Conference yukon::christian_v7

                    THE TWO CROSSES

Hebrews 10:1 attributes the incapacity of animal sacrifice to
unexplained symbolism: "For the law having a shadow of good
things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never
with those sacrifices . . . make the comers thereunto perfect." 
Only the "very image" (that is, the reality) can perfect; the
mere symbol of that reality cannot.  If, then, the cross has
perpetuated the weakness of animal sacrifice, it is because the
cross has hitherto revealed more of symbol than of reality.

This can be demonstrated by a universal distinction between all
spiritual symbols (particularly those pertaining to the
sanctuary and its rituals) and their realities.  Whatever its
particular form the symbol is always a physical substance,
structure, or process.  The reality, on the other hand, is
always nonphysical, pertaining not to matter but to mind.  We
err, therefore, when we suppose that we have moved from type to
antitype, from symbol to reality, simply by the discovery that
earthly rituals signify heavenly rituals.  For even in heaven
ritual comes accross as a physical process using physical
substances, within a physical structure.  Symbols do not become
realities merely by transport to heaven or to imagination.  Nor
are heavenly symbols inherently more efficacious than an earthly
ones, for sin and righteoussness are of mind, not of matter, and
minds are changed not by matter but by mind, not by flesh but by
Spirit.

For the same reason the blood of Christ, of itself, is no more
efficacious than the blood of a lamb (this is confirmed in John
6:63 in the context of a discussion of Christ's flesh and blood,
which, He says, "profit nothing") because both are physical
(fleshly) substances; both are therefore equally symbolic of
realities beyond.  Physically Christ's death occured on the same
plane of reality as did the deaths of bulls and goats.  The
level of symbolism of that death was thus equal to that of the
animal sacrifices.  To see no further than that symbolism is
therefore to be nearly as distant from the "very image" and
nearly as much under the shadow of type as were the Jews prior
to the cross.

Even His death, to the extent that it was a physical process,
was, like the death of a lamb, a symbol of something beyond. 
Consider, for example, the sign of Jonah the prophet.: "For as
Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so
shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth" (Matt. 12:40).  The heart of the earth refers to
His entombment and thus to His physical death.  But this is not
the only meaning of the three-day sign of Jonah.  For Jonah the
three days were a period of living death during which he
struggled for reconciliation with God.

Continuing...

Seen in the light of Jonah's experience, "heart of the earth" in
Matthew 12:40 refers to two things, hell (the Hebrew Sheol) and
the deep sea.  Both metaphors appear in Jonah 2:2,3 and
elsewhere in the Old Testament to designate living torment and
despair.  Especially is this true of Psalm 69, which, according
to verse 21, is a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ, His
living sufferings.  As with Jonah these sufferings are described
in terms of deep waters (Ps. 69:1,2,14).  All told, the sign of
Jonah pertains decidedly to living torment and living death, a
death symbolized by His later physical death, but experienced
during a living torment that began in Gethsemane.

This torment ended moments before He died.  Before He died 
light dispelled the gloom that had enveloped the cross; before 
He died His face shown with a glory like that of the sun; 
before He died the sense of His Father's disfavor was withdrawn; 
before He died He could truthfully announce, "It is finished."
That death that followed was accordingly the rest of the
Sabbath, a rest that always commemorates a finished work.  His
physical death was therefore as much a symbol of rest and
triumph as of torment and despair.  Only as a symbol distinct
from its reality could His death point simultaneously in such
opposite directions.

From beginning to end the entire ordeal of the cross was wrapped
in symbolism: the darkness, the brilliant light, the earthquake,
lightning, rending of the curtain, confinement in the tomb,
blood and water, death itself--all were fitting symbols, but
only symbols.  The reality lay elsewhere.  Even though the full
reality did then occur, it was not then fully revealed.  What
has come down to us from Calvary is more symbol than reality,
more type than antitype, more shadow than very image.  The old
covenant, in a significant sense, has yet to cease, for its
sacrifice still has much in common with the blood of bulls and
goats.

Thus we continue to speak of the benefits of the cross as if it
were a glorified physical rite.  Borrowing the language (but not
the meaning) of Scripture we say that His blood washes away our
sins and that His physical death expiates our transgression.  We
verbally acknowledge the existence of greater reality than
physical manifestation, but still our language, and therefore
our concept, pertains more to matter than to mind, and therefore
more to symbol than to reality.

Continuing...

It therefore comes as a shock to us to learn that the real
efficacy of the cross comes not at all from the physical demise
following the announcement "It is finished" (for by then the
sacrifice was already complete), but rather from the mental
warfare preceding that announcement.  Though we may profess to
accord due significance to His living struggle, our whole
concept of the efficacy of the cross is nonetheless controlled
by the idea of physical death, that is, by the symbol rather
than the reality.

Those whose view is thus controlled always view the entire
ordeal, living torment as well as physical death, in terms of
what physical death is, namely, a passive surrender to
life-crushing force.  From this premise the conclusion,
prevalent in Christendom, logically follows: His cross spares us
from punishment simply because Christ suffered an infinitely
painful ordeal ending in the passive surrender of death.

On the other hand, when one's view of the atonement is
controlled by the reality rather than the shadow, by what
occured prior to the announcement of completion rather than
thereafter, one comes to a very different conclusion.  One sees
in His living torment and struggle not passive surrender but
rather active combat against torment and tormentor, and not only
combat against tormentor, but also victory over tormentor to the
point where it tormented Him no more--this prior to the words,
"It is finished."  One sees in this conflict a final battle
against sin itself, a battle that Christ had to win if His
sacrifice was to be of any value to us.  And one sees why He had
to win, namely, to prove,  promise, and predict that mankind can
and will fight the same battle and gain the same victory through
the same faith.  One recognizes that only on the basis of such a
proof, promise, and prediction, could the cross have been of any
atoning benefit from that age to this.  Then it becomes apparent
that His physical death was simply a symbol of an earlier
torment, and His resurrection, a symbol of an earlier victory.

Continuing...

Here, then, stand contrasted two crosses, both originating at
Calvary, but one pertaining to the old covenant, and the other
to the new, one the result of physical process, the other, the
result of mental process, one the revelation of symbol, the
other the revelation of reality.  For nearly two thousand years
the cross of the old covenant has been held before us.  But now
that cross is to yield to another.  "He taketh away the first
that He may establish the second" (Heb. 10:9).  The day of the
new covenant is at hand.

The dawn of the new begins when a hitherto concealed promise
speaks from Calvary, the promise that God will have a perfect
people, the promise that God will finish the transgression, make
an end of sins, and bring in everlasting righteoussness.  This
promise, proven and predicted by Calvary, is the new covenant as
recorded in hebrews.  The cross ratifies this covenant because
it proves possible what this covenant predicts.

Through the perfection yet to be wrought by this covenant the
unending sacrifice and oblation will cease, sins once remembered
will be remembered no more, the sanctuary will be cleansed, the
sins commited under the first covenant will be redeemed.  Thus
it is written:



	This is the covenant that I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and
in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities
will I remember no more.  Now where a remission of these is,
there is no more offering for sin" (Heb. 10:16-18).



Not only our salvation, but also that of all past generations,
depends upon fulfillment of that prediction.  Abraham, Moses,
David, Samuel, and many like them, Hebrews declares, "received
not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us,
that they without us should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11:39,40).

  Assize Journal, Volume 1 Issue 1, Randall Neall


                                           God Bless,

                                           Tony

    Tony,
    
    We live under the new covenant, NOW.  Take a look at the verses before
    and after the verses you quoted from Heb 10:16-18.  The are things the
    Holy Spirt HAS SAID.  It is PAST TENSE.  Christ has already written His
    laws upon the hearts of His children (Rom 8:1-2, Rom 6, Gal 2:20, II
    Cor 5:17).  Read these verses in the context of the whole chapter.
    
Heb  10:8 Before when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt
offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst
pleasure [in them]; which are offered by the law;
Heb  10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He
taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb  10:10 By which will we are sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Heb  10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins.
Heb  10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb  10:13 From henceforth waiting till his enemies are made his
footstool.
Heb  10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified.
Heb  10:15 [Of this] the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us: for
after that he had said before,
Heb  10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their
hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb  10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
{And their: some copies have, Then he said, And their}
Heb  10:18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more
offering for sin.
Heb  10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus, {boldness: or, liberty}
Heb  10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for
us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; {consecrated:
or, new made}
Heb  10:21 And [having] an high priest over the house of God;
Heb  10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance
of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,
and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb  10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without
wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;)
Heb  10:24 And let us consider one another to stir up to love and
to good works:
Heb  10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves, as the
manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the
more, as ye see the day approaching.


Love in Him,

Bing

     
    

    Or listen to those "The Gospel & The Covenants" tapes again. ;-)

      Hi,
    
        Thanks for the inputs brothers.
    
        I have read Hebrews from beginning to end a few times and
        the conviction runs very deep that
    
          1. No body has yet to rest perfectly in Christ.
    
          2. No body's faith has yet to pierce the veil as
             their Forerunner's has.
    
          3. No body has yet to be prepared to inhabit Mount Zion.
    
          4. No body has yet to allow the complete accomplishment
             of the covenant of the writing of the law (God's 
             character) in the heart.
    
          5. The above 4 things are really all talking about the
             same thing in different ways.
    
          Hebrews is talking about something yet future.  
    
                                                  Tony

    Tony,
    
    By "body" is not going to be with Jesus, its just an Earth Suit.  Its
    my spirit, & soul that will go to be with the Lord.
    
    > Hebrews is talking about something yet future.
    
    I'm sure you have read and studied it, but look at the verb tenses
    which I have highlighted.
I have put caps for emphasis:
    
Heb  10:10 By which will we ARE sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE [FOR ALL].
Heb  10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins:
    Heb  10:12 But this man, after he had OFFERED one sacrifice for
sins FOR EVER, SAT down on the right hand of God;
Heb  10:13 From henceforth waiting till his enemies are made his
footstool.
Heb  10:14 For by one offering he HATH PERFECTED for ever them
that are sanctified.
Heb  10:15 [Of this] the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us: for
after that he HAD SAID before,
Heb  10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their
hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb  10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
{And their: some copies have, Then he said, And their}
Heb  10:18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more
offering for sin.
Heb  10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest by the BLOOD of JESUS, {boldness: or, liberty}
Heb  10:20 By a new and living way, which he HATH CONSECRATED for
us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; {consecrated:
or, new made}
Heb  10:21 And [having] an high priest over the house of God;
Heb  10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance
of faith, having our hearts SPRINKLED from an evil conscience,
and our bodies WASHED with pure water.

    .9 should read "my body", not "by body".  8^)
    
    Bing

  
 Re .8 Tony 
 
 > Hebrews is talking about something yet future
 
 Or is it possible Tony that your view of Hebrews has been biased by
 your pre-existing belief system?

 Hank

      Hi Bing,
    
        By 'body', I meant a corporate body as in an entire generation
        of God's believers.
    
        I believe God's church is _having_ their hearts _sprinkled_.  
        Isn't that a present tense continuous?  (Sort of like if I
        said I'm having my hair cut or my car washed.)
    
        Bing...what is your interpretation of Heb. 11:39,40?  What
        is your interpretation of Hebrew's exhortation to be prepared to
        inhabit Mount Zion?  Do you believe we have fully entered the
        rest that the author calls us to enter (in Hebrews 3,4)?  Why
        does the entire theme of hebrews exhort so as to be prepared
        for something yet future/something its readers are not yet 
        prepared for?
    
        Why does it call us to consider our High Priest and why is the
        entire theme about fulfilling something in people and not about
        something already fulfilled at Calvary?  (Not that Calvary isn't
        absolutely essential!!)
    
                                                     Tony

      re: 11
    
      Hi Hank,
    
        No, I really don't think that's possible!
    
        Hebrews 12 is apocalyptic and definitely refers to a future
        event.  The thmatic parallels to a couple of the endtime
        prophecies in Daniel are too numerous.
    
        Give Psalm 24:3-6 a quick read.  No generation has yet to
        be prepared to see God's face.  A generation (called Jacob)
        will be so prepared.
    
        This has not happened yet.  
    
        Just a quick question.  If Hebrews 12 happened, given that it
        was future to the writing of the book, just when was it fulfilled?
        What past event (though future to the writing of Hebrews and thus
        post-cross) fulfills Heb. 12?
    
                                                       Tony

Hebrews 11:39  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith,
received not the promise:
 40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be made perfect.

...received not the promise (that is, the Messiah)
      People before Jesus' time relied on the promise (faith) of the 
      New Covenant, which is culminated in the promised Messiah.
...some better thing for us...
      We who have seen the promise of the New Covenant fulfilled in 
      Messiah are no longer bound to the law but to the Spirit.
...they without us should not be made perfect.
      The old system of sacrifice were imperfect (shadows) of things to
      come.  We now have the perfect sacrifice.

MM

      re: -1
    
      This doesn't hold up to the entire theme of Hebrews which
      is about what that shed blood accomplishes (future) in an
      eventual body of believers.
    
      It is about the cross producing the group that rests perfectly
      in Christ, has the law perfectly written in the heart, has
      their faith finished by their Author, is anabled to inhabit
      Mount Zion.
    
      The context of your reply did not allude one bit to the blood
      accomplishing something in a body of believers.  And that is
      the overriding theme of the book.
    
                                                  Tony

    Tony,
    
    The atoning work of Christ at the cross and His resurrection IS the
    gospel.  I am not attacking you, but this is the THEME of the entire New 
    Testament.  Read Colossians chapter 2 and underline everytime it refers
    to who we are "In Him" or "In Christ".  We are who we are in Christ,
    because of His finished work.
    
    >Just a quick question.  If Hebrews 12 happened, given that it       
    >was future to the writing of the book, just when was it fulfilled?       
    >What past event (though future to the writing of Hebrews and thus       
    >post-cross) fulfills Heb. 12?
    
    Heb 12:1,2
    Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us,
    let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily
    entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before
    us,  [this is PRESENT tense] fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and
    perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross,
    despising the shame, and HAS SAT down at the right hand of the throne
    of God [past tense].
    
    Tony, no offense, but I see nothing FUTURE in the above.
    
       > I believe God's church is _having_ their hearts _sprinkled_.  
       > Isn't that a present tense continuous?  (Sort of like if I
       > said I'm having my hair cut or my car washed.)
    Christ died for sin, once for all.  The following is from John
    McArthur's commentary on Hebrews:  "Having our hearts sprinkled clean
    is a beautiful picture of deliverance, already mentioned in 9:14. 
    Conscience condemns us and reminds us of our guilt; and the guilt
    cannot be removed until the sin is removed.  When Jesus died, His blood
    removed our sins, and when we embrace Him by faith, our conscience
    becomes free from guilt- we are cleansed from an evil conscience.  We
    do not condemn ourselves anymore.  Cleansing of our hearts refers to
    satisfaction of God's justice, the expiation of our sins, which is
    required before we can be acceptable to Him."
    
    >    Bing...what is your interpretation of Heb. 11:39,40?  
    I thought Mark did a good job with that one.  I will add the following
    from John McArthur's commentary: "God has provided this 'something
    better' for us, that is for those under the new covenant, which is why
    apart from us they should not be made perfect.  That is , not until our
    time, the time of Christianity, could their salvation be completed,
    made perfect.  Until Jesus' atoning work on the cross was accomplished,
    no salvation was complete, no matter how great the faith a believer may
    have had.  Their faith was based on what Christ would do; ours is based
    on what Christ has done.  Their faith looked forward to promise; ours
    looks back to historical fact."
    
    >What is your interpretation of Hebrew's exhortation to be prepared to
    > inhabit Mount Zion? 
    Which verses are you referring to?
    > Do you believe we have fully entered the rest that the author calls us to 
    > enter (in Hebrews 3,4)?  
    I can't speak for anyone else.  I believe we have the ability to enter
    into God's rest.  Heb 4 is talking about non-believers not entering
    into God's rest (Heb 4:2)
    >Why does the entire theme of hebrews exhort so as to be prepared
    >for something yet future/something its readers are not yet 
    >prepared for?
    I don't see this FUTURE theme that you're talking about.  The following
    verses talk about what Christ has done, or what we have because of what
    Christ has done:
    Heb 1:3; Heb 2:14-15,17-18; Heb 3:14; Heb 4:14-16; 5:9; 7:27; 8:6,13;
    Heb 9:12, 14-15; 11:13; 12:2; 13:10,12,20
    I don't have access to an online bible right now, but I can post these
    at lunch tomorrow if you'd like (I'm at home right now).
    
    The theme of Christ's once for all atonement for our sins, runs
    throughout the New Testement, not just the book of Hebrews.
    
    >   Why does it call us to consider our High Priest and why is the
    >   entire theme about fulfilling something in people and not about
    >   something already fulfilled at Calvary?  (Not that Calvary isn't
    >   absolutely essential!!)
    The theme is about how Christ HAS abolished the old convenant and given
    us a new and better covenant.  The theme is about something that WAS
    fulfilled at Calvary.
    Our high priest is Jesus, who was tempted in all things, yet without sin.  
    He sympathizes with our weaknesses.  We can draw near with confidence
    and receive help in our time of need (Heb 4:14-16).  "and having been
    made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal
    salvation" (Heb 5:9).  "but He, on the other hand, because He abides
    forever, holds his priesthood permanently.  Hence, also, He is able to
    save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always
    lives to make intercession for them." (Heb 7:24,25).   
                                                    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

  Re 551.13 Tony  -< Hebrews 12 Already fulfilled??! >-

  Hebrews is a transitional book, Jews who had received Christ all over the 
  known world were slowly slipping back into Judaism and its Law practice. 
  Paul is warning them that the kingdom of God is being built here on earth 
  awaiting the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ. Yes, this second coming 
  would be apocalyptic. Therefore they should live their lives as if He were 
  already here and not forget the New Covenant that they were supposed to 
  be under and the excellency of Christ over Moses.

  The "future" tenses in the book of Hebrews have to do with the Day of the
  Lord when Jesus Himself is actually here. In the meantime we are to live
  our lives and claim the promises of the New Covenant as REALITIES.

  "But you *HAVE COME* to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God
   the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the 
   general assembly and church of the firstborn registered in heaven 
   to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to
   Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant and to the *blood of sprinkling*
   that speaks better things than that of Abel"

   Hebrews 12:22-24 NKJV

   No, we are not perfect, but the "blood of sprinkling" (Jesus blood) is our 
   remedy and healing for sin in our hearts, to maintain our perfect standing
   before our Heavenly Father.

   "If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one
    another and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin"

   "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the and the truth
    is not in us. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive
    us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

   "My little children these things I write to you so that you may not sin
    And if anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
    righteous and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours 
    only but also for the whole world"

   I John Chpts 1 and 2 exerpts; NKJV. ALL THE VERBS ABOVE ARE PRESENT TENSE.


  Hank

      Hi Bing and Hank,
    
        Perhaps you guys don't know, but I am somewhat well known
        for believing that the atonement was not finished at the
        cross, but will be finished some time in the future by 
        our High Priest.  The blood applied by the High Priest is
        100% the blood of the cross.  The cross is 100% the efficacy
        of the atonement, but its merits are applied by Priest
        (which Christ was not at Calvary, but became when He ascended
        into heaven to mediate for us).
    
        Just to let you guys know.  My point in this topic was to
        bring up the idea that we rest much on symbol and not reality
        regarding the cross.
    
        The MAIN difference I see between myself and the general tenor
        of the replies here is the following...
    
        I feel like it is implied that sanctification is crossless. That
        the cross has no purpose regarding sanctification.  And that any
        cleansing or holiness or righteouss living or the law written in
        the heart or whatever you want to call it...that it is 100%
        fulfilled at the cross and thus irrelevent to actual righteouss
        living.
    
        I believe we are delivered from sin.  I believe sanctification is
        100% a SUBSET of justification by faith, but that justification
        by faith also is inclusive of 100% pardon full and free when one
        first comes to Christ by faith.
    
        I believe the efficacy of the cross is that its merits are able 
        to sanctify the believer PERFECTLY and even enable the believer
        to bear the cross.
    
        I believe that Christianity makes sanctification 'window dressing'
        or a 'peripheral thing' and that it actually is an absolutely
        necessary component of justification by faith.  Its not outside
        the umbrella of what justification by faith is rather justification
        by faith COMPLETELY is inclusive of sanctification.
    
        It seems to me that sanctification is given little regard in the
        plan of redemption.  Discussions of the cross and its efficacy
        never include actual heart-change or walking as Jesus walked.
    
        But, the record is there.  The only role given the blood is that
        it actually cleanses the heart from sin.
    
                                                      Tony
    

    RE .18
    
    Heb  10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them
    that are sanctified.
    
    The margin notes in my Bible for sanctified says "being sanctified".
    
    So, at the same time we HAVE BEEN perfected, but are being sanctified. 
    We have been made perfect, but we are being per-fected.  Our nature has
    been totally changed.  Our behavior may not always be in line with our
    nature.  I don't have any disagreement with the fact that we are being
    sanctified.  Romans 12:2 talks about the renewing of our mind.  There
    is still the battle between living in the Spirit and living according
    to the flesh.  Romans 6 is very clear that we HAVE BEEN made totally
    acceptable to the Lord by Grace, and that should motivate us to want to
    live a life of Godliness.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing
    

    Hi
    
    :-)
    
    Tony - I admire your tenacity and guts (or your continued desire for
    punishment ;-).
    
    I have to admit, however, that I do find something foundationally wrong
    in the notion that it is *not* finished; not only because He Himself
    has already said differently, but also because He is the Lamb slain
    from before the foundation of the world.
    
    By His one act, He HAS perfected forever those who ARE BEING MADE
    perfect.
    
    Remember when we were talking about oak trees at lunch?  Consider this
    analogy...He plants us as oak trees (meaning, I guess - He drops us as
    acorns into the ground) and we begin to grow...we are oak trees and
    we're going to continue growing into the oak tree He's planned for us
    to be.  We're never going to become more "oaky", we already ARE oak;
    yet at the same time, we're growing into the fullness of what He's
    planned for us.
    
    The work is finished (by His one act HE HAS perfected FOREVER) and we
    grow into who we already are in Him (those who ARE BEING MADE perfect).
    
    Just a thought....
    
    Steve

    OUCH - notes clash! :-)
    
    Amazing!!!  :-)

    re .21 & .22
    
    Excellent illustration, though!  8^)
    
    I had heard one about little hard apples (you know the ones we used to 
    throw at each other when we were kids 8^) ).  They already have everything
    in them that they ever need to be apples.  They ARE apples they just need 
    to mature.
    
    Bing

  OK my turn...

  Tony, I also believe that sanctification is an essential ingredient in
  the life of a christian.

  Perhaps at the expense of winning a word contest (not just you alone, but all
  of us) We have sacrificed something (I'm not sure what) on the altar of 
  contention, though we are all being pretty calm and thats great.

  But first, what is your definition of "sanctification"?

  Mine (in my own words) is the process by which we gradually partake of the 
  holiness and righteous character of God (whithout which no man will see the 
  Lord) until our final perfection. 
  
  Personally, I dont see this happening completely while in this flesh. But 
  we can come to the place where we are not *dominated* by sin, but we rule 
  over it. This is why the tenses related to sin and cleansing are PRESENT 
  TENSE in the book of I John. As sin is diminished in our hearts and lives 
  we are "metamorphosized" (one of Paul's terms) into the holy character and 
  nature of Our Father, we need less and less to deal with it, but it is 
  always  present, waiting to awake and seduce us.

  The process is one of introspection and acknowledgment of indwelling sin.
  The means of enlightenment, The Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
  The cleansing agent, The Blood of His Son Jesus Christ.

  If we confess (homolegeo) our sins He is faithful and just to forgive
  us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

  Homolegeo Lit. same-speak or to say the same thing, The song of Moses
  is a two part harmony, we must harmonize or agree with the Word and
  Spirit of God concerning our transgressions of the Law of God and the 
  exercise of our depraved appetites and imaginations revealed in the Law 
  of Moses.  That is our part!
 
  It is HIS part to forgive us and CLEANSE US FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
  We are powerless against sin! He MUST clean up our act.

  If our act is not being cleaned up, then it is we who are not doing our
  part. We are singing Satan's song. "If we say we have no sin we deceive
  ourselves and the Truth is not in us". This not only means we tell ouselves
  that we have no sin, but includes the act of ignoring the voice of the Spirit 
  when He reveals our sin to us. The acknowledging of our sins is an easy yoke 
  to bear, we have a sympathetic High Priest, He is one of us (apart from sin), 
  He understands, He knows our weakness, He loves us, He is God, etc.

  But, if we don't see to our sanctification, then our Father in heaven will 
  see to it and we will die without knowledge (howbeit saved, yet so as by 
  fire). Not a pleasant experience, its our choice.

  "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire".

   Law keeping as a means of sanctification :

  The earthly sabbath, though you can keep it if you wish, wont take one
   molecule of sin from your heart.  

  If we work during the light of the heavenly Sabbath Day we will die in our
  sins. Make sure you are not violating the heavenly sabbath by keeping (in 
  the wrong way) the earthly sabbath. Jesus Christ Himself is our Sabbath Day 
  Rest.

 The heavenly Sabbath :
 "Come unto Me all ye who labor and are heavy ladened and I will give you rest"
  Moses couldnt say this.

  Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy (unblemished).
  I AM the Way the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.
  (Not Moses or any other person or ANY LAW).

  "WITHOUT ME YE CAN DO NOTHING"


  Hank

      re: .19  
    
      Hi Andrew,
    
        Just two things brother...
    
        Please show me how it is you come to the conclusion that the
        'IT' in "It is finished" is equivalent to the atonement.
    
        I believe I adhere to the word by believing "It is finished",
        but I just happen to believe that the "it" is equivalent to
        Passover and not atonement.
    
        I think a word upon word, precept upon precept study of the
        atonement would certainly include the first scriptural accounts
        of what it is and thus would include Leviticus which clearly
        states that the work of atonement is finished by the Priest
        and not the sacrifice.
    
        Secondly, I care not for your use of the term 'scheme' for it
        can carry negative inferences.  I advise that it would have been
        more proper not to use it.
    
                                                 Tony

>        Perhaps you guys don't know, but I am somewhat well known
>        for believing that the atonement was not finished at the
>        cross, but will be finished some time in the future by 
>        our High Priest.  The blood applied by the High Priest is
>        100% the blood of the cross.  The cross is 100% the efficacy
>        of the atonement, but its merits are applied by Priest
>        (which Christ was not at Calvary, but became when He ascended
>        into heaven to mediate for us).
    
    Jesus Christ is the High Priest.  Melchizedek, a type (picture/symbol)
    of Christ was in the OT.  Read his characteristics in Hebrews 7 (no 
    parents, no ancestors, never died).
    
    As for a partial atonement from Jesus Christ:
    
    1 John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have
    fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son 
    cleanseth us from all sin.
    
    Hebrews 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
    eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience 
    from dead works to serve the living God?   

>        I feel like it is implied that sanctification is crossless. That
>        the cross has no purpose regarding sanctification.  And that any
>        cleansing or holiness or righteouss living or the law written in
>        the heart or whatever you want to call it...that it is 100%
>        fulfilled at the cross and thus irrelevent to actual righteouss
>        living.
    
    You need to do an in-depth study of the OT Tabernacle.  When the Word
    says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, it wasn't joking. 
    The Tabernacle is a perfect picture/shadow of the cross to come. 
    Believers were sanctified in both.
    
    Mike

    Hi Tony...
    
    I don't see Paul speaking of the *condition* of an uncrucified flesh
    for the believer; rather, what *appears* to be, even though the REALITY
    is that the believer's flesh (in this context: carnal nature) *IS*
    crucified *IN HIM* (Romans 6, Galatians 2, Ephesians 2, etc.).
    
    Another way to look at it is to say that if *G-d* sees us as completed,
    how should we see us?
    
    If G-d says "it is finished", how should we look at it?
    
    I'll look at .26 more closely (only read it once through) and perhaps
    the earlier replies too...I'm not well motivated to debate much on this
    one; I think we've gone around with it enough ;-)
    
    Love,
    
    Steve

>        but I just happen to believe that the "it" is equivalent to
>        Passover and not atonement.
    
    why was the Passover Lamb slain - for atonement.  The Priest was also 
    the Lamb as well.

>Romans 4:17
>    (as it is written, "I HAVE MADE you a father of many nations") in 
>    the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to
>    the dead AND CALLS THOSE THINGS WHICH DO NOT EXIST AS THOUGH THEY
>    DID.
    
    Long before Abraham fathered Issac, God spoke to him as though his son
    already existed.  I'm greatly comforted when God speaks about me as
    righteous, justified, glorified, holy, pure, and sanctified completely. 
    God can talk about such things before they exist, because He knows they
    will exist.  Jesus Christ will present me before the Father
    "faultless... with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).  In the Bible, God talks
    about my future state as a certainty.  My dwelling with Him eternally
    is a fact to Him, just as Abraham's unborn son was a fact.

    >Romans 4:18-21
    
    this section deals with the 4 keys of Abraham's faith.  
    
    1. Ignoring the physical limitations of the situation (v. 19)
    2. Not staggering in unbelief at the promises of God (v. 20a)
    3. Praising and thanking God even before Sarah became pregnant (v. 20b)
    4. God always comes through on His promises and is able to perform 
       them (v. 21)
    
    Re: future tense of Romans 4:21
    
    This only applies to Abraham and Sarah having their firstborn.  
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I never said the work of atonement was not performed 100%
        by Christ.  What I AM saying is that the work of High Priest
        was not performed at Calvary, but the work as sacrifice was.
    
        Read Hebrews 8:1-6 especially verse 4
    
        Hebrews 8:4
        For if He were on earth, HE WOULD NOT BE A PRIEST...
    
        He was not a priest on earth as you said He was.
    
        Christ did not begin His High Priestly work until He ascended
        into heaven and "ministered in the true tabernacle which the
        Lord erected, and not man."
    
        A question for you Mike...
    
        If the atonement is finished by the Priest
        If Jesus was not a Priest on earth
        If Jesus is a Priest (now and since His ascension) in heaven
    
        How can the atonement be finished?
    
        Remember, the High Priest did not perform His work until after 
        the sacrifice was complete.
    
                                                   Tony

>        If the atonement is finished by the Priest
>        If Jesus was not a Priest on earth
>        If Jesus is a Priest (now and since His ascension) in heaven
>    
>        How can the atonement be finished?
    
    Maybe I'm missing something...  Even if these conditions are true as
    you say, Jesus became the priest at the moment of His ascension.  Given
    that, the atonement would be finished anyway and we're debating this
    for nothing.  What gives?  Have I totally missed it or what?
    
    Mike

    Tony,
    
    You and I have been down this road before so I'm only in for this one
    note (as far as I know).  The IT in IT IS FINISHED can not be pulled
    out of the phrase and analyzed since the phrase is actually a single
    Greek word, "Tetelestai".  Tetelestai was a koine commercial word which
    might otherwise be translated "paid in full" or "it is complete".  There 
    is no more to be paid, no debt remains, Jesus paid it all.
    
    Kent
     

      Hi Mike,
    
        The only point being that the atonement cannot be finished
        at the cross as it is finished by Priest.  The atonement
        is finished some time after the sanctuary is cleansed (which
        it is not yet).
    
      Hi Kent,
    
        Thanks for your inputs.  Actually, it further supports my
        understanding of the atonement.  All the blood is the full
        payment.  The High Priest does not manufacture any more
        'payment', rather He applies the payment provided 100%
        by the cross.
    
        I have further studied this and I just keep on finding that
        redemption is consistently tied to actual deliverance from
        sin (such as the physician text).
    
        To reiterate for the thousandth time, the blood is the full 
        payment, efficacy, whatever you want to call it, of man's
        redemption.  But, some One (with a capital 'O') does something
        with that blood.  He applies the blood to the sanctuary (mind/
        heart) which application really and actually cleanses from sin.
    
        If redemption stopped at the cross, nobody could be saved for
        no One would have taken that 'love' and installed it into the
        heart where it could do its 'salvation work' which work is 
        reconciling the alienated heart back to God by ridding it of
        the enmity (sin).
    
        To put another way...Christ has been performing a redemptive work
        since the cross.  He's not 'up there' not doing anything!!
    
        And to reiterate for the third time, I opened this topic to 
        discuss the cross in terms of how much we see mostly symbol and
        the physical and how little we see the reality that the symbol
        represents and the spiritual.  If anyone wants to discuss/comment
        on that, that's fine with me!
                     
                                                        Tony

    Each new believer is cleansed of sin once they accept Christ as their
    Savior.  It is not continual, it is a 1-time event.
    
    He died for us once.  We accept Him once.  He cleanses us once.  It's
    not that complicated.

      re: -1
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        Perhaps we are suffering from one humongous terminology
        disconnect.  What does it mean to be cleansed?  Is it the
        same thing as sanctified?   (It is precisely the same thing
        to me.)
    
        Hebrews 2:11
        For both He who _sanctifies_ and those who are _being
        sanctified_ are all of one, for which reason He is not
        ashamed to call them brethren.
    
        Hebrews 2:14
        For by one offering He has perfected forever those who
        are _being sanctified_.
    
        Hebrews 9:13,14
        For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a 
        heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying
        of the flesh,
        how much more _shall the blood of Christ_, who through the
        eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge
        your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
    
        Hebrews 13:12
        Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with
        His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
    
        1 John 3:2,3
        Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not been 
        revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed,
        we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
        And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself even
        as He is pure.
    
        By the way, I believe He is seen as He is in the heart before the
        literal second coming (see Hosea 6:1-3 for example).
    
        Titus 2:11-15
        For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all
        men,
        teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldy lusts, we should
        live soberly, righteoussly, and godly in this present age,
        looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great
        God and Savior Jesus Christ,
        who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every
        lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, 
        zealous for good works.
        Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority.  Let
        no one despise you.
    
        Gee, I just 'came upon' another one!  Why did Christ go to the
        cross?  To redeem us from "every lawless deed" and to "purify 
        for Himself His own special people."  Again, no deliverance
        outside of from sin and sin alone.
    
        Mike, I don't know what you mean by 'clean.'  By clean, I mean
        righteouss living.  When David prayed his psalm of repentance
        and said "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean", you can
        bet he was referring to actual heart-cleansing and if you sin
        even once, there is a deeper work of heart-cleansing that Christ
        may work in you via His High Priestly application of His shed
        blood.
    
        And that is the only redemption there is.
    
        And if one is clean all the while he sins now and then...I don't
        know...that is too complicated for me!
    
                                                  Tony

    Tony, I meant spiritually clean.  

>    Each new believer is cleansed of sin once they accept Christ as their
>    Savior.  It is not continual, it is a 1-time event.
    
    	What of the believing Christian who turns to robbery and murder?
    	Are you saying that once we're cleansed, there is no more 
    	responsibility?  No more need for reconciliation?  No more
    	need for forgiveness?  How does it work for some clergyman
    	who, after years of faithful service, begins molesting children
    	or taking advantage of women while counseling them?

    I think that's a separate topic, but salvation is a 1-time event.  As
    for the losing your salvation stuff, I believe the balance of Calvinism
    and Arminianism is reflected in God's Word.  Neither one of those
    man-made doctrines are 100% correct.  

  Uh, maybe I'm missing something, but I dont see what the point is or where we
  are going with this. Tony is right however, we do tend to forget the 
  importance of the many aspects of the Gospel. We also differ in our views 
  concerning these things Sanctification is very important.  

  Most of the brethren in this conference affirm the doctrine of sanctification
  that it follows justification, (of course after sanctification comes
  glorification). It appears the we have differing views of the historical
  completion of, and the responsiblities of the believer in the work of
  sanctification. 
  
  Earlier I said we've sacrificed something and I wasn't sure what it was,
  well this is it : The simplicity of the Gospel.

  To anyone (christian or otherwise) out there who is confused : This 
  conference is a place where christians of various abilities and backgrounds
  come to share, discuss and yes, even debate the different aspects of the 
  Gosplel. Most of us enjoy this exchange, some are not so happy with it.

  The Gospel is very simple :

  "Moreover brethren I declare to you the Gospel which I preached to you
   which also you received and in which you stand...
   For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received :

   That Christ *died for our sins* according to the Scriptures,
   and that He was buried 
   and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures

   I Corinthians 15:1-4 NKJV.

  This is the essential of salvation. Dont worry about sanctification.
  Trust your heavenly Father, ask Him for wisdom! Tell Him how stupid you are
  Ask Him for the promises in the Book of Hebrews (even if you aren't Jewish)
  He wont rebuke you, I know from experience. He has promised you wisdom!! 
  Do you believe Him? 

  The only thing between our "perfection"  and where we stand right now in our
  sanctification, is our flesh. And we'll leave that behind when our spirit 
  goes back to God who gave it.

  We dont start out with the thought, well, now we're gonna confuse everyone. 
  On the contrary, we hope to edify. I'm an offender, so I thought the Gospel 
  should be presented to blow away all the smoke I-we have produced.

  Well , back to the , uh, discussion.

  Hank

  >"Moreover brethren I declare to you the Gospel which I preached to you
  >   which also you received and in which you stand...
  >   For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received :
  
  >   That Christ *died for our sins* according to the Scriptures,
  >   and that He was buried 
  >   and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
  >
  >   I Corinthians 15:1-4 NKJV.
  
  Amen!

  Hi All,

    I thought to digress much as Hank did and give a summary
    of the gospel...

    "Look and live."

    There, that's it!

    As one beholds the goodness of God and appreciates that 
    goodness with the heart (has faith), that person is saved.
    That faith response permits God to begin rooting sin from 
    the life and to shape the character as His own.

                                      Tony

  Hi,

    I think I've come upon what is a main disconnect in this
    discussion.  I think it is in the area of imputed and imparted
    righteoussness.

    I might have it backwards (as far as which is imputed and which 
    is imparted - always forget!), but

    Imputed righteoussness is God looking at a person of faith as
    having the righteoussness of Christ.  Christ did give it to Him.
    In Christ, the person is clean, perfect, sanctified, etc.  This
    is a gift, full and free and received by faith.

    Imparted righteoussness is God really and actually installing the
    righteoussness of Christ into the heart.

    Much of this string has been involved with people disagreeing with
    some of what I have been saying on the basis that they were discussing
    from the perspective of imputed righteoussness while I was discussing
    from the perspective of imparted righteoussness.

    I agree 100% with every one of you so far as imputed righteoussness
    is concerned.  I agree that anyone of faith is perfect, sanctified,
    fully cleansed in Christ.  There is no disagreement on this.

    There is also no disagreement that the basis for our 'imputational
    standing' is 100% the cross.

    The reason the cross is the basis is where we are perhaps 180 degrees
    apart.  If I were to surmise, 'your' (by your, I mean most of you
    guys participating) reason for the basis is that God required a 
    punishment of death for sin and Jesus met that full punishment God
    required and if we accept Jesus, it is credited to our account.

    The reason I believe the cross is the basis of our imputational standing
    in Christ is because the merits of the cross is 100% sufficient to
    accomplish the full IMPARTING of His righteoussness.  There is so much
    love there, so much power of example, so much grace, that if the eye
    of faith sees it all, the corresponding repentance will be such that
    we will be wholly transformed to His likeness.

    If we are delivered from sin, our basis for deliverance has got to
    have something to do with God's ability to root out sin.  For those
    who first come to faith, God accounts righteouss because what He has
    begun, He can finish.  And the only thing that can suppress this is
    a lack of oppurtunity to see enough of the cross in our lifetime.

    The whole reason Christ has yet to return is because the reason for the
    basis of the full efficacy of the cross to save has not been validated.
    A generation will see the cross so fully that all the righteoussness
    that is imputed to one of faith will also have been imparted.

                                                  Tony

 Well, I dunno...maybe I'm not the deep thinker type.  I was saved when
 I recognized that my sin separated me from God.  That separation could
 only be bridged by Jesus Christ.  I accepted Jesus' death on my behalf
 (I should have died) and that all of my sin, past present and future, was
 paid for on the cross.  

 I don't understand imputation, importation, deportation or deputation,
 but I do know that I'm a sinner and I do know that I am saved through
 the blood of the Lamb.


 Frankly, and I apologize for my frankness, I don't understand what you 
 (Tony) are talking about.



 Jim

May I attempt to summarize?

The whole of the Christian walk from new birth to God presence in heaven
occurs on a time line.  We often call it a walk, a journey.

As we grow in grace, we become less and less swayed by the temptations
of sin because we become more and more dependent on the Holy Spirit and
the new nature that he has placed within us at the new birth.  (Like a child
moving into adulthood with more and more independence.)

Christian perfection is a biblical concept (although we have a distinction
as to what that is between us, Tony).  Leaving this distinction aside, we
both acknowledge that sanctification is a part of the whole of the Christian
walk that is somewhere beyond the new birth (although some have claimed that
sanctification occurred at the instant of new birth - I don't doubt this
for some but for many others it is a process, journey, walk -- individual).

I don't think anyone contends that at the point of salvation, through the
effecacy of the sacrifice on the cross, that a person is anything less
than saved.  

I don't think anyone contends that the point of salvation is
the end of the matter either, because we must bear fruit in keeping with
righteousness.  Birth makes one alive (need I qualify this statement for
another topic?); living is a process.

I don't think anyone contends that when we get to heaven, we will be made
perfect, either, putting off the corruptible and putting on the incorruptible.
(I do know you believe that a generation will experience this type of
perfection before reaching heaven, and we contend here.)

The point I am making though is that at no point along the journey is
a Christian not saved, provided his relationship is maintained (I'm
not an OSASer).  His work is complete in the sense that if the Christian
dies as a babe in Christ, he will go onto perfection sooner than the
Christian who lives a very long life as a Christian.  His work is incomplete
in the sense of Phillipians 1:6 where God continues to cause us "to grow",
burning off the chaff, refining the gold, and whatever phrase you can find
to convey the concept.  This is, in part, is what making one's election sure
is about for the Calvinists, or working out one's salvation for the Catholics,
and others for us all.

I don't buy the way you have parsed the journey, Tony, because I think it
splits a few (hairs maybe?) things that oughtn't or needn't be split, such
as "the work of the High priest" vs. "the work of the Sacrificial Lamb" for
example.  But neither do I hold this as "heretical" though I oppose the 
notion that the necessary work of salvation isn't fully accomplished.
Working out one's salvation through the journey of life occurs within
the fully accomplished victory over death and sin. Because He has paved 
the way, we shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Do we have a disconnect?  Yeah, I suppose we do.  And though I don't think
it is as huge as you may think it is, I think it is wide enough to disagree
firmly on the interpretation - certainly on some of the points of it.

Now, I've kept out of this discussion (except for providing requested commentary
on a passage of Scripture), and I intend to keep out of the discussion hereafter,
since you and I have already attempted to educate each other.  Peace to you.

Mark

    Tony,
    
    I think I have explained my understanding of what was done on the
    cross, and supplied sufficient scripture.
    
    We are poles apart of our understanding of what was done on the cross. 
    God doesn't have to "root sin out".  He has removed our sin as far as
    the East is from the West.  Its a matter of me believing reality.  God
    says, in His word, that we are righteous in Christ, that we are dead to 
    sin.   If He said it, that's the way it is.  I will never be good
    enough to earn salvation, its only by His Grace!  The goal in life in not 
    to stop sinning, the goal is to know Christ!  As we grow to know
    Christ, he matures us, allows us to grow.  But, we NOW have the Nature
    of Christ.  As we abide in Him, we simply allow Him to live His life 
    through us.
    
    In this conference, I want to focus on agreement between brothers and
    sisters in Christ, rather than our differences.  This is a very central
    issue to the Christian faith, however, so I don't want to imply my
    agreement, by my silence.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

      Hi Mark,
    
        EXCELLENT REPLY!!
    
        The only thing I want to add is that your understanding of
        my view of the last generation I think is a little off.
    
        I believe corruptible putting on incorruption refers to 
        the changing of our flesh.
    
        When I refer to the last generation that sees God's face
        (as it were), I believe they still have corruptible flesh.
        The only change I speak of is in the MIND.  Their flesh
        is not yet changed, but it is completely crucified.
    
        I am referring to the mind being sealed with God's name
        (character).  Nothing about the flesh which did undergo a
        change when Adam sinned.
    
        No motivation to discuss our differences Mark.  Just a desire
        for you to understand one part I thought you presented (as
        my belief) differently than how I really believe it.
    
        And finally, I entered this topic to discuss the cross as
        to how much we may understand it mainly on a symbolic/physical
        plane and not on a reality/spiritual one.
    
                                                     Tony

      Hi Bing,
    
        If you sin even once, Jesus wants to give you more of
        His righteoussness in that part of you that sinned.
    
        That would be imparted righteoussness.
    
        But, even though you sinned, He always looked at you
        as if you never had.
    
        That would be imputed righteoussness.
    
        One time very near before the cross, Jesus prayed that
        I would love as He loves.
    
        Its important to me to allow Him to fulfill that in my
        life.
    
        And it will only be accomplished by looking unto Jesus the
        Author and Finisher of my faith.  Its 100% His work.
    
                                             Tony

    >        If you sin even once, Jesus wants to give you more of
    >        His righteoussness in that part of you that sinned.
    
    He already gave me ALL of His righteousness.  He Lives in me.
    
    >       And it will only be accomplished by looking unto Jesus the
    >        Author and Finisher of my faith.  Its 100% His work.
    
    I absolutely agree with this.
    
    Bing

      re: -1
    
      Bing,
    
        Then how come you still sin?
    
                                             Tony

    Because our sin nature wars with our spiritual nature.

    Oh NO MIKE... don't say that word we'll get on a SARX discussion again. 
    
    :-) :-) :-)

>        Then how come you still sin?

Calvinist's do, you know, even when they don't.  ;-)

The definition of sin, is slightly different between Calvinists and
Wesleyan Arminians.  Irena asked me if I had sinned today.  I paused
to think and said, "No."  Asked why I paused to think it over, I told
her that "I was making sure."

Arminian "sin" is a willful transgression against a known law of God.
Rebellion.  It's different than Calvin "sin" which says that you can
commit sins of omission (which you can, btw), but is taken to the 
extreme (in some cases) to mean the money I spend on Charmin bathroom
tissue could have been used to spend it on the No-Name brand and the
extra dime spent on mission, or the poor.  By choosing this act, I
directly or indirectly do not do what I might have done - the consequences
being some soul being lost in Africa because the support wasn't there to
bring the gospel.  In the extreme, both positions can be a bit - uh - 
extreme.  

Leaving that for a bit, permit me to address "sins" of the sanctified.
This all depends on the definition of sin, doesn't it?  A sanctified
person hurts the feelings of another person, but doesn't know it.
Certainly this is outside of God's perfect will; He doesn't want us
to go around hurting people.  Certainly when the offense is made known,
it is our Christian duty to seek reconciliation.  But was it a sin, if
you didn't know you did it, didn't mean to do it, but did it anyway?
Arminians would say no, even though once discovered amends should be made.
Calvinists would say yes, even though it does not interrupt your status 
as a child of God (OSAS).

I don't believe "Christian Perfection" makes a human into someone who will
never step on someone else's toes, especially by accident.  Perfection means
to be fit for the purpose of intent.

I do believe sin that is willful (rebellion to what we KNOW to be right) is
a sin that separates us from God, severing a relationship.  We may indeed
be prompted in spirit to reconcile more readily than one who has never known,
but a dead son is of no value.  I believe that "sin" that is incurred upon
another without intent to defy God is that type of sin that is covered
past, present, and future (so call me part-Calvinist), but that once known
must be addressed and cannot be ignored under the assumption that it is
"covered."

Do I still sin?  I do fight temptation.  Who doesn't?  And there is moral 
failure from time to time, but these become fewer and farther between as 
the relationship becomes deeper.  That's spiritual growth.  

Am I cut off; the relationship severed?  That depends on my rebellion;
the attitude of my heart and not the action of my flesh.  The action is
an expression of the attitude.

We shall never be rid of temptations, but we have been promised a way of
escape from temptation or the strength to endure it.  As I journey towards
heaven, I am learning more and more to look for that escape where before I
excused myself as merely being to weak to fight.  While we may never be
rid of temptation, we can be tempted and SIN NOT.  This is also a promise,
based on God's other promises for us, too.  We do not HAVE to sin!
All to often, we choose to.  Shame on us.

Mark

    Let me clarify my statement, that the goal of the Christian life is not
    to stop sinning.  I'm not in any way, shape, or form trying to excuse
    sin.  I don't however think our focus should be on over coming sin, but
    on Christ Himself.  If I am depending on Christ who resides within me
    and focus on Him, the Holy Spirit is going to convict me of sin, and
    righteousness, and judgement (John 16:8).  I consider myself dead to sin, 
    but Alive to God (Rom 6:11).
    
    Bing
    

Excellent Bing.  Overcoming sin is not within our power to do, but it is
Christ within us who enables us.  (The cart before the horse, as it were.)

Philippians 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
----------------- ------ --------------- -----------------------------

Continuation of the good work until the Day.

    RE: last two
    
    BINGO....
    
    PLEASE get Gilham's book "Lifetime Guarantee" - I've never seen a
    better Scriptural and practical understanding of the apparent lack of
    victory among we who ARE victorious!!!
    
    Steve

      Hi,
    
        My point is missed.
    
        The point I tried to make is that if Christ was received
        all the way, one could not possibly sin.  Thus it follows
        that in some way, there is more of Christ to receive.  Bing,
        I am mainly intending this for you.
    
        If I understand you correctly, you maintain that you have
        received all of Christ in every way possible.  My response 
        to that is that you must then have a perfect character; you
        must be sinless.                               
    
        I believe God gave all of Himself to us.  BUT, there is a 
        reception of God that is dependent on our faith.  Unbelief is
        a barrier that suppresses the presence of Christ in the heart.
        Where faith is not perfect, to some extent and in some way,
        Christ is not totally received IN THE MIND.  "LET this mind
        be IN YOU, which was also in Christ Jesus."
    
        Bing, I have a real problem with your understanding of things
        regarding this.  A huge conflict.  Your position (as I understand
        it) must imply sinless living, yet you somehow reconcile your
        position with the fact that you are still a sinner.
    
        _________________________________________________________________
    
        Let it be known that I have also stated _unequivocally_ that 
        overcoming is only possible through "looking unto Jesus."  We
        do not do good works by trying to work, we do good works by
        resting in Christ.
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony,
    
    My argument in response to .59 is that it's not a matter of RECEIVING
    Him fully (as that is assured, as I understand Scripture), rather, it's
    a matter of YIELDING ourselves to Him fully that He can do through us
    the things He wants to (sin not belonging in that category, obviously).
    
    There is no more of Him to receive - He's given all.
    
    We need to "reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to Him".  That means
    - see it as He sees it...believers HAVE DIED to sin.  We face
    temptations (which should be subjected as in 1Cor 10:13), we SHOULD NOT
    SIN (1John) BUT, if we do, we have an Advocate to Whom we must confess
    (also 1John).
    
    I'm never going to receive more of Him in me than I have today, because
    the Biblical truth is that I no longer live anyway (Gal 2:20) - HE
    lives His life out *through* Me.
    
    My job is to believe Him, whether it feels/seems that way or not, rest
    in Him, and trust Him to perform good works through me.
    
    I'll see if I have an extra copy of that book if you're interested. 
    It's quite lucid (unlike me ;-).
    
    Steve

    Steve I think you said this, but..
    
    >The point I tried to make is that if Christ was received
    >all the way, one could not possibly sin.  Thus it follows
    >that in some way, there is more of Christ to receive.  Bing,
    >I am mainly intending this for you.
    
    Tony I think you are seeing things inversely.  It is we who change and
    GROW, Christ remains the same... there is not more of Christ to
    receive, but more "dying to self".
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

 I think I see at least one thing that Tony  is saying. He believes that there 
 will be a generation which will be completely sanctified whilst on the earth.

 There are a couple of scriptures whch could be interpreted to support this.

 "With God all things are possible" 

 If this happens it will have to be at the hand of God. Possibly :

 Saying, do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees, till we have sealed
 the servants of God on their foreheads. And I heard the number of those who
 were sealed, One hundred and forty four thousand of all the tribes of the
 *children of Israel*     Revelation 7:3-4 NKJV.

 Reformed theology says that the phrase "children of Israel" might imply the 
 spiritual rather than the physical seed of Abraham; the phrase would possibly 
 have been "of all the tribes of Israel" if the physical seed were meant. 

 Anything's possible, what does "sealing" mean. Sinless perfection?

 This is a theory, not a provocation for another "debate". (But I'm game :-) ).

 Though, I for one think this discussion is great. Any time we have to search
 the scriptures to bring substance to our faith is great. 

 When I am walking in the light I have no fear and I am resting perfectly
 in the Son of God, with absolute assurance of my perfect standing with
 with my Heavenly Father. I have come to Mt Zion and the company of the
 perfected spirits.

 Sometimes I slip into the darkness and sleep...
 Our heavenly Father has ways of waking us up.

  Then we have our High Priest standing in the heavenly sanctuary

  "And in the midst of of the seven lampstands, one like the Son of Man
   clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded abouth the chest with
   a golden band..."

  "I have the keys of Hades and of Death"

  "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire that you may be rich"

  The Mercy Seat (the place of proptiation, where guilt is expiated) was made
  of gold refined seven times to perfectly purify it. Then it was beaten into 
  a block, perhaps several feet square. The Candlestick also was refined gold 
  (a single piece) beaten into a lamp with seven fonts.

  And what is the money of exchange? We give Him our sins, He gives us His
  Holiness...

  "and white garments that you may be clothed"

  And clothes (or reclothes) us in a robe of righteousness...

  "and anoint your eyes with eye salve that you may see"

  And He awakes us out of our sleep.

  "Perfection" in this flesh means that we "reckon" it to be so, and that we
  are walking in the light of I John 1:9.

  We do have this perfection right now, but while we are in this flesh (unless
  as you say, He actively mortifies it completely) we slip out even of the 
  "reckoning" of it via the sin which so easily besets us and we have to look 
  again to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. 

  But I see what you are saying, where I would differ significantly is 
  concerning the idea that the Atonement is not complete. IMV The Atonement has 
  been completed, those who have been predestined to conform to His image 
  through His blood (shed from before the foundation of the world) must pass 
  through this earth on their pilgram journey to the New Jerusalem and "work 
  out their own salvation" This is why Hebrews uses the term "are being 
  perfected" as seeing them entering the time continuum and fulfilling their 
  pre-destiny, not that the Atonement itself is undergoing an evolution of 
  some sort. 

  Hebrews 11 (and in fact the entire book) is a request directed to Jews that 
  they stop allowing themselves to be pulled back into the practises of the 
  Mosaic Covenant where they received only an earthly rest, and that they 
  should go on to enter into (or back into) the heavenly rest provided by 
  Jesus Christ the mediator of the New Covenant.

  "there remains therefore a rest (Lit. sabbatismo) for the people of God
   For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works
   *AS GOD DID HIS* (it is finished!).

   let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according
   to the same example of disobedience"

    OK maybe one more reply... but that's all :-)
    
    To expound on what Steve and Nancy have already said, Romans 6:12-13
    discusses yielding ones members to God.  The word for yield is not a
    passive word but active.  It speaks of actively aligning ones self with
    the object, "unto sin" or "unto God".  The difference might be expressed 
    in two analogies.  First, a robber has you at gunpoint.  You allow him to 
    take your possessions.  His will is imposed upon you without your consent. 
    The second is more like the active alliances made during wartime.  In
    WWII smaller nations who would not have independently been able to
    withstand the aggression of Nazi Germany aligned themselves with larger
    nations.  The verses above do not speak of allowing more of God to be
    in your life, with or without consent is irrelivent, but to the active
    participatory yielding of ones self to God for the work of
    righteousness.
    
    Kent
    

      Hi Hank,
    
        I just read the first screen, but will read the whole thing.
        (Got a meeting in a couple minutes.)
    
        There are probably a thousand verses which clearly state that
        God can make us sinless (provided we allow Him to).
    
      Hi Nancy, Steve,
    
        A gift can be given, but it still may not be completely received.
        Did Christ give Himself to the unsaved?  I believe He did, but
        they refused to receive.
    
        I might be given food freely by someone.  It may be 100% MY 
        FOOD.  However, if I refuse to RECEIVE the food, I will still
        die of hunger.
    
        There is a difference between being given something and receiving
        something.
    
        Check out what the mystery of God is (somewhere in Colossians).
        It is Christ IN you, the hope of glory.  The mystery of God is
        not finished until the seventh trump sounds (last days).  In other
        words, the finishing of "Christ in you" is yet future.
    
        That's what the Bible says.
    
        Though Christ is given to ALL men, He still must be received else
        the gift is ineffective.
    
        If I carry your logic all the way, either the unsaved were never
        given Christ or there really can't be any unsaved.
    
        To be given something and to receive it are two different things.
        Someone can give me a Christmas present, but it won't do me a
        whole lot of good if I leave it unopened or throw it away.  But,
        its still mine.
    
                                                    Tony
                                                        

    Tony,
    
    I don't think anyone is saying that you don't have to receive
    Christ.  At least they way I see it.  I think they are saying
    that when you receive Him, you receive Him.  He doesn't say,
    "OK but you can have only part of Me now and you have to 
    work (or deserve or whatever)  to receive the rest"
    
    Jesus gives himself to us completely but we do not always
    give up our 'selves' completely.
    
    I don't know if I have made any sense but though I might
    give it a try.
    
    Pam

      re: .65
    
      Hi Pam,
    
        The difference is, I don't believe that when one receives
        Him, one receives all of Him at once.  Faith is what allows
        God to dwell in the heart.  Do you recall what the father
        of the demon possessed man said?  "Lord I believe, help 
        Thou mine unbelief!"
    
        The problem I have with your reply is this:
    
        "Ok but you can only have part of me now and you have to 
        work (or deserve or whatever) to receive the rest."
    
        I thought we agreed that receiving includes our will.  Given
        that, is it not possible that when one first comes to faith,
        that faith is not perfect?  (Lord I believe, help Thou mine
        unbelief.)  Your statement above switched the onus of receiving
        back to God as in "You can have only part of Me now."  I
        believe the onus is ours as in, "I am only allowing a part of
        You in my heart."
    
        Do you see the difference?
    
        I maintain that to truly receive all of Christ in the heart
        would mean that sin must be completely eradicated from the
        heart.  
    
        Abraham had faith, but it was not yet perfected when he went 
        in unto Hagar.  His mind was inclusive of both an old covenant
        and a new covenant experience.  He relied on the flesh (Hagar)
        in part to do God's will.  But, he still had faith when he
        went in unto Hagar.  He just happened to also have unbelief.
    
        I just don't understand Pam how it is that you placed receiving
        on God's willingness.  I NEVER implied such.  I believe Jesus
        is ours; He has been given to us.  I just don't believe that
        we are willing to receive Him all the way all at once.  I put
        the onus on reception 100% at my door.  (Its my choice, His has
        already been made.)
    
        It would be like the food analogy I used.  If someone gave me
        a full banquet and I partook of say 10% of the meal, while the
        entire meal was given to me, I was only willing to receive a
        part of it.  Its not the fault of he who gave me the meal.  That
        person is not witholding.  I AM!!
    
        Secondly, you inferred something I never once said or alluded
        to even remotely.  And that is the idea that receiving more of 
        Christ is a matter of "working or deserving or whatever."
    
        I invite you to quote anything that I have written that even
        remotely suggests that I have inferred this.
    
        The only thing that inhibits a full reception of Christ in the
        heart is UNBELIEF.  The only thing that will cause me to be 
        willing to receive more of Christ in my heart is a fuller
        revelation of Christ hung for me which revelation I respond to
        by faith and which causes me to believe in Him more and more
        and to 'unbelieve' in Him less and less.  Which causes me to
        have more 'Sara-like' experiences and less 'Hagar-like'
        experiences.   Which causes me to partake less and less of the
        flesh and more and more of the Spirit.
    
        It is impossible to have received, in the heart, the fulness
        of God and to sin.
    
        What you guys are all suggesting, I believe, is completely in
        contradiction to the word of God.  You suggest that when one first
        comes to faith, weak though it is, one has received all of God
        in the heart.
    
        Please reconcile that notion with this...
    
        Ephesians 3:19
        to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may 
        be filled with all the fulness of God.
    
        And, if time, consider that passage in the light of its context,
        i.e. Ephesians 3:14 through ch. 5.
    
                                                     Tony
                                                         

    Tony,
    
    I didn't mean to offend you, if I did.  I may have misread/
    misunderstood your notes - I will go back and read the
    previous notes as time allows.
    
    Pam

I don't need to understand the mechanics of the automobile to know that
when I get in and turn the key, I can go places.  I have not understood 
or "taken within me the whole of the automobile" when I receive the 
understanding of how to make use of it.

As I learn to change the oil for myself, I come to know the automobile better,
yet, my knowledge is certainly not complete.  But I still know what I need
to know to keep the car running (gas, oil, tire changes, etc.)

When we receive Christ into our hearts, we get the whole kit and kaboodle;
the whole enchilada; the car.  As we begin to understand more, we don't 
get more of the whole because the whole is already given - but we do 
receive more (ownership and understanding) of what we do have.

We agree that as we die to self, the pull of sin (temptation) becomes
less powerful against us.  I believe we've argued over the difference
in definitions between sin and temptation before, Tony, no?  (And perhaps
our understandings are similar to the definition of sin between Calvinists
and Arminians).  I believe that sin <*>IS<*> completely eradicated by
our faith in the work on the Cross... "...as far as the east from the
west."  I believe also that we are babes in Christ at the time when Christ
begins his good work.  Further Christ will perform that good work (perfecting 
us as we grow, 'cuz babes are not mature) until the day of Jesus Christ. 
(Phillipians 1:6)  Sin is removed and has no part of the Newly Generated
Babe in Christ.  The will of a person remains, as does temptations on 
every front - BUT!!! (praise God!) because of our NEW NATURE, the promises
of God IF WE RELY ON THEM, we do not have to sin.  Alas, as babies sometimes
err, so do we.  That's the beauty in this verse:

1John 2:1  My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin
not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous:

You don't have to sin - but if you do, we have an advocate, thank God.
It does NOT give license to sin, claiming weakness.  But if we do find 
ourselves, we can be forgiven and more on toward Christian maturity and
even "perfection."

>        It is impossible to have received, in the heart, the fullness
>        of God and to sin.

This sounds more like OSAS than anything else you've ever said.  The fact is
that God will never abridge our right to choose.  Relationship requires TWO
persons in agreement: in this case, God and me.  If I RELY completely on God,
you are ABSOLUTELY correct - I cannot sin.... because I rely on God, but not
because of any Christian growth that has happened to me, personally. 
I can sin when I stop relying on God and rely on myself... at any stage in
my human lifetime.  Granted, as I mature in Christ and understand the benefits
of relying on God, it makes much less sense to rely on myself. 

But the nature of temptation is to be very desirable, even with the knowledge
that the desirable thing is wrong.  As we mature, we are able to resist those
urges better, but we ALWAYS have the free will - and further rejection of
a temptation makes us stronger (more perfect) and able to easier say NO
to the temptation the next time.

So, we're really not that far off.  And we really don't miss the point so
much as not agreeing to the point... at certain points of the point.

Mark

>        The point I tried to make is that if Christ was received
>        all the way, one could not possibly sin.  Thus it follows
>        that in some way, there is more of Christ to receive.  Bing,
>        I am mainly intending this for you.
 
    I think Pam addressed the receiving part.  I must RECEIVE Christ by
    faith to become a child of God (John 1:12; Eph 2:8,9).  When I receive
    Him, I get ALL of Him.  That doesn't mean that my flesh (the techniques
    that I have aquired to get my needs and desires met, apart from my
    dependance of Christ) is gone.  Its still wars against the spirit 
    (Rom 7).  Its only by abiding in Christ that I can experience the
    victorious life that He has for me.  Christ walked on earth as fully
    human.  It was only by abiding in His Father that He walked victorious
    (John 5:19,30;10:38).  As Steve said, my old self was crucified with Him 
    and Christ now lives in me (Gal 2:20).  Sin has been rendered powerless 
    (Rom 6:6,7)  I AM dead to sin and alive to God.  That's Truth.  That's 
    Reality.  I will only experience the reality, however, as I consider it 
    (or reckon it) to be true (Rom 6:11).
      
    >    If I understand you correctly, you maintain that you have
    >    received all of Christ in every way possible.  My response 
    >    to that is that you must then have a perfect character; you
    >    must be sinless.                               
    
    I have a perfect NATURE.  The nature of Christ himself within me.  The
    daily verses for today includes Phil 3:8b,9 "...that I may gain Christ,
    and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived
    from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the
    righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." (read note 9.210
    to get it in context).  The new Testament has 30+ references to believers 
    as Saints (and I think only 3 referring to us as sinners- one of them 
    obviously referring to Paul BEFORE he came to know Christ).  A GOOD
    description of a Christian is a "Saint who sometimes sins".  I am not 
    accepted by God based on MY righteousness derived from obedience to the 
    Law, but that which comes through faith in Christ.  When God looks at me, 
    He sees Christ's righteousness.  I am at the same time both perfect and 
    being per-fected.  
    
    >    I believe God gave all of Himself to us.  BUT, there is a 
    >    reception of God that is dependent on our faith.  Unbelief is
    >    a barrier that suppresses the presence of Christ in the heart.
    >    Where faith is not perfect, to some extent and in some way,
    >    Christ is not totally received IN THE MIND.  "LET this mind
    >    be IN YOU, which was also in Christ Jesus."
    
    We are saved by grace through faith.  Gal 2:20 says that we die to our
    old self at this point and that Christ comes to live in me.  2 Cor 5:17 
    says that we become new creatures at that point.  We may not be
    EXPERIENCING the victory that is ours, if we depend on our own flesh,
    verses abiding in Christ.  Just as Christ did nothing on His own apart
    from His Father, we can do nothing on our own apart from Christ.  It is
    Christ who produces fruit THROUGH me, I can do nothing of myself, apart
    from Christ (John 15:5).  I have a choice through my WILL to either
    live in dependency on Christ or to live according to my flesh. 
    Sometimes I don't FEEL righteous, I have a choice of my will to either
    believe God's word that I am righteous in Christ, or to believe my
    feelings (There is also such a thing as VALID guilt verses FALSE guilt.  
    The book Steve mentioned "Lifetime Guarantee" gives the
    clearest explaination that I have ever seen about understanding who I
    am in Christ and how that impacts the way I allow Christ to live
    through me.  
    
    >    Bing, I have a real problem with your understanding of things
    >    regarding this.  A huge conflict.  Your position (as I understand
    >    it) must imply sinless living, yet you somehow reconcile your
    >    position with the fact that you are still a sinner.
    
    Hopefully, I've answered this question in the answers I provided above.
    
    Let me say one more thing.  I believe when I die and go to be with
    Jesus.  I will leave my "Earth Suit" here.  At that point there won't be 
    the conflict between the Spirit and my flesh.  As long as I live in a
    "fallen world" that conflict will exist. (Note:  I use "I" a lot when I 
    talk, but when I use "I" in this context, I am talking about ALL 
    Christians). 
    
>        Let it be known that I have also stated _unequivocally_ that 
>        overcoming is only possible through "looking unto Jesus."  We
>        do not do good works by trying to work, we do good works by
>        resting in Christ.
    
 Amen!
    
    
    Love in Christ,
    
    Bing

  Re  551.64 Tony : sinlessness

  I have no problem with the fact that God can make us sinless (and He will).

  Why is I John 1:6-9 in the present tense?

  It is our Fathers will that we do not sin:

  "My little children, these things I write to you that you may not sin"
   I John 1:2a

  However

   "and if any one sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
   the righteous"
   I John 1:2b

  I think I know where we are going with this.

  I know that many people use the book of I John for proof texts for
  commandment keeping, and I agree , but does it mean the Law of Moses
  Commandments?

  And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments
  and do those those things which are pleasing in His sight. And this is
  His commandment that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ
  and love one another as He gave us commandment I John 3:23.

  We have two commandments above, one from the Father and one from the Son 
  and His commandments are not grievous (as are the 613 of the Law of Moses).

  "and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren 'unless you
   are circumcised according to the custom of Moses you cannot be saved"

  "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up and saying
  'it is necessary to circumsice them (gentile disciples) and to command 
  them to keep the law of Moses. 

  Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter"

  "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting *a yoke* on the necks of the
   disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear, but we believe
   that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the
   same manner (by faith) as they".

  "They wrote this letter to them: The apostles,the elders and the brethren...

  "Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with
   words unsettling your souls saying 'You must be circumcised and keep the 
   Law, to whom we gave no such commandment...
  
   *for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit* and to us to lay on you no greater
   burden than these necessary things, that you abstain from things offered 
   to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from fornication, if you
   keep youselves from these you will do well. Farewell.  
   Acts 15 exerpts.

   The things above in the last passage are elements of the Noahide Covenant 
   which Our Father made with the gentile nations, as long as there are 
   rainbows in the sky.

  "Or do you not know brethren (for I speak to those who know the law)'
   that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the 
   woman who has a husband is bound by the Law to her husband as long 
   as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the Law
   of her husband. So then if, while she lives, she marries another man
   she will be called an adultress, but if her husband dies she is free
   from that law so that she is no adultress, though she is married to 
   another man.

   Therefore my brethren, *you also have become dead to the law* through the
   body of Christ

   that you may be married to another, to him who raised from the dead
   Romans 7:1-4 NKJV

   The realtionship of the christian to the Law (the Torah) is the same as 
   That of a woman to her dead husband. She is free from him. She may marry
   another.

   "if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband"  

     
   "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the
    works of the Law, or the hearing of faith?
    Are you so foolish having begun in the Spirit 

    Are you now BEING MADE PERFECT in the FLESH ?" Galatians 3:2-3

  

    Mark, excellent analogy on the car!  
    
    Hank, I believe we've discussed sanctification in another topic, Mark
    do you remember where?
    
    I'll take  a look see..
    
    Nancy

  Re .71 Nancy 

  Sanctification in another topic?

  I don't remember 

  The older I get, the more I forget.

  Hank

It was in Christian V6 (towards the time of the conference rollover).

You can still access that discussion, or start a new one in 555.*.  :-)

      Hi,
    
        Just a couple quick thoughts.
    
        Pam, I'm not offended at all.  It does get frustrating though
        when people think I advocate righteoussness by anything other
        than faith.  Its faith first and last and forever!
    
        Mark, I do not think what I said squares with OSAS (which I do
        not happen to believe).  I do believe though in an event called
        the sealing and that it is the time when the last generation 
        has the character of Christ sealed in their minds.  The reason
        I do not believe they will sin is not OSAS, but rather that I
        believe they will know God's love so well that though given the
        choice to sin, they just won't.  Grace just 'superabounds' because
        they've seen it.
    
        As to temptations being less and less, I agree in a relative sense.
        I am more inclined to want to say that it is the pull of grace
        being more and more realized.  "Where sin abounds, grace does much
        more abound."   In other words, I prefer to put the onus of victory
        on grace being more and more and not temptation being less and
        less.  (But, I'm sure you mean the same thing.)
    
        Hank, I do believe the atonement is not finished.  When I sin, I
        demonstrate that my mind is not completely reconciled to God's.
        He was always reconciled to me.  The merits of the cross will some-
        day so reconcile me to Him that I will never choose to sin again.
        I think I believe the atonement to be something very different from
        the rest of you.  I believe sin is separation, atonement is
        reconciliation and I will be fully reconciled to God when that
        which separates is finally removed.
    
        When I sin, I KNOW alienation.  I feel it.  There is a far better
        reconciliation than I now enjoy and that is the one I will enjoy
        when I know Him so well that I NEVER turn my back on Him and
        toward sin - not even for an instant.  Now THAT'S reconciliation!
    
        I'm still a dissentor regarding "Christ in you..."
    
        And I will remain such until the scriptures I bring forward are
        addressed.  Specifically, the Ephesians text which is of Paul's
        prayer that we might comprehend the dimensions of agape and his
        reason why he wants us to comprehend it.  That we might be filled
        with all the fulness of God.
    
        I conclude therefore that we are not filled with all the fulness
        of God until after we comprehend the dimensions of agape.
    
        I also brought up the "Christ in you" text (in Colossians).  This
        is the mystery of God says Colossians.  This mystery is not
        finished until the sounding of the seventh angel (Rev 10:7).
        In other words, there is a finishing of "Christ in you."
    
        When one considers that having received all the fulness of God
        would imply (among other things) a condition of sinlessness and
        when one looks at texts like Colossians/Rev 10:7 as well as
        Ephesians and its looking forward to a church without spot or
        wrinkle, and also throw in the reems of other 'last-day' 
        allusions of sanctification/maturity...well, it seems to be
        so consistent.
    
        That being there is a definite tie between how much of Christ is
        received in the heart by faith and the sanctified status.  If
        there is a link and given that we are not yet that mature group,
        it would follow that we have something less than the fulness of
        God in our hearts.
    
        Again...not because it wasn't given, but rather because our faith
        is not yet perfected, we have refused to fully receive.
    
                                                        Tony

    re: .66
    
    Tony - you say to receive Him in the heart, sin must be
    erradicated....if the "old man" is dead (as Romans 6 says) and if He
    dwells in us (multiple Scriptures), then what exactly do you think
    happened? 
    
    I don't want to debate this issue anymore...I'll leave it up to others.
    
    I'll again recommend (strongly, highly, and whateverly ;-) Gilham's
    book to help understand the symphony of Scriptures on this issue. 
    It's the finest teaching of the Word's picture of saints I've ever
    read.
    
    Be well, all,
    
    
    Steve

    I have difficulty with the concept of recieving Christ 10% or25% or 
    anything different than 0% or 100%.  It seems to me a little like
    saying I'm 10% saved or 25% saved.  I'm either saved or not saved. 
    This may be overly simplistic but I felt compelled to enter the
    dialog.
    
    God bless you all
    
    Your brother in Christ
    
    Dave       

 Amen, DAve...





 Jim

      re: .76
    
      Hi Dave,
    
        Well, my understanding is that one is 100% saved in the 
        since of perfect assurance and if you died right then and
        there, you would experience the resurrection of the just.
    
        My understanding is that "there is a salvation yet to be
        revealed in the last days." as Peter puts it (not sure where).
        If I had all of Christ in my heart, I would be sinless and
        Jesus came to save me from my sin.
    
        Steve has mentioned being perfect and being _perfected_.
        I think that is relevent here.  When one first comes to
        faith, one is perfect in Christ.  Though a sinner, God looks
        at that person as if he is 100% righteouss (which he is in
        Christ).
    
        But, still, there are the texts that refer to being perfected,
        to being cleansed (in a continuous sense), to walking more
        as Jesus walked, etc.
    
        I heard a neat analogy this past Sabbath.  A person told me
        that if a laser hit a perfectly white piece of paper, it would
        reflect off and not damage it at all.  If there was a smidgeon
        of dirt on that paper, the paper would ignite and burn completely.
    
        God is light and a baptism of fire is coming.  You and I cannot
        house the full presence of God in our hearts right now.  We
        would be destroyed.
    
        Do you remember that passage about Moses wanting to see God and
        God told Moses that he couldn't see His face?  Why not?  Because
        seeing God's face is a euphemism for seeing the unveiled presence
        of God.  Later Moses could see God's face.  At this point, a
        Mediator is not needed for the veil is rent as it was for Christ
        after the cross experience.
    
        Psalm 24 depicts a people, a generation called Jacob, who SEEK HIS
        FACE.  This is the last generation.  This is the generation Jesus
        looked forward to as He hung on the cross and said, "A posterity
        shall serve Him" (Ps. 22).  Its also the city Abraham asked to see
        when he made a sacrifice and "a horror of great darkness" fell
        upon him.  He was probably expecting to see the New Jerusalem in
        heaven.  I think he saw the moon (church) after it perfectly
        reflected the sun (God) when it was red (time of trouble) and the
        sun was dark (God doesn't seem to be there).
    
        I am NOT talking about perfect assurance and being saved in the
        sense of, "Am I going to heaven."  Actually, I am sick of the whole
        "I'm saved, are you saved" routine.  
    
        I am not talking about that kind of salvation.  I am talking about
        the one Peter looked forward to when he said there was a salvation
        yet to be revealed.
    
        I'm talking about salvation from sinning.   We might not place a
        lot of significance to that, but as for me, I fall short of that
        salvation and the best way I can glorify God is to allow Him to
        save me in that way.  The best way to glorify God is to perfectly
        reflect His character.
    
                                                   Tony      

    Thank you for the clarification. My misunderstanding was undoubtedly
    due to my late arrival to this conference and the discussion.  Never
    did know when to keep my mouth (fingers) shut :-).
    
    After carefully reading your reply I find myself in agreement with your
    position so I guess I don't have much more to contribute at this time.
    
    May God Bless you in all things
    
    - Dave

      Thanks Dave and I'm sure your mouth is usually a lot less
      'open' than mine!
    
      Welcome, brother!!
    
                                               Tony

    We've been discussing this lately in CP and I believe some of the
    information was important enough to add to this topic.  This whole
    issue basically revolves around the SDA doctrine of the Investigative
    Judgment, which Hebrews 8:1-2 is used as their proof text.
    
    In addition to what I've recently posted on Melchizedek, it is
    important to realize that Jesus Christ was always the High Priest and 
    performed the perfect sacrifice for our atonement since He was perfect.  
    No more sacrifice is made or necessary because it has been completed.  He 
    is the author and finisher of our faith.  
    
Hebrews 7:26-27 "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest,
    holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the
    heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up
    sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the
    people, because this He did ONCE AND FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP
    HIMSELF."  (NAS)
    
    All of the titles and names given to Jesus, as well as Lamb and High 
    Priest were fulfilled in due time.  It was always known that they would be
    fulfilled, but they weren't fulfilled until the time was right.  If the
    atonement was finished from the foundation of the world, there would be
    no need for Abraham's bosom (Sheol).  The atonement wasn't finished
    until Christ paid the price for it.  Now there is no need for Sheol or
    the OT sacrificial system.  It is no coincidence that it and the Temple
    disappeared after Christ's resurrection.  The Lamb might have been slain 
    from the foundation of the world, but it is incorrect to say that the 
    atonement was also paid then.  God knew it was going to happen.  The OT 
    prophets even wrote about it.  But it still had to happen to be complete.
    
    Now that Christ has died for us and finished the atonement, today is the 
    day of salvation.  The veil has been torn in two.  Through Christ's 
    righteousness now in us we can boldy go before the throne.  We now have 
    access to the Father, into the very Holy of Holies.  When God looks at us 
    after we've accepted His Son as Savior, He sees the righteousness of 
    Christ in us. 
    
    However, we still have battles with the flesh.  Read Romans 7 and 
    1 Corinthians 15.  The battle of the flesh continues as the Holy Spirit 
    gradually kicks the old man out of this human shell.  This battle is 
    gradually won as we starve the flesh and take on more of God's Holy Spirit 
    in our lives.  This happens as we grow as Christians.  The battle will be 
    complete in the next resurrection.  Until then, as Christians we are to 
    bask in the grace and love of Jesus Christ and the assurance of our 
    salvation.  As you grow through studying God's Word, worshiping Him for 
    His wonderful love and grace, and maintain an attitude of prayer, you'll 
    start winning the battle with the flesh.  I've experienced this just as 
    personally as I've felt the sting of the flesh.
    
    The remedy for sin has been provided.  It's time we accept that and move 
    on as we grow in God's grace.  Continually worrying about our salvation is 
    not how we grow.  I've been there and never grew at all.  When you're 
    saved, you'll know it, and growing in grace after that glorious 
    acknowledgement is a tremendous experience.  He has delivered us from the 
    bondage of sin so that we can bask in the freedom Christ has provided 
    because of His glorious love and grace.
    
    Mike

Hebrews 8:1
NOW of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high
priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens;

    There are a few interesting things to point out about this verse. 
    Notice that Christ is seated (i.e., resting).  If you are familiar
    with the life of a Levite priest, you'll know that their work was never
    done.  Sort of like parents (usually the Mom) who's work was never
    done.  There were always sacrifices to perform, atonement to be made,
    process of self-cleansing, etc.  This is why Jesus Christ wasn't a
    Levite.  Christ was of the heavenly order of Melchizedek because there
    would be a time when His work as High Priest would be finished.  It
    happened at Calvary and now He is seated.

    Secondly, look to the Sanhedrin as an example of the seating
    arrangements here.  The Sanhedrin was a very powerful civil and
    religious court.  They were the major player in the arrest and
    crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  In the Sanhedrin court, the person
    logging all the condemnations sat on the left of the judge.  The person
    who logged all the acquittals sat on the right hand of the judge.  It's
    also interesting to note that the translation of Satan is "Accuser." 
    Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God because He has logged all the
    acquittals for us.  When God looks at the Christian, He sees Christ
    righteousness!

Hebrews 8:2
A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, and not man.

    The true temple that the Lord has built is within the heart and soul of
    the believer in Christ.  Way back in Ezekiel, it was prophecied that this 
    inward change would take place.

    Ezekiel 36:26
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I
will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart
of flesh.

    This prophecy was fulfilled in the words of Jesus Christ Himself:

John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    How could the Lord's Temple be in the believer in Christ?  Let's see
    what else God's Word says about this.

I Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in
you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    Paul is very clear here on this.  How is it possible that the Lord's
    Temple is within the Christians?

John 2:19-22
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt
thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body.
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had
said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus
had said.

    Jesus Christ paid the price for the new covenant so He could set up His
    Temple within us and minister to us when we become servants of God.  He
    continually intercedes on our behalf as well.

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

I Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus;

    He continually intercedes for the believer, showing His righteousness
    through us.  As we continue to serve Him, He continually washes and
    regenerates us in His Spirit.

    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I'm glad you referred me to the two crosses topic as otherwise
        I never would have known you made a couple of entries.
    
        I never heard of Heb 8:1,2 being used as a proof text, but that
        could be my ignorance.  Its 5 PM now and I'm going home.
    
        I'll give those replies a read and hopefully respond.
    
        Just a couple questions tho.
    
        How is it that you understand me to be under the law and not
        in the new covenant?
    
        What is the Bible term for actual sinless living?  Would such
        an experience characterize a certain kind of oneness with God 
        that is not existent when God's people are still sinning?
    
                                               So Long,
    
                                               Tony

RE:                     <<< Note 551.83 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
                             -< Found It!!   ;-) >-

       
   >     What is the Bible term for actual sinless living?  Would such
   >     an experience characterize a certain kind of oneness with God 
   >     that is not existent when God's people are still sinning?
    
    

     Heaven.  And it would characterize a certain kind of oneness with
     God..we will be in His glorious presence.



Jim

>        How is it that you understand me to be under the law and not
>        in the new covenant?
    
    like OT believers looking to the future for their redemption, your hope
    for salvation is in something that happened 1,961 years ago.  You
    haven't grasped the grace of God yet.
    
    Mike

      Re: .84
    
      I don't accept that one Jim.  I believe the Bible characterizes
      perfect obedience outside of the experience of a _place_.  Besides,
      Lucifer sinned in heaven.
    
      Re: .85
    
      I believe in different aspects of salvation.  I do believe in the
      one that refers to the assurance of being saved as in "If I die 
      today, will I end up in heaven???"  I believe in that and have 
      assurance of that.
    
      But, there is another salvation work and that is from sin.  It
      seems like you preach salvation in sin, but I read that the word
      says His name shall be called Emmanuel for [because] He will save
      us from our sins.
    
      You seem to see not one iota of salvation in the heart-change.
    
      I believe salvation is the heart-change and that when we have allowed
      Christ to begin to change the heart, we ought to have full assurance
      that we are His.
    
      Any gospel that takes away the heart-change from salvation is a 
      false gospel.
    
      None of us have come close to grasping the grace of God.  If you did,
      you would find it impossible to live as you presently do.  And I
      would find it impossible to live as I do.  If you fully grasped the
      grace of God, it would be far too painful to sin - even once.
    
      I read that when a people fully comprehends the dimensions of agape,
      they will be filled with all the fulness of God.
    
      You can't sin while being filled with all the fulness of God.
    
      Everywhere I read, the gospel is tied to the heart-change.  Whenever
      I read your replies, I get some message that seems to imply that to
      tie the gospel to the heart-change is blasphemous or something.
    
                                                   Tony

RE:                     <<< Note 551.86 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
                      -< Don't Discount The Hear-Change >-

       
   >   I don't accept that one Jim.  I believe the Bible characterizes
   >   perfect obedience outside of the experience of a _place_.  Besides,
   >   Lucifer sinned in heaven.
    
    

      Hmmm..1John talks about sin and forgiveness of sin as if its (unfortunate-
      ly) an always present thing..





  
Jim

     Hi,
    
       I really want to continue this string.  Just let me know if
       this is a waste to any of you who are reading.  I've been 
       busy lately, but I hope to make some more substantial (i.e.
       more scripturally abundant) replies after I get my much awaited
       for Christmas present - Logos!!!!!  Then I can type away at home
       and copy over to a ANSI file.  I basically just have lunch and
       can't find the time to post a whole lot.
    
       Jim,
    
       1 John says that if any man CLAIMS to be without sin, he is a
       liar and the truth is not in him.  This leads to two possibilities
       (that I can think of):
    
       1) You must then always be a sinner (until Jesus comes).
    
       2) Its possible via Christ to be made sinless, HOWEVER if you are
          made sinless, you will still not know your own heart.  You will
          not realize it.  Thus you will not claim it (sinlessness).
    
       I think several texts support sinless living as a possibility.
       One text being the Our Father, i.e. "Thy will be done on earth
       AS IT IS IN HEAVEN."  Or Matt where it says, "Be perfect even as
       your Father in heaven is perfect."  They are just too numerous to
       list all of them.
    
       Job 9:20,21 is illminating.  Paraphrase: If I was perfect, I would
       not know my own soul, I would despise my life.
    
       Job certainly seems to state that should one be perfect, he would
       not realize it and thus would never claim it.  Here is harmony with
       the 1 John text.  (Perhaps a harmony you did not see??  If not,
       praise the Lord!! Nothing like a nugget of light.)
    
    
                                                   God Bless,
    
                                                   Tony
                                                         

6:1  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

6:2  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

6:3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
 baptized into his death?

6:4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
 should walk in newness of life.

6:5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we
 shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6:6  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin
 might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

6:7  For he that is dead is freed from sin.

6:8  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with
 him:

6:9  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath
 no more dominion over him.

6:10  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he
 liveth unto God.

6:11  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive
 unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

6:12  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it
 in the lusts thereof.

6:13  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:
 but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your
 members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

6:14  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law,
 but under grace.

6:15  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under
 grace? God forbid.

6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his
 servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience
 unto righteousness?

6:17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed
 from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

6:18  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

6:19  I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh:
 for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity
 unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto
 holiness.

6:20  For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

6:21  What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for
 the end of those things is death.

6:22  But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have
 your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life
 through Jesus Christ our Lord.

7:1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that
 the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

7:2  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so
 long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
 her husband.

7:3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she
 shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from
 that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

7:4  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of
 Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from
 the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

7:5  For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law,
 did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

7:6  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were
 held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the
 letter.

7:7  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known
 sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou
 shalt not covet.

7:8  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
 concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

7:9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
 revived, and I died.

7:10  And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto
 death.

7:11  For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew
 me.

7:12  Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

7:13  Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that
 it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by
 the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

7:14  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

7:15  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but
 what I hate, that do I.

7:16  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is
 good.

7:17  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

7:18  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for
 to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

7:19  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that
 I do.

7:20  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that
 dwelleth in me.

7:21  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

7:22  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

7:23  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,
 and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

7:24  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
 death?

7:25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself
 serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
 who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from
 the law of sin and death.

8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
 sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
 sin in the flesh:

8:4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
 after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

8:5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but
 they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

8:6  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life
 and peace.

8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to
 the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8:8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

8:9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit
 of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none
 of his.

8:10  And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit
 is life because of righteousness.

8:11  But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
 he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies
 by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

8:12  Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the
 flesh.

8:13  For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the
 Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

8:15  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have
 received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

8:16  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
 children of God:

8:17  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;
 if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

8:18  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to
 be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation
 of the sons of God.

8:20  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason
 of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

8:21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of
 corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

8:22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
 together until now.

8:23  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the
 Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to
 wit, the redemption of our body.

8:24  For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a
 man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

8:25  But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

8:26  Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we
 should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us
 with groanings which cannot be uttered.

8:27  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,
 because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

8:28  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,
 to them who are the called according to his purpose.

8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
 image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

8:30  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he
 called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

8:31  What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be
 against us?

8:32  He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how
 shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

8:33  Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
 justifieth.

8:34  Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
 risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
 intercession for us.

8:35  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or
 distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are
 accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

8:37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that
 loved us.

8:38  For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
 principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

8:39  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate
 us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

      Sorry Mike, too long.  I'll read it at home.  Did you include
      any commentary outside of posting Romans 6-8?

    Only the first couple lines are mine.

      Hi Mike,
    
        I had 'grand illusions' of forming a really thorough reply to
        respond to your view that Christ's High Priestly work was
        finished at the cross, but I just don't think I'll get to it
        for quite awhile.  The following are a real quick outline 
        (albeit VERY incomplete; i.e. there is so much more scripture
        to support this with) that is mainly intended to show that 
        Jesus is still doing something now that is redemptive.
    
        Here is a quick summary...
    
        First, you mentioned that Christ intercedes now.  That is a High
        Priestly work and thus you contradict your own assertion that His
        High Priestly work is finished.
    
        Second, you state that because Christ is seated, it follows that
        He is not doing any work.  Can you provide scriptural evidence 
        for the assertion that to be _seated_ as the Bible describes it
        implies not working?
    
        Third, take a look at where Christ says...
    
        John 14:1,2
        In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I 
        would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.
        And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and
        receive you to Myself that where I am, there you may be also.
    
        I looked up the Greek for mansion and for place and it was the
        Greek word which means 'abiding place' or 'dwelling' This has 
        always made a lot of sense to me because Jesus could make all 
        the 'physical' mansions He could want with a word.  
    
        The same word 'to dwell' is present in the following chapter which
        really is a continuation of Jesus' discourse.  "Abide in Me, and
        I in you."  This is the vine and the branches text.
    
        In addition, the John 14 verses I gave you are preceded by "Let
        not your heart be troubled."  This phrase is repeated later in 
        the same chapter in the context of Jesus saying "My peace I give
        to you."
    
        In addition, a word study of 'house' or 'temple' or 'building'
        would be illuminating.  Corinthians has some fine passages on the
        building of the house (or it may be temple).  This is what Jesus 
        "goes to prepare" "that where He is, we may be also."
    
        The interpretation I believe is this...
    
        Jesus is saying that He goes to prepare a dwelling place for us.
        That dwelling place is linked with "abide in Me and I in you" and
        is linked with the building of "an spiritual house."  (God's word
        is spirit, not flesh and blood.  A fleshly interpretation, i.e. 
        literal mansion as in a physical dwelling is just that - a physical
        and not a spiritual rendering of the word.)
    
        That dwelling place is our hearts.  It also links nicely with His
        saying He leaves us with peace.  "There is no fear in love for
        perfect love casts out all fear."  It is only by His abiding 
        presence in the heart that Jesus gives us peace and there is no
        peace in sin.  To the extent that sin is in the heart, there is
        unrest/lack of peace or to put another way some lack of reconci-
        liation or atonement.
    
        This of course links with the scriptural ideas related to
        atonement.  The High Priest "goes to prepare a place for us."  He
        cleanses the sanctuary with His blood and after the sanctuary is
        completely cleansed, the atonement is finished and the High Priest
        work is complete.  He then comes to take us home.
    
        It all just dovetails so nicely.
    
        John 14 clearly says that Jesus GOES to prepare a place for us
        SO THAT where He is we CAN BE ALSO.  Thus it follows that were
        Jesus to not go and perform this work, where He goes, we could not
        be also.
    
        Thus it follows that Jesus does a work that is needed for us to
        be with Him and a work that He does after the cross, i.e. that
        is done "WHERE HE GOES."
    
                                                       Tony

Hi Tony,

351 blocks is a lot to go back over to refresh what's going on here, so 
replies (at least from me ;-) are likely to repeat earlier discussion.

I think that in .92, you are arguing that Jesus still has work to do to
save us - I think that's what you mean by High Priestly work. 

This seems to be confusing salvation and sanctification.  The work of 
salvation was completed at Calvary, with the cry "It is finished."  
Sanctification does not imply further high priestly sacrifice, or anything 
comparable; rather it requires us to learn to set aside the flesh, and this 
is learned by developing our [spiritual] muscles against the defeated foe, 
the devil, who is allowed limited scope against completion of the church.  
The intercession of the LORD Jesus at the right hand of God the Father 
(Romans 8:34) is not a sacrificial work, and our salvation is not dependent 
on it.

The fact that Jesus' work is complete is underlined in Hebrews 10, 
focussing on verse 12; the 'sitting' is to denote completion, and rest 
pending the fruition of what He has sown.  This is also indicated in :

Hebrews 1:3 
  "...After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right 
   hand of the Majesty in heaven"

Hebrews 1:13 
  "To which of the angels did God ever say 'Sit down at my right hand until 
   I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"

The way these verses are phrased uses the 'seated' to indicate rest

Hebrews 10:12-13

  "...But when this high priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for 
   sins, He sat down at the right hand of God.  Since that time He waits for 
   His enemies to be made His footstool, because by one sacrifice He has 
   made perfect for ever those who are being made holy."


I might well be arguing at cross purposes, but your note seemed to confuse 
the functions here.  I haven't time to cover the preceding 91 replies.  
Maybe tomorrow .. ;-)

								Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        I was amazed that I didn't consider the possibility that John 14
        alludes to Christ going to the cross.  Actually, I believe it
        refers to both cross and High Priestly work of atonement/cleansing
        the heavenly sanctuary.
    
        I hate the term 'devil's advocate', but I played devil's advocate
        regarding the atonement.  I tried to prove the atonement was
        finished at the cross.  I couldn't do it and in fact couldn't
        come ball park close.
    
        I looked up atonement in the Concordance and it only occurs once.
        This is in Romans where it says we have received [past tense] the
        atonement.  I also looked up the Greek word for this rendering and
        checked its other uses which were approximately 5 and one of which
        was "be ye reconciled [atoned] to God" [present continuous tense].
    
        The Romans text doesn't carry the weight of imposing the atonement
        being finished at the cross (even though it is in the past tense)
        for a few reasons one of which is the use of the same Greek word
        for atonement invoking present continuous tense.
    
        A couple other reasons are...
    
        The Bible says we are perfect and also says we are being perfected.
        The Bible says we are cleansed and also says we are being cleansed.
        The Bible says we are sanctified and also says we are being sancti-
        fied.  I happen to believe we are atoned and are being atoned which
        finds solid scriptural consistency.
    
        The arguments I have heard for the atonement being finished at the
        cross are bringing up "It is finished."  I realize something was
        finished at the cross, but I don't know how it can be shown with
        scripture alone that the word IT must refer to the atonement.  It
        is a rather generic pronoun!!  (I believe it refers to the passover
        myself.)
    
        Another argument I heard is saying that at the cross redemption
        was "PAID IN FULL."  I agree that the payment was complete at the
        cross, but I can't hazard to see the link between the payment being
        complete and the atonement being complete unless somewhere in the
        Bible, it says that the atonement is finished when the payment is
        completely made.  I'd love to be shown such a text.  It seems to
        me that people are attaching a certain MEANING to what they think
        the atonement is, i.e. it is something finished when payment is
        fully made, people are then giving a valid truth, i.e. payment
        has been made in full at the cross, and then they are concluding 
        the atonement is finished.  The disconnect is that partial basis 
        for the conclusion is not scripture rather is their interpretation
        of what the atonement means.
    
        The best definition I have heard for atonement is at-one-ment and
        another is reconciliation.  
    
        As per Leviticus (which has much to say about the atonement), I 
        believe that when the full merits of the sacrifice has been applied
        by the High Priest (Christ in heaven, i.e. "We NOW have such an 
        High Priest") to the sanctuary (our hearts) and does its atoning
        work (cleansing from sin and thus reconciling to God), the atone-
        ment it finished.
    
        Again (for me) it sure beats the support for a finished atonement
        that I have heard and which I gave above.
    
        One last thing...as I mentioned, I need scripture to tell me that
        being seated implies not working.  I sometimes do a lot of work
        while I'm sitting!!  Does scripture support this or is this a 
        notion that is more in the realm of interpretation of what
        scripture says?
    
                                                   Tony
    

      I meant to say the word atonement onlt occurs once in the 
      KJV NT.

    The right-hand of the throne (judge) in the Sanhedrin was the place of
    the person who listed your acquittals.  This is a type of the heavenly
    picture.  God (the judge) hears our accuser (Satan), but sees us
    through the righteousness of His Son and we're acquitted under the
    blood of Christ.
    
    In not accepting His full atonement, you appear to be confusing
    atonement for all sin (which yields salvation) with daily struggles in
    the flesh.
    
I John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    John addressed this book to *BELIEVERS* - those who are already
    *SAVED*!  Confess is also present continuous in the Greek.  Even though
    we're saved, we still have the fleshly sin that gets our feet dirty
    from time to time.  The best commentary on this passage is found in
    where John quotes Jesus Christ in his gospel...
    
13:5  After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the
 disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

13:6  Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou
 wash my feet?

13:7  Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but
 thou shalt know hereafter.

13:8  Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him,
 If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

13:9  Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and
 my head.

13:10  Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,
 but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

    The disciples were saved.  Those of us under the blood of Jesus are
    saved.  Our feet still get dirty, but we confess it and He washes our
    feet.  Our hearts were cleansed at the cross.
    
    Mike

    ...and to expand on Jesus washing our feet even more...
    
    Christ in this manner was not only treating His disciples as priests,
    but He was fulfilling the type of Him being the Bronze Laver in the
    tabernacle/temple.  Put your gospel glasses on and look at the
    symbolism.  Remember Christ fulfilled *ALL* of the Old Covenant!
    
    The priest was covered by the Blood of Lamb.  The priest had to wash
    once (and for all) before entering the tabernacle/temple.  No effort was 
    involved in the washing and it was strictly forbidden for you to try and 
    do it yourself.  The water ran out onto you and cleansed you on its own.  
    However, those who tried to enter into God's presence (Holy Place) without 
    washing were struck dead because there is no sin allowed in God's presence.
    For this reason, the priests had a rope and bell tied around their waist 
    so the others could pull the dead body out.  This not only shows us that
    one must be saved to enter into the God's presence, it also shows us that 
    we are saved by God's grace only.  No work was allowed at the Bronze Laver.
    The blood of the Lamb could then be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat once
    you entered the Holy of Holies.  
    
    Jesus Christ was the High Priest, and the only High Priest that could
    do this since He wasn't a Levite, that fulfilled the dual role of Lamb
    and High Priest.  He washes us as well as paying the price for our
    atonement with His blood.  The Cross was the Mercy Seat and His Spirit
    is the Bronze Laver.  According to the prophecy of Ezekiel 36:26 and
    John 3, He has taken up residence in the hearts (the heavenly
    sanctuary) of those who accept Him as Savior and Lord.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I'm not sure how any of what you wrote addresses my concern
        that I saw scant (really no) scriptural support for the atone-
        ment being finished at the cross.
    
        One big thing also is a difference in meaning that we are applying
        to the word SAVED.
    
        Here is my guess as to your definition:
    
        saved = "to have full assurance that if I were to be struck by
                 lightning and I fell dead, that I would be with the Lord."
    
        Here is my definition
    
        saved = "to have full assurance that if I were to be struck by
                 lightning and I fell dead, that I would be with the Lord
                 AND to be cleansed from sin in the heart."
    
        I believe the word SAVED as scripture defines it is more encom-
        passing than as you define it and this skews scriptural inter-
        pretation.
    
        I have full assurance.  I believe that if I dropped dead this
        instant, that I would be with the Lord.
    
        BUT...
    
        I also believe that having sin cleansed from the heart or to put
        another way, having the righteoussness of Christ imparted into
        the heart is a subset of what salvation is.
    
        In fact, I believe that the basis for Christ's righteoussness 
        to be 100% imputed to me when I first come to faith is that He
        can impart that same righteoussness He imputes.
    
        The last generation will and must validate that.  Heb. 11:38-12:2.
        Christ will be the author and finisher [perfecter] of their faith.
    
        And THAT is a work of salvation!!                     
    
                                                          Tony

    I believe we're getting closer to an understanding.  What you believe
    the definition of SAVED means is also what I believe.  Our difference
    lies in *when* this happens.  I believe the Bible tells us the change
    is immediate upon acceptance of Christ as Savior.  
    
I John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of
God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the
name of the Son of God.

    Notice the tense here.  John in writing to believers is stressing
    assurance of salvation.  There is no sin allowed in the Holy of Holies
    (God's presence).  Our hearts can't be cleansed after we get there if
    they contain sin.  We can't be saved with sin in our hearts.  With the
    blood of Christ, we obtain new hearts that desire to do His will.
    
II Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new.

    There is *NOTHING* we can do on our own to get there.  Our hearts are
    evil and our righteousness is a filthy rags.  Christ showed our
    fallibility by stating even if we think about a certain sin, we've
    already committed it.  The blood of Christ is *MANDATORY* because it is
    the only way we're saved.  It washes us whiter than snow and He writes
    His name upon our hearts.  If He doesn't wash us, the sin is still in
    our hearts and we cannot enter into God's presence.
    
    The Bible doesn't speak of sinful hearts being allowed in God's
    presence nor does it state some "last generation" will be cleaned.  God
    is a just God and will not condemn His servants who have gone on before
    this supposed generation and only clean certain people.
    
Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    
    There are no conditions or privileged people under God's gift of
    salvation.

I John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.
    
I John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his
only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

I John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son
to be the propitiation for our sins.

    PAID IN FULL,
    Mike

    SNARF???

      Hi Mike,
    
        How does the life of Abraham square with your position
        especially in the light of Romans 4's commentary on it?
    
        Just to give a couple highlights...
    
        When Abraham first has faith (or at least some time in
        the early stages of his faith), the Bible says that Abraham
        believed God and it was accounted to him for righteoussness.
        God tells Abraham he is the father of many nations.  He uses
        the past tense here.
    
        Shortly after this, Abraham, fearing for his life, does not
        tell the king of Egypt that Sarai is his wife.  In other words,
        he lacked faith because if Abraham is to be the father of many
        nations, we know that packed in this promise must be the promise
        that God would keep Abraham alive - yet Abraham fears for his
        life.
    
        We also know that Abraham relies on self in order to fulfill the
        promise.  He goes in unto Hagar and utilizes the flesh to fulfill
        the promise of God.  In fact, according to Gal. 4, this is the
        old covenant.
    
        But, Abe's faith is undergoing a maturing.  This faith matures all
        the way to it being able to be victorious over the three day
        symbolic period of intense trial.  Look up three in the Concordance
        and see the events it refers to...
    
        1) the cross
    
        2) Jonah in the belly of the whale
    
        3) Abraham going up Mount Moriah to offer up Isaac
    
        4) Joseph's brothers in prison
    
        5) Esther in the court of the king during the death decree.
    
        and many, many more.
    
        This is the time that tests faith.  And Abraham goes through.
    
        To digress just a bit, the blessing of Abraham is nothing less
        than the gospel of Jesus Christ itself (see Galatians 3:8).
    
        After Abraham endures the symbolic three day experience, the Angel
        of the Lord discloses something very fascinating.  This is CRUCIAL
        and I hope this is not missed.
    
        Please read Genesis 22:15-18.  You will see that it is because 
        Abraham's faith endured the symbolic three day experience of
        trouble THAT ALL THE NATION'S SHALL BE BLESSED.  And the blessing
        equates to nothing short of the giving of the gospel - the good 
        news of the plan of redemption.
    
        Another words, God cannot give the gospel unless it can produce
        in man just what it produced in Abraham, "the father of the 
        faithful."
    
        How does this fit into your gospel Mike?
    
        Romans 4 offers an illuminating commentary...
    
        The word of God tells us what it means WHEN IT SAYS SOMETHING THAT
        ISN'T YET AS IT IS, i.e. "who calls those things which do not exist
        as though they did."
    
        Abraham still wasn't the father of many nations, but he called Abe
        a father of many nations, i.e. he called Abe something which was
        not as though it was.  And this inspired record is sandwiched in a
        commentary on justification by faith, on GOD ACCOUNTING OUR FAITH
        FOR RIGHTEOUSSNESS.
    
        Your theology seems to say that when God says we are clean, we
        are clean.  My theology takes the inspired word itself and says
        "God calls those things which do not exist as though they did."
        And I can't emphasize enough the fact that this feature of what
        God does is ensconched in a dialogue concerning God accounting
        people of faith righteouss and by that I mean nothing short of
        the spotless, righteoussness of Christ Himself.
    
        Now, on what basis does God do this?
    
        Romans 4:21 says that God accounted Abraham righteouss because
        he was fully convinced that what God promised he could perform.
        But, if you look at the life of Abraham, when it is said that
        Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteoussness
        Abraham WAS NOT fully convinced that what God had promised He was
        able to perform.  Remember he lied to Pharoah and he went in unto
        Hagar and even said "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"  
        Gen. 17:18.  Ishmael = the works of the flesh.
    
        In light of what Romans 4:21 says and in light of the fact that
        Abe wasn't at this point when his faith was accounted to him for
        righteoussness, it must follow (and this is KEY) that God accounted
        it to him ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE COULD MAKE HIS FAITH BECOME.
    
        And that is nothing short of PERFECT (see Heb. 12:1,2).
    
        How does this square with your gospel Mike?
    
        It squares perfectly with mine.
    
        To be justified is to be made righteouss.  When we first come to
        faith, God accounts it to us for righteoussness on the basis that
        he can cultivate our faith to the point that we believe that what
        God says, He can perform.  Now this is KEY as well.  When we
        believe that what God promises He can perform, IT IS DONE.  That
        is, the only barrier is unbelief and when that barrier is removed
        and God says "Walk before Me and be thou perfect" Gen. 17:1, when
        we believe that He who said is well able to make it come to pass,
        it comes to pass.
    
        That is the basis.  You and I are not clean.  He looks at us as 
        clean and we are being made clean, but clean is clean.  Clean is
        sinlessness.  But, God says "This person has begun the path of
        being justified.  I look at Him with the righteoussness of Christ.
        And I do so because I can cultivate His faith to the point of
        receiving all of that righteoussness."
    
        Thats what the Bible clearly says.  Let the record be a parcel of
        your gospel Mike!
    
        Abraham can be looked at as a corporate man.  He is the "father of
        the faithful."  He has a seed.  There is a corporate element to
        him.
    
        Abraham the corporate man must become what Abraham the man became.
        It must be demonstrated that what God cultivated in Abraham, He
        can cultivate in His faithful.  And that is exactly what will 
        happen.
    
        The last generation will demonstrate that they can believe that
        what God has promised He can perform.
    
        And that is nothing short of perfect faith which then allows God
        to impart 100% the righteoussness of Christ in their hearts.  And
        the demonstration that this has occured is an endtime survival
        of the three day test.  The storm that hits both houses.
    
        *******************************************************************
    
        You mentioned "paid in full."  Can you show me with the Bible where
        the word atonement is linked to being paid in full?  Just grab
        your Concordance and show it to me out of the word.
    
                                                      God Bless,
    
                                                      Tony
        
                                           

    Tony, Abraham was justified by faith just as we are today.  He not only
    was saved, but God made the blood covenant with Him and honored His
    word.  Remember when God and Abraham sealed their covenant with an
    animal sacrifices?  It's in Genesis 15:10-18.  In those days, a
    covenant was made by cutting the animal in two pieces and each member
    of the agreement would pass between the pieces with barefeet to seal
    the agreement in blood.  Once again here God shows there is nothing we
    can do on our own for salvation.  God caused Abraham to fall into a
    deep sleep while God and God alone passed between the 2 pieces to seal
    His covenant with Abraham.  There was no work Abraham could do to
    fulfill God's Word!  No matter what Abraham tried to do in "fixing" things 
    on his own, God's Word will prevail as He sees fit.
    
    Justification by faith is what saved Abraham, it is the salvation theme
    of the new covenant, and it is how we are saved today.
    
    In Romans 4:3 Paul quotes Genesis and says "...Abraham believed God and it 
    was reckoned to Him as righteousness."  Abraham more than believed in
    God.  See also Galatians 3:13-16 and John 8:33-59.  Abraham saw the day
    of the Messiah coming and rejoiced in it.  Salvation was the same
    before and after the cross: justification by faith in God's grace.  
    
    Another example of Abraham's belief is his old covenant wedding ring. 
    Abraham was saved at age 85 and circumcised at age 99.  A seal or sign
    is a symbol pointing to what has already happened.  The wedding ring(s) of
    a married couple is a seal or sign of a love and covenant that is already 
    there.  It is evidence of a pre-existing relationship.  Circumcision
    was the wedding ring in the old covenant.  Water baptism is the wedding
    ring in the new covenant.
    
    Abraham just didn't have faith for faith's sake.  The object of his
    faith was God!  His faith was tested, but he obeyed God (Romans 4:20).
    
    Interesting sidebar: that same fear was hereditary since Issac also
    claimed once that Rebekah was his sister.  Abraham actually did this
    twice with Sarah. ;-)  Praise God though that He is a God of His Word!
    
    btw - I don't have my Strong's with me at work so I'll look later.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I never once stated that justification is not by faith and faith
        alone.  We just happen to disagree on what justification is.  As
        I said, I believe it is to be made righteouss and also includes
        being looked upon as 100% righteouss in the eyes of christ when
        one has begun to allow God to reshape the heart (when one first
        has faith).
    
        The changing of the heart from sinful to made into His image
        is justification by faith and its all His work.
    
        I have not added a single human work to this.  I am not once
        referring to the outward works which a converted heart produces,
        I am referring exclusively to the inward work of Christ remaking
        our hearts.
    
        And we both agree that it is all His work and 0% ours.  A leopard
        cannot change his spots nor an Ethiopean his skin.
    
        Correct me if I am wrong Mike, but you completely ignored all that
        I said concerning partial basis for how Abraham was a blessing for
        many nations and the Romans 4 ("who calls those things which do
        not exist as though they did").
    
        That whole thing I outlined is a substantial bit of scripture 
        related to on what basis it is that God calls things.
    
        It simply cannot be ignored.  I need for it to be responded to.
    
                                                     Tony

      Hi Again,
    
        Just want to mention the main impact your posting of Romans 
        6-8 had on me.  
    
        If I might digress, I think when I discussed the idea that 
        all we need to be delivered from is SIN (and not God who has
        to kill because of sin), most points were swept aside save
        Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death."
    
        That scripture, I felt, could be considered to describe a 
        death INHERENT to sin in the same sense that an object falling
        is inherent to gravity.  Anyway, everyone told me, "No, it has 
        to be taken to refer to a judicial punishment God has to dole
        out on account of sin."
    
        Well, reading Romans 6-8 gave me quite a thorough exposition on
        Romans 6:23 _in context_."  Romans 7 thoroughly expounds on just
        how it is that sin causes death and thus context supports the
        inherent model.  Nothing arbitrary (outside of the natural effects
        of sin) about it!
    
        Do you understand what I mean when I say that the wrench is this
        idea of what we are delivered from?
    
        If we're only delivered from sin, the sole efficacy of the cross
        as well as the primary purpose of the plan of redemption is to remove
        sin from the heart.  That is where it condemns us.  That is where 
        the problem resides.
    
        For you to point me to a gospel that is completely removed from 
        the change of the heart as the component of salvation is fruit-
        less unless you can prove to me that we are not delivered from 
        sin, but instead from that price God has to be satisfied with.
    
        But, that is an inescapable quandary.  If we need deliverance 
        from sin, it is a penalty demanded by God's law.  As agape is
        the fulfilling of God's law (according to Romans) and as God's
        law is the same thing as righteoussness which is the same thing
        as agape, the following needs to be reconciled:
    
        the law demands death for sin
    
        agape = God's law
    
        therefore agape demands death for sin
    
        and from 1 Corin 13:5
    
        agape does not seek its own.
    
        Lets summarize:
    
        agape cannot offer forgiveness unless it receives an infinite
        sacrifice for its own satisfaction
    
        AND
     
        agape does not seek its own.
    
        And I've offered the story of the child who does something wrong.
        If that child saw my love/concern for her and if she responded
        to that and it warmed her heart and she underwent a heart-change,
        would I still have to kill her anyway??!!!
    
        ALL God needs to do is to remake our hearts because sin is condemn-
        ation and righteoussness is life.
    
        Anyway, Mike, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.
    
        The total efficacioussness of the cross is what it could produce
        in Abraham.
    
        God must demonstrate that same efficacioussness in a large-scale -
        Abraham's seed.
    
        Do you recognize the fork and do you see the insignificance of
        your inputs when they completely rely on something I do not believe
        in?  (The idea that God had to kill somebody.  Jesus appeased Him
        by His death.  We accept the price and are delivered - and this 
        entire scheme of how the atonement is finished having virtually
        nothing to do with the real problem.
    
        Sin in the heart.
    
                                                         Tony
                                          
                                 

      Hi Again,
    
        I just want to add the following to scripture's account of
        Abraham and how scripture uses Abe as a model to describe
        on what basis God calls us righteouss, justified, etc.
    
        Romans 4:18
        who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became
        the father of many nations, according to what was spoken,
        "So shall your descendants be."
    
        The main word I ask you all to take a real good look at is
        "BECAME."  God said, "YOU ARE the father of many nations" and
        the Bible also says, "he BECAME the father of many nations"
        (and after God said "You are...")
    
        God tells us we are clean and tells us to cleanse yourselves
        (1 Corin 7:1).  Likewise, if you look, you will see that it
        tells us we are sanctified and tells us to be sanctified, tells
        us we are reconciled and says "be ye reconciled", tells us we
        are perfect and tells us "Be ye perfect."
    
        Anyway, the gospel I have heard presented in this conference
        does not accomadate this.  It only says, "You are perfect."
        "You are clean."  etc.
    
        To not accomadate this is another gospel which is not another
        for there is only one gospel.
    
        The reason God does the above is because that word which says
        "You are clean" is the same word which makes clean, BUT our
        faith has not received the totality of that cleansing word of
        God.
    
        This is so important.  Of course, the above implies that what
        God speaks can actually come to pass and this (I believe) is
        largely denied.  As an example, the sermon on the mount where
        Jesus expounds on agape by saying "Love your enemies, etc." and
        ending by saying "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven
        is perfect."  That word can make us perfect here and now.  Abe
        came to believe that what God said, He could perform.
    
        And it wasn't just in Christ, it was CHRIST IN HIM.  Abraham
        endured the three day struggle with faith intact.
    
                                                     Tony

>        God tells us we are clean and tells us to cleanse yourselves
> et al.

The Bible tells us to be filled with the Holy Spirit.  But this is not
just a simply one-time filling; it is a continual filling.

I am full of the Holy Spirit, yet He is continuing to pour Himself out
on me.    I think this is called the perfect infinitive tense of the verb.

I am the father of Miranda, Jessica, Emily and Andrew.
I also became their father.  I was to be their father
before they were born.

I don't get your point, Tony, but I've been skimming, so my apologies;
this one caught my attention.

Mark

    I don't get Tony's point either most of the time.  Let me see if I can
    break down his concerns:
    
    - what the atonement covers and for how long?
    - differences between redemption and sanctification and when does each
      take place and for how long?
    
    Please clarify for me, Tony.  BTW - your question on the concordance
    can be found in your new Logos (I'm jealous).  It has the TSK built-in
    as well so you can chase down the topical reference chains.
    
    Mike

    nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
    Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ
    Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the
    works of the Law, since by the works of the Law, shall no flesh be
    justified..........."I do not nullify the grace of God; for if
    righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
    				Gal 2:16,21
    
    and may be found in Him, not having a righeousness of my own derived
    from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the
    righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.
    				Phil 3:9
    
    And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled
    with the Spirit. [As I understand the Greek here -- it's literally be
    being filled, or a continuous filling].
    				Eph 5:18
    

    nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
    Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ
    Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the
    works of the Law, since by the works of the Law, shall no flesh be
    justified..........."I do not nullify the grace of God; for if
    righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
    				Gal 2:16,21
    

	Doesn't this pretty much confirm that it's faith that is needed? And
when people judge others by their works (whether good or bad) that it is really
a waste of time as FAITH in Him is all that matters? And the ONLY worthy One to
be able to judge that is Christ Himself?


Glen

    (Roman 6:1-2)
    What shall we say then?  Are we to continue in sin that grace might
    increase?  May it never be!  How shall we who died to sin still live in
    it?
    
    (Rom 6:11-18)
    Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in
    Christ Jesus.  Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that
    you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of
    your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present
    yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as
    instruments of righteousness to God.  For sin shall not be master over
    you, for you are not under law, but under grace.  What then?  Shall we
    sin because we are not under law but under grace?  May it never be!  Do
    you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for
    obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin
    resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?  But
    thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became
    obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which your were
    committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of
    righteousness.
    
    (Gal 2:20)
    I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but
    Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live
    by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for
    me.

>     You are locked in your paradigm.  All I ask is that when you read my
>     replies and try to understand them, you do so by unlocking yourself 
>     from your paradigm and look at my replies from the perspective of my
>     paradigm.  Not so you believe it, just so you can understand what I
>     am saying.

You are also locked in your paradigm (model), Tony.  And you and I have wrestled
this issue before to the point of coming to the understanding of the difference
between models and we completely disagree on that difference.

> So I would disagree that any of us right now are 'full' of the Holy Spirit.
> Only a sinless heart could house the full presence of God and live.  

Then you must disagree with what Scripture says:


Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest
    report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this
    business.

  5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man
    full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and
    Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into
    heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of
    God,

Acts 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and
    much people was added unto the Lord.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink
    neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost,
    even from his mother's womb.

 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary,
    the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied,
    saying,

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak
    with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers
    of the people, and elders of Israel,

 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled
    together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the
    word of God with boldness.

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting
    his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared
    unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
    receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost,
    set his eyes on him.

 52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled
    with the Spirit;


Perhaps you need to reconsider who is locked by what.

mark

	RE: .112


		This sounds a little contradictory when comparing it to the 1st
	scripture.

      Hi Mark,
    
        Thanks for the scriptures you provided.  I definitely erred in
        my interpretation of what it means to be 'filled with the Holy
        Spirit.'  I appreciate you're correcting me.
    
        Still, I note that there must be some difference between what
        scripture means when it speaks of being filled with the Holy Spirit
        and what it means to be "filled with all the fulness of God" for
        it limits the description of the latter to that last-day group
        that comprehends the dimensions of agape (according to Eph.).
    
        Please understand what I mean by being 'locked' in a paradigm.
        I purposely conveyed the desire not to necessarily get someone
        to agree with my position, but rather TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MY POSI-
        TION IS.
    
      Hi Bing,
    
        Those scriptures find beautiful support with the gospel I am
        trying to convey.  Surely, you do not equate 'works of the law'
        with the divine work of the heart being created anew!  If not,
        what's the issue with what I wrote?  The scriptures you posted
        do nothing to undermine what I wrote.
    
        The specific response I'd really like to receive from you pertains
        to scripture's explicit call of Christians to be cleansed, be
        perfected, be reconciled, be sanctified.  
    
        I recall we discussed the gospel awhile back and a major plank of 
        your position was that we already are clean, etc.  To which I 
        eventually quoted 1 Corin 7 which calls Christians to be cleansed.
    
        To be candid Bing, I don't see how your gospel accomadates these
        verses.  And I think their best accomadation is the example of
        Abraham.
    
        Nobody here (Mark and Mike included) have explained what I wrote 
        about Abraham and so I continue to understand the gospel as I do.
    
        To briefly summarize about Abraham...
    
        His blessing to all nations is equated to the plan of redemption,
        the gospel (Gal. 3:8).
    
        He was not a blessing until he was faith victor over the three day
        symbolic time of trouble.
    
        He was accounted righteouss when he first had faith and this is 
        paralleled to his being (PRESENT TENSE) the father of many nations.
        Romans 4 says he was accounted righteous because Abraham came to
        believe that what God promised, he could perform, i.e. because of
        the faith God could cultivate in Abraham.  In other words, because
        of a future condition God could create in Abraham.
    
        In addition, the context
        of Romans 4 is when AND ON WHAT BASIS Abraham's faith was accounted
        for righteoussness.  Romans 4 also explicitly states that Abraham
        BECAME (future tense) the father of many nations and says of God:
        "who calls those things which do not exist as though they did"
        (Romans 4:17).
    
        The basis is this...
    
        It is the fact that the cross can perfect our faith, i.e. fully
        cleanse our hearts from sin.
    
        That is the efficacy of the cross.
    
        Anyway, Bing, how do you accomadate the reasons why scripture says
        Abraham's faith was accounted for righteoussness?  And the fact
        that these reasons are ensconched in a treatise on justification
        by faith (Romans 4)?
    
        The reasons are the heart-change God could provide in him and if
        I understand it right, your gospel rejects such a reason for
        God accounting our faith for righteousness.
    
                                                    Tony
                                              

    re .114
    
    >This sounds a little contradictory when comparing it to the 1st scripture.
    
    Why do you say that?  We are justified totally by God's grace.  When we
    received the free gift of salvation, not only was the penalty of sin paid 
    for, we also received Christ's LIFE!  He remakes those who come to him
    in faith (surrendering their life to His) into new creatures.  His
    grace WORKS *in* and produces fruit *through* those who have become His
    children through faith  (Eph 2:8-10, 2 Cor 5:17, John 10:10, Gal 2:20).
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing

      Hi Bing,
    
        I don't believe there was a penalty of sin that needed payment
        for.  Thats the 'paradigm lock' that I referred to.
    
        Do you want to know when you are clean Bing?  When you fully 
        reflect the righteousness of Christ in your life.
    
        God calls those things WHICH BE NOT as though they were.
    
        I am not saying that I am not being cleansed.  I am being cleansed,
        but I am not clean.  Clean is clean...you know what it is.  If you
        sinned for a moment, you are not clean, there is a greater heart-
        work to be done.
    
                                                   Tony

      Hi Mike, Mark, Bing, and Whoever Else,
    
        Could you please answer the following?
    
        
        Why weren't animal sacrifices good enough?
    
                                             Thanks!,
    
                                             Tony

| <<< Note 551.116 by ODIXIE::HUNT "Remember your chains are gone" >>>

| >This sounds a little contradictory when comparing it to the 1st scripture.

| Why do you say that?  

	Because according to your belief, God knew exactly what He meant when
it came to what sin is or isn't. We as humans, even with the Bible, can't
honestly say we know every sin. So what makes it contradictory is us. We will
apply it to things that really aren't sins. 

| We are justified totally by God's grace.  

	On this I have to disagree. Look at the past. Humanism has caused a lot
of grief on people, and they thought they were justified by God to do it. Look
at one who was close to Jesus, who betrayed Him. It can happen at any level of
any denomination. That's why I believe we aren't justified totally under God's
grace. 

| He remakes those who come to him in faith (surrendering their life to His) 
| into new creatures.  

	On this I FULLY agree. Now when you throw humanism into the picture,
there will be those who may or may not believe someone is actually saved. But
the reality of the situation is it is only between Jesus and the person. 

| His grace WORKS *in* and produces fruit *through* those who have become His
| children through faith  (Eph 2:8-10, 2 Cor 5:17, John 10:10, Gal 2:20).

	Bing, I believe this to be a 2 way street though. I agree that through
his grace these things can happen. But I also have seen people do some pretty
bad things and still think it is through His grace. The humanism part of it
really needs to be taken into consideration, or we aren't dealing with the
entire picture. Because I feel if we brush that part of it aside, then we will
never deal with it, and it will only get worse. A good case is John Salvi. He
did not want to see abortions happen. I believe this part of it did come from
God. He killed people in the process. This was the humanism part taking over.
Can you see what I am saying?


Glen

>      Hi Mike, Mark, Bing, and Whoever Else,
>
>        Could you please answer the following?
>
>
>        Why weren't animal sacrifices good enough?

Tony, 
  You and I have been through this before, and I am declining the discussion
this time around (however uncharacteristic it may seem).  Perhaps Mike or
Bing will benefit, as I have, from this exercise.
  Thanks, friend.

Mark

    re .119
    
    "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and
    righteousness, and judgement".
    
    You are correct when you say that only God can judge whether a person
    is a Christian or not.  However, God HAS given us His Word to aid us in
    determining if WE are a Christian or not (and what God desires a
    Christian's lifestyle to portray).  He has given us examples of what
    the fruit of the Spirit and the fruit of the flesh look like.  He has
    given us specific examples of some sins (ie Adultery, gossiping,etc). Each 
    of us must examine ourselves [and invite God to point out to us - whether
    through His Word or otherwise (Psalms 139:23-24)] to determine whether we 
    are born again, or not.  If we choose to reject or ignore His written
    Word, then we have no basis on which to base that examination.  Because
    we commit an act of sin doesn't mean we aren't a Christian, but if we
    have never been  willing to surrender an area of our life to the Lord,
    then maybe that person should examine whether they were ever born again
    (ie the rich young ruler wasn't willing to give up his material wealth
    in order to follow Christ).  The Christian life is an exchanged life. 
    We exchange our life for His.
    
    Regarding the human element in discerning God's voice:  Again this goes
    back to having a thorough understanding of scripture.  Many people do
    this or that in God's name.  The bible says that Satan is like a
    roaring lion seeking to devour.  It says He is the great deceiver.  He
    will try to disguise himself as an angel of light or God or even our
    own voices in order to try to get us off base.  We need to go back to
    scripture (just as Jesus did in the wilderness) to discern whether we
    are hearing from God, or from someone else.  There are numerous notes
    in this conference which deal with the battle between the flesh and the
    Spirit, I won't rehash them.
    
    Love in Christ,
    
    Bing 

| <<< Note 551.121 by ODIXIE::HUNT "Remember your chains are gone" >>>


| However, God HAS given us His Word to aid us in determining if WE are a 
| Christian or not (and what God desires a Christian's lifestyle to portray).  

	At this point it becomes relative. Not everyone agrees on what the
books says. When it is left to humans to interpret, it is hardly an absolute. 

| He has given us specific examples of some sins (ie Adultery, gossiping,etc). 

	The Bible mentions a lot of things. How they are interpreted is
another. We really won't know if our interpretations match up with His until we
get into Heaven. I will say that I know there are verses in the Bible that both
you and I would not agree on when it comes down to interpretations. They are on
a wide range of topics too.

| If we choose to reject or ignore His written Word, then we have no basis on 
| which to base that examination.  

	Won't He show us? I mean, He may use the Bible to show us what He wants
us to know, but He may also use something else as well. Would you agree with
that?

| Because we commit an act of sin doesn't mean we aren't a Christian, but if we
| have never been willing to surrender an area of our life to the Lord, then 
| maybe that person should examine whether they were ever born again

	Agreed!

| We need to go back to scripture (just as Jesus did in the wilderness) to 
| discern whether we are hearing from God, or from someone else.  

	I think this is something everyone needs to do with all of the tools
God may choose to use.



Glen

Hi,

  This is in response to my question about animal sacrifices.
  The following is Hebrews 9:1 to 10:4 and 10:19-25.  In my
  next reply, I'll take from some of this and draw conclusions.


Hebrews 9:1-10:4 

1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine
service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was
prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table,
and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind
the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the
Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the
covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the
golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the
tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of
glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot
now speak in detail. 

6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests
always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing
the services. 7 But into the second part the high priest went
alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for
himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance; 8 the
Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of
All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was
still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which
both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who
performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- 10 
concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and
fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,
with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with
hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of
goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most
Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13
For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer,
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the
flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And
for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means
of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the
first covenant, that those who are called may receive the
promise of the eternal inheritance. 

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity
be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force
after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the
testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was
dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every
precept to all the people according to the law, he took the
blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop,
and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20
saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has
commanded you." 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both
the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And
according to the law almost all things are purified with blood,
and without shedding of blood there is no remission. 

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in
the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly
things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For
Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which
are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in
the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself
often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year
with blood of another -- 26 He then would have had to suffer
often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the
end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die
once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once
to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He
will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. 

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, can never with these same
sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make
those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have
ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would
have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those
sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away
sins. (NKJV)

 

Hebrews 10:19-25 

19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by
the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and
having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with
pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope
without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us
consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25
not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the
manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more
as you see the Day approaching. (NKJV)

                                           God Bless,

                                           Tony

Hi,

  Here is where I've taken from the texts in the last reply in
  order to draw some conclusions.


Hebrews 9:11-10:4 

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,
with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with
hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of
goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most
Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 

Notice the string, "having obtained eternal redemption" and
the next word 'FOR'.

What does for mean?  It means ON THIS BASIS or 'for this reason.'
What is the basis?

13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer,
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the
flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 

The basis for the eternal redemption which Christ has obtained
is that His blood has the power to cleanse our conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God.

Notice the next phrase, "And FOR THIS REASON."

In other words, verse 15 joins from verse 14.  Verse 14 is the 
reason for verse 15.

Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant *for this reason* which 
is what?  That He can cleanse our conscience from dead works to
serve the living God.

15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by 
means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the
first covenant, that those who are called may receive the
promise of the eternal inheritance. 

" 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both
the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And
according to the law almost all things are purified with blood,
and without shedding of blood there is no remission. 

Just a comment that this section does include the phrase "without
the shedding of blood there is no remission."  It is very signifi-
cant to note that the context of remission is PURIFICATION and
the context of purification is not declaration, it is the actual
cleansing of the conscience of man from dead works to serve the
living God.  We'll see more of this.

I didn't include verses 23 to 28, but they are connected to Heb. 11:1
with the word for.  The following texts are critical.

Hebrews 11:1-4
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, can never with these same
sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make
those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have
ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would
have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those
sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away
sins. (NKJV)

This passage explicitly gives the insufficiency of animal sacrifices.
They cannot make those who approach perfect (vs. 1).  Just so
there isn't any misunderstanding here, it goes on to expound on
just what is meant by perfect, i.e. "the worshippers, once purified,
would have no more consciousness of sins" (vs 2).  And this "no
more consciousness of sins" is equated to "take away sins."

To have no more consciousness of sins is to have sin REMOVED from
the consciousness.  It is sinless consciousness.  It is the complete
transformation of the heart from sin to God.

This is the insufficiency of animal sacrifices says the Bible.
 

Hebrews 10:19-25 

19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by
the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and
having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with
pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope
without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us
consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25
not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the
manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more
as you see the Day approaching. (NKJV)

"having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience."  Same train
of thought.

  Hi,

    We have just seen what the insufficiancy of animal sacrifices
    is.  They don't cleanse the conscience from sin.  In the OT,
    they would offer a sacrifice, but they'd sin again.  And offer
    another sacrifice - and sin again.  The sacrifices were not able
    to put an end to the problem - sin.

    They did not remove sin from the consciousness or to put it 
    another way (as Hebrews equates it), they did not cleanse, purify.
    They did not take away sin.

    The following rationale is not rocket science.

    I submit that Hebrews does not make mention of animal sacrifices
    being insufficient so far as satisfying some price God requires
    as a punishment for sin.

    The above sentence is critical.  Please mull over it!

    There can be only two possible reasons for the above:

    1) Animal sacrifices are sufficient payment for some price God
       requires as payment for sin

    OR

    2) We are delivered from sin and sin alone, i.e. God never required
       some price as payment for sin.

    I cannot accept #1 and accept #2.  The efficacy of the sacrifice of
    Christ is one-fold.  It contains the power to cleanse the conscience
    from sin (so says Hebrews).

    And this is all the efficacy that is required for sin is the only 
    thing man needs to be delivered from.

                                                God Bless,

                                                Tony

Hi, 

  I have tested the idea that the only deliverance there is
  is from sin and the number of examples that show this are 
  many.  The following are some of my favorites.

Matthew 1:21 
21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name 
JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." (NKJV)

 

Galatians 3:1-4 

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should
not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly
portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn
from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or
by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in
the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have
you suffered so many things in vain -- if indeed it was in vain?
(NKJV)

I really like the Galatians text!  Here Paul is straightening
the Galatians out on the gospel and he discusses the efficacy of
the cross.  Your faith began when you saw Christ hung for you.
This is how you received the Spirit.  This is how it began.  Are
you so foolish?  Don't you know that this is how it continues?
Don't you know that this is also how it ends; that faith is made
perfect by beholding Christ hung for you?

This is Paul clearly portraying to Galatia the gospel.  And by the
way, Paul also describes the experience as continuous, i.e. being 
made perfect (see Hebrews 12:1,2).
 

Mark 2:17 
17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, "Those who are well have 
no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to 
call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (NKJV)


	Physician Model:

		well = righteous

		sick = sinner

		physician = Redeemer

		Making well = work of redemption = call sinners to repentance. 

There it is.  How very plain!  This is why Jesus came.  Because we are
sick and He is our Physician.  He came to lead us from sinner to righteous
by calling us to repentance.  He is the word and the cross is the word
which draws our hearts, melts them, and leads them from sin to righteous.

This is the gospel in a very simple nutshell.  This is why He came (so 
He says).


The following is a favorite...

Acts 3:25
25 "You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made
with our fathers saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families
of the earth shall be blessed.'"

Galatians 3:8
And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith,
preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations
shall be blessed."

Acts 3:26
"To you first, God, having raised up His servant Jesus, sent Him to bless
you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities."


Acts 3:25 mentions the covenant and the blessing.  Gal. 3:8 tells us that
the blessing is nothing short of the preaching of the gospel, justification.

Its all there, the covenant, the blessing, the gospel, justification.

AND WHAT IS IT FOR?

To turn you away from your iniquities.

That is it because that is all the redemption there is.  TOTAL silence
regarding this idea that God needs to be appeased by an infinite sacrifice.
It is we who need to be appeased.  It is we who need to be won over by 
the sacrifice of Christ.

We are delivered from sin and sin alone and this is (perhaps) the jugular
of the endtime transition of covenant which Hebrews says will (future tense)
take place.

                                                     Tony

   Tony,
   
   I'm going to attempt to reply to both .109 and .115, as it seems that the 
   issues are intermingled, so quotes may come from either of the notes.
   
   
>        Those scriptures find beautiful support with the gospel I am
>        trying to convey.  Surely, you do not equate 'works of the law'
>        with the divine work of the heart being created anew!  If not,
>        what's the issue with what I wrote?

The verses were in response to the following:
>     Christ is the word and wrapped up in that word, that LIGHT, that redeems
>     us is the cross itself.  When that word lights up the heart, it trans-
>     forms it from sinful to sinless.  This transformation is continuous; it
>     is not all at once.  But, God sees a person AT THE FINAL STEPS OF THAT
>     TRANSFORMATION after the person took the first steps on the basis that
>     what He started, He can finish.

This seemed to imply that we are justified because God at some future point sees
us as having sinless BEHAVIOR.  In the Phil 3:9 verse, Paul was saying that he 
wanted to be found IN CHRIST (not having a righteousness which comes from 
sinless behavior, but having that righteousness which Christ has already given 
to us. HIS righteousness).  Is our identity determined by our behavior.  I don't
see this in scripture.  Our identity is tied up in our birth.  We were 
originally born in Adam.  When one is born again, they are taken out of the line
of Adam and placed in Christ.  We have been given a new nature.  We still have 
the flesh patterns for meeting our own needs, which we have programmed into our 
brains, however.  That's why Romans 8 talks about walking according to the 
Spirit rather that according to the flesh.  That's why Romans 12:2 talks about 
being "transformed by the renewing of your mind".   The Bible talks about the 
fact that we are both perfect (our new nature) and being perfected (behavior is 
changing to match who we ARE in Christ).  "For by one offering He has perfected 
for all time those who are sanctified [or being sanctified]" (Heb 10:14).

At the heart of this is acceptance.  I interpret scripture to say that not only 
are Christians totally loved, we are totally accepted--right now, just like we 
are.  Bob George wrote an excellent book entitled "Classic Christianity".  There
is a chapter in it call "Loved *and* Accepted".  In the chapter he tells of how 
he made the following statement to a group of students, "If you are a true 
Christian, then you are as righteous and acceptable in the sight of God as Jesus
Christ!".  He goes on to say that not only did God take our sins and give them 
to Jesus, but He also took Christ's righteousness and gave it to us!  2 Cor 5:21
says, "God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might 
become the righteousness of God."  Bob goes on to say, "How could I stand up and
declare that in the sight of God I am as righteous and acceptable as Jesus 
Christ?  Because of what I do?  No way!  It's because of who I am in Christ."  
Mr. George defines righteousness as a right standing of total acceptability 
before God.  Romans 5:17 declares that righteousness is a free gift: "For if, by
the trespass of the one man [Adam], death reigned through the one man, how much 
more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the *gift 
of righteousness* reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ".  We are 
accepted just like we are, based on what Christ has done for us.  Heb. 4:16 says
for us to approach "the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive 
mercy and find grace to help in our time of need".  Mr. George states, "if you 
don't trust that your have been made totally acceptable in God's sight, you will
never have the boldness to approach Him.  You will linger outside His throne 
room, trying to find a way to get "worthy" enough to go in".  Christ is the only
way we can boldly go before the throne.  Gal 3:27 says, "For all of you who were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ".  Because we are in 
Him we are totally acceptable to God.

This doesn't mean that God approves of everything I do.  Bob George says, "He 
may put His arm around me, so to speak, and show me the truth about something in
my life that is out of line: an attitude, action, or habit.  Why?  So He can 
change my attitude that is out of line, resulting in a change of action.  But at
no time does He ever deal with me except in perfect love, acceptance, wisdom, 
and kindness.  Because I am a child of God, there is no occasion in life when He
would not attend to my prayer that is offered in faith--that is in Jesus' name!"

>     Phrases like "paid in full" or "He paid for our salvation" too often
>     imply your paradigm; i.e. God required that payment, He met it in Christ,

Col 2:13-14 says, "And when you were dead in your transgressions and the 
uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having 
forgiven us all our transgressions, having *canceled out the certificate of 
debt* consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has 
taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross".  In other words- "Paid 
in Full".

>     etc., etc.  The way I understand it is that the sole efficacioussness
>     and purpose of the payment is that payment's ROLE in converting the 
>     human heart from sinful to sinless.  Just check in your Concordance for

What was God's original purpose in creating man?  Wasn't it to have fellowship 
with us?  God reconciled us to Himself through the death of His Son and saved us
through His life(Rom 5:10).  The purpose of the cross was so that we could have 
an INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP with our Heavenly Father.  We had a disease which 
resulted in our death.  Christ gave us His righteousness (taking care of the 
disease) and His life (taking care of our spiritual death).  

There is a process of sanctification which takes place as we abide in Christ, in
which we are transformed by the renewing of our mind.  This process involves 
learning to abide in Christ and walk in the Spirit vs. walking in the flesh.  
One
day we will no longer have our earth suits to contend with.  The flesh will no
longer present a problem to us.  

>     the _scriptural_ role of the blood - to cleanse from sin (ALWAYS).

Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat 
down at the right hand of God.

>        I recall we discussed the gospel awhile back and a major plank of 
>        your position was that we already are clean, etc.  To which I 
>        eventually quoted 1 Corin 7 which calls Christians to be cleansed.
 
I think you mean 2 Cor 7:1? "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us 
cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness 
in the fear of God".  I think this is saying the same thing that Rom 6:1 is 
saying- we should act like who we are - new creatures in Christ.  We should not 
engage in activities that will pull us from God's fellowship.  If we are 
involved in those kinds of activities, then we should cleanse ourselves from 
them- by repenting of our sin and confessing our sin (1 John 1:9).  We should 
come before His throne with confidence in our time of need for help to 
disassociate ourselves from things that would break our fellowship with the 
Father.  This has nothing to do with the fact that we have been made righteous 
in Christ.  We merely are not behaving in a manner that is consistent with who 
we are.  We are to abide in Christ.  We are to focus on Him in an intimate 
relationship.    


Regarding Abraham:  Abraham was saved through His faith in a future (to him) 
event, which was Christ's death and resurrection.  We have salvation through a 
past event (to us), Christ's death and resurrection.  God is not limited by 
time.  He sees both the beginning of time and the end of time.  I don't get how 
this affects what was accomplished on the cross.

My Bible uses capitalizations to indicate where verses in the New Testament are 
taken from the Old Testament.  Does yours?  This helps to makes sense of verb 
tenses (ie The quote contains a verb which was present tense in the Old 
Testament, but is past tense in the New Testament).  We dealt enough with verb 
tenses in our discussions earlier in this string.

Love in Him,

Bing
    

      Hi Mark,
    
        Your welcome yourself, friend.
    
                                              God Bless Ya,
    
                                              Tony

    Excellent reply, Bing!
    
>Regarding Abraham:  Abraham was saved through His faith in a future (to him) 
>event, which was Christ's death and resurrection.  We have salvation through a 
>past event (to us), Christ's death and resurrection.  God is not limited by 
>time.  He sees both the beginning of time and the end of time.  I don't get how 
>this affects what was accomplished on the cross.
    
    {from "Grace Outside Time" by Pastor Chuck Missler, November 1994}
    
    The latest discoveries in quantum physics and astrophysics provide
    remarkable evidence of God's ongoing involvement in the creation of
    time, space, and matter.  The latest insights of Einstein's General
    Theory of Relativity reveal that time itself is a created property as
    1 of 4 dimensions of our universe.
    
    In 2 Timothy 1:9, the apostle Paul makes a remarkable statement that
    God's grace "was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of
    time."  A study of the Greek phrase "pro chronon aionion," translated
    "before the beginning of time," shows the independent existence of
    God's grace in Christ outside of our time domain.  Consider the
    following observations:
    
    1) The Greek preposition "pro" corresponds closely to our own English
    preposition "before," which can connote either position or
    chronological order.  For example, we can speak "before someone" in the
    sense of giving a speech to them, or we can speak "before someone" in
    the sense of talking prior to their getting a chance to do so.  Both
    meanings are included within the preposition "before."  The Greek
    preposition "before."  The Greek preposition "pro" can mean the same
    thing.
    
    2) The Greek word "chronos" means durations of measurable time such as
    seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, decades, centuries,
    millenia, epochs, etc. (the quantization of time into units, as is now
    recognized in quantum physics is thus implied!).
    
    3) the Greek word "aionion" used in 2 Timothy 1:9 means time in the
    sense of the dimension of time itself.  The word appears to be derived
    from 2 Greek words which, taken together, mean "time which is not
    self-existent"; i.e., time which starts with a point but which
    continues toward some unknown destination.  This origin for the Greek word 
    "aionion" (time) is provocatively similar to the defintion that most 
    modern physicists use to define "time"; i.e., a 1-way physical dimension 
    in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place but in which travel can go 
    forward but not backward.
    
    Putting all 3 observations together, it is grammatically possible that
    the apostle Paul is telling Timothy that God's gift of grace was given
    to us both spatially in front of, as well as antecedent to the creation
    of, measurable time.  It was given to us outside of our time domain of
    cause-and-effect phenomena AND BEFORE THERE WERE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
    PHENOMENA.  God's grace eternally existed for us literally "before time
    existed."  That's why the NIV translates the verse by saying that God's
    grace was given to us before time began.
    
    His grace exists outside of cause-and-effect phenomena, that is why
    it's grace!  It's independent of human actions, thoughts, words,
    choices, or attitudes.  Think about this the next time you're worried
    about how many of your sins were covered by Christ's grace or what part
    you can play in receiving the gift.  His grace was given to you and
    displayed in the presence of, antecedent to, and independent of all of
    your sins and choices.  Since Christ's grace existed for you in His own
    timeless eternity, not one human act or choice has been excluded from
    grace.  But it still needs to be received, or accepted.
    
    Perhaps another fundamental lesson that all of the theologians among us
    can learn from is that a basic understanding of general relativity can
    go a long way toward reconciling the apparent paradoxes of grace and
    works, faith and sight, and free choice and predestination.  When did
    God first begin dealing with you?
    
    "He hath chosen us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the
    world..." Ephesians 1:4

    Sacrifice, offering You do not desire
    But You've given me an open ear
    When I'm cold as ice and bring to You
    Things burnt with fire
    You say, "Son keep your spirit clear
    That's all that I require."
    
    O Holy One, I delight to do Your will
    On Your Name I now look
    And with awe I now start
    And though I come
    Please write with sacred quill
    My name in Your book
    And Your Law in my heart
    
    Faithfulness, Mercy and Love You multiply
    And there's no one who compares with You
    As for me I was poor and needy
    But I know You heard my cry
    When You drew me from the pit
    So I could sit with You on high
    
    O Holy One I delight to do Your will
    When You came I forsook all my need to be smart
    And lo I come give me wisdom and fill
    My name in Your book and Your Law in my heart
    
    You put a new song in my mouth
    A song of Praise to our God
    Many will see
    And many will fear
    And men with ears to hear will know
    They must put their trust in the Lord
    
    Well sons of serpents,
    Hypocrites, Pharisees and Scribes
    I'm afraid I've behaved like all of you
    But a serpent raised upon a pole
    Healed the 12 tribes
    And a Son raised upon a cross
    Is the healing of our lives
    
    O Holy One I delight to do Your will
    All our shame Jesus took
    Now we're near not far apart
    And lo I come knowing no peace until
    My name's in Your book
    And Your Law's in my heart
    And lo I come
    Holding fast and holding still
    My name in Your book and Your love in my heart
    
    {by Marty Goetz, from the "I Call You Friend" CD, 
        Singin' in the Reign records}

      Hi Bing and Mike,
    
        Bing, I think your reply deserves a thoughtful one in return.
        I have extracted it and begun to give it thoughtful contem-
        plation.
    
        Mike, I thought your .129 was definitely in the realm of inter-
        pretation of scripture and I'm not sure if I agree with it or
        not.  But, if I do, I do not see that it has the weight to sway
        the position I have offered.
    
        I don't think the weight of scripture I have offered has really
        been addressed at all.  Abraham has not been addressed to my
        satisfaction.  He had to endure that 3 day test and the fact 
        OF THAT was at least partial basis for the validity of the pro-
        clamation of the gospel itself.  Validity was, according to 
        Romans 4, the faith that God eventually cultivated in Abraham.
        Abraham was a blessing to many nations, which blessing is equated
        to the gospel itself (Gal. 3:8) on the basis that God could
        cultivate his faith to the point that he was convinced that what
        God said, He could perform.  
    
        There has been no explanation of this all the while the whole
        scriptural dialogue is nested in a discussion of when and on what
        basis one is justified (accounted righteouss) by God.
    
        The texts I included on what we are saved from have not been 
        addressed to my satisfaction at all.  The Hebrews account I offered
        (as to the insufficiency of animal sacrifices) has been completely
        ignored.  The insufficiency of animal sacrifices was NOT that they
        could not satisfy a penalty for sin that God required. 
    
        Conclusion: No such penalty is required.
    
        Mike, you've yet to tell me what the atonement is or to give any
        acknowledgement to the 'paradigm lock' I discussed.  I still don't
        even know if you understand my view as you don't seem to respond 
        to my asking.
    
        There is another issue that is very relevent that is also left
        ignored.  That is the idea that given that the law is agape, it
        cannot require a penalty of death because it "seeks not its own"
        according to the word.  I elaborated on this in an earlier reply.
    
        I guess if I could summarize my thoughts, they are that your posi-
        tions are not equipped to persuade me for they are partially built
        on nonresponse to too much scripture I have brought forth.
    
        As the tenets of this Conference are the entire word, I suggest
        that a better position is built on the basis of embracing all of
        scripture and of not shirking from any scripturally based notions
        that are put to the table.
    
                                                      Tony
                         

    Re: -1
    
    Tony, I'm not too smart.  Maybe you should list your concerns in short
    little bulleted items.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

      re: -1
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        I know you are highly intelligent.  But, I do believe it can
        be very hard to 'unlearn' things.  I think your mind is locked
        into one way of seeing things and _that_ (and not intelligence)
        is the source of confusion.
    
        Of course, it could also be that I don't communicate well!
    
        Do you understand .125 and .126?
    
        o The purpose of .125 and that which precedes is based on the
          following logic:
    
               Hebrews tells us why animal sacrifices are insufficient.
               It mentions NOTHING about satisfying some payment for
               sin which the evangelical gospel assumes is required.
    
               Conclusion: As animal sacrifices WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT
               for paying such a price (were such a price assumed to be
               necessary), it must follow that such a price was never
               required for our redemption.
    
           Do you understand the above logic?
    
        o .126 shows scriptures that discuss what the cross accomplishes.
          Every text speaks of transforming man from sinner to righteous.
          NONE refer to any 'price' needing to be paid.
    
          Conclusion: These texts state the purpose/efficacy of the cross.
          Do you understand what this means and the importance of this?
    
          How does your understanding of the gospel accomadate this?
    
        o What is the atonement?  What is your scriptural proof that it is
          finished at the cross?   (I ask that you do a Concordance study
          of the word 'atonement' before answering.)
    
        o Why could not Abraham be a blessing to the nations (which
          blessing according to Galatians 3:8 IS EQUATED TO THE GOSPEL 
          ITSELF) only unless he endured the three day Mount Moriah
          experience?
    
          How does your understanding of the gospel accomadate this?
    
        o Why could not Abraham be accounted righteous except on the
          (at least partial) basis that God could cultivate his faith
          to the point that Abe would be absolutely convinced that what
          God promised, He could fulfill (faith made perfect)?
    
          How does your understanding of the gospel accomadate this?
    
        Mike, if you or Bing or anyone have addressed any of these 
        scriptural points, just refer me to the reply #.
    
                                             Thanks and God Bless,
                                                             
                                             Tony

      Hi Bing,
    
        I'm working (sloooooowly) on your reply.
    
                                                 God Bless,
    
                                                 Tony

>        I know you are highly intelligent.  But, I do believe it can
>        be very hard to 'unlearn' things.  I think your mind is locked
>        into one way of seeing things and _that_ (and not intelligence)
>        is the source of confusion.
    
    Glad to see you humor me anyway.
    
>        Of course, it could also be that I don't communicate well!
    
    I didn't want to be offensive, but the thought crossed my mind.  From
    what I've seen in past debates, it has come up before.  Maybe we both
    have "locked" minds.
    
>               Hebrews tells us why animal sacrifices are insufficient.
>               It mentions NOTHING about satisfying some payment for
>               sin which the evangelical gospel assumes is required.
>    
>               Conclusion: As animal sacrifices WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT
>               for paying such a price (were such a price assumed to be
>               necessary), it must follow that such a price was never
>               required for our redemption.
    
    You forgot at least one possibility.  Check out any respected scholar
    on Judaism and you'll find out that the OT sacrificial system didn't
    provide any provision whatsoever for premeditated acts (sin).  God was
    not only extended grace toward us in allowing a temporary covering via
    the animals, but also foreknew the price He would pay Himself later on.
    Why was there no atonement for premeditated acts?  The first mention of
    man's heart is in Genesis 6 and it is associated with evil.  Our sinful
    nature is a spiritual problem that no animal's could fix.  God had to
    fix it Himself.
    
>           Do you understand the above logic?
    
    yes, but like I said, I'm not buying it.
    
>        o .126 shows scriptures that discuss what the cross accomplishes.
>          Every text speaks of transforming man from sinner to righteous.
>          NONE refer to any 'price' needing to be paid.
    
    care to explain the verses talking about "propitiation" and Christ
    being the propitiation for our sin (notice it's singular - our nature
    is the problem).
    
    I'll get back to you on the rest as I have time.
    
    Mike
    

      Hi Mike,
    
        I'm not in the position to discuss premeditated sins and
        application of animal sacrifices (ignorance on my part), but 
        I'm not *necessarily* real moved by what the scholars say.  The
        Pharisees were scholars while Jesus, John the Baptist, and Elijah
        were not (at least in the formal sense).
    
        All I can say is that Hebrews is very much about how it is 
        that Jesus' sacrifice and Jesus' High Priestly work are BETTER.
        And when it talked about how animal sacrifices are insufficient,
        Hebrews discussed the problem FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of the entire
        problem with evil.  And in fact your gospel DOES NOT.
    
        To explain.  Hebrews discusses the core problem.  These sacrifices
        could not remove sin from the consciousness.  After these sacri-
        fices, there was still a remembrance of sin.
    
        With all due respect to the Hebrew scholars, the book of Hebrews
        seems to not leave out a single iota's worth of the problem of
        evil - getting it 100% out of the mind wherein it resides.
    
        In contrast, your gospel seems to refer to a price needing to be
        paid all the time alleging that the cross is unable to remove the
        evil from our consciousness, i.e. perfection of character is 
        impossible (so most proponents of your gospel say).
    
        Do you understand what I'm saying?  How does your gospel respond
        to Hebrews stating that the insiufficiency of animal sacrifices
        is that they couldn't remove sin from the consciousness?  Does
        not this imply that Jesus' sacrifice CAN remove any remembrance
        of sin from the consciousness?  Do you agree that the cross has
        that much power?
    
        If you continue to look at the 'price' of the cross from the
        perspective of satisfying some need God has (for Himself or His
        law: same thing) then you aren't even dealing with the problem.
        Hebrews deals with the problem; its sin in our consciousness.
    
        ****************************************************************
    
        As to propitiation, the following is a definition I have heard:
    
        A propitiation is a gift that reconciles an alienated person to
        that person to whom he is alienated.  Like if my wife and I had
        an argument and she is real mad at me...if I buy her flowers and
        take her out to eat and if this assists in removing any anger she
        had...those flowers and the eating out were the propitiation.
    
        As sin separates man from God, I believe the person who is
        alienated is US.  The entire purpose of the cross is to warm my
        heart so that I am reconciled from sin to Him.  The cross draws
        me from sin (which is the source of alienation) to Him.
    
        Now I am not sure what you are getting at, but if you believe it
        is God who needed to be propitiated, that is not very far removed
        from rank paganism where the gods had to be appeased by human
        sacrifice.  Only in this case, God has to be appeased by divine
        (infinite) sacrifice.
    
        You got it 100% wrong if that is what you suggest, but (sad to
        say) that is EXACTLY what your gospel implies.
    
        God needs to be appeased and the magnitude of His need is infinite.
    
        This gets back to the agape idea I have also brought up (to which
        I have awaited a reply for quite some time now).
    
        The evangelical gospel says the law demands death (judicially).  
        The Bible, it can be shown, equates God's law to righteousness
        and to agape.  1 Corin 13 says agape "seeks not its own."
    
        So there's that quandary again...
    
        agape seeks not its own.
    
        and
    
        agape cannot forgive unless it is satisfied (for itself) with an
        infinite sacrifice.
    
        which is the height of appeasement.
    
        And coexisting the above two observations is the height of
        contradiction.
    
        No, God has no need.  He is agape and that is not how agape works.
        The only needs God has to satisfy are ours; not His.
    
                                                 Tony
                      

    How about some references to the verses in Hebrews that you're basing
    this all on?
    
>        As to propitiation, the following is a definition I have heard:
    
    To borrow a technique from Garth, "where in the Bible does it say
    this?"
    
>        As sin separates man from God, I believe the person who is
>        alienated is US.  The entire purpose of the cross is to warm my
>        heart so that I am reconciled from sin to Him.  The cross draws
>        me from sin (which is the source of alienation) to Him.
>    
>        Now I am not sure what you are getting at, but if you believe it
>        is God who needed to be propitiated, that is not very far removed
>        from rank paganism where the gods had to be appeased by human
>        sacrifice.  Only in this case, God has to be appeased by divine
>        (infinite) sacrifice.
    
    There's a dual purpose here.  Not only are we reconciled, but God is
    appeased as well.  There is no sin in the presence of God.  What
    happened to the Levites in the Holy of Holies who weren't properly
    prepared for the sacrifice?  Both Leviticus and Hebrews state that
    there is no remission of sin without bloodshed.  Romans 6:23 says the
    wages of sin is death.  The Passover celebration was always a
    foreshadow of the Sacrificial Lamb.  We were both reconciled to God and
    the sin sacrifice made through Jesus Christ's finished work on the
    cross.
    
>        You got it 100% wrong if that is what you suggest, but (sad to
>        say) that is EXACTLY what your gospel implies.
    
    The Bible is explicit about this as well as the reconciliation of God
    to man.  You're only seeing half the picture.  
    
>        The evangelical gospel says the law demands death (judicially).  
>        The Bible, it can be shown, equates God's law to righteousness
>        and to agape.  1 Corin 13 says agape "seeks not its own."
>    
>        So there's that quandary again...
>    
>        agape seeks not its own.
>    
>        and
>    
>        agape cannot forgive unless it is satisfied (for itself) with an
>        infinite sacrifice.
>    
>        which is the height of appeasement.
>    
>        And coexisting the above two observations is the height of
>        contradiction.
    
    Tony, we know God's Word is infallible and perfect.  When we stumble
    upon an apparent contradiction, it is our problem to solve.  Most times
    there's a joyous answer awaiting too.  In the light of John 3:16 and
    many other verses like it, I think you're approaching this apparent
    contradiction from the wrong angle.  I think it speaks more highly of
    Agape and Grace to know that He paid the price for us since He knew we
    couldn't on our own and we weren't able to enter the Holy Place as we
    were.  Think about it!
    
    He's shown His grace to us since the Fall in the Garden.  I once
    thought it was pretty cold of God to have that angel guard the tree as
    Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden.  However, I was approaching
    it from the wrong angle.  God's grace says that if He didn't guard that
    tree, Adam & Eve (and all of mankind) would be eternally damned if they
    ate from it.  God's been protecting us by grace ever since.  He
    continue to guarantee that all of us will have the opportunity to 
    exercise our free will to choose Him.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Just a quickie before work.
    
        Where does the Bible define propitiation as you define it
        (however you do)?
    
        You mentioned "The wages of sin is death."  As I have said
        before, you posted an excellent context for this verse when
        you posted all of Romans 6-8.  Romans 7 explicitly (and 
        thoroughly) shows us what is meant by "the wages of sin is
        death" by showing us where and how the death comes from.  It
        is inherent to sin and aroused by the law.  So says Romans 7
        which is part of the context and thus part of the explanation
        of what Paul means when he says "the wages of sin is death."
    
        You mentioned there being no remission of sin without the shedding
        of blood.  I have explained this text at least three times before.
        Scripture, in context, will once again give us a fuller picture 
        of what this phrase means.  You'll find that text in Hebrews
        9:22.  Now please consider reading all of Hebrews esp. Chapters
        8-10 for CONTEXT.  For example, 8:10/9:9-15/10:1-4/10:18-22.
    
        The ENTIRE CONTEXT is the actual removal of sin from the heart.
        Thus if we incorporate context, we conclude that remission of sin
        refers to its removal from the heart and this cannot take place
        except that Jesus' shed His blood for us.  And we wouldn't be 
        surprised then with the clear meaning of the verses in reply
        .126.
    
        You misused Romans 6:23 and Hebrews 9:22.
    
        Your gospel says God must be appeased.  Mine says He must not.
        I believe the true gospel upholds a greater revelation of the
        character of God and the false does not.
    
                                                      Tony

    Re: Agape & Appeasement
    
    I think there are some serious questions on the part of Agape in your
    gospel that need answers:
    
    Did Agape kill the improperly prepared Levites in the Holy of Holies?
    What was Agape's role in Noah's Flood?
    What is Agape's role in the Great Tribulation?
    What was Agape's role in the life of King Saul?  King Manasseh?  
    How about Eli the Levite and his family?
    What was Agape's role in the Ark at Beth-Shemesh (1 Samuel 6)?
    What was Agape's role in the life of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7)?
    
    I think you'll get the picture after this, though I could name many
    more instances.  
    
    Re: propitiation
    
I John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world. (Strong's 2434)

I John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son
to be the propitiation for our sins.  (Strong's 2434)

Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God;  (Strong's 2435)

    2434 - atonement, i.e., an expiator: - propitiation
    2435 - derived from 2433 (which means to be merciful and make
           reconciliation for) an expiatory (place or thing), an atoning
           victim, the Mercy Seat, propitiation.
    
    American Heritage Dictionary says:
    
    expiate - to atone or make amends for
    propitiate - to conciliate; appease
    
    I think the above verses and the definitions clearly state that Jesus
    Christ took care of atonement, reconciliation, and appeasement all at
    once and forevermore in His finished work on the cross.  PAID IN FULL!
    There is no need for another cross.  The job is done.
    
>        You mentioned "The wages of sin is death."  As I have said
>        before, you posted an excellent context for this verse when
>        you posted all of Romans 6-8.  
    
    Chapter 6 is our victory over sin; chapter 7 is the flesh vs. the
    spirit; chapter 8 is how we are set free!
    
    >                                            Romans 7 explicitly (and 
>        thoroughly) shows us what is meant by "the wages of sin is
>        death" by showing us where and how the death comes from.  It
>        is inherent to sin and aroused by the law.  So says Romans 7
>        which is part of the context and thus part of the explanation
>        of what Paul means when he says "the wages of sin is death."
    
    I don't agree with your interpretation as I understand it.  
    
Romans 6:22
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your
fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.

    { next section is from Pastor Chuck Smith's commentary on Romans,
      entitled, "The Gospel According to Grace." }
    
    In a later chapter Paul asks, "What shall we then say to these things? 
    If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31).  What
    "things"?  The blessings of eternal life in Christ, God's glorious
    gift, spoken of here in chapter 6.  Paul also said, "Not that we are
    sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our
    sufficiency is of God" (2 Corinthians 3:5).  God's work in my life is
    sufficient to bring me to victory.  Whenever the flesh rises up and
    seeks to draw me away, I reckon the old man to be dead, yield my body
    to God in faith, and receive victory.  Death, sin, and the flesh are
    always related.  To live after the flesh is to miss God's mark for your
    life.  Even so, spirit, righteousness, and life are related.  The right
    God-ordained order for your life is to live after the spirit.  God is a
    superior Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit.  Man is an inferior
    trinity of spirit, soul (mind), and body (flesh).  If a man's spirit is
    alive and uppermost, he has fellowship with God.  If a man's flesh is
    uppermost, his fellowship with God is broken, because God wants nothing
    to do with his sinful flesh.  Man can only meet God in the spirit. 
    "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
    and in truth" (John 4:24).  "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
    spirit" (Romans 8:16).
    
    more in the next reply,
    Mike

>        The ENTIRE CONTEXT is the actual removal of sin from the heart.
>        Thus if we incorporate context, we conclude that remission of sin
>        refers to its removal from the heart and this cannot take place
>        except that Jesus' shed His blood for us.  And we wouldn't be 
>        surprised then with the clear meaning of the verses in reply
>        .126.
    
    I agree with this.  Christ's shed blood provided the way for us.  When
    He comes into our hearts and lives (when we are saved/born again) the
    sin is removed.  God cannot take up residence with sin.  There is no
    sin in God's presence.  He comes into our hearts and removes the sin. 
    What we experience afterwards is the fleshly battles in Romans 7.
    
>        You misused Romans 6:23 and Hebrews 9:22.
    
    Hardly.
    
>        Your gospel says God must be appeased.  Mine says He must not.
>        I believe the true gospel upholds a greater revelation of the
>        character of God and the false does not.
    
    Appeasement is at the very heart of the the definition of propitation
    (along with reconciliation and atonement) that I just presented.  You
    have Logos, check it for yourself.  Appeasement is in the Gospel of
    Jesus Christ.  If your gospel doesn't have this, then it is not His
    gospel.  Paul gave us some very stern warnings about "another gospel"
    in His epistles (Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Corinthians 11).
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Another quickie.  Those are good questions when you asked
        about agape's role.  I am not sure of the answer to this,
        but I do make a distinction between the end of one's temporal
        life and how God impacted that versus the end eternal result
        of man and how God impacts that.
    
        In every case, you listed God's dealings with the end of temporal
        life.  Let me suggest a hypothetical...
    
        Lets say that God knows that all people He was about to destroy
        had no chance for salvation as they rejected Him fully.  Lets 
        also say that God knows that were He to allow them to go on with
        their evil lives that their effect would be to cause others to 
        stumble and be lost.
    
        From this possible perspective, I see it as an act of agape for
        God to destroy lives.  I really only look at this from an eternal
        perspective.
    
        We can go back and forth saying "I'm right and you're wrong."  I
        do not see how it is possible that Romans 7 which is the most
        explicit and thorough discussion on spiritual reality CAN NECES-
        SARILY be maintained to not bear light on the meaning of Rom. 6:23.
    
        Romans 7 says this...
    
        The more we see God's love, the more we see our sin.  The more we
        see our sin, the more we feel alienation of heart.  It calls this
        alienation DEATH.
    
        "But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."  (Rom
        7:9)
    
        This text discusses the coming of the commandment, sin, and death.
        And you are insisting that it adds NO CONTEXT to the meaning of
        Romans 6:23???
    
        If you can honestly say that Romans 7 supplies no context to Rom
        6:23 especially in the light of THE FACT that Romans 7 repeatedly
        discusses SIN and DEATH, then let us just agree to disagree.
    
        The reason being that this would imply that our whole approach
        to the study of the word is too different.  I can't fathom not
        including Romans 7 to Romans 6:23!  I can't fathom that!!!
    
        As for Hebrews 9:22, I can't fathom that either.  Hebrews time and
        time again discusses cleansing the heart from sin and 9:22 is
        inside this dialogue.  No discussion of some payment for a God who
        needs to be appeased.  And yet you insist 9:22 carries this
        meaning.  Where in the vicinity of Hebrews 9:22 do you see the
        context which supports such an interpretation?
    
        Please supply chapter and verse!
    
        *****************************************************************
    
        Atonement.  It would be well to go through the O.T. because every
        mention of atonement I have seen describes its finishing sometime
        after the sacrifice.  Always, the Priest takes the blood and uses
        that blood to cleanse.   The atonement was not finished upon the
        death of the sacrifice.  ALWAYS something else was done.  Always.
        
        Can you supply a single verse which explicitly uses the word
        atonement and explicitly states it being finished immediately
        after the sacrifice and before the blood is sprinkled by the High
        Priest?  One verse?
    
        Chapter and verse please.
    
        Now with your gospel, this makes no sense, but it makes every bit
        of sense with mine.
    
        To use an analogy...
    
        Soap and cleaner.  Redemption is deliverance from sin, cleansing
        from sin.  If a guy was dirty and sacrificed all to come up with
        SOAP and after coming up with the soap declared, "I am clean
        because I paid for the soap!!!  PAID IN FULL!!", I would think he 
        was a lunatic.
    
        I would say, "Look brother, ya gotta apply that soap to your body.
        You aren't clean until that soap is used on you!"
    
        The High Priest takes the merits of the sacrifice (a revelation
        of that sacrificial love), applies it to the sanctuary (the
        heart), and cleanses it from sin.
    
        Thats what the Bible ALWAYS says is the role of the blood.
    
        I did a word search in Logos.  I've got a file of perhaps a couple
        hundred texts that explicitly state the role of the blood being 
        to cleanse.  I have yet to find ONE text that states its role as
        being some sort of commerce used to pay God as appeasement - NOT
        ONE.
    
        But, if you have one, chapter and verse please!
    
        ******************************************************************
    
        I never said I believed in a gospel without appeasement.  I said
        I don't believe God needs to be appeased.
    
        WE DO.
                                    
                                                      Tony
    
        

    another question: show me in the Bible where sin is allowed in the
    presence of God.  If you can show this, you have a reason to suggest
    that God will come into our hearts when we're born again while we still
    have sin in our hearts.  I maintain that there is no sin in God's
    presence and no sin to minister to in our hearts *AFTER* we're born
    again.
    
>        Another quickie.  Those are good questions when you asked
>        about agape's role.  I am not sure of the answer to this,
>        but I do make a distinction between the end of one's temporal
>        life and how God impacted that versus the end eternal result
>        of man and how God impacts that.
    
    Okay, but I have a couple eternal examples of Agape in action too:
    
Revelation 20:11-15
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the
earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were
opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead
were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to
their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up
the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their
works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake
of fire.

    Then there is Agape Himself talking about Lazarus and the Rich Man in
    Luke 16:19-31.  Now what do you say?
    
>        We can go back and forth saying "I'm right and you're wrong."  I
>        do not see how it is possible that Romans 7 which is the most
>        explicit and thorough discussion on spiritual reality CAN NECES-
>        SARILY be maintained to not bear light on the meaning of Rom. 6:23.
    
    Of course it does.  It's in the same letter, it has too.  What I said
    is that I don't agree with your interpretation of it.
    
>        As for Hebrews 9:22, I can't fathom that either.  Hebrews time and
    
    Maybe because your mind is locked in your paradigm.  I believe Strongs
    and Webster's (or American Heritage) were very clear on the word 
    "propitiation."  The Holy Spirit (Agape) put it there for a very good
    reason.
    
>        Atonement.  It would be well to go through the O.T. because every
>        mention of atonement I have seen describes its finishing sometime
>        after the sacrifice.  
    
    Kaphar was used in Genesis 6:14 to seal Noah's Ark.  Kaphar is used in
    the OT 71 times and this is one that doesn't fit what you said above.
    
    >                             Always, the Priest takes the blood and uses
>        that blood to cleanse.   The atonement was not finished upon the
>        death of the sacrifice.  ALWAYS something else was done.  Always.
    
    That applies to Levites.  Christ wasn't a Levite and couldn't be. 
    Their work was never done.  I presented to you the importance and
    significance of Christ being from Melchizedek before.
        
>        Can you supply a single verse which explicitly uses the word
>        atonement and explicitly states it being finished immediately
>        after the sacrifice and before the blood is sprinkled by the High
>        Priest?  One verse?
    
    yes, Agape said it Himself on the cross, "It is finished!"
    
>        The High Priest takes the merits of the sacrifice (a revelation
>        of that sacrificial love), applies it to the sanctuary (the
>        heart), and cleanses it from sin.
    
    Jesus, our Melchizedek does this when we accept Him as our SAvior and
    ask Him into our hearts (born again per John 3:3).  Sin is removed.
    
    Mike

>     Are you saying that if we sin 'afterwards', there is no sin?
    
    nope.  We still struggle with the flesh while we're in this physical
    shell.  We will continue to struggle until we receive our glorified
    bodies.  But that doesn't give us an excuse to.
    
Romans 6:1
WHAT shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans 6:2
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

>     The flesh tempts us to sin.  The Spirit 'constrains' us to obey.
    
    ...and the gratitude for God's grace toward us compels us as well.
    
    
>     But, if we give in to the flesh...that is sin and its in our 
>     hearts!!

    Maybe we're confusing the meanings of heart, spirit, soul, and mind,
    etc.  I thought Pastor Chuck's commentary on Romans 6:23 addressed that.
    
    Can God reside in a spirit/heart where sin abides?  I say no way.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
        
        Can you show me from the word only what the word "IT" in
        "It is finished!" refers to?
    
        I knew we'd get to judgment.  That one would take me awhile
        to respond to.
    
        As far as 'locked' in a paradigm, I meant it in terms of if
        you understood my position; not if you believed in it.
    
        I am not 'locked' in the sense of not understanding your position.
    
        Your position WAS mine.  I was SCARED to even test the position
        I now hold, but test it I did and I came to believe it.
    
        .126 was perhaps the brunt of what led me to believe my view.
        But, there are several other reasons.
    
        But, .126 is probably the biggest.  The immense number of times,
        the Bible so clearly and simply says, "THIS is why I came!  THIS
        is the purpose of the cross."
    
        The following is from memory so I paraphrase (2 Corin 5:14-?)
    
        If we are beside ourselves, it is for God or if we are of sound
        mind, it is for you.  For the love of Christ constrains us and
        we judge thus.  That if one died for all, then all died.  And He
        died for all so that...
    
        "JESUS, WHY DID YOU DIE FOR ME???"
    
        Here's why...
    
        ...so that those who live should no longer live for themselves
        but for He who died for them and rose again.
    
        Just like .126.  So very simple.  THIS is the efficaciousness
        of the cross.  This is its purpose.  THIS is the role of the
        blood.
    
        Not to meet some price the Father requires.  Not to appease the
        Father, but to appease us.  To warm OUR hearts, to constrain us
        from living for ourselves to living for God.
    
        Time and time and time and time again...this is the simple 
        scripturally given role of the cross.
    
                                                   God Bless,
    
                                                   Tony

>        Can you show me from the word only what the word "IT" in
>        "It is finished!" refers to?
    
    When I have my Bible with me I will.
    
>        I knew we'd get to judgment.  That one would take me awhile
>        to respond to.
    
    Obviously.  There is much more to the nature of God than Agape.  
    
>        Your position WAS mine.  I was SCARED to even test the position
>        I now hold, but test it I did and I came to believe it.
    
    I'm not sure you know me well enough to know what my position is. 
    No offense, but neither do I believe SDA members could ever hold my 
    position.
    
>        But, .126 is probably the biggest.  The immense number of times,
>        the Bible so clearly and simply says, "THIS is why I came!  THIS
>        is the purpose of the cross."
    
    .126 is limiting.  There are several reasons why Jesus went to the
    cross.  .126 only touches on a few of them.
    
>        ...so that those who live should no longer live for themselves
>        but for He who died for them and rose again.
    
    Perhaps I'm assuming too much so I'd like to get back to square one. 
    Tony, how is a person saved?
    
    Mike

    I'll ask you again, can there be sin in the presence of God?
    
>	I am saved by faith which works by agape.  Faith is a heart appre-
>  	ciation of the love of God.  Trust is a subset of this faith, but
>	trust conveys no motivation.  NT faith is agape (and not self) 
>        motivating.
>
>	The moment one comes to faith, God looks at him as though he is 
>   	perfectly righteouss.
>
>	Where we differ is on WHY.  ON THE BASIS for this.
    
    Are you saved now?

>  	The basis I believe is that the only condemnation there is is sin.
>	God is not our condemner, sin is.  With your gospel, it is not sin
>	which condemns, it is God.  This is absurd.
    
    Why?  If I had no sin, I wouldn't be condemned and separated from God.

>	We disagree on WHY and on WHAT we are saved from.
>
>        For you, we are saved from God.  For me, we are saved from sin.
    
    WRONG!  Here's my WHY and WHAT in a nutshell: We are saved because we 
    accept Christ's propitiation for us and that we believe He's God in the 
    flesh (1 John 4 - actually all of 1 John deals with evidences of 
    salvation).  We are not only saved from our sin but eternal death
    (separation from God).
    
>	For you, God is appeased/propitiated.  For me, I am appeased/
>	propitiated. For you the cross satisfies a need God requires.  For
>	me, the cross satisfies a need I require.  For you the cross pays
    
    WHOA, there partner!  If I didn't require anything, why would I ask
    Christ into my life in the first place?  To me it is something both God
    and myself require.  Because 1) there is no sin in the presence of God
    and 2) I need God to cleanse my life from sin.  
    
>	a price God demands.  For me, the cross has the power to cleanse
>   	my heart from sin and this is partial basis for why I am accounted
>	righteous when I begin to allow Christ to sprinkle my heart with
>	the merits of His sacrifice.
    
    we partially agree here.  I believe when Christ comes into your heart
    (upon salvation) His work is done because the atonement was completed
    on the cross.

>        BTW, I can't keep up this pace!
    
    okay, I'll type slower ;-)
    
    God Bless you too,
    Mike

>>        For you, we are saved from God.  For me, we are saved from sin.
>    
>    WRONG!  Here's my WHY and WHAT in a nutshell: We are saved because we 
>    accept Christ's propitiation for us and that we believe He's God in the 
>    flesh (1 John 4 - actually all of 1 John deals with evidences of 
>    salvation).  We are not only saved from our sin but eternal death
>    (separation from God).

The evangelical jargon says we are "saved from sin" and so does Tony,
but I believe there are differences in the phrase between us.  To try and
be more succinct:

We are saved ...FROM 
                 the *consequences* of our sin (which is death; sin's wages)
             ...TO
                 everlasting life; fellowship with God
             ...BY 
                 belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God
             ...THROUGH 
                 God's sacrafice of blood on the cross of Calvary. 

Sin is nothing more, nor less, than an attitude of rebellion against God; 
it is a SEPARATOR.  Sins are actions that are expressions of this attitude.

Therefore, we are spared (saved from) this separation that we deserve because 
of the sacrafice and our acceptance of it (by faith) on our behalf.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        Say, I LOVE your explanation for sin (singular) and sins plural.
        I JUST LOVED IT!!!  I was contemplating the same thing.  That sin
        (singular) is ultimately unbelief.  "Whatever is not of faith is
        sin" (singular).
    
        Mark, I think where we disagree most are the nature of the 
        consequences of sin.  I believe they are 100% inherent to sin and
        thus the model of redemption is relevent _only_ to curing us of
        the sin itself.
    
        I believe the evangelical gospel implies that the consequences of
        sin are God's judicial response to it and thus the model of deliver-
        ance is relevent only to aleviating that judicial penalty God must
        dole out.
    
        Am I close?
    
        (Not trying or even wanting to lure you in here.  I'm up to my neck
        with Mike; realizing I have not yet adequately responded to all of
        his responses!)
    
        By the way Mike...have you considered supplying scripture and verse
        in that one reply where I very specifically asked for them?   One
        example was at around Heb 9:22 for context which supports your 
        assertion of the 9:22 verse alluding to satisfaction of payment 
        being the role of shed blood rather than cleansing from sin.
    
        By the way, to prove this is not 'SDA', Clay Williams has been
        asking me questions offline and he believes in that need for 
        judicial satisfaction.
    
        I'm kind'a alone on this one!
    
                                                       Tony
                  

      Mike,
    
        I did a real quick summary of some of the more recent replies
        and I realize that neither of us have answered a few things 
        each one of us have put to the table.
    
        But, I noticed that you asked about sin in the presence of God.
        Does the Bible say that there cannot be sin in the presence of 
        God?  Heart describes that aspect of man in the realm of right
        and wrong.  It connotates more than just cold logic.  The heart
        is a subset of the conscience being that part that pertains to
        the moral.
    
        I believe that sin resides in that same place; it cannot reside 
        anywhere else.  Certainly, for a Christian, God is present in 
        the heart.  If a Christian sins, does this mean that during that
        time of sinning, God 'had to leave'???
    
        I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe that if
        God did leave, it is not because He couldn't handle the presence
        of sin, it is because God honors our choices in the realm of the
        heart and if we choose to reject Him, He cannot circumvent that.
        I tend to believe that God is 'around.'  Was He totally removed 
        from the heart?  I don't think so.
    
        Does the Bible say that God cannot be in the presence of sin?  
        What of Jesus in the presence of sinners all the time?
    
        This is very complicated.  I believe there are sins in our hearts
        that God has not yet revealed to us, that His work is a searching 
        work and is progressive.  A good example might be cigerette
        smoking.  Is it possible that a person may be a Christian and a 
        smoker and not realize right away that smoking is sin?  Does that
        imply that God was never resident in that person's heart?  Or could
        it mean that God's residence was not all pervasive, i.e. the heart
        was divided.  The person was not perfectly unclean or perfectly
        clean.
    
        What of a newborn Chrisitian who watches say sitcoms with sexual
        innuendo and finds humor in it?  Is he sinning?  Is Christ in the
        heart?
    
        I can show scripturally that sanctification is FROM sin and is a
        gradual work so I would have to say that God can be in the presence
        of sin.  And I do believe that Christians would be overwhelmed and
        would despair if God showed them all of their sin at once - all the
        while He is still in their hearts though not *fully* revealing to
        them their faults.
    
        Yeah, I do believe sin can be in the presence of God, BUT God's
        presence would have to be VEILED in proportion so that the sinning
        person would not despair by having the presence of God show him 
        too much sin at once.
    
        ******************************************************************
    
        I totally missed out on what you meant by KAPHAR.
       
        ******************************************************************
    
        I know this is not exhaustive, but you have failed to respond to
        MUCH of what I have shown and I have disagreed with some of your
        explanations.
    
        I disagree with the use of Webster if the Bible itself, used in
        context, supports a different meaning to a word.  
    
        I invite you to show me how the context of Romans 7 disallows
        its use in helping to interpret Romans 6:23.  You do maintain that
        Romans 7 submits no contextual backdrop for 6:23, do you not?
        Why not?
    
        I have asked you to show me a verse near Hebrews 9:22 that shows
        that 9:22 does not refer to sin actually being cleansed from the
        heart.
    
        Can you explain why the sole purpose of the blood is to cleanse
        from sin?  Can you show me a single verse which describes the blood
        as being some currency which the Son gives to the Father as payment
        for our redemption (assuming the Father requiring 'that kind' of a
        price).  If you cannot find ONE such verse, why should anyone
        believe that is a purpose of the blood?
    
        Finally, I am going to keep plugging away on judgment and after
        that need to reply to Bing.  I've outlined the replies, but not
        started writing them.
    
        As I reread this, I have thought of what a HUGE disconnect may
        be.
    
        What do you consider cleansing of sin to be?
    
                                                      Tony

>        Say, I LOVE your explanation for sin (singular) and sins plural.
>        I JUST LOVED IT!!!  I was contemplating the same thing.  That sin
>        (singular) is ultimately unbelief.  "Whatever is not of faith is
>        sin" (singular).
>
>        Mark, I think where we disagree most are the nature of the
>        consequences of sin.  I believe they are 100% inherent to sin and
>        thus the model of redemption is relevent _only_ to curing us of
>        the sin itself.

    "The nature of the consequences of sin....are inherent to sin" is a
    redundant and meaningless assembling of phrases, Tony.  Whatever is
    the nature of something is also inherent in that something.

    When you say the "nature" of the consequences, I believe you mean to
    ask "from where do the consequences originate?" and go on to say this:

>        I believe the evangelical gospel implies that the consequences of
>        sin are God's judicial response to it and thus the model of deliver-
>        ance is relevent only to aleviating that judicial penalty God must
>        dole out.

    You think that the evangelical model says that consequences of sin
    originate from the Judge and Executioner.  We've been through this
    (agonizingly) before.  And I think you've got the "process" and
    "cause and effects" mixed up.  Let me try to put this into simple
    enumerated steps:

    (1) God is God
    (2) God defines morality, good and evil
    (3) (a) Alignment to the definition is Good;
        (b) Rebellion against the definition is Evil.
    (4) Consequences of rebellion are also defined;
          at its core, the consequence is "separation" from God
          because (1) in conjunction with (2) and (3) does not
          allow for rebellion to remain in the presence of God.
    (5) There will come a time when time ceases and all will be
          judged.  (Yes, j-u-d-g-e-d.)
        (a) Those found in alignment with God's morality will not
               be separated
        (b) Those found in rebellion with God's morality will be
               separated.

    (6) Where we likely disagree is the eternal state of man.
        If God has made mankind to be eternal, then eternal separation
        will be torment, regardless of physical, spiritual, or euphamistic
        fire.  If God has not made man to be eternal, then annihilation
        (your position, I believe) is an option open to God.

        But position 5 is insoluable.  A Judgment Day is coming.


        And the ultimate consequences of sin will be judged on that
        Day as "Guilty with separation" or "Guilty with Pardon."
        All of us are guilty of rebellion.  We can steal something
        and a pardon does not make us innocent; only pardoned.
        A pardon is a legal term which declares a person "not guilty"
        by reason of and in the eyes of the law (of God).

More to come...

Mark

 If you mean "nature" or sin (instead of sin's consequence), then
 we've been through this before with what I think you have said it
 being inherent in the flesh.  Poppycock, says I.  As was mentioned
 not long ago, short little people are every bit as sinful as tall
 fat people who have more flesh.

 But let's assume we're talking a percentage rather than quantity,
 poppycock, I still say.  If, for example, there was a "sin" gene
 that could be excised by some procedure (currently known only to
 the Holy Spirit), it presents all kinds of problems - and this upon
 mere speculation without scriptural basis.  Without going into a lot
 of it, Jesus had no sin in him (that's Scriptural) yet he did have
 fleshly appetites.

 The appetites of the flesh are not sinful; they are built in
 humanity.  The context for satisfying these fleshly appetites
 is of paramount importance to the Christian.  For example, sex
 is a natural appetite of the flesh and in the marriage contract
 it is not sinful but spiritually fulfilling.

 The sinful nature is the attitude of self-service that violates the
 first commandment, placing ourself before the Almighty God; it says,
 I will do as I please and satisfy all of my fleshly appetites without
 regard for contexts of right or wrong.  I'll define right and wrong
 and disregard God's definitions.

 When we are born again, we still have fleshly appetites.  However,
 the spiritual nature "wars within our members" to satisfy these
 appetites only in the context of god's definition - denying the
 urges to satisfy the appetite outside of the context (like binging
 on that double chocolate cake, which after you do,m it makes you
 feel sick anyway).

 There is nothing sinful about the flesh or fleshly appetites,
 EXCEPT when considered in the CONTEXT of God's definition of
 right and wrong (righteousness and sin).

>        (Not trying or even wanting to lure you in here.)

Thanks.  I'm trying to stay out of it except for this.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        I'll stay out of the judgment part of this until I finish
        the judgment stuff I previously mentioned I would take up.
        So, anyway, I'll stay out of judgment (for now), but I will
        say that my study of it has given me a different view of what
        judgment is and how it works.
    
        I know scripture says that sin separates from God.  I believe 
        the true meaning of this passage is that when one sins and sees
        God, separation is ones perception.  An example would be Judas.
        I don't believe Jesus abandoned Judas, but I do believe that
        Judas' sin did not allow him to see God's love (and acceptance)
        that He STILL had for him.
    
        Romans 7 says there is a law of sin and death that is in our
        members.  I believe sin itself resides exclusively in the con-
        sciousness, but that the law of sin and death resides in the 
        flesh (somehow).
    
        To pose extreme cases (perfectly righteouss and perfectly sinful)
    
        I believe that if either case saw God's love unveiled, each one
        (via the law of sin and death) would be awakened to a revelation
        of how bad sin is and would feel to be that sinner.  I suppose
        in the case of the perfectly sinful, sin in the mind would awaken
        the same reality.
    
        But, anyway, given the above, I believe that if each group saw
        God unveiled, each would experience the same guilt, each would
        feel to be totally sinful.  The righteous would survive the exp.
        by faith.  The unrighteous would not as they would despair.
    
        This is partly how I believe Jesus became our Savior.  He took
        sinful flesh and in that way submitted to the reality of the law
        of sin and death which is "in our members" according to Romans 7.
    
        Oh, one last thing...
    
        About inherent.  I don't exactly understand the critique of my
        use of inherent.
    
        What I mean is that all the destruction is wrapped up in sin
        itself.   To put a certain way, that the two groups I mentioned
        above, the REASON the sinning group despairs is not because God
        makes them despair, it is because there is some quality within 
        sin itself that leads them to despair.  Conversely, the righteous
        group, being exposed to the exact same Presence (the brightness 
        of His coming - i.e. agape unveiled) survive the experience, not
        because the Father exempts them from what He shows the unrighteous,
        but rather because they lack the blindness that sin creates in the
        unrighteous.  Their faith 'sees' a loving and accepting God that
        the unrighteous can't see.  They lack the misperception of separ-
        ation that sin causes in the lost.
    
        Hope I explained ok.
    
                                                      Tony

>Note 551.155  YIELD::BARBIERI
>        I know scripture says that sin separates from God.  I believe
>        the true meaning of this passage is that when one sins and sees
>        God, separation is ones perception.  An example would be Judas.
>        I don't believe Jesus abandoned Judas, but I do believe that
>        Judas' sin did not allow him to see God's love (and acceptance)
>        that He STILL had for him.

  What we see is Judas abandoning Jesus.  But what we see here is NOT
  judgment, Tony.  Judgment comes later.

  As for separation being a perception, again, this isn't judgment at
  all, but I think you are talking about guilt feelings - recognizing
  that a person is in the wrong and feeling sorry for it.  This feeling
  of guilt is not what causes separations; it is a result of the
  separation we bring on ourselves; our abandonment of Christ by
  our rebellion (sin).

>        Romans 7 says there is a law of sin and death that is in our
>        members.  I believe sin itself resides exclusively in the con-
>        sciousness, but that the law of sin and death resides in the
>        flesh (somehow).

  Take it out of the jargon: what do you suppose the "law of sin and
  death" is?  The law of sin and death is separation (the wages of sin
  is death).  And if this is a law, there must be law enforcement.  And
  Who will judge sin?  And what will be the consequence of a guilty
  verdict on sin?

>        But, anyway, given the above, I believe that if each group saw
>        God unveiled, each would experience the same guilt, each would
>        feel to be totally sinful.  The righteous would survive the exp.
>        by faith.  The unrighteous would not as they would despair.

  Despair is the result, true.  but what you have called "God unveiled"
  is nothing more or less than Judgment, Tony.  It is the Ultimate
  Definition of what is right and wrong and those found in alignment
  are right; those found in rebellion are wrong.

  Their despair will not separate them from God, Tony.  Despair is only
  a *byproduct* of the realization that they are in the wrong with the
  Absolute Authority.  Those found in the wrong will be *separated*
  (see the Scripture about the sheep and the goats) from those found
  in the right.

>        This is partly how I believe Jesus became our Savior.  He took
>        sinful flesh and in that way submitted to the reality of the law
>        of sin and death which is "in our members" according to Romans 7.

  Nope.  He took on flesh, with its appetites.  There was NO SIN found
  in Him (scriptural basis, again).  He did NOT have the sinful nature
  which is rebellion towards God; Jesus was in perfect union with God,
  despite the fact that he was clothed in an earth suit.

>        What I mean is that all the destruction is wrapped up in sin
>        itself.   To put a certain way, that the two groups I mentioned
>        above, the REASON the sinning group despairs is not because God
>        makes them despair, it is because there is some quality within
>        sin itself that leads them to despair.

  Not scriptural, Tony; speculation on your part only.  The only quality
  of sin is the attitude of rebellion towards God.  I believe on Judgment
  Day that there will be people who hate God and will shake their fist at
  Him even when He declares the Ultimate Right and Wrong.  The terror they
  will experience will not be because they feel remorse or despair but
  they will bow the knee and confess Jesus' Lordship whether they want
  to or not.

  Only God's judgment will lead them to despair.  Sin will be the cause for
  God's judgment.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        This is a quickie and I suppose I will have missed a couple of
        points, but here goes.
    
        I will steer clear of judgment until I have finished what I have
        started writing.
    
        Law of sin and death:
        I don't see your view mainly because of WHERE the law of sin and
        death is said to reside (in the physical realm in our members, in
        our body).
    
        Must be law enforcement:
        I agree, but we are looking at it from two very different perspectives.
        I see it as a reality like the law of gravity.  There is a law of
        gravity.  So what does it mean that it needs law enforcement?  I 
        suppose what it means is its reality cannot be circumvented/violated.
    
        If I drop a rock at 100 feet, the law of gravity says it will have
        a certain velocity when it hits bottom.  My idea of law enforce-
        ment is simply that the reality of the law of gravity will not be
        violated.
    
        I believe LAW in the moral plane is EXACTLY like gravity.  Its
        reality, the punishments are within the boundaries of that reality.
        
        separation:
        It seems we agree much on this.  I believe the insistence of God
        being separated from their hearts implies a certain reality with
        a certain set of circumstances, but again, I believe the ultimate
        'working out' of those circumstances will be as with gravity.  A
        revelation of truth will be that which divides sheep and goats,
        not arbitrary decree.  By arbitrary, I mean a separation based on
        something outside of a reality intrinsic to being a sinner - again
        like gravity.
    
        On sinful flesh:
        Mark, just so you know that the idea I presented on what sinful
        flesh is is such that were Jesus to take it, it wouldn't make
        Him a sinner.  I know we see things differently...I just hope you
        can see how it is that my view does not make Him a sinner.  It just
        causes Him to experience the same alienation as He grows in seeing
        His Father's love.  I have not once implied that what takes place
        in His consciousness is close to being sin.
    
        not scriptural
        You alluded to something not being scriptural.  Actually, I believe
        this all is.  After I enter the judgment thing, I'll load up with
        pertinent scripture.
    
        An interesting one (among many) is Isaiah 34 stating that the
        righteous (NOT the unrightous) will live in the devouring fire.
    
        Thats because the fire is God's unveiled love and while the lost
        will be destroyed by its brightness, the saved will shine like the
        sun.
    
        Mark, I really appreciate the tone of this discussion.  No need for
        me to criticize you or say you're off the wall or whatever.  We 
        can just gently compare our positions...
    
        ...with swords drawn of course!!    ;-)
    
                                                       Tony
    

      re: .156
    
      One other quickie.  I think the fact that Judas hung on a tree
      strongly points to the position that Judas is a type of the lost
      as pertains to judgment.
    
      Jesus became a curse for us for it is written, 'Cursed is any man
      that hangs on a tree.'  (Gal. ch. 2 somewhere).
    
      The fact that Judas hangs on a tree.  Thats powerful.  It can't be
      coincedence.  What led him to that tree, the dynamics involved,
      would seem to be relevent to judgment.
    
                                                    Tony

>        An interesting one (among many) is Isaiah 34 stating that the
>        righteous (NOT the unrightous) will live in the devouring fire.
>    
>        Thats because the fire is God's unveiled love and while the lost
>        will be destroyed by its brightness, the saved will shine like the
>        sun.
    
    1 Corinthians 3:15 also uses this analogy in describing the Bema Seat
    judgment of Christ on believers' works.  It isn't a matter of "unveiling
    love."  Judgment is judgment no matter how you try to change its label.
    
    Mike

>Note 551.157  YIELD::BARBIERI 
>
>       -< law of sin and death/law enforcement/separation/sinful flesh >-
>
>        Law of sin and death:
>        I don't see your view mainly because of WHERE the law of sin and
>        death is said to reside (in the physical realm in our members, in
>        our body).

    Context.  The flesh is only the *context* (or arena) for this law.

    The flesh has natural appeitites that are neither good nor bad, just
      natural.  (read on)

    The attitude of sin and self-fulfillment over the attitude of God first 
      is in the context of fulfilling the natural appetites to the disregard 
      of God's stated moral code.

    The law works in our flesh because it is the appetites that urge us,   
      but those who live by the spirit place the fleshly appeitites in the
      proper context and deny the fleshly appetites the latitude that the
      self (carnal nature) would give them.
    
>        Must be law enforcement:
>        I agree, but we are looking at it from two very different perspectives.
>        I see it as a reality like the law of gravity.  There is a law of
>        gravity.  So what does it mean that it needs law enforcement?  I 
>        suppose what it means is its reality cannot be circumvented/violated.

    (Nit: Gravity is not a law.  It is an observation.  You would weigh less
    on the moon.  Science suspects that mass has something to do with it.)
    But to your point, God's law, whether "judicial" or "natural" cannot
    be circumvented, no matter what.  He is the Absolute Authority.

>        I believe LAW in the moral plane is EXACTLY like gravity.  Its
>        reality, the punishments are within the boundaries of that reality.

    Judgment will be a severe reality to many people.
        
>        separation:
>        It seems we agree much on this.  I believe the insistence of God
>        being separated from their hearts implies a certain reality with
>        a certain set of circumstances, but again, I believe the ultimate
>        'working out' of those circumstances will be as with gravity.  A
>        revelation of truth will be that which divides sheep and goats,
>        not arbitrary decree.  By arbitrary, I mean a separation based on
>        something outside of a reality intrinsic to being a sinner - again
>        like gravity.

    I think you should be careful with this view because clear teaching
    of Scripture shows Jesus saying "depart from me..."  There will be
    nothing arbitrary about it.  Jesus will DO it (separate).

>        On sinful flesh:
>        Mark, just so you know that the idea I presented on what sinful
>        flesh is is such that were Jesus to take it, it wouldn't make
>        Him a sinner.  I know we see things differently...I just hope you
>        can see how it is that my view does not make Him a sinner.  It just
>        causes Him to experience the same alienation as He grows in seeing
>        His Father's love.  I have not once implied that what takes place
>        in His consciousness is close to being sin.
 
    Your use of the term "sinful flesh" is then misapplied.  Flesh is NOT
    sinful in and of itself.  The "sinful" part of the phrase "Sinful flesh" 
    is a modifier like "blue" is in "blue car."  Again, short people are
    no more or less sinful than tall people.  Flesh is flesh and it has
    natural appetites that are neither sinful or righteous UNTIL and UNLESS
    they are applied in alignment or violation of God's moral code.  
   
    Let me repeat that:

    Fleshly appetites are neither right nor wrong UNLESS and UNTIL they
    are satisfied in alignment or violation of God's definition of right
    and wrong.

    That alignment or violation of God's moral code is squarely in the 
    ATTITUDE of the heart (righteousness or sin; spirit or self).  It is
    the attitude of the heart that makes one's flesh an instrument of sin
    or an instrument of righteousness.  "God sees the heart" does not mean
    God uses X-rays to see our flesh pumps; of course it means he sees our
    inmost thoughts and desires; our attitudes.  Flesh and bone are merely
    the arena where the war between self-indulgence and the spiritual nature
    is waged.

Mark

 Several notes in this topic moved to topic 80..





 Jim

      Mike,
    
        Just wondering how you are coming along in that atonement
        study - your scriptural proof that the "it" in "It is finished"
        refers to the atonement or your scriptural proof that the atonement 
        is finished immediately after sacrificial payment is fully made.
        If you can scripturally link atonement to either of these notions,
        I'd sure like the oppurtunity to see that!
    
        Also, I think you stated that for Christians, sin no longer resides
        in the heart for God is present in the heart and (according to you)
        He will not stand the presence of sin.
    
        How does this square with the 1 John text that says "if any man
        says he is without sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in 
        him"?  In addition, John is referring to Christians for he speaks
        of going to our Advocate for forgiveness and He will cleanse us
        of all unrighteousness.  Also, Jesus says to Laodicaea, "Repent"
        which means literally to turn away from something (sin).  Paul
        in Thessalonians likens sanctification to turning from sin and
        more than once speaks of sanctification as a continuous process.
    
        Are you saying you are without sin?  If not, where does this sin
        reside?  If you are saying you are still a sinner, but that the
        sin does not reside where God resides, wouldn't it be better if
        God did (eventually) reside there?  In what ways are you splitting
        up your consciousness?  If sin no longer resides in your heart,
        in what subsection of your consciousness does sin reside?  And if
        there is such a subsection, why can't God never reside there also?
    
        If it sounds like I'm confused, its because I am!!!
    
                                                        Tony

    Tony,
    
    I'm going to jump in just for one quick reply since you and I have been
    down this maze before.  I know I said this before but I don't know the
    exact note but referring to "It is finished", the translators took a
    SINGLE WORD - TETELESTAI and translated it as three words.  This is not
    an uncommon technique in translation.  To define "IT" we look at the
    common usage of the word TETELESTAI.  A Kittel's would be your best
    resource for doing this but let me help you.  TETELESTAI was a
    commercial term commonly used among Greeks.  When they paid off a debt,
    much the same as you or I would pay of a car loan or a house mortgage,
    then the creditor would stamp across the note TETELESTAI.  Thus the
    word was translated COMPLETE - IT IS FINISHED - PAID IN FULL.  As has
    been stated before this verse completely supports the orthodox model of
    atonement which states that sin (i.e., sin nature) creates a chasm
    between God and man.  The blood of Christ was and is the only means of
    our reconciliation to God.  If there was no sacrifice owed then Jesus's
    words are meaningless.  Expanding slightly on the commercial use of the
    word TETELESTAI, you certainly would not continue to make payments on
    your house or car after the debt is payed.  Neither is anything else
    necessary for atonement beyond the shed blood of Christ.  Any attempt
    to add to His blood is a mockery and an insult to God.
    
    I'm out now.
    
    Kent
    

      Hi Kent,
    
        Thanks for your inputs.  My contention with your reasoning is
        the unscriptural assumption that the atonement is finished
        when the payment is paid in full.  Passover is finished at this
        time and (NOT coincedentally) Jesus happened to have died right
        around the time of typical Passover and quite a long time before
        typical Day of Atonement.
    
        The sequence of feast days is retained with my view and is not
        with yours.  Also retained is the scriptural role of the blood.
    
        I cannot turn my back on these scriptural facts nor can I accept
        a view because of its orthodoxy.
    
        I have recently gone into logos and done a word study of _blood_.
        ALWAYS its role is to cleanse.  NOT ONCE is its role a sort of
        currency given to the Father as needed appeasement, as some needed
        reconciliation of God to man.  Always, its role is to reconcile 
        the heart of man to God.
    
        Out of over a hundred 'blood' texts, I cannot even find ONE that
        supports the purpose implied by the orthodox view.  Yet, I find
        over a hundred which fully supports my view.
    
        The merits of the cross are applied by the Priest to the heart
        of the corporate Abraham.  The time comes when this Abraham is
        fully reconciled to God, i.e. he no longer demonstrates an iota's
        amount of nonreconciliation - sin.  He is perfect in character.
    
        This is the finishing of the atonement.  The congregation is 
        perfectly cleansed.
                                                        
        There is a maize.  Its source is orthodoxy itself.  Its only
        defense is to ignore things like my blood study or the fact that
        always the Priest does something with the blood after the sacri-
        fice or the fact that typical Passover finished when Christ died,
        or the retaining of the sequences of the feasts both typical and
        antitypical, or, or, or...we could go on and on.
    
    
                                                          Tony

      Hi Kent,
    
        One other quick thing.  I agree that no other price is necessary.
        I disagree that nothing else is necessary than the shed blood.
    
        The blood MUST be sprinkled.
    
        Orthodox, no.  Scriptural, yes.
    
                                                     Tony

    I've been out the last week so thank to Kent, Mark for keeping the
    discussion going.  I haven't started studying "atonement" and don't
    know when I will.  I'm too busy with other things right now.
    
    Tony, your "sprinkling blood" still assumes that Christ was a Levite. 
    He wasn't.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I too have been busy with other things.
    
        No, I am not assuming Christ was a Levite.  The assumption that
        only Levites needed to sprinkle blood is based on your interpre-
        tation to scripture.
    
        There are other interpretations possible for the scripture that
        says Jesus was a Priest forever.  It could mean that just as the
        cross was efficacious before the actual event (which I believe it
        was) then Christ's Priestly work is efficacious all the time as
        well.  
    
        There are more possible interpretations than the one you hold to.
        I believe an interpretation that accomadates the truth that there
        is a heavenly sanctuary and that Christ does in fact minister in
        that sanctuary right now would be more in line with embracing all of
        scripture.
    
        As far as sprinkling goes, Peter (New Testament) mentions sprinkling
        as does Hebrews.
    
        And Paul more than once refers to us (Christians) as a temple and
        speaks of its being built up.  And of course Hebrews refers to
        the sprinkled blood of Jesus purifying the conscience to the point
        that there is no more remembrance of sin.
    
        This finds beautiful agreement with the scriptural accounts of 
        the Day of Atonement.
    
        Your interpretation does not.  Doesn't even come close in fact.
    
                                                       Tony

    Neither is it scriptural to blanketly apply every Levite characteristic
    to the only one from the order of Melchizedek.

      Well, Mike, sprinkling of the blood is EXTREMELY pervasive.
      Every single time menion is made of a sacrifice, there is
      mention of a High Priest sprinkling the blood.
    
      I looked up sprinkle/sprinkled/sprinkling in the Concordance
      for NT verses and read all of them in context.
    
      They clearly assert that Christ indeed does sprinkle the blood,
      that He does so so as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and
      that this act of sprinkling cleanses the conscience from sin.
    
      Hmmmmm, it says ALL of that and Leviticus, when speaking of the
      Day of Atonement, says the High Priest sprinkles the blood in 
      order to cleanse the congregation.
    
      It fits like a hand in a glove!

    the problem between us is when, where, and how this takes place.

      Are you saying that while Jesus is High Priest now (as Hebrews
      says) and while it says sprinkling takes place IN THE HEAVENLY
      SANCTUARY, and while the Bible says nothing about Jesus sprinkling
      while on earth, and while Jesus died on Passover and not the Day
      of Atonement and while Hebrews states that the cleansing work of
      sprinkling produces consciences free from any remembrance of sin
      and that the final generation is pictured as cleansed and that this
      dovetails timewise with the typical Day of Atonement...
    
      ...you're saying that given all this, the Bible is really saying
      that Jesus sprinkled the shed blood while at Calvary???
    
      Why???

      Hi All,
    
        I entered a new topic recently.  It is number 681 and it is
        my response to the judgment replies brought forth in this
        topic.
    
        If I could summarize, it would be that people have said that
        God judges and then instead of doing a thorough scriptural study
        of judgment, have incorporated their own meaning of the term
        'judgment' rather than allowing scripture to elaborate on what 
        it means when it refers to judgment.
    
        The main meaning being incorporated (and which I contend is not
        true) is that God's posture toward the lost is one of condemnation.
        I believe He loves them as always, but the time comes when He
        unveils that love and allows sin to fully manifest its own inherent
        destructive nature.
    
        In addition, it has been contended that sinners are separated from
        God.  Actually, this is their perception and (by their choice) God
        is separated from their hearts in terms of their hearts accomadating
        an indwelling Savior.  However, they are not destroyed by separation,
        they are destroyed by His Presence.  A full revelation of truth 
        destroys them.  (The brightness of His coming - not His leaving.)
    
        Topic 681 is 100% compatible with everything I have brought forth
        here and is incompatible with the contrasting view.
    
        Two asides.  681 also describes the investigative judgment which is
        glorious good news.  Finally, 681, I believe, is a decent example
        of Isaiah 28-like use of scripture.  In that vein, it is a teaspoon's
        worth, there is an ocean beyond.
    
                                                      God Bless,
                                            
                                                      Tony

{from "The Fall Feasts of Israel" by Mitch & Zhava Glaser, Moody Press,
 p.141-152.  Mitch holds a Master of Divinity degree from Talbot Theological
 Seminary.  He is minister-at-large with Jews for Jesus, San Francisco, and is
 working on a doctorate.  His wife, Zhava, holds a degree in Judaic studies and
 has served on the general missionary staff of Jews for Jesus.  They are both
 Jewish believers in Christ.}

Chapter 12: "Forgiven Finally and Forever: The Christian and Yom Kippur"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The apostle Paul wrote to the believers in Rome: "But God demonstrates His own
love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much
more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the
wrath of God through Him" (Romans 5:8-9).  A Christian does not have to wonder
whether his repentance has been thorough and his good works adequate, because
salvation, finally and forever, rests not on his own merits but upon the
finished work of Christ.  Salvation is God's gift to the believing heart.  The
apostle wrote that we are "justified as a gift by His grace through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a
propitiation in His blood through faith" (Romans 3:25-26).

Christ died for the ungodly, but it was more than an act of ultimate altruism;
it was an act of propitiation.  The Greek word used here for propitiation
(hilasterion) is the word that the Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew word
"kapporeth," or Mercy Seat, the place upon which the high priest sprinkled the
blood of the bull and the goat to secure forgiveness for the people of Israel.
Whether Paul is equating Jesus Himself with the Mercy Seat or simply linking
Christ's sacrifice to the place where atonement was made we are unsure.  We do
know that Jesus, in His death, did more for our sinful condition than all the
high priests and all the bulls and goats ever sacrificed upon the altar.

The atonement purchased by Jesus Christ through the shedding of His blood is
received by the believer through faith.  That results in justification - right
standing with God (Romans 5:1) and gracious access into the presence of the
heavenly Father.  For the Christian, Yom Kippur should be a day of great
celebration, a day when we remember that Christ died for us (1 Corinthians
15:1-3).  It should remind us that salvation is by grace, received by faith, and
that even faith is a "gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8-9).  We need not worry that
our bad deeds may outweigh the good in God's balance scales of judgment.  Our
salvation rests securely upon God Himself.  What freedom and joy we experience,
and how gracious He is to save us from sin!

                       The Book of Hebrews and Yom Kippur
                       ----------------------------------
The book of Hebrews, more than any other book in the New Testament, portrays
Jesus as the fulfillment of Yom Kippur.  The book is filled with allusions to
the day and detailed descriptions of how the Old Covenant sacrificial system is
fulfilled in Christ.  The writer of the book argues convincingly that Jesus is
better in every respect than the Old Testament revelation.  He does not say that
the Old Testament revelation was faulty or inferior.  Paul, writing to the
Romans (Romans 7:12), expounds on the worthiness of the ancient revelation.  Yet
he also declared this revelation to be incomplete without Christ (Romans 10:4).
The Old Covenant pointed to the Messiah who would be the perfecter of the faith.
Jesus is a better prophet (Hebrews 1:2); He is better than the angels (Hebrews
1:4) and higher in position than Moses himself (Hebrews 3:3-6).  Atonement is
superior through Christ because Jesus Himself is uniquely superior.  He is a
superior high priest; He offers a superior sacrifice and grants us superior
access to the presence of God.  Understanding these truths will give the
Christian a deeper appreciation for Jesus Christ, who is our atonement.

                           A Superior High Priest
                           ----------------------
The high priesthood of Jesus can be appreciated when seen as the fulfillment of
the OT high priestly role and then compared to the high priest of the second
Temple period.  It was no accident that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem when He did.
The corruption of the high priesthood at that time was well known.  The writer
of Hebrews presented God's alternative to the corrupt system, exalting Jesus as
the superior messianic High Priest - superior in character and ministry.

A Superior Character
--------------------
The author of Hebrews wrote, "For it was fitting that we should have such a high
priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the
heavens" (Hebrews 7:26).  The holiness of Christ, as demonstrated in His life,
ministry, and resurrection, is evidence of His divine character.  The OT high
priest, weak because of his flesh, was commanded to wear white garments to
symbolize his desire for purity and holiness.  But Jesus did not need external
symbols; He was perfect forever because He was the Son of God (Hebrews 7:28).
The God of justice, who demanded the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of
sin, Himself became a man and shed His own blood to obtain that forgiveness.
Isaiah wrote that there would be no other Savior than God Himself: "I, even I,
am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me" (Isaiah 43:11).  Jesus is
superior in character to the high priest because He shares in the divine nature
and *is* God Himself.

The Levitical high priest needed to atone for his own sins before presenting
sacrifice for his people.  The writer of Hebrews said, "The high priest enters
once a year and not without taking blood which he offers for himself...and
because of it he was obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people,
so also for himself" (Hebrews 9:7, 5:3).  But this was completely unnecessary
for Jesus, as He was innocent, without evil according to the standard of God's
law (Hebrews 4:15).  Jesus is superior to the second Temple high priests.  The
customs of preparing the high priest on the Day of Atonement showed the
spiritually bankrupt and ungodly character of the office.  The Mishna instructed
the elders to have a scholar read and expound the Scriptures to the high priest,
who was often incapable of doing so himself.  Jesus, the Word of God incarnate
(John 1:14), was the author of the sacred texts and certainly needed no man to
teach Him the Scriptures.

The rite of purification for the high priest is outlined in Leviticus 16.  He
was instructed to wear white garments symbolizing his holy office and to wash
himself with ceremonial washings and so purify his heart before God.  By the
time of Christ, these requirements had been greatly expanded.  The first-century
high priest was to wash himself 5 times during the Day of Atonement ritual.  He
was sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer twice during his 7 days of
internment, just in case he had come in contact with a corpse before his time of
preparation.  The ritual purification of the high priest was complex because the
Jews were terrified that he would be found unacceptable to God, making his
offering of atonement invalid.

But Christ was in no need of ritual purification.  It was unnecessary for Him
to endure the ritual washings of the high priest or the sprinkling of ashes
from a red heifer.  Nothing external could enhance the purity of His character.
 Again, the author of Hebrews demonstrated Christ's worthiness to be our great
messianic High Priest when he wrote, "Therefore, He had to be made like his
brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people"
(Hebrews 2:17).  Unlike His first-century counterpart, Jesus lived among the
common people and understood their troubles.  He did not remove Himself as part
of a religious aristocracy.  By nature He was merciful, although He discovered
through bitter experience that the high priests knew no mercy.  He was also
faithful and committed to the difficult task God had called Him to do - to be
offered up as an atonement for the sins of His people Israel and the world.  The
first-century high priests were self-serving and faithful only to their own
interests and the protection of their aristocratic status quo.  The glorious
character of Jesus makes Him a far superior High Priest to any before or after
Him.

                            A Superior Ministry
                            -------------------
Jesus was not only superior in His character but also in the nature of His
ministry.

Eternal
-------
God appointed Aaron's descendants to be a priesthood forever (Exodus 40:15), but
no individual lived forever.  The Jews in Jesus' day were terrified that the
high priest would be struck dead by God on the Day of Atonement.  It was also
the custom to have a substitute ready replace the chose high priest in case he
died (Yoma 1:1).  Believers need never fear that the high priestly ministry of
Jesus will falter or fail.  The author of Hebrews assures us that He always
lives to make intercession for His people.  "Hence also, He is able to save
forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make
intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25).

Jesus was not a priestly descendant of Aaron, nor a Levite.  He was a priest in
the same manner as Melchizedek, the priest-king of ancient Jerusalem.  The
eternality of His messianic priesthood rested upon His divine nature: "He has
become a priest after the order of Melchizedek 'according to the power of an
indestructible life'" (Hebrews 7:16); and "He [Jesus]...because He abides
forever, holds His priesthood permanently" (Hebrews 7:24).

The ministry of Jesus was unlike that of His contemporary high priests who
served only 1-year terms.  Although the priest before Herod's day were
appointed to serve as high priests for their entire lives, they were still
subject to sickness, incapacity, and death.  The entire Levitical system was
marred by human weakness.  But the priesthood of Jesus is different; His
ministry is everlasting and not subject to the frailties of the flesh.
Believers can rest assured of His continual intercession of their behalf.

Appointed by God
----------------
The ancient Levitical priests received their high priestly appointments through
heredity.  By the time of the second Temple, corrupt high priests connived and
bribed their way to power.  But Jesus was directly chosen and appointed by God.
"And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by
God, even as Aaron was.  So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become
a high priest, but He who said to Him, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten
Thee'" (Hebrews 5:4-5).  Aaron himself was appointed by God to be the first
Levitical high priest, but soon the priestly line was assumed by those whose
character and testimony were far less worthy.  Jesus, on the other hand, was
chosen as high priest before the foundation of the world.

At God's Right Hand
-------------------
Jesus' contemporaries would serve a year and retire to become part of the
Sadducean aristocracy.  But He remained High Priest forever and was exalted to
the right hand of the Father as vice-regent of heaven: "We have such a high
priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in
the heavens" (Hebrews 8:1).  He is an exalted Priest and King, in the perfect
position to continue His ministry to His people.

In a Better Sanctuary
---------------------
The earthly Tabernacle was a marvelous sight, and the Temple of Herod one of the
wonders of the world, yet both pale in comparison to the majesty of the heavenly
sanctuary in which Jesus ministers (Hebrews 8:2).  In that holy place there is
no need for an Ark or a Mercy Seat, for His ministry of intercession is
exercised in the presence of God.

Of a Better Covenant
--------------------
The prophet Jeremiah spoke of a New Covenant that would replace the Old:
"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel...I will put My law within them, and on their heart I
will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people" (Jeremiah
31:31,33).  Jesus Himself is the High Priest of this New Covenant, rendering
the office of high priest for the Old Covenant no longer necessary: "But now He
has obtained a more excellent ministry by as much as He is also the mediator of
a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises" (Hebrews 8;6).  In
this New Covenant, God inhabits the hearts of His people who are cleansed by
Christ's blood and made fit to be holy vessels of God's Spirit.  The New
Covenant believer is a living Temple, bearing the Holy of Holies and the
Shekinah presence in his heart.

                           A Superior Sacrifice
                           --------------------
Jesus is more than our messianic High Priest.  He is the offering presented for
the forgiveness of our sins.  His sacrifice is superior in power as well as in
simplicity.

In Power
--------
The Old Covenant sacrifices were limited to the physical realm.  They were
offered by an earthly high priest on a temporary altar and were able to purify
in only the most superficial manner.  Animal sacrifices could never fully
cleanse the worshipers' conscience.  Offerings of bulls and goats cold restore
an Israelite to ritual purity within the nation but could not do anything for
the individual's heart.  This is poignantly captured by Isaac Watts:

            Not all the blood of beasts on Jewish altars slain
            Could give the guilty conscience peace, or wash away the stain;
            But Christ, the Heavenly Lamb, takes all our sins away,
            A sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood than they. 

The Old Covenant sacrifices were unable to cleanse a man from within.  Jesus
said, "There is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but
the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man" (Mark 7:15).
British scholar F.F. Bruce writes, "But their pollution is removed from the
conscience by the work of Christ, so that men and women, emancipated from inward
bondage, can worship God in spirit and in truth.  This is the 'perfection' which
the ancient ceremonial was unable to achieve."

What purpose then did the OT sacrifices serve?  After all, they were given to
Israel by God Himself (Leviticus 1-7).  The animal sacrifices taught the
Israelites that the gruesome penalty for sin was death.  They demonstrated that
God was gracious in allowing substitutes to pay that terrible penalty.  But the
sacrificial system was a type, a foreshadowing, of God's ultimate sacrifice for
sin, Jesus the Messiah (Galatians 3:24; Colossians 2:16-17; 1 John 2:2, 3:11).
The writer of Hebrews argues that the "blood of bulls and goats" never did "take
away sins" (Hebrews 10:4) but only covered them for a time.  "For the Law, since
it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things,
can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually,
make perfect hose who draw near" (Hebrews 10:1).  The Old Covenant faithful were
forgiven in acknowledgment of their faith and in God's foreknowledge of
Christ's work.  Paul used the illustration of Abraham's justification by faith
(Romans 4:3).  But Abraham, who lived before the sacrificial system, and all the
faithful Israelites thereafter until Calvary, only had their sins passed over
and covered.  The sins were never literally "taken away."  The apostle
recognized this when he wrote" "Whom god displayed publicly as a propitiation in
His blood through faith.  This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in
the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed" (Romans
3:25).

Jesus' sacrifice satisfied the wrath of God and lifted sin's obstruction to
man's fellowship with Him.  For only through Jesus can believing men and women
find reconciliation and peace with God.  The earthly high priest was commanded
to sprinkle blood on the Mercy Seat, the altar of incense, the sanctuary, and
the alter itself.  Even more so, the blood of Jesus was powerful enough to
cleanse the heavens of every remembrance of the believers' sin.  "Therefore it
was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with
these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these"
(Hebrews 9:23).

In Simplicity
-------------
The intricate sacrificial ritual revealed in Leviticus had grown even more
complicated by the time of Christ.  yet more was accomplished in His one act of
sacrifice on Calvary than in all the Levitical rituals every observed.  The
author of Hebrews wrote, "He [Jesus] entered the holy place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12; see also 10:10,12).  He did
not have to keep offering His sacrifice year after year.  The complete atonement
of mankind's sin took place in one act, on one day, in one moment on a hill
outside Jerusalem.  And, afterwards, Jesus took His seat "at the right hand of
the throne of the majesty in the heavens" (Hebrews 8:1).  His work was
complete, atonement was made, and He could rest form His labors.

The simplicity of His sacrifice is profound.  All God ever wanted to accomplish
in providing atonement for man was fulfilled in this one eternal action.  The
once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus is so simple in comparison to the elaborate
ritual of the synagogue that Jewish people sometimes consider the gospel an all
too easy path to faith.  Yet it is consistent with God's nature to make His will
known in an uncomplicated manner.  There is only one way to the Father (John
14:6), and there is only one sacrifice for sin.  We should stand amazed and
marvel at the simplicity of God's truth.  But it is simple only for us; that
simple act cost God the life of His Son.

                              A Superior Access
                              -----------------
The Temple was the religious and political focus of the nation.  It was also a
reminder to the average Israelite of what separated him from the presence of
God (Hebrews 9:8-9), for he was never allowed to approach the sanctuary of the
Lord.  Levitical priests were able to enter the holy place, but they were never
allowed into the Holy of Holies.  That was the domain of the high priest alone,
and he was permitted to enter within the veil only on the Day of Atonement.  The
individual Israelite was at the mercy of the high priest to bring him into the
presence of god.  But the sacrifice of Jesus changed all that!

          Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy
          place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He
          inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and
          since we have a great priest over the house of God let us draw
          near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our
          hears sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed
          with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22)

The author of Hebrews compares the flesh of Christ to the veil that divided the
holy place from the Holy of Holies.  We know from the gospels that when Jesus
died this veil was rent (Mark 15:38; Matthew 27:51; Luke 23:45).  The New
Covenant provides free access to the presence of God for all men as long as they
enter through the merits of Christ's sacrifice.  The Mosaic sacrifices could not
purify the conscience, but the sacrifice of Christ relieved the worshiper of
guilt and enabled him without fear to enter into the presence of God.

Believers who trust in the blood of Christ experience God's presence more than
any high priest ever did.  The ancient high priest could enter God's presence on
one day each year, and they only with fear and trembling.  Yet those of us who
know Jesus can boldly enter His heavenly throne room and step into the glorious
presence of God.  This communion with God is available to all who believe at all
times because of the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary.  One need
not be a high priest, a Levite, or even a member of Abraham's race.  Our faith
relationship to the High Priest enables both Jews and Gentiles to approach the
throne of God.  The writer of Hebrews encourages us to "draw near with a sincere
heart in full assurance of faith" because through His eternal sacrifice we have
been cleansed from an evil conscience.  Like the high priest, we have bene
washed, but not by ordinary water.  We have been washed with pure water, the
water of the Spirit, the water of the Word.  Our hearts have been sprinkled
clean, fulfilling the cleansing promise by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Ephesians
5:26).

What a blessed opportunity for a Christian to have free access into the presence
of God Himself.  Ought we not to thank God for this great privilege through
prayer and worship?  Praise be to God for His indescribable gift!

  Hi Mike,

    Well, friend, you're just going to have to wait in line!  I am
    committed to Bing now (and his one reply).  I am also committed 
    to other things.

    But, here is a very quick summary of my thoughts...

    I am not in the least negatively or positively persuaded by the
    man's credentials.  The only credential I seek is the word of
    God mingled with the Holy Spirit (bread and oil).

    This man did the same thing you did quite a few replies back.  He
    suggested that the atonement was finished and then he went on to
    list different High Priestly functions Christ now is performing!!!
    In a reply you stated that Christ is seated and this meant He's 
    not working and in the very same paragraph you said that He INTERCEDES. 
    (!!!)

    I would characterize intercession as a High Priestly work and an 
    atoning one at that.

    The person makes a similar premise that Bing made in his reply and
    that you have made.  He assumes that because Christ gave all of Himself,
    we have RECEIVED ALL OF HIM.  This is simply not the case.  Christ gave
    Himself to the unsaved and they received none of Him.  And the only
    group I know of that are filled "with all the fulness of God" are that
    last day group characterized by Paul in Ephesians; that same group Paul
    describes as comprehending the dimensions of agape.

    The truth is, if we have received all of Christ, in the heart, we would
    *by definition* not be in need of a Mediator.  A Mediator is a go-between
    between two parties and Christ is a go-between between the Father and
    us.  He is a go-between because we are not ready to see the Father without
    a Mediator.  We are not fully reconciled (atoned).

    Incidentally, this is related to you (and I believe your pastor) criticizing
    an Adventist belief as horrible.  That Jesus would at some point halt His
    mediatorial work.  What you (and he) see as horrible, I see as one of the
    most beautiful truths there is.  Jesus prepares me to be able to look 
    into the face of the Father!!!  How glorious!!  Finally, a people will learn
    that they need not be afraid of Him anymore!!!  Precious truth!  (kind
    of like an endtime application of John 16:25-27.)  How can anyone suggest
    this is horrible???

    If we had received all of Him, we could not sin.  We would be resting 
    perfectly in Him.  We would not be the people described in Hebrews as 
    partaking of only milk, but in need of solid food.  We would not be that
    last church (Laodicaea) that is described as lukewarm and pathetic and
    naked and blind.  BUT, we certainly WOULD be that same church that thinks
    she is rich.

    I better continue...

 Continuing on...

    John 16 has apocalyptic significance (as does all of scripture).  There 
    comes a time when Jesus need not use figurative language anymore.  He can
    speak PLAINLY to us about the Father.  No more need for a veil.  Isaiah
    28 describes a condition wherein God's word seems to us as coming from
    a stammering tongue and a foreign language (verse 11).  If you read on
    (verses 16 to 22), there is a trying experience.  It will be a terror
    just to undertand the report (verse 19) and GET THIS "the bed is too short
    for a man to stretch out on, AND THE COVERING SO NARROW THAT HE CANNOT
    WRAP HIMSELF IN IT."  

    No covering.  The veil is removed.  This whole area of Isaiah has appli-
    cation to the endtime event of unveiling.  31:9 there is a furnace in
    Jerusalem.  Isaiah 32:3-4, the eyes will not be dim, the ears will listen,
    the tongue of the stammerers will be ready to speak plainly.  And it 
    just continues on.  Isaiah 33 speaks of a people who inhabit the devouring
    fire and dwell with everlasting burnings and these people are those who
    walk uprightly (verses 14 and 15).  And of that time, it says, "YOUR 
    EYES WILL SEE THE KING IN HIS BEAUTY."

    There is no veil.  The High Priest has done His work.  He has removed
    the veil completely and believe me, the atonement is not finished; we
    still see dimly (as Paul in Corinthians says).  Man and God are ONE.  
    Finally, man can look the Father straight in the face and live!!

    No, we haven't received all that Jesus has given.  Our eyes have not
    seen the cross so lifted up that it just wipes out of our hearts any
    sin.  We're not ready for that yet.  

    I found it interesting that the writer did not tie the efficacy of the
    cross and the work of the High Priest more closely to what Hebrews
    says.  A lot of the time I agreed with what he said.  But, then he 
    said this is our experience NOW. 

    And yet Hebrews says that "there is no more remembrance of sin."  We
    can't remember it anymore because its just not there.  Heb. 10:2.  Our
    hearts are sprinkled (there's that word again, did he mention it?) from
    an evil conscience (10:22).

    Suppose Jesus went to the cross on Pluto and there was virtually no
    revelation of it.  Would anyone's heart be sprinkled from an evil
    conscience?  The sprinkling of the blood...the revelation of that cross
    made known to the heart and which cleanses it from sin - a High Priestly
    atoning work.

    His reply fit Laodicaea to a "t".  "We have received it all" and all
    the while Jesus shakes His head and says, "No.  BUY of Me.  Eyesalve,
    etc."

    Deuteronomy 32 says the latter rain is doctrine and it is a future
    event.  Ephesians LOOKS FORWARD to that group that comprehends the
    dimensions of agape that they may be filled with all the fulness of God.
    Colossians describes the mystery of God and says its "Christ in you, the
    hope of glory."  In an endtime context, Revelations speaks of "the
    finishing of the mystery of God."  Hebrews looks forward to that group
    that partakes of solid food.

    He avoided the same scriptures you have.  He basically avoids the awesome
    atoning work Jesus is still doing and which will cause it such that there
    is no more consciousness of sin, and enable us to see the Father, "the
    King in His beauty" (Isaiah 33:17).

    That unveiling occured for Christ at Calvary; it has never occured for us.

    The atonement is not yet finished.  Our hearts are still veiled from 
    seeing God face to face.

    This got longer than I thought!
 
                                                    God Bless,

                                                    Tony

    The Jewish sources should be respected in the sense that they know much
    more about Yom Kippur than we do.  The entire chapter (book for that
    matter) is dead on accurate with respect to God's Word and how it has
    been portrayed for centuries in Judaism.
    
    Since when does mediation = atonement?  There are several things
    involved in mediation, atonement is just a completed subset of it.  
    
    Like it was said, Christ's body was the veil.  We have access to the
    Father NOW, since we are believers.
    
    BTW - I don't know if it was said SDA doctrine was horrible.  Just
    unscriptural.  You're waiting for something that is complete.  You are
    refusing to accept Christ's finished work on the cross and have
    established a different gospel (which Paul warned about).  It's a
    gospel of works.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    Tony, here's a study for you to do in your "spare" time if you have the
    verb tense/mood parsing in your Logos.  Look at the passages dealing
    with justification and/or Christ's death.  Specifically "justify" and
    "once and for all" and look at the verb tenses surrounding their use.  
    
    If you don't have that module, I'll post some examples later.  The
    bottomline is that you have to love that "present continuous" tense in
    Greek.  Really drives home the phrase "PAID IN FULL."
    
    Mike

>     I can see giving some credibility to Jewish sources, but not a lot.
>     These are the sources of a collective group of people who could not
>     recognize Christ when they saw Him.
    
    ...but this source is from 2 *Christians* who also are Messianic Jews
    and have had the scriptures opened their eyes to what they've been
    doing all their lives.  BIG difference.

>     Did you completely ignore my scriptural accounts showing that we have
>     NOT YET RECEIVED all of Christ?  
    
    I haven't read them all yet, but you should know that while you might
    not have received all of Christ yet, others of us in this conference
    have.

>     To repeat what I was referring to....It was said that to believe Christ
>     at some point will no longer Mediate was a bad thing.  If atonement WAS
>     finished, there would be no problem with His not mediating.  We could
>     go straight to the Father!
    
    But Christians DO go straight to the Father.

>     The fact that I cannot look the Father in the face and live, or to 
>     use atonement imagery; the fact that I cannot go from the holy to the
>     most holy and live, is proof positive that the atonement is not yet
>     finished.  God still needs to do some work in me in order to enable
>     me to be one with Him - there is still alienation in me.  (Never was 
>     any alienation with God BTW.)
    
    Sorry to hear that Tony.  This doesn't apply to Christians either. 
    Christians have full access to the Father.

>     What do you do with all those unveiling texts I supplied?  Ignore
>     them?  How do you expect me to give you any credibility when your support
>     is based on ignorance and neglect of scripture?  You still haven't shown
>     me Biblically why the "It" in "It is finished" refers to the atonement.
>     There's a good reason for that, i.e. if you could, you would.

    There is no scriptural support for anything remotely having to do with
    2 atonements or crosses.
    
    Some of it is lack of time, some of it hinges on the "garbage in,
    garbage out" phrase, but none of it is because I'm not able.  You can
    only spend so much time on a false gospel before it's time to move on.  

    The love was made known by the sacrificial work on the cross, not by
    imitating a Levite (which He is not).  Your "Two Crosses" both occurred
    on Calvary.

      If you looked face to face upon the unveiled face of the
      Father, you'd be destroyed.
    
      The blood is still being sprinkled (as scripture says) and
      Jesus never sprinkled it while on Calvary.
    
      Time to move on...
    
                                                  Tony

>      If you looked face to face upon the unveiled face of the
>      Father, you'd be destroyed.

What is your timetable?  I know that no man can see God an live, yet
the Bible says that we shall see him face to face and know him even as
we are known (1 Corinthians 13:12).  There will come a time when we enter
His throne room and see Him.  Surely you don't mean what you say for
that time when we shall see Him face to face.

I do not know what you mean to say, Tony.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        What I mean is seeing God face to face equates to beholding
        Him unveiled.  I believe that when the remnant is able to
        behold Him unveiled, the atonement is finished.  Christ's
        mediatorial work is complete.  He need not be a go-between.
    
        He keeps showing them the Father more and more fully until
        such a time nothing is veiled.  I believe that text refers
        to before the second coming, i.e. on the Day of Atonement
        after the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed.   For when the 
        sanctuary is cleansed (the heart is cleansed) one is equipped
        to see God.  No one can see Him fully unveiled with sin in
        the heart.
    
        I see the root of our disagreement being what in fact the
        atonement is.  I see the main cause of the root of our disa-
        greement being what the source of our condemnation is.
    
        If its God who needs to be appeased, the atonement is under-
        stood to being meeting that 'judicial' penalty He required
        (so this position says and I disagree).   Then the basis of
        our right standing before God is accepting the price and having
        that price credited in your account.
    
        If its sin which condemns, the atonement is understood to be
        the rooting out of sin from the life.  The price Jesus paid
        is the price required to manufacture an antidote to sin.  This
        antidote, when sprinkled on the sanctuary, eradicates sin.  The
        basis of ones being accounted righteous when he first comes to
        faith is that what God started, He can finish.  The validation
        of that basis is a perfected last generation which follows Christ
        into the Most Holy.  This event is the atonement.
    
        This second 'model' is very different from the other one, but has
        similarities.  ALL is by faith working by the grace of God.  The
        merits of the cross ARE the sum total of the merits which redeems.
        The digression (to repeat) is the purpose of the merits which 
        includes a High Priestly work which is not the cross event.
    
        Try as I might, in all sincerity and honesty, I am not trying to
        be biased.  I believed in the 'evangelical' gospel.  I began to
        look at this 'other' gospel when it began to seem to me that sin
        (and sin alone) is what condemns.
    
        Again, in all sincerity and honesty, I keep finding the Bible to
        validate this other view.
    
        The role of the blood.
    
        The work of the High Priest.
    
        The meaning of the veil and what it means for it to be unveiled.
    
        The book of Hebrews (throughout)
    
        The sequence of the typical feasts.
    
        Cross occuring at Passover.
    
        What Bible says the cross accomplishes.
    
        What atonement means (reconciliation.)
    
        Who is alienated (us).
    
        The character of God, i.e. agape (the law) seeks not its own.
    
        Spiritual reality as pertains to fallen humanity (Romans 7).
    
        I could go on and on.
    
                                                   Tony
    
        

      Mike,
    
        Just a couple last questions...
    
        Have you completely RECEIVED Christ?  If the answer is yes,
        what does Paul mean in Ephesians when he describes a people
        "filled with all the fulness of God"?  Are you not then filled
        with all the fulness of God?
    
        I agree we have full access to all of God, I just don't believe
        we have laid hold of it.
    
        What is the atonement?  Can you give me a scripture that gives
        the role (purpose) of the blood that applies to the definition
        of atonement as you define it?
    
        Is Jesus sprinkling your conscience now?
    
                                                      Tony

>        Have you completely RECEIVED Christ?  If the answer is yes,
    
    Yes, I received all of Christ into my heart when I was born again.
    
>        what does Paul mean in Ephesians when he describes a people
>        "filled with all the fulness of God"?  Are you not then filled
>        with all the fulness of God?
    
    What is the context of Ephesians 3:19?  The original Greek doesn't
    quite put it the way you use it.  It's really saying, "filled *UNTO* all 
    the fullness of God," this is the grand goal which doesn't happen until 
    1 Corinthians 15.  
    
>        I agree we have full access to all of God, I just don't believe
>        we have laid hold of it.
    
    ...and we won't until we're glorified ala 1 Corinthians 15.  Needless
    to say that this is nowhere near a 2nd atonement, but a
    transfiguration.
    
>        What is the atonement?  Can you give me a scripture that gives
>        the role (purpose) of the blood that applies to the definition
>        of atonement as you define it?
    
    We already did the "propitiation" thing.  I'll have something on
    "justification" via the blood later this week or next.  In fairness to
    you, provide another pointer to your reply with verses you want
    explained and I'll attempt to see where the fork in the road is.
    
>        Is Jesus sprinkling your conscience now?
    
    Do you mean as in Hebrews 10:22?  No.  He's already done that. 
    Sprinkling as used here means Cleansing.  Evil Conscience speaks of an
    unatoned for consciousness of guilt and sin.  That no longer exists in
    the believer since I've been atoned for through His propitiation.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        You have not been filled with all the fulness of God.  If
        you were, you'd be sinless.  You can force a circle into
        a square peg all you want, but you are just wresting way out
        of any sense of context or rationality.
    
        As a small example, we are cleansed by the washing of the water
        of the word.  So, what do you think the latter rain is?  It is
        simply an unveiled presence of God in the sanctuary.  What do 
        you think Hosea 6:1-3 refers to?  Or what about those texts in
        the Isaiah chapter 30's I referred to where a man was no longer
        covered and a people saw the King in His beauty?  What does it 
        mean to inhabit Mount Zion or to see His face?  Do you see His
        face Mike?  Why not?  All of Him is in your heart!
    
        From my perspective, you are forcing obvious things to fit a
        preconceived notion of doctrine.  But, I am seeing the Bible
        fit something different and something obvious.  I am a sinner.
        My prayer is, "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief."  I 
        have not allowed all of Christ in.  I behold as in a veil dimly.
        Sanctification is a gradual process which equates to the sprinkling
        of the blood being gradual.  There are things I was up to early
        in my Christian experience that I am not up to now.  And that is
        because I have grown in seeing Christ lifted for me and hence have
        allowed more of His blood to find my heart and cleanse me.
    
        At one time Abraham lied to Pharoah about sarah.  He also went in
        unto Hagar WHICH IS the old covenant.  His experience was a blend
        of old and new, i.e. trying to be righteous by faith and works.
        At another time, he survives the Mount Moriah experience.
    
        And you're going to tell me that Christ in Abraham early in his
        experience was identical to Christ in Abraham at the end of his
        experience?
    
        What does Christ in the believer mean to you?
    
        ITS PERCEPTION.  Its seeing something.  And if you're going to
        sit here and tell me that you have seen the depths of the cross
        (and thus) you are correspondingly constrained "for the love of
        Christ constrains us", I can only say, lets quit our discussion.
        We are light years apart.
    
        For you to say you are filled with all the fulness of God is 
        bad news because you still sin and the manifestation of the
        fulness of Christ in anyone produces a whole lot more than we
        are up to.
    
        We are so far apart.
    
        Whether you believe so or not, the Holy Spirit is right now 
        convicting you of sin, rightousness and judgment.  Jesus is still
        sprinkling blood in your heart and cleansing it from sin.  He is
        still aiding those who are tempted.
    
        Thats what Hebrews says anyway and thats what I know.  I know He's
        cleansing me.
    
                                                    Tony

Hi Bing,

Finally, my reply to you!  No sense to begin anywhere, but at
the beginning!

BTW, this is really long (19 replies!).  I didn't really intend this to be so
long.  It is long because of how I typed it; at my leisure at home
over about a month time period.  So it may not be real connected.
(Sorry!)  I don't expect any replies, but I just hope you have a
    sense that I am trying to be true to the word of God and also to
    challenge you as well.  (And I _appreciate_ being challenged too!!)

I wrote:

"Those scriptures find beautiful support with the gospel I am
trying to convey.  Surely you do not equate 'works of the law'
with the divine work of the heart being created anew!  If not,
whats the issue with what I wrote?"

To which you said:

"The verses were in response to the following:" 

Where I said:

"Christ is the word and wrapped up in that word, that LIGHT,
that redeems us is the cross itself.  When that word lights up
the heart, it transforms it from sinful to sinless.  This
transformation is continuous; it is not all at once.  But, God
sees a person AT THE FINAL STEPS OF THAT TRANSFORMATION after
the person took the first steps on the basis that what He
started, He can finish."

And, in .127, you then said:

"This seemed to imply that we are justified because God at some
future point sees us as having sinless BEHAVIOR."

Let me clarify in case I am giving some misconceptions.  We are
accounted righteous by just that, the righteousness accounted
(imputed) to us.  My right standing with God is the
righteousness He sees in the life of Jesus Christ.  Every
Christian's right standing is this imputed righteousness.

What I am doing is getting one layer below that truth (which we
all agree on).  It is at this layer that we digress.  But, a
superficial look will find fundamental commonality.  And that
superficial look is the agreement that the reason for anyone's
right standing before God (which we agree is imputed) is the
merits of the sacrifice of Christ.

But, what I have found is a difference in what the source of our
condemnation is and what the efficacy of the cross is.  I do not
see it as coincedence that when I began checking these ideas, I
kept finding BOTH of these differences (i.e. source of
condemnation and efficacy of cross)  discussed quite often in
scripture.

Please give that some thought Bing.  Here I am giving thought to
two different ideas.  One, the condemnation is inherent to sin. 
Two, the efficacy of the merits of the sacrifice is to deliver
from the condemnation (sin).  And lo and behold, the more I
delve, the more this is what I find.  I didn't know how
substantially I'd find it.  I didn't know about the life of
Abraham and why his faith was accounted to him for
righteousness.  I didn't know about Romans 7 and other texts
referring to the source of the problem being inherent to sin.  I
didn't know the role of the blood would be given as cleansing
from sin.  I didn't know Hebrews would discuss the role of the
blood in terms of making it so that the conscience would have no
more remembrance of sin.  I HAD NO IDEA at first that the
judgment studies I have done (and been blessed to hear) would so
incredibly dovetail with where my beliefs were headed.

The further in God's word I go, the more these views are
validated.

Again, we digress on what the source of our condemnation is and
on how it is that the cross is efficacious for our redemption. 
With my belief, we are delivered from sin, from its presence in
the heart, in the mind part of man.  Thus, the efficacy of the
cross has got to be that it can root that sin from the heart. 
So simple!

It was perhaps 3 months ago that the impact of Hebrews 10:1-4
really hit me.  Once again, I found harmony with my view and
disharmony with the evangelical.

Hebrews 10:1-4 
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, can never with these same
sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make
those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have
ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would
have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those
sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away
sins.

Why are animal sacrifices insufficient?  And (by inference) why
is Christ's sacrifice sufficient?  Or to put another way, what
is its efficacy?  Animal sacrifices cannot produce the mind in
man that has this characteristic: "no more consciousness of
sins."  Jesus' sacrifice, being in contrast to this, must have
the following efficacy, it can produce in the mind the following
state: there is no more consciousness of sin.

So, yes, the basis for the imputed righteousness of Christ is
the fact that the same righteousness He imputes is the same
righteousness He can impart.  And really, there can be no other
basis if you think about it.  He's got to be able to get us to
willingly receive that which he gives.  To willingly receive has
got to be inclusive of heart-reception.  There is no real other
reception in God's kingdom for His kingdom is the heart.

But, you did say, "because He'd see us having sinless BEHAVIOR."
Well, the following is really not so subtle.  Its not the
behavior, its the changed heart itself.  True enough, a clean
heart can only behave cleanly, but the heart itself and its
behaviors are two different things.  I'm speaking of the changed
heart itself.

So, again, this is the underlying basis why God imputes His
righteousness.  But, faith is all that is required.  It just
happens to be that God can take that faith to such a point that
one is sinless in character and that this capability on the part
of God is an underlying reason for why faith is accounted to one
for righteousness in the first place.

Do you find this distasteful?  Well, is it scriptural?  Look at
Abraham!  I actually find the evangelical gospel's view
distasteful, irrational, and unscriptural.  Distasteful because
it paints God in a less favorable light.  Try as one may, He is
then needed to be appeased and that infinitely.  Irrational,
because there is condemnation in sin - enough to do just that -
condemn.  How can God's being satisfied with a legal price
accomadate the condemnation inherent to sin?  That would be like
a cancer patient going to a city judge and asking to be
pardoned.  The guy still has a problem; his cancer is still
there.  Unscriptural because I see no role given for the blood
(that you require).  No role given for the sacrifice that you
require.  No reference to condemnation outside of sin.  No
judgment even defending that position when judgment is really
studied out with some detail (as in Topic #681).

But, you sought defense for your view with Phillipians 3:9 and I
think we'll both agree that when studied in context is no
defense at all:

Philippians 3:9 
9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is
from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the
righteousness which is from God by faith;

Lets include a little bit of context.

Philippians 3:3-8 
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit,
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4
though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else
thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5
circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe
of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a
Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning
the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what
things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8
Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of
the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered
the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may
gain Christ.

Look at the context which precedes the phrase "my own
righteousness, which is from the law."  Paul speaks of
"confidence in the flesh" and then expounds.  Circumcised the
eight day, concerning the law, a Pharisee, concerning the
righteousness which is in the law, blameless!

Is he really talking about righteousness Bing?  

Matthew 5:20 
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means
enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 23:27-28 
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are
like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly,
but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28
"Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside
you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

I could go on, but I hope this suffices.  You said that
Phillipians 3:9 is saying that Paul wanted to be found in Christ
(which I do not disagree with, but I certainly take exception to
what your definition of in Christ is).

According to what you wrote, in Christ  is the same thing as NOT
having a righteousness which comes from sinless behavior, but
having that righteousness which Christ has already given to us,
His righteousness.  This is kind of strange to me because His
righteousness is a righteousness that is sinless - we just may
not have received it all the way.

I hope we agree that the righteousness Paul speaks of in
Phillipians 3:9 of which he previously described it, "concerning
the law a Pharisee" and which Jesus describes it, inside full of
dead man's bones, all uncleanness, hypocrisy, and lawlessness is
not the same righteousness which comes from sinless behavior. 
Paul described it as the righteousness which is FROM the law. 
Or to put another way, a righteousness attained through trying
to be righteous.

But, you also speak of the righteousness which Christ has
already given to us and you repeat this thought throughout your
reply.  This simply does not hold up.  Christ has given EVERY
MAN salvation.  Is every man then saved?  Of course not!  We
agree that all of His righteousness is imputed and I believe
Christ has been given to the entire world.  The problem is not a
matter of the righteousness Christ has given, it is a matter of
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED.  Your reply continuously
implies that if we have been given it, we have received it.  I
suggest that if we have received all of His righteousness, we
would not be here.  You'd be sinless.  To summarize, the logic
any of us would see and realize as pertains the lost, you do not
see and realize as pertains the Christian who still sins.  Its
not that Christ did not give, it is that we have not fully
received.

You said: "a righteousness which comes from sinless behavior." 
Actually, sinless behavior is a manifestation of perfect
righteousness which can only come through faith in Christ.  Your
statement can suggest a works program, but in reality this can
only be faith.  But again, we are justified by the righteousness
Christ imputes to us.  I am talking about the underlying basis
for this.

You also said: "Is our identity determined by our behavior?

Interesting statement.  What is our identity?  What really
matters are the meanings we attribute to the words.  Is our
identity the sum total of who we are?  If so, sure, our behavior
testifies to who we are.  "By their fruit, ye shall know them." 
Is our identity how we are looked upon by God?  If so, our
identity is 100% the righteousness of Christ.  God looks upon
those things which be not as though they are on the basis that
Romans 4 gives.  Because He can get us to a point of perfect
faith which then is perfectly unresistant to the entrance of His
word, which word then transforms us to the character of Christ
Himself, i.e. that same righteousness imputed is imparted.

You next said:

"We were originally born in Adam.  When one is born again, they
are taken out of the line of Adam and placed in Christ."

This refers to Romans 5 and requires me to share my present view
of what it means to be in Christ and what it means to be in
Adam.  I don't want to suggest to have a handle on Romans 5, but
then again, Christianity has been debating this scripture for
over a thousand years and it is generally considered to be the
most difficult scripture in the NT and possibly in the entire
Bible!

I have come to believe that one of the most important
characteristics of Christians is PERCEPTUAL.  There is a sight
in faith that an unbeliever lacks.  In fact, faith is sight.  It
is a perception.  Unbelief is blindness.  One thing I have
noticed is the humongous times the Bible speaks of revelation. 
Such things as light, fire, the word and contrasting things as
blindness, darkness, dull of hearing, stammering lips, etc.

The main thing that happened to Adam and Eve was perceptual. 
When they sinned, they doubted God's love for them.  They hid
when they had no reason to have to hide.  God didn't change,
they did.  They should have run to the Father, but instead they
ran away.  And that to me is the essence of being in Adam.  It
is the state of not seeing.  Of doubting God's love.  Faith
works by love and unbelief, incredibly, cannot lay hold of that
love!

To be in Christ, is to be in faith.  What I see Romans 5 as
saying is that when He went all the way to the cross, He
'manufactured' so much revelation of the goodness of God that if
He could reveal it to the hearer, that person could come to a
point of full sight - perfect faith.  Enough faith to be able to
look at the Father Himself face to face.  If you looked at 681
and read about the thrones, I think you can see some relevance. 
When Christ, in the flesh, earned the right to sit with the
Father, He also manufactured enough revelation of His goodness
to enable us to sit at the throne with Him which really is
restoration to His image, reflecting His love.

1 John 2:3-11 
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His
commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But
whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in
him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides
in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. 7 Brethren,
I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which
you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word
which you heard from the beginning. 8 Again, a new commandment I
write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the
darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in
darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the
light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who
hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does
not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his
eyes.

Verse 3 says that we know that we know Him if we keep His
commandments.  Verse 5 says we know that we are in Him if the
love of God is perfected in us  (which is the same thing as
keeping His commandments).  If we can use equivalence, it would
follow that to be in Him is to know Him.

It may be surprising to hear, but I do believe in a legal aspect
to the plan of redemption.  If it is His love shed abroad in our
hearts that cleanses (delivers) from sin, that revelation can be
considered to be something God gave to the entire world.  From
the perspective of God, Jesus manufactured a pill for every man,
woman, and child and that pill is their birthright.  It belongs
to us.  That pill is a revelation of His goodness that, if
received by faith, guarantees deliverance and when begun to be
received by faith is such that God accounts that person
perfectly righteous.  In a sense, God placed all humanity from
in Adam to in Christ.  All humanity, left to itself, was
shrouded in hopeless darkness.  By virtue of Christ's work, all
humanity was given light; enough light to restore all of mankind
back to the image of God.

So, it seems we differ on what it means to be taken out of the
line of Adam and to be placed in the line of Christ.  I believe
it speaks of being placed in darkness to being placed in light
and that rightfully so.

Next, you mentioned that we have been given a new nature.  What
exactly is meant by this?  I believe we are given a nature to
partake of and when we partake of God's nature, we are by nature
children of God.  But, there is NOTHING within ourselves to
boast.  All our boasting is Christ.  All our salvation is in
dependence on Christ.

You wrote a long paragraph which starts, "At the heart of this
is acceptance."  I agree with the entire paragraph.  But, I
think you know that I believe in a different basis for how it is
God accounts us as He does.  I hope you can see though how my
position in no way lessens the reality of perfect assurance. 
With either position, God accounts us righteousness when one
first has faith.  We just disagree on the basis for this. 
Either way, its a faith gospel.

Next, Colossians chapter 2.  This is the chapter that contains
the phrase, "handwriting of requirements that was against us."

I would hope that if you were to highlight a scripture that
would defend the position you hold, i.e. "God required death
because He had to punish before He could forgive" that you could
cite a much less nebulous text.  That is a very difficult phrase
to have a certain grasp of.  In fact, it is so unusual that I
would confidently maintain my position even if I had no idea
what it meant.  

I prayed over this text in the last couple of weeks and a
possible interpretation came to me.

Colossians 2:11-23 
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,
by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in
which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working
of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in
your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has
made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all
trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements
that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken
it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having
disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle
of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you
in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or
sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the
substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward,
taking delight in false humility and worship of angels,
intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed
up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head,
from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints
and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. 20
Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of
the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject
yourselves to regulations -- 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do
not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the
using -- according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23
These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed
religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no
value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Bearing in mind the context, the question I have is "what stood
against us?"  Certainly many things can be taken to have stood
against us.  With your view of the gospel, you have a precon-
ception of something that stands against us and naturally you
might fit that notion into the text.  But, is Colossians really
referring to this?

Look at the following phrases...

14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was
against us, which was contrary to us.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a
festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of
things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 

why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to
regulations -- 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using --
according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 

23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in
self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body,

Apparently, the Colossians were subjecting themselves to certain
practises that were not profitable.  In keeping with the
context, it is talking about such practises.  I believe this
text is referring at the least to rituals of the OT sacrificial
system.

Couple this text with the following...

Hebrews 10:1-4 
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, can never with these same
sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make
those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have
ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would
have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those
sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away
sins.

Notice the similarities:  

1)In both texts, reference is made to shadows (Col 2:17/Heb
  10:1). 

2)Both are contrasted with the REAL ("but the substance is of
  Christ" Col 2:17/"the very image of the things" Heb. 10:1). 

3)Both texts refer to limitations with the former ("which was
  contrary to us" Col 2:14, "can never make those who approach
  perfect", "not possible that [they] could take away sins" Heb.
  10:1,4).

4)Both refer to the cross being efficacious for something better
  "He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross"
  Col. 2:14/"the very image of the things" Heb. 10:1).

5)Both refer to restoration as what the very image can do that
  the former could not.  The cross is of value against the
  indulgence of the flesh (Col. 2:23), can produce no more
  remembrance of sins (Heb. 10:3).

Again noteworthy is what these texts mention the efficaciousness
of the cross is (#5).  To summar- ize my position on Colossians
2, the handwriting of requirements that stood against us were OT
practises/rituals and the reason they stood against us is
because they could not take away sin (which is the problem). 
Shadow cannot take away sin.  Only the very image can.  They
stood against us because they "are of no value against the
indulgence of the flesh" (Col, 2:23).  There is still a
remembrance of sin.

Next, I want to discuss the paragraph where you asked what God's
original purpose is for creating man.  I agree that it is
fellowship, intimate relationship.  Was that achieved at the
cross?  I have asked this before and I'll ask it again.

How many people would be saved if the cross took place, but it
was NEVER revealed to lost man?  Answer: Not a single person. 
How then could the atonement be finished at the cross?

Or, if the atonement was finished (even given this), just what
is the atonement?  (Again, the meaning behind terms is more
important than the terms themselves.)  The meaning I attribute
to atonement is inclusive of a salvation from sin that is so
intense that all creation that follows God will never choose to
touch sin again although choice is never denied them.  Among
other things, the finishing of atonement then has to include the
process of God shedding His love abroad in the heart.

In line with the belief that the atonement is a continuous,
still ongoing work...

Hebrews 9:11-15 
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,
with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with
hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of
goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most
Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 

Let me break here.  I believe Jesus entered the Most Holy at
calvary.  This refers to Christ's experience of looking behind
the veil.  His High Priestly work is one wherein He is the
Forerunner and He leads His people behind the veil.  Christ
entered the Most Holy, but we did not.

13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a
heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of
the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God,
cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant,
by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions
under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive
the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Jesus IS [present tense] the Mediator of the new covenant.  How
much more SHALL [future tense] the blood of Christ cleanse your
conscience to serve the living God?  Also, this speaks of the
new covenant which is one to which Hebrews LOOKS FORWARD to its
completion, "I WILL write My laws in your heart."  Again, a
future tense.  Think on this in relation to what I just said I
believe the atonement is.

Hebrews 10:19-22 
19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by
the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and
having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with
pure water.

Having [present continuous tense] our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience. 

This is an ongoing work.  It is the work of the Priest
sprinkling the merits of the sacrifice on the heart and drawing
us to the Most Holy place which implies a Most Holy experience. 
That sprinkling is nothing less than Christ shedding that love
demonstrated on Calvary into the heart.  Its the revelation
being made known the the person by faith.

I'd really like you to answer these two questions.

1)If the cross and the cross only is the sum total of the
  atonement, how do you explain its inability to save a single
  person outside of the revelation of the cross being made known
  to a person?  

2)How do you conclude (either rationally or scripturally) that
  the REVEALING of the cross is NOT a redemptive, atoning work?

All of the above is pertinent to intimate fellowship with God. 
I would say that when we can have intimate fellowship with God,
the atonement is finished.  I would not characterize the
fellowship of one who yet sins to be completely intimate.  It
can be more intimate than that.  All of the above describes a
Priestly work of cleansing the conscience from sin which is the
same thing as producing intimate fellowship with God.  This is
exactly what our Mediator is doing right now.

You said in this same paragraph, "Christ gave us His
righteousness."  Agreed, but have we received all of it?  Lets
look at this from another angle.  Hebrews describes the new
covenant as yet unfulfilled.  It does so several ways.  They
have not entered His rest because of unbelief and there REMAINS
therefore a rest for the people of God.  We are like babes
partaking of milk when the Lord wants to give us solid food. 
Mount Zion is described as a future experience and on that mount
everything that can be shaken will be shaken.  "I WILL (future
tense) write My law in their hearts."  Its all future tense, it
hasn't happened yet.

The Psalmist says, "I will run the way of Your commandments when
you shall enlarge my heart."  So, if we are not perfectly
running the way of His commandments, it is because He hasn't
completely enlarged our hearts.  Its a continuous process. 
Hosea 6:1-3 refers to the coming of the Lord.  It is all related
to the work on the heart...

Hosea 6:1-3 
1  Come, and let us return to the LORD; For He has torn, but He
will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up. 2  After
two days He will revive us; On the third day He will raise us
up, That we may live in His sight. 3  Let us know, Let us pursue
the knowledge of the LORD. His going forth is established as the
morning; He will come to us like the rain, Like the latter and
former rain to the earth. 

He comes to us (to our hearts) as the latter and former rain
upon the earth.  What is the rain and how does it come?

Deuteronomy 32:1-4 
1  "Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth,
the words of my mouth. 2  Let my teaching drop as the rain, My
speech distill as the dew, As raindrops on the tender herb, And
as showers on the grass. 3  For I proclaim the name of the LORD:
Ascribe greatness to our God. 4  He is the Rock, His work is
perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and
without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.

God's  going forth is according to revelation, to what we SEE in
our hearts for the rain is like teaching and God's name is His
character (refer to Exodus 33-34 where God tells Moses His
name).  The main point I am making here is that the Bible refers
to this reception of the Lord as continuous rather than all at
once and the work of God enabling us to receive that love of the
cross is a redemptive, atoning work.

The other main point I am making is the meaning we attribute to
God's GIVING and our RECEIVING and here is where I see Mike
Heiser and yourself missing a huge truth.  The ONLY relevence I
can see to God's giving and our receiving is PERCEPTUAL.  It is
in the realm of what is SHOWN to us and of what we SEE.  And the
term which describes this perceptual reception of Christ is
called FAITH.  Look up any scriptural definition of faith.  It
is all perceptual.

Romans 10:17 
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God. 

Hebrews 11:1 
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen.

Hebrews is not refuting what I  have said.  We have not actually
seen the cross, but we believe in it and our minds have been
given revelations (evidence) of it.  Hebrews speaks of seeing as
in actually seeing the event, that kind of thing.  But, our
hearts have been given the evidence which evidence then is
something perceptual.

Righteousness comes by faith.  Justification is by faith.  Faith
is the channel through which the grace of God is appropriated. 
There is no other channel.  There is no other mode of reception.
So if there is anything about Christ not perceived by faith,
that thing is not received in the sense of righteousness by
faith.  If I lack a certain fulness of a heart-understanding of
the love of God, my faith cannot receive it because the essence
of faith works by the agape that is heard not by that agape
which has not yet been heard.

Sure Mike can say that all of God is now in His heart.  He can
say that He has received all of Him, but the truth is that the
Bible relates the process of God giving and man receiving to
perception.  Or to put another way, to the extent that we
haven't seen the gift, we haven't received it in the way that it
counts.  Give Hosea 6:1-3.  His COMING is like the rain.  Now
what is this coming if it is not the way His presence is
RECEIVED in the heart.  And the rain is a continuous and not an
all at once experience.

I have become deeply convicted that perhaps the largest
difference in our views is this very issue.  What it really
means to receive righteousness by faith.  And you guys err when
you insist you have received, in the heart, any righteousness
that your faith has yet to hear.  Faith comes by hearing and the
realm of the heart is a realm consisting of things heard and not
of things not heard...that is, its a realm of the conscious.

I submit that when it comes to our hearts SEEING Christ hung for
us, we are all in diapers.  We have received so little even
though the entire revelation has been given to us as a gift. 
You guys say that ALL of Christ is now in your heart.  Well, why
doesn't your heart see the depths of the cross?  Or (worse yet)
if it does, what is your witness?  You should be doing greater
things than Moses or Job or Abraham.  Give me a tangible
explanation of what it means to have the part of Christ THAT YOU
HAVE NOT YET PERCEIVED) in the heart.  What does that mean?  How
does it impact your life in any way or to put another way, what
is its significance?

One of my favorite texts in the last several months has been
Galatians 3:1-3 and it is so pertinent to what I am saying.

Galatians 3:1-3 
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not
obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly
portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn
from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or
by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in
the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO RECEIVE CHRIST.  Notice the revelatory
aspect.  "Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed
to you as crucified."  Notice what Paul says.  He links this
experience to BEGINNING in the Spirit.  Not to ending in the
Spirit.  They have only just begun.  He is saying that there is
more to behold and I am saying that perception is the whole
thing for faith is perceptual ("comes by hearing").  Then in the
way that it counts - by faith for we all agree it is all by
faith - there is more to receive.

Paul even says that not only does our experience begin by seeing
Christ hung for us, it continues in that way, and it culminates
in that way.  He even says, "Having begun in the Spirit, are you
now being made perfect in the flesh?"  The implication then is
that we can be made perfect in the Spirit for "the MESSAGE
[revelation] of the cross is the power of God."  And this then
dovetails nicely with Hebrews 10:1-4.  Christ's sacrifice is
sufficient where the animal were not.  There is so much to see
in the cross of Christ that if we were simply to drink in enough
of it, (if we were to RECEIVE enough of it), our hearts would be
so cleansed that we wouldn't even have a remem- brance of sin. 
That revelation of the cross would have been so sprinkled into
our conscience by our High Priest that the heart  would be
completely clean - perfect.  And this then dovetails nicely with
all of the book of Hebrews for it speaks of perfection
throughout.  Perfectly resting in Christ, the law perfectly
written in the heart, eating solid food, inhabiting Mount Zion,
etc.

Let me just add a couple Mount Zion texts to further illustrate
the description of this event and to further indicate that its
yet future.

Psalm 24:3-6 
3  Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in
His holy place? 4  He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who
has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. 5 
He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And righteousness from
the God of his salvation. 6  This is Jacob, the generation of
those who seek Him, Who seek Your face. Selah

It is no accident that this psalm comes right after Psalms 22
and 23.  Nor is it an accident that as they ascend the hill
(symbolic of spiritual maturity), they CONTINUE to receive
righteousness.

Isaiah 4:1-5 
1  And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man,
saying, "We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only
let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach." 
2 In that day the Branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and
glorious; And the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and
appealing For those of Israel who have escaped. 3 And it shall
come to pass that he who is left in Zion and remains in
Jerusalem will be called holy -- everyone who is recorded among
the living in Jerusalem. 4 When the Lord has washed away the
filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the blood of
Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the
spirit of burning, 5 then the LORD will create above every
dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud
and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For
over all the glory there will be a covering.

Malachi 3:1-3 
1  "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way
before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to
His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you
delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2  "But
who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He
appears? For He is like a refiner's fire And like launderer's
soap. 3  He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He
will purify the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver,
That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness.

I could go on and on.  Notice in the Malachi text that His
coming is not the second coming, but is the day of cleansing -
the Day of Atonement, the day of judgment.  He is coming in the
heart.

  The following is a reply I wrote just today and which I have inserted
  into the set of replies which had already been written awhile ago.  This
  is relevent to reception...

  1 Corin 3:1-3
  And I brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to 
  carnal, as to babes in Christ.
  I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were NOT
  ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, and even now you are still not able;
  for you are still carnal...

  Notice that not all of the word is received.  Christ is the word and not
  all of Him is received and the reason is given.  They are not able to
  receive it.  This is similar to the gospel passage John 16:12 where Jesus
  says, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them
  now."

  And why can't we bear all that Jesus has to say?  Or to put another way,
  why can't we see God unveiled (face to face)?

  Because we are still sinners.

  In the only way in which it counts (revelation/perception), we have not
  received all of Christ.

  The passage also dovetails with Hebrews 5:12-14 where the author speaks
  to the people as people who need milk and not solid food.  In addition 
  to this, a study of Hebrews will clearly show that the author is really
  talking about much the same thing in different ways.  Entering into that
  rest.  Partaking of solid food.  Inhabiting Mount Zion.

  Finally, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 also has the sacred word telling Christians
  they are still carnal.  This has relevence to the correct harmony as to
  how it is the word says we are perfect, righteous, etc. AND that (at least
  some) Christians are carnal.

What I have said above I think makes clear what my response to
the following would be (where you said):

"Christ gave us His righteousness (taking care of the disease)
and His life (taking care of our spiritual death)."

The disease and spiritual death are one and the same thing. 
However, it is not taken care of all at once.  Sure we are
accounted righteous, but we haven't received all of it by faith.
Faith has not 'heard' all of that righteousness and so it
hasn't been received in the way that cleanses our consciousness
so much that there is no remembrance of sin (as Hebrews says).

You also said:

"One day we will no longer have our earth suits to contend with.
 The flesh will no longer present a problem to us."

Yes, I agree.  But, Jesus is doing a work of cleansing NOW and
he can perfectly crucify the flesh with all its lusts if we but
allow our faith to be perfected.  We are made righteous by faith
and not by nature.

You also said:

"We should act like who we are."

"By their fruit ye shall know them."  We do act like who we are.
Bing, take the Bible as it reads!  God "calls those things
which do not exist as though they did."

Why do you deny this?  If you sin, you are a sinner.  We are
sinless "in Christ."  We are looked upon as perfectly righteous
(sinless), but the Bible harmonizes this with the obvious fact
that we are also sinners.  And what the Bible says is that God
calls us righteous because the same word that calls us righteous
is the same word that makes us righteous.  Sure, it takes time. 
Sure, it may be interrupted by death.  But, that is the basis. 
Thats what the Bible says!

Your position that we aren't what we act like is both
unscriptural and irrational.  If I sin, my heart is not
completely sanctified.  That is what my heart is.  A good heart
produces good fruit and a bad heart produces bad fruit. 
Christians whose faith is intermittant produce good and bad
fruit!  Thats just the way it is!

Revelation 3:16-17 
16 "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 "Because you say, 'I am
rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' -- and do
not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and
naked --

You quoted hebrews 10:12.  Lets add some context:

Hebrews 10:11-22 
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering
repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins
forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time
waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one
offering He has perfected forever those who are being
sanctified. 15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for
after He had said before, 16  "This is the covenant that I will
make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My
laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"
17  then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will
remember no more." 18 Now where there is remission of these,
there is no longer an offering for sin. 

19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by
the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and
having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with
pure water.

Notice the phrase "take away sins."  Notice also the reference
to the repeated offering of sacrifices.  Recall why the
sacrifices needed to be repeated.

Hebrews 10:1-4 
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, can never with these same
sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make
those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have
ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would
have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those
sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away
sins.

Taking away sins is equated to its removal from the conscience,
i.e. "for the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more
conscience of sins."  This is the context of which Heb. 10:12 is
a part of.  Verse 13 alludes to His enemies being made His
footstool.  This same imagery is in Chapter 2 which speaks
throughout of Jesus aiding those who are being tempted.  Chapter
10 continues in the same vein.  Speaking of the covenant of the
law written in the heart, and of our hearts being sprinkled from
an evil conscience.

Jesus our High priest sits at the right hand of God and
sprinkles our hearts by shedding abroad His love.

Finally, you mentioned Abraham and when he was saved.  We both
agree 100% that Abraham was saved when he first had faith.  That
is, if our MEANING of saved is exclusively being accounted
righteous.  What you wrote about Abraham in the very last part
of your reply suggests to me that you didn't understand what I
tried to say.

All I tried to say is what the Bible says.  And that is the
basis for Abraham being accounted righteous when He first had
faith is that God could get Abraham from Point A to Point Z. 
That is what the Bible clearly says.

Genesis 22:15-18 
15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time
out of heaven, 16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the
LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld
your son, your only son --  17 "blessing I will bless you, and
multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the
heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your
descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 "In your
seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you
have obeyed My voice."

Now, what is the blessing?

Galatians 3:8
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand,
saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

The blessing is nothing short of the gospel itself.

Romans 4 expresses the same idea.

Romans 4:17-18 
17 (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many
nations") in the presence of Him whom he believed...

18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became
the father of many nations,  

I really hope this scriptural truth is not missed Bing.  Notice
God saying He has made [past tense] Abraham a father of many
nations.  Right after that, Paul says that Abraham became
[future tense] the father of many nations.

God is calling Abraham SOMETHING HE IS NOT as though HE WAS THAT
SOMETHING.

Thats what God is doing!

Now, I excluded part of Romans 4:17, a part that is right in
between the statement where it is said God made Abe a father of
many nations and the part where it said Abe became the father of
many nations.  Here is the part I omitted.

Romans 4:17 
God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do
not exist as though they did; 

Now Bing, please consider the context...

Romans 4:19-25 
19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own
body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and
the deadness of Sarah's womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise
of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving
glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had
promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore "it was
accounted to him for righteousness." 23 Now it was not written
for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for
us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up
Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of
our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Verse 22 explicitly declares the context to be how it is that
"it" (faith) was accounted to Abraham for righteousness, i.e.
"THEREFORE [for this reason, because of this] IT [faith] was
accounted to him for righteousness."

Now why was faith accounted to Abraham for righteousness? 
Because Abraham did not waver at the promises of God, but WAS
STRENGTHENED IN FAITH, giving glory to God and because he was
FULLY CONVINCED THAT WHAT GOD PROMISED HE WAS ABLE TO PERFORM.  

At Point A when Abraham first had faith, it (faith) was
accounted to him for righteousness.  But, the reason it was is
that God was able to take Abraham from Point A to Point Z. 
Point Z is that point where Abraham's faith was perfected.  It
believed (indeed was fully convinced)  that what God said, He
could perform.

Now Bing...this is CRITICAL.  Does this make void the cross? 
No!!  But, what it does do is it tells us what the purpose of
the cross is (which is what I am saying it is and WHICH IS WHAT
HEBREWS 10:1-4 SAYS IT IS).  The purpose of the cross is to
cleanse from sin.  And the entire work includes more than the
cross.  It is a dual work; Christ as Lamb and Christ as High
Priest.

The merits of the cross sprinkled by the High Priest in the
sanctuary produces that heart-change that was produced in
Abraham.  To put another way, Point Z was accomplished 100% by
Jesus Christ.  It required the cross 100% and it required His
work as High Priest 100%.

Notice (once again) nothing about any payment the Father needed
as a punishment for sin.  And this from a text, Romans 4, whose
entire context is why it is one is justified when one first has
faith.

After all I've written, how can anyone expect me to believe the
evangelical doctrine of the atonement?!!  The deeper I look, the
less and less and less I see it!!

The purpose of the cross is to change the heart.  There is no
other purpose.

Anyway, I hope the point about Abraham is not missed.  He is
accounted righteous though he is not righteous.  Just as he was
considered the father of  many nations though he was not the
father of many nations.  He was being made righteous.  He was
being made the father of  many nations.  And God would account
him righteous because His word is so sure.  What God says
becomes and the only thing that stands in the way is our
unbelief.

I hope this strikes home for you from the standpoint of your
repeated insistence that we are now really and actually
perfectly righteous even though we are sinners.

God CLEARLY explained how he calls us what He does with the
example of Abraham and the Bible's explanation stands in stark
contrast to your own.

    God's fresh truth won't contradict His previous truth.

      Never said it would.

| <<< Note 551.211 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Hoshia Nah,Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai" >>>



| God's fresh truth won't contradict His previous truth.


	Only people can do that!!!! :-)

    Just a scripture reference for Mikes reply in 702.45 (which Tony
    refered to in 551.210).
    
    1 Cor 1:23   but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block,
    and to Gentiles foolishness.
    
    Bing
    

      Hi Bing,
    
        I hear what you're saying, but isn't that just a tad superficial?
        I mean...wouldn't it be prudent to see what the scripture says
        the purpose of the cross is...or the blood...or what the context
        is for the resurrection???   Isn't the surface milk and are we not
        called to probe a little deeper?
    
        Two examples of what I am saying.
    
        I did a topical study of resurrection in the past year.  I read 
        the entire NT and wrote down every single text I could find that
        referred to the resurrection.  I found that ~98% of the time, the
        context was spiritual restoration.
    
        I have NEVER heard of a single person in this conference tie the
        resurrection to that.  Usually, the context I see is that because
        Christ was resurrected, we are SAVED.   That sounds like a SERIOUS
        gospel disconnect to me.
    
        What does it REALLY mean to preach the resurrection?  To truly 
        believe in the resurrection means (to me) that Christ can raise
        me up ALL THE WAY this side of the 2nd coming.
    
        Number 2.  Mike mentions the gospel.  How do we know the apostle's
        interpretation/understanding of the gospel?   The gospel we have 
        largely came from Luther a full 1500 years later!!  And Protestant
        and Catholic theologians have battled back and forth over just
        what justification is.
    
        Protestants say its by faith and faith alone.  Catholics have said
        God is not a liar, that we must be just before God can declare us
        just.  And the argument has swung back and forth for centuries
        without reconciliation.
    
        And here is the reconciliation...
    
        God speaks and it is so.  God can declare an unrighteous person
        as righteous because the same word that declares one righteous is
        the same word that makes one righteous.
    
        Again, I've never heard that in this conference either.  I have 
        never heard the power of God's word ONCE tied to justification by
        faith (in this conference).   Another SERIOUS gospel disconnect.
    
        Its all milk.  There's no solid food.
    
        How do we know the gospel they had?  And how do we know they had 
        the full gospel?  How can we know that what reformers said 1600
        or so years afterwards is necessarily the same gospel the apostles
        believed?  How do we know what Luther came to believe is truth and
        what is not?  I believe he introduced BEAUTIFUL truth to the world,
        but the path of the just is a shining light that shines brighter
        and brighter unto the perfect day.
    
        We had Calvin after Luther.  Was he right on?
    
        We cannot know that the gospel we believe in is equivalent to the
        one they did.  Ephesus lost her first love and the church entered
        into a VERY black period some centuries after that.
    
        We're still in recovery mode.
    
    							Tony
    
                                             

>        I hear what you're saying, but isn't that just a tad superficial?
>        I mean...wouldn't it be prudent to see what the scripture says
    
    Is "Jesus Loves Me, This I know, for the Bible tells me so"
    superficial?  This was never intended to be rocket science and you're
    making this much more complex than God ever intended it to be.  The
    Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple, cultic theology is not.  Cultic
    theology (oxymoron?) is a maze of scriptural twists requiring 100's of
    lines of perplexing stories and analogies that have nothing to do with
    God's Word.
    
>        I have NEVER heard of a single person in this conference tie the
>        resurrection to that.  Usually, the context I see is that because
>        Christ was resurrected, we are SAVED.   That sounds like a SERIOUS
>        gospel disconnect to me.
    
    I guess you ignored all my references to 1 Corinthians 15.
    
>        Number 2.  Mike mentions the gospel.  How do we know the apostle's
>        interpretation/understanding of the gospel?   The gospel we have 
>        largely came from Luther a full 1500 years later!!  And Protestant
>        and Catholic theologians have battled back and forth over just
>        what justification is.
    
    There are a couple obvious problems with this paragraph.  First of all
    it implies that God's Holy Word is not inspired and subject to error. 
    Secondly, there are no contradictions in the Septuagint which was
    written at least 1800 years before Luther.  You also have the Torah. 
    The Gospel of Jesus Christ is all throughout the OT and fulfilled in
    the NT without a single contradiction - God doesn't make mistakes.
    
>        Protestants say its by faith and faith alone.  Catholics have said
>        God is not a liar, that we must be just before God can declare us
>        just.  And the argument has swung back and forth for centuries
>        without reconciliation.
    
    That's news to me.  I've seen the reconciliation.  Neither Calvinism,
    Arminianism, SDA, or Catholicism is scripturally accurate.  There are
    only partial truths in them all when the Bible is held up as the
    infallible, inerrant Word of God in full context.
    
    God never intended this to be as difficult as you seem to be intent on
    making it.
    
    Mike

    >I have NEVER heard of a single person in this conference tie the
    >resurrection to that.  Usually, the context I see is that because
    >Christ was resurrected, we are SAVED.   That sounds like a SERIOUS
    >gospel disconnect to me.
    
    There are many folks that have written in here about the significance
    of the resurrection.  I have written numerous times about how Christ
    died to pay the penalty for our sins, so we might be reconciled to God. 
    I also wrote how He was resurrected so we might walk in newness of
    LIFE! (Rom 6:4-6  Therefore we have been buried with Him through
    baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead
    through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of
    life.  For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His
    death, cetainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,
    knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body
    of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of
    sin;).  Christ both did away with our disease of sin and raised us from
    the dead to walk in newness of life.  If He cured our disease without
    giving us life, we would just be healthy dead people.  If He gave us
    life without providing the cure for our disease, we would not be able
    to sustain life.  Praise God, He accomplished both!
    
    I agree that much of the Christian church preaches half the gospel
    (forgiven by His death on the cross), but I have seen most of the folks in 
    here talking about how Christ now lives in us and it's through His power, 
    and His power alone that He is able to accomplish anything of value 
    (John 15:5, Gal 2:20). 
    
    
    Love in Christ,
    
    Bing

      Bing,
    
        I overstepped.  You guys have mentioned the power of the
        resurrection.  I'm sorry.
    
      Mike,
    
        I believe the Bible is 100% inspired.  All I tried to say is
        that we don't know what the apostle's interpretation was.  We
        weren't there.
    
        The gospel I am preaching is not difficult.  It is simply 
        this...
    
        1) Death is inherent to sin.
    
        2) Life is inherent to righteousness.
    
        3) God's word makes us righteous.
    
        4) Faith allows God's word to indwell the heart.
    
        5) God accounts a person perfectly righteous when that person
           has begun to allow Him to change His heart (when one first
           has faith).
    
      The following is a little less simple, but not complicated.
    
        6) In our sinful flesh, there is a reality such that as one
           grows in seeing God's love, that flesh (in proportion) reveals
           the sinfulness of sin.  And one _feels_ to be that sinner.
    
        7) Thus, even were one to be sinless, if one looked behind the
           veil, while clothes with sinful flesh, one would be awakened
           to a fulness of how bad sin is and would feel to be that sinner.
    
        8) As with Abraham, God must demonstrate that He can make
           righteous.  He must produce a perfected last generation which is
           enabled to see God face to face and endure the above experience.
    
        Mike, I don't think this is real complicated.  The gospel you
        preach seems bent on neglecting God's word.  You haven't touched
        most of the main points I have made such as why Abraham was
        accounted righteous (on what basis), why the role of the blood is
        always to cleanse, how it is agape seeks not its own and yet
        requires an infinite sacrifice, why it is that the insufficiency 
        of the cross is that it cannot perfect the conscience, etc. etc.
        etc.  You prove your gospel scriptureless by your perfect willing-
        ness to ignore scripture.  I have yet to ignore a single text of
        scripture.
    
        But, I do believe God veiled His word.  Why did he write much of
        it in enigmas, riddles, parables?  Why Daniel, Revelation, Ezekiel?
        Why did Peter say much of what Paul wrote is not easy?
    
       							Tony
     
    

      Correction:  I meant why it is that the insufficiency of
      ANIMAL SACRIFICES is that they cannot perfect the conscience.
      I said the cross.
    
      Point being that if a price was required in the sense that
      you guys believe it was, animal sacrifices would have been
      insufficient for that as well.

>        etc.  You prove your gospel scriptureless by your perfect willing-
>        ness to ignore scripture.  I have yet to ignore a single text of
>        scripture.
    
    I asked you several replies back to post a reply with the scriptures in
    it you want addressed.  I'm still waiting for the answer.
    
>        1) Death is inherent to sin.
>        2) Life is inherent to righteousness.
>        3) God's word makes us righteous.
>        4) Faith allows God's word to indwell the heart.
>        5) God accounts a person perfectly righteous when that person
>           has begun to allow Him to change His heart (when one first
>           has faith).
    
    now you're sounding like an evangelical.  Taking this at face value,
    there is no disagreement here, except in 3 which is Christ fulfilling
    God's Word that makes us righteous.
    
    Mike

But we know it isn't so much points 1 through 5 is it, but 6 through 8
which are "a little less simple, but not complicated."

Is this a deeper understanding?  Or is it a poor projection based on
some assumptions?

Are we kept from seeing it?  Or is it that it doesn't make sense because
there isn't anything to see (imagined).

The person who imagines something to be real, and the person who cannot
see the real thing are two poor companions because neither can convince
the other that what is clear should be evident to the other, or what is 
not real is imagined by the other.

Tony, I've wrestled with your stuff for some years.  I cannot see it.
I don't think what you say is reality.  To you, that must mean that I
am blinded and haven't received a deeper understanding.  But equally
possible is that it isn't the reality of the Scriptures.

I'm glad we agree on points 1 to 5 (with Mike's caveat also about the Word as
Christ's fulfillment of the word).

Until we see *HIS* reality...

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        I appreciate the content and the tone of your reply VERY
        much.
    
        Thank you brother.
    
    						Tony

We all [should] grow.

Continuing...

     But, just look at Romans 4.  Abraham is accounted righteous.  WHY?  
     Because God was able to get Abe's faith to the point where Abe 
     believed (was absolutely convinced) that what God spoke would come 
     to pass.

     That, in a nutshell, is the entire redemptive significance of the word.
     "Walk before Me [discern my grace already freely given to you by faith]
     and be thou perfect [allow that word to perfectly cleanse your heart 
     from sin]."

     That is why the Bible says one is accounted righteous when one first
     has faith.

     Now, because no generation has perfectly entered that rest, God needs
     to validate His plan of redemption.  Demonstrate that His word has that
     power.  Thats (partially) where the validation comes in.

     This is partial explanation for those points beyond point 5.

     They stem from what REALLY is the source of our condemnation and 
     (as a result of that) how it is that the word (and the cross is a part
     of the word) saves.

     With your view, the word appeases the Father.  With my view, the word
     removes sin from the heart.  With your view, faith is accounted righteous
     because that payment the Father required as appeasement has been met and
     faith was the means wherewith that payment was credited to a person's
     account.  With my view, there is no such payment and the problem still
     exists.  With my view, faith is credited to one for righteousness because
     (surprise) faith is the channel through which the righteousness of Christ
     is installed in the heart.  And God honors our first steps.

     But, the BASIS (with my view) is what brings to light the necessity for
     validation.

     We are accounted righteous when we first have faith, but the BASIS is that
     what God started, He can finish.  And I appeal to no lower authority than
     scripture.  Genesis 22:16-18/Galatians 3:8 says that the BASIS is that 
     Abe's faith could be perfected.  His faith is victorious over the symbolic
     3 day test of faith.  That is, partial basis is the faith God could 
     cultivate in Abraham which faith allowed God to completely remove the
     sin, "Walk before me and be perfect."

     Romans 4 says the same thing.  In the context of when AND WHY Abraham's
     faith was accounted to him for righteousness, it says that it was because
     of what Abe's faith became. 

     Romans 4:21-22
     and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to
     perform.
     And THEREFORE "it was accounted to him for righteousness."

     And this refers to that 3 day experience.

     Mike...this is the first scripture I would like you to address.  Genesis
     24/Galatians 3:8/Romans 4:13-25.

     I see the scripturally given BASIS for why faith accounts a person 
     righteous to be total nonsense with the evangelical gospel.  I see the 
     evangelical gospel as not being able to embrace it for it cannot embrace
     WHAT ONE'S FAITH CAN BECOME as any basis for why faith is accounted to
     a person for righteousness.

     And I also see this as the reason why my understanding easily sees the
     need for a last day validation and why your gospel sees no such need.

     Think of Abraham corporately.  Just as Jacob is given a corporate identi-
     fication is many places such as Psalm 24.

     There are more reasons for the need for validation, but the above is one
     powerful one.

							God Bless,

							Tony

      re: .223
    
        "We all [should] grow."
    
        Sound advice Mark.  My tendency, sometimes (and it should be
        all the time), is to view myself as the chief sinner.  I choose
        to accept your statement as gentle chastening from the Lord.
      
        May we all accept it in the same way, not esteeming ourselves
        above any other.
    
        As to my continuance to write...I do happen to have a conviction
        that it is an important message and as not many are bearing it,
        I am willing to plod on, but with the hope that my words are given
        in a gentle and loving spirit (as least most of the time).
    
    						Thanks Again,
    
    						Tony

>     When is it that I don't sound like an evangelical?  ;-)
>     Actually, I know when (I think).
    
    When you speak of the atonement as not yet complete and take away from
    Christ's finished work on the cross.  You still have Him working trying
    to atone for our sin.  It ended on the cross with evangelicals.

>     But, the evangelical gospel says the way to fix the problem is to
>     appease the Father.  What does that have to do with removing the sin?
>     Answer: In this context (i.e. condemnation is inherent to sin) nothing.
    
    Sin is what caused the separation and need for appeasement.  Removal of
    sin is what eliminates the separation from God.

>     This is the crux of the matter.  The evangelical gospel paints a mode
>     of salvation that fixes a problem there never was (Father needing to
>     be appeased with an infinite sacrifice) and does nothing to fix the
>     problem there has been since sin (condemnation is inherent to the sin
>     itself).
    
    If God didn't need appeasement for our sin, why did He implement the OT
    sacrificial system and order the pre-Christ believers to follow it? 
    Remember, it was God who ordained the sacrificing of animals.  This
    wasn't something we thought up.  Without shedding of blood there is no
    remission or covering for sin and the animals were a temporary
    solution to the problem of sin permanently solved by Christ.  In
    addition to the OT system, if God didn't require this shedding of blood 
    for remission and covering of our sin, why did He let His Son die for us 
    to permanently deal with the problem?

    thanks,
    Mike

>     But, the evangelical gospel says the way to fix the problem is to
>     appease the Father.  What does that have to do with removing the sin?
>     Answer: In this context (i.e. condemnation is inherent to sin) nothing.

Your interpretation of the evangelical gospel.

Scripture says that God remembers sin against us no more.  It *IS*
removed from us.  Your preconceptions about sin (and sinful flesh)
color your interpretation of the evangelical gospel.

>     The problem is, the guy still has cancer.

The guy does not have cancer when the guy is cured;
the guy does not get cured by sitting in a jail cell (where do you get
this?).

>     This is the crux of the matter.  The evangelical gospel paints a mode
>     of salvation that fixes a problem there never was (Father needing to
>     be appeased with an infinite sacrifice) and does nothing to fix the
>     problem there has been since sin (condemnation is inherent to the sin
>     itself).

Salvation comes through belief in the efficacy of God's sacrafice.
Belief is our part of the relationship response whereby God cleanses us.

Sin CAUSES death.  Death is its wages.  Death is REQUIRED of sin.
The requirement is appeased, if you want to use this look at it.
***  Sin is a condition that is removed from the regenerated.  ***

Born again means to have a new nature within us.

Mark

>        "We all [should] grow."

It was meant as introspection, Tony.  (That is, a comment for me.)

>     But, just look at Romans 4.  Abraham is accounted righteous.  WHY?  
>     Because God was able to get Abe's faith to the point where Abe 
>     believed (was absolutely convinced) that what God spoke would come 
>     to pass.
    
    You're forgetting something - the object of His faith.  You appear to
    be saying we can be saved by faith without any regard to Christ's work
    on the cross at all.  Christ tells us in John 8 what the object of
    Abe's faith was - the redemptive work in the coming Messiah.  He
    saw Christ's day coming and rejoiced in it because He knew the
    atonement is what would justify his faith!

>     Now, because no generation has perfectly entered that rest, God needs
>     to validate His plan of redemption.  Demonstrate that His word has that
>     power.  Thats (partially) where the validation comes in.
    
    He demonstrated it and validated it in Romans 5:8.  Christ is our rest. 
    When you're completely in Him, you're completely resting in Christ.

>     account.  With my view, there is no such payment and the problem still
>     exists.  With my view, faith is credited to one for righteousness because
>     (surprise) faith is the channel through which the righteousness of Christ
>     is installed in the heart.  And God honors our first steps.
    
    Well you have a large problem with Romans 3:23 and 6:23.  The unsaved
    can have faith in God to save them from an airline crash, but that
    faith won't justify their sin and allow them to enter heaven anymore
    than being in an airport makes them an airplane.  

>     scripture.  Genesis 22:16-18/Galatians 3:8 says that the BASIS is that 
>     Abe's faith could be perfected.  His faith is victorious over the symbolic
>     3 day test of faith.  That is, partial basis is the faith God could 
>     cultivate in Abraham which faith allowed God to completely remove the
>     sin, "Walk before me and be perfect."
    
    You're still forgetting the object of Abe's faith and Who inspires that
    faith in him.

>     Romans 4:21-22
>     and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to
>     perform.
>     And THEREFORE "it was accounted to him for righteousness."
    
    ...and what is that promise that God made to Him?

>     And this refers to that 3 day experience.
    
    Genesis 21:8-13 contains the promise.

>     Mike...this is the first scripture I would like you to address.  Genesis
>     24/Galatians 3:8/Romans 4:13-25.
    
    Okay, that's first in the list.

>     And I also see this as the reason why my understanding easily sees the
>     need for a last day validation and why your gospel sees no such need.
    
    Correct.  Yours is based on works that still need to happen.  My
    timeline under Christ could have Him returning before you finish
    reading this.

    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I am not satisfied with your reply.  The Bible says faith 
        was accounted to Abe for righteousness because Abe came to
        believe that what God said, He could perform.
    
        It is the cross of Christ which produced Abe's faith.  I'm
        not negating the cross, I am giving it its scriptural role.
        Which is to transform the character (= cleanse from sin).
    
        Just like Heb. 10:1-4 says.
    
        While I'm not satisfied with your response as the three day 
        trial was necessary, you can give Heb. 10:1-4 a shot.
    
        That's the one where it says animal sacrifices were insufficient
        because they could not cleanse the conscience from any remembrance
        of sin.  My reasoning is that if a price of appeasement were
        required, Heb. 10:1-4 would have included that as partial insufi-
        ciency.  Which it does not.
    
        Hebrews 10:1-4 gives the purpose of the cross.  It is to cleanse
        the conscience from any remembrance of sin.
    
        That is exactly what I believe the role of the cross is.  And
        faith in Christ allows Christ to impart the merits of the cross
        into the heart where it performs its cleansing work.
    
        Again, Mike, I am not disagreeing that one is accounted righteous
        when one first has faith.  WE AGREE ON THAT.
    
        I am disagreeing with the underlying reason.  And I am maintaining
        that it is the reason the Bible gives when it refers to Abe.  Its
        because of the faith the cross can produce.
    
        No time to check that Rom. 3 verse, but Rom 7 gives ample context
        to Rom 6:23.  The entire dynamic is spiritual reality.  Romans 7
        gives us the needed context for a correct interpretation of 6:23
        which is the last verse in ch. 6.  The death is not remotely 
        referred to as a punishment God must dole out.  NOTHING in the
        context HINTS at that.  It is a spiritual reality taking place in
        the mind as a person sees the law (God's love) in greater fulness.
    
        It is not arbitrarily induced by God.  That is eisegetical (reading
        into the text what is not there).
    
    					 		Tony

    Again as I already asked a few replies back...
    
    If appeasement and shedding of blood are not required, why did
    God prescribe, implement, and enforce the OT sacrificial system as well
    as the death of His Son?
    
>        I am not satisfied with your reply.  The Bible says faith 
>        was accounted to Abe for righteousness because Abe came to
>        believe that what God said, He could perform.
    
    ...and just what did God promise to Abraham to perform that applies to 
    this discussion?  The answer was already provided to you in 
    Genesis 21:8-13 and answered by Christ in John 8.
    
>        While I'm not satisfied with your response as the three day 
>        trial was necessary, you can give Heb. 10:1-4 a shot.
    
    It's on the list.
    
>        That's the one where it says animal sacrifices were insufficient
>        because they could not cleanse the conscience from any remembrance
>        of sin.  My reasoning is that if a price of appeasement were
>        required, Heb. 10:1-4 would have included that as partial insufi-
>        ciency.  Which it does not.
    
    Again, explain why God prescribed the OT sacrificial system then if
    appeasement is not necessary.
    
>        Hebrews 10:1-4 gives the purpose of the cross.  It is to cleanse
>        the conscience from any remembrance of sin.    
    
    correct.  a permanent solution.
    
>        No time to check that Rom. 3 verse, but Rom 7 gives ample context
>        to Rom 6:23.  The entire dynamic is spiritual reality.  Romans 7
>        gives us the needed context for a correct interpretation of 6:23
>        which is the last verse in ch. 6.  The death is not remotely 
>        referred to as a punishment God must dole out.  NOTHING in the
>        context HINTS at that.  It is a spiritual reality taking place in
>        the mind as a person sees the law (God's love) in greater fulness.
    
    Romans 6 is stating our victory over sin.  Romans 7 talks about the
    struggles of the flesh vs. the Spirit and the application of the truths
    in the previous chapters.  The wages of sin is most certainly death for
    the unbeliever and those who refuse to put off the old man.  The gift
    of God is eternal life.  What's the opposite of that?  Who's the only
    one righteous enough to make that judgment?  We are set free from the
    Law so that we may keep it via God's Spirit in our hearts.  If you
    aren't born again (regenerated via God's Spirit) you're still under the
    Law and headed for death.  See also Deuteronomy 30:19.  The mediation
    of Jesus Christ has paved the way from death to life.  You just have to
    accept His free gift.
    
    Mike

tb>        Hebrews 10:1-4 gives the purpose of the cross.  It is to cleanse
tb>        the conscience from any remembrance of sin.    
    
mh>    correct.  a permanent solution.
    

I *think* Tony means that because *we* remember the sins we commit,
then our consciences are not really cleansed.

I think Mike means that guilt, as a condition - NOT as a feeling, is
removed from our record and is therefore not legally held against us.

Again, this is the concept of a PARDON, which pays no attention to
actual innocence of guilt but declares someone NOT GUILTY who was
previously condemned by the law.

I know Tony has a reaction to what he terms "the judicial model" but
one cannot extricate all the references to Judge, law, guilt and pardon
from the Bible without rendering it unintelligible; they DO have a 
significant bearing on sin, guilt, and salvation.

>Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the
>    very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they
>    offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
>  2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the
>    worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
>  3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every
>    year.
>  4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
>    away sins.

Focusing on verse 4, we see that it is not possible for the blood of
bulls and goat to take away sins.  Why is this so hard, since God says
that he desires obedience rather than sacrifice.

It was in the OBEDIENCE to sacraficing the bulls and goats that their sins
WERE ATONED for.  ATONEMENT WAS MADE through the blood sacrifice - NOT because
of any quality of the blood, but because of the obedience to the law.

Enter Christ.  Christ's actual blood (hemoglobin) doesn't wash us (careful,
and follow me for a moment) because His body is glorified and He sits now
with the Father.  Nevertheless, ATONEMENT BY BLOOD WAS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR
OUR SINS.  Jesus' blood sacrifice is effectual for us BECAUSE HE WAS
OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH, EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS.  There's that word again,
obedience.

Because of Jesus' obedience, the sacrifice of blood makes it possible for
our sins to be cleansed and we can be pardoned forever!  Because of Jesus'
blood, the wages of sin are PAID IN FULL.  

Why was Jesus' blood different than the bull or the goat?  Because He was
a perfect, spotless, and SINLESS sacrifice, undeserving of death, and yet
"While we were yet sinners, CHRIST DIED FOR US!!!"  Jesus, the Son of God,
met His own requirements for sin for each of us; He had no need to pay the 
wages of sin, Himself!

Christ's sacrifice also was ONCE FOR ALL.  That settles Hebrews 10:1-4 
very nicely.

Mark

      Hi You Guys,
    
        I read VERY quickly.  I lack the time.  So this is a very quick
        reply and then back to work.
    
        Mark, you hit a nail on the head as to guilt.  I don't believe 
        God's law (agape) required such a payment so the only problem
        was the guilt (as in the feeling) which could lead to despair.
    
        Mike, you brought up the need for the animal sacrifices.  The
        purpose was for the Priest to sprinkle the blood for the purpose
        of cleansing...
    
        "Let them build Me a sanctuary...
    
        WHY?
    
        ...that I may dwell among them."
    
        The sanctuary is a model of the heart of man.  The entire purpose
        of the shed blood was to shed abroad that love in the heart of man.
        That's what the animal sacrifices typified.  If the blood removed
        the condition of "remembrance of sin" clearly the blood is symbolic
        of something in the conceptual level that has application to the
        heart of man.
    
        Mark, you mentioned "take away sins."  You totally missed out on
        the context which is THROUGHOUT Hebrews.  (As an aside, I feel like
        I'm getting a decent idea of its context as I am memorizing the
        book.)
    
        Heb 10:1-4 had just described the condition of no remembrance of
        sin as what the animal sacrifices could not produce and in the
        same string says they were insufficient because they could not
        "take away sin."
    
        Isn't it obvious that the text just showed us that...
    
        no remembrance of sin = sin taken away?
    
        And isn't it true that the location of sin is the conscience?
    
        In fact, the context of Hebrews also gives us the true inter-
        pretation of the phrase "without the shedding of blood there can   
        be no remission of sin."  Not surprising (so far as consistency 
        with Heb 10:1-4, it is again the removal of sin from the
        conscience.  This IS consistent.
    
        Finally, Mark, I offered another forum for any incorporation of
        judgment into this dialogue.  It was the sermon of my friend that
        I included as its own topic.  I think it states a very good (i.e.
        scriptural) position that is entirely consistent with what I have 
        been saying here.
    
        It certainly states some aspects of judgment that have been 
        completely lacking in this Conference and that causes my eyebrows
        to raise a little bit.
    
    						Tony
                   

>        was the guilt (as in the feeling) which could lead to despair.

Guilt (as in the feeling) is unreliable and often inaccurate.
Guilt (as in the condition) is immutable; you are or you aren't.

You need to see the type of guilt that we have as sinners, Tony.

Mark

(Don't have the time or inclination for the rest of it.)

>        Mike, you brought up the need for the animal sacrifices.  The
>        purpose was for the Priest to sprinkle the blood for the purpose
>        of cleansing...
>    
>        "Let them build Me a sanctuary...
>    
>        WHY?
>    
>        ...that I may dwell among them."
>    
>        The sanctuary is a model of the heart of man.  The entire purpose
>        of the shed blood was to shed abroad that love in the heart of man.
>        That's what the animal sacrifices typified.  If the blood removed
>        the condition of "remembrance of sin" clearly the blood is symbolic
>        of something in the conceptual level that has application to the
>        heart of man.
    
    take it a step further to complete the logical conclusion:  why did
    there have to be bloodshed in order for God to dwell among His people?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I've gone through this all before and I included something 
        you seem to have missed.
    
        I suggest you read the 1st 4 replies of this topic for starters.
    
        The physical blood is efficacious for NOTHING.  To look to the
        physical blood as efficaciousness is tatamount to making flesh
        and blood out of that which is spirit.
    
        The life is in the blood.  Shed blood is symbolic of death.  The
        shed blood symbolizes death.  Now, go to Romans 7 for a SPIRITUAL
        (rather than a physical) understanding of death.
    
        Spiritual death is equated to that guilt (as in feeling/alienation)
        that is experienced as one gets a sense of his sinfulness as one
        sees the LAW (God's love) in greater clarity.
    
        There can be no remission without the shedding of blood for this
        is reality.  The only way is to receive God's love and experience
        the process of seeing one's sin and experiencing the alienation 
        that results.  That is the shed blood IN SPIRIT.
    
        We needed a Forerunner to pave the way.  We needed HIS shed blood
        which serves as love revealed and as power of example.  His shed 
        blood speaks not of His hemoglobin, it speaks of His confronting
        the full load of sin, of feeling to be that sinner, and of exper-
        iencing first-hand the alienation/guilt.
    
        THAT IS THE SHED BLOOD.
    
        Don't look to Calvary and see only physical suffering.  That is
        just a schoolmaster.  Look to the internal struggle that is most
        depicted in Psalm 22 and there you'll see the spirit of what the
        physical shed blood symbolizes.  You'll see the real shed blood.
    
        And as we allow that sacrificial love to be shed in our hearts,
        we'll be drawn to follow our Forerunner behind the veil and to
        undergo the same experience (save we have a Forerunner and ours
        will be interrupted by death unless we are the last generation).
    
        Mark, one question for you and Mike.  Can you cite me a single
        text in Hebrews that speaks of taking away sin in the way you
        give it meaning?  In other words, can you find such _context_???
    
    							Tony

       Hi Mike,
    
         Another thing you can do is show me scripturally how it
         is that the atonement is finished at the cross.
    
         We all agree "It is finished."
    
         And we all agree that Christ died during typical Passover
         and FAR away from typical Yom Kippur.
    
         All you have done is FORCE your meaning of Atonement, i.e.
         (paid in full) and given this meaning asserted that atonement
         is finished at the cross.
    
         The wages of sin is death is no proof.  For Romans 7 elaborates
         on that death and it (the context) has _nothing_ to do with
         an arbitrary penalty induced by the Father.  It has everything
         to do with a spiritual experience that Christ endured as He
         looked behind the veil, i.e. saw the law in its full clarity.
    
         In other words, you have demanded a MEANING for atonement which
         the Bible never supports.  Read Hebrews.  The blood (again its
         symbolic) does something to the conscience of the sinner.
    
         This the cross never did outside of the accompanying work of
         Christ revealing it to the heart.
    
    							Tony

RE:                     <<< Note 551.224 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

>>     But, the evangelical gospel says the way to fix the problem is to
>>     appease the Father.  

     Tony, I never heard this as an evangelical gospel!  Appease the Father?????
     Not one church I've ever been in has ever taught that either the 
     temple sacrifices or the sacrifice Yeshua gave on the cross were
     for the purpose of appeasing God's rage.

     I haven't read any further than this, and I am sure someone has already
     responded, but I was dismayed to read that statement, and just couldn't
     keep quiet.

     Leslie

  <<< Note 551.227 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Hoshia Nah,Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai" >>>
              -< OT system and the new covenant were God's ideas >-

>>    If God didn't need appeasement for our sin, why did He implement the OT
>>    sacrificial system and order the pre-Christ believers to follow it? 


Oh my goodness!  You think this way too Mike??????

Leslie

(still reading....)

>        Don't look to Calvary and see only physical suffering.  That is
>        just a schoolmaster.  Look to the internal struggle that is most
>        depicted in Psalm 22 and there you'll see the spirit of what the
>        physical shed blood symbolizes.  You'll see the real shed blood.
    
    Psalm 22 *IS* Calvary (prophetically speaking).
    
    >        Mark, one question for you and Mike.  Can you cite me a single
    
    not until you answer mine.  I've asked 3 times now and still don't have
    an answer.
    
    Mike

>                 -< Appease=to calm or satisfy (Webster's II) >-
    
    Leslie, appease is one of the definitions of propitiation.  Christ was
    our propitiation -> mercy seat.
    
>Oh my goodness!  You think this way too Mike??????

    I probably don't see it the way you think I do.  I don't see God as
    some ogre looking for a price to be paid.  I see God an man separated
    by our sin.  A just God longed to love us and fellowship with us, but
    sin prevented it.  He dealt with the sin problem because we couldn't.
    
    hope this helps,
    Mike

>    >        Mark, one question for you and Mike.  Can you cite me a single

Don't assume I've been following this string.  I've skimmed some
things as i pass by it with NEXT UNSEEN.

"Appeasing the Father" is Tony's term.  It is not a completely accurate
reflection of the evangelical gospel because it connotes a God that
await to bash us over the head unless we cowel and grovel with berries
and other sacraficial offerings.  This is an injustice to the evangelical
gospel because the evangelical gospel has a God that has no less love
than the "agape" "gospel" Tony espouses (which would never see God having
any attributes like vengeance or hatred).  Please note the quotes because
I do believe God is agape; unconditional love.  But I also believe that
the unconditional love requires judgment as is clearly shown in the Bible.

Tony, you want to say that the way the gospel has been understood for 
centuries (millenia, even) has been misunderstood and that a fuller 
understanding is necessary, perhaps as part of the last days fulfillment
of the last generation; the last generation coming to this new, fuller
understanding about God.  I don't buy it and I think it is off the mark
by a long shot.

God IS Judge, but God is ALSO Lover.  God IS agape, but He is also fearful
in His wrath.  If one focuses on the consequences of sin, one might picture
God as waiting to destroy the sinner rather than a God who convinces people
of the peril of sin and calls them out of it through His propitiation.  These
are very different pictures of God applied to the same situation.  It is the
same kind of out-of-focus mentality the Calvinist and Arminians have of 
each other.  Calvinist think that Arminians run around in and out of grace,
and Arminians think Calvinist can live like hell and think they're saved
because of an earlier profession.  Both of these veiws are out-of-focus
on the real Calvinist and Arminian views, but being of the Arminian
persuasion, I can easily see the danger of the Once Saved, Always Saved
idea, and it has taken me some time to see the perspective of the
Calvinist regarding the (supposed) uncertainty of the Arminian salvation.

I fall short of proclaiming your message as "another gospel" (which connotes
to me a way to damnation) but do think your message is contorted out of 
focus.  I've said before that you've come at many things backwards, putting
the cart before the horse, so to speak.  But I also think you do have many
of the components there that you need.

The gospel is simple.  You claim your message is also simple (with a little
study or something like that somewhere in your previous notes).  But the
fact it that for all your explanation and struggle, you haven't made the
case that it is simple.  You've only claimed that "the judicial model" is
wrong and that "appeasing the Father" is wrong.  These phrases are not
part of the evangelical vocabulary, and I don't have a problem with you
using them because we need to discard jargon so that we understand what
each other means.  But by using these phrases, if we now see what you mean,
we reject the basis for your explanations because it is not how evangelical
perceive salvation (just as "living like hell as long as you've been saved"
is not how Calvinists perceive Christianity).  Am I being clear here?  There
is no animosity in this note, I assure you.

Now, there I've jumped in again and wrote several paragraphs and probably
not on the thread of this string.  My apologies for that, but this is my
commentary on the history of your messages, including this latest foray.

Mark

    Mark, bless you for saying what I usually struggle in trying to convey.
    
    I think the "appeasement" thing came out of Webster's definition of
    propitiation.  Like I said, God isn't some ogre, but that doesn't
    change the fact that a price had to be paid to eliminate separation
    from God.
    
    Mike

My dad once told me that to become a good writer, you have to write
a million words.  I reminded him of that and I'm not sure he still
holds the same opinion, but I've likely hit a million words by now. ;-)
Thank you for your blessing, which I take very seriously.  I am grateful
to the Lord for His gift.

Mark

      Mike,
    
        What did you ask for for a 3rd time?
    
        I really don't want to 'not respond' to anything.
    
        I didn't read all the replies as am again rushed, but 
        could you guys explain what the law is that required
        death and exactly how that death removes separation?
    
        Again, the only thing I see as alienated is our hearts.
        I see our hearts as the source of separation.  The cross
        reconciles (brings together) our hearts to Him.  
    
    					Tony

>        I didn't read all the replies as am again rushed, but 
>        could you guys explain what the law is that required
>        death and exactly how that death removes separation?

No.  Not again.  Nor will I dig up the references.    

Roger, over and out.

Mark

      Amazing.  I just reread .0 to .4 and a fair amount of it was
      veiled from my sight when I originally entered it, but has become
      plain to me in the months since then.
    
      God is good!