that grace to which this righteousness is revealed, and by which the soul first spies it. When beholding its glory, sufficiency and suitableness, it approves of it, and renounces its own righteousness. It is that grace by which a soul puts on Christ's righteousness as its garment, and rejoices therein, by which all boasting in a man's own works is excluded, and by which all the glory of justification is given to Christ. But I proceed,
Secondly, To shew, what is this righteousness intended in my text, which God imputes unto his people, and that is, the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ. By which I mean not his essential righteousness as God, as Osiander dreamed. For though he who is our Righteousness is Jehovah (Jer. 23:6), yet that righteousness of his by which he is Jehovah, is not our justifying righteousness but that which results from his active and passive obedience as Mediator (Rom. 5:1). For by one man's obedience many are made righteous, or is, that righteousness of Christ, which consists of the holiness of his nature, the conformity of his life and actions to the law of God, and his sustaining the whole penalty of that law, in the room and stead of his people. In the commendation of which righteousness, many things might be said; let these few following suffice at present."

God bless,

Mike

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Oh boy HP, you've gone and done it now!

HP: Will you ever be able to forgive me? I certainly hope so. raying:

 

[D28guy]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Regarding my statements that you are a saint right now, and that you were "set apart" and made "holy" when you were born again, and that when we sin it does not change in the least our status as "saints", you said...

"Would you have a verse to support that?"...."You should know something else by now as well, in that I do not believe that to be the case"...."...This depends on what one sees an imperfections and problems."

HP, the classification "saint" is a synonym for "christian". Under the new covenant it has nothing to do with being "super-holy" regarding our behavior, or even being faithful and obedient...as wonderful as those qualities are.

I will refer to the Bakers Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich...

"SAINT.

In the OT this word appears as the rendering of "hasid (piousm godly) and of "qados" ("holy"). The basic idea in "qados" is seperation unto God, whereas "hasid" stresses godliness grounded on the reception of Gods mercy. The NT word is "hagios" (holy). It is regularly used in the LXX to render "qados".

From Ps 85:8, where the saints seem to be synonymous with the people of God, one concludes that the emphasis does not fall on character to an appreciable degree (for all where not godly) but on divine choice and the bestowal of Gods favor. In other passages the godly portion of the nation is often singled out by the term. But if the ethical connotation where paramount, the expectation would be that the word should occur regularly in the absolute form-the saints. Yet, ever and again, we read of "thy saints" or "the saints of the Most High" or. as in the NT, of the saints of Christ Jesus.

Saints acquire their status by divine call (Rom 1:7). Doubtless there is latent in the use of this term the idea that relationship to God involves conformity to His will and character (Eph 5:3). In this way the term becomes linked with the thought of faithfullness. (Eph 1:1 Col 1:2)

The next stage of development appears in the book of Revelation, where seperation unto the Lord, which characterizes saints, leads to Satan inspired persecution from the world (Rev 13:7, 14: 12) and even martyrdom.(Rev 16:6, 14:12) Here are the seeds of the Roman Catholic concept of saint as a peculiarly holy or self-sacrificing person who is worthy of veneration.

In the NT, however, saint is applied to all believers. It is a synonym for christian brother. (Col 1:2) Except for Phil 4:21 it is not used in the singular, and even there it reflects a corporate idea-"every saint". The saints are the church (1 Cor 1:2). In Ephesians, where there is strong emphasis on the unity of the church, "all saints" becomes almost a refrain.(1:15; 3:8; 3:18; 6:18) The Apostles Creed enshrines this significance of the word in the statement "I believe...in communion of saints"

Blessings,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

HP,

Amy G said...

"Paaaalease!"

Tread softly, brother...tread softly. raying:

When a woman says....

((("paaaaalease")))

...its time to tread veeeeery softly! :laugh:


Mike

 

[D28guy]

HP,

"Let me ask you a question. Why would one have to be worried about doing something today if in fact it was all settled for eternity when one is saved, or as some state it, from eternity past?"

You didnt ask me, but I'll just say...while waiting for HOG to answer...that we have the Holy Spirit alive in us, inspiring us to WANT to please God and live consistently with who we are...completly secure children of God.

As Paul put it....

"It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me"

Jesus Christ is alive and well, and He is living through us.

In adition to that, God certainly deals with us as any loving Father does with their kids. If we need discipline or chastisement, God is very good at that.

But primarily...we simply have a divine presence within us making us WANT to please our Father. Its a completly different motivation than the fear based motivation of living as if we are still under the Law..,which of course we have been freed from.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Hope of Glory]

HP, the classification "saint" is a synonym for "christian". Under the new covenant it has nothing to do with being "super-holy" regarding our behavior, or even being faithful and obedient...as wonderful as those qualities are.

I will refer to the Bakers Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich...

And, although I've shown many passages (and I could go on for pages, but there's a 10,000 character limit) that show that "saint" and "saved" are not synonymous (although it could easily be argued "saint" and "Christian" could be, since "Christian means "Christ-like" and not all saved people are Christ-like, but I have a feeling that you also equate "saved" with "Christian"; please correct me if I'm wrong.)

You have yet to show one single passage of Scripture that equates "saint" with "saved". You've quoted some traditions of men, and I could show you several that say "no it isn't!"

Instead, I've shown Scriptures, and lots of them. We're to compare Scripture with Scripture, and there is no way, other than using circular logic, to show that all saved people are saints. (The circular logic in this case, for example, would be, "See, the epistle is written to saints, therefore, all saved people are saints!")

BTW, "hagios" is an interesting word. It was originally cultic that denoted the concept that things and people could, because of qualities possessed, approach divinity.

But, after the church coopted it (as they did many words), while similar, it's slightly different.

When used as an adjective, it means "to being dedicated or consecrated to the service of God".

I know many saved people who certainly aren't dedicated to the service of God. They simply have fire insurance.

But, in Mark 6:20, it says that John was a just and holy man. One is just by following the ordinances of the Lord.

One is holy by being dedicated to the service of God.

Both words are adjectives, describing John, and both are works. That's not how one is saved, and being saved is no guarantee that an individual will do them. (Works are still works, even if you try to backload them as "proof" of being saved.)

Now, one should be just and holy when one is part of the family, but not all even care.

http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1 http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftnref1Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. ; Bauer, Walter: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000, S. 10

 

[Hope of Glory]

Let me ask you a question. Why would one have to be worried about doing something today if in fact it was all settled for eternity when one is saved, or as some state it, from eternity past? If works have nothing to do with righteousness, that is a clearly ‘positional righteousness” position, is it not? It is accomplished as you say, with “NO WORKS INVOLVED,” and it is settled “FOREVER?”

Let me use BobRyan (Sorry, Bob!) as an example. He uses page after page of Scriptures (something which is lacking in this thread) to show that we can become unsaved.

Although I disagree with his final conclusion, he shows, using Scriptures, over and over, that saved people have to fear losing something.

What is that something?

If we have nothing to lose, why all the warnings that are given to saved individuals, all throughout the Scriptures?

What can we lose, HP?

 

[D28guy]

HoG'

"And, although I've shown many passages (and I could go on for pages, but there's a 10,000 character limit)..."

I've had to keep that in mind when posting with you and many others on here as well.

"...that show that "saint" and "saved" are not synonymous (although it could easily be argued "saint" and "Christian" could be, since "Christian means "Christ-like" and not all saved people are Christ-like, but I have a feeling that you also equate "saved" with "Christian"; please correct me if I'm wrong.)

You have yet to show one single passage of Scripture that equates "saint" with "saved". You've quoted some traditions of men, and I could show you several that say "no it isn't!""

Oh my.

Not a single scripture. (eyes rolling)

And I guess there was "not a single scripture" (eyes rolling again) on the previous page with my documentation of "imputed rightiousness" that I presented for you?

(I had to keep in mind the 10,000 word limit with that one. Thats why there was a link)

Scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture...

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Hope of Glory]

What does "imputed righteousness" have to do with "saint"?

 

[D28guy]

Hope of Glory,

"What does "imputed righteousness" have to do with "saint"?"

(((Huh???)))

HoP...I posted that info becaue YOU ASKED me to!

I posted this to you...

"You were made "Holy"...set apart...the moment you were born again. The sinlessness of Christ was imputed to you."

And YOU posted THIS to ME....

"So, do you mind backing up your assertion with Scripture?

Remember???? :thumbs:

So...I posted part of an over 10,000 character biblical explanation of imputed rightiousness...flooded with scripture...with a link to the rest.

Mike

 

[D28guy]

HoG,

""What does "imputed righteousness" have to do with "saint"?"

I guess I'll back track because you seem to have lost the train of thought.

The reason it applies is because you are saying one can only be called a "saint" when that one has reached a certain level of obedience/faithfulness, etc.

But the scriptures teach that we reach the level of "completly sinless" at the moment we are born again. Positionally, when God sees us He sees the sinless rightiousness of Christ....

"He who knew no sin, became sin, so that we might become the rightiousness of God in Him"

Our "position" is "In Christ", and thus completly holy, completely righteous, and completely sinless. Practically we still blow it, make mistakes, make dumb decisions, sin, etc. But we are free from the condemnation of those failings because of our identification with Christ.

And thats why God "sees us" as Holy. Thats why we can be called "saints of God" in spite of our failings. Thats why in the new testament "saint" is a synonym for "christian"

Hope this helps,

Mike