Acts 3:23

[Nathan]

Could it be that perhaps it's more of a personality clash we're experiencing here rather than a blatant misinterpretation?  I can see that what Jesus did on the cross did indeed "reconcile", or "redeem" me back to the Father.  And I can also see that even though I may not accept Jesus into my heart, this decision will not affect my final destination due to what Jesus did on the cross.  So in that sense, I'm saved.

But because I have "not" accepted Christ in my heart, I have disabled myself from walking in the power that frees me from the sin I'm bound in.  My decision making has consequences.  My final destination is the same, but my current effectiveness in reproducing Christ into others is mortally affected.  For me, sin isn't the issue.  Sin is only the symptom of the problem.  What Jesus actually did on the cross was, he reversed the curse.  But sin isn't the curse.  Again, it's only a symptom that the curse exists.  Or, you can say sin is the evidence.  I'm missing the mark (definition of sin) because I'm still influenced by the curse.

What then is the curse?

For me, it's spiritual order.  I am a spirit that has a soul, that lives in this body.  That is the order I was created to be.  I'm to be led by the spirit, while living in this physical realm.  I operate through my soul for the purpose of navigating through this physical realm, and my body is the vehicle through which my spirit manifests and my soul navigates.

Where's the disorder in that?  It came in the garden when Adam (spirit) received from Eve (soul) the fruit of carnality.  Soul took the dominant role in man and that act is what brought on the curse.  We were not meant to walk according to our minds.  And as such, we walk in the curse of that order.

But then Jesus appears in this cursed order, and he reverses it back.  He reenables man to once again, walk in the spirit.  It's not about saving me from sin or hell as much as it is saving me from the power of my "self" and the order of that "self" ruling over my spirit.

The cross enabled man to be reconciled back to the Father.  The relationship that the First Adam severed, the last Adam healed.  He is literally the bridge between flesh and spirit.  The two become one, as we are drawn near it.  (lyrics from a song we sing in church).  In other words "through" Christ, our spirit and mind can unite as one.  We can become married once again.  Marriage is to induce reproduction.

On the other end, there are people who accept Christ in their hearts and are still bound by natural addictions.  How can that be?  Easy.  They are reconciled, as is the whole world.  Their spirit is redeemed, but the body . . .the physical body still is bound by natural laws.  I still get a cold.  I could still get hit by a car.  Accepting Christ into my heart doesn't change any of that.  As long as we are in these vehicles of flesh, we will always be at risk of being afflicted with natural, physical afflictions. 

Being reconciled to God does not keep me from getting the mumps.  Being saved doesn't keep me from falling off the roof as I clean my eve spouts.  This body is still governed by gravity and other natural laws.  My inner man can definitely have an influence on many natural afflictions . . .like worrying can actually create ulcers and so forth, but as long as I am in this body of flesh, I will always be exposed to both the sun and the rain in this realm.

[Seth]

But then Jesus appears in this cursed order, and he reverses it back.  He reenables man to once again, walk in the spirit.  It's not about saving me from sin or hell as much as it is saving me from the power of my "self" and the order of that "self" ruling over my spirit.

Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from (Gk apo - away from) their sin.

Rom 6:3-9
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. For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection: 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. For he that is dead is freed from sin.

[Nathan]

Sigh . . . . are you perfect Seth?  Since you asked Jesus in your heart, have you stopped making mistakes?  Have you been right "every" time with "every" thing?  Do you no longer need to make apologies for misunderstandings?  For offenses?  Have you ever come to a place in Christ where you no longer feel the need or desire to "defend" yourself?  Or to even use Scripture to "prove" your rightness?

[Seth]

Could it be that perhaps it's more of a personality clash we're experiencing here rather than a blatant misinterpretation?  I can see that what Jesus did on the cross did indeed "reconcile", or "redeem" me back to the Father.  And I can also see that even though I may not accept Jesus into my heart, this decision will not affect my final destination due to what Jesus did on the cross.  So in that sense, I'm saved.

No brother, in that sense you are reconciled. Salvation does not happen through Christ's death but by his life (which is the death OF death). Reconciliation is the groundwork for salvation.

Sigh . . . . are you perfect Seth?  Since you asked Jesus in your heart, have you stopped making mistakes?  Have you been right "every" time with "every" thing?  Do you no longer need to make apologies for misunderstandings?  For offenses?  Have you ever come to a place in Christ where you no longer feel the need or desire to "defend" yourself?  Or to even use Scripture to "prove" your rightness?

Ask both Cardinal and WillieH. I have apogized to them from a heartflelt place for things I shouldn't have said. So, no I am not perfect. Being delivered from slavery to sin, is not the same as being already perfect. I am not. Salvation from sin is a LIFE process which we undergo always according to the teaching and chastisement of the Spirit.

I have indeed been delivered from some really bad things though, that I couldn't stop doing before and that I begged the Lord to help me with...


But what I cannot understand is why, when you say "it's not about saving me from sin" and I post a scripture which says that Jesus (Jehovah saves) is named Jesus BECAUSE he will save people from sin, the response I get is a question about my character.

[Nathan]

Then why are you using Scripture against me, when there seems to also be some misalignments in you?

I never stated that sin isn't removed by Christ.  all I said was, sin isn't the source of the problem.  But I'll not be attempting to try to directly explain what I see to you as you seem to be quick to use your sword to dissect another rather than apply it inwardly to one's "self". 

[Seth]

It's not my sword, and I didn't use it "against" you. All I did was post a scripture which did the speaking. Amazing.

[Seth]

If you looked closely you would see that the scriptures I posted SUPPORT what you said when you said: "as much as it is saving me from the power of my "self" and the order of that "self" ruling over my spirit." Romans 6 proves that statement to be TRUE. But it also shows that being saved from the power of "self" IS being saved from sin.

If someone told me that "it's not about being saved from sin", but the power of self, that would ring to me as being very confusing, because what you are describing IS salvation from sin. That is why I say I am not using scripture AGAINST you, because the scripture is FOR you.

I just don't see why posting a scripture results not in more unity, but in questioning my character and motive?

[Nathan]

Perhaps it's as I mentioned earlier about personality clashes.  That seems to have been what was going on between you and another, so when I posted what I did, and all you posted was a verse, it gave the appearance that the verse you chose would conflict with what I said beings I just stated that our emphasis of "sin" isn't the problem as much as the alignment "within" us is the culprit.

That combined with the fact that you really didn't make any attempt to smooth things over.  You simply reitterated what you did, which was post a verse . .which only proved my point in that you "posted" it for "others" to read . . .

Look, I don't want to get caught up in these sparring matches.  I've nothing against you.  In fact, my whole intent was to agree with you in the idea between reconciling and being saved . . but even then, you won't let one agree with you without picking apart the very attempt. 

I guess the bottom line is . . .what is worse, that I would consider overlaying "saved" in the place of "reconcile" in the attempt to try to see from another's point of view, or not wanting to budge from the very idea that "saved" and "reconcile" have different meanings regardless of any attempt to agree through another's eyes.  I was leaning toward the former.

[Seth]

It's all good Nathan.

You said that you were posting to agree with what I said, yet what I was saying is that we are meant to be saved from sin. Right? That was my point. So when you said that being saved from sin is not what it was about, it was a head slapper. I was wondering how someone could say that when the Bible literally says that being saved from sin IS what it is all about.

Do you see how I could see that and wonder how that was supposed to be in agreement? Not agreeing with me is fine. The personality conflict would not be in that Dallas disagreed with me, but in labeling me a "You are a work, law based thinker." and saying "You are trying to be saved from bad behaviour." (as if that is bad) Then he goes on to say "You don't even understand what being saved is about. " (really, I believe what Jesus says about it). He goes on to suggest that I do not believe in salvation through Jesus and that I shouldn't "So don't peddle your work ladden salvation to me." all these accusations etc etc etc...

So I post scriptures to show that I base my beliefs on what the Bible says. Since there is a marked distinction between reconciliation and salvation, then it will come through in what I say in the conversation. The Bible shows the difference so I acknowledge the difference. If that puts me in disagreement, so what? My praise is not of men. When people do that, they get accused of playing semantics, or using scripture against people, or all kinds of things having nothing to do with what the posted scripture SAYS.

So you say some good things in your post. But you also say that it isn't about being saved from sin. Sorry brother. That is not right. The scripture literally, and verbatim states the opposite. This is a conversation about salvation. Don't you think what the scripture says about it is viable and should be posted? And if I do that, does it mean I am using it against you? C'mon man. You joined this conversation. Nobody forced you. You said something that I believed was both supported and simultaniously not supported by those scriptures.

I posted a scripture and I don't apologize for that.

[Nathan]

Not looking for an apology.  I see it differently.  It's not worth arguing over.

[reFORMer]

I see that so much of what is called "The Church" is really Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots.  What many think when they hear what I just said is that many who claim Christ as theirs believe false doctrines.  That is based on an assumption that to be able to read what men have called the New Testament is what it means to be a Christian.  That is not central to what I'm saying, though I'll certainly agree many involved with the Christian religion are deceived, even about fundamentals, things called "first principles," (AV) or, "the rudimentary elements of the oracles of God" (CLT) in the book of Hebrews (5:12.)  What is so important to recognize is that many, if not most, gatherings of believers are NOT as a many membered new creation man, every member participating under the headship of Christ.  They have other mediators and are led of men rather than the Spirit.  They gather as enabling audiences for a ritual or a professional lecturer.  There is so little experience of koinia which is corporate life or, "community;" while, instead, the foremost experience taught is individual, my lone self's salvation.  The Church or Eclessia as God's woman, something distinct from God or the individual followers, is hardly even mentioned, much less does it occupy the central place in the worldview of most "believers," even though it is central to God's purposes.

I say that as introduction to what I want to inject into this conversation.  I'm very frustrated with the kind of thing with which Carlton Pierson has become identified because he initially ran well and we wanted so much to be in agreement with him.  "Salvation belongs to the LORD" and it is His work of transformation.  We are changed by His Spirit from Adamic creatures to partakers of the Divine nature.  A specimen of what is to occur when we meet is described in the letter of 1 Corinthians:  "What, then, is it, brethren? Whenever you may be coming together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a language, has a translation.  Let all occur to edification." (12:26, CLT)  It is for each of us to function.  But when someone lives unrepentant in things God hates we are failing our responsibility to them, God and one another if we allow them to participate as if they were brethren.  "Withour holiness no man shall see the Lord."  A controversy of our times is whether homosexuality is still a sin for those whose Master is the God of the Bible.  What those who practise non participatory meetings with a mass or a sermon should do is not mine to say; but, I can assure you that in our meetings, those who are unrepentantly practicing that lifestyle have no part in what we do.  They will not lay hands on and prophecy over us and our children.  If that needs further explanation for some of you who are better acquainted with Scripture and following this thread I am in doubt of your own place, whether you be of God or not.

I think this sufficiently delineates the particulars of this controversy.  Pierson is the devil's poster child for blind evangelicals to try to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey."  This is one of the foremost false objections to the wonder of the love of God rising within us who know that love is to the uttermost.  It appears for now to be a trick to divert many from the truth of the salvation of all by degrading the message of the gospel, "...bartering the grace of our God for wantonness," (Jude 4, CLT) or, as another translation says it, "...as an excuse for sexual freedom." (GW)

1 Corintians 6:9-11, (CLT)...
9 Or are you not aware that the unjust shall not be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom? Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards; no revilers, no extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom.
11 And some of you were these, but you are bathed off, but you are hallowed, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God.

[WhiteWings]

Could it be that perhaps it's more of a personality clash we're experiencing here rather than a blatant misinterpretation?  I can see that what Jesus did on the cross did indeed "reconcile", or "redeem" me back to the Father. 

To avoid more personality clashes I'll just post a link.

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6363.msg67180#msg67180

[Seth]

I see that so much of what is called "The Church" is really Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots.  What many think when they hear what I just said is that many who claim Christ as theirs believe false doctrines.  That is based on an assumption that to be able to read what men have called the New Testament is what it means to be a Christian.  That is not central to what I'm saying, though I'll certainly agree many involved with the Christian religion are deceived, even about fundamentals, things called "first principles," (AV) or, "the rudimentary elements of the oracles of God" (CLT) in the book of Hebrews (5:12.)  What is so important to recognize is that many, if not most, gatherings of believers are NOT as a many membered new creation man, every member participating under the headship of Christ.  They have other mediators and are led of men rather than the Spirit.  They gather as enabling audiences for a ritual or a professional lecturer.  There is so little experience of koinia which is corporate life or, "community;" while, instead, the foremost experience taught is individual, my lone self's salvation.  The Church or Eclessia as God's woman, something distinct from God or the individual followers, is hardly even mentioned, much less does it occupy the central place in the worldview of most "believers," even though it is central to God's purposes.

I say that as introduction to what I want to inject into this conversation.  I'm very frustrated with the kind of thing with which Carlton Pierson has become identified because he initially ran well and we wanted so much to be in agreement with him.  "Salvation belongs to the LORD" and it is His work of transformation.  We are changed by His Spirit from Adamic creatures to partakers of the Divine nature.  A specimen of what is to occur when we meet is described in the letter of 1 Corinthians:  "What, then, is it, brethren? Whenever you may be coming together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a language, has a translation.  Let all occur to edification." (12:26, CLT)  It is for each of us to function.  But when someone lives unrepentant in things God hates we are failing our responsibility to them, God and one another if we allow them to participate as if they were brethren.  "Withour holiness no man shall see the Lord."  A controversy of our times is whether homosexuality is still a sin for those whose Master is the God of the Bible.  What those who practise non participatory meetings with a mass or a sermon should do is not mine to say; but, I can assure you that in our meetings, those who are unrepentantly practicing that lifestyle have no part in what we do.  They will not lay hands on and prophecy over us and our children.  If that needs further explanation for some of you who are better acquainted with Scripture and following this thread I am in doubt of your own place, whether you be of God or not.

I think this sufficiently delineates the particulars of this controversy.  Pierson is the devil's poster child for blind evangelicals to try to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey."  This is one of the foremost false objections to the wonder of the love of God rising within us who know that love is to the uttermost.  It appears for now to be a trick to divert many from the truth of the salvation of all by degrading the message of the gospel, "...bartering the grace of our God for wantonness," (Jude 4, CLT) or, as another translation says it, "...as an excuse for sexual freedom." (GW)

1 Corintians 6:9-11, (CLT)...
9 Or are you not aware that the unjust shall not be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom? Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards; no revilers, no extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom.
11 And some of you were these, but you are bathed off, but you are hallowed, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God.

That was powerful. Thank you for that word.  :thumbsup:

[Seth]

Could it be that perhaps it's more of a personality clash we're experiencing here rather than a blatant misinterpretation?  I can see that what Jesus did on the cross did indeed "reconcile", or "redeem" me back to the Father. 

To avoid more personality clashes I'll just post a link.

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6363.msg67180#msg67180

Hi WW,
For me, a personality clash is solved by folks just discussing the issue, rather than laying down false accusations. I just want to be clear that I do not clash with people on a "personal" level simply because they disagree. Just wanted to put that out there.

The link that you provided is interesting, and I plan on studying that out. I fundamentally agree on the underlying teaching that man's mind must be conformed to God, which is what I see from the statements in that link. However, saying that everyone is already saved while still captive to what they are intended to be saved from is wrong and will always be wrong and itself fundamentally disagrees with the concept provided in that link as well as explicit teachings in the Scripture. I know that makes me seem like a fuddy-duddy, but when people say that mankind was saved by Christ's death, when the teaching says that man is saved by Christ's life, sorry there is nothing I can do with that but disagree, because it is not as fine a point as people would think. It's actually critically foundational because not acknowledging what it MEANS to be saved by Christ's life results in a wider disagreement on the Gospel message itself as ReFORMer demonstrated.

[WhiteWings]

Could it be that perhaps it's more of a personality clash we're experiencing here rather than a blatant misinterpretation?  I can see that what Jesus did on the cross did indeed "reconcile", or "redeem" me back to the Father. 

To avoid more personality clashes I'll just post a link.

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6363.msg67180#msg67180

Hi WW,
For me, a personality clash is solved by folks just discussing the issue, rather than laying down false accusations. I just want to be clear that I do not clash with people on a "personal" level simply because they disagree. Just wanted to put that out there.

Wasn't about you Seth. I was about Nathan and me.

The link that you provided is interesting, and I plan on studying that out. I fundamentally agree on the underlying teaching that man's mind must be conformed to God, which is what I see from the statements in that link. However, saying that everyone is already saved while still captive to what they are intended to be saved from is wrong and will always be wrong and itself fundamentally disagrees with the concept provided in that link as well as explicit teachings in the Scripture. I know that makes me seem like a fuddy-duddy, but when people say that mankind was saved by Christ's death, when the teaching says that man is saved by Christ's life, sorry there is nothing I can do with that but disagree, because it is not as fine a point as people would think. It's actually critically foundational because not acknowledging what it MEANS to be saved by Christ's life results in a wider disagreement on the Gospel message itself as ReFORMer demonstrated.

Basicly I see it like this.
It's like a peace conference. God is sitting on the table for millenia (conciliation). There will be only be peace if the other party arrives (reconciliation)
We are not saved until we arrive at that table. But God knows we will arrive at the peace conference and that's why the Bible states we all will be saved.
In this case it's nothing more than semantics but there is a difference between: "is saved" and "will be saved"
It's like if you are at school and every test you made was an A+. Surely you will graduate. But you aren't graduated until you really are graduated. As said semantics. Also a little off-topic in this thread. Perhaps follow-ups in the other thread?