Exchanged-Life Teaching?

[Larry...@aol.com]

I'm kind of new to this: exchanged-life teaching. Maybe others
(proponents or opponents) can add to the litttle I know.

Gal. 2:20 is the main scripture. Another scripture is the
"reckoning" passage, Rom 6:11. One of the main points
of this teaching is that our "old man" is crucified Rom 6:6.

The whole thrust of the teaching is that we can be closer to God
and live a life of victory.

Larry Adams

[Bart Goddard]

Larry...@aol.com wrote:

I've never heard it called "exchanged-life teaching", but my
gut reaction is to be an "opponent". Yes, we should daily
drown the old man by contrition and repentance and yes
we should try to live purely. But to suggest that we can be
"closer to God" by dint of our own efforts and works
flies in the face of the salvation by grace. Further, the
Christian is called to "life under the cross", not "life of
victory". The life of victory comes AFTER we die.

Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man
will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me.

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is
crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord
GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke
of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for
the LORD hath spoken it.

2 Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to
himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of
reconciliation;

1Cor 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I,
not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection:
lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I
myself should be a castaway.

Paul is not living the "life of victory" at this point, but is
still striving toward it. NOW we run the race. Victory,
according to Isaiah, comes at death. And in 2 Cor, Paul
says that Jesus Christ is what reconciles us to God, not
our own self-discipline. (Indeed, our self-discipline is
the _result of_ being drawn closer to God, NOT the
_cause of_ it.)

Bart

[Michael F. Blume]

Larry...@aol.com wrote:

> I'm kind of new to this: exchanged-life teaching. Maybe others
> (proponents or opponents) can add to the litttle I know.
>
> Gal. 2:20 is the main scripture. Another scripture is the
> "reckoning" passage, Rom 6:11. One of the main points
> of this teaching is that our "old man" is crucified Rom 6:6.
>
> The whole thrust of the teaching is that we can be closer to God
> and live a life of victory.
>

> Larry Adams

This study you refer to is a great study. Check out these pages:

UNION LIFE MINISTRY CENTER
http://www.unionlife.org/

Life In The Son Magazine Online
http://www.io.com/clf/lismag/

Present Testimony - Deeper Spiritual Living
http://www.home-church.org/present/

My own site has several studies along this line.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/maturity.htm

And my ROMANS series also explains this truth:
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/romans.htm

Read the studies by Norman Grubb on my Romans page.

The truth is that Jesus took our sins and exchanged them for His
righteousness.

2Cor 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

He was on the cross to DIE INSTEAD US, but He is in our lives TO
LIVE INSTEAD OF US NOW. And Gal. 2:20 explains that.

He is my only righteousness. So if HE LIVES THROUGH ME, then I will
behave righteously.

1Cor 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made
unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption:

Exchanged living is recognizing that you cannot do righteously in
your own power. You are given God's Spirit to call upon Him to LIVE
THROUGH YOU. This is essentially what the following is saying:

Roma 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.

You literally ask God to use your members to do His will. But you
are not made a robot, but are "inspired," after you pray this, to do
such and such and Strengthened to accomplish it. Yield or PRESENT
yourself to God's Spirit to use.. Instruments are used in the hands
of another. And since we ask Him to be his instruments -
specifically presenting our bodily members to him - then God does
the inspiring.

Check out Watchman Nee's Book, THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE.

Exchanged living is what Romans 6 through chapter 8 is teaching.

Alex Cohen, on this group often, is a good brother to chat with
about this, too.

You hit my favourite topic, brother!

-------
In Him,
MBLUME

"That I May Know Him"
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 25 Nov 1997, Bart Goddard wrote:

> Larry...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I'm kind of new to this: exchanged-life teaching. Maybe others
> > (proponents or opponents) can add to the litttle I know.
> >
> > Gal. 2:20 is the main scripture. Another scripture is the
> > "reckoning" passage, Rom 6:11. One of the main points
> > of this teaching is that our "old man" is crucified Rom 6:6.
> >
> > The whole thrust of the teaching is that we can be closer to God
> > and live a life of victory.
>

> I've never heard it called "exchanged-life teaching", but my
> gut reaction is to be an "opponent". Yes, we should daily
> drown the old man by contrition and repentance and yes
> we should try to live purely. But to suggest that we can be
> "closer to God" by dint of our own efforts and works
> flies in the face of the salvation by grace. Further, the
> Christian is called to "life under the cross", not "life of
> victory". The life of victory comes AFTER we die.

Many have come to know the saving grace of Jesus Christ and have accepted
his forgiveness for their sins. Yet many of these same Christians are
lacking the victorious life and perhaps don't even know it's available
this side of glory. There will be no challenge to avoid sin on the
other side of the River after Satan and his angels have been destroyed.
Nothing unclean will be found in the eternal City of God. Our problem
is now and the teaching of Galatians 2:20 is important to living an
overcoming life in Christ.

The apostle John tells us that the little children have forgiveness of
sins.

002:012 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are
forgiven you for his name's sake.

Then he goes on to tell us that the young men, those who are no longer
little children, have overcome the wicked one.

002:013 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is
from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye
have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little
children, because ye have known the Father.

Was the overcoming by their own strength? God forbid. They have ceased
struggling trying to behave and be contrite. They have learned the truth
of Galatians 2:20 -- the exchange life.

Truly Christ in us is our hope of glory. We quit trying to live the
Christian life and come to rest in Him, letting Him live that life
through us. We don't have to continually battle with the old nature.
Rather, our faith rises up in belief of the truths God sends us. The
truth of Galatians 2:20 and related teachings impacts our spirit. Now
we have not only forgiveness, but recognize that the power is within
us to overcome sin that comes our way, not through our own struggle of
the flesh, but through Jesus who lives within us. So we can say with
Paul, "I no longer live. The life I now live in the flesh I live by
the faith of the Son of God. His faith, not my faith. It is now Christ
living in and through me. My old nature was buried in baptism. Jesus
now lives here."

Many places the scripture lets us know that we can be overcomers.
Overcome what? Overcome sin. We don't have to yield to it any more than
Jesus did in the wilderness. How? By the power of God within. By seeking
God for that power if we do not yet have it (being baptized in His
Spirit), and by believing what God has told us. And He has told us that
Christ in us is our hope of glory. The old nature is co-crucified at
Calvary. The New Nature is the gift of God. That is the exchange life.
What an excellent exchange; our old trashy life for His beautiful life
abundant. But how can walk in this knowledge if they do not know of it?
God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (ref. Hosea).

Victory does indeed come at death. So die, Bart. Recognize that the
old nature has been killed off at Calvary. The blood of Jesus is all
sufficient. You can never improve on what has already been done. You
are dead if you will but accept it. And then let that blood give you
the overcoming victory. Your self-disciple will never give you a
better walk with Christ. Accept the truth Paul discovered and relates
in Galatians 2:20. We run the race by letting Christ in us run it
for us. We learn who we have become in Christ. You'll never win the
race running it by yourself.

Kind Regards,

Joe Gaut

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto
thine own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

http://www.netdot.com/jwg7192/ "A Few Christian Writings"

[Bart Goddard]

Joseph W. Gaut wrote:

>Victory does indeed come at death. So die, Bart. Recognize that the
> old nature has been killed off at Calvary. The blood of Jesus is all
> sufficient. You can never improve on what has already been done.

And yet that is exactly what the "exchange-life" is (allegedly)
claiming: That one gets _closer to God_ through one's life. This
is most certainly an improvement. Indeed, your paragraphs state
over and over again that it is Jesus living through us that causes
good works. Why do you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
by turning it around at the last minute by saying the works
get us closer to God (rather than that the closeness of God causes
good works)?

Bart

[Michael F. Blume]

Larry Atoms brought up the issue of Exchanged Life teaching and
caused some to question it as though it be not of God. "Exchanged
living" is NOTHING to do with self righteous works, or self making
self live victorious. In fact it HIGHLY STRESSES the opposite.
That is the whole point! OUR lives EXCHANGED for HIS life. Our
cessation of self-effort to become reighteous living with an
EXCHANGE of HIS EFFORT doing the work.

Ask and ye shall receive. Present yourself to Him so he can use
you. He will only do this in a person's life that is PRESENTED to
him by that person to do it in.

It is NOT I BUT CHRIST. Paul declared the success to his living was
due to learning why Christ was in Him. Paul clearly taught that we
can live without sinning... It takes MUCH removal of ingrained
habits of self working, since for years we lived life all on our own
with our own wits, so to speak. But now that we are in a new
kingdom of God, the laws are totally different. We do not horde
money to get more, but rather give and it shall be given. We do not
climb on people to get higher, but rather prefer others and humble
ourselves. These are but two examples of how the world kingdom is
different than the New. And similarly, the old kingdom preached
that in order to become ho r we must work harder on ourselves. And
THAT is false doctrine. New Kingdom teaches that it is NOT I, But
Christ in me... who does the work. We are HIS WORKMANSHIP.
Workmanship comes from the greek POIEMA. It is where we get POEM
from. We are HIS POETRY. HIS MASTERPIECE.

But since we lived so long in the world of such falsehood, we may
still have problems shirking that off us and refusing to live for
God by it. We were told that we would get an allowance if we made
up our rooms as kids. We were told that we would pass our grade if
we studied harder in school. We were told that we would get a raise
if we worked harder at the job.. And we pulled that ideology into
the church and felt we would be more victorious if we worked harder
at out good living. WRONG.

SO, exchanged life teaching, by the very NAME of the subject,
proclaims that CHRIST WAS LOCATED ON THE CROSS TO DIE INSTEAD OF
US.... BUT IS NOW LOCATED IN OUR LIVES TO LIVE INSTEAD OF US.

So rather than use works of the flesh to become more victorious,
exchanged life teaching instructs us to STOP ALL FORMS OF SELF
EFFORT.. They will do HARM and NEVER good. Paul said to will to do
good was present with him, but how to perform it was not present.
(Romans 7 is the hallmark of Exchanged Life teaching). Paul tried
to do good, but instead evil was there to make him do evil. He
discovered this was a law. It occurred every time HE tried to make
himself do good. So he realized since he willed to do good, but did
wrong, then it really was not HIM doing evil. He wanted to do
good. He was not passing the buck, here. He knew he actually did
evil, and would be judged for it, BUT the ORIGIN was something else
RESIDING IN HIM. And that something else was what he called SIN.
It was as though it was an alien force in him that did not belong
there.

So he knew, since it was in his flesh, he had to somehow be free of
that flesh. He cried out for freedom, since he knew that will power
DID NOT WORK. WILL POWER is self-effort. All self effort was
futile.

So, Paul got an answer when he cried out. He said I THANK GOD. Who
will deliver me? I THANK >GOD<. God will deliver me. How?
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.

Here we go back to the first few verses of Romans 7.

Paul said LAW has dominion over a man so long as he lives. And as
ILLUSTRATION, Paul used a marriage scenario. We are as bound to a
life of sin BEFORE salvation as a wife is to her living husband
under Mosaic Law. She can be married to another IF her husband be
dead. But should she be with another while her husband lives, the
woman, though in the same state of being WITH ANOTHER, is called an
adulteress.

So the same state of being with ANOTHER is only VALID and POSSIBLE
due to the difference of her husband being dead. DEATH makes the
difference.

Then Paul said LIKEWISE, in the same manner, it is true that we are
made DEAD to the law -- the difference in not being able to live
free of the Law of sin and death (Ro 7:1) and being able to be free
and married instead to Christ is the same element that made the
woman free to marry another in the illustration.. DEATH. We are
made free BY THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST.

His BODY died as me, in my place. Whether it is His body or not,
matters not. He died FOR ME AND AS ME, so that I COULD BENEFIT from
the difference-maker called "death" to be able to be free of law and
join Him.

I am bound under Law SO LONG AS I LIVE. But since CHRIST'S death is
MY death, then I have died. And I am free from what held me under
Law of sin and death.

That is what Paul meant when he said, I thank God THROUGH JESUS
CHRIST. Paul was freed from the law of HAVING to sin (law of sin
and death) and it was THROUGH JESUS CHRIST that GOD made him free.
Not Paul freeing Paul. God made him free.

That is what Paul meant in Romans 6. IN fact, Romans 6 is explained
BY ILLUSTRATION of marriage and PAUL'S OWN experience of coming to
the truth of Romans 6.

Romans 6 says when we were baptized into Christ we were baptized
INTO HIS DEATH. His death became OUR DEATHS. And DEATH frees us
from sin. He that is dead is FREED from sin as much as the woman is
freed from her cruel husband by his death (Ro. 6:3, 6-7).

Romans 6 says in verses 8-11 that we died with Him in order to LIVE
with Him. When did He die? 2,00 years ago. Well if we died with
him, then WE died 2,00 years ago.. SO we died with Him in order to
live with Him. And the degree of victory this life WITH Him has is
next explained. AS CHRIST rose from the dead to not die ever again,
but to instead LIVE ever, so we must reckon ourselves dead in the
same manner.

We do not die as though we need of dying after we are saved, for
Paul said DO you not know you were already planted into His death -
you are already DEAD if you were baptized into Him. Baptism into
Him is baptism into HIS DEATH. So once we KNOW that, and know WHY
that baptism sees us crucified in HIS DEATH so that we may LIVE with
Him, we can concentrate on ACCEPTING THE FACT that we do not need to
expect to sin.

EXPECTING TO SIN is our whole problem. Since we THINK we cannot
live without sinning, which is the result of NOT KNOWING WHY WE WERE
BAPTIZED, then we will not have faith to live above sin.

As far as God is concerned we are already dead to sin. RECKON is an
accounting term used in verse 13. In God's books, as it were, we
are dead. Finished. Complete. We were baptized into Christ's
death., so we are dead. Kaput. But IF OUR BOOKS are not tallied up
to agree with HIS BOOKS, then we will not enjoy the life that is
ours to enjoy!!!

It is like having a million dollars in the bank. According to the
bank's books, you are a millionaire. But if you are not aware of
that fact, fro whatever reason, you did not reckon it into your bank
booklet at home, and you will therefore LIVE LOWER than what you are
able to live like due to ignorance. AND THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT IN
ROMANS 6.

KNOW YE NOT????

We do not have to ever sin again in this life. I do not care who
disagrees. Paul said it! I believe it!

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

Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that
he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto
sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

HE DIED UNTO SIN ONCE. Reckon yourself to be DEAD IN THE SAME
MANNER.

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

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

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

And those dead are free from sinful living as well as sin in
general:
Roma 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.
Roma 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

So why expect to sin everyday?:
Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto
sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Roma 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
should obey it in the lusts thereof.

It is your choice! Paul said LET not sin reign. Sinners have NO
choice, but WE DO.

But if we do not KNOW these things, abut EXPECT to sin, well... as
your faith is so be it unto you...

And back to ROmans 8 now...

Roma 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.

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

The LAW of this truth FREES us from the law of sin and death. The
law of sin and death says that whenever "I" would do good
(self-effort), evil is there and I sin instead. So STOP going the
route of "I" doing good, and call upon the Spirit of God and BELIEVE
HE WILL STRENGTHEN you and HE WILL LIVE THROUGH YOU a very righteous
life, and LET THAT law of the SPirit of Life lift you over the law
of sin and death.

There is a LAW of the spirit as much as there is of sin and death.
A law is something is true in every case so long as the situation is
the same. IN every case when "I" do good, evil will rise up. But
in every case, when "I" stop trying to do good, and YIELD or PRESENT
myself to God so that HE can do good with me, then I will be seen
doing good, but not I, but Christ in me does that good..

Again:

He was located on the cross to DIE INSTEAD OF ME.
Now He is located in me TO LIVE INSTEAD OF ME.

THAT is the exchanged life.

[Michael F. Blume]

Bart Goddard wrote:

> Larry...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I've never heard it called "exchanged-life teaching", but my
> gut reaction is to be an "opponent". Yes, we should daily
> drown the old man by contrition and repentance and yes
> we should try to live purely. But to suggest that we can be
> "closer to God" by dint of our own efforts and works
> flies in the face of the salvation by grace. Further, the
> Christian is called to "life under the cross", not "life of
> victory". The life of victory comes AFTER we die.

This is precisely what Exchanged life teaching stresses. Not of
works. HIS life not our self-life.

We have already died with Christ. Romans 6:6-7 since we were immersed
into that death when we were immersed into Him. (Ro. 6:3).

A life under the cross keeps the self-life under so that we can have
VICTORY. So long as the self life is under, the Christ life lives
through in victory.

> Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man
> will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
> cross, and follow me.

Exactly. Deny YOURSELF and YOUR LIFE. Let Him LIVE THROUGH, by
putting SELF out of the way, as far as it comes to works to be
righteous in behaviour.

> Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the
> cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is
> crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

And THAT is a life of victory. Already crucified means ALREADY DEAD.
Never does Paul say this is a death to be YET EXPERIENCED.

> Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord
> GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke
> of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for
> the LORD hath spoken it.

This occurred 2,000 years ago.

> 2 Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to
> himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of
> reconciliation;

Reconciled NOW that we might be JOINED to Him and take His easy yoke
of exchanging HIS life for OUR lives, practically speaking.

> 1Cor 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I,
> not as one that beateth the air:
> 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection:
> lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I
> myself should be a castaway.
>
> Paul is not living the "life of victory" at this point, but is
> still striving toward it.

Incorrect. Paul HAD victory BECAUSE he kept his body under. So long
as his natural, self-empowered life was kept from doing any work
towards self-righteous living, Paul was letting CHRIST do the work
instead.

> NOW we run the race. Victory, according to Isaiah, comes at death.

Victory is ours NOW. Paul said we died, as you demand we do to have
victory, with Christ. We accepted that when we believed, and
therefore we are already dead. Romans 7:1-4 illustrates this death by
proxy, and ends up saying we already died by the body of Christ which
died as us - in our places.

Romans 8:2 explains this by saying the Law of the Spirit of Life in
Christ makes us free from the law of sin and death (free from
constantly sinning as seen in 7:21). IN THIS LIFE NOW.

> And in 2 Cor, Paul says that Jesus Christ is what reconciles us to
> God, not our own self-discipline. (Indeed, our self-discipline is
> the _result of_ being drawn closer to God, NOT the _cause of_ it.)

Agreed. The exchanged life teaching is not promoting
self-discipline. It is exactly the opposite! Self is good for
nothing. Keep it under. Give way for God to move. And the way we
YIELD or PRESENt our members to Him for HIS USE is by keeping our
self-effort under by the cross. We deny self from doing good works in
will-empowerement.

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 27 Nov 1997, Bart Goddard wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut wrote:
>
> >Victory does indeed come at death. So die, Bart. Recognize that the
> > old nature has been killed off at Calvary. The blood of Jesus is all
> > sufficient. You can never improve on what has already been done.
>
> And yet that is exactly what the "exchange-life" is (allegedly)
> claiming: That one gets _closer to God_ through one's life.

Bart, the is exchange life involves just the opposite. Self dies. Jesus
lives in and through the human vessel. In fact, He cannot, will not, live
in any area of our being where we are not dead to self. This shows real
meaning of the term Lordship. The life we now live we live by the faith of
the Son of God; His faith, not our faith. Our new identity is at last
understood. Who are we? Children of God in reality, not in theological
theory. The exchange life is not a 'theology,' it is a happening in the
believer's life of which he (hopefully eventually) becomes conscious.
(Galatians 2:20 actualized; that part of the Kingdom claimed as our own.)
One finally realizes that all of the struggle for self-perfection is
fruitless. As the Lord once said to me, "Just who's going to grow the
fruit of the Holy Spirit?" I came to the realization that I had actually
no capacity to grow such fruit myself or to be a 'better' person through
my own striving. So one gives up trying to live the Christian life and
let's Jesus live it through them and for them. The life I now live by the
faith of the Son of God (not my faith). I recognize the Source of the
faith. In this one ceases from dead works (the efforts of flesh to
perfect itself) and comes to Rest in Christ who is our Sabbath Rest. In
this, one comes into great Liberty. Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is Liberty.

> This
> is most certainly an improvement. Indeed, your paragraphs state
> over and over again that it is Jesus living through us that causes
> good works. Why do you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
> by turning it around at the last minute by saying the works
> get us closer to God (rather than that the closeness of God causes
> good works)?

Well, I think this is a mischaracterization of what I have said and am
sorry you 'heard' it this way. 'Our' works do nothing. In our role as
sons we come to the same realization Jesus had as The Son.

014:010 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in
me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but
the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We come to the realization that anything worthy of being called a
'work' is what God, who dwells in us, is doing through us.

015:005 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and
I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me
ye can do nothing. ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There we have it. Without Him we can do nothing. Certainly nothing
of value in his sight, only dead works. The key is believing, abiding.

005:019 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth
the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also
doeth the Son likewise.

Not only can The Son do nothing of himself, but the sons can do nothing of
themselves because our life is hidden in The Son. Christ in us is our
hope of glory. Our only meaningful endeavor is to do whatsoever the
Father doeth; that is, we are to 'flow' in His Spirit sent within to
direct us through life, giving us the mind of Christ through which can
think 10,000 thoughts a day coming from His throne room in our hearts. As
Jesus the Son was the perfect union of God and man, so are we meant to be
in such union, joined to the Vine of Life. We can only live such life if
our life has been truly exchanged, existential and experiential, not set
upon the sandy foundation of a mental 'theology' of christology.

I believe you will find some wonderful insights into this in Luther's
"The Bondage of the Will."

You write:

> Why do you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
> by turning it around at the last minute by saying the works
> get us closer to God (rather than that the closeness of God causes
> good works)?

I think your statement is by implication from something on which we must
not be quite communicating properly. How can one get any 'closer' to God
than through having Him live within them? Yet there are certainly
'degrees' of awareness or what might be termed "God-consciousness" in
which we are involved; i.e., simple growth in Christian maturity.
Certainly as the Father does His works in and through us and we see and
marvel at His goodness and grace, we do grow in such awareness. There is
the struggle the Christian goes through (aka Romans 7) before realizing
the Rest is in Christ (aka Romans 8). Our Father instructs us in walking
after Him and not after the flesh, a lesson we learn not from external
rulebooks but from His Spirit residing in His Kingdom which is always
within and whom we learn to follow, Christ in us, the hope of glory. And
learning this lesson brings us to Rest. His goal is for us to come forth
in His image. One in His image has come to Rest. Only the exchange
of His life for ours can bring this about.

And though I can't conceive how we can be any closer to God than having
Him live in us, growth is another matter. The man at the pool of Bethesda
waited 38 years for someone to put him into the water when the angle was
troubling it. He depended on man to do this at some point for him and it
never came. He needed the Source, not man. He lay on his cot a cripple.
Jesus asked him if he would be made whole. Choice. He made the right
one. But God would have loved this child of His just as much if he had
been satisified to continue in his handicapped state. That to me is the
amazing part. But what an increase in the consciousness of the goodness
of God came about as the man opted for The Good.

Jesus told us that those who sin are the servant of sin. They are in
captivity to it, and there is no freedom in captivity. I think that you
may assume, and correctly so, that the very existence of a truly righteous
life presupposes freedom. And Jesus let us know that if we had Him that
he would make us free indeed. Only through Him do we have a truly
righteous life.

The problem comes about because mankind, in general, assumes that the
existence of a moral or ethical life, with its various distinctions and
valuations based on normative ethics, presupposes freedom. For example,
the (unfulfilled) promise of the Mosaic Law is essentially "keep these
commandments and have life by them." Improve yourself! That is, normative
ethics, in general, is a philosophy of freedom even though such freedom is
at best illusory and the righteousness obtained through the law not at all
like the righteousness made available through faith in Christ Jesus which
actually brings His life within us.

So what I am saying is that the scholastic doctrine of freewill, in the
context in which it is generally framed, does not touch on the real
problem of freedom. The Christian philosopher Berdyaev went so far as to
say that the doctrine was invented in order to find a culprit, someone who
could be held responsible and so vindicate the idea of punishment in this
life or in eternity. I would certainly suggest that the doctrine of free
will is modeled to suit a normative, legalistic morality. [By normative
ethics I refer to a concrete set of standards such as a written legal
framework by which performance is judged according to action with respect
to it.] The very doctrine suggests that man will be justified if he
chooses the good in reference to such law and condemned if he chooses evil
by failing to keep it.

The scholastic conception of free will, as generally presented, amounts to
this: man can and must fulfil the law of goodness, and if he fails to do
so, it is his own fault and he must be punished. This need to make this
choice between good and evil is forced upon man from without. In this
context, such "freedom of will" is not a source of creativeness, but of
responsibility and possible punishment. This purely normative conception
has been worked out in detail for legal purposes and invariably appears to
relate back to some form of law as basic standard.

True freedom, however, consists not in keeping external legal codes, but
in being in an inner place where new realities and values may be created.
True freedom is found only in the Kingdom of God. And that comes by the
exchange of His life for ours. Man claims freedom and talks of free will
and choice and may not even know the name of Jesus. Such freedom is
illusory.

Here is the paradox. True freedom comes only in being a bond-servant of
Jesus Christ. True freedom requires the surrender of the Will and the
total Being into His loving hands. He wants to dwell within us. But
He cannot dwell where we are not dead. He has made full provision at
Calvary for our death to self and full provision with His resurrection
for us to truly share in His Life and His freedom.

When we are in Him, His Will becomes our Will. But then a remarkable
thing happens as we grow in His nature. Our Will becomes His Will! He
longs to give us the desires of our heart! But first, He longs to give
us a New Heart, a new nature, that those desires may be pleasing to Him.
How can our Will eventually become His Will in this Christian growth
process? How can it be otherwise? It is Him living in and through
us. Life has been 'exchanged'. Jesus lived not in just one flesh
body that walked the shores of Galilee, but He now lives in and through
millions of believers -- the continuing life of Christ on this planet.
He promised that those who came after Him would do even greater works
because He was going to the Father? How can this be? Because He
poured out of His Spirit, becoming our Baptizer, and bringing us into
His Kingdom as His literal Body. He now has hands and feet everywhere
to minister His compassion to the suffering and to the poor. The Seed
of Abraham fell into the ground and died and came forth multiplied
in an Israel of God that now peppers the earth. How did this happen?
He exchanged His life for ours, taking our worthless lives to Calvary
and giving His in exchange. Not only are our sins forgiven, a major
part of the gospel, but we now have His Life within us, another major
part of the good news of Jesus Christ.

Important in all of this is the matter of the will, and though there may
be paradoxes concerning choice we will long wonder about, the central
problem of Will has been solved as He has placed His Body on earth. In
this, the Christian is not under the curse of the Law with its
commandments and ordinances. Such were nailed to the cross at Calvary.
The Christian is under the Law of Love from whence true creativity and
zeal for life springs. Freedom to will the good takes on new meaning as
we cease the fruitless struggle to perfect man's hopeless flesh [i.e.,
cease from dead works], and choose instead to move with God's Spirit, the
only place wherein true freedom, and thus true freedom of Will, is found.
This does not involve the choice of the good in a normative, legalistic
sense, but rather choosing THE Good, for He is Good as an absolute force.
This involves the surrender of our Will to the Highest Good, the Lord
Jesus, that not only our Will but our entire Being might be free indeed.

[Larry...@aol.com]

M. Blume wrote: Paul clearly taught that we can live without sinning...

It takes MUCH removal of ingrained habits of self working, since for
years we lived life all on our own with our own wits, so to speak.

B. Coatney wrote that the exchanged-life is an effortless life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is confusing!

In 1 John 1:8, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us. (NKJV)

Who does the job of "MUCH removal of ingrained habits"? Can't
a believer fall back into sinful habits--then start to "reckon" again,
and resume the exchanged-life? So victory and defeat follow each
other...dosen't sound much different than the two-nature idea.

The exchanged life is effortless? Does this make Bible-reading,
prayer and fellowship superfluous?

Larry Adams

[Bart Goddard]

Joseph W. Gaut wrote:

>> And yet that is exactly what the "exchange-life" is (allegedly)
>> claiming: That one gets _closer to God_ through one's life.

>Bart, the is exchange life involves just the opposite. Self dies.
Jesus
>lives in and through the human vessel.

First note that I am going only on what the original poster said,
namely "one gets closer to God through one's life." And this
is what I would expect the philosophy of a group or ism called
"exchange-life" to be.

Second, let's make sure you understand my objection. It hardly
matters here whether I am living or Jesus is living in me (as far
as my objection goes.) Rather, the complaint I have (against
the alleged doctrine) is that it is focused on the secular, temporal
world, rather than on God. In either case, the thing that gets us
closer to God is NOT Jesus' sacrifice, but how we behave.
And it only _sounds_ nobler when you say "but it's not me
behaving, but Christ behaving in me." But it's not nobler. It's
merely a more subtle form of salvation by works.

And this is a common polarization in Christendom. It brings us back
to the "Faith Alone" vs. "Faith plus Works" debate. The more
sensible of the arguments from the "Faith plus Works" crowd
say something like "Such good works are indeed a requirement
of salvation, but fortunately, Jesus does the good works in us/
through us." But to us "Faith Alone" folk, it's just a confusion
of the Old and New Covenants.

That is, the Old Covenant was a system of rules. A person was
"good" if he followed the rules and "bad" if he didn't. The New
Covenant comes along and says from now on a person
will be "good" if he is God's child, and "bad" if he is
not. And the confused "F+W" person says "Ah, He says I'm
'good' now (meaning the new-good), so I must be 'good'
(meaning the old-good) therefore I must follow all the rules."
By mixing the old meaning of "good" with the new, he arrives
exactly where he started: He has to follow the rules. Now,
sensible people know that they can't follow the rules. So if
one is a stubborn "F+W" person, one must assume that Jesus
will take over one's body and perform all manner of good
works with it. (Though, if this were true, it shows Jesus to
be a pretty weak operator of bodies.)

So anyway, without getting too far afield, this is where my
objection is leading. Namely, it's not _who_ is doing the
works, but that the works are so important at all. (So
important that one names one's philosophy after the works,
rather than after Christ.)

>In fact, He cannot, will not, live
>in any area of our being where we are not dead to self.

Nope, He comes to the sinner, not v.v.

>015:005 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and
> I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me
> ye can do nothing. ^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>There we have it. Without Him we can do nothing.

No. Because we haven't agreed on what the fruit is or even
what it is we ought to "do" and yet can't without Him. You're
presupposing that we already agree that "good" means "old-good".

>I believe you will find some wonderful insights into this in Luther's
>"The Bondage of the Will."

Most decidedly not. When Luther says "good" he means
"new-good". And his "Christian life" is "life under the cross."
That is, the old sinful self should by DAILY contrition and
repentence be drowned and killed. He would have cussed
at you for suggesting that the drowning of the Old Adam
was done once and then a Christian lived a life of old-good
works thereafter.

>Our Father instructs us in walking
>after Him and not after the flesh,

Precisely. But this isn't a comparison of bad and good
so much as a comparison of old and new. Your life
of old-good works is still a life of _fleshly_ good
works.

>a lesson we learn not from external

Yet your old-good works are external.

>And though I can't conceive how we can be any closer to God than having

>Him live in us, growth is another matter.

We're not debating about _whether_ we get closer, but
_how_ we get closer. And the answer is not "by living
the exhanged life", but "by Him moving toward us."

>The scholastic conception of free will, as generally presented, amounts
to
>this: man can and must fulfil the law of goodness, and if he fails to
do
> so, it is his own fault and he must be punished.

[snip]

>True freedom, however, consists not in keeping external legal codes,
but
> in being in an inner place where new realities and values may be
created.

And yet, the bottom line is that "by living in the inner place with its
new realities and values, one keeps the OLD EXTERNAL CODE
by accident." I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing
its ugly, damning head.

Bart

[Clayton Austin]

Bart:

When Jesus told his disciples that he was going to pray to the Father,
and the Father would give them another comforter, and this comforter
would reside in them forever. Jesus continued by saying, that this
comforter would be the Spirit of truth whom the people in this
disordered world state of civilization could not see, know, or receive.
But you see him, and know him, and because of that realization, he will
be in you forever. I will not leave you comfortless, "I" will come to
you.

The two angelic beings at his ascension into that cloud of leadership
and omnipresence said that he will come again in like manner as you have
seen him go. But Jesus has alreay prepared his disciples about his
reappearance in the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty, and that
they would receive the Son of God in spiritual regeneration.

With the presence of Jesus Christ in the form of his Spirit of truth
and liberty, the apostles and church received the revelation of Jesus
Christ, or his faith. The faith of Jesus Christ is his leadership into
the knowledge of the truth. Since they have received the spiritual rest
in Christ, now they will understand, comform, and perform the truth of
Christ. That is their "faith works".

Being obedient to the faith of Christ is what every son and daughter
of God will face at the "Judgment Seat of Christ." This judgment is for
our faithfulness to our calling and obedience to the leadership of
Christ in our lives through his faith knowledge. Hey! I want a full
reward Bart. How about you?

Therefore the experience of the "rest of Christ" in spiritual
regeneration, brings forth the "rest of his faith works". And at
physical death, we will enter into our "faith rest" in that
mutidimensional level of Paradise, where we will rest from our faith
works, and wait for the resurrection and glorification of our corporal
bodies.

After we establish the theocratic government of God on this planet we
will enjoy the "Sabbath Day rest" for a thousand years as kings and
priests.

Therefore, our works is not something we can conjure up and do to
please the Lord, it is simply following his leadership as we attain the
knowledge of the truth. This is his faith works.

Gene Austin

Gene Austin
THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH
>>>>--HIGHER--DIMENSIONS-->>

[Bart Goddard]

Larry...@aol.com wrote:

>M. Blume wrote: Paul clearly taught that we can live without sinning...

>It takes MUCH removal of ingrained habits of self working, since for
>years we lived life all on our own with our own wits, so to speak.

>B. Coatney wrote that the exchanged-life is aneffortless life

>This is confusing!

And when things get confusing, the solution is to go slower and
pay attention to the nouns and verbs. It's easy to say "not of
works" and then get real sloppy about _which_ works and
_who_ works etc. It's easy to say "without sin" and then get
real sloppy about what that means too.

What Paul _really_ taught was that we would be _presented_
as sinless before God on account of the merits of Jesus' sacrifice.
The only "sinlessness" we can enjoy on earth is forensic. OTOH,
it does take real effort (and it is _we_ who commit the effort
_by grace of_ God) to rout out the pet sins we have. But
we should not confuse the two concepts: 1. Declared sinless
on account of Christ's sacrifice, and 2. Not committing sin.
The first gets us into Heaven. The second is our joyful response
to the first.

>In 1 John 1:8, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
>and the truth is not in us. (NKJV)

Exactly.

>Who does the job of "MUCH removal of ingrained habits"?

The subject of the sentence is "we". "We" do the believing,
"we" commit the good works. But just because "we"'re the
subject of the sentence doesn't mean we've merited anything.
Here there are two confusions. One is to confuse the "actor"
with the "Facilitator". (I do the believing, but the whole sentence,
subject (I) and verb (believe), are gifts of the Spirit. I.e., the fact

that I am believing is a fact that has been created by God.)
The other is to confuse which works do what. When I believe,
I have the sensation of believing. When I expend effort to
rout out sin, it is my back that feels the lash, and my will
which weilds the lash. (And yet it is only because my will
has been bought by Christ that it now conforms to God's will.)
And my believing and lashing and almsgiving earn me nothing
salvation-wise. (Though they may earn me warm feelings,
the respect of my peers, etc.)

So I think B. Coatney's term "effortless" doesn't mean
really "effortless", but rather "effort gladly expended."

>The exchanged life is effortless? Does this make Bible-reading,
>prayer and fellowship superfluous?

Some would claim that God goes so far in possession of
the will that a person no longer feels any laziness about
good works. So they would mean here by "effortless"
that they had to exercise no force of will to pray, even
if they're knees were tired and they had a deadline to
meet which was rushing them, and they were still mad
at whomever they were praying for, but rather they do
all God's will without the slightest temptation to do
otherwise. I.e., it's effort, but "effort gladly expended."

However enviable such an attitude is, we're all at least one
death away from attaining it.

Bart

[Michael F. Blume]

Bart Goddard wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut wrote:
>
> >> And yet that is exactly what the "exchange-life" is (allegedly)
> >> claiming: That one gets _closer to God_ through one's life.
>
> >Bart, the is exchange life involves just the opposite. Self dies. Jesus
> >lives in and through the human vessel.
>

> First note that I am going only on what the original poster said,
> namely "one gets closer to God through one's life." And this
> is what I would expect the philosophy of a group or ism called
> "exchange-life" to be.

The original poster admits lack of understanding of this topic. We do not
get closer to God through our lives.

> Second, let's make sure you understand my objection. It hardly
> matters here whether I am living or Jesus is living in me (as far
> as my objection goes.) Rather, the complaint I have (against
> the alleged doctrine) is that it is focused on the secular, temporal
> world, rather than on God.

Disagreed.

> In either case, the thing that gets us
> closer to God is NOT Jesus' sacrifice, but how we behave.

I would not even say we can get closer to God. We are as close as we can be
to Him if we are genuinely a Christian. It is faith in the fact that all
that was ever necessary to do in order to give us victory or give us
whatever, has already been done By Christ on the cross.

The truth of the entire picture is that we do not KNOW it. As Paul
pinpointed throughout Romans 6 with "Know ye not?"

Paul's whole point is our need to KNOW, then RECKON IT SO and then PRESENT
OURSELVES, based upon that reckoning.

Know we are dead already, and then account that to our lifestyles and then
act upon that fact.

It has nothing to do with how we behave... UNLESS you speak about Paul's
reference to yielding ourselves (Ro. 6:13). If you call that works, then
you would call Paul a legalist, because he taught it first, not exchanged
life teachers.

> And it only _sounds_ nobler when you say "but it's not me behaving, but

> Christ behaving in me." But it's not nobler. It's merely a more subtle

> form of salvation by works.

Exchanged life teaching is based upon Romans chapters 6 and 7. If these
chapters are NOT teaching these things, then what are they teaching? Where
do these chapters contradict these thoughts?

Such a topic requires one to get into the two pertinent chapters and study
them. Expose our error in understanding in these chapters using the verses
we misrepresent accompanied by the interpretation you feel is correct. You
are saying a lot but are not explaining anything that you believe is correct
in these chapters.

1) Paul said you have to KNOW that you are dead with Christ. Most do not
know this. You said yourself victory comes at death, so you imply you are
not dead with Christ already. You miss what Paul is saying in Romans 6.

2) Once we KNOW we are dead, the ramifications of being free from sin are
our's to enjoy (RO. 6:6-7).

3) Then we must reckon it, or put it down as facts and live on that wealth
of victory in THIS life (Ro. 6:9-13).

4) Then we must present ourselves as those alive from death (with the
new-found awareness that we are dead with Christ), and expect God's life to
live through us.

WHERE IS SALVATION BY WORKS HERE?

> And this is a common polarization in Christendom. It brings us back
> to the "Faith Alone" vs. "Faith plus Works" debate. The more
> sensible of the arguments from the "Faith plus Works" crowd
> say something like "Such good works are indeed a requirement
> of salvation, but fortunately, Jesus does the good works in us/
> through us." But to us "Faith Alone" folk, it's just a confusion
> of the Old and New Covenants.

To you "Faith Alone" folks, there is no present death with Christ. That
aspect is totally unheard of, by your statements, and you fall under the
Roman people who did not KNOW.

> That is, the Old Covenant was a system of rules. A person was
> "good" if he followed the rules and "bad" if he didn't.

There is a LAW still in effect here. Romans 8:2 says it is a law of the
Spirit of Life in Christ.

Please give a run-down of Romans 6 (verse by verse preferred), and show us
where the teaching is wrong.

> The New
> Covenant comes along and says from now on a person
> will be "good" if he is God's child, and "bad" if he is
> not. And the confused "F+W" person says "Ah, He says I'm
> 'good' now (meaning the new-good), so I must be 'good'
> (meaning the old-good) therefore I must follow all the rules."

The only good we must perform is ceasing from exerting will power to do
good, and believing that when we present ourselves to God for His use, He
will use us towards good works. Any inkling of self exerting those works is
offbase.

> By mixing the old meaning of "good" with the new, he arrives
> exactly where he started: He has to follow the rules. Now,
> sensible people know that they can't follow the rules. So if
> one is a stubborn "F+W" person, one must assume that Jesus
> will take over one's body and perform all manner of good
> works with it. (Though, if this were true, it shows Jesus to
> be a pretty weak operator of bodies.)

He doesn't take over our bodies, but strengthens us to live righteously and
cease sinning.

> So anyway, without getting too far afield, this is where my
> objection is leading. Namely, it's not _who_ is doing the
> works, but that the works are so important at all.

So you are saying that the point of Romans 6 (although you have not remarked
one iota about Paul's true intentions as you feel them to be) is not life
above sin? Not victory in this life?

It is not a matter of good works, here. It is a matter of life over sin.

--

[Michael F. Blume]

Bart Goddard wrote:

> First note that I am going only on what the original poster said,
> namely "one gets closer to God through one's life." And this
> is what I would expect the philosophy of a group or ism called
> "exchange-life" to be.

This is incorrect. Larry's whole point was that he was unaware of the
teaching. He made an incorrect assessment as to the goal of the Exchanged
Life. The Exchanged life teaching does not say one gets closer to God, and
much less one does it through one's life.

The Main point in this teaching is that one has all one will ever get due to
the blood of Christ shed on Calvary and due to God's work in that event.
Its just that most believers do not know all that is theirs. It is like
having one million dollars in the bank put there by a man of wealth. If one
is unaware of that storehouse of wealth at one's disposal, one will not
enjoy it by living life in accordance with such benefits. One will live
LOWER than one actually has to.

The Bible is the source of information that tells us all that we have
victory over everything in life, as
supplied by God through Christ's death on the cross. We have victory over
sin, but, like the Romans, we may not KNOW THAT. And if we do not know it,
then we will not enjoy it.

Roma 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Roma 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound?

Grace reigns to such glorious extents that sin is ever superseded by it.
And that includes sinful living. Grace raises us above sin. But the Romans
were so unaware of victory over sin in this life and in practical everyday
experience that they, as Paul assumed correctly, would most likely respond,
"Hey! Does that mean we can sin more so we get more grace?"

Paul is seeing a lack of awareness in the Romans which took them to the
point of not even considering a life above sin when Paul noted that grace
supersedes the degree of sin. Paul then says,

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

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

Roma 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.
Roma 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:

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

He is saying, "What? Sin so that grace may supersede more and more? A
thousand times no. You do not realize that we died with Christ, and that
means we have experienced the only and single thing that frees us from a
sinful bondage. DEATH. And we do not have to sin more so that we can
experience more grace! What I am talking about is that grace made you DEAD
to sin altogether. You are delivered from it and its effects. But now you
must realize that means a difference in LIVING. Since you are dead with
Christ it only stands to reason that you are also RISEN WITH HIM. And that
means VICTORY IN PRACTICAL LIFE"

And this is where the point about sinless living comes in. Paul does not
compare a victorious life that is our's with Jesus' life BEFORE the cross...
and even THAT was a victorious life!!! But he compares the degree of
victory we have in LIFE with Jesus' life AFTER the resurrection from the
dead! If there could be any more victory than that of Christ's pre-cross
life on earth in flesh, it is the post-resurrection life.

So Paul said that we can WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. Now, does this exclude
practical experience in everyday circumstances? No. Bart, you seem to
think "yes."

What Paul is saying is the kind of victory Paul described in Philippians.

Phil 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in
whatsoever state I am, [therewith] to be content.
Phil 4:12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every
where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry,
both to abound and to suffer need.
Phil 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Nothing bothered Paul. NOW I CALL THAT "VICTORY."

To have peace of mind when EVERYTHING is going wrong. That is freedom.
Freedom from sin.

And Paul said that sin was in his flesh (Ro. 7:17-18), but yet he said in
Romans 6:12 that we are not to let SIN REIGN in our flesh. That adds onto
the victory of peace of mind.

So, Bart, are you saying this does not mean that we can live above sinning?

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

He said this as a logical conclusion to the truths he presented in the
previous verses.

Roma 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live
with him:
Roma 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
death hath no more dominion over him.

Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he
liveth, he liveth unto God.
Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are dead wih Christ. So..... we must also believer we went the rest of
the way WITH Him, and are alive from the dead in NEWNESS OF LIFE.
Resurrection life. We are resurrected with Christ in life. And Paul is
applying that... and here is the clincher... TO PRACTICAL LIVING, because
he is addressing a misconception which involves practical living. He is
saying, "No, you do not sin more to get this grace more. Something else
occurs."

The references in the chapter to NEWNESS OF LIFE and walking with Jesus are
in response to the misconception that we must SIN in our lives in order to
see GRACE work in our lives. Now, if that is not an issue of practical
life, then what is it? And because it is a practical issue, Paul is giving
the reality of our deaths and freedom from sin in regards to PRACTICAL
LIVING. And if freedom from sin is a reference to PRACTICAL LIVING, then
how can it not refer to LIVING ABOVE SIN and NOT SINNING?

Paul is saying we should not let sin even reign in our flesh. Forget about
getting more grace by sinning more! We're raised up higher than that! Do
not even let sin reign in your flesh! Sin made Paul's FLESH commit sin,
according to:...

Roma 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold
under sin.
Roma 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.
Roma 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that
[it is] good.
Roma 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul is speaking about DOING, is he not? Doing what? SINS. And is this
not a further explanation by way of personal experience of how it is true
that we do not need to let sin reign in our flesh?? The manner in which sin
reigned in Paul's flesh, as seen clearly in Romans 7, was by DOING SINFUL
THINGS. The acts were the outward effects. And therefore, the reference to
not letting sin reign in the flesh in chapter 6 refers to NOT DOING SINFUL
THINGS. IOW, NOT SINNING. It is teaching us to nip sin in the bud, and
stop its source of opportunity to work the outward effects

And since Paul had a dilemma of not wanting to sin, but sinning anyway, he
cried out for deliverance from doing sin, and claimed God would deliver him
from DOING SIN through Christ.

How did God deliver him FROM DOING SINS through Christ? That is what
Chapter 6 is all about. ANd that is why I say and maintain that we can live
without sinning.

We died WITH CHRIST. And death frees us from sin, so we are freed from sin
THROUGH CHRIST. With all this evidence in Paul's writings, I fail to
understand how you can deny that we can have grace to live above ever
sinning.

Since we DIED with Christ, Paul said we are also RESURRECTED with Him. And
Paul says if that is so, THEN do not let sin reign in your flesh.

They key is in Chapter 7. Paul clearly explains he is talking about
committing sins and being delivered from committing sins (living without
sinning) when he says his whole search was to stop committing evil things --
sins.

So Paul is saying we do not ever have to sin again, if we really apply or
reckon this truth.

The million dollar amount is in the bank's books. Now record it in your
personal book from which you receive your info as to how much you can enjoy
in life through spending, tally it up with the bank's book, and ENJOY LIFE
ABOVE SIN.

Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Roma 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should
obey it in the lusts thereof.

Its your's!

There is no WORK to perform. Just taking God at His Word. God did the work
way back at the start of your conversion.

What is so "works plus faith" about that? It is only faith. Faith alone.
We exert faith, but even God gives us that through the word.

[Michael F. Blume]

Larry...@aol.com wrote:

> M. Blume wrote: Paul clearly taught that we can live without sinning...
> It takes MUCH removal of ingrained habits of self working, since for
> years we lived life all on our own with our own wits, so to speak.
>

> B. Coatney wrote that the exchanged-life is an effortless life.

He did not explain it all. It is effortless as far as >>living the
exchanged life<< since it is HIS EFFORT and not our own. But we are so used
to doing it on our own that we often slip back into self-effort. So >>the
effort is to not use any effort!<< It is like saying the only battle we
have in this life is realizing the battle is won.

>This is confusing!

> In 1 John 1:8, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
> and the truth is not in us. (NKJV)
>

> Who does the job of "MUCH removal of ingrained habits"?

God does in teaching us His Word. We receive the TEACHING from God given to
Paul which he gave concerning death to sin. Paul looked at the Romans and
saw their lack of KNOWING the facts. You must first know the facts. You
are DEAD. Period. That death in Christ is not symbolic. It is actual. It
is not physical, but nevertheless it is actual. And death frees us from
sin. True or false? Get the facts straight first before jumping into a
quandary about the end results of sinless life.

You can jump the gun and put the cart before the horse by looking far across
the issue to the end result of a claim that we do not have to sin any more,
and AVOID all the explanation in between the state of failure and that goal
- which explanation Paul gives. Everyone wants to read Romans 8 but they
OVERLOOK Romans 6 and 7 since they feel they cannot understand these
chapters.

Fear not, even PETER thought Paul taught hard things to be understood
concerning righteousness.

Here are the facts you cannot overlook. Take the time to study them.

We have sin in the flesh. We always will in this life. But the key is to
leave it DORMANT by refusing to exert will power or flesh energy. Since sin
is in the flesh, whenever we exert fleshly effort (self-effort) to do good,
we stir sin up -

Roma 7:10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to
be] unto death.
Roma 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by
it slew [me].

Why did obedience to the law incite sin to act? Sin is in the FLESH and
obedience to carnal commandments of outward exertion of self-effort
obedience is utilization of the flesh which possesses sin.

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

The spiritual law and a fleshly man CLASHED. The LAW was MEANT to urge man
towards true faith and love...

1Tim 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and
[of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:

But Paul said the LAw could not accomplish that end....

Roma 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:
Roma 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who

walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The righteousness of the law was the results the Law was intended to instill
in mankind. Unfeigned faith, love from a pure heart and a good conscience.
But Law could not accomplish that . Why? Because man had SIN in him.

So if law could not do it, Paul said GOD did through Christ.

And back to timothy:

1Tim 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and
love which is in Christ Jesus.

Grace and love, which the law meant to put in us, was available through
another means other than the Law. GRACE!!

The righteousness of the law (faith and love) was fulfilled in us OUTSIDE
THE LAW.

I SAID ALL THAT TO SAY THIS:

Law is flesh making flesh live godly. IT CANNOT WORK. FLesh has sin in
it. So GRACE comes and says SPIRIT will make you live godly, so stop trying
on your own. Some cannot get that through their heads due to lack of
teaching from the ministry along this line (mostly due to ignorance on the
ministers' parts), and due to a life lived so long in the rut of
self-effort. Ruts are hard to break free from.

Breaking free is not works, though. It is removing self out of the way to
give room for him to work. This is not hard for some, but for habitual
workaholics (spiritually speaking) who have been in much legalism, the habit
to work self-effort is in the blood. And it is a hard habit to kick. That
is the work Paul described in Ro. 12:1-2 when he said that we are to have
our MINDS renewed. This takes MUCH TIME.

Andrew Murray once said it is theoretically possible to make this step of
faith from works towards exchanged living in one nano-second. But most do
not. Most HAVe to put in their two cents' worth. WE complicate it, not God.

> Can't a believer fall back into sinful habits--then start to "reckon"
> again,

YES!!!! That is the key!! A believer WILL fall back. This teaching is so
revolutionary in its effect, but man is so steeped in RELIGIOSITY of
exerting self-effort that it takes time for this teaching to sink in and
replace that old thinking.

> and resume the exchanged-life?

Exactly!!

> So victory and defeat follow each
> other...dosen't sound much different than the two-nature idea.

Faith and defeat entirely depends upon your reception of KNOWING what Paul
said or not. If you doubt the life can be lived, forget even considering
the facts for you are putting the cart before the horse. You need to look
at the facts Paul is stating in Ro. 6.

Did Paul say we can live above sin or not?

Forget paradigms and traditional viewpoints. WHAT DID PAUL SAY?

Your quote from 1 John does not contradict this at all.

Sin is in our flesh, but it is effectless when we rely upon spirit. As Paul
said it, the LAW of doing good and always failing CAN BE OVERRIDDEN by
another law. It is a LAW that when you try to live good in self-effort and
will power you will do evil instead. But it is also a law that when you
stop trying and start relying upon God's Spirit for the strength to live
right, YOU WILL OVERRIDE the other law. Paul said that here:

Roma 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me

free from the law of sin and death.

So I think your problem is hearing such a radically different viewpoint from
traditional thought, which is hard to grasp at first. We are so ingrained
in our thinking in opposing viewpoints which we find were actually excuses
of doubt, that it takes removal of those thoughts.

And in actuality it sounds a LOT different from duality teaching. (You have
not read the posts I recommended to you, then, have you. If you did you
would clearly see that exchanged living is revolutionary.) It is the
RENEWING of the MIND that accomplishes it. So much FAITH in what the Bible
states is necessary.

It WORKS! I am experiencing it!

There is no INSTANT cure-all. It always takes time to change us. But the
WORD changes us into His image (His life was one of reliance upon Spirit)
from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18). And we need to exert FAITH in that Word.
Jesus' example REALLY COMES TO LIFE once we see this truth.

> The exchanged life is effortless? Does this make Bible-reading, prayer and
> fellowship superfluous?

It is not effortless in the sense that we do NOTHING. Prayer maintains that
life. But it is HIS LIFE living. So our effort is not in living
righteously, but >>in keeping the body under<<. -- keeing the self-efforts
from rising up due to our habitual lives of self-effort from our past. Our
souls and not born again upon conversion. Only the spirit is. But the
SOUL/MIND is being renewed NOW. >>Teaching<< unlearns all the old lifestyle
thinking we all have. And prayer enhances the TRUTH to our lives and is
our source of reliance upon God.

> Larry Adams

It took me time to "get it", but I think you will find this marvelous when
it hits you.

--

[Bart Goddard]

Clayton Austin wrote:

>Hey! I want a full reward Bart. How about you?

Sure, fine. But the issue is HOW one gets this reward. I get
mine by a free gift, you attempt to earn yours. Guess who's
going to get more?

>This is his faith works.

"Faith works?" What next, a "blue pink"? "dehydrated water"?
You need to define terms with language, not emotion.

Bart

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 4 Dec 1997, Bart Goddard wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut wrote:
>
> >> And yet that is exactly what the "exchange-life" is (allegedly)
> >> claiming: That one gets _closer to God_ through one's life.
>
> >Bart, the is exchange life involves just the opposite. Self dies.
> Jesus
> >lives in and through the human vessel.
>

> First note that I am going only on what the original poster said,
> namely "one gets closer to God through one's life." And this
> is what I would expect the philosophy of a group or ism called
> "exchange-life" to be.

Then I have some questions, rhetorical and otherwise, about your comments.

Here's what the original poster, Larry, said:

I'm kind of new to this: exchanged-life teaching. Maybe others
(proponents or opponents) can add to the litttle I know.

Gal. 2:20 is the main scripture. Another scripture is the
"reckoning" passage, Rom 6:11. One of the main points
of this teaching is that our "old man" is crucified Rom 6:6.

The whole thrust of the teaching is that we can be closer to God
and live a life of victory.

Now Larry starts off by explaining that his understanding of the matter
is limited, an honest, forthright admission. Then he provides very
limited knowledge about the teaching, referencing valid scripture.

Then Larry makes a remark about being 'closer to God,' a phrase that
can mean many different things to many different people, and immediately
build a case to attack the whole concept of 'exchange' when you admittedly
don't really know what the concept is about at all. I wonder why you
are so ready to tear something apart based on such limited understanding.
Fair question?

Then the heart of your argument is based on the 'closer to God' comment
about which you write volumes and you appear to want to stay with your
predecided position about 'exchange life' despite comments from several
that this is not works righteousness under some new guise, but simply
the straight forward teaching given by the apostle Paul.

> Second, let's make sure you understand my objection. It hardly
> matters here whether I am living or Jesus is living in me (as far
> as my objection goes.) Rather, the complaint I have (against
> the alleged doctrine) is that it is focused on the secular, temporal

> world, rather than on God. In either case, the thing that gets us

> closer to God is NOT Jesus' sacrifice, but how we behave.

> And it only _sounds_ nobler when you say "but it's not me
> behaving, but Christ behaving in me." But it's not nobler. It's
> merely a more subtle form of salvation by works.

Your objection is based on one comment, subject itself to wide
interpretation, from an inquiring soul who prefaces his brief remarks with
a statement that he there is a lot he doesn't understand about the
'exchange life.' I'm reminded of the deer who immediately shies away from
anything not understood, rather than investigating.

> And this is a common polarization in Christendom. It brings us back
> to the "Faith Alone" vs. "Faith plus Works" debate. The more
> sensible of the arguments from the "Faith plus Works" crowd
> say something like "Such good works are indeed a requirement
> of salvation, but fortunately, Jesus does the good works in us/
> through us." But to us "Faith Alone" folk, it's just a confusion
> of the Old and New Covenants.

Bart, you're just replaying your favorite record. There's a lot of
truth to it, but it is hardly relevant here.

> That is, the Old Covenant was a system of rules. A person was

> "good" if he followed the rules and "bad" if he didn't. The New

> Covenant comes along and says from now on a person
> will be "good" if he is God's child, and "bad" if he is
> not.

Exactly. Instead of being behavior or performance based, (as interpreted
by those who would follow the old covenant), our 'goodness' or 'badness'
is now seen as based on nature rather than performance. Have we taken
on the nature of Christ, which is infinite in its goodness, or have
we opted for religiosity having the form of godliness while denying the
power thereof?

Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth many
sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as some
assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is "Christ
in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our self-nature
truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or is that just
beautiful metaphor? Are we truly recipients of His resurrected life,
seated together in Heavenly places in Christ Jesus, or is that just a
statement for which translators confused future tense with present? In
consideration of such matters, I affirm a beautiful truth. Christ did
indeed exchange His life for ours! And if we are not yet participants
of this through either actualization (salvation) or awareness (knowing
what has happened in our salvation), then there are wonderful days ahead
for us as God sheds His grace abroad in our hearts.

[...]

> >015:005 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and
> > I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me
> > ye can do nothing. ^^^^^^^^^^
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >There we have it. Without Him we can do nothing.
>
> No. Because we haven't agreed on what the fruit is or even
> what it is we ought to "do" and yet can't without Him. You're
> presupposing that we already agree that "good" means "old-good".

We don't have to agree on what the fruit is for the above scripture to
be true. And by saying that I'm presupposing good necessarily means
'old good,' I suspect that you did not understand my comments on freedom
of will at all.

> >I believe you will find some wonderful insights into this in Luther's
> >"The Bondage of the Will."
>
> Most decidedly not. When Luther says "good" he means
> "new-good". And his "Christian life" is "life under the cross."

Luther saw salvation and knew it to be of faith.

> That is, the old sinful self should by DAILY contrition and
> repentence be drowned and killed. He would have cussed
> at you for suggesting that the drowning of the Old Adam
> was done once and then a Christian lived a life of old-good
> works thereafter.

You simply affirm that Luther didn't glimpse the exchange life. I'm not
faulting him. He was a remarkable man who won some battles during trying
times. I think he helped lead many out of a lot of darkness. But I would
not suggest he completed the trip. And never will you hear me say that
the Christian is to live a life of old-good works. That is simply alien
to my thinking. The only goodness in which we participate comes from the
One who is THE GOOD who now lives in our hearts. Christ is made our
righteousness. And the daily victory comes from walking after His Spirit
and not after the flesh. Christians struggle to overcome the flesh
because they fight it with their own strength, rather than knowing that we
can indeed overcome the evil one by coming to Rest in the One who is the
Rest. Jesus wants to multiply Himself through us. Truly it is Christ in
us who is our hope, and only hope, of glory.

The truth is that our old nature was permanently dealt with at Calvary.
Our realization of this in true heart faith and confession of this truth
works wonders in seeing the Victory over the desires of the flesh. If we
don't perceive and accept this truth, the struggle continues and we do
that which we ought not to do. Yet we are called to be overcomers. And
the only way we can overcome is if Christ in us does the 'doing'. As sons,
we are to be like Him; speaking what the Father would have us say and doing
what the Father would have us do. How else would one who is in His image
perform? How else can one be in His image, at Rest in Him, and operate?
Are we to strip the term "in His image" of all true meaning?

[...]

> >And though I can't conceive how we can be any closer to God than having
>
> >Him live in us, growth is another matter.
>
> We're not debating about _whether_ we get closer, but
> _how_ we get closer. And the answer is not "by living
> the exhanged life", but "by Him moving toward us."

The answer is Him living in us. The Kingdom of God is within.

> >The scholastic conception of free will, as generally presented, amounts
> to
> >this: man can and must fulfil the law of goodness, and if he fails to
> do
> > so, it is his own fault and he must be punished.
> [snip]
> >True freedom, however, consists not in keeping external legal codes,
> but
> > in being in an inner place where new realities and values may be
> created.
>
> And yet, the bottom line is that "by living in the inner place with its
> new realities and values, one keeps the OLD EXTERNAL CODE
> by accident."

That is absolutely NOT the bottom line of what I am saying. With His life
exchanged for yours, the old external code and living by mental principles
of Christianity (equivalent to such code) is perceived as utterly
destroyed at Calvary and the fruit of the victory actualized in the life
of the believer. The place of true freedom, the inner place where new
realities and values are created, is simply the Kingdom of God which
is always found WITHIN.

I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing
> its ugly, damning head.

It doesn't have to if we perceive and accept that He has indeed exchanged
His life for ours. We don't walk in truth we don't accept.

The EXCHANGE:

I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the
flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me. [Gal. 2:20]

Peace.

Joe Gaut

[Clayton Austin]

Hey! Bart:

Faith-works can be defined as receiving the revelation of Jesus Christ
and power to become the sons of God. We become the sons of God by
receiving the Son of God in the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty.
Christ in us, the power of his new Life and victorious living everyday
and in everyway. Those that are empowered and lead in life's pathway by
the nature and Spirit of truth and liberty are the sons of God.

Hey! This is F.A.I.T.H--W.O.R.K.S. And the faith of Jesus Christ in
you and me as human instruments is no 'stronger' than your commitment
and ability to stagger not at the promises of God in unbelief, and your
uncompromising allegiance to Jesus Christ everyday and in everyway. This
is a gift, and the gift, or sword is no powerful than the hand that
holds it.

You need to get that 'broken cistern' repaired, and get that mud-hole
water out so it can hold the "clear water of life" in your life.

Gene Austi

[Michael F. Blume]

I can see now why many would resist exchanged life teaching which
stresses life without sinning. Such resistance is based upon
faulty understanding.

Christ's death takes enemies of God and reconciles them due to
their acceptance of that death. It removes all our past livers
and actually moves God to FORGET out iniquities.

That is the Gospel for the sinner.

But exchanged life is the Gospel for the Christian, if you get my
drift.

Exchanged life concentrates on the fact that though the death
removed and annihilated our old man, the LIFE OF CHRIST goes even
beyond that and has to do with our behavior. Paul said we must
present ourselves as those ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, for we already are
resurrected with Christ and then to present our members to Him as
instruments of righteousness. Now these are our bodily members.
In other words, BEHAVIOR and USE of our bodily members is in view
here.

And, as mentioned before, Romans 7 speaks about DOING good versus
DOING evil and Paul's desire to be free from DOING evil. This
issue has nothing to do with trying to get saved. We who are the
targets of this truth are already saved. But OUR BEHAVIOR is in
view here.

DEATH, according to Romans 5 and chapter 6, too, of Christ removes
the old enemy-life of sin.

BUT LIFE OF CHRIST (resurrection life) is the NEXT STEP and GOES
BEYOND THAT. You are stuck on the DEATH alone, and need to move
onto the LIFE.

Notice the sequence in chapters 5 and 6 of Romans beginning at
DEATH of CHrist and MOVING ON TO LIFE OF CHRIST.

[Bart Goddard]

Joseph W. Gaut wrote:

>build a case to attack the whole concept of 'exchange' when you
admittedly
>don't really know what the concept is about at all. I wonder why you
>are so ready to tear something apart based on such limited
understanding.
>Fair question?

It's "half fair". I suppose it's OK for you to wonder at my motivation,

and, it's fine with me if you want to ask and I'll sure do my best to
answer. But as to "fair"....not really. Whatever my secret motives,
the objections raised (ought to) stand on their own. I don't think it's

really "fair" to try to make the whole argument ad hominem.

But to answer the question, there are really three things that ruffle my

scales here. One is the "closer to God" statement. Another is the
name "exchange life". The third is the conglomeration of responses
we've received since the original post.

>Then the heart of your argument is based on the 'closer to God' comment

>about which you write volumes and you appear to want to stay with your
> predecided position about 'exchange life' despite comments from
several
>that this is not works righteousness under some new guise, but simply
> the straight forward teaching given by the apostle Paul.

While I have to admit, a doctrine with the name "exchange life" is
going to have a tough time redeeming itself with me, but there's
no reason to call me position "predecided." Indeed, I've been
around the block a few times, and I've heard these sorts of
doctrines before. The first two clues were good hints at where
the doctrine was coming from. Now Blume and Cohen have
verified it. I really do know what's going on and I have real
objections.

>Bart, you're just replaying your favorite record. There's a lot of
>truth to it, but it is hardly relevant here.

On the contrary, this is exactly "the thing". "You guys" are
committing the same error the disciples did. No matter
how many times Jesus explained to them that His kingdom
was not of this world, they still didn't get it: "NOW will
you kick the Romans out of the country and establish your
kingdom?"

My kids do the same thing. "Can I go to the
movies?" "Well, if you spend all your money tonight,
you won't have enough to buy your sister a birthday
present. We have to learn to perservere and be good
stewards.....blah..blah...[all kinds of Dad-lecture junk]
...." "Ok, Dad, I see. So....can I go?"

And here in the "exchange life" doctrine, we have, once
again, "Ah, NOW we can fulfill the Law."

>Have we taken
>on the nature of Christ, which is infinite in its goodness, or have
>we opted for religiosity having the form of godliness while denying the

>power thereof?

Neither. You might make a case for a statement like "We're in
the process of being made Christ-like", provided you define your
terms carefully, but to say we already have it is jumping ahead
exactly one life. It comes down to a matter of verb tense.
You say:

>Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth
many
>sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as some
>assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is
"Christ
>in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our
self-nature
> truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or is that just
>beautiful metaphor?

False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
"IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.

Indeed, Blume wants a "verse-by-verse" delineation of Romans 6 from
me, showing where the exchange life doctrine is wrong. He's not apt
to get it, because the objection is much more global. Namely, we're
divided over whether to read Romans horizontally or vertically.
I.e., is Romans a _chronological_ picuture of the Christian life,
(horizontal)
or is it a cross-section of any day in the Christian life? Many of us
opt for "vertical" because Paul writes the whole book in the present
tense. All of the "stages" which you "horizontal" people have the
Christian growing through, are actually experienced simultaneously
by all Christians at all times.

So verse by verse, all I really have to say is "this is in present tense
for
Paul".

>We don't have to agree on what the fruit is for the above scripture to
>be true. And by saying that I'm presupposing good necessarily means
>'old good,' I suspect that you did not understand my comments on
freedom
>of will at all.

Of course the Scripture is "true". But you read it and then conclude
"without Christ we can _do_ nothing." Already the "fruit" is moved
off of "having faith" to "doing." Further, later on you indeed lapse
into "old good":

>Our realization of this in true heart faith and confession of this
truth
>works wonders in seeing the Victory over the desires of the flesh.

Right here we see that "victory" means "victory over the plain
old violations we've been committing since Moses." Over and
over you say things like:

>That is absolutely NOT the bottom line of what I am saying. With His
life
>exchanged for yours, the old external code and living by mental
principles
>of Christianity (equivalent to such code) is perceived as utterly
>destroyed at Calvary and the fruit of the victory actualized in the
life
>of the believer.

You banish the external code to the nether reaches in one breath,
and then resurrect it by saying "victory". But one is left wondering
"victory over what?" And the answer is "over sin". "Sins against
what?" THE OLD LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.
Such teachings as "exchange life" have, in my experience always
boiled down to exactly this doublespeak: Keep talking about
"victory" without paying attention to the other team (Satan,
our flesh and the world.)

But if you have "victory" you must have had an opponent.

>You simply affirm that Luther didn't glimpse the exchange life.

Sure he did. He just had the astuteness to realize that it
comes _after_ our death and resurrection. If the "exchange
life" had the qualities you claim for it, then there would
be no need for our death and resurrection.

>And never will you hear me say that
>the Christian is to live a life of old-good works. That is simply
alien
>to my thinking.

And yet a Christian _should_ live a life of old-good works.

>The truth is that our old nature was permanently dealt with at Calvary.

So? The vaccine has been applied. It takes time for the cure to
take effect. Indeed, our deaths are _part of_ the cure.

>Yet we are called to be overcomers. And
>the only way we can overcome is if Christ in us does the 'doing'. As
sons,
>we are to be like Him; speaking what the Father would have us say and
doing
>what the Father would have us do. How else would one who is in His
image
>perform?

Overcome _what_? Christ does _what_? Perform _what_? The answer you
give "doing what the Father would have us do." That's old-good.
New-good
is having Christ's blood applied to us.

>>I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing
>>its ugly, damning head.
>
>It doesn't have to if we perceive and accept that He has indeed
exchanged
>His life for ours. We don't walk in truth we don't accept.

I note that the leaven spreads. Now, in order to achieve this
"victory", regardless of what Christ has accomplished, we
must still "perceive and accept" a doctrine. The act of _our_
will is the a priori condition set upon achieving this victory.
We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is
able to do nothing until we commit the intellectual act of
"percieving and accepting" the doctrine. (So passes the
glory of the free-willers.

The real smoke-alarm here is that the exchange life
doctrine treats the whole of "Jesus Christ and Him
crucified" as an interesting, but now past and no longer
useless event. "Sure, Uncle Alex left me a billion dollars,
and, heck, I still have his picture over the fireplace, so
don't say I don't honor him. But now the money's mine,
and I'll invest it how I please." That's the "horizontal way".
Each chapter of Romans becomes useless as soon as you
get past that "stage".

Luther's way of living in all "stages" at all times keeps
"Jesus Christ and Him crucified" at the center. By
daily contrition and repentence, we drown the Old
Adam in our Baptisms and turn away from sin and
towards God. In this way the new-good is daily applied,
and _as a consequence_ old-good also happens.

Bart

[Bart Goddard]

Michael F. Blume wrote:

>The Main point in this teaching is that one has all one will ever get
due to
>the blood of Christ shed on Calvary and due to God's work in that
event.

And there's the heart of my objection. I would say, rather that
_we are getting_ all one will ever get etc. You want to move
from justification (narrow sense) to sanctification (narrow sense).
This is the "horizontal" reading of Romans. In contrast,
sanctification
is acheived in me, _by means of_ justification. Which means a
_daily_ return to the foot of the cross, a facing of sin and need for
justification, and a turn away from it (the sin). It's all done
_with the Cross_, in an _ongoing_ sense. Baptism is a symbol
of our sharing of Christ's death. Peter said "repent and be
Baptized", and this is exactly what "life under the Cross"
is about. Daily, we return to our Baptisms (which is to
return to Christ's death, which is to come to the foot of
the Cross) and repent (which means turn from the bad to
the good.)

>It is like having one million dollars in the bank put there by
>a man of wealth.

No, it's like a wealthy man putting you on allowance. You
might think you're rich, and live like you're rich, but you're
only living on the largess of the wealthy man. Daily you
return for your daily bread.

>Nothing bothered Paul. NOW I CALL THAT "VICTORY."

I call "victory" being in Heaven after the resurrection. You
admit that you still sin. You're not enjoying "victory" yet.

>So, Bart, are you saying this does not mean that we can live above
sinning?

Prepositions are tricky, sly words ("above"). But at best guess,
I am saying that this verse does not mean that we can live "above"
sinning. It rather means that the new life in us _is rising_ above sin.

>Roma 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
should
>obey it in the lusts thereof.
>
>He said this as a logical conclusion to the truths he presented in the
>previous verses.

And yet there is no way to logically conclude that one day a guy
just wakes up and kicks all sin out of his life. This life is the
battle.
The next is the victory.

>and here is the clincher... TO PRACTICAL LIVING, because

But his directions for the "practical" side involve "death" and
"baptism". Just keep going in Romans:

Rom 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?

>And if freedom from sin is a reference to PRACTICAL LIVING, then
>how can it not refer to LIVING ABOVE SIN and NOT SINNING?

Because sin separates us from God. The practical aspect is
to return to the forgiveness offered on the Cross, so that we
can be continually reconciled, and thereby avoid dispair,
and thereby be renewed. Daily.

>Forget about getting more grace by sinning more!

Nobody thinks this. You're beating a dead dog.

>ANd that is why I say and maintain that we can live
>without sinning.

Then why _doesn't_ anyone live without sinning? You can
hardly call it "practical" if, in "practice", nobody can actually
do it.

>With all this evidence in Paul's writings, I fail to
>understand how you can deny that we can have grace to live above ever
>sinning.

How about the simple facts that 1. Nobody does this and 2. You
change the verb tense in all of Paul's writings in order to construct
your
evidence.

>There is no WORK to perform. Just taking God at His Word. God did the
work
>way back at the start of your conversion.
>
>What is so "works plus faith" about that? It is only faith. Faith
alone.

It's "works plus faith" because it makes faith itself into a work. In
order
to maintain Sola Fida, you have to pitch Sola Gratia. "Taking God at
His Word" is obedience to the First Commandment. And obedience
to commandments are _works_. And this is where over-focusing on
the secular life always leads.

[Bart Goddard]

Clayton Austin wrote:

>Faith-works can be defined as receiving the revelation of Jesus Christ
>and power to become the sons of God.

It _can_ be defined that way, but it's a horrible abuse of the
word "faith". Indeed, it's nothing more than a way to wrap
the pharisee-ism of works in a candy coating to see if you
can get Christians to swallow it. (You guys are always after
power. )

> We become the sons of God by receiving the Son of God in
>the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty.

No, we become sons of God because He adopts us in
Baptism. See, my religion (Christianity) teaches that
_God_ does the saving. Compare this to your religion
(legalism) in which man decides to save himself.

> Hey! This is F.A.I.T.H--W.O.R.K.S.

Hey! This is "Tashlan" (see the Chronicles of Narnia). You're
trying to mix two incompatible religions here. Paul says plainly
that the two ideas contradict each other. So try as you might,
you'll never make that hyphen holy.

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more
grace: otherwise work is no more work.

As soon as you make it "works", it's no longer "by grace through faith."

> And the faith of Jesus Christ in you and me as human instruments

> is no 'stronger' than your commitment..

Let's hope just the opposite is true, or we're all lost. Don't you
dare put the burden of my salvation on my back, for it won't
bear it, and further, Jesus already has.

>sword is no powerful than the hand that holds it.

So the sword of the Word of God is no more powerful
than the frail human that preaches it? Try getting your
doctrine from Scripture rather than from over stretches
analogies.

>You need to get that 'broken cistern' repaired, and get that mud-hole
>water out so it can hold the "clear water of life" in your life.

I'm not the one who's thoroughly inundated with the leaven
of the pharisees. My Gospel is pure: Salvation by grace
through faith for Christ's sake. Yours is polluted with
works righteousness.

Bart

[Alex P. Cohen]

>>Then the heart of your argument is based on the 'closer to God' comment
>>about which you write volumes and you appear to want to stay with your
>>predecided position about 'exchange life' despite comments from
>>several
>>that this is not works righteousness under some new guise, but simply
>>the straight forward teaching given by the apostle Paul.

>While I have to admit, a doctrine with the name "exchange life" is
>going to have a tough time redeeming itself with me, but there's
>no reason to call me position "predecided." Indeed, I've been
>around the block a few times, and I've heard these sorts of
>doctrines before. The first two clues were good hints at where
>the doctrine was coming from. Now Blume and Cohen have
>verified it. I really do know what's going on and I have real
>objections.

Bart,

Since I haven't contributed to this thread, please tell me how you
figure I have "now verified" something being discussed in it. Thanks.

Alex

[Bob Felts]

Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut wrote:
>
[...]

>
> >Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth
> >many sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as some
> >assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is
> >"Christ in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our
> >self-nature truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or is
> >that just beautiful metaphor?
>
> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
> The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.

But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.
We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The
"present tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and
the "future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially
wrong.

[...]

>
> >We don't have to agree on what the fruit is for the above scripture to be
> >true. And by saying that I'm presupposing good necessarily means 'old
> >good,' I suspect that you did not understand my comments on freedom of
> >will at all.
>
> Of course the Scripture is "true". But you read it and then conclude
> "without Christ we can _do_ nothing." Already the "fruit" is moved off of
> "having faith" to "doing." Further, later on you indeed lapse into "old
> good":
>
> >Our realization of this in true heart faith and confession of this
> >truth works wonders in seeing the Victory over the desires of the flesh.
>
> Right here we see that "victory" means "victory over the plain old
> violations we've been committing since Moses." Over and over you say
> things like:
>
> >That is absolutely NOT the bottom line of what I am saying. With His
> >life exchanged for yours, the old external code and living by mental
> >principles of Christianity (equivalent to such code) is perceived as
> >utterly destroyed at Calvary and the fruit of the victory actualized in
> >the life of the believer.
>
> You banish the external code to the nether reaches in one breath, and then
> resurrect it by saying "victory". But one is left wondering "victory over
> what?" And the answer is "over sin". "Sins against what?" THE OLD
> LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.

I don't think this equation is valid, Bart. Sin was in the world before
the Law was given; therefore it is possible to not be under the Law and
yet sin. For example, "for whatever is not of faith is sin".

> Such teachings as "exchange life" have, in my experience always boiled
> down to exactly this doublespeak: Keep talking about "victory" without
> paying attention to the other team (Satan, our flesh and the world.)

Agreed. This is the absense of the "future tense" part of our
redemption.

[...]

> >Yet we are called to be overcomers. And the only way we can overcome is
> >if Christ in us does the 'doing'. As sons, we are to be like Him;
> >speaking what the Father would have us say and doing what the Father
> >would have us do. How else would one who is in His image perform?
>
> Overcome _what_? Christ does _what_? Perform _what_? The answer you give
> "doing what the Father would have us do." That's old-good. New-good is
> having Christ's blood applied to us.

I don't agree that "doing what the Father would have us do" can be
compartmentalized into "old-good" vs. "new-good".

New-good is not just having Christ's blood applied to us, but also
having His life in us. And because His life is in us, the command "be
what you are (i.e. a new creation in Christ") does not refer to
old-good. It is a commmand that is applicable to Christians, without
dragging in the Law.

>
> >>I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing its ugly, damning
> >>head.
> >
> >It doesn't have to if we perceive and accept that He has indeed
> >exchanged His life for ours. We don't walk in truth we don't accept.
>
> I note that the leaven spreads. Now, in order to achieve this "victory",
> regardless of what Christ has accomplished, we must still "perceive and
> accept" a doctrine. The act of _our_ will is the a priori condition set
> upon achieving this victory.

Not necessarily. God changes our wills through the working of His
Spirit through His Word. When "Be what you are -- a new creation in
Christ" is proclaimed, God works to conform our wills, and our
understanding, to His.

> We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is able to do
> nothing until we commit the intellectual act of "percieving and accepting"

> the doctrine. (So passes the glory of the free-willers.)

I'm not a free willer, and I think you present a false alternative. It
is important, if we are to mature in Christ, that we understand the full
meaning of "be what you are." But our not understanding this truth does
not limit Christ's ability to work in us to bring us to the point where
we can understand it.

>
> The real smoke-alarm here is that the exchange life doctrine treats the
> whole of "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" as an interesting, but now past
> and no longer useless event. "Sure, Uncle Alex left me a billion dollars,
> and, heck, I still have his picture over the fireplace, so don't say I
> don't honor him. But now the money's mine, and I'll invest it how I
> please." That's the "horizontal way". Each chapter of Romans becomes
> useless as soon as you get past that "stage".

Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true. When
understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry
my cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.

[...]

__|_____
| Bob Felts
| wr...@stablecross.com
| http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3

[Michael F. Blume]

The major error opposers to Exchanged Living make is to
relegate death as ongoing and resurrection as ongoing. But
Paul says otherwise in every single instance. Death is once
and for all. And we died once and for all with Christ to
ever LIVE (liveth). NEVER is death said to be ongoing with
Paul. Never.

Bart Goddard wrote:

> But to answer the question, there are really three things that ruffle my
> scales here. One is the "closer to God" statement.

That is a valid point of hesitation, but it is not true that
we can get closer to God. We are as close as can be
already. Many do not know that though. Exchanged life does
not propose we can get CLOSER to God.

> >Then the heart of your argument is based on the 'closer to God' comment
> >about which you write volumes and you appear to want to stay with your
> > predecided position about 'exchange life' despite comments from
> several
> >that this is not works righteousness under some new guise, but simply
> > the straight forward teaching given by the apostle Paul.
>
> While I have to admit, a doctrine with the name "exchange life" is
> going to have a tough time redeeming itself with me, but there's
> no reason to call me position "predecided."

A title of a doctrine is not as important as the doctrine
itself.

But exchanged Life does teach works being excluded.

> Indeed, I've been
> around the block a few times, and I've heard these sorts of
> doctrines before. The first two clues were good hints at where
> the doctrine was coming from. Now Blume and Cohen have
> verified it. I really do know what's going on and I have real
> objections.

Not a good reason to doubt a doctrine, since you do not
understand what I have proposed in the past anyway, as
evidenced by your supposition claims of what I believe,
despite my speech to the contrary.

> >Bart, you're just replaying your favorite record. There's a lot of
> >truth to it, but it is hardly relevant here.
>
> On the contrary, this is exactly "the thing". "You guys" are
> committing the same error the disciples did. No matter
> how many times Jesus explained to them that His kingdom
> was not of this world, they still didn't get it: "NOW will
> you kick the Romans out of the country and establish your
> kingdom?"

Who said the Kingdom was of this world? You are distorting
what Jesus said and meant, and applying it to the thought
that today in this life we cannot have victory over sin to
the degree we claimed.

Physical dominions and palaces and rules are not the issue
here. Paul said we can reign in life by one man's
obedience.

> And here in the "exchange life" doctrine, we have, once
> again, "Ah, NOW we can fulfill the Law."

NO. 1,000 times NO. Jesus fulfilled the law IN US.

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

Roma 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.

We do not fulfill it, but it is fulfilled in us.

Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Jesus fulfilled it in Himself and in us.

(Sigh) I wish you would stop and ask us specifically what we
believe in little details which you seem to jump to
conclude.

> >Have we taken
> >on the nature of Christ, which is infinite in its goodness, or have
> >we opted for religiosity having the form of godliness while denying the
>
> >power thereof?
>
> Neither. You might make a case for a statement like "We're in
> the process of being made Christ-like", provided you define your
> terms carefully, but to say we already have it is jumping ahead
> exactly one life. It comes down to a matter of verb tense.
> You say:
>
> >Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth
> many
> >sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as some
> >assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is
> "Christ
> >in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our
> self-nature
> > truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or is that just
> >beautiful metaphor?
>
> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
> The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.

Nothing in the entire New Testament hints at continual
crucifixion or future crucifixion with Christ. Big error to
think different.

Every reference explains it as PAST TENSE>

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

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

Crucified.

Dead.

Not crucifying or dying.

Gala 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;

yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave himself for me.

Crucified. Past tense.

Roma 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.

Dead to law by the Body of Christ. Not dying.

Never does Paul use present tense in dying or crucifying.
Never.

> Indeed, Blume wants a "verse-by-verse" delineation of Romans 6 from
> me, showing where the exchange life doctrine is wrong. He's not apt
> to get it, because the objection is much more global. Namely, we're
> divided over whether to read Romans horizontally or vertically.

NO. You feel we look at it horizontally alone. It is
both. Without vertical reliance on the Spirit and Christ's
death as our deaths, then there is no horizontal experience
manifested. Another indication you are not getting the
point.

> I.e., is Romans a _chronological_ picuture of the Christian life,
> (horizontal)
> or is it a cross-section of any day in the Christian life? Many of us
> opt for "vertical" because Paul writes the whole book in the present
> tense.

A huge misconception of the use of present tense. Paul used
pure rhetoric in usage of the present tense to show what it
was like when he struggled in the past in that manner.

We know this because of 7:25 through to 8:2. The bondage
and captivity he discussed n chapter 7 is seen as being
turned into deliverance through Christ by God in verse 25
and described in 8:2. One has to chop 8:1-2 away from the
whole thought in chapter 7 to say that there is no present
deliverance from the struggle of bondage in chapter 7.

> All of the "stages" which you "horizontal" people have the
> Christian growing through, are actually experienced simultaneously
> by all Christians at all times.

Not true at all. Paul even said that when he indicated the
Romans did not know why they were crucified with Christ and
then indicated that the life of new walking is only
experienced if you know that you were crucified with Christ
for the purpose of being delivered from sinful living. (Ro.
6:4-6). Without knowing that, one will expect to sin, as
you do, and will not exert faith for anything greater. And
according to your faith, so be it unto you. That does not
say that you can believe for anything nonsensical and have
it. But Paul distinctly said we must KNOW we are dead to be
freed from sin in behavioural aspects though sin still
exists in the flesh.

> So verse by verse, all I really have to say is "this is in present tense
> for Paul".

And you therefore are seen to miss the entire point of
rhetorical use of present tense, and decapitate ro. 8:1-2
from the scenario.

> >We don't have to agree on what the fruit is for the above scripture to
> >be true. And by saying that I'm presupposing good necessarily means
> >'old good,' I suspect that you did not understand my comments on
> freedom
> >of will at all.
>
> Of course the Scripture is "true". But you read it and then conclude
> "without Christ we can _do_ nothing." Already the "fruit" is moved
> off of "having faith" to "doing." Further, later on you indeed lapse
> into "old good":

Was not Romans 6:13 a reference to the DOING of good as
opposed to the DOING of that which Paul FORMERLY was not
able to do in chapter 7? Are the chapters separated.

You indicated before a good idea of the death of Christ but
failed to note the delineation of the death and life of
Christ as progressive blessings. The LIFE of Christ speaks
beyond the death and Paul in fact says the death occurred to
move us on to the life. It is like Israel delivered from
Egypt. That is your stopping point. There is not a "He
brought us out from thence to bring us in" in your doctrine,
other than going into Heaven after this life. Truth is
there is life after death in this life. You stop at death
of Christ and do not move into the life of CHrist as
affecting behavioral Christianity.

Death renders us righteous, but faith in His life renders
our behavior righteous.

> >Our realization of this in true heart faith and confession of this
> truth
> >works wonders in seeing the Victory over the desires of the flesh.
>
> Right here we see that "victory" means "victory over the plain
> old violations we've been committing since Moses." Over and
> over you say things like:

Not true. I see you still refuse to really understand what
we believe, and assume you already know, without reading us
closely. It is victory over sin, the world and Satan. And
so much victory -- "indeed" victory -- that it affects our
behavior. You cannot unconsciously excuse carnal behaviour
by saying there is no behavioral blessing n the Life of
Christ in the here and now.

> >That is absolutely NOT the bottom line of what I am saying. With His
> life
> >exchanged for yours, the old external code and living by mental
> principles
> >of Christianity (equivalent to such code) is perceived as utterly
> >destroyed at Calvary and the fruit of the victory actualized in the
> life
> >of the believer.
>
> You banish the external code to the nether reaches in one breath,
> and then resurrect it by saying "victory".

You fail realize that, simply because people today do not
consciously exert effort to keep MOSES' law, that does not
mean they are doing the same thing in principle when they
feel they must unintentionally twist the New Testament
descriptions of a righteous life and render them
characteristics of a person that are found at the end of
long life of self making self attain such behaviour.

Joe rightly describes a life of external code book living
and a self-effort to make oneself righteous in behaviour.
It is in man's blood, since the fruit of the knowledge of
good and evil was injected into us, that we try to
congregate all the factual information of what is good and
what is evil so that we can avoid the bad and will to do the
good, as though all we needed was information. God wanted
us to have LIFE. Adam was a vessel. An expresser. And
LIFE is what he was created to express. God's life. We are
temples, and earthen vessels. We are meant to "house".

So actually exchanged life is a misnomer anyway. It should
be Received Life teaching, implying that we are filled with
knowledge of good and evil due to Adam's sin, and we are
prone to seek information alone and make ourselves good, and
must be destroyed as far as that old state is concerned
through Christ's death to thereby receive His Life which was
originally intended to be in us. And then we express that
Life. God is once again manifesting in flesh when we
receive His life and let HIm live and abide in us. When He
does something there is no sin in it. It is Christ, not I,
Paul said.

> But one is left wondering
> "victory over what?" And the answer is "over sin". "Sins against
> what?" THE OLD LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.
> Such teachings as "exchange life" have, in my experience always
> boiled down to exactly this doublespeak: Keep talking about
> "victory" without paying attention to the other team (Satan,
> our flesh and the world.)

It is victory against all. All has been defeated at the
cross. Appropriate that victory through spiritual
knowledge. And when we KNOW the truth we will be made
free. My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.
Know ye not?

> >You simply affirm that Luther didn't glimpse the exchange life.
>
> Sure he did. He just had the astuteness to realize that it
> comes _after_ our death and resurrection.

Which Paul said is true for every true believer in the here
and now.

You, and it seems Luther, missed the capitalized words:

Roma 6:2 God forbid. How shall >>WE, THAT ARE ARE DEAD TO
SIN<<, live any longer therein?

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

Roma 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.

Roma 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**:
Roma 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.
Roma 6:7 For ***HE THAT IS DEAD*** is **FREED** from sin.
Roma 6:8 Now ***IF WE BE DEAD WITH CHRIST***, we believe

that we shall also live with him:
Roma 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead
dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but
in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Roma 6:11 Likewise **RECKON YE ALSO YOURSELVES TO BE DEAD
INDEED UNTO SIN, BUT ALIVE UNTO GOD** through Jesus Christ
our Lord.

The life is resurrection life.

> If the "exchange
> life" had the qualities you claim for it, then there would
> be no need for our death and resurrection.

We are dead so far as God is concerned and our deaths of the
body are termed as sleep by the Lord and the disicples. Our
non-redeemed bodies will simply wear out. But eternal life
is already in us, and we got it by faith in Christ that we
died with Christ.

You must feel we have no eternal life yet. That is outward
stress of viewpoint, looking at the physical body and the
physical resurrection as "The" resurrection. We are already
risen with Him.

> >And never will you hear me say that
> >the Christian is to live a life of old-good works. That is simply
> alien
> >to my thinking.
>
> And yet a Christian _should_ live a life of old-good works.

It occurs as a natural result of Christ expressing Himself
through us, not as result of an effort to do them. And
faith in NOT EXPECTING TO SIN ANYMORE cleans out the
pipelines of our lives and allows His Spirit to flow freely.

> >The truth is that our old nature was permanently dealt with at Calvary.
>
> So? The vaccine has been applied. It takes time for the cure to
> take effect. Indeed, our deaths are _part of_ the cure.

Death is past tense. Never present and never future.

Be consistent and stick with your own rules that viewpoint
of tense is vital.

> >Yet we are called to be overcomers. And
> >the only way we can overcome is if Christ in us does the 'doing'. As
> sons,
> >we are to be like Him; speaking what the Father would have us say and
> doing
> >what the Father would have us do. How else would one who is in His
> image
> >perform?
>
> Overcome _what_? Christ does _what_? Perform _what_? The answer you
> give "doing what the Father would have us do." That's old-good.
> New-good
> is having Christ's blood applied to us.

That is all???? It is truly great, but not all!! Nothing
supersedes it, but it is not all!!!

> >>I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing
> >>its ugly, damning head.
> >
> >It doesn't have to if we perceive and accept that He has indeed
> exchanged
> >His life for ours. We don't walk in truth we don't accept.
>
> I note that the leaven spreads. Now, in order to achieve this
> "victory", regardless of what Christ has accomplished, we
> must still "perceive and accept" a doctrine.

Act of faith not will.

> The act of _our_
> will is the a priori condition set upon achieving this victory.

Wrong. Act of faith in having a mind renewed, as Ro. 12:2
says, and by knowing and appropriating that truth as Ro.
8:11 says. RECKON.

> We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is
> able to do nothing until we commit the intellectual act of
> "percieving and accepting" the doctrine.

We are labourers together with Him.

> (So passes the glory of the free-willers.
>
> The real smoke-alarm here is that the exchange life
> doctrine treats the whole of "Jesus Christ and Him
> crucified" as an interesting, but now past and no longer
> useless event.

Totally a manifestation of complete lack of understanding of
this teaching. Why? THe whole point is that the exchanged
life is possible THROUGH THE CRUCIFIXION. The crux is that
we are crucified with Him. He was crucified as us. So if
we were crucified WITH Him, and He was crucified way back,
then we are already crucified. SImple acceptance of that is
what the Gospel is all about. And if we are crucified with
Him already, then we are also risen with Him. But like
yourself, many do not know that yet. And you are Paul's
target of teaching in Romans 6.

You are unaware that if you were truly baptized into
Christ's death that you are already dead. His experience
became yours. And God goes all the way with a thing and we
must see that we are also risen with Him. Romans 6:8-10
CLEARLY says that Christ progressed to resurrection life
after death, and verse 11 says IT IS PAST for us and we must
reckon it so. Change the mindset. Renew your mind. Accept
this fact as God sees it factual. Do not look at your
physical body and say, "I am yet alive and not crucified".
You contradict yourself with such mingling of future
crucifixion or present crucifixion, and also contradict Ro.
6:11.

> "Sure, Uncle Alex left me a billion dollars,
> and, heck, I still have his picture over the fireplace, so
> don't say I don't honor him. But now the money's mine,
> and I'll invest it how I please." That's the "horizontal way".

Not at all. BOTH Vertical in every sense, as well. It is
continual reliance upon the Spirit. Constant abiding in Him
(John 15). Ever increasing faith.

> Luther's way of living in all "stages" at all times keeps
> "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" at the center.

How else can we live exchanged living? The cross is our
core item of faith. Without that we can do nothing.
Tapping into that truth is how we abide in Him and bear
fruit. What is the fruit anyway?

And Luther missed, if you are a representation of his
thoughts, the truth of past crucifixion and past
resurrection. Christ died ONCE. You stretch it out over
our entire lives and say we are dying. Nothing says that in
the Bible. You misunderstand Romans 7's tense of the
present, fail to see the rhetoric used for the sake of
argument, and make the death ongoing.

The following says death is sudden and instant and once, and
resurrection is sudden and done, but resurrection living
goes on.....

Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but
in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our
Lord.

> By
> daily contrition and repentence, we drown the Old
> Adam in our Baptisms and turn away from sin and
> towards God.

Huge error. Contrary to Romans 6:10-11.

Fact is we daily recall our deaths already occurred and
daily remind ourselves we are dead.

Colo 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead.
Colo 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together
with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Being dead, not dying.

[Bart Goddard]

Alex P. Cohen wrote:

>Bart,
>
>Since I haven't contributed to this thread, please tell me how you
>figure I have "now verified" something being discussed in it. Thanks.

Perhaps you don't know your own strength...?? Actually it just
boils down to the fact that you and Clayton Austin have the same
initials and me brian are behaving bad beings the semester's ending.

A vigntillion pardons.

Bart

[Alex P. Cohen]

>> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
>> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
>> The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.

>But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
>only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
>present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
>that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.
>We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The
>"present tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and
>the "future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially
>wrong.

[...]

Bob,

There is but one "tense": the eternal NOW.

"Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)

We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
view things as they REALLY are.

Jesus said,

"Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'?
I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already
white for harvest." (John 4:35)

Would you say that Jesus was "partially wrong"?

Paul said,

"For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)

Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?

Alex

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 9 Dec 1997, Bart Goddard wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut wrote:
>
> It's "half fair". I suppose it's OK for you to wonder at my motivation,
> and, it's fine with me if you want to ask and I'll sure do my best to
> answer. But as to "fair"....not really. Whatever my secret motives,
> the objections raised (ought to) stand on their own. I don't think it's
> really "fair" to try to make the whole argument ad hominem.

The whole argument is not ad hominem; only part of it. :-)

> But to answer the question, there are really three things that ruffle my

> scales here. One is the "closer to God" statement. Another is the
> name "exchange life". The third is the conglomeration of responses
> we've received since the original post.

1) It has been adequately explained that the 'closer to God' statement
has nothing to do with "exchange life."

2) A rose by any other name is still a rose.

3) It's nice others are interested.

> While I have to admit, a doctrine with the name "exchange life" is
> going to have a tough time redeeming itself with me, but there's

> no reason to call me position "predecided." Indeed, I've been

> around the block a few times, and I've heard these sorts of
> doctrines before. The first two clues were good hints at where
> the doctrine was coming from. Now Blume and Cohen have
> verified it. I really do know what's going on and I have real
> objections.

That Blume and Cohen agree signals you to disagree? Maybe we should
all send anonymous posts and go entirely on the basis of what's said.

> >Bart, you're just replaying your favorite record. There's a lot of
> >truth to it, but it is hardly relevant here.
>
> On the contrary, this is exactly "the thing". "You guys" are
> committing the same error the disciples did. No matter
> how many times Jesus explained to them that His kingdom
> was not of this world, they still didn't get it: "NOW will
> you kick the Romans out of the country and establish your
> kingdom?"

Bart, it would be great if communication were so simple and we could
immediately fathom all the nuances of what the other fellow truly means.
But your bold statement registers on my barometer in the blue zone,
indicating that you've a distance to go before you fully grasp what is
being said. Truly the Kingdom of God is not of this world. The concept of
letting Jesus live in us and through us while dead to self is not
motivated by any earthly kingdom building. The promise is that we will be
hated by many for His name's sake. That's not the way to build kingdoms
in this world. If Jesus is truly expressing Himself through 'someone', the
world will despise that 'someone'. That, in fact, is one litmus test for
the validity of the teaching. The Kingdom always remains within. This
inward reality requires the ruling and reigning of Christ to deserve the
name Kingdom of God.

> And here in the "exchange life" doctrine, we have, once
> again, "Ah, NOW we can fulfill the Law."

The Exchange Life is not a doctrine in the sense of being a set of
principles. That would indeed be law. Rather it is recognition that THE
Principle has taken up residence in our heart and is ruling and reigning
from His throne in our heart. In this, the truth that Jesus has fulfilled
the Law blossoms forth. Only in the sense that Jesus is the Law written
on our hearts and minds, Life Himself flowing through us, is Law involved,
and that not in anyway as the embodiment of any external set of
principles, rules, catechisms, or creeds which are but greatly inadequate
and often distorted shadow of the One who is the Law. The direction is
from WITHIN, not from WITHOUT where earthly empires are found.

> >Have we taken
> >on the nature of Christ, which is infinite in its goodness, or have
> >we opted for religiosity having the form of godliness while denying the
> >power thereof?

> Neither. You might make a case for a statement like "We're in
> the process of being made Christ-like", provided you define your
> terms carefully, but to say we already have it is jumping ahead
> exactly one life.

You are correct in saying we jump ahead one life. But the jumping is in
the here and now. We have gone from death to newness of life. Indeed we
receive the Life of Christ and that NOW. To confess that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh can and should carry with it the realization that not
only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh provided by Mary but that He now
comes in our flesh. We are but vessels designed to hold the Spirit of
Jesus. Paul travailed until those to whom he was ministering came forth
in the image of Christ -- in the NOW. The call is not just to emulate
righteousness, but to let Righteousness truly live in us by the only One
who is Righteous.

It is given to man once to die and then the judgment. We were co-crucified
with Jesus at Calvary, killed off, finding this one-time death. And we
were judged. Our old nature was found worthy of death, so it was crucified.
We were dead, we were buried, and we rose again when He arose because we
are found in Him. He is the Resurrection and we have the Resurrection Life
now. We dwell in heavenly places in Him now. He is our life, our only
life.

> It comes down to a matter of verb tense.
> You say:

> >Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth
> many
> >sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as some
> >assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is
> "Christ
> >in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our
> self-nature
> > truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or is that just
> >beautiful metaphor?

You say this is a matter of verb tense. I say it is a matter of faith as
to whether this has happened in your life or is still the future, yet to
ignite when belief melts the bonds. He is the eternal NOW, the I AM.
It happens when we believe. Which tense to you choose for yourself?

> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
> The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.

There is but one Seed of Abraham. It enters our heart and grows. But do
not confuse growth with the 'happening by faith'. The sapling is still a
tree. The sapling doesn't confess that it might be a tree someday. The
sapling is assured of being nothing but a tree. There is no mixed nature
about it. The sapling doesn't work at trying to grow, continually
uprooting itself to test different soils. We don't become 'more of a
Christian' any more than the sapling becomes more of a tree. We simply
mature Christians as the sapling matures into a tree. Three year old Bart
was still Bart.

We can struggle and strive to become more of a Christian, but to where
does this lead? Simply to a losing wrestling match with the flesh.
Instead by faith we recognize what Jesus has done to the flesh, setting
us free to walk in His Spirit and not after the flesh. The flesh will
be with us until we finally shed this mortal space suit in this alien
environment. And sin will dwell in the flesh until then because that's
where sin resides -- not in the Christ nature born of the Seed of Abraham.
And because of this flesh, temptation is scarcely unknown to us.

So what do we do? Say, "Thank you, Jesus, for forgiving my sins which I
find myself powerless to quit doing," or do we find that we have been
given unlimited authority over the flesh, its sin proclivities, and the
evil one, learning what John meant when He praised the young men for
"overcoming" the evil one.

Is there growth involved? Yes. As we grow in the Lord we learn that the
crucifixion has already taken place. Jesus is no longer hanging on the
cross. And our co-crucifixion took place the split instant we believed on
Him. Now we are called on to believe this, something John's young man (I
John) does through faith. We are not still hanging on the cross either.
Though we never lose the focus of the cross, we are to move away from it
and into the fulfillment of the Life Christ wants to live through us by
His resurrection power.

So our battle is one not by fruitless daily wrestling matches with the
unruly flesh, but that of coming to Rest in the One who is the Rest. We
cease from dead works. Dead works are works of the flesh. We cease from
trying to overcome flesh with flesh. We quit trying to live the Christian
life and let Jesus live it through us. Only the Spirit, only the Love of
God -- for God is love -- overcomes the flesh.

The beautiful thing of this is that we don't have to sin any more. Sin
is simply anything not done in faith. So if we walk after the Spirit,
how does sin have any opportunity? But how can we walk after the Spirit
if our belief, if our expectation, is that we must stumble around and
struggle mightily with our flesh in a losing battle against the
proclivity of the flesh? [Now here's your opportunity to take a punch
and say that Gaut is saying he never does anything wrong. I am not
saying that at all. I AM saying that I have seen revelation of wonderful
truth that has given me power to overcome sin and be at peace that I
wouldn't have dreamt possible at one time and that I see the potential
for much more as I grow in God's grace. Perfection is no goal we can
only approach asymptotically. He is our Perfection and thus fully
letting Him live through us is our only approach to perfection.]

But strive to perfect ourselves? Doesn't work. Once the Lord said to
me, "Just who's going to grow the fruit of the Holy Spirit?" It didn't
take me long to realize that in myself I have absolutely no power to
grow a single drop of love, joy, or peace. Only the Holy Spirit can
grow the fruit of the Holy Spirit if we are to bear fruit on our tree.
Christ in us is our ONLY hope of glory.

> Indeed, Blume wants a "verse-by-verse" delineation of Romans 6 from
> me, showing where the exchange life doctrine is wrong. He's not apt
> to get it, because the objection is much more global. Namely, we're
> divided over whether to read Romans horizontally or vertically.

> I.e., is Romans a _chronological_ picuture of the Christian life,
> (horizontal)
> or is it a cross-section of any day in the Christian life? Many of us
> opt for "vertical" because Paul writes the whole book in the present

> tense. All of the "stages" which you "horizontal" people have the

> Christian growing through, are actually experienced simultaneously
> by all Christians at all times.

Blume offers a very intelligent remark with respect to Paul's use of the
present tense by noting how Paul caps off his monologue with Romans 8:1
and 8:2. A little appreciation of poetry simply shows Paul is a skilled
writer who knows his audience and its wrestling match with the flesh.
Then Paul gives the solution. His style I find not unlike the following:

I am out in the woods, you see, when I come face to face with a
big grizzly who has a sore tooth. I grab for a tree limb, my
only puny defense, and I think all is lost. Who shall deliver
me from this monster? Thank God for the sudden appearance of
the Park Ranger and his quick action with the tranquilizer gun.

Paul shows the already converted audience who the Park Ranger is and
what it takes to tranquilize the bear. And he uses present tense. The
problem is a NOW problem. The solution is a NOW solution. We don't
have to wait for death to deliver us from bondage to sin.

> So verse by verse, all I really have to say is "this is in present tense
> for
> Paul".

And the solution is present tense for Paul. And, further, the solution
is the solution of total victory over the flesh.

With respect to the vertical/horizontal perspectives, I urge instead the
examination of considering or examining "inward reality" --> explaining
"external appearances" in lieu of "external appearances" --> attempting to
explain "inward reality". One looks about him and projects circumstances
into structured mental theology when it is far better to look inward and
gain understanding of outward appearances. Truth is always found within.
Thus we look inward and grasp the truth of Gal. 2:20 rather than looking
at the chaos about us and deciding Paul really should have preached
"gradualism".

> >We don't have to agree on what the fruit is for the above scripture to
> >be true. And by saying that I'm presupposing good necessarily means
> >'old good,' I suspect that you did not understand my comments on
> freedom
> >of will at all.
>
> Of course the Scripture is "true". But you read it and then conclude
> "without Christ we can _do_ nothing." Already the "fruit" is moved
> off of "having faith" to "doing." Further, later on you indeed lapse
> into "old good":

I conclude that without Christ we can do nothing because the first Son of
God, the only begotten, said that without the Father He could do nothing.
This has certainly been my experience in the laboratory of life. Victory
has always come by His Spirit, never by self-effort. Are we better than
our Master that we can actually do something not wood, hay, or stubble
apart from Him? And certainly if one has the One who is the source of
Faith living in them and through them, they will be "doing" something
because Christ in them is concerned for a lost and dying world. And what
they are doing is ordered and arranged by God with the motivation coming
by His Spirit.

> >Our realization of this in true heart faith and confession of this
> truth
> >works wonders in seeing the Victory over the desires of the flesh.
>
> Right here we see that "victory" means "victory over the plain
> old violations we've been committing since Moses." Over and
> over you say things like:
>

> >That is absolutely NOT the bottom line of what I am saying. With His
> life
> >exchanged for yours, the old external code and living by mental
> principles
> >of Christianity (equivalent to such code) is perceived as utterly
> >destroyed at Calvary and the fruit of the victory actualized in the
> life
> >of the believer.
>
> You banish the external code to the nether reaches in one breath,

> and then resurrect it by saying "victory". But one is left wondering

> "victory over what?" And the answer is "over sin". "Sins against
> what?" THE OLD LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.
> Such teachings as "exchange life" have, in my experience always
> boiled down to exactly this doublespeak: Keep talking about
> "victory" without paying attention to the other team (Satan,
> our flesh and the world.)

Sin dwells in the flesh. It is a sin nature. The Victory is over
anything not of faith. The Victory is over the flesh. The Victory is
over the evil one. But the VICTORY is that we are finally walking with
Jesus, walking in LOVE. The Victory is not so much what we are set free
from, but what we are set free INTO to realize to the utmost while still
in these flesh bodies. The Victory is more than simply being loved and
forgiven by God, which is certainly precious, but that we may be made
whole. The Victory is that we are able to bear fruit of which others may
partake. The Victory is that love is flowing through us.

And in this Victory we do indeed cease to focus on Satan and his cohorts
and which one of them we may run into around the next corner. Instead, we
simply focus on Jesus. "Keep your eyes upon Jesus and the things of this
world will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace." If we
worry about Satan, flesh strives against flesh. But in focusing on Jesus,
such worry evaporates in the power of the One who has it all under
control. We come to Rest. The mind stayed on Him is kept in perfect
peace.

> But if you have "victory" you must have had an opponent.
>

> >You simply affirm that Luther didn't glimpse the exchange life.
>
> Sure he did. He just had the astuteness to realize that it

> comes _after_ our death and resurrection. If the "exchange

> life" had the qualities you claim for it, then there would
> be no need for our death and resurrection.

Our old nature has already died. Reckon it so. Accept it by faith. And
recall the words of Jesus, "I am the Resurrection and the Life." Having
Him, you have the Resurrection because He is the Resurrection. The day
will come when this mortal carcass will simply have served its purpose and
will be shed. But our life never was found in the carcass. The life is IN
the clay vessel; the life is not the clay. As Paul said, we have this
treasure in earthen vessels.

> >And never will you hear me say that
> >the Christian is to live a life of old-good works. That is simply
> alien
> >to my thinking.
>
> And yet a Christian _should_ live a life of old-good works.

Not at all. The Christian lives by a new NATURE. The works are simply
THE works of the Father through him. You've already related old-good
works to external law, and this is the sense in which I am taking what
you have previously said.

> >The truth is that our old nature was permanently dealt with at Calvary.
>
> So? The vaccine has been applied. It takes time for the cure to
> take effect. Indeed, our deaths are _part of_ the cure.

The funeral has already been held. The vaccine is instantaneous. The
only holdup is lack of belief.

> >Yet we are called to be overcomers. And
> >the only way we can overcome is if Christ in us does the 'doing'. As
> sons,
> >we are to be like Him; speaking what the Father would have us say and
> doing
> >what the Father would have us do. How else would one who is in His
> image
> >perform?
>
> Overcome _what_? Christ does _what_? Perform _what_? The answer you
> give "doing what the Father would have us do." That's old-good.
> New-good
> is having Christ's blood applied to us.

I don't know where you're getting some of this. I really don't. Isn't
the Father still around? Doesn't the Father still want us to do what He
would have us do? What is old or new about that? It is simply GOOD.
Jesus did what the Father would have Him do and the blood of Christ was
fully applied to Him, flowing through every cell of His Body. We are now
the cells of His Body and He has His blood flowing in us. And that blood
directs that we do the will of the Father. It is even 'spiritually
genetic' now. Just as I see the actions of various relatives in my own
children, it is now natural for us to do what the Father would have us do.
He has placed a new heart after His own into us.

> >>I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing
> >>its ugly, damning head.
> >
> >It doesn't have to if we perceive and accept that He has indeed
> exchanged
> >His life for ours. We don't walk in truth we don't accept.
>
> I note that the leaven spreads. Now, in order to achieve this
> "victory", regardless of what Christ has accomplished, we

> must still "perceive and accept" a doctrine. The act of _our_

> will is the a priori condition set upon achieving this victory.

> We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is
> able to do nothing until we commit the intellectual act of

> "percieving and accepting" the doctrine. (So passes the
> glory of the free-willers.

You perceive such matters with your heart, not your head. You can read
Galatians 2:20 1,000 times and never perceive it intellectually. But you
can perceive it by the heart in a split second, perhaps never even having
heard the truth before. No "intellectual act" is involved. As the Spirit
showed Paul, so He can show you. [Incidentally, your free-willy comment
is inappropriate if you consider at all what I said on this topic.]

> The real smoke-alarm here is that the exchange life
> doctrine treats the whole of "Jesus Christ and Him
> crucified" as an interesting, but now past and no longer

> useless event. "Sure, Uncle Alex left me a billion dollars,

> and, heck, I still have his picture over the fireplace, so
> don't say I don't honor him. But now the money's mine,
> and I'll invest it how I please." That's the "horizontal way".

> Each chapter of Romans becomes useless as soon as you
> get past that "stage".

How can one ever say the wealth is His? I can do nothing the Father
does not give me to do. He remains sovereign.

> Luther's way of living in all "stages" at all times keeps

> "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" at the center. By

> daily contrition and repentence, we drown the Old
> Adam in our Baptisms and turn away from sin and

> towards God. In this way the new-good is daily applied,
> and _as a consequence_ old-good also happens.

We should repent when we actually sin, knowing we have an advocate in the
Father. But this bit about the daily wrestling match of contrition and
repentance is just code for "sin consciousness" from which God would
deliver His flock. He would have us 'righteousness aware', conscious of
the value of the blood of Jesus and what it has truly done for us. He
would have us know that we have been made the righteousness of God in
Christ. And we greatly appreciate what He has done as it seeps into our
heart that indeed we are dead and that it is now Christ who is living in
us and that the life we now live we live by His faith, the faith of the
Holy One of Israel. Resources unlimited to overcome the enemy.

Cognizant of the power in the blood,

And aware of His great love for us all,

Your fellow servant in Jesus,

Joe

[Michael F. Blume]

This may be a repeat sendout, for my modem is becoming too
old and crashes sometimes before and sometimes after I
send. I am not sure which. Forgive me if you already read
this.

Bart Goddard wrote:

> Michael F. Blume wrote:
>
> >The Main point in this teaching is that one has all one will ever get
> due to
> >the blood of Christ shed on Calvary and due to God's work in that
> event.
>

> And there's the heart of my objection. I would say, rather that
> _we are getting_ all one will ever get etc. You want to move
> from justification (narrow sense) to sanctification (narrow sense).
> This is the "horizontal" reading of Romans. In contrast,
> sanctification
> is acheived in me, _by means of_ justification.

I agree, but I feel it is worked outwardly also through
time. Behaviourwas
the issue in Romans 7:14-24 was it not? And when Paul
answered
his own dilemma with Ro. 7:25-8:4 we see a direct reference
to the
problem of behaviour. The sinful acts he committed were
committed
due to a law of sin and death (Ro.7:21). And He explained
how
a greater law delivered him from the effects of that law in
8:-1-2.

> Which means a
> _daily_ return to the foot of the cross, a facing of sin and need for
> justification, and a turn away from it (the sin). It's all done
> _with the Cross_, in an _ongoing_ sense.

I agree 99.9% I feel it is a realization that we are
justified once and for
all, and simply need to continue carrying the cross, not for
our deaths, but
to keep our bodies under. We must keep ourselves there.
But in another
sense we are truly dead and resurrected already. I do not
believe once
saved always saved. And in one sense we are crucified past
tense, in the
sense Paul is referring to - death with Christ. Jesus
mentioned carrying
the cross. That is not being nailed to it, but simply
carrying it. It is
not ongoing crucifixion.

Paul's viewpoint is in regards to our old man and our new
creaturehood.
Jesus' view was not that but another aspect of the cross.
Both, of course,
are true. Jesus' viewpoint was not regarding eradication
of the old man by
a death for His enemies, but rather a disciplined life of
self denial. Self
denial and death of the old man are two separate issues.
The old man is
destroyed, past tense (Ro. 6:6. But SELF is never destroyed
throughout this
life. We still have to step aside daily and let Him live in
us. This self
denial is what the references you refer to and thoughts you
propose actually
deal with. So I think you are off somewhat in that area of
what is denied
. You are using Romans writings to speak about an entirely
different issue,
which has, though, some connections to the exchanged life.

The connection to that life is the fact that a bearing of
the cross, in
reference to self-discipline, helps us experience the
resurrected life. For
as soon as we cease stepping aside and letting Christ live,
we fall under
the law of sin and death again, because someone has to
live. It is either
us or Christ in us. If we stop carrying the cross to keep
self under, then
self will live. So there is a cross-over between the tow
issues. But that
cross is not the same precise experience Paul is referring
to in Romans.
His angle is that, so far as our old man is concerned and
old lives under
sin, we are already crucified and resurrected into an
entirely different
entity, so to speak, due to the demand for grace to only be
fully
experienced by those delivered from bondage to sin.

So two issues, which later come together, are in question.
Jesus referred
to after we are saved and the self denial we require. Paul
referred to that
which initially saves us and removes forever our lives under
Adam. Birth
brought us into this mess of Adam, and death takes us out,
once and for
all. It is not nor cannot be ongoing. And as Christians we
are resurrected
from the death and are God's children this time. In Adam
all will die, so
we need to get in Christ where all live. That is not Jesus'
target of
thought in His words concerning the bearing daily of a
cross.

> Baptism is a symbol
> of our sharing of Christ's death. Peter said "repent and be
> Baptized", and this is exactly what "life under the Cross"
> is about.

I disagree. You are taking two different angles and making
them one., Paul
never said we are constantly dying so far as our membership
in Adam is
concerned. But Jesus said we were constantly self-denying,
not dying even!

> Daily, we return to our Baptisms (which is to
> return to Christ's death, which is to come to the foot of
> the Cross) and repent (which means turn from the bad to
> the good.)

A life of sin and then repentance and sin and again
repentance forever and
ever is not Paul's doctrine. Neither is it Jesus'.
Continual repentance
again and again is not "Let not sin therefore reign in your
mortal bodies

that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."

Continual self denial and recognition that, unless Christ
builds the house,
we labour in vain, is what continues. That is bearing the
cross. But we do
not return again and again for justification. What happens
daily is self
denial, for self thrives on doing its own thing to boast.
It is daily
keeping self from works which it loves to perform for
attention. But SELF
and the OLD MAN are entirely two different things. The old
man is our
existence under the Adam race. But the new man is life in
the Christ race.
We are new creatures and old things HAVE PASSED AWAY (past
tense).

So you are ALMOST getting into apples and oranges. Not
fully, since there
is a linking benefit to each aspect . But they are two
different aspects.
jesus did not discuss Adam and Himself throughout His chats
about the cross,
since His angle of stress at that point was not the death to
the old man.

> >It is like having one million dollars in the bank put there by
> >a man of wealth.
>

> No, it's like a wealthy man putting you on allowance. You
> might think you're rich, and live like you're rich, but you're
> only living on the largess of the wealthy man. Daily you
> return for your daily bread.

Agreed in one sense. But that is in the sense of self
denial. The sense of
death to Adam's membership is final and forever.

> >Nothing bothered Paul. NOW I CALL THAT "VICTORY."
>

> I call "victory" being in Heaven after the resurrection.

That is THE GREATEST VICTORY!!! But it does not say we
cannot "taste of the
powers of the world to come" now.

Today is only a drop in the bucket compared to Heaven. But
a drop in a
bucket is a mighty big thing, for Heaven is beyond
understanding!

> You admit that you still sin. You're not enjoying "victory" yet.

I am experiencing more and more of it. As I read Paul's
words and realize I
do not have to sin, I ABIDE IN JESUS more and as I see it
more clearly, it
becomes more common. I am growing in Him. Years of old-way
mentality of
the kingdom of the world takes time to be replaced as my
mind is being
renewed. It is a mindset issue.

> >So, Bart, are you saying this does not mean that we can live above
> sinning?
>

> Prepositions are tricky, sly words ("above"). But at best guess,
> I am saying that this verse does not mean that we can live "above"
> sinning. It rather means that the new life in us _is rising_ above sin.

I agree in the sense that as we deny self more and more, and
carry our
crosses, that the new life rising (the Life of CHRIST
EXCHANGED to replace
ours - making that exchange more and more real) due to
clearer focus and
understanding of the hard to be understood teachings of Paul
and their
effects. The Romans had a hard time "getting it", and so am
I. But I sin
less than I did a year ago.

> >Roma 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
> should
> >obey it in the lusts thereof.
> >
> >He said this as a logical conclusion to the truths he presented in the
> >previous verses.
>

> And yet there is no way to logically conclude that one day a guy
> just wakes up and kicks all sin out of his life. This life is the
> battle.

Agreed, but only due to our thick heads and our ingrained
philosophy of the
world and works. One man wisely said the only battle we
have is to realize
there is no battle. Not many like to take the back seat.
And though some
think God is a backseat driver, the fact is that WE ARE.

> The next is the victory.

The next is THE victory, but there is victory right now over
sinful acts,
too.

> >and here is the clincher... TO PRACTICAL LIVING, because
>

> But his directions for the "practical" side involve "death" and
> "baptism". Just keep going in Romans:
>
> Rom 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?

THAT is not in regards to living above sin, but to the
redemption of our
bodies:

We see both aspects of death to the old man in the now in
chapter 8 and its
victory over the ACTIONS of the mortal body now.

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

are the sons of
God.

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

Right now the only way we could be children of God is to
have died in our
Adam-states and resurrected into new creaturehood. THAT is
done not
continually.

And we LATER see the aspect of literal resurrection of the
body.

In verse 17 Paul moves on from one point of teaching, which
he began in
5:19, and goes to a totally different aspect.

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

So after verse 17 he no longers stresses the issue of
5:19-8:16.

> >And if freedom from sin is a reference to PRACTICAL LIVING, then
> >how can it not refer to LIVING ABOVE SIN and NOT SINNING?
>

> Because sin separates us from God. The practical aspect is
> to return to the forgiveness offered on the Cross, so that we
> can be continually reconciled, and thereby avoid dispair,
> and thereby be renewed. Daily.

Sin is in our flesh and ever is. When we go to God daily as
you say, are we
reconciled to Him daily, or once and for all long ago at out
conversion?
And if once and for all, which I feel it is, that is another
issue which
Paul involves in the fact that one man's obedience rendered
us reconciled
once and for all. We will fall from that grace if we do not
carry our
crosses, though. Hey! Here it is: We are dead and
resurrected and in
Christ now. And to maintain that expression of Christ
living in us, as Paul
said in Gal 2:20, we daily carry our crosses to keep self
from ruining
this. That does not mean we resurrect the old man. That
cannot be done.
He is destroyed forever. But when self takes over, and
works towards
righteous behaviour, then it abides not by the law of the
Spirit, and we are
walking after the flesh (relying on our own work-power) and
we fall from
grace.

The law of the Spirit is a law that sees us overcome the law
of sin and
death. It is like the law of aerodynamics helps us somewhat
defy the law of
gravity. Get into a certain shaped vessel which is
propelled a certain way,
and you are lifted off the ground and the common rule of
gravity in keeping
you down on the earth is defied. It is overcome. So long
as we stay inside
that vessel which abides by the law of aerodynamics, we are
overcoming the
law of gravity. That is exactly an illustration of what
Paul said in RO.
8:2. So long as we keep self out of the way, and refuse to
allow ourselves
to work as we crave to do, and carry our crosses realizing
we are dead to
Adam's race now, and STAY IN CHRIST (by continual reliance
on HIm -- walking
after the Spirit), we will stay above the law of sin and
death.

Law of sin and death is stated in 7:21. And it is a sinning
due to self
working, since self uses flesh and sin is in the flesh.
Self-work prods sin
into action. But if we do not use flesh, but faith, and
stay in the jet,
sin is bound dormant and cannot work. And that affects our
behaviour.

Ro 8:1-2 is the answer for 7:21. What other law is 8:2
talking about if not
the one n 7:21 which involves SINFUL ACTIVITY?

> >Forget about getting more grace by sinning more!
>

> Nobody thinks this. You're beating a dead dog.

:-) Relax! I did not say you did. I referred to Paul who
used that in his
rhetorical question of 6:1:

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

> >ANd that is why I say and maintain that we can live
> >without sinning.
>

> Then why _doesn't_ anyone live without sinning? You can
> hardly call it "practical" if, in "practice", nobody can actually
> do it.

It takes time. And there is likely some who have done it
after the long
years of studying this teaching and getting it through their
thick, like all
of our's including mine, heads.

And who cares if none have, the issue is whether Paul said
it or not. You
do not count heads to determine whether a doctrine is true
by its
membership.

> >With all this evidence in Paul's writings, I fail to
> >understand how you can deny that we can have grace to live above ever
> >sinning.
>

> How about the simple facts that 1. Nobody does this and

Not an issue.

> 2. You change the verb tense in all of Paul's writings in order to
> construct
> your evidence.

The verb tense is rhetoric, and, yes, Paul used much
rhetoric despite the
claims to the opposite by others. This is proven by the
fact that Ro. 8:1-2
is the direct answer to 7:14-24's dilemma. If not, then Paul
said he had
deliverance from a law of sin and death when he actually did
not have
deliverance from a law of sin and death.

Look at it as though Paul is placing himself BACK under the
struggle he had
and used the present tense to stress his point and make it
more real to the
reader who can relate to it better that way. And realize
that 7:1-3 is an
ILLUSTRATION to teach chapter 5:19 through to 6:18.

Paul BEGAN illustrating his teaching of 5:19 through to 6:18
with the
illustration of a salve in 6:19-20.

Then he uses a second illustration of branches in 6:21-22
and mingles
slavery with it in 6:22-23.

And then begins a third illustration in 7:1-4 of a wife.

All of these first three illustrations are stressing the
thought of our only
hope to act and produce being our connection to another.
And our actions
are truly not our own, but done FOR HIS SAKE AND BY HIS
POWER.

In 7:5-7 he states facts to be concluded.

Then in 7:8 through to 7:24, Paul uses the illustration of
his PAST LIFE,
using a rhetorical present tense.

But it is an illustrative situation. In fact, the last
example of his past
life showed HOW HE CAME TO UNDERSTAND the truth of
5:19-6:18.

And then in 7:25 he gives the answer for His deliverance as
GOD, through
Christ - ROmans 6's teaching -- , and sums up the reason
for his error in
the last few words of the verse. And in 8:1-4 he explains
how all of us,
and how he DID, find victory over actions he so hated in
7:21.

> >There is no WORK to perform. Just taking God at His Word. God did the
> work
> >way back at the start of your conversion.
> >
> >What is so "works plus faith" about that? It is only faith. Faith
> alone.
>

> It's "works plus faith" because it makes faith itself into a work. In
> order
> to maintain Sola Fida, you have to pitch Sola Gratia. "Taking God at
> His Word" is obedience to the First Commandment. And obedience
> to commandments are _works_. And this is where over-focusing on
> the secular life always leads.

I do not agree at all that faith is a work.

Roma 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith,
but as it were
by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that
stumblingstone;

You are mingling works with anything that is an effort.
That is why you
said there is no obedience to the Gospel since obedience is
works, DESPITE
the many references that explicitly teach we are to OBEY the
Gospel.

You are too passive -- on the other extreme of doing
absolutely nothing --
not even responding to the leading of God to move, for such
a move would be
works to you.

Roma 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without
the deeds of the law.

Faith is not a work, Goddard.

[Michael F. Blume]

Bob Felts wrote:

> But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
> only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
> present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
> that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.
> We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The
> "present tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and
> the "future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially
> wrong.

Both tenses are not true for the same issue. Yes, we crucified past tense, and
yes, we carrying our crosses still. But WHY are we crucified and why are we
carrying a cross? The answers are different.

The cross carried now is to keep self in place. The cross we already died on
was not for self. It was for the old man and our membership in Adam.

> >Keep talking about "victory" without
> > paying attention to the other team (Satan, our flesh and the world.)
>
> Agreed. This is the absense of the "future tense" part of our
> redemption.

The situation in THOSE aspects deals with the carrying of the cross. But
crucifixion, which aspect Exchanged life is stressing, death with the old man.

> Not necessarily. God changes our wills through the working of His
> Spirit through His Word. When "Be what you are -- a new creation in
> Christ" is proclaimed, God works to conform our wills, and our
> understanding, to His.

Exactly! Faith is not a work, whereas Bart thinks it is.

> Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
> up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true.

But deal with two entirely different aspects as targets of crucifixion, although
they both have to do with our present victory and beyond.

> When
> understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry
> my cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.
>

[Bart Goddard]

Bob Felts wrote:
>> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",

>> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
>> The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.
>
>But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as
the
>only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
>present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says

>that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.
>We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved.

Actually, Joe is arguing "past tense" and I am arguing "present
_perfect_ tense" (which, as you know, implies ongoing action, i.e.,
past, present and future.)

>> THE OLD LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.

>I don't think this equation is valid, Bart. Sin was in the world
before
>the Law was given; therefore it is possible to not be under the Law and

>yet sin.

"Law" is a broader term than "that which was given through Moses."
E.g., the injuction against eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

>I don't agree that "doing what the Father would have us do" can be
>compartmentalized into "old-good" vs. "new-good".
>
>New-good is not just having Christ's blood applied to us, but also
>having His life in us. And because His life is in us, the command "be
>what you are (i.e. a new creation in Christ") does not refer to
>old-good. It is a commmand that is applicable to Christians, without
>dragging in the Law.

I know of no command to "be what we are". By "old-good" I mean
ANY version of the "bottom-up" means of salvation, namely
men at the bottom meeting criteria to be good. Even the act of
believing is a work and believing does not save us. Rather believing
is a consequence of our salvation. So "being a believer" is an
old-good act. (That is, it is an action from us toward God.)
"New-good" I apply to believers, but not their acts (as acts per se)
The only way a person or his action can be "new good" is
if it is _made_ good by application of Christ's merits. So blowing
my nose in faith is a new-good act. Not because it is a lawful
act, or in accordance with God's will or any other reason, than
that God has declared that is good by dint of _Jesus's merit_.

"Old-good" = "in accordance with God's will".

"New-good" = "made good by Jesus. (And sanctified by the Holy Spirit.)"

And Joe almost gets it right when he says "Instead of being behavior or

performance based, (as interpreted by those who would follow the
old covenant), our 'goodness' or 'badness' is now seen as based on
nature

rather than performance." He snatches defeat from the jaws of victory
only at the last minute when the "flavor" of his new goodness turns out
to still be "good under the Law". To him we aren't just declared
righteous to God, but instead, application of Jesus blood makes us
righteous _under the Law_, i.e., as if we had never disobeyed.

>> We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is able to
do
>> nothing until we commit the intellectual act of "percieving and
accepting"
>> the doctrine. (So passes the glory of the free-willers.)
>
>I'm not a free willer, and I think you present a false alternative.

Not a chance.

>It is important, if we are to mature in Christ, that we understand the
full
>meaning of "be what you are." But our not understanding this truth
does
>not limit Christ's ability to work in us to bring us to the point where

>we can understand it.

No, when I say "He is able to do nothing", I'm paraphrasing Joe. It's
an illustration of the classic free-willer dilemma. "God won't act
until
you 'make a decision for Jeses', and you can't make such a decision
until God acts."

>Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take

>up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true. When
>understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry
>my cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.

(Besides the fact that I offered no alternative....) Of course we
should
take up our crosses. It's the natural reaction of one who has been
declared good. So what?

Bart

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 10 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> > >Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth
> > >many sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as some
> > >assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is
> > >"Christ in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our
> > >self-nature truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or is
> > >that just beautiful metaphor?
> >

> > False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> > "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
> > The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.
>
> But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
> only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
> present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
> that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.

> We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The
> "present tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and
> the "future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially
> wrong.

Welcome back, Bob! Nice chatting with you. And rather than take sides, I
note you are being the peace maker, telling us we're both wrong. :-)

We should not be hung up on tense at all on this. Jesus is the I AM, the
NOW, ever-present God. If we are in Him now, we were in Him at Calvary
and we were in Him when He arose from the dead and are in Him 10,000 years
from now as man might reckon time. What has taken place has taken place.
When we believed, were we co-crucified with Him or not? Is He still on
the cross? No, and neither were we. Our old nature has been slain. We
are dead to sin and to the law. It has no more hold on us. Zilch. That
we may not fully perceive this in the sense spiritual truth is perceived
(by the heart) is simply our growth process. But that we don't fully
apprehend the great gift of God does not make it any less true. It just
means that as children we don't fully understand how great our inheritance
actually is.

We grow in knowledge of the truth. But it is not a gradual growing out of
an old nature into the new nature. The growth is of the new nature. We
go from babes in Christ to mature Christians as we walk with Jesus. The
Seed of Abraham has entered our hearts and it brings forth only one
nature. By it the old nature is slain. The only effect it has in our
lives is residual bluff based on our ignorance of the authority given us
as sons of the Living God. The bluff is no small thing. We are told, "My
people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." But praise God, we are now
supplied that knowledge by Christ who lives in us. Jacob, the old nature,
has been supplanted by Israel, and it is now Christ who lives in us,
Christ our hope of glory.

The question is whether or not sin, flesh, the enemy, can be overcome
in this life time. Or do we simply remain forgiven though grateful
sinners?

The answer is that the evil one has been completely overcome by Jesus,
and that if our life is hidden in Him, we can enjoy the fruits of that
victory. If we see our death at Calvary, if we see ourselves raised
with Christ, then we apprehend the power within us to live in a manner
pleasing to the Father because it is no longer we who live, but Christ
who lives in us.

Believe me, if our confession is that we are just gradually making
progress, we'll be doing good to see such gradual progress. The only way
we can make any progress by our own self-generated effort is through the
weakness of the flesh. That is, we will fail. But if our life is now in
the hands of the Master and we find ourselves at Rest in Him, the author
and finisher of our faith, we are simply living as a son of God, energized
by God's own Spirit, saying and doing what the Father would have us say
that bubbles up from the well within. So we cease from the struggle and
quit trying to be Christians, preferring to let Him live through us who
is the Christ. We are to come into union with the Spirit in such manner
that we go whithersoever the Spirit would have us go. So we cease from
dead works and come to rest in Him.

> [...]

> > You banish the external code to the nether reaches in one breath, and then
> > resurrect it by saying "victory". But one is left wondering "victory over

> > what?" And the answer is "over sin". "Sins against what?" THE OLD

> > LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.
>
> I don't think this equation is valid, Bart. Sin was in the world before
> the Law was given; therefore it is possible to not be under the Law and

> yet sin. For example, "for whatever is not of faith is sin".

> > Such teachings as "exchange life" have, in my experience always boiled

> > down to exactly this doublespeak: Keep talking about "victory" without

> > paying attention to the other team (Satan, our flesh and the world.)
>
> Agreed. This is the absense of the "future tense" part of our
> redemption.

You determine the tense by your belief. The Kingdom of God is at hand. It
is always at hand. It is the NOW Kingdom. It is out there some where
only as we struggle trying to enter it. The word of faith is nigh thee,
even in thy mouth. We are to come to rest, be as little children,
accepting by faith. Faith, belief, determine the tense for each
individual.

The Seed grows into a Sapling and that into a Tree. But the Tree is fully
contained in the Seed. You say something scripture never says by saying
we are saved and we are being saved. To say this properly, you must use
two different concepts of saved in the same sentence, and this causes
confusion. The old nature is slain. That the young sapling does not
perceive this does not alter the truth of its death. The young sapling is
not "more saved" in the sense of the first use of 'saved'. The sapling
simply has life and life more abundant. The Tree has life, life more
abundant, and life yet more abundant. The second 'saved' only makes sense
as growth and should not be confused with its first use. What gradualism
is there to salvation? Yet we do grow in grace. And part of that growth
is in realizing the abundance of our inheritance we had even as infants
but knew nothing about.

> [...]

>
> > >Yet we are called to be overcomers. And the only way we can overcome is
> > >if Christ in us does the 'doing'. As sons, we are to be like Him;

> > >speaking what the Father would have us say and doing what the Father

> > >would have us do. How else would one who is in His image perform?
> >
> > Overcome _what_? Christ does _what_? Perform _what_? The answer you give
> > "doing what the Father would have us do." That's old-good. New-good is

> > having Christ's blood applied to us.

>
> I don't agree that "doing what the Father would have us do" can be
> compartmentalized into "old-good" vs. "new-good".
>
> New-good is not just having Christ's blood applied to us, but also
> having His life in us. And because His life is in us, the command "be
> what you are (i.e. a new creation in Christ") does not refer to
> old-good. It is a commmand that is applicable to Christians, without
> dragging in the Law.

Amen!

> >
> > >>I want to know why the old external code keeps rearing its ugly, damning
> > >>head.
> > >
> > >It doesn't have to if we perceive and accept that He has indeed
> > >exchanged His life for ours. We don't walk in truth we don't accept.
> >
> > I note that the leaven spreads. Now, in order to achieve this "victory",
> > regardless of what Christ has accomplished, we must still "perceive and
> > accept" a doctrine. The act of _our_ will is the a priori condition set
> > upon achieving this victory.
>

> Not necessarily. God changes our wills through the working of His
> Spirit through His Word. When "Be what you are -- a new creation in
> Christ" is proclaimed, God works to conform our wills, and our
> understanding, to His.

Amen! We grow in grace.

> > We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is able to do
> > nothing until we commit the intellectual act of "percieving and accepting"
> > the doctrine. (So passes the glory of the free-willers.)
>

> I'm not a free willer, and I think you present a false alternative. It

> is important, if we are to mature in Christ, that we understand the full
> meaning of "be what you are." But our not understanding this truth does
> not limit Christ's ability to work in us to bring us to the point where
> we can understand it.

Exactly! And it is He who waters us and causes us to grow so that we
do understand what we have had from the beginning.

> > The real smoke-alarm here is that the exchange life doctrine treats the

> > whole of "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" as an interesting, but now past

> > and no longer useless event. "Sure, Uncle Alex left me a billion dollars,
> > and, heck, I still have his picture over the fireplace, so don't say I
> > don't honor him. But now the money's mine, and I'll invest it how I
> > please." That's the "horizontal way". Each chapter of Romans becomes
> > useless as soon as you get past that "stage".

> Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
> up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true. When
> understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry
> my cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.

The daily taking up of the cross is simply the bearing of one another's
burdens, thus fulfilling the law of Christ. That's what we will do if
we listen to our heart, regenerate in Christ. It is simply walking after
the Spirit, not the flesh. We are not be re-crucified. We died once.

Blessed be His Holy Name,

Joe

[Bart Goddard]

Michael F. Blume wrote:

>The major error opposers to Exchanged Living make is to
>relegate death as ongoing and resurrection as ongoing. But
>Paul says otherwise in every single instance. Death is once
>and for all. And we died once and for all with Christ to
>ever LIVE (liveth). NEVER is death said to be ongoing with
>Paul. Never.

Show me one Christian who didn't/isn't going to die. Your
doctrine sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice,
oh ye who speaks of "practical". Are you going to claim that
your flesh is dead? That the smell of Pizza and the Victoria's
Secret catalogue don't arouse you when they ought not? The
old Adam isn't dead yet.

>We are as close as can be already.

Then this is heaven, and God has renegged a bit on His
promise.

>A title of a doctrine is not as important as the doctrine itself.

Some local buffoons have a Bible Study group called
"Lutherans for Christ." Perhaps the title doesn't mean
much, but it sure conveys the meaning intended:
"We're Lutherans but we're embarrassed about it
and we don't want you to think that we're the old stodgy
sort of Lutherans who aren't really 'for Christ', but
rather we're a new kind of Lutheran who had burned
the Book of Concord and now we're ready to join the
New Age with the rest of you."

(That's why, when someone asks "What does LFC stand for",
I say "Losers for Christ." Heh...heh...heh....)

E.g. #2. The Missouri Synod publishing house is called "Concordia".
Their logo used to be a line drawing of an open book, viewed on edge
from the bottom, with a candle planted in the center. What an
appropriate logo to convey the mission of the publishing house.
But now a bunch of mammon-worshipping, madison-avenue,
profit-mongering PR goons have changed the whole philosophy
of the company, and the new logo reflects this. It's the three
letters CPH in fat, slanted block letters, with the hole in the P
a (slanted) triple-cross-like star. (Viewable on their webpage:
http://www.cphmall.com.) The new logo says nothing about
their mission, but is only a cheap, commercialistic "name-
recognition" sort of thing. The old logo reminded me every
week when I picked up my hymnal that something more
than mere transmission of words was going on. The new logo
says "We're an exciting, dynamic company please do businees
with us." I resent the presence of that logo on all our hymnals
in the sanctuary. (Heck, they even have the cross slanted forward
as if it too was racing toward a brighter future for the
stockholders....
Did they completely forget what happened on that cross?)

Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which
leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta'
ask myself why. People don't name their central doctrines
haphazardly, but pick the words carefully to convey as best
they can the doctrine. And these two words "exchange life"
say a lot. "Life" is the biggie. It carries all the same connotations
as "walk" does with me, (as in "your Christian walk".) It's
rife with concentration on THIS life, namely "how we live it."
It's a doctrine of the secular world.

I don't know how the doctrine is going to redeem its own title,
let alone the doctrine itself.

>Who said the Kingdom was of this world? You are distorting
>what Jesus said and meant,

No, I'm giving an example of people not "getting the point",
I'm saying nothing about the Kingdom being of this world.

>> And here in the "exchange life" doctrine, we have, once
>> again, "Ah, NOW we can fulfill the Law."
>
>NO. 1,000 times NO. Jesus fulfilled the law IN US.

YES. You just said it "Jesus fulfilled the law IN US."
You skipped over the fact that the law is too weak to
save us, or that it is the _righteousness_ that is fulfilled
in us, rather than the Law itself. (Assuming you're referring
to Romans 8.) The only thing Jesus accomplishes for us
in your doctrine is that we get put back into the Law but
this time with a better head start.

>We do not fulfill it, but it is fulfilled in us.

But what is "it"? The Law, or righteousness?

>Nothing in the entire New Testament hints at continual
>crucifixion or future crucifixion with Christ. Big error to
>think different.

1 Pet 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial
which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings;
that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with
exceeding joy.

The exceeding joy is in the future and we ar partakers of Christ's
sufferings.
That would be _ongoing_ partakers, as you can plainly see from verse
12. I guess you're right, there is not "hint"...instead, it just
plainly
says it.

>Every reference explains it as PAST TENSE.

Except this one? Or the next:

>Gala 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;

Not "was crucified", but "am crucified"?

>Crucified. Past tense.

Am crucified. Present perfect.

> NO. You feel we look at it horizontally alone. It is
> both. Without vertical reliance on the Spirit and Christ's

That's not what "horizontal" means here. I'm talking about
the chapters in Romans, not relationships between entities.

> A huge misconception of the use of present tense.

This is 8th grade grammer, and you're blowing it. (And
before someone pounces on me, yes, I know what the
"real" tense of these passages is. "Present perfect" will do
just fine for the present discussion.)

>Death renders us righteous,

This is the nth time you've used the term "death" without
saying "whose" death. Our deaths don't render us
righteous, but only Jesus'. "Death" itself is our enemy.
Your continual confusion of the different types of death
is part of the trouble with your doctrine. We have
physical death (which is NOT over with), we have
spiritual death (which was our state when born), we have
"death to sin", which is our struggle against it, and Christ's
death, from which He wrested life. If you mix these up,
you get garbage. Like "I'm not dying.">Not true. I see you still

refuse to really understand what>we believe, and assume you already
know, without reading us
>closely. It is victory over sin, the world and Satan. And
>so much victory -- "indeed" victory -- that it affects our

If I don't know what you believe then why am I still
complaining about your term "victory"? I know exactly
the issue here. If we have the sort of victory you claim
in this life, then we're already in Heaven and we won't die.

>You cannot unconsciously excuse carnal behaviour
>by saying there is no behavioral blessing n the Life of
>Christ in the here and now.

I wouldn't. And I know of no one who does. The only
thing that excuses carnal behavior is the blood of Christ.

>Joe rightly describes a life of external code book living
>and a self-effort to make oneself righteous in behaviour.

See, I do know what's going on. You are simply offering
a different way to keep the Law. I don't care if you guys
come up with 490 ways to keep the Law without trying,
my objection is that "keeping the Law" (even if Jesus
is doing is for you) is not a proper focus for Christian doctrine.

>> But one is left wondering "victory over what?"

>It is victory against all.

Death too? Then you'll never die in this life. Sin too? Then you
won't sin anymore. Pain too? Step a little closer.

>You, and it seems Luther, missed the capitalized words:
>
>Roma 6:2 God forbid. How shall >>WE, THAT ARE ARE DEAD TO
>SIN<<, live any longer therein?

We didn't miss them, we just know _which_ death Paul
means here. Namely, sin has no power over us any longer.
Even if we commit them, we are still forgiven. No longer
does sin separate us from God and banish us to Hell, but
now we are separated from it's power. He who lives in
faith is not "in sin".

>The life is resurrection life.

And yet I'm betting my lottery winnings that you haven't
been resurrected yet.

> You must feel we have no eternal life yet.

No, but you must feel that we have no mortality yet.

>Death is past tense.

"Death" is a noun.

>Be consistent and stick with your own rules that viewpoint
>of tense is vital.

Don't you worry, O decrier of education.

>> New-good is having Christ's blood applied to us.

>That is all???? It is truly great, but not all!! Nothing
>supersedes it, but it is not all!!!

It's "all" that can be called "new-good". And it's "all"
that matters. "I am determined to know nothing among
you but Christ and Him crucifie." Yes. That's all.

>> The real smoke-alarm here is that the exchange life
>> doctrine treats the whole of "Jesus Christ and Him
>> crucified" as an interesting, but now past and no longer
>> useless event.
>
>Totally a manifestation of complete lack of understanding of
>this teaching.

Oh? Then we DON'T have victory now? It IS an
ongoing process? Quite a change in doctrine over two
paragraphs.

>You are unaware that if you were truly baptized into
>Christ's death that you are already dead.

Oops, now you're back in your old doctrine.

>> Luther's way of living in all "stages" at all times keeps
>> "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" at the center.
>
>How else can we live exchanged living?

Why do you want to? What's so abhorent about Jesus'
crucifixion that you turn away from it immediately and
go back to the old "how to live your life" doctrine?

>And Luther missed, if you are a representation of his
>thoughts, the truth of past crucifixion and past
>resurrection. Christ died ONCE. You stretch it out over
>our entire lives and say we are dying.

No, we would certainly differentiate between Christ's
death and our deaths.

Bart

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 10 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > > >Did the Son, the Seed, die and fall into the ground, bringing forth
> > > >many sons in His image, or is righteousness just to be thought of as
> > > >some assignment by God? Has God really placed His Life in man, or is
> > > >"Christ in us, our hope of glory," just a figure of speech? Has our
> > > >self-nature truly been co-crucified with Jesus and died with Him, or
> > > >is that just beautiful metaphor?
> > >
> > > False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> > > "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc.
> > > The problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.
> >
> > But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
> > only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
> > present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
> > that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.
> > We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The
> > "present tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and
> > the "future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially
> > wrong.
>
> Welcome back, Bob! Nice chatting with you. And rather than take sides, I
> note you are being the peace maker, telling us we're both wrong. :-)

It's a gift. ;-)

>
> We should not be hung up on tense at all on this.

It isn't a question of being "hung up", but rather whether or not each
side is rightly dividing what the Word says.

> Jesus is the I AM, the NOW, ever-present God. If we are in Him now, we
> were in Him at Calvary and we were in Him when He arose from the dead and
> are in Him 10,000 years from now as man might reckon time.

Indeed. But we are also in time. In the same way, we are seated with
Christ in heaven, but we are also here on this earth. We live both in
eternity and in the here and now -- and we can't ignore one or the
other. IMHO, you ignore the here and now, and remove the "dynamic
tension" from the present Christian life.

> What has taken place has taken place. When we believed, were we
> co-crucified with Him or not?

Of course we were. But you don't have nail prints in your hands, do
you?

> Is He still on the cross? No, and neither were we. Our old nature has
> been slain. We are dead to sin and to the law. It has no more hold on
> us. Zilch.

While I agree that it does not have a hold on us, it nevertheless does
have an effect on us. We still life with the effects of sin in our
bodies. Our bodies weaken, our "flesh" struggles against the Spirit.

Several weeks ago I picked up the stomach flu. At 5:30 in the morning,
I went upstairs to go to the bathroom (I was sleeping downstairs so that
my wife wouldn't get it). As soon as I had taken care of that need, I
fainted. My mouth hit the top of the toilet tank and I fell back onto
the floor, slumped upright against the bathroom wall. My wife, hearing
the crash, came into the bathroom to check on me. Needless to say, I
had her scared half to death. Groggily, I told her that I was all
right. But at that moment, both ends let loose. I managed to lean over
the bathtub, but that didn't help the problem at the southern end.

But perhaps if I were _really_ living in the Spirit, I would have had
the self-control to keep from soiling my clothes and retching in the
bathtub, eh?

> That we may not fully perceive this in the sense spiritual truth is
> perceived (by the heart) is simply our growth process. But that we don't
> fully apprehend the great gift of God does not make it any less true. It
> just means that as children we don't fully understand how great our
> inheritance actually is.

Now you've switched from present tense to future tense.

>
> We grow in knowledge of the truth. But it is not a gradual growing out of
> an old nature into the new nature. The growth is of the new nature. We
> go from babes in Christ to mature Christians as we walk with Jesus.

There's no argument with this. The argument is whether or not
Christians in the here and now have arrived at the maturity intended for
us as His children.

> The Seed of Abraham has entered our hearts and it brings forth only one
> nature. By it the old nature is slain. The only effect it has in our
> lives is residual bluff based on our ignorance of the authority given us
> as sons of the Living God. The bluff is no small thing. We are told, "My
> people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." But praise God, we are now
> supplied that knowledge by Christ who lives in us. Jacob, the old nature,
> has been supplanted by Israel, and it is now Christ who lives in us,
> Christ our hope of glory.

So comment on my evident lack of self-control in the episode I related
above. Am I simply a babe who can't control his body functions? Or am
I an ignorant believer who doesn't know my "true" state, or the riches
that I have in Christ?

>
> The question is whether or not sin, flesh, the enemy, can be overcome
> in this life time. Or do we simply remain forgiven though grateful
> sinners?

Maybe the alternative is neither of these. Before Christ, we were
slaves to sin. We may not have been very good slaves to sin (in that
there were times when we did not sin)), but we were nevertheless slaves.
After Christ, we are slaves to Him. Sometimes we aren't very good
slaves.

>
> The answer is that the evil one has been completely overcome by Jesus,
> and that if our life is hidden in Him, we can enjoy the fruits of that
> victory. If we see our death at Calvary, if we see ourselves raised
> with Christ, then we apprehend the power within us to live in a manner
> pleasing to the Father because it is no longer we who live, but Christ
> who lives in us.

So do you now consider yourself perfect in thought, word, and deed;
having arrived at the goal?

[...]

>
> > [...]
>
> > > You banish the external code to the nether reaches in one breath, and
> > > then resurrect it by saying "victory". But one is left wondering
> > > "victory over what?" And the answer is "over sin". "Sins against
> > > what?" THE OLD LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.
> >
> > I don't think this equation is valid, Bart. Sin was in the world before
> > the Law was given; therefore it is possible to not be under the Law and
> > yet sin. For example, "for whatever is not of faith is sin".
>
> > > Such teachings as "exchange life" have, in my experience always boiled
> > > down to exactly this doublespeak: Keep talking about "victory" without
> > > paying attention to the other team (Satan, our flesh and the world.)
> >
> > Agreed. This is the absense of the "future tense" part of our
> > redemption.
>
> You determine the tense by your belief.

That, sir, is unadulterated bull. I determine the tense by referring to
the Greek.

> The Kingdom of God is at hand. It is always at hand. It is the NOW
> Kingdom. It is out there some where only as we struggle trying to enter
> it. The word of faith is nigh thee, even in thy mouth. We are to come to
> rest, be as little children, accepting by faith. Faith, belief, determine
> the tense for each individual.

Interesting that you leave the Word of God out of it.

[...]

>
> > Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
> > up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true. When
> > understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry
> > my cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.
>
> The daily taking up of the cross is simply the bearing of one another's
> burdens, thus fulfilling the law of Christ.

No, it's not. The taking up of the cross refers to our constant dying,
so that He may live in us. We have died, we must die, we will die.
Notice the symmetry between that and "we have been saved", "we are being
saved", and "we will be saved". All tenses, BTW, which are found in the
Scripture.

> That's what we will do if we listen to our heart, regenerate in Christ.
> It is simply walking after the Spirit, not the flesh. We are not be
> re-crucified. We died once.

Really? You never, ever, get in the way of your Christian walk?

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
> > only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
> > present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
> > that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time.
> > We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The
> > "present tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and
> > the "future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially
> > wrong.
>

> Both tenses are not true for the same issue.

Proof?

> Yes, we crucified past tense, and yes, we carrying our crosses still. But
> WHY are we crucified and why are we carrying a cross? The answers are
> different.
>
> The cross carried now is to keep self in place. The cross we already died
> on was not for self. It was for the old man and our membership in Adam.

So your "self" didn't die on the cross? How, then, was your "self"
freed from the slavery of sin?

>
> > >Keep talking about "victory" without paying attention to the other team
> > >(Satan, our flesh and the world.)
> >
> > Agreed. This is the absense of the "future tense" part of our
> > redemption.
>

> The situation in THOSE aspects deals with the carrying of the cross. But
> crucifixion, which aspect Exchanged life is stressing, death with the old
> man.

So define your terms, carefully and with support from Scripture.
In particular, show how the "self" and the "old man" have no commonality
(which is what you are saying, since one died and the other did not).

>
> > Not necessarily. God changes our wills through the working of His
> > Spirit through His Word. When "Be what you are -- a new creation in
> > Christ" is proclaimed, God works to conform our wills, and our
> > understanding, to His.
>

> Exactly! Faith is not a work, whereas Bart thinks it is.

Bart is correct. In some systems, faith is a work. In other systems,
it is not.

>
> > Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
> > up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true.
>

> But deal with two entirely different aspects as targets of crucifixion,
> although they both have to do with our present victory and beyond.

Then be specific and tell us what different aspects are present, and the
Scriptural basis for each.

[Bob Felts]

Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> >> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> >> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc. The
> >> problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.
>
> >But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
> >only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
> >present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
> >that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time. We
> >have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. The "present
> >tensers" who ignore the future tense (as, IMHO, Alex does); and the
> >"future tensers" who ignore the present tense are both partially wrong.
>
> [...]
>

> Bob,
>
> There is but one "tense": the eternal NOW.

For God. For us, there is both. If you'd look at your watch, you might
see this.

>
> "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
> salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)

So whenever time is mentioned, it always applies to EST (Eternal
Standard Time), and not whenever we happen to be?

>
> We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
> truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
> view things as they REALLY are.

So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?

It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.

>
> Jesus said,
>
> "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'?
> I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already
> white for harvest." (John 4:35)
>
> Would you say that Jesus was "partially wrong"?

No, but I would say that you ripped that verse out of context -- it
doesn't fit this discussion.

>
> Paul said,
>
> "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
> weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
> things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
> that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
> eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
>
> Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
>

"transient" does not mean "unreal".

[Bob Felts]

Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:

> Michael F. Blume wrote:
[...]

>
> Except this one? Or the next:
>
> >Gala 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
>
> Not "was crucified", but "am crucified"?
>
> >Crucified. Past tense.
>
> Am crucified. Present perfect.

Actually, in the Greek it's a perfect passive indicative.

[...]

[Bob Felts]

Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:

> > Bart wrote:
> >> False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> >> "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc. The
> >> problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.
> >
> >But it's a problem that you and Joe aren't going to solve as long as the
> >only solution is "it's one tense or the other." Joe is arguing for
> >present tense, you are arguing for future tense -- while Scripture says
> >that both tenses (in fact all three tenses) are true at the same time. We
> >have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved.
>

> Actually, Joe is arguing "past tense" and I am arguing "present
> _perfect_ tense" (which, as you know, implies ongoing action, i.e.,
> past, present and future.)

Well, I can formulate your arguments so that my previous statement is
correct. In any case, each party has to state for each noun, the tense
of the accompanying verb. For example, it is true that we are now
seated in heaven with Christ. It is also true that we look forward to
that time when we see Him "face to face". The present perfect tense,
IMHO, doesn't capture the essence of this.

>
> >> THE OLD LAW=desires of the flesh=what God wills.
>
> >I don't think this equation is valid, Bart. Sin was in the world
> >before the Law was given; therefore it is possible to not be under the
> >Law and yet sin.
>

> "Law" is a broader term than "that which was given through Moses."
> E.g., the injuction against eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

But we cannot escape injunctions. "You shall love your neighbor as
yourself" is as much a command for us as it was for the Israelites.
"You shall not commit adultery" is as much an injunction for as as it
was for them. So when you say "OLD LAW", I'm not sure what you mean.

>
> >I don't agree that "doing what the Father would have us do" can be
> >compartmentalized into "old-good" vs. "new-good".
> >
> >New-good is not just having Christ's blood applied to us, but also having
> >His life in us. And because His life is in us, the command "be what you
> >are (i.e. a new creation in Christ") does not refer to old-good. It is a
> >commmand that is applicable to Christians, without dragging in the Law.
>

> I know of no command to "be what we are".

Doesn't this accurately sum up, for example, Romans 6? Isn't "be what
you are" the essence of apostolic teaching for how Christians ought to
live?

> By "old-good" I mean ANY version of the "bottom-up" means of salvation,
> namely men at the bottom meeting criteria to be good.

Ok. Agreed.

> Even the act of believing is a work and believing does not save us.

Again, amen and amen. You probably remember me arguing in a thread long
ago in a post far, far away that faith does not save. Jesus saves.

> Rather believing is a consequence of our salvation. So "being a believer"
> is an old-good act. (That is, it is an action from us toward God.)
> "New-good" I apply to believers, but not their acts (as acts per se) The
> only way a person or his action can be "new good" is if it is _made_ good
> by application of Christ's merits. So blowing my nose in faith is a
> new-good act. Not because it is a lawful act, or in accordance with God's
> will or any other reason, than that God has declared that is good by dint
> of _Jesus's merit_.

I understand what you are saying, and I almost agree with it completely.
The problem that I have is that "Jesus' merit" sounds static, like a
once for all thing (which Calvary was); yet Calvary is only part of the
equation: "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled,
will we be saved by his life." If, by Jesus' merit, you include His
resurrection life in us, then I agree.

>
> "Old-good" = "in accordance with God's will".
>
> "New-good" = "made good by Jesus. (And sanctified by the Holy Spirit.)"
>

> And Joe almost gets it right when he says "Instead of being behavior or

> performance based, (as interpreted by those who would follow the old
> covenant), our 'goodness' or 'badness' is now seen as based on nature

> rather than performance." He snatches defeat from the jaws of victory
> only at the last minute when the "flavor" of his new goodness turns out to
> still be "good under the Law". To him we aren't just declared righteous
> to God, but instead, application of Jesus blood makes us righteous _under
> the Law_, i.e., as if we had never disobeyed.

You lost me. In particular, I don't see Joe trying to drag us back
under the Law. The problem that I have with Joe is that he doesn't
acknowledge the reality of living both in the here and now while
simultaneously living in the eternal.

>
> >> We are "able to do nothing" without Christ....and yet He is able to
> >> do nothing until we commit the intellectual act of "percieving and
> >> accepting" the doctrine. (So passes the glory of the free-willers.)
> >
> >I'm not a free willer, and I think you present a false alternative.
>

> Not a chance.

>
> >It is important, if we are to mature in Christ, that we understand the
> >full meaning of "be what you are." But our not understanding this truth
> >does not limit Christ's ability to work in us to bring us to the point
> >where we can understand it.
>

> No, when I say "He is able to do nothing", I'm paraphrasing Joe. It's an
> illustration of the classic free-willer dilemma. "God won't act until you
> 'make a decision for Jeses', and you can't make such a decision until God
> acts."

I'll have to bow out, then, and let you and Joe thrash that one out. I
haven't seen Joe say that -- but I haven't been paying as close
attention to the entirety of this thread.

>
> >Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
> >up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true. When
> >understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry my
> >cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.
>

> (Besides the fact that I offered no alternative....) Of course we
> should take up our crosses. It's the natural reaction of one who has been
> declared good. So what?

The "so what" has to do with our view of time as it applies to the
Christian life. If we've already been crucified and are living in the
eternal now (which we are), then there is no need to take up the cross,
for we cannot die again. Looking at the eternal and at the here and now
isn't easy -- crossed eyes are the least of the symptoms. And, in order
to keep things straight, some people look only at eternity, while others
look only at the here and now. I think both viewpoints are wrong, and
that our eyes _should_ hurt.

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> The major error opposers to Exchanged Living make is to
> relegate death as ongoing and resurrection as ongoing.

We could likewise argue that the major error that the "Exchanged Living"
proponents make is to ignore the future aspects of our redemption.

> But Paul says otherwise in every single instance. Death is once and for
> all. And we died once and for all with Christ to ever LIVE (liveth).
> NEVER is death said to be ongoing with Paul. Never.

But you have yet to give a consistent, Scriptural, exposition of:

a) the composition of man.
b) what part(s) died and what part(s), if any, did not die.
c) what part(s) are alive and what part(s), if any, await life; and
d) how all these parts interact and effect the entire person.

>
>
>
> Bart Goddard wrote:
>
> > But to answer the question, there are really three things that ruffle my
> > scales here. One is the "closer to God" statement.
>
> That is a valid point of hesitation, but it is not true that
> we can get closer to God. We are as close as can be
> already. Many do not know that though. Exchanged life does
> not propose we can get CLOSER to God.

Define what "closer to God" means. If we are as "close to God" as we
can get, then there is no movement, and therefore a static relationship.
Is this what you really want to say?

[...]

[...]

> >
> > False alternatives aside, my statements would be "IS BRINGING forth",
> > "IS PLACING His life in man", "IS our nature BEING crucified" etc. The
> > problem in tense is exactly the heart of the contention.
>
> Nothing in the entire New Testament hints at continual crucifixion or
> future crucifixion with Christ. Big error to think different.

That's not true. "Take up your cross daily" refers to crucifixion;
that's what crosses are for. They just aren't burdens to be carried.

Furthermore, you are overlooking a powerful symmetry. Scripture clearly
states that "we have been saved", "we are being saved", "we will be
saved". The process of salvation is completed, ongoing, and future--
all at the same time. If this is so, and crucifixion is a part of our
salvation, it seems that symmetry would require that our crucifixion
also be completed, ongoing, and future.

>
> Every reference explains it as PAST TENSE>
>
> Roma 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.
> Roma 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
> Roma 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we
> shall also live with him:
>
> Crucified.
>
> Dead.
>
> Not crucifying or dying.

But that's just the "old man". What about the rest of you?

[...]

>
> > Indeed, Blume wants a "verse-by-verse" delineation of Romans 6 from me,
> > showing where the exchange life doctrine is wrong. He's not apt to get
> > it, because the objection is much more global. Namely, we're divided
> > over whether to read Romans horizontally or vertically.
>
> NO. You feel we look at it horizontally alone. It is both. Without
> vertical reliance on the Spirit and Christ's death as our deaths, then
> there is no horizontal experience manifested. Another indication you are
> not getting the point.

Indeed, you aren't getting Bart's point. Is the Spirit unable to
communicate Bart's position to you?

>
> > I.e., is Romans a _chronological_ picuture of the Christian life,
> > (horizontal) or is it a cross-section of any day in the Christian life?
> > Many of us opt for "vertical" because Paul writes the whole book in the
> > present tense.
>
> A huge misconception of the use of present tense. Paul used
> pure rhetoric in usage of the present tense to show what it
> was like when he struggled in the past in that manner.
>
> We know this because of 7:25 through to 8:2. The bondage
> and captivity he discussed n chapter 7 is seen as being
> turned into deliverance through Christ by God in verse 25
> and described in 8:2. One has to chop 8:1-2 away from the
> whole thought in chapter 7 to say that there is no present
> deliverance from the struggle of bondage in chapter 7.

Paul isn't using "rhetoric". When he uses the present tense, he means
the present tense. Your problem is that you don't understand the
composition of the redeemed man, nor do you seem to understand that
slaves (whether or sin or to Christ) aren't necessarily perfect slaves.

>
> > All of the "stages" which you "horizontal" people have the
> > Christian growing through, are actually experienced simultaneously
> > by all Christians at all times.
>
> Not true at all. Paul even said that when he indicated the
> Romans did not know why they were crucified with Christ and
> then indicated that the life of new walking is only
> experienced if you know that you were crucified with Christ
> for the purpose of being delivered from sinful living. (Ro.
> 6:4-6). Without knowing that, one will expect to sin, as
> you do, and will not exert faith for anything greater.

Here's where Bart has you nailed. The basis of your life is the
exertion of your faith: i.e., it's your effort (by exerting faith) that
gives you victory.

> And according to your faith, so be it unto you.

And so you put God on the end of a leash -- the leash of your faith.
You try to control God by your faith.

> That does not say that you can believe for anything nonsensical and have
> it. But Paul distinctly said we must KNOW we are dead to be freed from sin
> in behavioural aspects though sin still exists in the flesh.

So if you are totally free from the sin which still exists in the flesh,
then you, unlike Paul, have been set free from "this body of death".

>
> > So verse by verse, all I really have to say is "this is in present tense
> > for Paul".
>
> And you therefore are seen to miss the entire point of rhetorical use of
> present tense, and decapitate ro. 8:1-2 from the scenario.

a) Paul isn't being rhetorical, and
b) Being set free from the law of sin and death is not equivalent
to being set from from this body of death.

[...]

>
> Death renders us righteous, but faith in His life renders
> our behavior righteous.

No, it does not. You're making the same mistake that the "saved by
faith" people make. Faith doesn't save. (Works don't save, either).
It is Jesus who saves. Your faith doesn't control Jesus.

[...]

[...]

>
> So actually exchanged life is a misnomer anyway. It should
> be Received Life teaching, implying that we are filled with
> knowledge of good and evil due to Adam's sin, and we are
> prone to seek information alone and make ourselves good, and
> must be destroyed as far as that old state is concerned
> through Christ's death to thereby receive His Life which was
> originally intended to be in us. And then we express that
> Life. God is once again manifesting in flesh when we
> receive His life and let HIm live and abide in us.

"let God"? "LET God"?

Do you see how ludicrous your position is? You've placed man above God.

[...]

>
> It occurs as a natural result of Christ expressing Himself through us, not
> as result of an effort to do them. And faith in NOT EXPECTING TO SIN
> ANYMORE cleans out the pipelines of our lives and allows His Spirit to
> flow freely.

Or it lulls you into a false sense of security.

[...]

[Bart Goddard]

Joseph W. Gaut wrote:

>2) A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Assuming the conclusion.

>That Blume and Cohen agree signals you to disagree?

(It was Clayton, not Cohen, by the way.) And, no, that's not
what I said. (That would be an ad hominem argument.) Rather,
it was their _responses_ that firm up my position. You complained
that my whole basis was the "closer to God" comment. But by
the time you made it, we had had several salvos and I have
tons more ammunition now.

> >Bart, you're just replaying your favorite record. There's a lot of

>The concept of

>letting Jesus live in us and through us while dead to self is not
>motivated by any earthly kingdom building.

1. I was giving an example of people "not getting it", not
talking about "kingdom building". 2. Your verb "letting" is
as the heart of my objection. It smacks of decision theology,
and you (probably) know where I stand on that.

>The Exchange Life is not a doctrine in the sense of being a set of
>principles. That would indeed be law. Rather it is recognition that
THE
>Principle has taken up residence in our heart and is ruling and
reigning
> from His throne in our heart.

And my complaint is that whatever has happened, you _have_
created a new law: Note the imperatives: "Let Jesus rule in
your heart." "You must recognize, etc."

>You say this is a matter of verb tense. I say it is a matter of faith
as
>to whether this has happened in your life or is still the future,

My faith says I'm still going to die, and suffer in the mean time.
Heaven is full of those who "endured to the end". If "victory"
has happened in this life, then there is nothing left to endure,
and the end has passed. (Indeed, it passed at the moment of
conversion.)

>Which tense to you choose for yourself?

Me choose? I don't save myself. God saves me. The lamb
doesn't wander back to the flock, but rather the Shepherd goes
out to find it.

>The sapling doesn't confess that it might be a tree someday.

The acorn can't truthfully confess that it is a tree.

>We can struggle and strive to become more of a Christian, but
>to where does this lead? Simply to a losing wrestling match
> with the flesh.

[...]

>or do we find that we have been given unlimited authority over

> the flesh,.....

This isn't a "new way", it's just a different (and somewhat
unhealthy) attitude about the old way. All you've done is
found different motivation for struggling.

Second, if your authority is unlimited, then why do you still sin
and why are you going to die?

>Only the Holy Spirit can
>grow the fruit of the Holy Spirit if we are to bear fruit on our tree.
>Christ in us is our ONLY hope of glory.

But you still place "glory" on the fruit you bear. It still comes down
to "NOW I can keep the Law becaue Jesus empowered me to." Instead
of "Now I am declared righteous for Jesus sake."

> A little appreciation of poetry simply shows Paul is a skilled

>writer who knows his audience...

It's funny that you two won't grant him even half that ability
when it comes to the verse "Even though I speak with the
tongues of men and angels..."

>it is far better to look inward

No. It always leads to dispair to internalize. Our only hope
lies in the Word, and it is external (hence objective) to us.
Yes, it gets inside us, but coming FROM outside. It's motion
is always TOWARDS us. If we look inside, we turn our back
to it.

>Sin dwells in the flesh.

What a coincidence, so do I!

>Our old nature has already died. Reckon it so. Accept it by faith.

If it died, why is it still running about sinning? Why "reckon so"
that which is false? Why destroy my faith by accepting what
is not true? When we face the cross, we face our sin. You
hide from your sin, and so deceive yourself. But if you confess
your sin (face it), THEN it can be dealt with.

>The only holdup is lack of belief.

Once again putting the burden of my salvation on my back
rather than on Christ's. Dispair waits around the corner.

>> New-good
>> is having Christ's blood applied to us.
>
>I don't know where you're getting some of this. I really don't. Isn't

>the Father still around? Doesn't the Father still want us to do what
He
>would have us do? What is old or new about that?

The "old" way to be good was to act within God's will. And all
you have done with your "exchange life" is to find another way
to convince yourself that you are doing that. The "new" way to
be good is to "steal" Jesus' goodness and hide behind it. The old
way has "man" as the subject of the verb. The new way has
Christ as the subject of the verb.

>[Incidentally, your free-willy comment is inappropriate if you
>consider at all what I said on this topic.]

Hardly. Decision theology is decision theology. It doesn't matter
if you make the decision with your head, heart or groin, it is still
YOU making the decision. And if "you" is the subject of the verb,
then you are preaching salvation by works. And, by golly, isn't
funny that all these threads come down to that same heresy?

>How can one ever say the wealth is His?

That's exactly what you say about "victory". Heck, it's your
analogy, not mine.

>We should repent when we actually sin,

Not just "when we sin', but also "because we are sinners."

All the corporate Lutheran confessions begin roughly the
same way: "O most merciful God, I a poor miserable sinner confess
unto Thee all my sins and iniquities..."

Note that before we get to the "sins and iniquities", we have
already confessed the worst part "I am a poor miserable sinner."
You think you live in "victory", but you're no more worthy
of "glory" than we miserable sinners. If you think sins are point
events, then you're not examining yourself very closely. (Indeed,
that's the whole attraction of "exchange life", one no longer has
to face the fact that one is a miserable sinner. Whew! What a
relief! Too bad you're just hiding your head in the sand. Sin
separates from God, even if you don't acknowledge its existance.)

>But this bit about the daily wrestling match of contrition and
>repentance

I don't know where you get "wrestling match" from. Contrition
and repentance are exactly the opposite.

>is just code for "sin consciousness" from which God would
>deliver His flock.

No, God wants to deliver us from _sin_. If He wanted deliver
us from "sin consciousness" He would have held the Crucifixion
in secret.

Bart

[Bart Goddard]

Michael F. Blume wrote:

>Exactly! Faith is not a work, whereas Bart thinks it is.

No, Bart thinks faith is a gift. The _having_ of faith
is a work (because the subject of the verb 'have" is ' I '.)

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
> >
> > Jesus is the I AM, the NOW, ever-present God. If we are in Him now, we
> > were in Him at Calvary and we were in Him when He arose from the dead and
> > are in Him 10,000 years from now as man might reckon time.
>
> Indeed. But we are also in time. In the same way, we are seated with
> Christ in heaven, but we are also here on this earth. We live both in
> eternity and in the here and now -- and we can't ignore one or the
> other. IMHO, you ignore the here and now, and remove the "dynamic
> tension" from the present Christian life.

The "dynamic tension" to which you refer is tension between the "law of
sin and death" and the "law of the Spirit of life" found in Romans 8:2.
Since I have been set free from the law of sin and death, my CURRENT
eternal NOW state. One either believes both laws are operating in their
life or realizes that what Christ has done for us NOW, setting us free
from the "wretched man that I am". You can live in Romans 7 in
frustration or in Romans 8 in liberty. It is when we honestly face the
"wretched man that I am" and realize that we cannot live the Christian
life and abandon all self-effort to do so that we can come to Rest in
Christ, realizing that it is Christ in us who is truly our only hope of
glory and that He is the one who is to live the life. He is the one wh
saved us. He is the one who lives the Life through us. And that is the
only Life that is taken into eternity. He reveals who the real ME now is
-- Him in me. I learn the truth of the co-crucifixion.

> > What has taken place has taken place. When we believed, were we
> > co-crucified with Him or not?
>
> Of course we were. But you don't have nail prints in your hands, do
> you?

No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit having
taken mine in union.

> > Is He still on the cross? No, and neither were we. Our old nature has
> > been slain. We are dead to sin and to the law. It has no more hold on
> > us. Zilch.
>
> While I agree that it does not have a hold on us, it nevertheless does
> have an effect on us. We still life with the effects of sin in our
> bodies. Our bodies weaken, our "flesh" struggles against the Spirit.

When will we see that the temptations and desires of the flesh are
intrinsic to the law of sin and death from which we have been delivered?
Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we
walk not in faith [sin], what is that but a reminder of the wonder He
has worked, drawing us back to His pathway, reminding us that He lives
in us? Do we approach the Christian life asymptotically, always struggling
in our flesh to be 'better' Christians, or do find revelation in Christ
of just what He has done for us and now does in us? Do we recognize
the done deal?

> Several weeks ago I picked up the stomach flu. At 5:30 in the morning,
> I went upstairs to go to the bathroom (I was sleeping downstairs so that
> my wife wouldn't get it). As soon as I had taken care of that need, I
> fainted. My mouth hit the top of the toilet tank and I fell back onto
> the floor, slumped upright against the bathroom wall. My wife, hearing
> the crash, came into the bathroom to check on me. Needless to say, I
> had her scared half to death. Groggily, I told her that I was all
> right. But at that moment, both ends let loose. I managed to lean over
> the bathtub, but that didn't help the problem at the southern end.
>
> But perhaps if I were _really_ living in the Spirit, I would have had
> the self-control to keep from soiling my clothes and retching in the
> bathtub, eh?

Baloney! Someday you may be a doddering old man who thinks every day is
Thursday and everyone is named either George or Sue. And even that will
serve God's purpose. Is your spiritual state based on the condition of
your flesh or your intellectual apprehension of what is happening? Not in
the least. The real you is hidden in Christ. Ever remember that we have
this treasure in earthen vessels. The vessel is not the treasure. Why do
you relate the condition of your failing flesh to your eternal state?
We will all someday shed these mortal carcasses when they have served
their purpose in God. Right now you are just a chicken in an egg shell.
Someday the egg will hatch and the shell will be utterly shattered, but
you will be found in life more abundant.

[I am not saying God doesn't heal ailing bodies or that sin can't cause
illness, but I am imposing no assumptions here.]

> > That we may not fully perceive this in the sense spiritual truth is
> > perceived (by the heart) is simply our growth process. But that we don't
> > fully apprehend the great gift of God does not make it any less true. It
> > just means that as children we don't fully understand how great our
> > inheritance actually is.
>
> Now you've switched from present tense to future tense.

Whether it is present or future for you depends on what you've apprehended
by faith. If you're still struggling in Romans 7, then you have the
Rest of Romans 8 to look forward to.

> We grow in knowledge of the truth. But it is not a gradual growing
out of
> > an old nature into the new nature. The growth is of the new nature. We
> > go from babes in Christ to mature Christians as we walk with Jesus.
>
> There's no argument with this. The argument is whether or not
> Christians in the here and now have arrived at the maturity intended for
> us as His children.

That's what life here in the egg shell is all about, Bob, a maturation
process. We aren't born complete. Even Jesus came to perfection and
learned obedience through the things that He suffered. But a key element
to our maturation and actually a key to the Kingdom is in apprehending
by faith the truth of Galatians 2:20 and not appending all sorts of
"if" and "someday" clauses to it.

002:020 I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but

Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the
flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me.

Had the Galatians truly apprehended this truth [through spiritual
revelation], they wouldn't have been hung up in legalism, which has
many guises yet today. Can we too grasp the CURRENT reality of this
great truth?

> > The question is whether or not sin, flesh, the enemy, can be overcome
> > in this life time. Or do we simply remain forgiven though grateful
> > sinners?
>
> Maybe the alternative is neither of these. Before Christ, we were
> slaves to sin. We may not have been very good slaves to sin (in that
> there were times when we did not sin)), but we were nevertheless slaves.
> After Christ, we are slaves to Him. Sometimes we aren't very good
> slaves.

If we're not good 'slaves', it's because we are struggling to be good
slaves, not realizing that He has set us totally free. As sinners
we were slaves to sin, our wills bound. In Him, our will is set free
because it takes on His nature who is Freedom and Truth. Our nature
is one of obedience. But if we struggle to be good slaves we will
miss this, trapped between two laws, not realizing the obsolescence
of the law of sin and death as opposed to the law of liberty in
Christ Jesus. So if you think the alternative is neither of these,
then you have not grasped what John says about those who are overcomers
in this life time. What do you think is overcome? John tells us.

> > The answer is that the evil one has been completely overcome by Jesus,
> > and that if our life is hidden in Him, we can enjoy the fruits of that
> > victory. If we see our death at Calvary, if we see ourselves raised
> > with Christ, then we apprehend the power within us to live in a manner
> > pleasing to the Father because it is no longer we who live, but Christ
> > who lives in us.
>
> So do you now consider yourself perfect in thought, word, and deed;
> having arrived at the goal?

I'm of no importance here but can testify to the significance of this
truth in my own life from setting me free from sin and condemnation and
the frustration of Romans 7. Mine is not to struggle for perfection in
thought, word, or deed, but simply to know the importance of resting in
Jesus who has already done all the struggling for me. He has shown me who
is behind the voice of condemnation. And if I fall of the wagon, it's
simply a reminder that I'm not in control of living the Christian life and
that control is to be returned to the throne room. Once while struggling
hard to live the Christian life, the Lord spoke to me and asked me just
who was going to grow the fruit of the Holy Spirit. He brought me to the
realization that only He can grow the fruit of the Spirit. He told me to
"yield". That is the key, Bob.

The question is whether or not you are calling John a liar. Is there no
overcoming victory in this life? Is the Christian life a myth?

> [...]

>
> > You determine the tense by your belief.
>
> That, sir, is unadulterated bull. I determine the tense by referring to
> the Greek.

That's a major problem, Bob. Toss the Greek grammar in the trash and
don't let it substitute for the Spirit. When I say you determine the
tense by your belief, I have in mind whether you want to believe the
law of sin and death is still operative in your life, putting you B.C.,
or past tense, or in the present and eternal NOW.

> > The Kingdom of God is at hand. It is always at hand. It is the NOW
> > Kingdom. It is out there some where only as we struggle trying to enter
> > it. The word of faith is nigh thee, even in thy mouth. We are to come to
> > rest, be as little children, accepting by faith. Faith, belief, determine
> > the tense for each individual.
>
> Interesting that you leave the Word of God out of it.

Interesting you think the Word of God is left out of it.

> [...]

>
> >
> > > Again, a false alternative. "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" and "Take
> > > up your cross daily and follow Me" are simultaneously true. When
> > > understood in the light of "be what you are", the only way I can carry
> > > my cross is to let Christ, who is in me, carry it.
> >

> > The daily taking up of the cross is simply the bearing of one another's
> > burdens, thus fulfilling the law of Christ.
>
> No, it's not. The taking up of the cross refers to our constant dying,
> so that He may live in us. We have died, we must die, we will die.
> Notice the symmetry between that and "we have been saved", "we are being
> saved", and "we will be saved". All tenses, BTW, which are found in the
> Scripture.

How many times are you going to die, Bob? It is given to man once to die,
and then the judgment. Go ahead and die and come to Rest in Him.

> > That's what we will do if we listen to our heart, regenerate in Christ.
> > It is simply walking after the Spirit, not the flesh. We are not be
> > re-crucified. We died once.
>
> Really? You never, ever, get in the way of your Christian walk?

The shadow of the past life merely serves to help carve us more and
more into the image of Christ, glory to glory. It doesn't get in
the way, it is used by God, a tool in His hand which he will throw
away when He's through with it. We're not called to sin consciousness,
Bob, but to Liberty.

Peace and good will,

Joe

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> > [...]
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > There is but one "tense": the eternal NOW.
>
> For God. For us, there is both. If you'd look at your watch, you might
> see this.

That's the neat thing about Alex. He's not looking at his watch; he's
focused on Jesus.

> > "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
> > salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)
>
> So whenever time is mentioned, it always applies to EST (Eternal
> Standard Time), and not whenever we happen to be?

Is your standard Jesus or decaying mortality?

> > We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
> > truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
> > view things as they REALLY are.
>
> So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
> them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
> bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?

All of which has whatever to do with the reality of the New Man in
Christ that God brings forth in Alex, the vessel? Is the New Man
getting gray hair, Bob?

> It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
> immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.

Indeed Alex is immortal. He's tasted of the Tree of Life.

> > Jesus said,
> >
> > "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'?
> > I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already
> > white for harvest." (John 4:35)
> >
> > Would you say that Jesus was "partially wrong"?
>
> No, but I would say that you ripped that verse out of context -- it
> doesn't fit this discussion.

You just don't see the connection. It was you who was talking about
time.

> > Paul said,
> >
> > "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
> > weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
> > things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
> > that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
> > eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
> >
> > Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
> >
>
> "transient" does not mean "unreal".

No. It just means totally insignificant in the big scheme of things.
Why major in Insignificance?

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>

I'll respond to the much longer portions of this post when I have a few
more free minutes. In the meantime, I couldn't let this go by:

> > > Joe:

> > > You determine the tense by your belief.
> >
> > That, sir, is unadulterated bull. I determine the tense by referring to
> > the Greek.
>
> That's a major problem, Bob. Toss the Greek grammar in the trash and
> don't let it substitute for the Spirit.

That Greek grammar was inspired by the Spirit, Joe. To toss it out is
to reject that which is inspired by God. To toss it out is to reject
the Bible. To toss it out is to make your private interpretation of the
Word the standard for the Christian life.

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>

> > Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > There is but one "tense": the eternal NOW.
> >
> > For God. For us, there is both. If you'd look at your watch, you might
> > see this.
>
> That's the neat thing about Alex. He's not looking at his watch; he's
> focused on Jesus.

Nonresponsive. Alex still has to be on time for things.

And would you make the same statement about Alex's driving "he's not
looking at the road; he's focused on Jesus"?

>
> > > "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
> > > salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)
> >
> > So whenever time is mentioned, it always applies to EST (Eternal
> > Standard Time), and not whenever we happen to be?
>
> Is your standard Jesus or decaying mortality?

Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?

In the midst of decaying mortality, my standard is Jesus.

>
> > > We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
> > > truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
> > > view things as they REALLY are.
> >
> > So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
> > them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
> > bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?
>
> All of which has whatever to do with the reality of the New Man in
> Christ that God brings forth in Alex, the vessel? Is the New Man
> getting gray hair, Bob?

No, the new man is not getting gray hair. But the new man is cocooned
in a body which is getting older, and grayer, every day.

>
> > It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
> > immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.
>
> Indeed Alex is immortal. He's tasted of the Tree of Life.

You dodged the question, Joe. Is our present life, our greying hairs,
our sagging muscles, all illusion?

>
> > > Jesus said,
> > >
> > > "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'?
> > > I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already
> > > white for harvest." (John 4:35)
> > >
> > > Would you say that Jesus was "partially wrong"?
> >
> > No, but I would say that you ripped that verse out of context -- it
> > doesn't fit this discussion.
>
> You just don't see the connection. It was you who was talking about
> time.

Then explicitly state the connection.

>
> > > Paul said,
> > >
> > > "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
> > > weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
> > > things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
> > > that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
> > > eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
> > >
> > > Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
> > >
> >
> > "transient" does not mean "unreal".
>
> No. It just means totally insignificant in the big scheme of things.
> Why major in Insignificance?
>

Transient doesn't mean "totally insignificant", either.

Why downplay its significance? Is it, perhaps, all illusion?

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
> > >

> > > Joe:

> > > Jesus is the I AM, the NOW, ever-present God. If we are in Him now,
> > > we were in Him at Calvary and we were in Him when He arose from the
> > > dead and are in Him 10,000 years from now as man might reckon time.
> >
> > Indeed. But we are also in time. In the same way, we are seated with
> > Christ in heaven, but we are also here on this earth. We live both in
> > eternity and in the here and now -- and we can't ignore one or the
> > other. IMHO, you ignore the here and now, and remove the "dynamic
> > tension" from the present Christian life.
>
> The "dynamic tension" to which you refer is tension between the "law of
> sin and death" and the "law of the Spirit of life" found in Romans 8:2.

No, it's not. The "dynamic tension" is the tension between eternity and
now.

BTW, please do me a favor. Please share what you understand "the law of
sin and death" to be.

> Since I have been set free from the law of sin and death, my CURRENT
> eternal NOW state. One either believes both laws are operating in their
> life or realizes that what Christ has done for us NOW, setting us free
> from the "wretched man that I am".

Paul never says that he was set free from "the wretched man that I am".
He says that there is no condemnation, even though he sees himself as a
man who, in his mind, serves the Spirit, but sees in his flesh the law
of sin and death.

> You can live in Romans 7 in frustration or in Romans 8 in liberty.

It isn't an "either-or" situation. Romans 7 and 8 were both present
tense for Paul.

> It is when we honestly face the "wretched man that I am" and realize that
> we cannot live the Christian life and abandon all self-effort to do so
> that we can come to Rest in Christ, realizing that it is Christ in us who
> is truly our only hope of glory and that He is the one who is to live the
> life.

I know that, Joe. What we disagree on are the questions of the nature
of the current man and the implications thereby of Christ's life in us.

[...]

>
> > > What has taken place has taken place. When we believed, were we
> > > co-crucified with Him or not?
> >
> > Of course we were. But you don't have nail prints in your hands, do
> > you?
>
> No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
> body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit having
> taken mine in union.

But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?

>
> > > Is He still on the cross? No, and neither were we. Our old nature has
> > > been slain. We are dead to sin and to the law. It has no more hold on
> > > us. Zilch.
> >
> > While I agree that it does not have a hold on us, it nevertheless does
> > have an effect on us. We still life with the effects of sin in our
> > bodies. Our bodies weaken, our "flesh" struggles against the Spirit.
>
> When will we see that the temptations and desires of the flesh are
> intrinsic to the law of sin and death from which we have been delivered?

When you define your terms, then we might be able to talk about this.

> Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
> His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we

> walk not in faith [sin], ...

Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.

> what is that but a reminder of the wonder He
> has worked, drawing us back to His pathway, reminding us that He lives
> in us? Do we approach the Christian life asymptotically, always struggling
> in our flesh to be 'better' Christians, or do find revelation in Christ
> of just what He has done for us and now does in us? Do we recognize
> the done deal?

If it's a "done deal", then what is the cause of "walk[ing] not in
faith"?

>
> > Several weeks ago I picked up the stomach flu. At 5:30 in the morning,
> > I went upstairs to go to the bathroom (I was sleeping downstairs so that
> > my wife wouldn't get it). As soon as I had taken care of that need, I
> > fainted. My mouth hit the top of the toilet tank and I fell back onto
> > the floor, slumped upright against the bathroom wall. My wife, hearing
> > the crash, came into the bathroom to check on me. Needless to say, I
> > had her scared half to death. Groggily, I told her that I was all
> > right. But at that moment, both ends let loose. I managed to lean over
> > the bathtub, but that didn't help the problem at the southern end.
> >
> > But perhaps if I were _really_ living in the Spirit, I would have had
> > the self-control to keep from soiling my clothes and retching in the
> > bathtub, eh?
>
> Baloney!

Hardly. It's the only possible outcome of your theology. The fruit of
the Spirit is ... self-control -- whether it's not yelling at your kids,
eating that extra piece of cheesecake, or voiding in your pants.
"Eternal now" beings don't soil their pants.

> Someday you may be a doddering old man who thinks every day is
> Thursday and everyone is named either George or Sue. And even that will
> serve God's purpose. Is your spiritual state based on the condition of
> your flesh or your intellectual apprehension of what is happening? Not in
> the least.

Then you've contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you want me to
apprehend my true state in Christ so that I can live in victory; on the
other hand, you just admit that my spiritual state doesn't depend on my
"intellectual apprehension of what is happening".

> The real you is hidden in Christ. Ever remember that we have
> this treasure in earthen vessels. The vessel is not the treasure. Why do
> you relate the condition of your failing flesh to your eternal state?

Because I have to deal with that failing flesh in the here and now.
Like I said, "eternal now" beings don't have problems with bowel
control.

> We will all someday shed these mortal carcasses when they have served
> their purpose in God. Right now you are just a chicken in an egg shell.
> Someday the egg will hatch and the shell will be utterly shattered, but
> you will be found in life more abundant.

Oh, so there is more to come? The "eternal now" isn't quite yet?

>
> [I am not saying God doesn't heal ailing bodies or that sin can't cause
> illness, but I am imposing no assumptions here.]
>
> > > That we may not fully perceive this in the sense spiritual truth is
> > > perceived (by the heart) is simply our growth process. But that we
> > > don't fully apprehend the great gift of God does not make it any less
> > > true. It just means that as children we don't fully understand how
> > > great our inheritance actually is.
> >
> > Now you've switched from present tense to future tense.
>
> Whether it is present or future for you depends on what you've apprehended
> by faith.

Not according to what you previously wrote. Let me remind you:

> Someday you may be a doddering old man who thinks every day is
> Thursday and everyone is named either George or Sue. And even that
> will serve God's purpose. Is your spiritual state based on the
> condition of your flesh or your intellectual apprehension of what is
> happening? Not in the least.

So, which is it?

You have a serious problem here, Joe.

[...]

> > > The question is whether or not sin, flesh, the enemy, can be overcome
> > > in this life time. Or do we simply remain forgiven though grateful
> > > sinners?
> >
> > Maybe the alternative is neither of these. Before Christ, we were
> > slaves to sin. We may not have been very good slaves to sin (in that
> > there were times when we did not sin)), but we were nevertheless slaves.
> > After Christ, we are slaves to Him. Sometimes we aren't very good
> > slaves.
>
> If we're not good 'slaves', it's because we are struggling to be good
> slaves, not realizing that He has set us totally free.

Listen to yourself, Joe. In one sentence you write "He has set us
totally free", yet in another you say "That's what life here in the egg
shell is all about..." How can we be "totally free" yet still encased
in an egg shell?

[...]

>
> > > The answer is that the evil one has been completely overcome by Jesus,
> > > and that if our life is hidden in Him, we can enjoy the fruits of that
> > > victory. If we see our death at Calvary, if we see ourselves raised
> > > with Christ, then we apprehend the power within us to live in a manner
> > > pleasing to the Father because it is no longer we who live, but Christ
> > > who lives in us.
> >
> > So do you now consider yourself perfect in thought, word, and deed;
> > having arrived at the goal?
>
> I'm of no importance here but can testify to the significance of this
> truth in my own life from setting me free from sin and condemnation and
> the frustration of Romans 7.

Nonresponsive. Just answer, "yes" or "no".

[...]

>
>
> > > That's what we will do if we listen to our heart, regenerate in Christ.
> > > It is simply walking after the Spirit, not the flesh. We are not be
> > > re-crucified. We died once.
> >
> > Really? You never, ever, get in the way of your Christian walk?
>
> The shadow of the past life merely serves to help carve us more and
> more into the image of Christ, glory to glory.

Nonresponsive. How often does that shadow cross your path?

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joe Gaut wrote:

> > On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
> >

> > > Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > That's the neat thing about Alex. He's not looking at his watch; he's
> > focused on Jesus.
>
> Nonresponsive. Alex still has to be on time for things.
>
> And would you make the same statement about Alex's driving "he's not
> looking at the road; he's focused on Jesus"?

Why separate Alex's daily activities from his life in Christ? Is he
only in Christ while sitting in a pew holding a hymnal?

> > > > "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
> > > > salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)
> > >
> > > So whenever time is mentioned, it always applies to EST (Eternal
> > > Standard Time), and not whenever we happen to be?
> >
> > Is your standard Jesus or decaying mortality?
>
> Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?

Isn't Jesus involved either way if I am in Him and He in me?

> In the midst of decaying mortality, my standard is Jesus.

And delivered from the midst of transient decaying mortality, your
standard will still be Jesus.

> > > > We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
> > > > truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
> > > > view things as they REALLY are.
> > >
> > > So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
> > > them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
> > > bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?
> >
> > All of which has whatever to do with the reality of the New Man in
> > Christ that God brings forth in Alex, the vessel? Is the New Man
> > getting gray hair, Bob?
>
> No, the new man is not getting gray hair. But the new man is cocooned
> in a body which is getting older, and grayer, every day.

So what?

> > > It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
> > > immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.
> >
> > Indeed Alex is immortal. He's tasted of the Tree of Life.
>
> You dodged the question, Joe. Is our present life, our greying hairs,
> our sagging muscles, all illusion?

I'm neither Christian Scientist nor Buddhist and neither is Alex. The
affliction I suffer at times is very real. It is also very transcient.
That's what Alex was trying to show you. This garment in which I'm
enfleshed wears thin, but I place no hope in the flesh. I need not
fear its demise for I am clothed in Christ who will never leave me nor
forsake me. So I focus on Christ and not on that which is transcient,
even though it is under His complete control. I do not look for reasons
to disbelieve that the evil one, sin and the negative promptings of
the flesh cannot be fully overcome in the here and now, as promised
by Christ and the apostles.

I think your use of the term flesh is perhaps a bit of a stumbling
flock to you on this. [No lecture on Greek sarx requested.]

> > > > Jesus said,
> > > >
> > > > "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'?
> > > > I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already
> > > > white for harvest." (John 4:35)
> > > >
> > > > Would you say that Jesus was "partially wrong"?
> > >
> > > No, but I would say that you ripped that verse out of context -- it
> > > doesn't fit this discussion.
> >
> > You just don't see the connection. It was you who was talking about
> > time.
>
> Then explicitly state the connection.

Men think carnally. They say harvest time is limited. Jesus says it's
not. He wants us to quit trying to limit God. Man relates harvest to
the natural; Jesus to the spiritual. As a parallel, one might relate
flesh to the physical body rather than to our humanity in a spiritual
sense. Thus we have the power to becomes the sons of God, sonship
always being related to humanity while showing union between God and
man, and this transpire in failing physical bodies -- which might seem
paradoxical to some if not understood.

> > > > Paul said,
> > > >
> > > > "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
> > > > weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
> > > > things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
> > > > that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
> > > > eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
> > > >
> > > > Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > "transient" does not mean "unreal".
> >
> > No. It just means totally insignificant in the big scheme of things.
> > Why major in Insignificance?
>
> Transient doesn't mean "totally insignificant", either.
>
> Why downplay its significance? Is it, perhaps, all illusion?

It is passing, Bob. Flesh and blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Why so much concern over gray hairs and sagging muscles? We don't focus
on the transcient, but on the eternal. That's the point. We accept the
truth of what God speaks by faith, not try to derive truth from what we
observe and calculate based on our limited sensory experiences. If He
tells us we are dead to the law of sin and death, then we are dead to that
law. We don't have to resurrect it based on our puny observations and
decide we must struggle against it rather than resting in Christ.

Peace and good will,

Joe Gaut

[Alex P. Cohen]

>> There is but one "tense": the eternal NOW.

>For God. For us, there is both. If you'd look at your watch, you might
>see this.

When God bears witness to your spirit that you are a child of God,
what time is it? When the power of God goes forth in the name of
Jesus and sight is restored to the blind, what time is it? The time
is irrelevant, because when God interacts with man, He does so apart
from time - in the eternal NOW.

What time was it a minute ago? It was NOW. What is the current time?
It is NOW. What time will it be in a minute? It will be NOW. The
three so-called tenses (was, is, will be) all point to the eternal
NOW.

There is no regret or disappointment in the eternal NOW. There is no
fear or failure in the eternal NOW. God's glorious grace, love
(agape) and peace flood every corner of our being - NOW.

Like a small child who has happened upon his mother's freshly baked
cake and tasted a finger full of chocolate, I consider that I have
only begun to scratch the surface of this wonderful truth. May each
of us reading these words experience this glorious reality!

>> "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
>> salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)

>So whenever time is mentioned, it always applies to EST (Eternal
>Standard Time), and not whenever we happen to be?
>
>>

>> We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
>> truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
>> view things as they REALLY are.
>
>So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
>them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
>bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?

Remember the time when you prayed for your son's fever, and it went
instantly away? You didn't limit your belief to the senses then. Why
is what you see and hear today any more valid than it was then? Do
not allow your senses to deceive you.

"Do not judge by appearance, but judge with right judgment."
(John 7:24)

>
>It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
>immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.

It's sad that you mock my belief and relegate it to a "mind over
matter" game.

Here is an example from the life of Jesus. As you read it, ask
yourself - Did Jesus put His confidence in the appearance (the
tremendous lack), or did He proceed as if the provision already
existed?

"When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, 'This is a
lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into
villages and buy food for themselves.' Jesus said, 'They need not go
away; you give them something to eat.' They said to him, 'We have
only five loaves here and two fish.' And he said, 'Bring them here to
me.' Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking
the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed,
and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave
them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisifed. And they
took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. And those
who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children."
(Matthew 14:15-21)

Are we not to imitate our Lord and Savior?

"(be) imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the
promises." (Hebrews 6:12)

>
>>
>> Jesus said,
>>
>> "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'?
>> I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already
>> white for harvest." (John 4:35)
>>
>> Would you say that Jesus was "partially wrong"?
>
>No, but I would say that you ripped that verse out of context -- it
>doesn't fit this discussion.

This subject of context is something we need to discuss. Please
consider the following passage:

"Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under
compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor. 9:7)

This is excerpted from Paul's discussion about the monetary collection
for the churches of Macedonia. The statement was made in that
context. And yet, we can take wonderful little gems like this, as we
are shown by the Spirit, and apply them to other areas as well. For
example, it could be said that Paul's comment was not limited to
money. When we give our time, we should also give it with the same
willingness.

Likewise the verse I quoted. The subject being discussed by Jesus was
clearly evangelism. And yet, the same principle can be validly
applied to other areas of divine fruit bearing as well.

The words of the New Testament must be viewed spiritually, because
they teach spiritual principles. To do otherwise reduces the writings
to nothing more than a history book or an instruction manual.

"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (John 6:63)

>
>>
>> Paul said,
>>
>> "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
>> weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
>> things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
>> that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
>> eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
>>
>> Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
>>
>
>"transient" does not mean "unreal".

But can you see the comparison that Paul is making? Can you see which
of the two - things that are seen, things that are unseen - he was
putting his confidence in? Would you say that Paul's attitude towards
his terrible afflictions was "partially wrong"?

Alex

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Joe Gaut wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's the neat thing about Alex. He's not looking at his watch; he's
> > > focused on Jesus.
> >
> > Nonresponsive. Alex still has to be on time for things.
> >
> > And would you make the same statement about Alex's driving "he's not
> > looking at the road; he's focused on Jesus"?
>
> Why separate Alex's daily activities from his life in Christ? Is he
> only in Christ while sitting in a pew holding a hymnal?

a) answer the question.
b) Our life in Christ includes our daily activities.
c) Christ is in us, yet John says "If we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us".

[...]

>
> > > > > We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
> > > > > truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are
> > > > > to view things as they REALLY are.
> > > >
> > > > So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
> > > > them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
> > > > bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?
> > >
> > > All of which has whatever to do with the reality of the New Man in
> > > Christ that God brings forth in Alex, the vessel? Is the New Man
> > > getting gray hair, Bob?
> >
> > No, the new man is not getting gray hair. But the new man is cocooned
> > in a body which is getting older, and grayer, every day.
>
> So what?

So it happens to be an integral part of our existence which effects what
we do.

>
> > > > It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
> > > > immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.
> > >
> > > Indeed Alex is immortal. He's tasted of the Tree of Life.
> >
> > You dodged the question, Joe. Is our present life, our greying hairs,
> > our sagging muscles, all illusion?
>
> I'm neither Christian Scientist nor Buddhist and neither is Alex. The
> affliction I suffer at times is very real.

Does that "affliction" include sometimes doing that which you know you
shouldn't?

> It is also very transcient.

That's not the point. Do we deal with the transient by ignoring it?
For example, toothaches are transient. Does this mean that you don't go
to the dentist, focusing instead on the teeth that you will have
someday?

[...]

>
> I think your use of the term flesh is perhaps a bit of a stumbling
> flock to you on this. [No lecture on Greek sarx requested.]

Then why don't you define it and let's see if you understand what 'sarx'
means.

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 13 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> I'll respond to the much longer portions of this post when I have a few
> more free minutes. In the meantime, I couldn't let this go by:
>
> > > > Joe:
> > > > You determine the tense by your belief.
> > >
> > > That, sir, is unadulterated bull. I determine the tense by referring to
> > > the Greek.
> >
> > That's a major problem, Bob. Toss the Greek grammar in the trash and
> > don't let it substitute for the Spirit.
>
> That Greek grammar was inspired by the Spirit, Joe. To toss it out is
> to reject that which is inspired by God. To toss it out is to reject
> the Bible. To toss it out is to make your private interpretation of the
> Word the standard for the Christian life.

I'm glad you couldn't let it go by, Bob. I was hoping to grab your
attention on this one. I too have a Greek grammar on the shelf (in
general where it belongs). I certainly appreciate quality scholarship and
have spent much of my life in academia. I also know there are many
reasonably accurate translations of scripture from a jillion different
manuscripts that very widely in detail. And unless one is inspired to
devote a lifetime of study to the Greek, coupled with manuscript study,
having the skills of a modern Erasmus who was himself controversial, I
doubt they would come up with a better one. How much better is our time
spent simply getting to know Jesus.

But there is a fiction abroad that one is somehow deficient in their
Christianity unless they can somehow make profound comments on the fine
nuances of Greek grammar, such as, "The aorist tense has often been
mishandled by both scholars and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently
are said to denote once-for-all action when the text has no such
intention." The truth is that there have been multitudes of wonderful
Christians who wouldn't know an aorist tense from the aorta in cardiology.
Certainly this fiction abounds among certain ministers who find themselves
better respected among their colleagues if they can occasionally toss out
such a comment. For pleasers of men the reward will be parallel. The Holy
Spirit has the answer to anything we want to know. God did give us a
communication line and prayer if we be His.

How often on this very news group have we seen word quibbles develop based
on some obscurity of koine Greek, heated generated with no light? Often
such word quibbles soon reduce themselves to the most nit-picking,
legalistic flavor concentrating on the single sapling as the forest
remains unnoticed.

We find a clue with respect to such expenditure of effort in the writings
of Paul (II Tim. 2:22-23) where he writes, "...pursue righteousness,
faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure
heart. Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments,
because you know they produce quarrels (NIV).

Does our Christianity depend at all on our finding the best translation of
the Bible or having our Greek tenses straightened out? Not in the least.
Our Vital Link is the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Faithfully yours with respect for true and honest scholarship and the
proper use thereof, with

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 13 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
> >

> > The "dynamic tension" to which you refer is tension between the "law of
> > sin and death" and the "law of the Spirit of life" found in Romans 8:2.
>
> No, it's not. The "dynamic tension" is the tension between eternity and
> now.

If you're in the I AM, you're in the NOW. Look again at the two laws,
Bob.

> BTW, please do me a favor. Please share what you understand "the law of
> sin and death" to be.

Read Romans. If you can't understand Paul you won't understand me.

> > Since I have been set free from the law of sin and death, my CURRENT
> > eternal NOW state. One either believes both laws are operating in their
> > life or realizes that what Christ has done for us NOW, setting us free
> > from the "wretched man that I am".
>
> Paul never says that he was set free from "the wretched man that I am".
> He says that there is no condemnation, even though he sees himself as a

> man who, in his mind, serves the Spirit, but sees in his flesh the law
> of sin and death.

Paul speaks plainly of his co-crucifixion. He lets us know what happened
to the wretched man. You've got quite a problem, Bob, being both a
wretched man and Christlike. Did God call us to schizophrenia?

> > You can live in Romans 7 in frustration or in Romans 8 in liberty.
>
> It isn't an "either-or" situation. Romans 7 and 8 were both present
> tense for Paul.
>
> > It is when we honestly face the "wretched man that I am" and realize that
> > we cannot live the Christian life and abandon all self-effort to do so
> > that we can come to Rest in Christ, realizing that it is Christ in us who
> > is truly our only hope of glory and that He is the one who is to live the
> > life.
>
> I know that, Joe. What we disagree on are the questions of the nature
> of the current man and the implications thereby of Christ's life in us.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > > > What has taken place has taken place. When we believed, were we
> > > > co-crucified with Him or not?
> > >
> > > Of course we were. But you don't have nail prints in your hands, do
> > > you?
> >
> > No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
> > body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit having
> > taken mine in union.
>
> But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
> Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
> left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
> ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
> freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?

The nature of the union is the same as the man Jesus had with the Father.
He was the firstborn of many brethren. We are called to be one with Him.
He is the Seed who fell into the ground and brought forth many sons in
His image. There is no wretched old man in Christ or in this union.

017:011 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,
and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we
are.

017:020 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word;

017:021 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may
believe that thou hast sent me.

017:022 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that
they may be one, even as we are one:

017:023 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in
one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and
hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

> >
> > > > Is He still on the cross? No, and neither were we. Our old nature has
> > > > been slain. We are dead to sin and to the law. It has no more hold on
> > > > us. Zilch.
> > >
> > > While I agree that it does not have a hold on us, it nevertheless does
> > > have an effect on us. We still life with the effects of sin in our
> > > bodies. Our bodies weaken, our "flesh" struggles against the Spirit.
> >
> > When will we see that the temptations and desires of the flesh are
> > intrinsic to the law of sin and death from which we have been delivered?
>
> When you define your terms, then we might be able to talk about this.

That would just lead to more useless word quibbles, a game I don't intend
to play. Throw away the grammar text and listen for the Spirit.

> > Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
> > His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we
> > walk not in faith [sin], ...
>
> Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.

Oh, you certainly can sin if you walk after the flesh and not after
the Spirit. And if you insist on 'do it yourself' Christianity, you'll
have plenty of sin to talk about.

> > what is that but a reminder of the wonder He
> > has worked, drawing us back to His pathway, reminding us that He lives
> > in us? Do we approach the Christian life asymptotically, always struggling
> > in our flesh to be 'better' Christians, or do find revelation in Christ
> > of just what He has done for us and now does in us? Do we recognize
> > the done deal?
>
> If it's a "done deal", then what is the cause of "walk[ing] not in
> faith"?

Faith obscured of what Jesus accomplished.

> > Baloney!
>
> Hardly. It's the only possible outcome of your theology. The fruit of
> the Spirit is ... self-control -- whether it's not yelling at your kids,
> eating that extra piece of cheesecake, or voiding in your pants.
> "Eternal now" beings don't soil their pants.

You confuse matters of the spirit (anger) with your natural humanity.
Voiding your pants is scarcely sin, Bob. Jesus had times when he was
weary and needed sleep or when He was hungry. Does that somehow make him
deficient in your eyes?

> > Someday you may be a doddering old man who thinks every day is
> > Thursday and everyone is named either George or Sue. And even that will
> > serve God's purpose. Is your spiritual state based on the condition of
> > your flesh or your intellectual apprehension of what is happening? Not in
> > the least.
>
> Then you've contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you want me to
> apprehend my true state in Christ so that I can live in victory; on the
> other hand, you just admit that my spiritual state doesn't depend on my
> "intellectual apprehension of what is happening".

There's no need to go further into this post, as right here you expose the
root of the problem. You think the apprehension of which I am speaking
must be intellectual. I speak only of apprehension with your heart.
Though I believe you are God's child, I believe you do not yet consciously
perceive what revelation knowledge is all about. Thus more discussion
with you on this is not likely to be productive. But, praise the Lord,
there is much to look forward to.

Good day, sir.

[Alex P. Cohen]

>> No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
>> body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit having
>> taken mine in union.

>But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
>Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
>left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
>ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
>freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?

A replacement has occurred. The true reality of the Christian life is
expressed in these two passages:

"For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When
Christ who is our life appears, then you alo will appear with him in
glory." (Colossians 3:3,4)

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
(Galatians 2:20)

Notice the phrase, "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith".

"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

So we know that our daily belief in this glorious reality is lived
apart from what we see or what we experience.

[...]

>> Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
>> His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we
>> walk not in faith [sin], ...

>Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.

Do you actually delight in the thought that believers _can_ sin?
Please tell us it isn't so!

Alex

[Link Hudson]

I've been reading a bit on this thread, and I think there may be a need to
define terms. "Death" in the Bible doesn't always just refer to physical
death. When I was a child and read that God told Adam that in the day he
ate of the fruit of the tree, he would surely die, and Adam ate, and didn't
die a literal physical mortal death, that confused me a little. Adam did
later die a physical death, but death entered the world when he sinned. It
wasn't just the physical death. Paul talks about death in more than a
physical sense, I believe, in Romans, and in fact in Romans 5, he bases a
lot of his reasoning on what happened with Adam. Certainly this principal
of death results in physical death.

For examples, see the way "death" is used in Romans 7. "...when the
commandment came, sin revived and I died." Yet Paul continues after this
to refer to the struggle with sin. It doesn't refer to literal physical
death. Also "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually
minded is life and peace."

I think those involved in this discussion are aware of these things, but
there seems to be confusion because people are using the same terms to
refer to different things.

As far as the title _Exchanged Life_ is concerned, I don't really go for
that title too much, but I do see the same thing in the book of Romans and
elsewhere, that by being united with the death of Christ, we have available
to us a measure of the resurrection life of Christ through the Spirit of
God which can enable us to overcome sin, if we walk in what God has offered
us. I see the exchange more of us giving up our sin and the death in our
flesh in exchange for the life of Christ being put in us. But the debate
about the title is only a side issue for me. I consider the doctrinal
issues to be more important

I think participating in the cross of Christ is something that occured in
the past, but is also an ongoing process. Paul wrote that he died daily.
Dying to the flesh is an on-going process, and we must continue to do it
and continue to offer ourselves as living sacrifices if we are to live holy
lives before God. Also, another interesting principal which touches on
both this idea and the one mentioned above about the resurrection life
being in our bodies is II Corinthians 4:10-12, where Paul and Timothy are
writing in context of enduring persecution and difficulty for Christ:

"We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of
Jesus may also be recealed in our body. For we who are alive are always
being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed
in our mortal body. So then, death is ar work in us, but life is at work
in you" (NIV)
Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote in article
<66q6cf$ere$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...

> Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which
> leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta'
> ask myself why. People don't name their central doctrines
> haphazardly, but pick the words carefully to convey as best
> they can the doctrine. And these two words "exchange life"
> say a lot. "Life" is the biggie. It carries all the same connotations
> as "walk" does with me, (as in "your Christian walk".) It's
> rife with concentration on THIS life, namely "how we live it."
> It's a doctrine of the secular world.

How we live in this life is a doctrine of the secular world? Doesn't most
of the material covered in the gospel deal with how we are to live in this
world? How we live this life is extremely important to God.

The obedience of faith is part of the Gospel of the kingdom. Repent and be
saved is part of the gospel, but laying hold of what we were laid hold of
for is also part of it. Notice that the four _gospels_ contain so much
other information besides how to repent and be saved. They also go into
detail about how to live the life God expects of us. So do the epistles.
Jesus traveled around preaching the Gospel of the kingdom. He did preach
repent, but many of His other teachings which were a part of His preaching
were on how to live our lives. Most of my life, I just thought of "the
gospel" as refering to the message of what was needed to be saved, but a
some things have been pointed out to me that show me that it has a broader
meaning in the Scriptures.

Keeping the law is not a bad thing, even for a Christian. Thousands of the
early Jewish Christians were devote observers of the law, and

> We didn't miss them, we just know _which_ death Paul
> means here. Namely, sin has no power over us any longer.
> Even if we commit them, we are still forgiven. No longer
> does sin separate us from God and banish us to Hell, but
> now we are separated from it's power. He who lives in
> faith is not "in sin".

I see what you are getting at, but sin still has bad consequences, even if
a believer participates in it. Paul wrote to "brothers" in 8:12-13, when
he said "For if you live after the flesh, you will die." See also I
Corinthians 5:5 and Galatians 6:8.

(The rest of the message should be considered to be addressed to all, not
just Bart Goddard.)

I see in Romans that there is actual practical power that can effect our
daily lives. God's GRACE not only can save us from hell, but it can
preserve us from sin. Law tells us what not to do. Under God's grace
which He gave through Christ Jesus, we have the power not to sin.

There was a discussion on whether Romans 7 described the Christ- Paul in
his then current state. I think it is true that Paul had this law in his
body. Romans 7 describes how that Paul was unable to keep the law because
of sin in his members. Then, toward the end of the chapter, he sums up
what he was describing- his inability to do the good he wanted to because
of the sin in his body that kept him from obeying the law- as the law of
sin and death. Then, Romans 8 says that there is no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus, for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
has set us free from the law of sin and death that the righeousness of the
law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the
Spirit.

So, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set Paul free from the
law of sin and death- the law described in chapter 7. The law that "when I
would do good, evil is present with me." Romans 8 continues to explain
that there are still two principals at work. One has to do with the mind
set on the flesh, that cannot please God, and living after the flesh. The
other one has to do with the mind set on the Spirit. Of course, Christians
can still sin, but we don't have to. It is possible, I believe, according
to the New Testament, never to sin again, but we have to continue to fight
and we have to continue to run the race.

Notice that Romans 8:11 is right in the middle of the context of how to be
lead by the Spirit, and not give in to sin. I believe it has application
to the resurrection, but its included in this context to. See II
Corinthians 4:10-12 for another passage about the death and life of Christ
being manifested now. Somethings we have now to a lesser degree which will
come in its fulness later. John talks about believers having eternal life
in them, but we have not yet been resurrected.

Romans 13:14 says to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and give _no_ occasion
to the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof. I Corinthians 15 says awake to
righteousness and _sin not._ The New Testament commands us not to sin.
The question is, does God give us the grace to obey Him? The law gave a
set of commands to be obeyed, but did not take care of the problem of sin
in the human heart. "For by the law comes the knowledge of sin." But,
through Christ, God gave us forgiveness of sins- and grace to overcome sin.

Notice in Matthew 1, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save His
people _from_ their sins." John 8:34 NIV "I tell you the truth, everyone
who sins is a slave to sin." Now look down at verse 36, "So if the Son
sets you free, you will be free indeed." I have a question about these
verses. Free from what?

"Love works no ill to its neighbor." We are commanded to love our neighbor
as ourselves, and to love the LORD our God with all our heart, soul, mind,
and strength. I John, which emphasizes loving one another, says that "His
commandments are not burdensome." If we are commanded to love our
neighbors and our God in this way, and these commands are not burdensome,
then it is possible to obey God, and to love as we are commanded. Why
then, some may ask, do we find it so difficult not to sin? Why do we sin
against our brothers, and "work ill toward our neighbor" if it is not
burdensome to love them? Jesus said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of
me. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." If we are yoked to the
Lord properly, then we are not under a heavy burden to obey Him. Peter
said that the Jews there had had a "yoke that neither we nor our fathers
could bear." But the yoke of Christ is easy, and His burden is light. God
gives us grace to live righteously. We just need to avail ourselves of
that grace.

If we have our mind set on the flesh, we cannot please God, for the mind
set on the flesh is not subject to the law of God. (Romans 7.) But the
mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

The law gave the knowledge of sin. Even those who walked uprightly under
the law were not freed from sin. They just offered the appropriate
sacrifices for their sins, required under the law.

[Bob Felts]

Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> >> There is but one "tense": the eternal NOW.
>
> >For God. For us, there is both. If you'd look at your watch, you might
> >see this.
>
> When God bears witness to your spirit that you are a child of God,
> what time is it? When the power of God goes forth in the name of
> Jesus and sight is restored to the blind, what time is it? The time
> is irrelevant, because when God interacts with man, He does so apart
> from time - in the eternal NOW.
>
> What time was it a minute ago? It was NOW. What is the current time?
> It is NOW. What time will it be in a minute? It will be NOW. The
> three so-called tenses (was, is, will be) all point to the eternal
> NOW.
>
> There is no regret or disappointment in the eternal NOW. There is no
> fear or failure in the eternal NOW. God's glorious grace, love
> (agape) and peace flood every corner of our being - NOW.
>
> Like a small child who has happened upon his mother's freshly baked
> cake and tasted a finger full of chocolate, I consider that I have
> only begun to scratch the surface of this wonderful truth. May each
> of us reading these words experience this glorious reality!

Do you ever listen to yourself? You spend three paragraphs denying the
aspects of time in the life of the beliver by asserting that everything
is "NOW"; yet you turn right around and inject time in your fourth
paragraph by saying "I have only begun to scratch the surface".

If you were consistent, you would have to say that you've done all the
scratching you'll ever do, because you're in the eternal "now".

>
>
> >> "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
> >> salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2)
>
> >So whenever time is mentioned, it always applies to EST (Eternal
> >Standard Time), and not whenever we happen to be?
> >
> >>
> >> We are spiritual beings, and as such, we worship God in spirit and
> >> truth. We are not to view things as they APPEAR. Instead, we are to
> >> view things as they REALLY are.
> >
> >So God gave us our senses so that we would turn them off and not use
> >them? Getting any gray hairs yet, Alex? Muscles beginning to sag a
> >bit, perhaps? Mind not working as quickly as it used to?
>
> Remember the time when you prayed for your son's fever, and it went
> instantly away? You didn't limit your belief to the senses then. Why
> is what you see and hear today any more valid than it was then? Do
> not allow your senses to deceive you.

I wouldn't have prayed as I did for my son had not my senses determined
that he had that specific need.

Or are you saying that he didn't have a fever to begin with?

>
> "Do not judge by appearance, but judge with right judgment."
> (John 7:24)

Keyhole theology. Pick one verse, twist it to your pet theology, and
ignore everything that Scripture has to say. Jesus never tells us to
not use our eye and ears; nor does Jesus tell us to ignore time.

>
> >
> >It's all illusion, isn't it? You're not getting older -- you're the
> >immortal forever running through the fields of Caanan.
>
> It's sad that you mock my belief and relegate it to a "mind over
> matter" game.

That's what it all boils down to, isn't it? Your watch isn't really
ticking, your body isn't really aging -- all is the eternal now (even
though you've just started to scratch the surface -- which implies
ongoing action, which implies change, which implies time).

>
> Here is an example from the life of Jesus. As you read it, ask
> yourself - Did Jesus put His confidence in the appearance (the
> tremendous lack), or did He proceed as if the provision already
> existed?

You're changing the subject form the role of the here and now in the
life of the believer and from the nature of reality to that of God's
provision.

[...]

>
> "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (John 6:63)

And yet those words are written on a piece of paper that you used your
eyes to read.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Paul said,
> >>
> >> "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
> >> weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
> >> things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
> >> that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
> >> eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
> >>
> >> Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
> >>
> >
> >"transient" does not mean "unreal".
>
> But can you see the comparison that Paul is making? Can you see which
> of the two - things that are seen, things that are unseen - he was
> putting his confidence in? Would you say that Paul's attitude towards
> his terrible afflictions was "partially wrong"?
>

Paul was not denying the reality of his terrible afflictions. Mor did
Paul escape his afflictions by ignoring them.

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 13 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

>
> > Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>

> > I'll respond to the much longer portions of this post when I have a few
> > more free minutes. In the meantime, I couldn't let this go by:
> >
> > > > > Joe:

> > > > > You determine the tense by your belief.
> > > >
> > > > That, sir, is unadulterated bull. I determine the tense by
> > > > referring to the Greek.
> > >
> > > That's a major problem, Bob. Toss the Greek grammar in the trash and
> > > don't let it substitute for the Spirit.
> >

> > That Greek grammar was inspired by the Spirit, Joe. To toss it out is
> > to reject that which is inspired by God. To toss it out is to reject
> > the Bible. To toss it out is to make your private interpretation of the
> > Word the standard for the Christian life.
>
> I'm glad you couldn't let it go by, Bob. I was hoping to grab your
> attention on this one. I too have a Greek grammar on the shelf (in
> general where it belongs).

Just curious, but do you say the same thing about your dictionary?

> I certainly appreciate quality scholarship and
> have spent much of my life in academia.

Yeah -- you appreciate it so much you relegate it to the shelf.

> I also know there are many reasonably accurate translations of scripture
> from a jillion different manuscripts that very widely in detail.

Just curious, but do you speak any foreign languages? If so, which
ones? I, myself, am acquainted to varying degrees with German, Greek,
and Russian -- and I know that there are times when "reasonably
accurate" just doesn't cut it for precision work.

> And unless one is inspired to devote a lifetime of study to the Greek,
> coupled with manuscript study, having the skills of a modern Erasmus who
> was himself controversial, I doubt they would come up with a better one.
> How much better is our time spent simply getting to know Jesus.

And how do you get to know Jesus better by ignoring the nuances of the
language(s) that the Spirit used to produce the written Word?

>
> But there is a fiction abroad that one is somehow deficient in their
> Christianity unless they can somehow make profound comments on the fine

> nuances of Greek grammar, ...

Not at all. You made a stupid statement, Joe, when you said "toss out
the Greek grammar". Why not say, instead, "toss out the writtenw word"?
Those two statements are actually equivalent.

> ... such as, "The aorist tense has often been mishandled by both scholars

> and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently are said to denote
> once-for-all action when the text has no such intention." The truth is
> that there have been multitudes of wonderful Christians who wouldn't know
> an aorist tense from the aorta in cardiology.

But there are some of us who do -- and without them you wouldn't have
even the "reasonably accurate" translations that you use. You're biting
the hand that feeds you.

> Certainly this fiction abounds among certain ministers who find themselves
> better respected among their colleagues if they can occasionally toss out
> such a comment. For pleasers of men the reward will be parallel. The Holy
> Spirit has the answer to anything we want to know. God did give us a
> communication line and prayer if we be His.

But you wouldn't know about that communication line if it weren't for
the written Word, and the scholars who labored to translate it into
something you could understand.

[...]

>
> We find a clue with respect to such expenditure of effort in the writings
> of Paul (II Tim. 2:22-23) where he writes, "...pursue righteousness,
> faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure
> heart. Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments,
> because you know they produce quarrels (NIV).

But who determines what constitutes a "foolish and stupid argument"? Is
contending for faith from those who would distort it considered "foolish
and stupid"?

>
> Does our Christianity depend at all on our finding the best translation of
> the Bible or having our Greek tenses straightened out? Not in the least.
> Our Vital Link is the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Really? Here's the $64 million dollar question. How do you know?

[Bart Goddard]

I just respond to a couple things, and then I'll be done with this
thread. Blume says "I agree" often enough to satisfy me that
I've done enough damage here. Gaut and Felts can hammer our
the anti-Calvin thing.

Michael F. Blume wrote:

>> And yet there is no way to logically conclude that one day a guy
>> just wakes up and kicks all sin out of his life. This life is the
>> battle.
>
>Agreed, but only due to our thick heads and our ingrained
>philosophy of the world and works.

No, it's even more due to our inborn sinful nature. However
well educated and inspired we are, however well we break
free from false philosophies, we will still not overcome in
this life.

>You are too passive -- on the other extreme of doing
>absolutely nothing -- not even responding to the leading
>of God to move, for such a move would be works to you.

No. I believe in doing works, and even working very hard to
do works (by God grace.) The issue here is not "whether
works", but "where works." That is, what place do works
have in the plan of salvation? My complaint against
"exchanged life" is that it places the works in the role of
"goal". Jesus died to pay for my sins. So, 1. I need do no
works to pay for my sins and 2. He didn't die just so that
I could now do good works. Works are neither the means
or the goal, but only the consequence .

Faith is not a work, Goddard.

As I said. But _having_ faith IS a work. That which comes
from God is grace. That which reflects off of us is works.
God send us faith (by grace) and we hold that faith (works).
Our "holding" does not merit us anything either. There are
way too many Christians running about wearing their faith
like a medal of honor. They're not so much proud of Jesus
and His work, but of the fact that they made a "decision".
They think God will pat them on the head for their heroic
bit of sucking up. But God only grants His favor for the
sake of Jesus' blood.

[Joseph W. Gaut]

Is God, the I AM in the Eternal Now, finished with the Universe or has
He just scratched the surface? Of the increase of His Kingdom there
shall be no end. And that in the Eternal Now.

> > >>
> > >> Paul said,
> > >>
> > >> "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal
> > >> weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the
> > >> things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things
> > >> that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are
> > >> eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17,18)
> > >>
> > >> Or that Paul was "partially wrong"?
> > >>
> > >
> > >"transient" does not mean "unreal".
> >
> > But can you see the comparison that Paul is making? Can you see which
> > of the two - things that are seen, things that are unseen - he was
> > putting his confidence in? Would you say that Paul's attitude towards
> > his terrible afflictions was "partially wrong"?

> Paul was not denying the reality of his terrible afflictions. Mor did
> Paul escape his afflictions by ignoring them.

Very true. And was Paul focusing on these afflictions or on Christ? Did
these afflictions somehow mar the life of Christ within? Let us not
confuse the barnacles on the hull of the ship with the valuable cargo it
carries within.

This same Paul is the one who instructs us by the Spirit to, "Set your
affections on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead,
and your life is hid with Christ in God." [Colossians 3:2-3]

This is a word from God to Christians that Paul has given us. We are
dead. Our life is hidden with Jesus. Ever present reality.

Paul goes on to write, "When Christ, WHO IS OUR LIFE, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with him in glory." [Colossians 3:4]

1) We are dead.
2) Our life is hidden with Christ.
3) Jesus is our Life.

Our reckoning by faith is that such word from God is true. We so RECKON
and we YIELD to the Spirit of grace. We cannot grow the fruit of the
Spirit. Only He can. Only He can live the Christian life. Only by
abiding in Him is there Victory. We rest in Him and cease from dead
works.

Peace and good will,

Joe Gaut

[Bob Felts]

Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> >> No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
> >> body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit having
> >> taken mine in union.
>

> >Bob Felts:

> >But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
> >Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
> >left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
> >ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
> >freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?
>

> A replacement has occurred. The true reality of the Christian life is
> expressed in these two passages:
>
> "For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When
> Christ who is our life appears, then you alo will appear with him in
> glory." (Colossians 3:3,4)
>
> "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
> Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by
> faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
> (Galatians 2:20)
>

> Notice the phrase, "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith".

That's all well and good, Alex. But you didn't answer any of the
questions. We know that a replacement has occured -- that has never
been an issue between us. What is at issue is the nature of that
replacement. Certainly Christ lives in us. Yet Paul also says "For I
delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members
another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law
of sin that dwells in my members." And nowhere are we told to ignore
this aspect of our lives; indeed, James urges us to "confess your sins
to one another..." and John says "If we say we have no sin we decieve

ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Furthermore, you have to address the issue of living by faith in what?
In the fact that this aspect of our life doesn't exist? Or that Jesus'
sacrifice is sufficient to deal with this part of our lives?

>
> "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
> things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
>
> So we know that our daily belief in this glorious reality is lived
> apart from what we see or what we experience.

Nonsense. You read the Bible, don't you? You use your eyes, do you
not? Or do you sit in a dark room with you eyes covered with the Bible
closed and say "What I see doesn't matter"?

>
> [...]

>
> >> Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
> >> His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we
> >> walk not in faith [sin], ...
>
> >Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.
>

> Do you actually delight in the thought that believers _can_ sin?
> Please tell us it isn't so!

Of course it isn't so. Now, answer the question. Can we sin? Yes, or
no?

[Bob Felts]

Link Hudson <hud...@link.net.id> wrote:

> I've been reading a bit on this thread, and I think there may be a need to
> define terms.

Always an excellent thing to do.

> "Death" in the Bible doesn't always just refer to physical death. When I
> was a child and read that God told Adam that in the day he ate of the
> fruit of the tree, he would surely die, and Adam ate, and didn't die a
> literal physical mortal death, that confused me a little. Adam did later
> die a physical death, but death entered the world when he sinned. It
> wasn't just the physical death. Paul talks about death in more than a
> physical sense, I believe, in Romans, and in fact in Romans 5, he bases a
> lot of his reasoning on what happened with Adam. Certainly this principal
> of death results in physical death.
>
> For examples, see the way "death" is used in Romans 7. "...when the
> commandment came, sin revived and I died." Yet Paul continues after this
> to refer to the struggle with sin. It doesn't refer to literal physical
> death. Also "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually
> minded is life and peace."
>
> I think those involved in this discussion are aware of these things, but
> there seems to be confusion because people are using the same terms to
> refer to different things.

The primary idea of death in Scripture is that of separation, while life
is union.

As examples, if you are a trichotomist, then man is composed of body,
soul, and spirit. The body is that which communes/interfaces with the
physical world; the soul is that which communes with man, and the spirit
is that which communes with God.

Then spiritual death is the separation of man's spirit from God; while
eternal life is union with Christ's life. Physical death is the
separation of man's soul/spirit from his body; physical life is the
union of man's soul/spirit with his body.

>
> As far as the title _Exchanged Life_ is concerned, I don't really go for

> that title too much, ...

I don't either. An "exchange" means that one thing is swapped for
another. Our old life wasn't swapped -- it was killed. Jesus certainly
didn't take on our old life when we received His new life.

> ... but I do see the same thing in the book of Romans and

> elsewhere, that by being united with the death of Christ, we have available
> to us a measure of the resurrection life of Christ through the Spirit of
> God which can enable us to overcome sin, if we walk in what God has offered
> us. I see the exchange more of us giving up our sin and the death in our
> flesh in exchange for the life of Christ being put in us. But the debate
> about the title is only a side issue for me. I consider the doctrinal

> issues to be more important.

There is no argument that the "old man" was crucified and that we are a
new creation in Christ. There is no argument that we live because
Christ lives in and through us. There is no argument that not only are
we saved from the wrath of God by His blood, but that we are saved
through His life. There is no argument that our life is "hidden in
Christ in God" and that we are "seated with Him in the heavenly places".

The argument is, rather, about issues such as:

1) What is the nature of the believer after conversion? Can the
believer sin? Does the believer sin?
2) How are we to life this present life? Are we to ignore all temporal
aspects and simply focus on the eternal? Does the fact that this
life is transient mean that this life is unreal?
3) What is the role of the physical senses in a Christian's life?
Are they to be disbelieved at all times when they percieve something
that isn't (allegedly) in accordance with Scripture? Or does the
Spirit work also through the senses?
4) What is the role of the intellect in a Christian's life? Is the
intellect, like the senses, to be distrusted replaced, instead, by
"heart knowledge" (whatever that is)?

>
> I think participating in the cross of Christ is something that occured in
> the past, but is also an ongoing process. Paul wrote that he died daily.

That may have been more sarcastic than theological. ;-)

> Dying to the flesh is an on-going process, and we must continue to do it
> and continue to offer ourselves as living sacrifices if we are to live holy
> lives before God.

1) One side in this debate would disagree with the statement that
"dying to the flesh is an on-going process", since "those who belong
to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and
desires."

2) "Living sacrifices" weren't put to death -- they were simply
dedicated to the temple for service as long as they lived.

> Also, another interesting principal which touches on
> both this idea and the one mentioned above about the resurrection life
> being in our bodies is II Corinthians 4:10-12, where Paul and Timothy are
> writing in context of enduring persecution and difficulty for Christ:
>
> "We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of
> Jesus may also be recealed in our body. For we who are alive are always
> being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed
> in our mortal body. So then, death is ar work in us, but life is at work
> in you" (NIV)

I'd be very interested in seeing a response to this from Gaut, Cohen,
Blume, et. al.

> Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote in article
> <66q6cf$ere$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>
>
> > Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which
> > leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta' ask
> > myself why. People don't name their central doctrines haphazardly, but
> > pick the words carefully to convey as best they can the doctrine. And
> > these two words "exchange life" say a lot. "Life" is the biggie. It
> > carries all the same connotations as "walk" does with me, (as in "your
> > Christian walk".) It's rife with concentration on THIS life, namely
> > "how we live it." It's a doctrine of the secular world.
>
> How we live in this life is a doctrine of the secular world? Doesn't most
> of the material covered in the gospel deal with how we are to live in this
> world? How we live this life is extremely important to God.

We agree. But there is a secular way to live this life and a Christian
way to live this life. Bart is putting forth the thesis that the
"exchanged life" teaching has, at its roots, a secular basis. IOW, it's
a lie dressed up in religous garb to fool the undiscerning (in his
opinion).

[...]

>
> Keeping the law is not a bad thing, even for a Christian.

It's a terrible thing. Flesh ('sarx') + Law = an explosive mixture.

> Thousands of the early Jewish Christians were devote observers of the law,

But the question, of course, is why.

> and
>
> > We didn't miss them, we just know _which_ death Paul means here.
> > Namely, sin has no power over us any longer. Even if we commit them, we
> > are still forgiven. No longer does sin separate us from God and banish
> > us to Hell, but now we are separated from it's power. He who lives in
> > faith is not "in sin".
>
> I see what you are getting at, but sin still has bad consequences, even if
> a believer participates in it. Paul wrote to "brothers" in 8:12-13, when
> he said "For if you live after the flesh, you will die." See also I
> Corinthians 5:5 and Galatians 6:8.

But is Paul talking about eternal death or physical death? There is no
doubt that God will end the physical life of believers who commit
certain sins (e.g. Ananias and Sapphira, the Corinthians who were
partking unworthily of the Lord's supper, etc...). Does this mean that
they die eternally, too?

>
> (The rest of the message should be considered to be addressed to all, not
> just Bart Goddard.)
>
> I see in Romans that there is actual practical power that can effect our
> daily lives. God's GRACE not only can save us from hell, but it can
> preserve us from sin. Law tells us what not to do. Under God's grace
> which He gave through Christ Jesus, we have the power not to sin.
>
> There was a discussion on whether Romans 7 described the Christ- Paul in
> his then current state. I think it is true that Paul had this law in his
> body. Romans 7 describes how that Paul was unable to keep the law because
> of sin in his members. Then, toward the end of the chapter, he sums up
> what he was describing- his inability to do the good he wanted to because
> of the sin in his body that kept him from obeying the law- as the law of
> sin and death.

The "law of sin and death" is not "sin keeps me from obeying the law".
The law of sin and death is "the soul that sins will die".

[...]

[Clayton Austin]

Joseph Gaut:
Bob Felts:
Alex Cohen:
Link Hudson:
Bart Goddard:

There is something a little diabolic about the title of "Exchange Life
Teaching". Let us peruse the scripture in first-Timothy 3:16, for just a
moment and mine the gold intrinsic in this bible verse.

The apostle Paul wrote- "And without controversy great is the 'mystery
of godliness." It is obvious that Paul is writing to christians about
the 'common faith of Jesus Christ' and not to the people in the past or
present disordered world state of civilization who live totally in the
'kingdom of the natural brain and demon influence.

The one God of Israel was manifest in a corporal body as a human
being, a person with personhood and a personality. And as a human being
he completed every phase of human development in the context of the law
without sin and iniquity. Therefore he was justified in the Spirit, and
as a human being made lower than the angels to perform the determinate
counsel of his Father, and to suffer death, he was seen by the holy
angels. Not only that, but he preached the gospel to the Israelis and a
few of the Gentiles. Thank God, he was believed on in the world, and
received up quality-wise into glory to finish his vicarious and
substitutional work of redemption.

Now when we compare this reality to the question of "Exchange Life
Teachings" something vital is missing, maybe it is the way the questions
are asked. I think the real question should be - "what will a man give
in exchange for his life (soul) as the price of a ransom." There is a
succinct difference here.

What will "I" give in exchange for my life experienced as an
individual. And when you stop to think about that question, you realize
that there is absolute nothing you can give God, or for that matter, any
thing of value that God would want from you or me. So if there is any
credence in the "Exchange Life Teaching", it should be - "What would God
give in exchange for our lives?"

We already know the answer to this all important question, the Lord
gave himself a ransom for our lives. Now the 'mystery of godliness'
begins to surface in our understanding. And we realize, once liberated
from the sin-vortex by the dynamic power of Christ in spiritual
regeneration, and the image of God is restored in our spirit-intellects,
this is what we were created for before we got captured and imprisoned
by the power of original sin.

Now because the Lord Jesus reappeared on the day of Pentecot, and the
Sonship is now in the church, we have received the Son of God, the Lord
himself in the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty (the comforter),
and we have his mind, the knowledge of the truth, and his spiritual
gifts. His character also is personified in our spirit-intellects, and
we are sealed with his bond of perfection, which course is his agape
love.

God gave everything in exchange for our lives, and we gave nothing.
And now as we live by his faith and nature, and we are lead by his
divine guidance, we realize that in doing so, 'all things work together
for our eventual good and perfection" (completeness) because we love him
and we are the product of his eternal purpose.

In the reality of Jesus Christ we realize that the passage of time is
an illusion because of our unique mode of sense perception. But on the
other hand, we are controlled in this disordered world state by clock
time. If we as christians superimpose clock time, and try to modulate
the master plan of the ages by it, we are deceiving our ownselves. But
we can use the psychological aspect of clock time to give us the
knowledge of the past and present in our intellectual memories and
consciousness, and the insight into future events revealed by the Lord.

This is why we have the revelation of Jesus Christ, his faith, to give
us his understanding of the reality of the Kingdom of God, and to bring
us into the Kingdom age as kings and priests.

Gene Austin

Gene Austin
THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH
>>>>--HIGHER--DIMENSIONS-->>

[Michael F. Blume]

Bart Goddard wrote:

> >This is confusing!
>
> And when things get confusing, the solution is to go slower and
> pay attention to the nouns and verbs. It's easy to say "not of
> works" and then get real sloppy about _which_ works and
> _who_ works etc. It's easy to say "without sin" and then get
> real sloppy about what that means too.

You are right. Check out the tenses, too. Paul said we are
dead indeed to sin (Ro. 6:11). ANd we are also alive
towards God (Ro. 6:11). Hence, being alive, in resurrection
life if you follow Paul, we are to present ourselves as such
(Ro. 6:13). Paul wrote to those who did not know they were
dead and even resurrected. Apparently many involved in this
thread are in the same ship. They are not aware of death
with Christ and resurrection in the here and now.

When you separate the ongoing cross of self-denial from the
totally past experience of crucifixion of the old man and
resurrection into new creaturehood, things become clear.

And the crux (pun not intended) of the matter stems from
Paul's description of a need to be delivered from the law of
sin and death. Those who wish to know what this law is
should look at Romans 7:21. If you chop apart chapter 7
from chapter 6 then you are lost in confusion. Paul gave
FOUR illustrations of the thought he was teaching in the
first part of Romans 6. We are servants, branches, wives
and then he gave his PAST testimony as an illustration to
explain Romans 6. All the first three indicate the idea of
us being EXPRESSORS of that which ANOTHER is the source of.
We are vessels. We are the means by which God expresses His
nature into the physical.

God created Adam and told him to multiply. Since Adam came
directly from God's making, multiplication of Adam would
render all offspring to likewise be "of" God. INitially his
wife had to be made from the materials of his body, and the
two would procreate children from the root work of God's
making. God would then fill the earth with many sons of
God. And with His life within them from the tree of life
they would express His Spirit throughout the world. And all
the world would be filled with His glory and He would be all
in all.

Sin messed it up, though, and man never did fill himself
with that life.

God had a problem. A human race continued for thousands of
years out of whack with HIs plans. But His plans did not
change.

He then made a plan to become human, Himself, and take up
the original position Adam was given but lost. And then
also God as a man would be the sacrifice to die in proxy
manner for all the human race. Those accepting this (don't
get off the main issue, Calvinists -- bear with me here),
would then be essentially dead to their involvement in what
became known as the OLD humanity, and became a new
humanity.

With the one single Spirit of the Son within the hearts of
true believers today, Jesus has multiplied and is filling
the earth. The bread of the Last Super indicates that
principle.

We are in Christ because Christ is in us. COnfusing? Not
really.

The single loaf of bread was divided and consumed by the
12. It was IN them. Yet, in that GROUP, each of the twelve
could say they comprised the loaf. The loaf was one again
when they were IN THAT GROUP together. Hence we have Christ
in us, since His single Spirit dwells in us all, but yet we
are in Christ when we are together.

Now, the hitch comes when we recall our old manners of
living. We have the SPirit in us to express. But we are so
used to living empty of that Life, that we tend to continue
that manner of living. And our MINDS need renewing for the
life within to be free to be expressed by us.

Had Adam not sinned, Cain and Abel would be filled with life
by eating the tree's fruit of life as Adam would have (had
he obeyed God and eaten fruit of life), and it would have
been easy to express God's Life. Mankind did not live a
lifetime until a conversion occurred due to an Adam having
sinned. So, hypothetically, they would not have been
burdened with a mindset bound by habit of an "old" lifestyle
of some kind of supposed independence (which is not really
independence at all, but bondage).

Without a life of living ANOTHER WAY, they would have had no
problem learning how to express God's Life in them. But we
have lived a life the OTHER way. And even after we get the
Life of God inside us for the purpose of salvation and also
expression outwardly of the life, we have a mindset to see
changed, so we can express God's life. We have a problem.
A deep rooted problem of a MIND conditioned to years without
that life of God. THAT is why it is hard to find those who
do not sin.

> What Paul _really_ taught was that we would be _presented_
> as sinless before God on account of the merits of Jesus' sacrifice.

Yes, but you entirely miss the death to sin and the
resurrection from it and into new creaturehood, leaving you
PART WAY in what Paul is trying to convey.

> The only "sinlessness" we can enjoy on earth is forensic.

I disagree entirely since Paul said we are delivered from Ro
7:21 and it struggle by Ro. 8:2's new law. ANd if the
struggle was a DOING struggle, and if Paul said 8:2's law
freed him from that struggle, then it is a deliverance from
a behavioral bondage.

Answer me this: Is RO. 8:2 speaking about freedom from Ro.
7:21 or not?

The reason I ask is due to your seeming entire disconnection
of the two passages as though they have nothing to do with
one another and that the law of sin and death is not the law
of Ro. 7:21.

> OTOH,
> it does take real effort (and it is _we_ who commit the effort
> _by grace of_ God) to rout out the pet sins we have. But
> we should not confuse the two concepts: 1. Declared sinless
> on account of Christ's sacrifice, and 2. Not committing sin.
> The first gets us into Heaven. The second is our joyful response
> to the first.

Agreed. but it is practically not sinning, too.

> >In 1 John 1:8, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
> >and the truth is not in us. (NKJV)
>
> Exactly.

Nobody denies this. We still have sin in the flesh. But we
are saying that sin is left inactive since it is only
activated when WE put forth effort to live righteously
instead of leaning on the indwelling Spirit of Christ to
manifest Himself.

> >Who does the job of "MUCH removal of ingrained habits"?
>
> The subject of the sentence is "we". "We" do the believing,
> "we" commit the good works. But just because "we"'re the
> subject of the sentence doesn't mean we've merited anything.

You seem to say otherwise previously when you said that
believing is a work, and therefore God chooses who will
believe since your idea of election excludes our choice to
believe or not.

> >The exchanged life is effortless? Does this make Bible-reading,
> >prayer and fellowship superfluous?
>
> Some would claim that God goes so far in possession of
> the will that a person no longer feels any laziness about
> good works. So they would mean here by "effortless"
> that they had to exercise no force of will to pray, even
> if they're knees were tired and they had a deadline to
> meet which was rushing them, and they were still mad
> at whomever they were praying for, but rather they do
> all God's will without the slightest temptation to do
> otherwise. I.e., it's effort, but "effort gladly expended."
>
> However enviable such an attitude is, we're all at least one
> death away from attaining it.
>
> Bart

It is the REST Hebrews spoke about. Cessation from sin.

The words you speak above are a bit off. We are seeing the
mindsets changed by the glory of the teaching of God's word
(2 Cor 3:18; 4:6). God changes our thinking, if we are open
enough to believe we need changing. It is the renewing of
the mind.

-------
In Him,
MBLUME

"That I May Know Him"
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm

[Michael F. Blume]

Bart Goddard wrote:

> Michael F. Blume wrote:
>
> >The major error opposers to Exchanged Living make is to

> >relegate death as ongoing and resurrection as ongoing. But

> >Paul says otherwise in every single instance. Death is once
> >and for all. And we died once and for all with Christ to
> >ever LIVE (liveth). NEVER is death said to be ongoing with
> >Paul. Never.
>

> Show me one Christian who didn't/isn't going to die.

Since sin is in the flesh, this flesh will yet die. Sin in
the flesh can be made dormant. Did not Paul say that when
he tried to keep the law sin was stirred, rose up and slew
him? And that is a law in 7:21. So when Paul stopped
trying, he abode by another law, Ro. 8:2, and didn't try.
That rendered sin in the flesh nullified and inactive.
Should he begin trying again, sin would stir up again.

So sin in the flesh is the only reason we will die. It has
nothing to do with being able to live sinless. My, my. If
sin was not in the flesh, then we would have no problem
doing anything we wanted. The only reason Paul could not
keep the law was due to being sold under sin.

> Your
> doctrine sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice,

Those who can avoid the doubting Thomas' like yourself and
not be swayed by them, find their lives growing less and
less in need of repentance over sinful actions.

> oh ye who speaks of "practical". Are you going to claim that
> your flesh is dead? That the smell of Pizza and the Victoria's
> Secret catalogue don't arouse you when they ought not? The
> old Adam isn't dead yet.

Old man is annihilated. It is just the flesh we have
problems with now. And that is only due mostly to expecting
to sin and a backward mindset, not helped at all by
incorrect teachers.

> >We are as close as can be already.
>

> Then this is heaven, and God has renegged a bit on His
> promise.

I agree there, but I am referring to this life.

> >A title of a doctrine is not as important as the doctrine itself.
>
> Some local buffoons have a Bible Study group called
> "Lutherans for Christ." Perhaps the title doesn't mean
> much, but it sure conveys the meaning intended:

Agreed. But do not judge a doctrine by its supposed title.

> Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which
> leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta'
> ask myself why. People don't name their central doctrines
> haphazardly, but pick the words carefully to convey as best
> they can the doctrine. And these two words "exchange life"
> say a lot.

But it is CHRIST'S LIFE that is the entire CORE of the
issue.

> >Who said the Kingdom was of this world? You are distorting
> >what Jesus said and meant,
>
> No, I'm giving an example of people not "getting the point",
> I'm saying nothing about the Kingdom being of this world.

Okay, I see your point.

> >> And here in the "exchange life" doctrine, we have, once
> >> again, "Ah, NOW we can fulfill the Law."
> >
> >NO. 1,000 times NO. Jesus fulfilled the law IN US.
>
> YES. You just said it "Jesus fulfilled the law IN US."
> You skipped over the fact that the law is too weak to
> save us,

Doesn't mean I do not believe the law is too weak to save
us. Fact is Jesus still fulfilled the righteousness of the
law in us. How? By Christ's death AS US. His death can
do nothing for us unless it was accomplished AS US.

> or that it is the _righteousness_ that is fulfilled
> in us, rather than the Law itself. (Assuming you're referring
> to Romans 8.) The only thing Jesus accomplishes for us
> in your doctrine is that we get put back into the Law but
> this time with a better head start.

Perfect illustration of your lack of understanding. And
another example of jumping to conclusions before making sure
your assumptions are correct. (Why do you always do that?)
NO. Law is not in the picture AT ALL. Law is "YOU DO
THIS...without my power."

It is seeing the GOAL of the Law fulfilled in us -- Law's
righteousness -- without using Law. And it is not going at
the law again with supposed better understanding. Law is
entirely based upon self exerting self. That entire picture
is gone!!! No matter how many times we say OUR LIFE, which
is self and which law appealed to, is encouraged to be cast
away in EXCHANGE for Christ's life and works and efforts,
YOU STILL are not getting the point.

Our lives in exchange for HIS is global and is saying ALL
that has to do with self is not the issue. Self is out of
the picture in this teaching. Those who rely upon self are
told to put self aside forever, as far as christianity is
concerned. Law demands self and only related to self.

> >We do not fulfill it, but it is fulfilled in us.
>
> But what is "it"? The Law, or righteousness?

Righteousness of the Law. A state of being which the Law
was too weak to instill through its means of works. Without
one little finger having lifted itself to become righteous,
we are made righteous by believing. You call belief a work,
though. But we believe.

> >Nothing in the entire New Testament hints at continual
> >crucifixion or future crucifixion with Christ. Big error to
> >think different.
>

> 1 Pet 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial
> which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
> 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings;
> that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with
> exceeding joy.

This has nothing to do with death with Christ in the context
Paul is using in ROmans 6:6. Sufferings here regards Jesus'
words of taking up our crosses and deals with the flesh we
always will have in this life. Crucifixion? No.
Sufferings.

> The exceeding joy is in the future and we ar partakers of Christ's
> sufferings.

And there is no exceeding joy now, in any other sense? What
is the context of Peters' words as opposed to Paul's words.

I mean, Paul said we are dead already and risen with Him.
Read Ro. 6:8-11. Reckon yourself DEAD INDEED to sin. To
flesh? No. To sin? Yes. Peter is not speaking of death
to sin, but self-denial. TWO different things which you
obviously have never delineated in your theology yet.

> That would be _ongoing_ partakers, as you can plainly see from verse
> 12. I guess you're right, there is not "hint"...instead, it just
> plainly
> says it.

I am speaking about death to sin.

> >Every reference explains it as PAST TENSE.

>
> Except this one? Or the next:
>
> >Gala 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
>
> Not "was crucified", but "am crucified"?

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

"Is crucified," "am crucified" means the same thing. "Is
dead" indicates the same thing again. "Am crucified" does
not mean "am being crucified".

Come on, Bart.

> >Crucified. Past tense.
>
> Am crucified. Present perfect.

Like saying "Is dead."

Is Christ still dying when we read:

Gala 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if
righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ IS DEAD in
vain.

Then what about this with the same phraseology:

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

> > A huge misconception of the use of present tense.
>

> This is 8th grade grammer, and you're blowing it. (And
> before someone pounces on me, yes, I know what the
> "real" tense of these passages is. "Present perfect" will do
> just fine for the present discussion.)

Again your rule misses the target in similar references to
Christ.

And these certainly make the picture plain:

Jame 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so
faith without works is dead also.

Presently I am in a state of death. That means I died long
ago. There is your "present perfect".

> >Death renders us righteous,
>
> This is the nth time you've used the term "death" without
> saying "whose" death.

Christ died as us and we therefore died WITH HIM. So His
death is our deaths. That is the entire point in Romans
6!! SInce He died for us and rose again, then we ought to
reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin and also risen and
alive from the dead.

You cannot be alive from the dead if you are still dying!!

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

Colo 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead.

How plainer can it get??

> Our deaths don't render us
> righteous, but only Jesus'.

Exactly. But His death was as our deaths, so we are dead in
a resultant manner.

And Paul says to reckon yourself to be dead. Why? Since
You are supposed to die with Christ.

> "Death" itself is our enemy.

Agreed.

> Your continual confusion of the different types of death
> is part of the trouble with your doctrine.

No. It is just my failure to adequately convey my thoughts,
which is why I am on this newsgroups to better convey myself
through such discussions. And you are helping me much!

> We have
> physical death (which is NOT over with), we have
> spiritual death (which was our state when born),

Spiritually born? If so, then THAT is what I am saying!!

> we have
> "death to sin", which is our struggle against it,

Here is where we depart. Paul said it is past tense so much
so that we consider ourselves as alive from the death to
sin. The two cannot be simultaneous in experience.

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

Roma 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead
dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but
in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our
Lord.

In verse Paul says we will be alive. Then in verse 11 we
read we ARE alive from the dead. What death? Death to
sin. "Dead indeed unto sin". I like the "INDEED"!! It
removes all your thoughts. So we realize that the future
aspect seen in verse 8 is only explaining sequential
experience of Christ's death and resurrection. We have
already been through that experience according to Paul, if
we were immersed into His death by faith according to verses
3 and 4.

> and Christ's
> death, from which He wrested life. If you mix these up,
> you get garbage.

As far as death to sin goes, it is THROUGH CHRIST that we
are dead to and alive from sin. How? Since that death was
AS US - vicarious - so we can say HIs death was our deaths.

Let this sink in:

2Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because
we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

PAST TENSE. All dead ALREADY because His death FOR us means
He died AS us. So we are ALL DEAD. PAST TENSE.

> Like "I'm not dying.">Not true. I see you still
> refuse to really understand what>we believe, and assume you already
> know, without reading us
> >closely. It is victory over sin, the world and Satan. And
> >so much victory -- "indeed" victory -- that it affects our
>
> If I don't know what you believe then why am I still
> complaining about your term "victory"? I know exactly
> the issue here.

NO. You have a huge lack of separating past death to sin
and ongoing self-denial. They are not the same issue, but
work together towards the same goal of sinless living.

> If we have the sort of victory you claim
> in this life, then we're already in Heaven and we won't die.

Explained above. Your lack of understanding death to sin
and ongoing self-denial with sin being in the flesh still is
evident here.

> >You cannot unconsciously excuse carnal behaviour
> >by saying there is no behavioral blessing n the Life of
> >Christ in the here and now.
>
> I wouldn't. And I know of no one who does. The only
> thing that excuses carnal behavior is the blood of Christ.

Unconsciously you are excusing carnal behaviour.

Was not Paul's issue at hand BEHAVIOUR in Ro. 7:14-24?

Was not the answer to this BEAHVIOUR given as deliverance by
God through Christ in verse 25?

Was not this summed up in 8:1-2 as law of the Spirit of Life
in Christ freeing us from a law of sin and death which was
the explanation as to why BEHAVIOR n the previous verses was
a problem.?

If so, and the answer is "yes" to all the above, then
BEHAVIOR is solved through Christ AS WELL as unrighteous
state of being. You only see the first part and not the
second. You see your standing alone changed, but not your
behavior. Paul taught BOTH. RO. 7:14-24 concerns BEHAVIOR.

> >Joe rightly describes a life of external code book living
> >and a self-effort to make oneself righteous in behaviour.
>
> See, I do know what's going on. You are simply offering
> a different way to keep the Law.

How can I ever get this across to you, for you THINK you
know what we are saying, but you're lost still? Keeping
law is the whole point of deliverance. Paul kept law (tried
to) when HE, PAUL, WOULD do good. He found not the ability
to perform good, just the will to do it. So Paul said HE
STOPPED PERFORMING effort. Law is a picture of EFFORT TO DO
GOOD. Grace is not any effort we exert to do good. Get
this! It is GOD'S EFFORT and not ours. His is an ongoing
exertion of EFFORT in us, and we find we are automatically
doing good, but WITHOUT EFFORT. Our bodies become His
INSTRUMENTS. And as instruments of righteousness (Ro.
6:13), we find we DO RIGHTEOUS DEEDS, but by HIS EFFORT.

Paul taught that it becomes like breathing. We put forth no
effort to breathe, but yet we still do it. It JUST
HAPPENS. We blink our eyes without effort. We go to sleep
without effort. But try to blink your eyes by effort and
try to sleep by effort and find how much you mess the whole
thing up! THIS is what Paul is teaching. To stop messing
the
thing up. To stop trying. To let it flow through you. To
get out
of the way. To stop sitting in the driver's seat.

> I don't care if you guys
> come up with 490 ways to keep the Law without trying,
> my objection is that "keeping the Law" (even if Jesus
> is doing is for you) is not a proper focus for Christian doctrine.

Righteousness of the Law is the focus, and that is the
horse, but the cart that follows is BEHAVIOR, and THAT is
what this message preaches. You are not seeing it due to
unconscious infatuation with self being all who can ever
work, and not seeing that it is GOD who worketh both the
willing and to do.

Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will
and to do of [his] good pleasure.

> >> But one is left wondering "victory over what?"
>
> >It is victory against all.
>
> Death too? Then you'll never die in this life.

Yes, victory over death, for when we die the body simply
sleeps and death has lost its sting. When a saint of God
dies, death has no victory. Did that sin vanish or perish?
No. Grave where is your victory?

> Sin too? Then you
> won't sin anymore.

That is what this teaching is saying! Death to sin. DId
not Paul say that in Ro. 6:11. See if you can interpret RO.
8:11 like you did 1 COr 14 for us, for I think you may avoid
that one.

> Pain too? Step a little closer.

Suffering is ongoing, and is victorious because though we
are cast down, yet we are not forsaken! 2 Cor 4. It
only adds victory upon victory.

> >You, and it seems Luther, missed the capitalized words:
> >
> >Roma 6:2 God forbid. How shall >>WE, THAT ARE ARE DEAD TO
> >SIN<<, live any longer therein?

>
> We didn't miss them, we just know _which_ death Paul
> means here. Namely, sin has no power over us any longer.

So above you ask me if I have death to sin, as if we are
not, and then when I quote Paul saying we are DEAD TO SIN
you say it is not death to sin but sin has no power over
us. You are wrong.

> Even if we commit them, we are still forgiven.

So "dead to sin" when I say it means do not sin. But "dead
to sin" when Paul says it is alright because it does not
mean dead to sin, but victory over sin. But even that goes
against what you said earlier, for you said the only victory
is in Heaven.

> >The life is resurrection life.
>
> And yet I'm betting my lottery winnings that you haven't
> been resurrected yet.

Have so!!!!!

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

Colo 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead.

Colo 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ
in God.

I have resurrection LIFE RIGHT NOW. Spiritually speaking.
But you seem to always look to the physical and
unconsciously must see all things in the physical.
Behaviour is of course physical, but you speak of us being
outward and yet you cannot appreciate Paul's words about
resurrection being already experienced through Christ making
it our resurrection.

> > You must feel we have no eternal life yet.
>
> No, but you must feel that we have no mortality yet.

Hey, my flesh is an element apart from my soul and spirit.
I already am resurrected in spirit. Flesh is only kept
mortal because the excellency of the power must be of God
and not of us, lest we should boast. Keeping the flesh
mortal and giving rise to sufferings only brings forth
RESURRECTION LIFE INSIDE US OUTWARD MORE. IN fact, it
proves we are resurrected when we suffer and see LIFE COME
FORTH.

2Cor 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the
Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made
manifest in our body.
2Cor 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death
for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made
manifest in our mortal flesh.

Paul said the exchanged life right here in a nutshell. OUR
LIVES suffer and die, for the purpose of HIS LIFE shining
through, exchanging places with our lives in being what is
manifested in BEHAVIOR, especially good for ministry!

> >Death is past tense.
>
> "Death" is a noun.

You know what I mean.

> >> New-good is having Christ's blood applied to us.
>

> >That is all???? It is truly great, but not all!! Nothing
> >supersedes it, but it is not all!!!
>
> It's "all" that can be called "new-good". And it's "all"
> that matters. "I am determined to know nothing among
> you but Christ and Him crucifie." Yes. That's all.

You are selling yourself short of the benefits of HIS LIFE
and not seeing that DEATH does one thing for us and HIS LIFE
does another. You are missing the GOSPEL for the believer.

> >You are unaware that if you were truly baptized into
> >Christ's death that you are already dead.
>
> Oops, now you're back in your old doctrine.

Nope. Paul's. It amazes me how you can say that is false
when Paul explicitly said it:

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

Paul says we are baptized into HIS DEATH to make it OUR

DEATHS. And after proving we are dead, he said:

Roma 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we

shall also live with him:

> >> Luther's way of living in all "stages" at all times keeps
> >> "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" at the center.
> >
> >How else can we live exchanged living?
>
> Why do you want to? What's so abhorent about Jesus'
> crucifixion that you turn away from it immediately and
> go back to the old "how to live your life" doctrine?

You still do not get it. Does too much head knowledge do
that? No room to consider you may be wrong? Is your hard
drive full?

The entire reason we can live a sinless behavioural life is
DUE TO OUR DEATHS WITH CHRIST WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED. And
that EVER remains our basis for daily life!

> >And Luther missed, if you are a representation of his
> >thoughts, the truth of past crucifixion and past
> >resurrection. Christ died ONCE. You stretch it out over
> >our entire lives and say we are dying.
>
> No, we would certainly differentiate between Christ's
> death and our deaths.

Then you are certainly wrong!

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

Luther, you did not go all the way!!

[Michael F. Blume]

Bart Goddard wrote:

> Clayton Austin wrote:
>
> > We become the sons of God by receiving the Son of God in
> >the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty.
>
> No, we become sons of God because He adopts us in
> Baptism. See, my religion (Christianity) teaches that
> _God_ does the saving. Compare this to your religion
> (legalism) in which man decides to save himself.

You deny scripture or at least fail to see the union between
what Clayton said and what you said:

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

The only witness is the SPIRIT itself.

1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond
or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 14 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

[material deleted]

It's a bright and beautiful day here, a great day to be alive. Allow
me to come right to the point, Bob.

You wrote:

> You made a stupid statement, Joe, when you said "toss out
> the Greek grammar". Why not say, instead, "toss out the writtenw word"?
> Those two statements are actually equivalent.

I agree, Bob, that I made a stupid statement, but not for the cause you
might assign. I should rejoice that you have such zeal and such a
searching heart. I certainly wouldn't tell Erasmus to toss out his
grammar, and who knows, you might some day give us a better translation of
scripture. And if not, it's not because you're not capable. As I
obviously offended you with the statement, my apologies. But meanwhile
please consider that it is remarkable how many saints have lived wonderful
lives in Christ without knowing any Greek. And no Greek grammar is the
equivalent of scripture. You will find even among the various grammars
there is disagreement on many of the fine nuances that concern you. Even
the best Christian Greek scholar should depend not on his understanding of
such complex syntax, but rather on the Spirit. He remains our teacher.

You also said:

> And how do you get to know Jesus better by ignoring the nuances of the
> language(s) that the Spirit used to produce the written Word?

You do so by fellowship with Him and His people, letting the Spirit teach
all things. You began in the Spirit. You didn't need a knowledge of Greek
to begin the race and it's not what will bring you across the finish line.
Such an approach can be a trap, Bob. What is needed is to know Him. We
can know all the maps and charts on a stormy sea, but how much better to
know the Navigator who brings us safely to port. He can readily provide
the answers for which we are searching.

How many languages and major dialects are there in the world? Four
thousand? Yet more? And how many languages have Greek lexicons? Perhaps
ten? Maybe fifteen?

Missionary reports out of China indicate there may now be more Christians
in China than there are people in the United States. If these reports are
even half right, there is a tremendous awakening going on. Is this
awakening in any way dependent on the number of Greek scholars in the
land? Like the early church, many of these Christians do not even own
bibles. Some Erasmus has no doubt given them a reasonable translation of
scripture. But that in no way makes their personal faith dependent on
knowledge of Greek. There are perhaps thirty major dialects in China,
though only two primary ones. How many Chinese-Greek lexicons do you
suppose there are? How many do the various tribes of Nigeria have?

Christianity is not an elitist faith. It is not limited to the one
percent of the English speaking world that might be able to wrestle with
Greek syntax. The spread of the Christian faith depends not on our
intellectualism, but on the Spirit of Jesus with us today. We don't even
know that the N.T. authors all wrote in Greek. Contextual evidence in the
Peshitta (from Aramaic) and from other sources suggests otherwise, though
perhaps that's another topic. I think that in its own way it is wonderful
there is significant confusion over "proper" manuscripts as it helps us
realize our dependence on Him. I believe this to be part of His plan that
we learn to rely upon Him. We come to realize that where He wants His word
is in our heart.

I have the utmost respect for the sharpness of your mind, Bob. You have a
keen intellect coupled with a searching heart. That's a great
combination. Know that He loves you, Bob. Of this I am certain. But know
that He is not hidden among the pages of any book, including the one that
has so many blessed truths about Him, but is here with us now. Meanwhile,
if you profit from your Greek scholarship, may God prosper you in it.

Have a joyous holiday season,

Joe

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 13 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
[...]

>
> > BTW, please do me a favor. Please share what you understand "the law of
> > sin and death" to be.
>
> Read Romans. If you can't understand Paul you won't understand me.

I have read Romans and I do understand Paul. That's why I think your
teaching is at odds with his. In your own words, tell us what "the law
of sin and death" is. After all, we cannot profitably discuss a
doctrine if we have agreed on basic definitions.

>
> > > Since I have been set free from the law of sin and death, my CURRENT
> > > eternal NOW state. One either believes both laws are operating in
> > > their life or realizes that what Christ has done for us NOW, setting

> > > us free from the "wretched man that I am".

> >
> > Paul never says that he was set free from "the wretched man that I am".
> > He says that there is no condemnation, even though he sees himself as a

> > man who, in his mind, serves the Spirit, but sees in his flesh the law
> > of sin and death.
>

> Paul speaks plainly of his co-crucifixion. He lets us know what happened
> to the wretched man.

Yes, Paul speaks of his co-crucifixion. And Paul speaks of "the
wretched man". And what Paul says is that the "wretched man" is still a
part of him ("Oh wretched man that _I am_"). Furthermore, instead of
escaping to the "eternal now", he looks forward to the day when he is
rescued from "the body of this death".

> You've got quite a problem, Bob, being both a wretched man and Christlike.
> Did God call us to schizophrenia?

Being partially redeemed isn't schizophrenia. Being "in the cocoon"
(your words) isn't schizophrenia. Rather, it is a consequence of being
a treasure in an earthen vessel.

[...]

> > >
> > > No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
> > > body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit
> > > having taken mine in union.
> >

> > But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
> > Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
> > left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
> > ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
> > freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?
>

> The nature of the union is the same as the man Jesus had with the Father.

That still doesn't answer any of the questions, Joe. Try again:

a) Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no

"you" left; or do "you" still exist?

b) If you still exist, are you just a ball in the ocean, going up

and down as the waves move you, with no freedom of choice; or
do you have a real ability to choose?

[...]

> > >
> > > When will we see that the temptations and desires of the flesh are
> > > intrinsic to the law of sin and death from which we have been
> > > delivered?
> >
> > When you define your terms, then we might be able to talk about this.
>
> That would just lead to more useless word quibbles, a game I don't intend
> to play. Throw away the grammar text and listen for the Spirit.

Pious nonsense with contradictory content. You cannot have language
without grammar; therefore a knowledge of grammar is fundamental to
understanding what is being said.

>
> > > Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
> > > His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we
> > > walk not in faith [sin], ...
> >
> > Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.
>

> Oh, you certainly can sin if you walk after the flesh and not after
> the Spirit.

Good. Perhaps now we will make some progress. How is it that an
"eternal now" being can walk after the flesh? How is it that a person
who is in union with Christ, as Christ was in union with the Father, can
walk after the flesh? Furthermore, I thought you said that the flesh
was crucified. How, then, does it have an effect on the Christian?

> And if you insist on 'do it yourself' Christianity, you'll
> have plenty of sin to talk about.

Do try to stay on the subject. I've never insisted on "do it yourself"
Christianity.

>
> > > what is that but a reminder of the wonder He has worked, drawing us
> > > back to His pathway, reminding us that He lives in us? Do we approach
> > > the Christian life asymptotically, always struggling in our flesh to
> > > be 'better' Christians, or do find revelation in Christ of just what
> > > He has done for us and now does in us? Do we recognize the done deal?
> >
> > If it's a "done deal", then what is the cause of "walk[ing] not in
> > faith"?
>
> Faith obscured of what Jesus accomplished.

And what causes that obstruction? What is it about this glorious new
being in Christ that puts obstructions in the way?

>
> > > Baloney!
> >
> > Hardly. It's the only possible outcome of your theology. The fruit of
> > the Spirit is ... self-control -- whether it's not yelling at your kids,
> > eating that extra piece of cheesecake, or voiding in your pants.
> > "Eternal now" beings don't soil their pants.
>
> You confuse matters of the spirit (anger) with your natural humanity.

Ah hah! So there is still something "natural" about the Christian. And
you call _my_ theology schizophrenic? You, too, have the "natural"
mixed with the "supernatural", do you not?

> Voiding your pants is scarcely sin, Bob.

Sure it is, Joe. A faith that can move mountains can surely control the
bowels. After all, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. Do you think
that the Resurrected Christ, who lives in us, needs Depends?

> Jesus had times when he was weary and needed sleep or when He was hungry.

> Does that somehow make him deficient in your eyes?

It shows a victory of the flesh over the Spirit, does it not?

Futhermore, after Jesus rose from the dead, do you think He now becomes
weary? Do you think He now needs sleep? Do you think that He, who
feeds His people with Himself, becomes hungry? So, if we have this life
in us (and we do), why don't we live like Him?

>
> > > Someday you may be a doddering old man who thinks every day is

> > > Thursday and everyone is named either George or Sue. And even that
> > > will serve God's purpose. Is your spiritual state based on the

> > > condition of your flesh or your intellectual apprehension of what is
> > > happening? Not in the least.
> >
> > Then you've contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you want me to
> > apprehend my true state in Christ so that I can live in victory; on the
> > other hand, you just admit that my spiritual state doesn't depend on my
> > "intellectual apprehension of what is happening".
>

> There's no need to go further into this post, as right here you expose the
> root of the problem.

Indeed. The root of the problem is that you contradict yourself and
aren't willing to face it.

> You think the apprehension of which I am speaking must be intellectual.

Apprehension must include the mind. "For if I pray in a tongue, my
spirit prays but my mind is unproductive. What should I do then? I will
pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing
praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also."

> I speak only of apprehension with your heart.

So your heart is disconnected from your mind? The Spirit illuminates
one, but not the other?

> Though I believe you are God's child, I believe you do not yet consciously
> perceive what revelation knowledge is all about.

That's awfully white of you.

> Thus more discussion with you on this is not likely to be productive.

Why? Unable to admit that you might be wrong?

[Bobdirects]

for soc.religion.christian.bible-study

bart said:
I just respond to a couple things, and then I'll be done with this
thread.

woo-hoo! ;-D

[Alex P. Cohen]

[...]

>I wouldn't have prayed as I did for my son had not my senses determined
>that he had that specific need.
>
>Or are you saying that he didn't have a fever to begin with?

First I will describe the process. Then I will respond to your
question.

1. The physical senses identify the need.

We live our daily lives in a physical world. A world where sin,
sickness and poverty exist. A world where it sometimes seems like
there is more darkness than light.

The physical senses identify these negative conditions.

"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not
driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not
destroyed." ( 2 Cor. 4:8,9)

2. Faith arrives; recognition occurs.

In the midst of these negatives, the faith of God arrives. We are
shown by God that a specific need has a corresponding supply. The
need exists in the transient realm (seen). The supply exists in the
eternal realm (unseen). Because God gives us the eyes to see, we
boldly proclaim that the supply is real. We know in our hearts that
the supply has already swallowed up the need.

"Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, 'I
believed, and so I spoke,' we too believe, and so we speak." (2 Cor.
4:13)

3. The supply is manifested.

The need is swept away. The supply is manifested. Sometimes it
happens instantaneously. Other times, the manifestation is not
experienced immediately, so we wait patiently knowing it will appear.

"We look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are

unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things

that are unseen are eternal." (2 Cor. 4:18)

Yes, your son had a fever. Your physical senses had detected a
negative condition in the transient realm. Then, the faith of God
arrived, and you recognized the unseen supply. You knew in your heart
that if you prayed for your son, the fever would leave. This
recognition prompted you to act. You prayed for your son and the
fever left. The unseen supply manifested.

>> "Do not judge by appearance, but judge with right judgment."
>> (John 7:24)

>Keyhole theology. Pick one verse, twist it to your pet theology, and

>ignore everything that Scripture has to say. Jesus never tells us to
>not use our eye and ears; nor does Jesus tell us to ignore time.

Slamming another's understanding without offerring your own does not
add anything to the discussion. It would be helpful to know what you
believe John 7:24 means.

[...]

>> Here is an example from the life of Jesus. As you read it, ask
>> yourself - Did Jesus put His confidence in the appearance (the
>> tremendous lack), or did He proceed as if the provision already
>> existed?

>You're changing the subject form the role of the here and now in the

>life of the believer and from the nature of reality to that of God's
>provision.

Then you missed the point. Jesus saw the provision as existing in the
here and now despite appearances to the contrary.

[...]

>> But can you see the comparison that Paul is making? Can you see which
>> of the two - things that are seen, things that are unseen - he was
>> putting his confidence in? Would you say that Paul's attitude towards
>> his terrible afflictions was "partially wrong"?

>Paul was not denying the reality of his terrible afflictions. Mor did

>Paul escape his afflictions by ignoring them.

Verse 18 is the key to understanding the 2 Corinthians 4:8-18 passage.
Paul very clearly saw his terrible afflictions through the eyes of
faith. The unseen was MORE REAL to him then the seen. The eternal
was MORE REAL to him than the transient.

If a street preacher asked you, "Are you saved brother?" you would
answer "yes" in a heartbeat. You're not in heaven yet, but you know
you're saved. The reality of what you will someday experience (the
unseen) is more real to you than your life hear on earth (the seen).

Alex

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bart Goddard wrote:
>
> > Clayton Austin wrote:
> >
> > > We become the sons of God by receiving the Son of God in
> > >the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty.
> >
> > No, we become sons of God because He adopts us in
> > Baptism. See, my religion (Christianity) teaches that
> > _God_ does the saving. Compare this to your religion
> > (legalism) in which man decides to save himself.
>
> You deny scripture or at least fail to see the union between
> what Clayton said and what you said:
>
> Roma 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.
> Roma 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
> spirit, that we are the children of God:
>
> The only witness is the SPIRIT itself.

Not true. The testimony of one witness isn't sufficient to guarantee
the truth. The tesimony of the Spirit, as received by men, must agree
with the testimony of the written Word.

[...]

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 14 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
>

> [material deleted]
>
> It's a bright and beautiful day here, a great day to be alive. Allow
> me to come right to the point, Bob.

And dodge some pretty insightful questions, if I may say so. I still
want to know if you relegate your dictionary to the same place as your
Greek grammar.

>
> You wrote:
>
> > You made a stupid statement, Joe, when you said "toss out the Greek
> > grammar". Why not say, instead, "toss out the writtenw word"? Those two
> > statements are actually equivalent.
>
> I agree, Bob, that I made a stupid statement, but not for the cause you
> might assign. I should rejoice that you have such zeal and such a
> searching heart. I certainly wouldn't tell Erasmus to toss out his
> grammar, and who knows, you might some day give us a better translation of
> scripture.

But would it do any good, Joe? Or would you denigrate it because it was
based on "scholarship" and "Greek grammar"?

> And if not, it's not because you're not capable. As I
> obviously offended you with the statement, my apologies.

Not offended. Just enlightened as to the basis of your doctrine. And
surprised, somewhat, that your distance yourself so far from the written
Word, preferring instead ot rely on the testimony of one witness, not
willing to admit that you might be hearing the testimony incorrectly and
be in need of confirmation from the written word. The written word
which depends on that "Greek grammar" which you so disparage.

> But meanwhile please consider that it is remarkable how many saints have
> lived wonderful lives in Christ without knowing any Greek.

I know that, Joe. But many well-meaning saints have also caused harm by
teaching things that were better not taught because their ignorance.

> And no Greek grammar is the equivalent of scripture.

You fail to grasp the idea that there is no communication without
grammar. Your position, were you to think about it, is that "sentence
structure doesn't matter". And, since this is the case, you don't need
sentences. You've therefore effectively removed the written word from
the ministry of the Church.

> You will find even among the various grammars there is disagreement on
> many of the fine nuances that concern you. Even the best Christian Greek
> scholar should depend not on his understanding of such complex syntax, but
> rather on the Spirit. He remains our teacher.

But the Spirit does not teach contrary to the Written Word. But what
you've done is given yourself an escape. "Well, golly gee, I have a
revelation from the Spirit. It doesn't match what the written Word
says? Well, who cares? That's just grammar."

>
> You also said:
>
> > And how do you get to know Jesus better by ignoring the nuances of the
> > language(s) that the Spirit used to produce the written Word?
>
> You do so by fellowship with Him and His people, letting the Spirit teach
> all things.

Including Greek grammar?

> You began in the Spirit. You didn't need a knowledge of Greek
> to begin the race and it's not what will bring you across the finish line.
> Such an approach can be a trap, Bob. What is needed is to know Him. We
> can know all the maps and charts on a stormy sea, but how much better to
> know the Navigator who brings us safely to port. He can readily provide
> the answers for which we are searching.

And how do you confirm that the answers really are from the Spirit and
not from some other source? God went to a great deal of effort to teach
His people that the testimony of one was insufficient. Yet you've cut
yourself off from the other testimony provided by God -- the written
Word.

[...]

>
> I have the utmost respect for the sharpness of your mind, Bob. You have a
> keen intellect coupled with a searching heart. That's a great
> combination. Know that He loves you, Bob. Of this I am certain. But know
> that He is not hidden among the pages of any book, including the one that
> has so many blessed truths about Him, but is here with us now.

If you knew the Word a bit better, you wouldn't make such a statment.
Jesus was with the Jews, too, and He said to them:

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have
eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.

IOW, Jesus placed just as much emphasis on the written word has He did
on the spoken word. In another place He said, "If you believed Moses,
you would believe me, for he wrote about me."

> Meanwhile, if you profit from your Greek scholarship, may God prosper you
> in it.

You're more than welcome to join me in that profit. There's plenty for
everybody.

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bart Goddard wrote:
>
> > Michael F. Blume wrote:
> >
> > >The major error opposers to Exchanged Living make is to
> > >relegate death as ongoing and resurrection as ongoing. But
> > >Paul says otherwise in every single instance. Death is once
> > >and for all. And we died once and for all with Christ to
> > >ever LIVE (liveth). NEVER is death said to be ongoing with
> > >Paul. Never.
> >
> > Show me one Christian who didn't/isn't going to die.
>
> Since sin is in the flesh, this flesh will yet die. Sin in
> the flesh can be made dormant.

That's the statement that you have to prove. And I don't think you can.
For if sin could be made dormant, then the body wouldn't die -- since it
would no longer effect the body.

> Did not Paul say that when he tried to keep the law sin was stirred, rose
> up and slew him?

Yes, but Paul didn't say that the Law was the only thing which stirred
sin. In fact, Paul said that sin was in the world before the law was
given so that men died. Therefore, it was active apart from the Law.

> And that is a law in 7:21. So when Paul stopped
> trying, he abode by another law, Ro. 8:2, and didn't try.

So when Paul said "I press on toward the goal", he stopped trying?

> That rendered sin in the flesh nullified and inactive.
> Should he begin trying again, sin would stir up again.

Invalid conclusion, as shown above.

[...]

>
> > Your doctrine sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice,
>
> Those who can avoid the doubting Thomas' like yourself and
> not be swayed by them, find their lives growing less and
> less in need of repentance over sinful actions.

On the contrary. It is the "I don't sin" crowd who repents less --
because you've convinced yourself that there is nothing needing
repentance.

When was the last time, for example, you took James' advice to "confess
your sins to one another"?

>
> > oh ye who speaks of "practical". Are you going to claim that your flesh
> > is dead? That the smell of Pizza and the Victoria's Secret catalogue
> > don't arouse you when they ought not? The old Adam isn't dead yet.
>
> Old man is annihilated. It is just the flesh we have problems with now.
> And that is only due mostly to expecting to sin and a backward mindset,
> not helped at all by incorrect teachers.

And it isn't due to an inherent quality of the flesh? The quality shown
by Paul when he wrote "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do
what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God

in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the

law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my
members."

[...]

>
> > Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which
> > leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta'
> > ask myself why. People don't name their central doctrines
> > haphazardly, but pick the words carefully to convey as best
> > they can the doctrine. And these two words "exchange life"
> > say a lot.
>
> But it is CHRIST'S LIFE that is the entire CORE of the
> issue.

No, it's not. What is at issue is whether, in this life, we reach the
full expression of that union.

[...]

>
> > or that it is the _righteousness_ that is fulfilled
> > in us, rather than the Law itself. (Assuming you're referring
> > to Romans 8.) The only thing Jesus accomplishes for us
> > in your doctrine is that we get put back into the Law but
> > this time with a better head start.
>
> Perfect illustration of your lack of understanding. And
> another example of jumping to conclusions before making sure
> your assumptions are correct. (Why do you always do that?)
> NO. Law is not in the picture AT ALL. Law is "YOU DO
> THIS...without my power."

That isn't "Law" at all. Law is "do this and live, do that and die".
The source of the doing isn't the issue at all.

>
> It is seeing the GOAL of the Law fulfilled in us -- Law's
> righteousness -- without using Law. And it is not going at
> the law again with supposed better understanding. Law is
> entirely based upon self exerting self. That entire picture
> is gone!!! No matter how many times we say OUR LIFE, which
> is self and which law appealed to, is encouraged to be cast
> away in EXCHANGE for Christ's life and works and efforts,
> YOU STILL are not getting the point.

Bart does get the point. You don't understand "law". Furthermore, you
are trying to reach a goal which believers in Christ already have -- the
righteousness of God, _regardless_ of their actions. That's what
Christ's shed blood was all about.

[...]

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 15 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Link Hudson <hud...@link.net.id> wrote:

> > As far as the title _Exchanged Life_ is concerned, I don't really go for
> > that title too much, ...
>
> I don't either. An "exchange" means that one thing is swapped for
> another. Our old life wasn't swapped -- it was killed. Jesus certainly
> didn't take on our old life when we received His new life.

And on this I agree. I don't think defense of the name "exchange life" is
necessary, however, as long as we all know the truths under discussion. I
don't know when this catch phrase first became popular. Possibly through
Ian Thomas who wrote a book with that title a number of years back, if I
recall. It doesn't really matter. There are some truths here that have
often enough been neglected over the centuries. Certainly we owed a debt
we could not pay and Jesus paid a debt He did not owe. I don't think we
err if we view this as an exchange.

> > ... but I do see the same thing in the book of Romans and
> > elsewhere, that by being united with the death of Christ, we have available
> > to us a measure of the resurrection life of Christ through the Spirit of
> > God which can enable us to overcome sin, if we walk in what God has offered
> > us. I see the exchange more of us giving up our sin and the death in our
> > flesh in exchange for the life of Christ being put in us. But the debate
> > about the title is only a side issue for me. I consider the doctrinal
> > issues to be more important.

Amen. Perhaps a better title would simply be "Christian life." That's
what we're talking about.

> There is no argument that the "old man" was crucified and that we are a
> new creation in Christ. There is no argument that we live because
> Christ lives in and through us. There is no argument that not only are
> we saved from the wrath of God by His blood, but that we are saved
> through His life. There is no argument that our life is "hidden in
> Christ in God" and that we are "seated with Him in the heavenly places".

Amen and amen.

> The argument is, rather, about issues such as:
>
> 1) What is the nature of the believer after conversion? Can the
> believer sin? Does the believer sin?

The nature has been changed, or exchanged if you will. By faith we
acknowledge the truths you state above and let God be true and every
man a liar, if necessary.

Can the believer sin? Yes. Does the believer sin? We see this all the
time. Where does this sin dwell? In the flesh, not in the new nature.
That which is born of God cannot sin. Can this sin be overcome? That's
really what this discussion is all about. The promise of Jesus to make us
free indeed is true. Yes, sin can be overcome. God did not call us to sin
consciousness but to righteousness in Him. The power of God in our lives
is real, and this power is not to be denied. This same power raised Jesus
from the dead and is now placed within the believer. It is not
inadequate. The flesh is not more powerful than God.

One might also ask if temptation can be eliminated while in this flesh
body. It wasn't for Jesus, who came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Yet we are delivered from this temptation as we abide in Him. The
incontinence of the flesh can be put down, overcome.

> 2) How are we to life this present life? Are we to ignore all temporal
> aspects and simply focus on the eternal? Does the fact that this
> life is transient mean that this life is unreal?

We are not in never-never land. But we are not to let the things of this
world control us. He who is in us has overcome the world. Our life is
certainly not unreal. Jesus has become our life. The life we now live
is faith life in accord with the truths you give above. As we pass
through this life, we are not to confuse the dust on the feet with the
life in the vessel.

> 3) What is the role of the physical senses in a Christian's life?
> Are they to be disbelieved at all times when they percieve something
> that isn't (allegedly) in accordance with Scripture? Or does the
> Spirit work also through the senses?

We are to lean not to our own understanding. We cannot put God in our
understanding anyway. We can only let Him put His understanding in us. We
are to be vessels for Him. The vessel is for the oil contained, not the
oil for the vessel. In this, the humanity of our clay vessels has eyes
and ears which God certainly uses. Our members are given over to Him,
surrendered, not He given over to us for our use. The potter designed the
vessel to receive data from the world in which it is placed. But He is
the one who is to direct the processing of this information.

So if we hear something we question, we take it to our Father. In some
matters we know the answer by certain revelation previously provided in
Him. If we lack discernment in our little lamb-likeness in some area of
our life, we can ask of Him wisdom as we ask in faith and He will provide
it. But how will double-mindedness recognize such wisdom? Thank God, we
have been given the mind of Christ.

> 4) What is the role of the intellect in a Christian's life? Is the
> intellect, like the senses, to be distrusted replaced, instead, by
> "heart knowledge" (whatever that is)?

We are to be renewed in the spirit of our mind. This doesn't happen
overnight. We receive the faith lessons of our Master as we walk with
Him. This is hardly a matter of I.Q. There are many brilliant athiests
in the world. And there are Christians who are unlettered who mirror
the life of Christ.

The role of our intellect is that it be submitted to Christ and that
we lean not to our own understanding. Our dependence is upon Jesus
for His Wisdom and not upon our alleged innate ability. He is made
unto us Wisdom.

> > I think participating in the cross of Christ is something that occured in
> > the past, but is also an ongoing process. Paul wrote that he died daily.
>
> That may have been more sarcastic than theological. ;-)

I don't think Paul's statement was meant sarcastically, but I do believe
the meaning was different. If we read the statement in context, we realize
Paul faced many dangers, almost daily. He traveled roads where bandits
and beasts abounded. He faced shipwreck and the possibility of pirates
in the wild Mediterranean of that day. He never knew when he might again
be stoned or beaten. He knew the jail system intimately. He faced
these dangers every day. He laid them aside through the power of Christ
within him and went cheerfully along with the light of Christ shining.

We have died once, and that at Calvary. We die daily in the sense of
remembering that death and the truth of that death when challenged by
danger or temptation. We *reckon* the truth to indeed be true. In
such reckoning, Paul focused His will on the One who is the truth and
knew the Strength that was carrying Him through.

Link Hudson writes:

> > Dying to the flesh is an on-going process, and we must continue to do it
> > and continue to offer ourselves as living sacrifices if we are to live holy
> > lives before God.

[...]

> > Also, another interesting principal which touches on
> > both this idea and the one mentioned above about the resurrection life
> > being in our bodies is II Corinthians 4:10-12, where Paul and Timothy are
> > writing in context of enduring persecution and difficulty for Christ:
> >
> > "We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of
> > Jesus may also be recealed in our body. For we who are alive are always
> > being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed
> > in our mortal body. So then, death is ar work in us, but life is at work
> > in you" (NIV)
>
> I'd be very interested in seeing a response to this from Gaut, Cohen,
> Blume, et. al.

At your service, Bob. This is not really 'another principle,' but part of
the same truth. Let's consider the passage in broader context. Paul
writes prefacing these remarks that we have this treasure in earthen
vessels that this all-surpassing power is from God, not from us. The
focus remains on God. None of power to live the Christian life is coming
from man, for the Christian life is the life of Christ continued and He is
the only One who can live it. As a result of our co-crucifixion and
resurrection in Him, "we are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed;
perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down,
but not destroyed." His power is emanating from the believer in
situations that we might term 'mini-deaths,' though not in the sense of
our once dying with Him, but rather BECAUSE we once died and are again
risen in Him and can endure such by his grace. We see such power as to
turn the other cheek, a power which brings others under conviction. Why?
Because death has been worked in our members that we might be alive in
Christ.

Consider with this John's statement that those who deny that Jesus Christ
IS come in the flesh are of the antichrist. Let's not concentrate on the
antichrist part right now, but rather on the truth that Jesus IS come in
the flesh. Certainly He came in flesh as Mary's child. But there is
more. As Paul writes above, "...we who are alive are always being given

over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our

mortal bodies." Jesus Christ IS come in OUR flesh. That is, He is
revealed through our humanity even as the Father was revealed through the
humanity of the man Jesus. (And if He be revealed, manifested, in us,
certainly He is more powerful than the flesh.) In situations where we are
given over to persecutions, potential despair, being struck down, and even
physical death, others who are lost see a power revealed that they know is
not of man. They see the Resurrection Life, Jesus, manifested in us. And
they are drawn to Him. Christians are thrown to the lions and face such
persecution with an equanimity and grace such that such death works life
in others. Saul of Tarsus had once persecuted Christians and what he saw,
living word, likely worked within him until the light exploded within and
He saw Jesus.

Bob, returning to some of your questions before these last remarks, I
believe you are [rightfully] concerned about the role of man's humanity
in this 'exchange life,' [whether properly tagged or not]. When faced
with temptation or any unsavory situation, regardless of how we *feel*
or how our senses may be reacting, we confess the truth that "I am
crucified in Christ." We can confess that we are dead to sin as boldly
as we confessed Jesus as Lord upon our salvation. The line is drawn
in the sand and we trust the resurrection power of Jesus and not man's
wimpy power. Jesus is our overcoming power.

Christ is the real person expressed through my human "I", totally
replacing the spirit of disobedience who previously expressed his sin-self
through me. "I" died to sin and am now alive in Christ. "I" live, yet not
"I", but Christ lives in me. That is replacement. My vessel, my humanity,
now has another spirit motivating it, central to its core. Two have
become one. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Our New Man in
Christ is literally part of the body of Christ. The Vine and branches
operate together as one Vine. The vine expresses and reproduces itself in
its branch forms which always remain dependent on the Vine from which the
life-giving sap flows. Christ wants to be Himself through our humanity.
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, our flesh. He has become our true and
permanent identity. As such we don't confuse the transcient with the
permanent. The treasure is in an earthen vessel; it is the treasure that
endures.

The human self is always a tempted self, and temptation is not sin.
Temptation is a subtle attempt to make the believer forget who they are in
Christ. It resides in the flesh, not in the new nature. It is the
presence of sin enticing one back to the illusion of the old 'independent'
self. I speak of the sense in which self thinks itself independent in an
illusory manner. In truth the 'independence' is only independence from
God. Such self-life is not joined to Christ and never will be. It is the
struggling self Paul describes in Romans 7:14-24 and from which he says we
have been delivered by Christ's death cutting us off from the old control
of law. The law held us in its tight grip while we were independent of
God, presenting us with impossible demands, and exposing our captivity to
sin. But now we have died to sin and to the law and are in union with
Christ with no self remaining that is independent of God. As it is now
Christ who who has taken up residence, there is no 'self' apart from
Christ upon which the law can make its demands.

Herein lies the snare. If by temptation I can be deceived into responding
as if separate from who I truly am, then I mess up. Thank God for our
advocate in Christ Jesus in such situations. The old nature is dead and
buried. We should not fail to *reckon* the truth of this. We focus on
Christ, ascertaining by faith the truth of the whole matter. He has come
to set us free. What power is unleashed for overcoming Victory as we
become conscious of our identity in Christ and draw the line in the sand
the enemy cannot cross. Christ's power manifests as we confess the truth.
>From the moment of our salvation we see the importance of truthful
confession. We believe in our heart that He is resurrected and confess
the truth of His Lordship unto salvation. As believers we don't go around
now confessing that we are not saved; rather we state the truth. We
should state the truth in this matter as well. As we confess Him, who is
the Truth, before men by such confession, He confesses us before the
Father. The resurrection power of Jesus comes to our rescue in the tight
situations of this school of the Spirit called life. We wield the sword
of the Spirit and the enemy departs. The 'young men' of I John overcome
the evil one. They overcame him by blood of the lamb, the word of THEIR
TESTIMONY, and loved not their lives to the death.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old
things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
[2 Corinthians 5:17]

[Link Hudson]

Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote in article

<673u87$m5b$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...

> No, it's even more due to our inborn sinful nature. However
> well educated and inspired we are, however well we break
> free from false philosophies, we will still not overcome in
> this life.

When do we overcome then? How could we get to be overcomers? Revelations
offers many promises to those who overcome. maybe we are to be in the
process of overcoming now, and are to finish it at the end of our lives.

> No. I believe in doing works, and even working very hard to
> do works (by God grace.) The issue here is not "whether
> works", but "where works." That is, what place do works
> have in the plan of salvation? My complaint against
> "exchanged life" is that it places the works in the role of
> "goal". Jesus died to pay for my sins. So, 1. I need do no
> works to pay for my sins and 2. He didn't die just so that
> I could now do good works. Works are neither the means
> or the goal, but only the consequence .

What would you say the goal is then? God delivered us from sin because He
loved us, and wanted us to have eternal life, but in terms of our own
selves, what should our goals be? One of Paul's goals was the finish his
race, to lay hold of that for which he had been laid hold of, and to attain
to the resurrection of the dead.

Romans 7:4 says that we died to the law, throught he body of Christ, that
we might be married to another that we might bear fruit unto God. Hebrews
speaks of having the conscience purged from dead works to serve the living
God. Running a race of good works, which God has set out for us should
certainly be one of our major goals.

I think we all agree that works are not going to save us. However, once we
are forgiven, we are to seek to serve God wholeheartedly, in humility and
the fear of God, living a life accompanied by good works.

I see in the Bible that believers don't have to sin. If Romans 8 says that
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law
of sin and death, why must we think that we must sin?
Doesn't the law of sin refer to "the law that when I would do good, evil is
present with me?" Wasn't the weakness of the law that it could not produce
righteousness in people, because that, though it exposed sin, sin was still
in the flesh, and so the law was "weak through the flesh?"

If in any particular instance, God never tempts us above what we are able,
but always provides a way of escape, then isn't it possible to never sin
again? (I Cor. 10.) And if its possible, shouldn't we move on to the more
profitable discussion of how to experience this in our lives?

Link

[Bob Felts]

Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> [...]
>
> >Bob F:

> >I wouldn't have prayed as I did for my son had not my senses determined
> >that he had that specific need.
> >
> >Or are you saying that he didn't have a fever to begin with?
>
> First I will describe the process. Then I will respond to your
> question.
>
> 1. The physical senses identify the need.
>
> We live our daily lives in a physical world. A world where sin,
> sickness and poverty exist. A world where it sometimes seems like
> there is more darkness than light.
>
> The physical senses identify these negative conditions.
>
> "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not
> driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not
> destroyed." ( 2 Cor. 4:8,9)

1) Is there some level at which you can trust your senses? Certainly
there are phenomena such as optical illusions which can fool our
senses, although we use our senses (and reason) to resolve the
apparent problem with the optical illusion.

I ask, because it seems to both Paul and me that when we look
within, we still see sin -- despite the fact that we have been
crucified and risen with Christ. Is this something that is
actually there, or is it akin to an optical illusion?

2) We aren't concered with issues such as "more" or "less". The
question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
amount real?"

>
> 2. Faith arrives; recognition occurs.
>
> In the midst of these negatives, the faith of God arrives. We are
> shown by God that a specific need has a corresponding supply.

At this point, you need to carefully define your terms. What, exactly,
is "the faith of God" and how does it "arrive"? Furthermore, you have
to provide a mechanism by which we can distinguish between the arriving
"faith" and all of the other "stuff" that comes our way. How do we
know, for example, that what "arrives" is really from God?

> The need exists in the transient realm (seen). The supply exists in the
> eternal realm (unseen). Because God gives us the eyes to see, we boldly
> proclaim that the supply is real. We know in our hearts that the supply
> has already swallowed up the need.

But how do you know that the "supply" that you are seeing is truly God's
supply and not, say, the result of wishful thinking? It is quite often
true that what God really supplies is not what we think He should
supply. Paul, for example, asked three times for a certain form of
healing. God, however, provided something which Paul didn't expect.

[...[

>
> Yes, your son had a fever. Your physical senses had detected a
> negative condition in the transient realm.

Ok, so we have established that "negative condition(s) in the transient
realm" do exist. The question, then, becomes, do these "negative
conditions" exist _in us_?

> Then, the faith of God arrived, and you recognized the unseen supply. You
> knew in your heart that if you prayed for your son, the fever would leave.
> This recognition prompted you to act. You prayed for your son and the
> fever left. The unseen supply manifested.

And what about the times that I have prayed for my children and the
sickness remained?

>
>
> >> "Do not judge by appearance, but judge with right judgment."
> >> (John 7:24)
>

> >Keyhole theology. Pick one verse, twist it to your pet theology, and
> >ignore everything that Scripture has to say. Jesus never tells us to
> >not use our eye and ears; nor does Jesus tell us to ignore time.
>
> Slamming another's understanding without offerring your own does not
> add anything to the discussion.

Any offering that I would give wouldn't be accepted until you see that
you have a real problem with your theology. Until you recognize the
need, you won't accept an answer which is different from the one you
current have.

> It would be helpful to know what you believe John 7:24 means.

It simply means to take all the facts into account and not just what you
happen to see at the moment. It doesn't mean that what you see is
necessarily wrong; what it does mean is that what you see may be
incomplete. Consider a dirty, ill-clothed man who walks into your
church service. Is he a bum trying to cage a handout? Is he a
drug-user looking to find something to steal? Is he a drunk looking for
a place to sleep it off? Is he someone being led by the Spirit of God to
hear the Gospel?

Based on the immediate impressions, you can't answer that question. Yet
too many people jump to hasty conclusions.

But one thing we do not say is that "this person isn't really dirty and
poorly clothed." Our senses are not wrong on that point.

Nor are our senses wrong when we look within and see something that
isn't very pretty, even though Christ is also there.

>
> [...]

>
> >> Here is an example from the life of Jesus. As you read it, ask
> >> yourself - Did Jesus put His confidence in the appearance (the
> >> tremendous lack), or did He proceed as if the provision already
> >> existed?
>

> >You're changing the subject form the role of the here and now in the
> >life of the believer and from the nature of reality to that of God's
> >provision.
>
> Then you missed the point. Jesus saw the provision as existing in the
> here and now despite appearances to the contrary.

Oh, come on, Alex. More "keyhole" theology. Where was the provision
when Jesus wanted to embrace Jerusalem, as a mother hen embraces her
chicks? Was God's provision lacking? Was Jesus' faith weak? When Paul
left Trophimus sick in Miletus, was God's provision lacking? Did Paul
not have the gift of healing?

>
> [...]

>
> >> But can you see the comparison that Paul is making? Can you see which
> >> of the two - things that are seen, things that are unseen - he was
> >> putting his confidence in? Would you say that Paul's attitude towards
> >> his terrible afflictions was "partially wrong"?
>

> >Paul was not denying the reality of his terrible afflictions. Mor did
> >Paul escape his afflictions by ignoring them.
>
> Verse 18 is the key to understanding the 2 Corinthians 4:8-18 passage.
> Paul very clearly saw his terrible afflictions through the eyes of
> faith. The unseen was MORE REAL to him then the seen. The eternal
> was MORE REAL to him than the transient.

That just isn't true, Alex. It isn't a question of which is "more
real". The suffering that Christ endured on the cross was just as real
as the joy which was set before Him. The suffering that Paul endured
was just as real as the goal at the end of the journey.

We endure the broccoli because we know that afterwards there is dessert.
What we don't do is deny the reality of the broccoli by saying "the
dessert is more real than the broccoli".

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 15 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

Bob sez:

> I have read Romans and I do understand Paul. That's why I think your
> teaching is at odds with his. In your own words, tell us what "the law
> of sin and death" is. After all, we cannot profitably discuss a
> doctrine if we have agreed on basic definitions.

Bob, it is illusory to think that all truth can be reduced to definition.
Whew! Having gotten that off my chest, I will try to accomodate you the
best I can. First let me say that when you say elsewhere that the law of
sin and death is "the soul that sinneth it shall die" I would have to
differ, seeing death as the result of this law, not the law itself. I see
this law as the sin principle which operates in the flesh. It is part of
the Adamic heritage. It is dormant until the commandment comes (external
ordinance) and then it activates, ministering condemnation and death. Paul
wrote that the power of sin is the law [1 Cor. 15:56]. In Romans he tells
us that once he was alive, and then the commandment came (thou shalt not
covet) and slew him. He went through the garden process. He was
innocent, tasted of the wrong tree, and fell under condemnation and
spiritual death. How did this happen? Because the sin principle dwelt in
his flesh, the law of sin and death. And here you see your result; the
law that sins dies. Christ then delivered him from this death, bringing
his spirit alive in Him. That did not mean the sin principle was not still
in the flesh. But what Paul saw was the co-crucifixion of this self-life
at Calvary. He saw He was to reckon this sin principle conquered and under
the feet of His Master. After the struggle most, perhaps all, of us go
through as Christians, he came to realize the Victory had already been
won. The Christ consciousness of his true identity permeated his being
and he was delivered from this struggle. He came to rest in Christ.

He saw he was dead to the law and hence to the sin principle activated
by it, set free in Christ. We find the law of sin and death described
by Paul when he writes in Romans:

007:020 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but
sin that dwelleth in me.

Note, that as a believer, he makes a distinction between the "I" he
knows himself to be after the inner man and the one commiting the sin.
He in effect says that he is not the one doing it, but sin in him. He
is not passing the buck here, but is conscious of a great truth to
which the discussion is leading.

007:021 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present
with me.

He remarks on his discovery of this sin principle.

007:022 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

The inward man of the Christian delights in obedience to God. The inward
man is the true "I" he knows himself to be, seed of God in which dwells
no sin. If there is an 'inward' man, there must be an 'outward' man.
That is the flesh where no good thing dwells, where the law of sin and
death has residence.

007:023 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.

Here Paul notes the observation of this law of sin and death which
wars against his mind. He notes not only notes its potential for
bringing him into captivity, but speaks from first-hand knowledge.

007:024 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body
of this death?

A feeling for poetry helps here. Paul's not trying to prove a math
theorem. He recalls the exasperation He has known first hand. The usage
of the word "I" has changed from the "I" of verse 20 which showed us that
the "I" of the inward man is not involved and that sin is the culprit. I
believe that it is when we reach the point of honest acknowledgement of
the wretchedness of our condition that we cry out to God who helps us see
our true identity in Him, the true "I" and the source of the sin problem.
It is then that we are on the road to recovery in overcoming victory over
the incontinence of our flesh.

007:025 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.

Here he clearly delineates the warring factions. He knows Christ is
real and wants to serve him in his inner being. But the flesh wants to
serve the sin principle governing it. Here he also signals the solution
to this tension he has known.

008:001 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.

He shows that walking after the Spirit brings victory and freedom from
condemnation. The implication of this verse is that we can indeed walk
after the Spirit. If we do so we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.
This is the overcoming of which John writes. This does not mean we are
not still in flesh bodies or that temptation has ceased. Rather that
abiding in His love gives us complete armor against the wiles of the
flesh.

008:002 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death.

Here Paul identifies that the law of sin of which he has previously spoken,
the sin principle to which I refer, is the law of sin and death. I believe
this is definitional in the sense you are wanting. And notice that the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed us. Christ in us,
our hope of glory, has brought the freedom. The freedom brought is true
freedom of the will, not in the sense of normative ethics, but the freedom
to choose the Good who is Christ. Our will is freed from the bondage
of verse 18. But how is it freed? We recognize the reality, the truth
of Romans 8:2. The law of liberty has brought us liberty. He who dwells
in us is greater than he who is in the world. The struggle with the sin
principlein the flesh ceases and we come to rest in Christ.

> > > > Since I have been set free from the law of sin and death, my CURRENT
> > > > eternal NOW state. One either believes both laws are operating in
> > > > their life or realizes that what Christ has done for us NOW, setting
> > > > us free from the "wretched man that I am".
> > >
> > > Paul never says that he was set free from "the wretched man that I am".
> > > He says that there is no condemnation, even though he sees himself as a
> > > man who, in his mind, serves the Spirit, but sees in his flesh the law
> > > of sin and death.
> >
> > Paul speaks plainly of his co-crucifixion. He lets us know what happened
> > to the wretched man.
>
> Yes, Paul speaks of his co-crucifixion. And Paul speaks of "the
> wretched man". And what Paul says is that the "wretched man" is still a
> part of him ("Oh wretched man that _I am_"). Furthermore, instead of
> escaping to the "eternal now", he looks forward to the day when he is
> rescued from "the body of this death".

Please see above.

> [...]
>
> > > >
> > > > No, but He does and He is now my life. I am joined permanently to the
> > > > body with the nail prints, inseparable from that body, His Spirit
> > > > having taken mine in union.
> > >
> > > But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
> > > Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
> > > left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
> > > ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
> > > freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?
> >
> > The nature of the union is the same as the man Jesus had with the Father.

I have given substantially more on this in another post on this topic
today [to you, as I recall].

> That still doesn't answer any of the questions, Joe. Try again:
>
> a) Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no
> "you" left; or do "you" still exist?

Subsumed. My life is hidden in Christ. I know the identity of the true
"I", what dwells in the flesh, and what took place at Calvary. Now if
you want to continue along a different line about being perfected
[completed] in Him, learning obedience through the things we suffer, etc.,
we can.

> b) If you still exist, are you just a ball in the ocean, going up
> and down as the waves move you, with no freedom of choice; or
> do you have a real ability to choose?

Oh, I exist, Bob. I died and now I am alive in Him. He didn't extinguish
my personality at Calvary. He provided a new nature for it. He raised me
in Him. He didn't rob me of my humanity; rather, He saved it. He saved
my soul. Jesus Christ has come in this flesh. And He has freed my will.
I 'choose' to focus on Him just as the first Son of God chose to focus on
the Father. He too had a choice. He listened to the Father and knew how
to overcome the flesh. He knew His identity.

[...]

> > > > Today they are just reminders of the glory that God works in us, with
> > > > His power present to deliver us from all temptation. And even when we
> > > > walk not in faith [sin], ...
> > >
> > > Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.

And with Paul we can recognize that it is not the "I" that sins but that
sin is in the flesh, as shown above. Then we believe the truth of
Galatians 2:20 and see the resurrection power of Christ released in our
lives to overcome the very source of that sin.

> > Oh, you certainly can sin if you walk after the flesh and not after
> > the Spirit.
>
> Good. Perhaps now we will make some progress. How is it that an
> "eternal now" being can walk after the flesh? How is it that a person
> who is in union with Christ, as Christ was in union with the Father, can
> walk after the flesh? Furthermore, I thought you said that the flesh
> was crucified. How, then, does it have an effect on the Christian?

The New Creation man has choice. Jesus, the Firstborn of the New Creation
had true choice as to whether or not He opted for Satan's temptations,
including the avoidance of Calvary. Jesus always overcame. With Him the
Father was well pleased. Why would the Father have been pleased if the
choices were not real? He has made us joint-heirs with Him. If the Spirit
of Liberty has set us free, then we have choice. We can mature in Christ
and realize that the power is within us to overcome the evil one. But
if one confesses that we must sin daily, who does that acknowledge before
the Father?

When we were first saved, we knew that Jesus has forgiven our sins. We
knew that was true. But it may have been years before we ever started
thinking about truths such as Galatians 2:20. Many Christians genuinely
don't believe God can do much for them other than forgive their sins. And
why should they? Many preach along such lines to them. And if that is all
they believe, how can the life they live escape the frustration of Romans
7? But the good news is that there is much, much more to this whole
Christian life.

[...]

> Do try to stay on the subject. I've never insisted on "do it yourself"
> Christianity.

Great! Because the only alternative is to "let Him do it," coming to
Rest in Him. And we know His power is unlimited and that He dwells in
us. So by letting Him take the helm of the ship, we should reach port.

[...]

> > > If it's a "done deal", then what is the cause of "walk[ing] not in
> > > faith"?
> >
> > Faith obscured of what Jesus accomplished.
>
> And what causes that obstruction? What is it about this glorious new
> being in Christ that puts obstructions in the way?

Unbelief. Unforgiveness. Misteaching that must be overcome that our
faith operates as it should. The new creature in Christ is not the one who
puts obstructions in the way. Obstructions come out of the flesh. We
reckon the flesh crucified, a reckoning of faith, a reckoning that, if
apprehended, releases the resurrection power within to overcome the evil
one.

[...]

> > > "Eternal now" beings don't soil their pants.
> >
> > You confuse matters of the spirit (anger) with your natural humanity.

> Ah hah! So there is still something "natural" about the Christian. And
> you call _my_ theology schizophrenic? You, too, have the "natural"
> mixed with the "supernatural", do you not?

I'm sure that when Jesus was an infant that He soiled his pants. He was
the Eternal Now Being come to earth on the greatest of rescue missions.

We have this treasure in earthen vessels.

> > Voiding your pants is scarcely sin, Bob.
>
> Sure it is, Joe. A faith that can move mountains can surely control the
> bowels. After all, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. Do you think
> that the Resurrected Christ, who lives in us, needs Depends?

Bob, I hope you will reconsider your understanding of our humanity and its
relation to sin. We live in very transcient clay pots, clay that wears
thin and finally wears out. One does not sin by growing old in this body
and losing control of bodily functions. The New Creature in Christ is
ageless, already born for eternity. It is God who placed us in these clay
pots and He is not the author of sin. Rather, He designed the system by
which we are brought to glory. And our failing clay pots are part of it.
Your body was already under sentence of death long before Calvary. And
your physical body wasn't crucified at Calvary. It's just the tabernacle
in which you dwell. You were the one co-crucified with Christ at Calvary,
the one living in the shell. And the 'flesh' or 'sarx' of that 'outward'
man, the selfish one with which Paul wrestled, is what was co-crucified at
Calvary.

> > Jesus had times when he was weary and needed sleep or when He was hungry.
> > Does that somehow make him deficient in your eyes?
>
> It shows a victory of the flesh over the Spirit, does it not?

Apparently so from your view point. But remember, Jesus was without sin.
So we can readily conclude that His hunger or tiredness were not at all
sins, for that is what victory of the flesh involves.

> Futhermore, after Jesus rose from the dead, do you think He now becomes
> weary? Do you think He now needs sleep? Do you think that He, who
> feeds His people with Himself, becomes hungry?

Of course not. All of which has nothing to do with the alleged sins of
bodily functions.

> So, if we have this life
> in us (and we do), why don't we live like Him?

Bob, that's what we're trying to show you. We can indeed live like Him.
We can live the kind of life He lead while on this earth. And that's all
we're called to do right now. He wants us simply to rest in Him and come
forth in His image. And Galatians 2:20 and related scriptures are among
the truths of the gospel that God would have us know. Meanwhile we don't
have to worry about our need for sleep or think that we are somehow
deficient because we get hungry.

> > > > Someday you may be a doddering old man who thinks every day is
> > > > Thursday and everyone is named either George or Sue. And even that
> > > > will serve God's purpose. Is your spiritual state based on the
> > > > condition of your flesh or your intellectual apprehension of what is
> > > > happening? Not in the least.
> > >
> > > Then you've contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you want me to
> > > apprehend my true state in Christ so that I can live in victory; on the
> > > other hand, you just admit that my spiritual state doesn't depend on my
> > > "intellectual apprehension of what is happening".

> > There's no need to go further into this post, as right here you expose the
> > root of the problem.
>
> Indeed. The root of the problem is that you contradict yourself and
> aren't willing to face it.
>
> > You think the apprehension of which I am speaking must be intellectual.
>
> Apprehension must include the mind. "For if I pray in a tongue, my
> spirit prays but my mind is unproductive. What should I do then? I will
> pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing
> praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also."

Bob, does the apprehension that Jesus saves take place in the heart or
the intellect? Does God touch the brain or the spirit? Many know with
their intellects that Jesus somehow saves and can quote volumes of
scripture who have never experienced such salvation themselves. Two men
hear the gospel preached. They both perceive intellectually. But one
perceives with the heart and says, 'My Goodness! It's all true." And
he is the one who is saved.

In your citation above, you show how one can pray in the spirit and their
understanding is unfruitful. That doesn't mean the inner man is not
fortified by that prayer. I think sometimes that we are like icebergs,
with most of the activity beneath the surface by the grace of God. We
are in all kinds of situations in life in which God works His grace
within us and we don't have the least comprehension of why we're going
through such a situation. Occasionally we do understand, the tip of
the berg.

> > I speak only of apprehension with your heart.
>
> So your heart is disconnected from your mind? The Spirit illuminates
> one, but not the other?

No, they are not disconnected. But doesn't mean the Spirit always
illuminates both. Sometimes such illumination is a long time in
surfacing to our consciousness. And certainly we hear with our ears
and have an apprehension with our intellects, but it is when truth
registers with our spirit that progress is made.

[Bob Felts]

Link Hudson <hud...@link.net.id> wrote:

> Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote in article
> <673u87$m5b$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>
> > No, it's even more due to our inborn sinful nature. However well
> > educated and inspired we are, however well we break free from false
> > philosophies, we will still not overcome in this life.
>
> When do we overcome then? How could we get to be overcomers? Revelations
> offers many promises to those who overcome. maybe we are to be in the
> process of overcoming now, and are to finish it at the end of our lives.

Let's be careful here and define exactly we are talking about:

a) What is it we are to overcome? [BTW, does the "overcome" in
Revelations refer to overcoming sin or overcoming tribulation?]

2) Once we know the what, then we can go on to the how. How
do we overcome?

>
> > No. I believe in doing works, and even working very hard to do works
> > (by God grace.) The issue here is not "whether works", but "where
> > works." That is, what place do works have in the plan of salvation? My
> > complaint against "exchanged life" is that it places the works in the
> > role of "goal". Jesus died to pay for my sins. So, 1. I need do no
> > works to pay for my sins and 2. He didn't die just so that I could now
> > do good works. Works are neither the means or the goal, but only the
> > consequence .
>
> What would you say the goal is then? God delivered us from sin because He
> loved us, and wanted us to have eternal life, but in terms of our own
> selves, what should our goals be? One of Paul's goals was the finish his
> race, to lay hold of that for which he had been laid hold of, and to attain
> to the resurrection of the dead.

So, are you saying that if Paul was diligent enough he would attain to
the resurrection of the dead, but that if Paul wasn't diligent enough,
he wouldn't? IOW, his future destiny was based upon what he did today?

[...]

>
> I see in the Bible that believers don't have to sin.

That's right. In theory, you don't have to sin. The question, however,
is whether or not this a result that can be achieved in this lifetime.
An analogy in the physical world might be that of attaining the speed of
light. Anything can travel at the speed of light -- as long as it has
zero mass. But if it has mass, then the faster it goes the more massive
it becomes, requiring more engery to make it go faster, which makes it
more massive still, .... At the speed of light, such a particle has
infinite mass, which requires infinite energy, which isn't possible.

Is the flesh ('sarx') the equivalent of "mass" in our cases? If so,
isn't the only thing that will finally deal with the 'sarx' the
resurrection?

> If Romans 8 says that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
> set us free from the law of sin and death, why must we think that we must
> sin?

Depends on what you think the "law of sin and death" is. (And it isn't
a question of "must we", but rather "will we").

> Doesn't the law of sin refer to "the law that when I would do good, evil is
> present with me?"

No. The "law of sin and death" is "the soul that sins will die." It is
this from which we have been set free, because the Everliving One always
makes intercession for us, based upon His shed blood.

[...]

> If in any particular instance, God never tempts us above what we are able,
> but always provides a way of escape, then isn't it possible to never sin
> again? (I Cor. 10.)

Only if, along with the way of escape, comes the guarantee that we will
find that way of escape.

> And if its possible, shouldn't we move on to the more profitable
> discussion of how to experience this in our lives?
>

Sure. But the problem is that those who most claim to experience it in
their lives are usually just fooling themselves. Not even the apostle
Paul claimed for himself what they claim.

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bart Goddard wrote:
>
> > >This is confusing!
> >
> > And when things get confusing, the solution is to go slower and
> > pay attention to the nouns and verbs. It's easy to say "not of
> > works" and then get real sloppy about _which_ works and
> > _who_ works etc. It's easy to say "without sin" and then get
> > real sloppy about what that means too.
>
> You are right. Check out the tenses, too. Paul said we are
> dead indeed to sin (Ro. 6:11). ANd we are also alive
> towards God (Ro. 6:11). Hence, being alive, in resurrection
> life if you follow Paul, we are to present ourselves as such
> (Ro. 6:13). Paul wrote to those who did not know they were
> dead and even resurrected. Apparently many involved in this
> thread are in the same ship. They are not aware of death
> with Christ and resurrection in the here and now.

But then again, some of us are quite aware of this and yet have
problems with your position nonetheless.

>
> When you separate the ongoing cross of self-denial ...

And just where in Scripture does it say that the "ongoning cross" is
"self-denial"? And, when you say "self-denial", just what exactly to
you mean? For example, if "you" are united to Christ, doesn't
"self-denial" therefore mean denial of Christ, too?

> ... from the totally past experience of crucifixion of the old man and

> resurrection into new creaturehood, things become clear.

Except that sometimes I think you make the mistake in assuming that the
crucifixion of the old man means that the old man is no longer there.

>
> And the crux (pun not intended) of the matter stems from
> Paul's description of a need to be delivered from the law of
> sin and death. Those who wish to know what this law is
> should look at Romans 7:21.

That isn't the "law of sin and death". Rather, it is a description of
what Paul, who died and rose with Christ, finds what he looks inside.

> If you chop apart chapter 7 from chapter 6 then you are lost in
> confusion. Paul gave FOUR illustrations of the thought he was teaching
> in the first part of Romans 6. We are servants, branches, wives and then
> he gave his PAST testimony as an illustration to explain Romans 6.

That his testimony is "past" is not supported in the Greek. Any claims
that Paul is using a "rhetorical device" aren't supported by the text,
but is rather eisegeis in order to support a position instead of
exegesis in order to determine a position.

> All the first three indicate the idea of us being EXPRESSORS of that which
> ANOTHER is the source of. We are vessels. We are the means by which God
> expresses His nature into the physical.

Then He must not be able to express Himself very well. Just look around
you at the people sitting in the pews. Something obviously gets in the
way. What is it?

[...]

>
> God had a problem.

God never has a problem.

[...]

>
> Now, the hitch comes when we recall our old manners of living. We have
> the SPirit in us to express. But we are so used to living empty of that
> Life, that we tend to continue that manner of living.

IOW, we overpower the living Christ in us? Is that what you are saying?
That we are stronger than Christ?

> And our MINDS need renewing for the life within to be free to be expressed
> by us.

But "we have the mind of Christ". Why does that need renewing,
especially if Paul's description of himself in Romans 7 is past tense?

[...]

> A deep rooted problem of a MIND conditioned to years without that life of
> God. THAT is why it is hard to find those who do not sin.

So we are just like the little engine that could? All we need to keep
in front of us is "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can" and it
will become reality? We speak, and it is so?

Don't you find this notion a bit presumptious?

[...]

>
> Answer me this: Is RO. 8:2 speaking about freedom from Ro.
> 7:21 or not?

It is not.

>
> The reason I ask is due to your seeming entire disconnection
> of the two passages as though they have nothing to do with
> one another and that the law of sin and death is not the law
> of Ro. 7:21.

It isn't.

[...]

> >
> > The subject of the sentence is "we". "We" do the believing,
> > "we" commit the good works. But just because "we"'re the
> > subject of the sentence doesn't mean we've merited anything.
>
> You seem to say otherwise previously when you said that
> believing is a work, and therefore God chooses who will
> believe since your idea of election excludes our choice to
> believe or not.

Election does exclude our choice. "So it depends not on human will or
exertion, but on God who shows mercy." [Rom 9:16] "... who were born,
not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of
God." [John 1:12]

[...]

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 15 Dec 1997, Clayton Austin wrote:

> There is something a little diabolic about the title of "Exchange Life
> Teaching". Let us peruse the scripture in first-Timothy 3:16, for just a
> moment and mine the gold intrinsic in this bible verse.

And then Clayton said later (as I delete some of his thoughtful remarks):

> God gave everything in exchange for our lives, and we gave nothing.

I don't know how the name "exchange life" became attached to this thread.
I don't know that the name "exchange life" is even important. But the
truths being discussed are important. From a personal viewpoint, the name
is simply, for right now, handy shorthand for the truths given in passages

such as Galatians 2:20.

Peace and good will,

Joe

[Michael F. Blume]

Bob Felts wrote:

> Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

> > > No, we become sons of God because He adopts us in
> > > Baptism. See, my religion (Christianity) teaches that
> > > _God_ does the saving. Compare this to your religion
> > > (legalism) in which man decides to save himself.
> >
> > You deny scripture or at least fail to see the union between
> > what Clayton said and what you said:
> >
> > Roma 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.
> > Roma 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
> > spirit, that we are the children of God:
> >
> > The only witness is the SPIRIT itself.
>
> Not true. The testimony of one witness isn't sufficient to guarantee
> the truth. The tesimony of the Spirit, as received by men, must agree
> with the testimony of the written Word.

I agree with what you say. But Bart said Baptism is the cause of his
adoption, and Clayton said the Spirit is. Bart failed to see that Baptism
is what Clayton meant by the Spirit.

--

[Michael F. Blume]

Bob Felts wrote:

> Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

> > Bart Goddard wrote:
> > > Show me one Christian who didn't/isn't going to die.
> >
> > Since sin is in the flesh, this flesh will yet die. Sin in
> > the flesh can be made dormant.
>

> That's the statement that you have to prove. And I don't think you can.
> For if sin could be made dormant, then the body wouldn't die -- since it
> would no longer effect the body.

You are talking apples and oranges. We are almost delivered from our flesh
though we still carry around this thing that holds sin (Ro. 7:24-25). We are
delviered through Christ's death of his body (Ro. 7:4). His body counted as
ours so far as God is concerned. We will die simply because the body is not
changed yet. But our spirits are resurrected right now. So death in the
physical is not an issue here.

Paul's entire argument in Romans 7 was that sin was stirred into action by the
attempts of Paul to keep the law. Until the law came sin was not active.

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

Explain that. This chat is good for I honestly want to clarify my thoughts. If
you see this as saying different than please explain.

So, Paul saw that sin was made apparent to him when he tried to do good and
found something forcing him the other way. I see it as though mankind felt he
did not suffer from Adam's transgression and was not born in sin so as to think
he was sinless. But when Law came, sin revived and slew Paul, showing him that
Adam did indeed affect all mankind, for why do all find this same battle? So
sin became apparent.

7:14 says the Law is spiritual but Paul is carnal... and CLASH. Problems.

Then Paul explained how he knows there is a clash since he tried to do good and
kept doing wrong whenever he tried to obey law. "GOOD" is the law, according to
7:12.

Verse 21 says the law or principle is that whenever Paul DOES GOOD evil is
present with him. And this is the point of issue. Law was a commandment to do
good and not do evil. And whenever Paul tried to do good, obey the law, evil
was present to force him the other way. The harder Paul tried, the worse he
sinned. It was a principle. True every time.

So he realized sin was in his flesh and that he required deliverance from that
flesh which housed sin. This was provided INDIRECTLY through Christ's death.
His body was crucified and we are dead to the law by the body of Christ (Ro.
7:4). At this point it is necessary understand what Paul meant by walking after
flesh. It is reliance upon fleshly effort. Law commanded flesh to put forth
effort to do good. But walking after Spirit is reliance upon His strength.
Paul said that the will do obey law was present but he could not find the
strength in himself. That strength was God. So when we read that the law of
the Spirit of life delivered Paul from the law of sin and death, we read a
direct reference to 7:21's law. 7:21 is the law of sin and death.

So if deliverance from the law of sin and death is deliverance from the exertion
of self to perform good works, then that can only mean that Paul ceased
exerting self-effort. THAT was the problem all along. And since sin stirred up
whenever he exerted self-effort, then cessation to exert self-effort was the
answer.

> > Did not Paul say that when he tried to keep the law sin was stirred, rose
> > up and slew him?
>

> Yes, but Paul didn't say that the Law was the only thing which stirred
> sin.

I did not say he did.

> In fact, Paul said that sin was in the world before the law was
> given so that men died.

Agreed. But Paul is pinpointing how he came to understand how one is delivered
from the law of sin and death. In his case, being familiar with Mosaic Law, he
saw it occurred whenever he tried to do good.

Sin was in the flesh long before Moses. We all know that! BUt Romans 5:12
says:

Roma 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Roma 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law.
Roma 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that
had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure
of him that was to come.

Sin was not imputed when there was no law. Men still died. But when Law came
things became more incumbent upon man. It made sin appear as sin. That is what
Paul said in:

Roma 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.

...Sin that it might appear as it really is in all its awful horror! Law
accomplished that revelation of sin.

But the fact remains that LAW made it all known to Paul. Law made sin appear as
sin. Beforehand it was not so apparent. That is all that I am saying. It slew
him in good shape by making its ugly self known to Paul by Law. And that is what
Law was for. Paul was in some deluded bliss until sin came. Thanks God for
Law!

Many hate going to the doctor for fear they will find something wrong with
them. What idiocy! I want to know what is wrong so I will not die! So it is
that LAW is good, even though it made sin appear so terrible when afore it was
not so apparent.

> Therefore, it was active apart from the Law.

Agreed. But I think you see my point now.

> > And that is a law in 7:21. So when Paul stopped
> > trying, he abode by another law, Ro. 8:2, and didn't try.
>

> So when Paul said "I press on toward the goal", he stopped trying?

He stopped trying to exert self effort to be good. Yes! Pressing on to the
goal was not exerting self-effort. Bob, you know that! It was exertion of
faith. Fighting the good fight of faith.

> > That rendered sin in the flesh nullified and inactive.
> > Should he begin trying again, sin would stir up again.
>

> Invalid conclusion, as shown above.

Explained above.

> > > Your doctrine sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice,
> >
> > Those who can avoid the doubting Thomas' like yourself and
> > not be swayed by them, find their lives growing less and
> > less in need of repentance over sinful actions.
>

> On the contrary. It is the "I don't sin" crowd who repents less --
> because you've convinced yourself that there is nothing needing
> repentance.

Now, Bob. That is judgmental and moot. I know what sin is. And growth in
Christ makes sin more awful as one becomes more sensitive to it. The issue is
Paul's teaching. Not me, anyway.

> When was the last time, for example, you took James' advice to "confess
> your sins to one another"?

I was just doing that with a fellow minister lately. And I repent EVERY time I
sin. But I am not the issue here.

> > > oh ye who speaks of "practical". Are you going to claim that your flesh
> > > is dead? That the smell of Pizza and the Victoria's Secret catalogue
> > > don't arouse you when they ought not? The old Adam isn't dead yet.
> >
> > Old man is annihilated. It is just the flesh we have problems with now.
> > And that is only due mostly to expecting to sin and a backward mindset,
> > not helped at all by incorrect teachers.
>

> And it isn't due to an inherent quality of the flesh?

Sure it is! Never said it wasn't. Flesh will always have it. I said that
already.

> The quality shown
> by Paul when he wrote "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do
> what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God
> in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the
> law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my
> members."

And Paul explained how to be free from that law in his members, though it remain
in his members. And here is the guts of my thought. How could Paul be delivered
from the Law in his members, while still possessing that law in his members,
since 7:25 said he found deliverance from God through Christ? The answer is my
issue which you resist.

Paul saw sin as ever remaining in his flesh. So his answer was DO NOT WALK
AFTER THE FLESH. Why? Sin is there. So? So sin is stirred when we walk after
the flesh. Walk after the spirit and though the law of sin and death exist in
you, it cannot hold you if you are delivered by a higher law.

Bob, you did a FANTASTIC job on explaining why the Law appeared. But I see you
fail to see what Paul meant when he said we are delivered from the law of sin
and death.

> > > Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which

> > > leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta'
> > > ask myself why. People don't name their central doctrines
> > > haphazardly, but pick the words carefully to convey as best
> > > they can the doctrine. And these two words "exchange life"
> > > say a lot.
> >
> > But it is CHRIST'S LIFE that is the entire CORE of the
> > issue.
>

> No, it's not. What is at issue is whether, in this life, we reach the
> full expression of that union.

You have not been following the thread. The thread is about Exchanged Life, and
whether one can live without sinning. I did not refer to the major overall
issue of Christianity.

> > > or that it is the _righteousness_ that is fulfilled
> > > in us, rather than the Law itself. (Assuming you're referring
> > > to Romans 8.) The only thing Jesus accomplishes for us
> > > in your doctrine is that we get put back into the Law but
> > > this time with a better head start.
> >
> > Perfect illustration of your lack of understanding. And
> > another example of jumping to conclusions before making sure
> > your assumptions are correct. (Why do you always do that?)
> > NO. Law is not in the picture AT ALL. Law is "YOU DO
> > THIS...without my power."
>

> That isn't "Law" at all. Law is "do this and live, do that and die".
> The source of the doing isn't the issue at all.

Bob, come now. I agree with you when you say, "Law is 'do this and live, do
that and die'." But Law is also do it in your own power, stressing my point of
7:21's revelation. Paul said when "I" would do good. SELF is the issue. Law
is myself making self do good in order to live and not die. And nobody can
experience that since every one has sin in the flesh. And when self is exerted,
sin activates. Your assessment is certainly true. But the revelation Paul
received was that God knew none could keep the law in order to do it and live.
And Paul explained WHY.

> > It is seeing the GOAL of the Law fulfilled in us -- Law's
> > righteousness -- without using Law. And it is not going at
> > the law again with supposed better understanding. Law is
> > entirely based upon self exerting self. That entire picture
> > is gone!!! No matter how many times we say OUR LIFE, which
> > is self and which law appealed to, is encouraged to be cast
> > away in EXCHANGE for Christ's life and works and efforts,
> > YOU STILL are not getting the point.
>

> Bart does get the point. You don't understand "law".

Yes I do. You are also missing the point. Bart is off on a tangent of the
FIRST issue of death with Christ but you and he alike are missing the LIFE of
Christ.

> Furthermore, you
> are trying to reach a goal which believers in Christ already have -- the
> righteousness of God, _regardless_ of their actions.

I agree we are righteous BEFORE any actions are experienced. Read up more on my
past posts before making such incorrect statements about what I believe. I am
not speaking about STANDING, but BEHAVIOUR. That is the issue of this thread.
DEATH of Christ makes our stand righteous. BUT LIFE OF CHRIST goes beyond that
and affects our behaviour. Our BEHAVIOUR becomes righteous. And it is that
inner righteousness in standing that manifests outwardly into behaviour through
the resurrected LIFE of Christ we share as well as His death.

Notice what you and Bart missed:

DEATH BENEFITS:

Roma 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

LIFE BENEFITS:

...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.

DEATH:
Roma 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,

LIFE:
...we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:

DEATH:
Roma 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body
of sin might be destroyed,

LIFE:
...that henceforth we should not serve sin.

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

Roma 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ,

LIFE:
...we believe that we shall also live with him:

DEATH:

Roma 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death
hath no more dominion over him.
Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once:

LIFE:
...but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

DEATH:

Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,

LIFE:
...but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This sequence of thought is started as follows:

You miss the explicit delineation of the distinct blessings of DEATH with Christ
(which makes us righteous) and LIFE of Christ which goes beyond that:

Roma 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the
ungodly.
Roma 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a
good man some would even dare to die.
Roma 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us.
Roma 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved
from wrath through him.
Roma 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death
of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

In Chapter 5, Paul states that LIFE saves us from wrath to come, above and
beyond the death of Christ which justified us. Being justified brings in
another power of God's LOVE which Paul said is "MUCH MORE". There is that "much
more" aspect involved in t he LIFE of Christ.

And in Chapter 6, Paul adds to the thought by saying that the DEATH causes you
to not have to worry about DEATH again (not physical death!!) since CHrist died
ONCE to sin, and we are to reckon ourselves dead INDEED to sin since we DIED
WITH HIM (Ro 6:11). And we are also RISEN WITH HIM AND ALIVE from death. If
Christ died once to sin and ever liveth to God, and we must reckon that to be so
with us, too, then we died ONCE TO SIN already!!!! Not everyday like Bart
thinks!

The EXACT SAME BENEFITS of Christ's detah and what it accomplished for him are
OUR benefits and accomplish the same thing for us!

You guys are not reading the next few verses carefully enough.

Roma 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with
him:
Roma 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death
hath no more dominion over him.
Roma 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he
liveth unto God.
Roma 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord

LIKEWISE!!!! In like manner! The EXACT maner in which Christ was blessed by
His own death (dead unto sin) is what Paul said our experience is since we died
WITH HIM.

Bart keeps saying we are not resurrected yet. Paul said we are to present
ourselves as resurrected from the dead and alive RIGHT NOW! That is why I say
Bart is MISSING THE POINT. Now, who am I going to listen to?

> That's what
> Christ's shed blood was all about.

Agreed. But I am now talking about the next in the sequence of experience as per
Paul. Resurrection LIFE. You fail to see Paul's delineation of the blessings
provided by DEATH and LIFE.

--

[g]

On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:00:52, wr...@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote:

> Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Bart Goddard wrote:
> >
>

[snip mucho]

> Election does exclude our choice. "So it depends not on human will or
> exertion, but on God who shows mercy." [Rom 9:16] "... who were born,
> not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of
> God." [John 1:12]
>
> [...]
>
> __|_____
> | Bob Felts
> | wr...@stablecross.com
> | http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3
>

Hi Bob, Michael, and Bart.

I have snipped most of the above post because my response is at a
tangent although I believe it is closely related.

I believe the following passage and my related remarks are quite
informative concerning the topic at hand. Col 2:

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are
above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

[Now Paul repeats here what he elsewhere tells us in Eph. that we are
already SEATED WITH CHRIST IN THE HEAVENS!]

2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

[It is not automatic for those who are truely born again, and already
seated with Christ in heaven, (spiritually) that they have their
AFFECTIONS set upon the right things!]

3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

[Althought one can be crucified, and still alive on the cross- one
cannot be DEAD and not DEAD. So here we have the apostle telling us
that we are not just crucified, but that we are now DEAD. Before we
jump to conclusions as to what this DEATH term means, let us let Paul
explain it to us.]

4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also

appear with him in glory.

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;
fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,
and covetousness, which is idolatry:

[Now the Apostle would not have to tell us to mortify these SINS which
are in our MEMBERS (old self), unless these SINS could actually be
occuring! - He is telling true born again Christians to do this
mortification! So, please, don't contradict the Apostle, and say that
these persons, whom he says are already "raised with Christ", that
they are not quite yet saved!, and that they must get some "second
blessing".]

6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of
disobedience:

[Note that this wrath of God does not come upon those for whom Christ
died, paid the penalty, suffered the punishment, and who are given the
righteousness of Christ.]

7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

[We all were once in this awful condition, and we richly deserved the
wrath of God. BUT we are not now sons of disobedience, but have been
made adopted sons of God.]

8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice,
blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

[Since the Aspostle tells us to put these things off, it follows of
necessity that those to whom he is writing did these things, although
they were true Christians. - Although the Apostle tells us to put
these things out of our mouth, it does not follow that we should even
think such things.]

9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man
with his deeds;

[Why should we not lie to one another? BECAUSE we have PUT OFF THE
OLD MAN! Now just because we have "put off the old man" does not
imply that we will necessarily not lie to one another! But we
shouldn't!]

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after
the image of him that created him:

[The Christian life is likened to the life of a new born infant. We
are not created "grown up" as Adam was. We are born as infants, and
require "milk" and not "meat". Our minds are not changed in an instant
from our old corrupt minds - to the mind of Christ - but are "being
renewed".

Any man who is proud to not have changed his views about the meaning
of all scripture, is either dead or very wrong. ]

11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all,
and in all.

[Although Christ is in all Christians, we still sin, and need to
follow the advice of Paul, given here and grow in grace and truth.]

12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels
of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

[Isn't it quite obvious to all that none of us have arrived at
perfection? At least it seems obvious to me, just reading the posts
here! Not only do those who confess that they are still sinners, but
also those who profess to be sinless - still lack greatly the above
qualities - if one can judge by their posts.]

13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have
a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of
perfectness.
15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye
are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching
and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the
Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in
the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well
pleasing unto the Lord.
21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be
discouraged.
22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh;
not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart,
fearing God:
23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto
men;
24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the
inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath
done: and there is no respect of persons.

Hope this is seen to be revelant to what you'all are writing about the
"Exchanged-Life Teaching".

Sincerely, Gary

[Alex P. Cohen]

>>>But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
>>>Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
>>>left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just a
>>>ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
>>>freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?

>> A replacement has occurred. The true reality of the Christian life is

>> expressed in these two passages:
>>
>> "For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When

>> Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in

>> glory." (Colossians 3:3,4)
>>
>> "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
>> Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by
>> faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
>> (Galatians 2:20)
>>
>> Notice the phrase, "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith".

>That's all well and good, Alex. But you didn't answer any of the questions.

Okay ...

>>>But what is the nature of that union?

The union is total. Every facet of your being - spirit, soul, and
body - has been energized by God's all-encompassing presence.

>>> Is whatever makes you "you" gone?

First you died. Then you were raised. Now your life is hid with
Christ in God. Not gone. Hid.

>>>Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
>>>left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just
>>>a ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
>>>freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?

Yes, the lesser has been totally swallowed up by the Greater.

[...]

>> "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
>> things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
>>
>> So we know that our daily belief in this glorious reality is lived
>> apart from what we see or what we experience.

>Nonsense. You read the Bible, don't you? You use your eyes, do you
>not? Or do you sit in a dark room with you eyes covered with the Bible
>closed and say "What I see doesn't matter"?

If by "nonsense" you mean "not of the senses", I agree. When one
lives by faith, the senses serve but one purpose - to gather
information about the transient realm.

"As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him"
(Colossians 2:6)

We received Christ by faith. We believe in Him despite the fact that
we can not see Him nor can we touch Him. We believe that God raised
Jesus Christ from the dead despite the fact that we were not there to
see it happen. As the Lord leads, we now live our daily lives in the
same manner.

"Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see my hands; and
put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but
believing.' Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to
him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those
who have not seen and yet believe.'" (John 20:27-29)

When we look past the seen into the unseen, we are blessed beyond
measure. Yes, utter "nonsense" (not of the senses).

>>>Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.

>> Do you actually delight in the thought that believers _can_ sin? Please tell us it isn't so!

>Of course it isn't so.

What was the "Ah hah!" supposed to signify?

>Now, answer the question. Can we sin? Yes, or no?

Prior to salvation:

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

After salvation:

"We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of
God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." (1 John 5:18)

"So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in
Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:11)

"So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil
fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear
good fruit." (Matthew 7:17,18)

Some attempt to explain away the truth of these passages by arguments
over verb tenses and redefinitions of clearly understood words.
Nevertheless, believers throughout history have experienced the
wonderful reality of our freedom from sin.

"So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36)

Alex

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 15 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Link Hudson <hud...@link.net.id> wrote:
>
> > > As far as the title _Exchanged Life_ is concerned, I don't really go
> > > for that title too much, ...
> >
> > I don't either. An "exchange" means that one thing is swapped for
> > another. Our old life wasn't swapped -- it was killed. Jesus certainly
> > didn't take on our old life when we received His new life.
>
> And on this I agree. I don't think defense of the name "exchange life" is
> necessary, however, as long as we all know the truths under discussion. I
> don't know when this catch phrase first became popular. Possibly through
> Ian Thomas who wrote a book with that title a number of years back, if I
> recall. It doesn't really matter. There are some truths here that have
> often enough been neglected over the centuries. Certainly we owed a debt
> we could not pay and Jesus paid a debt He did not owe. I don't think we
> err if we view this as an exchange.

But this, too, is not an exchange. He paid our obligations; our
obligations did not become His. If you owe the bank money and I pay it
for you, I am not thereby in debt.

[...]

>
> > There is no argument that the "old man" was crucified and that we are a
> > new creation in Christ. There is no argument that we live because
> > Christ lives in and through us. There is no argument that not only are
> > we saved from the wrath of God by His blood, but that we are saved
> > through His life. There is no argument that our life is "hidden in
> > Christ in God" and that we are "seated with Him in the heavenly places".
>
> Amen and amen.
>
> > The argument is, rather, about issues such as:
> >
> > 1) What is the nature of the believer after conversion? Can the
> > believer sin? Does the believer sin?
>
> The nature has been changed, or exchanged if you will. By faith we
> acknowledge the truths you state above and let God be true and every
> man a liar, if necessary.
>
> Can the believer sin? Yes. Does the believer sin? We see this all the
> time.

That's progress, at least. How about answering the question "do you
sin?"

> Where does this sin dwell? In the flesh, not in the new nature.
> That which is born of God cannot sin.

Agreed.

> Can this sin be overcome? That's really what this discussion is all
> about.

Not precisely. Sin _has_ been overcome. The blood of Christ and the
life of Christ has taken care of that.

The question is whether or not our present walk will ever equal the walk
that awaits us in the Resurrection.

> The promise of Jesus to make us free indeed is true. Yes, sin can be
> overcome. God did not call us to sin consciousness but to righteousness
> in Him. The power of God in our lives is real, and this power is not to
> be denied. This same power raised Jesus from the dead and is now placed
> within the believer. It is not inadequate. The flesh is not more powerful
> than God.

It is, and it isn't. This can be demonstrated with an easy test. Since
you have Christ living in you, and have the same power available to Him,
then you should be able to fast for forty days and forty nights like He
did in the wilderness. Make a vow to God that you, in the power of the
Spirit, will likewise go without food for the same amount of time.

Let's see how long you last. We can start a pool on s.r.c.b-s. ;-)

>
> One might also ask if temptation can be eliminated while in this flesh
> body. It wasn't for Jesus, who came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
> Yet we are delivered from this temptation as we abide in Him. The
> incontinence of the flesh can be put down, overcome.

We can test this, too. Let me introduce you to the flu bug that I had.

[...]

>
> Bob, returning to some of your questions before these last remarks, I
> believe you are [rightfully] concerned about the role of man's humanity
> in this 'exchange life,' [whether properly tagged or not]. When faced
> with temptation or any unsavory situation, regardless of how we *feel*
> or how our senses may be reacting, we confess the truth that "I am
> crucified in Christ." We can confess that we are dead to sin as boldly
> as we confessed Jesus as Lord upon our salvation. The line is drawn
> in the sand and we trust the resurrection power of Jesus and not man's
> wimpy power. Jesus is our overcoming power.

That's fine, in theory. Do you find that it always works in practice?
Why, or why not?

[...]

>
> Herein lies the snare. If by temptation I can be deceived into responding
> as if separate from who I truly am, then I mess up.

But how can Christ, who lives in you, be deceived?

[Michael F. Blume]

Jame 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth
in us lusteth to envy?
Jame 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud,
but giveth grace unto the humble.
Jame 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee
from you.

What does James mean, "God giveth more grace"?

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 18 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
> >
> > > Link Hudson <hud...@link.net.id> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
> > > There is no argument that the "old man" was crucified and that we are a
> > > new creation in Christ. There is no argument that we live because
> > > Christ lives in and through us. There is no argument that not only are
> > > we saved from the wrath of God by His blood, but that we are saved
> > > through His life. There is no argument that our life is "hidden in
> > > Christ in God" and that we are "seated with Him in the heavenly places".
> >
> > Amen and amen.
> >
> > > The argument is, rather, about issues such as:
> > >
> > > 1) What is the nature of the believer after conversion? Can the
> > > believer sin? Does the believer sin?
> >
> > The nature has been changed, or exchanged if you will. By faith we
> > acknowledge the truths you state above and let God be true and every
> > man a liar, if necessary.
> >
> > Can the believer sin? Yes. Does the believer sin? We see this all the
> > time.
>
> That's progress, at least. How about answering the question "do you
> sin?"

1) Because I am not the issue here.

2) I know who the accuser of the brethren is. I shouldn't think you
would want to play on his team with such a question.

3) If I commit a sin, I will confess it to the Father, not to you on
a public newsgroup.

4) I leave you with one last thought on this from Romans:

014:004 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for
God is able to make him stand.

> > Where does this sin dwell? In the flesh, not in the new nature.
> > That which is born of God cannot sin.
>
> Agreed.

Bob, this is a pivotal matter. If you can agree here, you can see
who the true "you" is in Christ.

> > Can this sin be overcome? That's really what this discussion is all
> > about.
>
> Not precisely. Sin _has_ been overcome. The blood of Christ and the
> life of Christ has taken care of that.

Bob, we agree that sin has been overcome. But the discussion is really
concerned with whether or not this victory can be manifest in believers
in the present era.

> The question is whether or not our present walk will ever equal the walk
> that awaits us in the Resurrection.

No, that's not the question either. First, we have already been raised
(resurrected) in Christ. Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. Now
He gives us life and life more abundant. Someday we will have life much
more abundant, not fettered by these clay pots we wear about. But that
does not mean we cannot be free of sin now. Jesus walk as Son was perfect
before the Father who was well pleased. He knew the limitation of this
flesh body, yet was without sin. As He now lives in us, having come
in our flesh, we can live the same victorious life in Him. The serpent
can be kept completely underfoot. When believers recognized their
authority in Christ, Jesus beheld Satan fall from heaven.

> > The promise of Jesus to make us free indeed is true. Yes, sin can be
> > overcome. God did not call us to sin consciousness but to righteousness
> > in Him. The power of God in our lives is real, and this power is not to
> > be denied. This same power raised Jesus from the dead and is now placed
> > within the believer. It is not inadequate. The flesh is not more powerful
> > than God.
>
> It is, and it isn't. This can be demonstrated with an easy test. Since
> you have Christ living in you, and have the same power available to Him,
> then you should be able to fast for forty days and forty nights like He
> did in the wilderness. Make a vow to God that you, in the power of the
> Spirit, will likewise go without food for the same amount of time.

Bob, if the Father called me to such a fast, He would certainly sustain
me. To do so in my strength without His call to such a fast would be
foolishness. We don't live by 'making vows to God' along such lines.
There was a local lady who at a rather elderly age and somewhat frail went
on a nine day fast without food or water. Many would be dead after nine
days of no water. She did just fine. I might ask you, why are you
offering such a temptation? What is the source of your thought? The son
is to do what the Father tells him to do.

> Let's see how long you last. We can start a pool on s.r.c.b-s. ;-)

> > One might also ask if temptation can be eliminated while in this flesh
> > body. It wasn't for Jesus, who came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
> > Yet we are delivered from this temptation as we abide in Him. The
> > incontinence of the flesh can be put down, overcome.
>
> We can test this, too. Let me introduce you to the flu bug that I had.

Are you sure you had to endure this flu bug, Bob? From James:

005:014 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the
church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
the name of the Lord:

005:015 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall
be forgiven him.

> >
> > Bob, returning to some of your questions before these last remarks, I
> > believe you are [rightfully] concerned about the role of man's humanity
> > in this 'exchange life,' [whether properly tagged or not]. When faced
> > with temptation or any unsavory situation, regardless of how we *feel*
> > or how our senses may be reacting, we confess the truth that "I am
> > crucified in Christ." We can confess that we are dead to sin as boldly
> > as we confessed Jesus as Lord upon our salvation. The line is drawn
> > in the sand and we trust the resurrection power of Jesus and not man's
> > wimpy power. Jesus is our overcoming power.
>
> That's fine, in theory. Do you find that it always works in practice?
> Why, or why not?

Yes, Jesus is utterly faithful to His promises to us. When there is
failure, it is because focus is taken off of Jesus. Christianity is
not a theory. But let me note that we believe in the heart before
we make confession. We don't confess, thinking that will bring belief
to the heart. He gives authority to the believer to speak to the
mountains in life in His name and see them move. Yet we ever bear in
mind that we can do nothing of ourselves. Still, how can He fail? And
He has taken up residence in us, calling us to a life of faith. So
we walk in Him, and not after the flesh, and the dark side of man's
nature is kept under foot. The key is believing.

> [...]
> >
> > Herein lies the snare. If by temptation I can be deceived into responding
> > as if separate from who I truly am, then I mess up.
>
> But how can Christ, who lives in you, be deceived?

Deception is in the flesh. That is why we are called to walk in the
Spirit. If we are operating in love, we'll not be deceived.

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 17 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >

> > >Bob F:

> > We live our daily lives in a physical world. A world where sin,
> > sickness and poverty exist. A world where it sometimes seems like
> > there is more darkness than light.
> >
> > The physical senses identify these negative conditions.
> >
> > "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not
> > driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not
> > destroyed." ( 2 Cor. 4:8,9)
>
> 1) Is there some level at which you can trust your senses? Certainly
> there are phenomena such as optical illusions which can fool our
> senses, although we use our senses (and reason) to resolve the
> apparent problem with the optical illusion.
>
> I ask, because it seems to both Paul and me that when we look
> within, we still see sin -- despite the fact that we have been
> crucified and risen with Christ. Is this something that is
> actually there, or is it akin to an optical illusion?

Good question. Bob, Paul acknowledged the sin, saw its location [flesh,
not "I"], saw how to deal with it by realizing it had already been dealt
with, and overcame. He never called it an 'illusion'. He is very
explicit. The 'illusion' of the enemy is that we must or will sin and
that Jesus didn't have the total victory for us. If we accept the enemy's
illusion rather than Christ's truth, we've settled for less than the best.

> 2) We aren't concered with issues such as "more" or "less". The
> question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
> light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
> amount real?"

A most understandable remark. Bob, Alex has already said that we live in a
world where sin, poverty, and sickness *exist*. Ordinarily when something
exists, we think of it as being real and, from listening to Alex, I should
think he means it this way. Certainly such sin, etc., is darkness. Some
Buddhists and Christian Scientists might argue that sin is just an
illusion. But I've never seen Alex make any such claim. It is an
illusion, however, to think we are not dead to sin. When we believe the
illusion instead of the truth, we're building on sand. As a man thinketh
in his heart, so is he. The key is believing.

Now back to my regularly scheduled programming.

Peace,

Joe

[Michael F. Blume]

Bob Felts wrote:

> Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > You are right. Check out the tenses, too. Paul said we are
> > dead indeed to sin (Ro. 6:11). ANd we are also alive
> > towards God (Ro. 6:11). Hence, being alive, in resurrection
> > life if you follow Paul, we are to present ourselves as such
> > (Ro. 6:13). Paul wrote to those who did not know they were
> > dead and even resurrected. Apparently many involved in this
> > thread are in the same ship. They are not aware of death
> > with Christ and resurrection in the here and now.
>

> But then again, some of us are quite aware of this and yet have
> problems with your position nonetheless.

Please point them out in lieu of the scriptures I use to
support my thoughts. Such as Ro. 6:8-11 in light of the
behavioral problem Paul had in Ro. 7:14-24. Was not Romans
7 an explanation of how Paul came to realize Romans 6?

And is not ROmans 8:2 the indication of victory from Romans
7:14-24?

> > When you separate the ongoing cross of self-denial ...
>
> And just where in Scripture does it say that the "ongoning cross" is
> "self-denial"?

Luke 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily,
and follow me.
Luke 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it:
but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall
save it.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with
his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow me.

Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man]
will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me.

> And, when you say "self-denial", just what exactly to
> you mean? For example, if "you" are united to Christ, doesn't
> "self-denial" therefore mean denial of Christ, too?

Self denial is what Jesus referred to in the above verses.
It is the "my kingdom" realm of self. It is the fleshly
wrongness in us all.

That part of me which is united to Christ is my human
spirit, distinct from soul. (1 Cor 6:17). The self is the
soul longing to exalt itself without union to the Spirit of
God. Self denial is the refusal to crown myself king.

> > ... from the totally past experience of crucifixion of the old man and

> > resurrection into new creaturehood, things become clear.
>

> Except that sometimes I think you make the mistake in assuming that the
> crucifixion of the old man means that the old man is no longer there.

The old man is no longer there. It is annihilated. Flesh
is not the old man. The old man is the old creaturehood.
Old things have passed away and all is become new. I am a
new creature in Him. Old man links to Adam.

> > And the crux (pun not intended) of the matter stems from
> > Paul's description of a need to be delivered from the law of
> > sin and death. Those who wish to know what this law is
> > should look at Romans 7:21.
>

> That isn't the "law of sin and death". Rather, it is a description of
> what Paul, who died and rose with Christ, finds what he looks inside.

Okay. I see what you mean. It is not the law of sin and
death, but rather the association means that linked Paul to
the law of sin and death. They go together. The law Paul
found working in himself was the law of sin and death. If
he sins he will die. And that law was kicked into effect
whenever "I" tried to do good, as in Ro. 7:21. Do you not
think that Ro. 7:21 was linked to the law of sin and death.

> > If you chop apart chapter 7 from chapter 6 then you are lost in
> > confusion. Paul gave FOUR illustrations of the thought he was teaching
> > in the first part of Romans 6. We are servants, branches, wives and then
> > he gave his PAST testimony as an illustration to explain Romans 6.
>

> That his testimony is "past" is not supported in the Greek.

It has nothing to do with variance in Greek or English. It
is present tense due to the point of rhetoric. Paula did
not use rhetoric? Why did he use hypothetical questions in
rhetorical style of "the argument"?

If you see Romans 8:2 being the answer in summary for the
problems of 7:14-21, and that the answer he came to realize
for the One required to deliver him is found in 7:25 through
Christ, and connect that all back to the stated facts of
faith in Romans 6:1-12, then it is plain to see that 7:14-21
is a PAST experience written as though it was present for
rhetorical purposes only.

> Any claims
> that Paul is using a "rhetorical device" aren't supported by the text,
> but is rather eisegeis in order to support a position instead of
> exegesis in order to determine a position.

Wrong. Romans 7:25 - 8:2 make it plain.

> > All the first three indicate the idea of us being EXPRESSORS of that which
> > ANOTHER is the source of. We are vessels. We are the means by which God
> > expresses His nature into the physical.
>

> Then He must not be able to express Himself very well. Just look around
> you at the people sitting in the pews. Something obviously gets in the
> way. What is it?

Flesh.

Tell me, was John playing with us when he said??:

1Joh 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you,
that ye sin not.

And Peter?

1Pet 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye
holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pet 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

"Conversation" is not discussion, but LIFESTYLE. Behaviour.

1Pet 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in
the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for
he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pet 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his]
time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of
God.
1Pet 4:3 For the time past of [our] life may suffice us to
have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in
lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings,
banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

And what does James mean?

Jame 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The
spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
Jame 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God
resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Jame 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the
devil, and he will flee from you.

Jame 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.
Cleanse [your] hands, [ye] sinners; and purify [your]
hearts, [ye] double minded.

> > God had a problem.
>
> God never has a problem.

Not in the sense that He cannot deal with a situation. Of
course!!! But there came a hitch in His plan. Or do you
think it was His will for Adam to sin?

> > Now, the hitch comes when we recall our old manners of living. We have
> > the SPirit in us to express. But we are so used to living empty of that
> > Life, that we tend to continue that manner of living.
>

> IOW, we overpower the living Christ in us? Is that what you are saying?
> That we are stronger than Christ?

No. You know better than that! God will not work in us
without our request and submission to Him to do so. He is a
gentleman and will not violate our will to choose Him to
work or to not work. We are labourers TOGETHER with Him.
You have not because you ask not.

> > And our MINDS need renewing for the life within to be free to be expressed
> > by us.
>

> But "we have the mind of Christ". Why does that need renewing,
> especially if Paul's description of himself in Romans 7 is past tense?

We "have" is Paul's personal experience.

1Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man.
1Cor 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he
may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Paul is speaking to the Corinthians who were ignorant of
spiritual meat. Since they were immature, spiritually
speaking, they could not receive the fulness of the mind of
Christ. And in his words of instruction concerning the fact
that God's truiths are mysteries to those without the SPirit
of God in their lives (1 Cor 2:9-12), he said that the
spiritual one can judge all things but yet the carnal man
cannot differentiate and comprehend the truths written in
the Word in spiritual terms. And he quoted Isaiah 40:13-14
to make reference to the MIND OF GOD. That mind, or
thoughts regarding our salvation, was hidden from mankind
until mankind received God's Spirit. Eye could not see it,
nor ear hear it and it never entered man's heart because it
was not dispensed in that manner until the New Testament
Spirit outpouring. But when it entered man's heart, still
not to be seen with eyes or heard with ears, we then could
know the thoughts of God. You take this entirely out of
context.

Paul said that if one could have another man's spirit, one
could know the things of that man (thoughts). But that is
not possible. But yet one can have the Spirit of God, and
thereby know the things or thoughts of God. The MIND of
Christ (1 Cor 2:11-12). But the whole point Paul was making
was that the Corinthians had God's SPirit but were not
growing spiritual to perceive the mind of Christ. They had
the goods to know it, for they had the SPirit (1 Cor 2:12).
But carnality was so rampant in their hearts that their
minds were filled not with the mind of Christ but with
division. THese carnal thoughts obstructed the mind of
Christ from being revealed to them. They were leaving their
spiritual union with God on the back burner and
concentrating on outward gifts and hatred.

So your very reference proves you wrong and shows moreso
what I am saying.

Paul quoted Isaiah to show that it was not possible for the
Old Testament saints to know the mind of God. That agrees
with his words in 1 Cor 2:9. And Isaiah said none could
instruct God since they could not have the mind of Christ.
Now, we still cannot instruct God. But the point Paul was
trying to bring out of Isaiah was that the people THEN could
not have the mind of God. We can now. And just to ensure
we understand that does not mean we can instruct God, Paul
said it this way...

1Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man.
1Cor 2:16 "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he
may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

So it is possible to NOT have the mind of Christ although
one has the Spirit taht will allow one to have the mind of
Christ, due to carnality. The mind of Christ is the meat of
truth.

1Cor 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he
may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in
Christ.
1Cor 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for
hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are
ye able.
1Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is]
among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not
carnal, and walk as men?

And the renewing of the mind is getting such carnality out
of our systems - hatred and variance, and also the OLD ways
of self exalting self, which is what the world is all about
- to THINK differently. And since Paul spoke to believers
with the Spirit in Rome WHO KNEW NOT, again we see that one
can have the Spirit but yet not know the mind of Christ.

> > A deep rooted problem of a MIND conditioned to years without that life of
> > God. THAT is why it is hard to find those who do not sin.
>

> So we are just like the little engine that could? All we need to keep
> in front of us is "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can" and it
> will become reality? We speak, and it is so?

No. We are like the carnal Corinthians who did not KNOW we
could. It is not making anything reality by the origin of
our faith. But it is recognizing what is reality and
adapting ourselves in understanding from a place of
expecting to sin to realizing we ARE NOT MEANT TO SIN!

Roma 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin,
that grace may abound?
Roma 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?

> Don't you find this notion a bit presumptious?

Not at all. Your manner of interpreting what I am saying
would certainly make it look presumptuous. But even Paul
had trouble relating his knowledge of grace.

> > Answer me this: Is RO. 8:2 speaking about freedom from Ro.
> > 7:21 or not?
>

> It is not.

Well, there, now! If that is not ignorance of the context
of Romans 6 through 8. What is Romans 8:2 deliverance from
in the context preceding it, then? Whew! I am waiting to
hear this one! And where does Ro. 7:21 fit into your little
mindset?

I f you persist in demanding that Ro 7:14-21 is an ever
present battle, then you, too miss the rhetoric and the
illustrative context of Romans 7 to prove Romans 6, and you
force it to not be rhetoric, although the entire discourse
used rhetoric, and miss the context. If you can, give me an
entire rundown of chapters 6 through 8:2. For the life of
me, I cannot follow your thinking. I kinow it is a hard
thing to ask, but it would be helpful. I cannot see how you
can dislodge Ro. 7:21 from the behavioural context it is in
and the whole point in using it to show how he found liberty
from sin as well as unrighteous BEHAVIOUR as stated in
Chapter 6.

[g]

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:55:50, "Michael F. Blume"
<mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Bart Goddard wrote:
> > > > Show me one Christian who didn't/isn't going to die.
> > >
> > > Since sin is in the flesh, this flesh will yet die. Sin in
> > > the flesh can be made dormant.
> >
> > That's the statement that you have to prove. And I don't think you can.
> > For if sin could be made dormant, then the body wouldn't die -- since it
> > would no longer effect the body.
>
> You are talking apples and oranges. We are almost delivered from our flesh
> though we still carry around this thing that holds sin (Ro. 7:24-25). We are
> delviered through Christ's death of his body (Ro. 7:4). His body counted as
> ours so far as God is concerned. We will die simply because the body is not
> changed yet. But our spirits are resurrected right now. So death in the
> physical is not an issue here.
>
> Paul's entire argument in Romans 7 was that sin was stirred into action by the
> attempts of Paul to keep the law. Until the law came sin was not active.
>
> Roma 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came,
> sin revived, and I died.
>

Michael, don't you believe that "you are alive"?
So did Paul, before he met the Lord. He felt that he "kept the law".
His conscience did not bother him, it was clear.
Just as today we have so many on here posting that they do not sin!

They have not been convicted by the Holy Spirit.
They suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and have convinced
themselves that they are "ok".
So was Paul and so are you.

But when the "commandment came" Paul died. What commandment came to
Paul?

Paul recognized that God requires "perfect obedience" to be justified
by law.
James teaches the same thing. "though one keep the entire law, and yet
offend in just one point- what ?
God will say well you did pretty well! I just forget about that one
little sin? NO! James says , "he is guilty of ALL."

When Jesus told the rich young ruler what to do to get eternal life
Jesus response was "keep the commandments." Now many on this group
think that they can tone down what Jesus said! They think that if they
try to keep the commandments - that is sufficient, If they keep most
of the commandments most of the time - then that is ok. BUT Jesus said
"KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS". Now when one fails to keep one commandment
just once, he is a sinner and is utterly lost! Nothing he can do can
make up for that ONE SIN.

Again, when Jesus told the lawyer "Mr 12:30 And thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."

So many deceive themselves into thinking that they keep this
commandment. But no one, none, nada, have kept this command except
Jesus Christ.

None keep it for a day, none keep it for an hour, none keep it for a
minute, etc.

Man has so watered down God's commands and so corrupted God's
perfection and requirements, that many who even profess to be
Christians are self deceived, and believe themselves to be "pretty
good."

That is why God tells us the Holy Spirit will "Joh 16:8 And when he
is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and
of judgment:"

Those who have had their eyes opened, know their hopeless, helpless,
estate and have no choice but to embrace their Lord.

Sincerely, Gary

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Bart Goddard wrote:
> > > > Show me one Christian who didn't/isn't going to die.
> > >
> > > Since sin is in the flesh, this flesh will yet die. Sin in
> > > the flesh can be made dormant.
> >
> > That's the statement that you have to prove. And I don't think you can.
> > For if sin could be made dormant, then the body wouldn't die -- since it
> > would no longer effect the body.
>
> You are talking apples and oranges.

Not at all. Sin is what causes death. If sin is dormant, so is death.
So the sin in the sarx isn't dormant.

> We are almost delivered from our flesh though we still carry around this
> thing that holds sin (Ro. 7:24-25). We are delviered through Christ's
> death of his body (Ro. 7:4). His body counted as ours so far as God is
> concerned. We will die simply because the body is not changed yet. But
> our spirits are resurrected right now. So death in the physical is not an
> issue here.

It's exactly the issue. As you said, "we still carry around this thing
that holds sin." So we are carrying around this thing that "holds" the
Spirit; and we carry around this thing which holds sin -- and there is
an interface, of some unspecified kind, between the two wherein they are
at odds with each other -- and "we" are in the middle. The very fact
that there is this "negative" pull on us, which remains until the
resurrection, shows that we cannot escape it. In this life, we must
constantly press on -- we can never say "I've arrived". We are like
runners with leg weights attached -- we can never achieve the level of
running with the leg weights that we could achieve without them.

>
> Paul's entire argument in Romans 7 was that sin was stirred into action
> by the attempts of Paul to keep the law. Until the law came sin was not
> active.
>
> Roma 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment
> came, sin revived, and I died.
>
> Explain that. This chat is good for I honestly want to clarify my
> thoughts. If you see this as saying different than please explain.

Be glad to. But I'm going to have to get into the Greek. When Paul
talks about law, he talks about "the Law" (i.e. the covenant given at
Sinai) and "law" (i.e. any law). We can see this distinction, for
example, when he talks about Jews and Gentiles. Jews have "the Law" and
this is the standard for their behavior. They die because they do not
measure up to this standard. Gentiles, however, do not have this law
(since "the Law" was not given to the Gentiles), yet they have their own
standards to which they do not measure up so that they, too, die (Romans
2:14).

Now, in Romans 7:9, Paul is only speaking about the Law in his own
personal case. The Greek says:

"And I was living without law once, but the commandment (i.e.
'the Law') having come - sin revived and I died..."

That is, when Paul realized that there was a standard to which he did
not measure up, then he "died".

It is important to note that isn't "trying to keep the law" which
revives sin. It is simply the presence of law which stirs up sin. Sin
is present in all of us, whether it is stirred up or not.

[...]

>
> 7:14 says the Law is spiritual but Paul is carnal... and CLASH. Problems.
>
> Then Paul explained how he knows there is a clash since he tried to do
> good and kept doing wrong whenever he tried to obey law. "GOOD" is the
> law, according to 7:12.

Not quite. The law is good (even though it "slew" Paul); but this isn't
a reflexive relationship. That is, it is incorrect to say that "good"
is the law -- for there are things that are good apart from law. (For
example, God is good, yet He is not bound to His law).

>
> Verse 21 says the law or principle is that whenever Paul DOES GOOD evil is
> present with him.

No, it doesn't. It says that when Paul wants to do good, that evil is
present.

> And this is the point of issue. Law was a commandment to do good and not
> do evil.

While not incorrect, that doesn't distill the essence of the situation.
Law is a commandment to do what God wants instead of what I want. What
Law does is set up a clash of wills.

> And whenever Paul tried to do good, obey the law, evil was
> present to force him the other way. The harder Paul tried, the worse he
> sinned. It was a principle. True every time.
>
> So he realized sin was in his flesh and that he required deliverance from
> that flesh which housed sin.

But Paul never says that he has yet achieved deliverance from the flesh.
That's why he follows "oh, wretched man that I am" with "there is
therefore now no condemnation".

> This was provided INDIRECTLY through Christ's death. His body was
> crucified and we are dead to the law by the body of Christ (Ro. 7:4).

But we are not dead to the sarx. The sarx is still there, still
struggling against the Spirit.

> At this point it is necessary understand what Paul meant by walking after
> flesh. It is reliance upon fleshly effort.

That's a circular definition. "flesh is ... flesh". Try again.

> Law commanded flesh to put forth effort to do good. But walking after
> Spirit is reliance upon His strength. Paul said that the will do obey law
> was present but he could not find the strength in himself. That strength
> was God. So when we read that the law > of the Spirit of life delivered
> Paul from the law of sin and death, we read a direct reference to 7:21's
> law. 7:21 is the law of sin and death.

Nice try, but wrong. 7:21 is a different law than the law of sin and
death. The law of sin and death is "the soul that sins will die". It
begins with the first expression in the Garden of Eden "for on the day
you eat of it you will die", through Sinai, "Whoever has sinned against
me I will blot out of my book" (Ex 32:23), through the prophets "the
soul that sins will die" (Ezekiel), through the New Testament "for the
wages of sin is death."

>
> So if deliverance from the law of sin and death is deliverance from the
> exertion of self to perform good works, then that can only mean that Paul
> ceased exerting self-effort.

On the contrary. Paul's writings are filled with "I press on...", "I
punish my body...", etc...

> THAT was the problem all along. And since sin stirred up whenever he
> exerted self-effort, then cessation to exert self-effort was the answer.

Is the statement "I will walk in the Spirit" an exertion of self-effort,
or not?

[...]

> > > And that is a law in 7:21. So when Paul stopped
> > > trying, he abode by another law, Ro. 8:2, and didn't try.
> >
> > So when Paul said "I press on toward the goal", he stopped trying?
>
> He stopped trying to exert self effort to be good. Yes! Pressing on to
> the goal was not exerting self-effort. Bob, you know that! It was
> exertion of faith. Fighting the good fight of faith.

And how do you exert faith except by self-effort?

[...]

> > > > Your doctrine sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice,
> > >
> > > Those who can avoid the doubting Thomas' like yourself and not be
> > > swayed by them, find their lives growing less and less in need of
> > > repentance over sinful actions.
> >
> > On the contrary. It is the "I don't sin" crowd who repents less --
> > because you've convinced yourself that there is nothing needing
> > repentance.
>
> Now, Bob. That is judgmental and moot.

On the contrary. It is full of practical significance. When is the
last time you repented of something?

> I know what sin is. And growth
> in Christ makes sin more awful as one becomes more sensitive to it. The
> issue is Paul's teaching. Not me, anyway.

Paul's teaching is about you. And me. And every other believer. And
the "I don't sin" teaching does one of two things. It either blinds
people to their sin, or it causes them to focus on themselves to wonder
why their walk isn't perfect. They can end up condemning themselves,
when Paul said "there is therefore now no condemnation."

>
> > When was the last time, for example, you took James' advice to "confess
> > your sins to one another"?
>
> I was just doing that with a fellow minister lately. And I repent EVERY
> time I sin. But I am not the issue here.

Not any more. Now, if we can just get Gaut to be as honest and
forthright as you are without slinging accusations that I'm in league
with Satan.

[...]

>
> > The quality shown by Paul when he wrote "So I find it to be a law that
> > when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight
> > in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law
> > at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that
> > dwells in my members."
>
> And Paul explained how to be free from that law in his members, though it
> remain in his members. And here is the guts of my thought. How could Paul
> be delivered from the Law in his members, while still possessing that law
> in his members, since 7:25 said he found deliverance from God through
> Christ? The answer is my issue which you resist.

And the reason that I resist it is because we have a fundamental
disagreement on what "the law of sin and death" is.

[...]

>
> > > > Now then, if run across a doctrine about "Christian living", which
> > > > leaves out all mention of "Christ" in it's very name, I gotta' ask
> > > > myself why. People don't name their central doctrines haphazardly,
> > > > but pick the words carefully to convey as best they can the
> > > > doctrine. And these two words "exchange life" say a lot.
> > >
> > > But it is CHRIST'S LIFE that is the entire CORE of the issue.
> >
> > No, it's not. What is at issue is whether, in this life, we reach the
> > full expression of that union.
>
> You have not been following the thread. The thread is about Exchanged
> Life, and whether one can live without sinning. I did not refer to the
> major overall issue of Christianity.

Wait a hold it. ;-)

I said "the issue is whether, in this life, we reach the full expression
of that union" (i.e. not sinning) and you said "the thread is about ...

whether one can live without sinning."

So, if I haven't been following the thread, then neither have you. ;-)

>
> > > > or that it is the _righteousness_ that is fulfilled in us, rather
> > > > than the Law itself. (Assuming you're referring to Romans 8.) The
> > > > only thing Jesus accomplishes for us in your doctrine is that we get
> > > > put back into the Law but this time with a better head start.
> > >
> > > Perfect illustration of your lack of understanding. And another
> > > example of jumping to conclusions before making sure your assumptions
> > > are correct. (Why do you always do that?) NO. Law is not in the
> > > picture AT ALL. Law is "YOU DO THIS...without my power."
> >
> > That isn't "Law" at all. Law is "do this and live, do that and die".
> > The source of the doing isn't the issue at all.
>
> Bob, come now. I agree with you when you say, "Law is 'do this and live,

> do that and die'." But Law is also do it in your own power, ...

a) where does Scripture say this?
b) If the Law is "do it in your own power", then how did Jesus keep
the Law?

> ... stressing my

> point of 7:21's revelation. Paul said when "I" would do good. SELF is
> the issue.

Not from the standpoint of the law. The law doesn't speak about "self",
or union with Christ, or any other power source.

[Alex P. Cohen]

>1) Is there some level at which you can trust your senses? Certainly
> there are phenomena such as optical illusions which can fool our
> senses, although we use our senses (and reason) to resolve the
> apparent problem with the optical illusion.

The physical senses are used to gather information. They detect what
is going on in the transient realm. Simultaneously, the Spirit of God
communicates with a man's spirit revealing the true state of things in
the eternal realm. The mind processes both sources of information.

>
> I ask, because it seems to both Paul and me that when we look
> within, we still see sin -- despite the fact that we have been
> crucified and risen with Christ. Is this something that is
> actually there, or is it akin to an optical illusion?

The passage you refer to, Romans 7:14-24, refers to an experience
only. It is not the true condition of the regenerated man.
Romans 8:9-11 refers to our true condition.

>
>2) We aren't concerned with issues such as "more" or "less". The

> question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
> light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
> amount real?"

Two realities exist. Transient (the seen) and eternal (the not seen).
Darkness exists in the transient. It does not exist in the eternal.

"God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

>
>>
>> 2. Faith arrives; recognition occurs.
>>
>> In the midst of these negatives, the faith of God arrives. We are
>> shown by God that a specific need has a corresponding supply.
>
>At this point, you need to carefully define your terms. What, exactly,
>is "the faith of God" and how does it "arrive"? Furthermore, you have
>to provide a mechanism by which we can distinguish between the arriving
>"faith" and all of the other "stuff" that comes our way. How do we
>know, for example, that what "arrives" is really from God?

Hebrews 11:1 defines the faith of God. Faith arrives via many
delivery systems. The "mechanism" for distinguishing true faith from
presumption is the knowing one has in his spirit.

>
>> The need exists in the transient realm (seen). The supply exists in the
>> eternal realm (unseen). Because God gives us the eyes to see, we boldly
>> proclaim that the supply is real. We know in our hearts that the supply
>> has already swallowed up the need.
>
>But how do you know that the "supply" that you are seeing is truly God's
>supply and not, say, the result of wishful thinking? It is quite often
>true that what God really supplies is not what we think He should
>supply. Paul, for example, asked three times for a certain form of
>healing. God, however, provided something which Paul didn't expect.

We know based on the Holy Spirit's witness to our spirit.

A good example is the knowing you have regarding "Christians and the
Law". Your knowing on this subject is no doubt the same as the
knowing you have regarding your sonship. That's always a good
benchmark.

[...]

>> Yes, your son had a fever. Your physical senses had detected a
>> negative condition in the transient realm.
>
>Ok, so we have established that "negative condition(s) in the transient
>realm" do exist. The question, then, becomes, do these "negative
>conditions" exist _in us_?

Paul experienced Romans 7:14-24, so I would have to say it did at one
time. But then faith arrived, and Paul recognized the truth spoken
about in Romans 8:9-11. The darkness was swallowed up by the light.
The truth of Romans 8:9 manifested.

Paul's journey in consciousness shows us that we can experience our
glorious death to sin in this life. This is the same victory that
Peter wrote about in 1 Peter 4:1,2.

[...]

>> Then you missed the point. Jesus saw the provision as existing in the
>> here and now despite appearances to the contrary.
>
>Oh, come on, Alex. More "keyhole" theology. Where was the provision
>when Jesus wanted to embrace Jerusalem, as a mother hen embraces her
>chicks? Was God's provision lacking? Was Jesus' faith weak? When Paul
>left Trophimus sick in Miletus, was God's provision lacking? Did Paul
>not have the gift of healing?

We look past the seen into the unseen as we are led by the Spirit.
Why he gives this ability sometimes and other times He does not, I
cannot say.

>> Verse 18 is the key to understanding the 2 Corinthians 4:8-18 passage.
>> Paul very clearly saw his terrible afflictions through the eyes of
>> faith. The unseen was MORE REAL to him then the seen. The eternal
>> was MORE REAL to him than the transient.
>
>That just isn't true, Alex. It isn't a question of which is "more
>real". The suffering that Christ endured on the cross was just as real
>as the joy which was set before Him. The suffering that Paul endured
>was just as real as the goal at the end of the journey.
>
>We endure the broccoli because we know that afterwards there is dessert.
>What we don't do is deny the reality of the broccoli by saying "the
>dessert is more real than the broccoli".

As has been stated repeatedly, two realms exist. The seen and the
unseen. If one puts his confidence in the transient, then that realm
is MORE REAL to him than the unseen. And vice versa.

Alex

[Bob Felts]

Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> >>>Felts:

> >>>But what is the nature of that union? Is whatever makes you "you"
> >>>gone? Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no
> >>>"you" left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you
> >>>just a ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with
> >>>no freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?
>

> >> Alex:

> >> A replacement has occurred. The true reality of the Christian life is
> >> expressed in these two passages:
> >>
> >> "For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When
> >> Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in
> >> glory." (Colossians 3:3,4)
> >>
> >> "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
> >> Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by
> >> faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
> >> (Galatians 2:20)
> >>
> >> Notice the phrase, "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith".
>

> >Felts:

> > That's all well and good, Alex. But you didn't answer any of the
> > questions.
>
> Okay ...
>
> >>>But what is the nature of that union?
>
> The union is total. Every facet of your being - spirit, soul, and
> body - has been energized by God's all-encompassing presence.

You are confusing terms. "Energization" is not necessarily the same as
"union". Too, it is clear that the union of our bodies with Christ is,
in a very real sense, incomplete. Our bodies are not yet what they will
be. And before you can say that our union is total, you have to
describe how the body, soul, and spirit all "interface" together and
effect each other, and then show how Christ's life is united with all of
this. It is clear, for example, that my will, while united to Christ's,
still maintains some form of independence. I could, for example,
condemn you -- something which God will not do.

>
> >>> Is whatever makes you "you" gone?
>
> First you died. Then you were raised. Now your life is hid with
> Christ in God. Not gone. Hid.

Again, you haven't defined your terms. You are using the term "you"
without specifically stating what it is. Did my spirit die? Without
doubt. Did my soul die? Maybe. Maybe not. Did my body die? Not yet.
Yet I am a combination of all of these things, interacting together in
some complex fashion.

>
> >>>Have "you" been totally subsumed by Christ, so that there is no "you"
> >>>left; or do "you" still exist? And if "you" still exist, are you just
> >>>a ball in the ocean, going up and down as the waves move you, with no
> >>>freedom of choice; or do you have a real ability to choose?
>
> Yes, the lesser has been totally swallowed up by the Greater.

You didn't answer the question, Alex -- unless you want to state that
you have no real ability to choose, that you are just a ball on the
ocean, being pushed to and fro as the waves decide.

>
>
> [...]
>
>
> >> "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
> >> things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
> >>
> >> So we know that our daily belief in this glorious reality is lived
> >> apart from what we see or what we experience.
>
> >Nonsense. You read the Bible, don't you? You use your eyes, do you
> >not? Or do you sit in a dark room with you eyes covered with the Bible
> >closed and say "What I see doesn't matter"?
>
> If by "nonsense" you mean "not of the senses", I agree. When one
> lives by faith, the senses serve but one purpose - to gather
> information about the transient realm.

Not at all true. The touch that comforts the sick is as much to impart
information as it is to gather information.

But in any case, you make the assertion that our "glorious reality is
lived apart from what we see or what we experience." This means that
what we see and experience is irrelevant to "reality". And if it is
irrelevant, then why bother with it? Why not blind your eyes, cut off
your hands, and stop your ears so that you can live this "glorious
reality" without distraction?

>
> "As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him"
> (Colossians 2:6)
>
> We received Christ by faith. We believe in Him despite the fact that
> we can not see Him nor can we touch Him. We believe that God raised
> Jesus Christ from the dead despite the fact that we were not there to

> see it happen. As the Lord leads, we now live our daily lives in the
> same manner.

But faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. IOW, your
senses played a critical role in your coming to faith. And this puts
the lie to the claim that our "glorious reality is lived apart from what

we see or what we experience."

[...]

>
> When we look past the seen into the unseen, we are blessed beyond
> measure. Yes, utter "nonsense" (not of the senses).

But in your writing you do more than this. You look past the seen to
the unseen to the point that you ignore the seen. And in this it seems
that the thoughts that you express in a physical way is incongruent with
the life you actually live. I don't image for a minute that you would
see a child in need and say to yourself "this is not a part of the
glorious Christian reality" and walk on by.

>
>
> >>>Ah hah! So we _can_ not walk in faith. We _can_ sin.
>
> >> Do you actually delight in the thought that believers _can_ sin?
> >> Please tell us it isn't so!
>
> >Of course it isn't so.
>
> What was the "Ah hah!" supposed to signify?

That what you've been writing isn't completly congruent with the way you
know things to "really" be. If we can sin, then it means that we aren't
totally in heaven yet. And that's the paradox that you won't accept.
That, on the one hand, "we are seated in the heavenly places with
Christ" and yet, at the same time, we can say along with Paul "wretched
man that I am."

>
> >Now, answer the question. Can we sin? Yes, or no?
>
> Prior to salvation:
>
> "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
>
> After salvation:
>
> "We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of
> God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." (1 John 5:18)
>
> "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in
> Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:11)
>
> "So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil
> fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear
> good fruit." (Matthew 7:17,18)
>
> Some attempt to explain away the truth of these passages by arguments
> over verb tenses and redefinitions of clearly understood words.
> Nevertheless, believers throughout history have experienced the
> wonderful reality of our freedom from sin.
>
> "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36)
>

More keyhole theology, Alex (i.e., only looking at those verses through
which you want to look). You ignored, for example, "If we say we have
no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." "Confess your
sins on to another." "If you see your brother or sister committing ...
sin..." And so on.

As long as you ignore the parts of scripture which don't fit your
soteriology you have an incomplete and imperfect view of reality.

And, once again, you evaded the question. All it takes is a simple
"yes" or "no". Do you sin?

And, BTW, Michael had the courage and forthrightness to say "yes". How
about you? "Yes", or "no"?

[Bart Goddard]

Joseph W. Gaut wrote:

>>After all, we cannot profitably discuss a
>> doctrine if we have agreed on basic definitions.
>
>Bob, it is illusory to think that all truth can be reduced to
definition.

Not "reduced to", but "built on." You can't even BEGIN to
hunt for truth until your definitions are pounded out. Yes,
There's more, but definitions are _first_.

Bart

[Alex P. Cohen]

[...]

>> What was the "Ah hah!" supposed to signify?
>

>That what you've been writing isn't completely congruent with the way you

>know things to "really" be. If we can sin, then it means that we aren't
>totally in heaven yet. And that's the paradox that you won't accept.
>That, on the one hand, "we are seated in the heavenly places with
>Christ" and yet, at the same time, we can say along with Paul "wretched
>man that I am."

You wrote the "Ah hah!" in response to Joe's statement, not mine. Joe
has never made a claim that he can't sin. That's one of the problems
with lumping folks together. You forget who said what.

But you're right about one thing. I don't accept the notion that
God's Kingdom contains this or any other paradox. Belief in paradoxes
stem from attempting to understand spiritual truths using man-made
rules of logical thought. "Paradoxes" are really just the failure of
separate logical thought flows to reach conclusions that agree with
each other.

When Paul said "wretched man that I am", he was referring to an
experience only. Romans 7:14-24 does not describe the true condition
of the regenerated man. Romans 8:9-11 does.

>
>>
>> >Now, answer the question. Can we sin? Yes, or no?
>>
>> Prior to salvation:
>>
>> "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
>>
>> After salvation:
>>
>> "We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of
>> God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." (1 John 5:18)
>>
>> "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in
>> Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:11)
>>
>> "So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil
>> fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear
>> good fruit." (Matthew 7:17,18)
>>
>> Some attempt to explain away the truth of these passages by arguments
>> over verb tenses and redefinitions of clearly understood words.
>> Nevertheless, believers throughout history have experienced the
>> wonderful reality of our freedom from sin.
>>
>> "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36)
>>
>
>More keyhole theology, Alex (i.e., only looking at those verses through
>which you want to look). You ignored, for example, "If we say we have
>no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." "Confess your
>sins on to another." "If you see your brother or sister committing ...
>sin..." And so on.
>
>As long as you ignore the parts of scripture which don't fit your
>soteriology you have an incomplete and imperfect view of reality.

There are differing levels of maturity (consciousness) in the
Christian life. John spoke about them in 1 John 1:

"I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven
for his sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who
is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you
have overcome the evil one ..." (v12,13)

Passages which are applicable to children in the faith are not
necessarily applicable to young men or fathers in the faith. As we
move from glory to glory, some of the former beliefs are left behind.
For example, when we first started our journey, sin was very much a
part of our consciousness, because we had just been saved out of it.
After walking with the Lord a number of years, we found ourselves
giving sin less and less thought. Today, it is no longer a part of
our daily consciousness. Praise God!

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law
but under grace." (Romans 6:14)

>
>And, once again, you evaded the question. All it takes is a simple
>"yes" or "no". Do you sin?
>
>And, BTW, Michael had the courage and forthrightness to say "yes". How
>about you? "Yes", or "no"?

Demanding. Implied accusation of cowardice. Comparing one brother
to another. Interesting behavior.

What purpose does it possibly serve to answer your question with a
simple "yes" or "no"? My writings on our death to sin are crystal
clear and have been posted to this newsgroup numerous times.

As Christians, our heartfelt desire is to live sin-free lives. The
same God who placed this desire within our hearts has also provided
the means of fulfillment.

Recognize the truth of Galatians 2:20,

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Can Christ sin? No.

Understand that you are not in the flesh, _because_ the Spirit of God
dwells in you,

"But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the
Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of
Christ does not belong to him." (Romans 8:9)

Then believe despite the appearances,

"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
(John 7:24)

A great blessing awaits you,

"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who

have not seen and yet believe." (John 20:29)

If you do or say something that touches your conscience, talk with God
about it. If you have offended another, do what you can to make it
right. Afterwards, thank God that the reality of your death to sin is
greater than the offending act or word. This is faith in action. As
time passes, you will see a remarkable change begin to take place.
Ultimately, you will experience that which Peter wrote about,

"Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the
same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from
sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer by
human passions but by the will of God." (1 Peter 4:1,2)

Sin consciousness is an old covenant reality. It has no place in the
new covenant mindset,

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same
sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect
those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be
offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no
longer have any consciousness of sin. But in these sacrifices there
is a reminder of sin year after year." (Hebrews 10:1-3)

We are as dead to sin as Christ Jesus, and we must consider ourselves
so!

"The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives
he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and
alive to God in Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:10,11)

Alex

[Bob Felts]

Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Michael F. Blume <mfb...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > You are right. Check out the tenses, too. Paul said we are dead
> > > indeed to sin (Ro. 6:11). ANd we are also alive towards God (Ro.
> > > 6:11). Hence, being alive, in resurrection life if you follow Paul,
> > > we are to present ourselves as such (Ro. 6:13). Paul wrote to those
> > > who did not know they were dead and even resurrected. Apparently many
> > > involved in this thread are in the same ship. They are not aware of
> > > death with Christ and resurrection in the here and now.
> >
> > But then again, some of us are quite aware of this and yet have
> > problems with your position nonetheless.
>
> Please point them out in lieu of the scriptures I use to
> support my thoughts.

This has been covered in previous responses. Without going back through
previous threads, the two points that I remember most are our
disagreemens over what "the law of sin and death" is and whether or not
Romans 7 is present tense or rhetorical.

> Such as Ro. 6:8-11 in light of the behavioral problem Paul had in Ro.
> 7:14-24.

Both are true -- the reason being that Paul never really defines what
"I" means. On the one hand, we are not our "flesh" (in which sin still
resides), on the other hand there is an interface between the "flesh"
and "I" which is a part of "I". On the other end, Paul has been united
to Christ, but he still says "I live" and not "We live". So even though
he is united to Christ, he is not (to use the example that I used with
Alex) a beach ball swallowed up by the wave with no motion of its own.
There is still a form of independence, of Paul's identity, which
remains.

> Was not Romans 7 an explanation of how Paul came to realize Romans 6?

I don't think so. Look at how Paul develops his arguments in chapters 5
through 8.

1) In chapter 5, Paul shows that Christ is the reconciliation between
God and man (the previous chapters show that this reconciliation is
needed and that this reconciliation comes, not by works, but by
faith). Paul notes that God's grace exceeds our sin and,
furthermore, that when sin increases, God "ups" his output of grace
("where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more").

2) But Paul realizes that this statement might cause someone to ask,
"Well, if grace abounds where sin abounds, then why not sin in order
to get more grace?" Paul answers this with the notion that "that
is no longer who you are." "We can we, who died to sin, live in it
any longer?" Paul notes that death breaks the hold of sin and,
in the first part of chapter 7, that death breaks the jurisdiction
of the law.

3) But now there is another problem that Paul must address. If we
died to sin, then why do we still sin? The answer is given in the
second part of Romans 7: that while we have died and risen with
Christ there is, nevertheless, something still attached to us in
which sin still resides, and it is at war with us. We are in an
"inbetween" state which causes Paul to lament "Oh wretched man that
I am, who will set me free from the body of this death". (I have
heard that this is an allusion to the practice of the Romans of
attaching body of a murder victim to the murderer, so that he
has to carry this dead, decomposing body around).

4) But, if this is what our present state is (elsewhere Paul calls
it "a treasure in an earthen vessel"), then how can we really be
reconciled to a holy God? The answer? "There is therefore now no
condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus."

So Romans 7 is a logical outgrowth of Romans 6. It follows Romans 6 --
it doesn't preceed Romans 6.

>
> And is not ROmans 8:2 the indication of victory from Romans
> 7:14-24?

Not in the sense that I think you mean "victory".

>
> > > When you separate the ongoing cross of self-denial ...
> >
> > And just where in Scripture does it say that the "ongoning cross" is
> > "self-denial"?
>
> Luke 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come
> after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily,
> and follow me.
> Luke 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it:
> but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall
> save it.
>

[... snip similar verses ...]

I understand that. But the point of a cross is death. We don't carry
the cross so that we give up the things we might want to do, we carry
the cross so that we might die. While the ultimate expression of
self-denial can be death, the usual connotation of self-denial isn't
death. And the cross is all about death.

>
> > And, when you say "self-denial", just what exactly to
> > you mean? For example, if "you" are united to Christ, doesn't
> > "self-denial" therefore mean denial of Christ, too?
>
> Self denial is what Jesus referred to in the above verses.
> It is the "my kingdom" realm of self. It is the fleshly
> wrongness in us all.
>
> That part of me which is united to Christ is my human
> spirit, distinct from soul. (1 Cor 6:17). The self is the
> soul longing to exalt itself without union to the Spirit of
> God. Self denial is the refusal to crown myself king.

Let me see if I have this straight. Your spirit is united to Christ.
Is your soul not united to Christ? How about your body?

What, in your anthropology, is the distinction between "soul" and
"spirit"? What makes you "you" and when this "you" is united to Christ,
what is the end result?

>
> > > ... from the totally past experience of crucifixion of the old man and
> > > resurrection into new creaturehood, things become clear.
> >
> > Except that sometimes I think you make the mistake in assuming that the
> > crucifixion of the old man means that the old man is no longer there.
>
> The old man is no longer there. It is annihilated.

Death is not annihilation. The Scriptural definition of death is
separation. Physical death is where the body is separated from the
soul/spirit. Spiritual death is where the spirit is separated from God.
Quick proof: when Paul says "and you were dead in your trespasses and
sins", it certainly wasn't the case that you were "annihilated". You
were, however, estranged from God.

[...]

>
>
> > > And the crux (pun not intended) of the matter stems from Paul's
> > > description of a need to be delivered from the law of sin and death.
> > > Those who wish to know what this law is should look at Romans 7:21.
> >
> > That isn't the "law of sin and death". Rather, it is a description of
> > what Paul, who died and rose with Christ, finds what he looks inside.
>
> Okay. I see what you mean. It is not the law of sin and death, but
> rather the association means that linked Paul to the law of sin and death.
> They go together. The law Paul found working in himself was the law of
> sin and death. If he sins he will die.

That's exactly what Paul would not say -- because the blood of Jesus
Christ has taken care of that problem.

> And that law was kicked into effect whenever "I" tried to do good, as in
> Ro. 7:21. Do you not think that Ro. 7:21 was linked to the law of sin and
> death.

There are four laws at work here:

1) The law of sin and death ("the soul that sins will die"), and
2) The law of slavery to sin ("whoever commits sin is a slave of sin")
3) The law that "law energizes sin".
4) The law that "when I want to do good, evil lies close at hand".

We obviously haven't been freed from 3 -- law still energizes sin. I
also think it obvious that we haven't been freed from 4, either. The
temptation to do evil is, I think, stronger for the Christian that it is
for the unbeliever.

What we have been freed from is 1 and 2. Sin no longer results in our
complete death (it can result in physical death, but that's all). Sin
no longer enslaves us.

Given this analysis, I might be willing to broaden my definition of "the
law of sin and death" to encompass points 1 and 2; but it certainly
doesn't include 4.

>
> > > If you chop apart chapter 7 from chapter 6 then you are lost in
> > > confusion. Paul gave FOUR illustrations of the thought he was
> > > teaching in the first part of Romans 6. We are servants, branches,
> > > wives and then he gave his PAST testimony as an illustration to
> > > explain Romans 6.
> >
> > That his testimony is "past" is not supported in the Greek.
>
> It has nothing to do with variance in Greek or English. It
> is present tense due to the point of rhetoric. Paula did
> not use rhetoric? Why did he use hypothetical questions in
> rhetorical style of "the argument"?

I showed you -- because Paul was anticipating the questions that his
statemens would raise in the minds of his readers. They are only
"hypothetical" questions in that Paul didn't explicitly state them; but
he certainly anticipated them, for they are very real questions that
each believer must ask.

>
> If you see Romans 8:2 being the answer in summary for the problems of
> 7:14-21, and that the answer he came to realize for the One required to
> deliver him is found in 7:25 through Christ, and connect that all back to
> the stated facts of faith in Romans 6:1-12, then it is plain to see that
> 7:14-21 is a PAST experience written as though it was present for
> rhetorical purposes only.

But, by now, hopefully you see why this analysis just doesn't work.

[...]

>
> > > All the first three indicate the idea of us being EXPRESSORS of that
> > > which ANOTHER is the source of. We are vessels. We are the means by
> > > which God expresses His nature into the physical.
> >
> > Then He must not be able to express Himself very well. Just look around
> > you at the people sitting in the pews. Something obviously gets in the
> > way. What is it?
>
> Flesh.

And why is that if you have died and risen with Christ? Why does the
flesh still affect this "heavenly" being that is, supposedly, now "you"?

>
> Tell me, was John playing with us when he said??:
>
> 1Joh 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you,
> that ye sin not.

Of course not. A goal is still a goal, regardless of whether or not we
can reach it in this lifetime.

[...]

>
>
> > > God had a problem.
> >
> > God never has a problem.
>
> Not in the sense that He cannot deal with a situation. Of course!!! But
> there came a hitch in His plan. Or do you think it was His will for Adam
> to sin?

Do you know what "supralapsarianism" and "infralapsarianism" are? I'm a
supralapsarian. (IOW, yes, it was God's will that Adam sin. It is
pretty clear from Scripture that God first imprisons those whom He
frees).

>
> > > Now, the hitch comes when we recall our old manners of living. We
> > > have the SPirit in us to express. But we are so used to living empty
> > > of that Life, that we tend to continue that manner of living.
> >
> > IOW, we overpower the living Christ in us? Is that what you are saying?
> > That we are stronger than Christ?
>
> No. You know better than that! God will not work in us
> without our request and submission to Him to do so.

<expletive deleted>. The Sovereign God neither needs our permission nor
our submission. Did He ask Moses for permission to make him the
spokesman for Israel? Did He not cause Moses to submit to His request?

The Sovereign God, through His grace, causes us to submit.

[...]

>
> > > And our MINDS need renewing for the life within to be free to be
> > > expressed by us.
> >
> > But "we have the mind of Christ". Why does that need renewing,
> > especially if Paul's description of himself in Romans 7 is past tense?
>
> We "have" is Paul's personal experience.

I've cut the lengthy response, because I don't think you quite
understood the purpose of my question. If we are united to Christ, then
why does our personal experience get in the way? In fact, what part of
our "person" is left in this union? In your response, you noted that
the Corinthians were "immature". If we are united with Christ, how can
we be "immature"? IOW, what exactly is the nature of the union?

[...]

>
> Paul said that if one could have another man's spirit, one
> could know the things of that man (thoughts). But that is
> not possible. But yet one can have the Spirit of God, and
> thereby know the things or thoughts of God. The MIND of
> Christ (1 Cor 2:11-12). But the whole point Paul was making
> was that the Corinthians had God's SPirit but were not
> growing spiritual to perceive the mind of Christ.

So their union with Christ wasn't perfect?

[...]

>
> Paul quoted Isaiah to show that it was not possible for the
> Old Testament saints to know the mind of God.

Not true. But that's another discussion.

[...]

>
> > > A deep rooted problem of a MIND conditioned to years without that life
> > > of God. THAT is why it is hard to find those who do not sin.
> >
> > So we are just like the little engine that could? All we need to keep
> > in front of us is "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can" and it
> > will become reality? We speak, and it is so?
>
> No. We are like the carnal Corinthians who did not KNOW we could. It is
> not making anything reality by the origin of our faith. But it is
> recognizing what is reality and adapting ourselves in understanding from a
> place of expecting to sin to realizing we ARE NOT MEANT TO SIN!

There is no argument, none whatsoever, that we are not meant to sin.
Don't for a moment think that I am arguing anything different. The
argument is "in this lifetime, will we reach the place where we do not
sin?" My argument is for that to be the case, the sarx has to be gone
-- and this will not happen until the Resurrection.

[...]

[Bob Felts]

Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:

> >Bob F:

> >1) Is there some level at which you can trust your senses? Certainly
> > there are phenomena such as optical illusions which can fool our
> > senses, although we use our senses (and reason) to resolve the
> > apparent problem with the optical illusion.
>
> The physical senses are used to gather information. They detect what
> is going on in the transient realm. Simultaneously, the Spirit of God
> communicates with a man's spirit revealing the true state of things in
> the eternal realm. The mind processes both sources of information.

But it seems to me that, in your scheme, that there is little
correlation between the eternal realm and the transient realm, and this
leads you to discard information about the transient realm. Is it not
the case that the Spirit gives additional information about both realms,
so that what we take in through the physical senses about the transient
realm is augmented by the Spirit so that we have a system of checks and
balances? That is, we can check whether or not what we are hearing is
from the Spirit by checking with the "transient" things that are from
God (e.g. the written Word); and the Spirit can guide our understanding
on what we "see" in the transient realm?

>
> >
> > I ask, because it seems to both Paul and me that when we look
> > within, we still see sin -- despite the fact that we have been
> > crucified and risen with Christ. Is this something that is
> > actually there, or is it akin to an optical illusion?
>
> The passage you refer to, Romans 7:14-24, refers to an experience
> only. It is not the true condition of the regenerated man.
> Romans 8:9-11 refers to our true condition.

Experiences aren't "true"? The joy that I experienced last night
driving home from the mall with two of my three kids singing in the car
wasn't "true" joy? The sadness that I experienced when I put my dog to
sleep wasn't true?

>
> >
> >2) We aren't concerned with issues such as "more" or "less". The
> > question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
> > light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
> > amount real?"
>
> Two realities exist. Transient (the seen) and eternal (the not seen).
> Darkness exists in the transient. It does not exist in the eternal.
>

But we live in both worlds, do we not? After all, why would Paul
encourage us to "keeps your eyes fixed on things above" if we were
already there?

>
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Faith arrives; recognition occurs.
> >>
> >> In the midst of these negatives, the faith of God arrives. We are
> >> shown by God that a specific need has a corresponding supply.
> >
> >At this point, you need to carefully define your terms. What, exactly,
> >is "the faith of God" and how does it "arrive"? Furthermore, you have
> >to provide a mechanism by which we can distinguish between the arriving
> >"faith" and all of the other "stuff" that comes our way. How do we
> >know, for example, that what "arrives" is really from God?
>
> Hebrews 11:1 defines the faith of God.

Fine. What is "the evidence of things not seen?" Many people
erroneously conclude that this means that the _evidence_ itself isn't
seen. Would you agree or disagree with this? If the evidence is seen,
what is the nature of the evidence? Is it something that we process
with our physical senses?

> Faith arrives via many delivery systems. The "mechanism" for
> distinguishing true faith from presumption is the knowing one has in his
> spirit.

But that is an incomplete mechanism, because it is based on single
witness testimony (i.e. "my spirit testifies that this is true").
That's the hook the Mormon's use to catch the unwary: "pray to know
that these things are true." Many will then testify that they prayed
and received a "burning" sensation within. IOW, the Mormons use the
exact line of reasoning to validate their system that you use to
validate yours. Yet you both aren't right (unless you believe that God
has a corporeal existence and all the rest of the distinctive Mormon
doctrines).

> >
> >> The need exists in the transient realm (seen). The supply exists in the
> >> eternal realm (unseen). Because God gives us the eyes to see, we boldly
> >> proclaim that the supply is real. We know in our hearts that the supply
> >> has already swallowed up the need.
> >
> >But how do you know that the "supply" that you are seeing is truly God's
> >supply and not, say, the result of wishful thinking? It is quite often
> >true that what God really supplies is not what we think He should
> >supply. Paul, for example, asked three times for a certain form of
> >healing. God, however, provided something which Paul didn't expect.
>
> We know based on the Holy Spirit's witness to our spirit.

And we're back to the beginning of the circle. Mormon's claim that they
have the witness of the Holy Spirit to the truth of the claims of
Mormonism. Are you ready to chuck historical Christianity and convert
to Mormonism based on this line of reasoning?

>
> A good example is the knowing you have regarding "Christians and the
> Law". Your knowing on this subject is no doubt the same as the
> knowing you have regarding your sonship. That's always a good
> benchmark.

But I'm not claiming the same epistomological basis for knowing that you
are.

[...]

>
> >> Then you missed the point. Jesus saw the provision as existing in the
> >> here and now despite appearances to the contrary.
> >
> >Oh, come on, Alex. More "keyhole" theology. Where was the provision
> >when Jesus wanted to embrace Jerusalem, as a mother hen embraces her
> >chicks? Was God's provision lacking? Was Jesus' faith weak? When Paul
> >left Trophimus sick in Miletus, was God's provision lacking? Did Paul
> >not have the gift of healing?
>
> We look past the seen into the unseen as we are led by the Spirit.

So sometimes you can see into the unseen and other times you can't?

> Why he gives this ability sometimes and other times He does not, I
> cannot say.
>
>
> >> Verse 18 is the key to understanding the 2 Corinthians 4:8-18 passage.
> >> Paul very clearly saw his terrible afflictions through the eyes of
> >> faith. The unseen was MORE REAL to him then the seen. The eternal
> >> was MORE REAL to him than the transient.
> >
> >That just isn't true, Alex. It isn't a question of which is "more
> >real". The suffering that Christ endured on the cross was just as real
> >as the joy which was set before Him. The suffering that Paul endured
> >was just as real as the goal at the end of the journey.
> >
> >We endure the broccoli because we know that afterwards there is dessert.
> >What we don't do is deny the reality of the broccoli by saying "the
> >dessert is more real than the broccoli".
>
> As has been stated repeatedly, two realms exist.

I've never, ever denied that.

> The seen and the unseen. If one puts his confidence in the transient,
> then that realm is MORE REAL to him than the unseen. And vice versa.
>

"More real" is an oxymoron, just like "more perfect". Was the shed
blood of Christ at Calvary any less real that His blood on the heavenly
altar? Was the birth of Christ in Bethlehem any less real than His
ascension into Heaven? Was the Resurrection of Christ any less real
because it took place in a tomb in Jerusalem? Is the Word of God any
less real because it is on a written page?

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 17 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Alex P. Cohen <ale...@ibm.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bob F:
>

> > > We live our daily lives in a physical world. A world where sin,
> > > sickness and poverty exist. A world where it sometimes seems like
> > > there is more darkness than light.
> > >
> > > The physical senses identify these negative conditions.
> > >
> > > "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not
> > > driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not
> > > destroyed." ( 2 Cor. 4:8,9)
> >

> > 1) Is there some level at which you can trust your senses? Certainly
> > there are phenomena such as optical illusions which can fool our
> > senses, although we use our senses (and reason) to resolve the
> > apparent problem with the optical illusion.
> >

> > I ask, because it seems to both Paul and me that when we look
> > within, we still see sin -- despite the fact that we have been
> > crucified and risen with Christ. Is this something that is
> > actually there, or is it akin to an optical illusion?
>

> Good question. Bob, Paul acknowledged the sin, saw its location [flesh,

> not "I"], ...

I agree that we are not our 'sarx'. But we are the _combination_ of
'sarx', spirit, Spirit, ...

> ... saw how to deal with it by realizing it had already been dealt

> with, and overcame. He never called it an 'illusion'. He is very
> explicit. The 'illusion' of the enemy is that we must or will sin and
> that Jesus didn't have the total victory for us. If we accept the enemy's
> illusion rather than Christ's truth, we've settled for less than the best.

I am not arguing that "we must sin". Nor am I directly arguing that "we
will sin". I am, however, challenging the statement that some people
have, in this life, arrived to the point where they do not sin.

>
> > 2) We aren't concered with issues such as "more" or "less". The

> > question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
> > light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
> > amount real?"
>

> A most understandable remark. Bob, Alex has already said that we live in a
> world where sin, poverty, and sickness *exist*. Ordinarily when something
> exists, we think of it as being real and, from listening to Alex, I should
> think he means it this way. Certainly such sin, etc., is darkness. Some
> Buddhists and Christian Scientists might argue that sin is just an
> illusion. But I've never seen Alex make any such claim. It is an
> illusion, however, to think we are not dead to sin. When we believe the
> illusion instead of the truth, we're building on sand. As a man thinketh
> in his heart, so is he. The key is believing.
>

So, if I think that I am God, that makes me God?

Dangerous stuff, Joe. Perhaps you should rethink your position.

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 18 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On 15 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
> > >
[...]
> > >
> > > > There is no argument that the "old man" was crucified and that we
> > > > are a new creation in Christ. There is no argument that we live
> > > > because Christ lives in and through us. There is no argument that
> > > > not only are we saved from the wrath of God by His blood, but that
> > > > we are saved through His life. There is no argument that our life
> > > > is "hidden in Christ in God" and that we are "seated with Him in the
> > > > heavenly places".
> > >
> > > Amen and amen.
> > >
> > > > The argument is, rather, about issues such as:
> > > >
> > > > 1) What is the nature of the believer after conversion? Can the
> > > > believer sin? Does the believer sin?
> > >
> > > The nature has been changed, or exchanged if you will. By faith we
> > > acknowledge the truths you state above and let God be true and every
> > > man a liar, if necessary.
> > >
> > > Can the believer sin? Yes. Does the believer sin? We see this all
> > > the time.
> >
> > That's progress, at least. How about answering the question "do you
> > sin?"
>
> 1) Because I am not the issue here.

Yes, you are. Either you claim that you do not sin, or you claim that
you do sin. If you claim that you do not sin, that you've "arrived", as
it were, then we should have the right to test that claim (since we are,
after all, to test every spirit to see if it is of God). If you claim
that you do sin, then we'll rejoice in Jesus Christ who lives to make
intercession for us and for His blood which deflects the wrath of God.

>
> 2) I know who the accuser of the brethren is. I shouldn't think you
> would want to play on his team with such a question.

A person can ask a question without it resulting in an accusation, Joe.
Frankly I'm shocked that:

1) you'd place me on Satan's team, and
2) fail to realize that I cannot accuse you, since "who will lay a
charge against God's elect", and
3) evade the question, yet again.

>
> 3) If I commit a sin, I will confess it to the Father, not to you on
> a public newsgroup.

James says, "confess your sins TO ONE ANOTHER".

>
> 4) I leave you with one last thought on this from Romans:
>
> 014:004 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
> master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for
> God is able to make him stand.

I'm not judging you, Joe. I am, however, judging the claims of those
who are in the "I don't sin" group. If you claim to be in that group,
then I get to "test the spirits", as it were.

[...]

> > > Can this sin be overcome? That's really what this discussion is all
> > > about.
> >
> > Not precisely. Sin _has_ been overcome. The blood of Christ and the
> > life of Christ has taken care of that.
>
> Bob, we agree that sin has been overcome. But the discussion is really
> concerned with whether or not this victory can be manifest in believers
> in the present era.

Yep -- and you evade the issue by throwing up a smokescreen and refusing
to answer one simple question.

>
> > The question is whether or not our present walk will ever equal the walk
> > that awaits us in the Resurrection.
>
> No, that's not the question either. First, we have already been raised
> (resurrected) in Christ. Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. Now
> He gives us life and life more abundant. Someday we will have life much
> more abundant, not fettered by these clay pots we wear about. But that
> does not mean we cannot be free of sin now. Jesus walk as Son was perfect
> before the Father who was well pleased. He knew the limitation of this
> flesh body, yet was without sin. As He now lives in us, having come
> in our flesh, we can live the same victorious life in Him. The serpent
> can be kept completely underfoot. When believers recognized their
> authority in Christ, Jesus beheld Satan fall from heaven.

Fine. But just as I'm leery of the claims of "miracle diets" by people
who are fat, or claims of "get rich quick" by people who ask me for my
money, I'm leery of claims such as this. Mainly because I think you're
not giving the complete picture as revealed in Scripture. But, hey, I'm
not proud. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. So, put
your money where your mouth is and answer the question.

[...]

>
> > Let's see how long you last. We can start a pool on s.r.c.b-s. ;-)
>
> > > One might also ask if temptation can be eliminated while in this flesh
> > > body. It wasn't for Jesus, who came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
> > > Yet we are delivered from this temptation as we abide in Him. The
> > > incontinence of the flesh can be put down, overcome.
> >
> > We can test this, too. Let me introduce you to the flu bug that I had.
>
> Are you sure you had to endure this flu bug, Bob? From James:
>
> 005:014 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the
> church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
> the name of the Lord:
>
> 005:015 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
> shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall
> be forgiven him.

Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me,
but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made
perfect in weakness." So, I will boast all the more gladly of my
weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

[...]

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 23 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
>

> > Good question. Bob, Paul acknowledged the sin, saw its location [flesh,
> > not "I"], ...
>
> I agree that we are not our 'sarx'. But we are the _combination_ of
> 'sarx', spirit, Spirit, ...

A born again Christian is not the combination of anything having evil
within it. A child of God is not part child of the devil. There is no
mixed covenant.

> > ... saw how to deal with it by realizing it had already been dealt
> > with, and overcame. He never called it an 'illusion'. He is very
> > explicit. The 'illusion' of the enemy is that we must or will sin and
> > that Jesus didn't have the total victory for us. If we accept the enemy's
> > illusion rather than Christ's truth, we've settled for less than the best.
>
> I am not arguing that "we must sin". Nor am I directly arguing that "we
> will sin". I am, however, challenging the statement that some people
> have, in this life, arrived to the point where they do not sin.

You contradict yourself. You are saying that you are not arguing that we
will sin, while saying that one can ever reach such a condition where they
won't sin. Which is it, Bob? Did Jesus deliver us from sin or not? And
if He delivered us, didn't He make full provision to walk in this truth?
Did He not tell us to be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect?
Would He command us to do what He has not provided for? And if He
wouldn't do such a thing, how can anything in the natural or supernatural
keep us from being children of obedience? Did not our brother Jesus show
us that we can overcome the evil one by living such a life Himself? And
did He not promise us that He would make us free indeed? Now He came in
the likeness of sinful flesh, the same kind of Adamic flesh we inherit
when we are born into this world. By overcoming where the first Adam
failed, He showed us the way. Now if He lead a life above sin in the
flesh, and if we now have His resurrection power in us, then surely we can
grow in grace and realize this truth and learn to walk after the Spirit
and not after the flesh.

Now you say that no one in this life can "arrive" to the point where they
do not sin. Should sin in the flesh be given occasion to take some dark
comfort by observing sinful acts in other Christians as perverted
justification that somehow we are not called to lives that rise above sin?
That sin was not totally dealt with at Calvary and Satan defeated?

Quite the contrary. We are told by our Lord to help each other be free of
such torment of the flesh. We see this in parable in the raising of
Lazarus. Lazarus was called forth from the dead physically even as we are
called forth from the dead by Jesus spiritually. Lazarus was bound by
stinking grave clothes. Jesus told the friends of Lazarus to loose him
and set him free. Young Christians often have a lot of problems with sin
when they are first born into the kingdom. But these sin problems are
like the stinking grave clothes that bound Lazarus. We can minister one
to another and see this sin, which is not part of the new creation we have
become, fall away. The grave clothes can be removed. Such grave clothes
belong to a corpse, not to a new creation in Christ. So rather than
focusing on the error of "why these grave clothes can't all be removed,"
focus on Christ who came to set us totally free and help set your
brother free, rather than mire him a theology that it can't be done.

Can Christians overcome sin in their lives? Certainly not by striving
after the flesh, but rather by believing the truths of Jesus. BELIEVING
JESUS IS THE KEY. Asking if sin can be overcome is the same as asking if
Christians can overcome the evil one. You don't have to ask any Christian
living today if they have overcome the evil one. You would not believe
them anyway until you see the truth of this matter. But you do claim to
respect scripture. So respect the writing of I John where the apostles
writes:

002:013 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is
from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye
have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little
children, because ye have known the Father.

John wrote to the young men because they have overcome the wicked one.
John didn't say this of the children. He said this of the young men.
Simply BELIEVE what John is saying.

Bob, John is not saying that such Christians haven't sinned or that
they are incapable of falling out of the saddle tomorrow. But he is
talking of those who know how to hold on to the saddle horn. We CAN
live lives pleasing to Christ, and that by the power of Christ within.

> >
> > > 2) We aren't concered with issues such as "more" or "less". The
> > > question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
> > > light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
> > > amount real?"
> >
> > A most understandable remark. Bob, Alex has already said that we live in a
> > world where sin, poverty, and sickness *exist*. Ordinarily when something
> > exists, we think of it as being real and, from listening to Alex, I should
> > think he means it this way. Certainly such sin, etc., is darkness. Some
> > Buddhists and Christian Scientists might argue that sin is just an
> > illusion. But I've never seen Alex make any such claim. It is an
> > illusion, however, to think we are not dead to sin. When we believe the
> > illusion instead of the truth, we're building on sand. As a man thinketh
> > in his heart, so is he. The key is believing.
> >
>
> So, if I think that I am God, that makes me God?

If you think you're God, your heart's full of putrefaction and your thoughts
will reveal this, for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

> Dangerous stuff, Joe. Perhaps you should rethink your position.

You suggest the key is NOT believing? Is it rather SEEING and going by
your senses? Or by logical deduction?

006:028 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work
the works of God?

006:029 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God,
that ye BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent. [John]

If we believe on Him, surely we will believe what He has spoken. We must
be like a little child to enter the Kingdom. The little child doesn't
reason or philosophize. The child simply believes what His Father
tells him.

Peace and Good Will,

Joe

[Joseph W. Gaut]

On 23 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:

> Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
>

> > > That's progress, at least. How about answering the question "do you
> > > sin?"
> >
> > 1) Because I am not the issue here.
>
> Yes, you are.

No, I'm not the issue. Your faith is not to hinge upon any man, but
rather upon Jesus.

> Either you claim that you do not sin, or you claim that
> you do sin. If you claim that you do not sin, that you've "arrived", as
> it were, then we should have the right to test that claim (since we are,
> after all, to test every spirit to see if it is of God). If you claim
> that you do sin, then we'll rejoice in Jesus Christ who lives to make
> intercession for us and for His blood which deflects the wrath of God.

I fear you would rejoice because you would receive some small fleshly
satisfaction in thinking one can't truly live the Christian life. The
reason you ask the question is because of sin consciousness. God would
deliver you from sin consciousness. Did David sin when he took the
shewbread? Is sin performance based or nature based? Blessed is the man
to whom God does not impute iniquity.

> > 2) I know who the accuser of the brethren is. I shouldn't think you
> > would want to play on his team with such a question.
>
> A person can ask a question without it resulting in an accusation, Joe.
> Frankly I'm shocked that:
>
> 1) you'd place me on Satan's team, and
> 2) fail to realize that I cannot accuse you, since "who will lay a
> charge against God's elect", and

Right! No charge will stick. Coated with teflon.

> 3) evade the question, yet again.

And will continue not to satisify your flesh.

Your question didn't come from the Spirit of God. What other source
is there?

> > 3) If I commit a sin, I will confess it to the Father, not to you on
> > a public newsgroup.
>
> James says, "confess your sins TO ONE ANOTHER".

If I were to confess to ANOTHER, Bob, it would be to one who believes sin
can be overcome in this lifetime and that we don't have to walk after the
flesh.

> > 4) I leave you with one last thought on this from Romans:
> >
> > 014:004 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
> > master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for
> > God is able to make him stand.
>
> I'm not judging you, Joe. I am, however, judging the claims of those
> who are in the "I don't sin" group. If you claim to be in that group,
> then I get to "test the spirits", as it were.

Test away. But test after the spirit, not after the flesh. And I claim
to be of no group but the Christian camp.

> [...]
>
> > > > Can this sin be overcome? That's really what this discussion is all
> > > > about.
> > >
> > > Not precisely. Sin _has_ been overcome. The blood of Christ and the
> > > life of Christ has taken care of that.
> >
> > Bob, we agree that sin has been overcome. But the discussion is really
> > concerned with whether or not this victory can be manifest in believers
> > in the present era.
>
> Yep -- and you evade the issue by throwing up a smokescreen and refusing
> to answer one simple question.

You would hinge your faith on your question after the flesh? Why not
simply believe the scriptures? BELIEVE! Is the issue evaded? No.
I've stated the issue clearly. Don't look for excuses not to believe.

> > > The question is whether or not our present walk will ever equal the walk
> > > that awaits us in the Resurrection.
> >
> > No, that's not the question either. First, we have already been raised
> > (resurrected) in Christ. Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. Now
> > He gives us life and life more abundant. Someday we will have life much
> > more abundant, not fettered by these clay pots we wear about. But that
> > does not mean we cannot be free of sin now. Jesus walk as Son was perfect
> > before the Father who was well pleased. He knew the limitation of this
> > flesh body, yet was without sin. As He now lives in us, having come
> > in our flesh, we can live the same victorious life in Him. The serpent
> > can be kept completely underfoot. When believers recognized their
> > authority in Christ, Jesus beheld Satan fall from heaven.
>
> Fine. But just as I'm leery of the claims of "miracle diets" by people
> who are fat, or claims of "get rich quick" by people who ask me for my
> money, I'm leery of claims such as this. Mainly because I think you're
> not giving the complete picture as revealed in Scripture. But, hey, I'm
> not proud. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. So, put
> your money where your mouth is and answer the question.

Don't build your faith on me. Build on Jesus. Believe the apostle John.

> [...]
>
> >
> > > Let's see how long you last. We can start a pool on s.r.c.b-s. ;-)
> >
> > > > One might also ask if temptation can be eliminated while in this flesh
> > > > body. It wasn't for Jesus, who came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
> > > > Yet we are delivered from this temptation as we abide in Him. The
> > > > incontinence of the flesh can be put down, overcome.
> > >
> > > We can test this, too. Let me introduce you to the flu bug that I had.
> >
> > Are you sure you had to endure this flu bug, Bob? From James:
> >
> > 005:014 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the
> > church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
> > the name of the Lord:
> >
> > 005:015 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
> > shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall
> > be forgiven him.
>
> Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me,
> but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made
> perfect in weakness." So, I will boast all the more gladly of my
> weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

In other words, you didn't send for the elders of the Church. How do
you know the thorn in Paul's flesh was even a physical ailment? And
certainly God's grace was sufficient for him. I've seen God's grace
be sufficient for many as they have been healed by His power. Why
is it that Paul's thorn is used for a gospel proclaiming Jesus doesn't
heal?

[Bob Felts]

Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:

> On 23 Dec 1997, Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Joseph W. Gaut <ga...@math.sfasu.edu> wrote:
> >

> > > Good question. Bob, Paul acknowledged the sin, saw its location [flesh,
> > > not "I"], ...
> >
> > I agree that we are not our 'sarx'. But we are the _combination_ of
> > 'sarx', spirit, Spirit, ...
>
> A born again Christian is not the combination of anything having evil
> within it. A child of God is not part child of the devil. There is no
> mixed covenant.

Let's take these three points in order:

1) Paul says "Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I
that do it, but sin that dwells within _me_. ... but I see in _my_
members another law at war with the law of my mind... but we
ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly
while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies."

2) Of course not. What does that have to do with the current
argument?

3) Indeed. "... and their sins and their iniquities I will remember
no more." Does this happen because we no longer sin, or because
the blood of Jesus Christ covers the sin?

>
> > > ... saw how to deal with it by realizing it had already been dealt
> > > with, and overcame. He never called it an 'illusion'. He is very
> > > explicit. The 'illusion' of the enemy is that we must or will sin and
> > > that Jesus didn't have the total victory for us. If we accept the
> > > enemy's illusion rather than Christ's truth, we've settled for less
> > > than the best.
> >
> > I am not arguing that "we must sin". Nor am I directly arguing that "we
> > will sin". I am, however, challenging the statement that some people
> > have, in this life, arrived to the point where they do not sin.
>
> You contradict yourself. You are saying that you are not arguing that we
> will sin, while saying that one can ever reach such a condition where they
> won't sin.

Congratulations, Joe. You just lost the "logic" argument. The
principle of non-contradiction is one of the foundations of logic and
reason. If logic is so useless in determining truth, then why are you
trying to use logic in your response to me?

> Which is it, Bob? Did Jesus deliver us from sin or not?

He has delivered us from sin, He is delivering us from sin, and He will
deliver us from sin (which corresponds to "we have been saved", "we are
being saved" and "we will be saved" -- all of which are in Scripture and
which describe God's outworking of salvation in our lives).

> And if He delivered us, didn't He make full provision to walk in this
> truth?

That's what you're assuming and which we are trying to ascertain. I
would argue that full provision includes the redemption of our bodies.
Since this has not yet occurred, there is still a future aspect to His
provision.

> Did He not tell us to be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect?

I am perfect, even if I sin.

> Would He command us to do what He has not provided for? And if He
> wouldn't do such a thing, how can anything in the natural or supernatural
> keep us from being children of obedience?

Since my faith is counted as righteousness, I am righteous, regardless
of the current state of obedience.

> Did not our brother Jesus show us that we can overcome the evil one by
> living such a life Himself? And did He not promise us that He would make

> us free indeed? Now He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, the same kind

> of Adamic flesh we inherit when we are born into this world. By
> overcoming where the first Adam failed, He showed us the way. Now if He
> lead a life above sin in the flesh, and if we now have His resurrection
> power in us, then surely we can grow in grace and realize this truth and
> learn to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

Well, your hypocrital use of logic in this thread shows that you haven't
arrived yet, sir. Since this is so, doesn't that take all the hot air
out of your paragraph?

[...]

>
> > >
> > > > 2) We aren't concered with issues such as "more" or "less". The
> > > > question is not "does it seem like there is more darkness than
> > > > light". The question is "is the darkness, regardless of its
> > > > amount real?"
> > >
> > > A most understandable remark. Bob, Alex has already said that we live
> > > in a world where sin, poverty, and sickness *exist*. Ordinarily when
> > > something exists, we think of it as being real and, from listening to
> > > Alex, I should think he means it this way. Certainly such sin, etc.,
> > > is darkness. Some Buddhists and Christian Scientists might argue that
> > > sin is just an illusion. But I've never seen Alex make any such
> > > claim. It is an illusion, however, to think we are not dead to sin.
> > > When we believe the illusion instead of the truth, we're building on
> > > sand. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. The key is
> > > believing.
> > >
> >
> > So, if I think that I am God, that makes me God?
>
> If you think you're God, your heart's full of putrefaction and your
> thoughts will reveal this, for of the abundance of the heart the mouth
> speaks.

IOW, the key isn't just believing? Which is it, Joe?

>
> > Dangerous stuff, Joe. Perhaps you should rethink your position.
>
> You suggest the key is NOT believing?

You just said it's not. I asked "if I believe that I am God, does that
make me God?" You said "no" (although you used 27 words when 1 would
have sufficed).

So which is it? If the key is believing, and a I believe I'm God, then
I'm God. Unless the key is something else.

> Is it rather SEEING and going by your senses? Or by logical deduction?

Or maybe it's something else.

[Alex P. Cohen]

>> The physical senses are used to gather information. They detect what
>> is going on in the transient realm. Simultaneously, the Spirit of God
>> communicates with a man's spirit revealing the true state of things in
>> the eternal realm. The mind processes both sources of information.

>But it seems to me that, in your scheme, that there is little
>correlation between the eternal realm and the transient realm, and this
>leads you to discard information about the transient realm.

In matters of faith, it is absolutely necessary to discard information
gathered from the transient realm.

As an example, take the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus was told by his
disciples that there WAS NOT enough food for the crowd (his physical
senses). Simultaneously, the Spirit of God told Jesus that there WAS
enough food (in his spirit). Jesus' mind processed both sources of
information. He then discarded the information gathered by his
physical senses and acted upon what He heard from God within,

"Taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and
blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the
disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were
satisfied." (Matthew 14:19,20)

>> The passage you refer to, Romans 7:14-24, refers to an experience
>> only. It is not the true condition of the regenerated man.
>> Romans 8:9-11 refers to our true condition.
>
>Experiences aren't "true"? The joy that I experienced last night
>driving home from the mall with two of my three kids singing in the car
>wasn't "true" joy? The sadness that I experienced when I put my dog to
>sleep wasn't true?

Emotions are not your true condition. They come and go.

You are in the Spirit; not in the flesh. That is your true condition.
It never changes, because it is based upon the Spirit's presence
within you.

>> Two realities exist. Transient (the seen) and eternal (the not seen).
>> Darkness exists in the transient. It does not exist in the eternal.
>>
>
>But we live in both worlds, do we not? After all, why would Paul
>encourage us to "keeps your eyes fixed on things above" if we were
>already there?

Yes, we co-exist in both realms. Please note that Paul is giving you
the very same advice that I have been offerring. Let your thoughts be
on heavenly things, not on earthly things,

"Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on
earth. For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God."
(Colossians 3:2,3)

The flesh is an earthly thing, and we know the result of thinking
about the flesh,

"To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the
Spirit is life and peace." (Romans 8:6)

>> Hebrews 11:1 defines the faith of God.
>
>Fine. What is "the evidence of things not seen?" Many people
>erroneously conclude that this means that the _evidence_ itself isn't
>seen. Would you agree or disagree with this? If the evidence is seen,
>what is the nature of the evidence? Is it something that we process
>with our physical senses?

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of

things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

The evidence is the unseen knowing in your spirit.

"For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope.
For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not
see, we wait for it with patience." (Romans 8:24,25)

Faith and hope are tied together,

"So faith, hope, love (agape) abide, these three; but the greatest of
these is agape." (1 Cor. 13:13)

>
>> Faith arrives via many delivery systems. The "mechanism" for
>> distinguishing true faith from presumption is the knowing one has in his
>> spirit.
>
>But that is an incomplete mechanism, because it is based on single
>witness testimony (i.e. "my spirit testifies that this is true").
>That's the hook the Mormon's use to catch the unwary: "pray to know
>that these things are true." Many will then testify that they prayed
>and received a "burning" sensation within. IOW, the Mormons use the
>exact line of reasoning to validate their system that you use to
>validate yours. Yet you both aren't right (unless you believe that God
>has a corporeal existence and all the rest of the distinctive Mormon
>doctrines).

The enemy has many counterfiets, be we do not reject God's true
working because of them.

Here's an example. The day is over, and you've put your kids to bed.
You've kissed your wife goodnight, and you're laying there in bed
quiet. Your mind is shutting down for the night. It's just you and
the Lord. No distractions. You lay there fellowshipping with Him.
How do you know that you are His child? How do you REALLY know?

"When we cry, 'Abba! Father!' it is the Spirit himself bearing witness
with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:15,16)

This is not an incomplete mechanism. You KNOW for sure based on the
witness of the Holy Spirit within you. And there is not a person on
the face of this planet that could ever convince you otherwise. That
is the kind of knowing I'm talking about.

>"More real" is an oxymoron, just like "more perfect". Was the shed
>blood of Christ at Calvary any less real that His blood on the heavenly
>altar? Was the birth of Christ in Bethlehem any less real than His
>ascension into Heaven? Was the Resurrection of Christ any less real
>because it took place in a tomb in Jerusalem? Is the Word of God any
>less real because it is on a written page?

If you want to get back to arguing about words, that's fine. But I'm
sure you get the point. Two realms exist - the seen and the unseen.
One will pass away, the other is eternal. We place our confidence in
the unseen - where God is.

Alex