tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post1189517193969551385..comments2023-09-24T03:09:02.536-05:00Comments on Grace For Life: Denying The New Creation (Transcript)Terry Rayburnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00722632954331009294noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-55180326764303300142009-10-12T10:17:06.854-05:002009-10-12T10:17:06.854-05:00Uh-huh. I'm not thinking on any "higher ...Uh-huh. I'm not thinking on any "higher plane", but actually trying to get simple,to the point, and non-mystical on stuff. <br /><br />I thought that most people related the "perfection" in Heb10v14 to the "their sins and iniquities I will remember no more". The context being the reason why Christ's sacrifice brings "no more consciousness of sins". Sins "removed" (new covenant) rather than just passed over (old).<br /><br />As to the "faith of Christ" etc, I was referring to Christ's faithful work of redemption of the world - an objective thing done for all, which folks partake of when they believe. I picked up that phrase reading Bertie Brits regarding Rom3v22, Gal2v16, who I've liked reading very much. (Along with others like Joseph Prince and the Rufus's). <br /><br />By "organic", I was trying to suggest that coming under grace in the heart through this faith sets the heart and mind free directly, because we believe the truth about God and our relationship with him. And that then our doing is a direct consequence of our believing. And that that believing defines and is basic to our "newness" and "holiness" rather than an imparted essence. Again, no new "hardware", but a freeing up of what we've already got. <br /><br />I can't help feeling that the "new essence" talk as "the rest of the gospel" is actually obscuring the message of righteousness of the cross, in a Keswick-type "quietist" fashion, rather than directly relating the message of righteousness to the new creation and living abundant life in the new covenant.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-61648835501164162142009-10-12T09:02:53.587-05:002009-10-12T09:02:53.587-05:00Thanks much, Ralph.Thanks much, Ralph.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-13742067256717081972009-10-12T09:02:30.086-05:002009-10-12T09:02:30.086-05:00Phil,
After struggling hard with your last two co...Phil,<br /><br />After struggling hard with your last two comments, I have to reluctantly admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean no disrespect by that.<br /><br />It's just that when you use terms like "organic" and "'faith' in the 'faith of Christ' dying and rising again", you lose me. They don't really MEAN anything to me.<br /><br />It may be that you're thinking on some higher plane that I in my simplicity can't comprehend, or it may be that you're blowing smoke because you don't understand what you're saying either.<br /><br />And your "take" on Heb. 10:14 (where we are described as "perfect" in some way) makes no sense to me. Forgiveness and imputed righteousness are "states" of being, not any kind of perfection.<br /><br />It's hard to say what I need to say without sounding derogatory. I don't mean to do at all. You're obviously thinking hard and I'm sure with good intentions. But I fear you're leaving the "simplicity which is in Christ" for some esoteric philosophical strange land.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-40241416804589460002009-10-09T09:03:41.127-05:002009-10-09T09:03:41.127-05:00Well done, Terry. I enjoyed your article.Well done, Terry. I enjoyed your article.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13191358912351995744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-38982299466068643162009-10-08T15:48:49.767-05:002009-10-08T15:48:49.767-05:00...On the "as if two natures" bit, I was......On the "as if two natures" bit, I was referring to the view of Romans7 that says Paul's talking about a believer with "indwelling sin". I take that phrase to refer to "sin living in a home it doesn't belong, as if it did". Which for me, in context, means it hold sway, because the person's still under law and in unbelief...Paul starting the chapter cementing the principle that we humans need to be delivered from law, to be delivered from sin, to bring forth fruit to God...again, the death of the law man. I don't think he wants - after Rom6 - to lay down a scenario which leaves us once more seeing ourselves torn between "the essence of a new spirit" and the "essence of an old mind/body". Rather, a new faithful heart under grace, with the Spirit giving life to our mortal bodies etc, as whole beings.<br /><br />I certainly don't think the bible tells us sinning is natural for the believer. In fact, I would say that what Paul's saying in Rom6v1 is "shall we continue as if in a position of sin so that grace may abound?" i.e "under law" in our minds, so that sin may increase and "grace" cover it? I now think it’s a direct assault on living as if under law, with its consequences, rather than a “consistency check” for folks living under grace, and an apologetic for grace… And he later goes on to say that if we are under grace, God's power forbids sin's natural course...it's impossible. Obedience to the doctrine of grace gives access to the power, obedience to the form of knowledge in the law increases sin. Again, it seems to be organic - a dead cert.<br /><br />I guess it comes down to whether we think the bible says essential substance is imparted to us, or not. I tend to think that the essence of living faith is the defining "substance" for humanity’s operation as intended, and that we don’t get replacement “hardware”, but freedom for what’s already there, with a down-payment of the indwelling Spirit to help us in it. <br /><br />Anyway, I've written too much. Sorry. Hesitate on posting for a number of reasons probably, but here goes anyway.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-11137807803350291632009-10-08T15:48:27.797-05:002009-10-08T15:48:27.797-05:00Thanks for replying, Terry. I don't want to sa...Thanks for replying, Terry. I don't want to say much more, especially not right now. But what I was suggesting was really that there's an organic link between what one believes and it's consequences for the person's state. I've think that to be born again does carry a literal sort of meaning, in that the believer is made alive to God and dead to sin, but that perhaps it's linked to a living faith which transforms his/her humanity by freeing it, rather than an "essence". I think Christ's death on the cross was the death "in him" of the law man - fallen Adam and those in him - and the "rebirth" "in him" of humanity "in Christ". I'm not suggesting people are saved until they see it, but the issue which "rebirths" persons is that which "re-birthed" mankind in Christ. It's "faith" in the "faith of Christ" dying and rising again, with what that means. The possession/exercise of that type of "faith" - being "great" (a qualitative descriptor) - or the non-exercise of it - is what defines man as a new or old creation in his/her person here and now. <br /><br />I would say that if the "spirit" is this fundamental operation of the soul, that changes everything, then we don't have to think of 3 essential "parts" per se. It only seems necessary if we have to ascribe imparted "essence" and "substance" to reborn humanity. Of course I agree with what you said about this being fair if the scripture says so, but I'm not sure it does. Rom6 can be read that way, but it can also be read as Paul making an organic link between our death to the imputation of sin (dying to sin as Christ did) and our deliverance from it's power. We love God when we know his love for us, and the Spirit helps us accordingly. <br /><br />Heb10v14 I've kind of taken as a comment on forgiveness/imputation of righteousness, for those made new by the message of grace. The context being guilt.<br /><br />So I feel like the question "which part is born again?" is perhaps not really on the radar. The whole human is, because of becoming a partaker of redemption. I'm not saying that means all is as it will be in mind and body. I’m not saying we’ve got the consummation of all that, yet (I think I take that consummation to be what is meant by the future “redemption of our bodies” - all source of liabilities forever removed - and not so much a distinct event, as the glory upon glory beginning to overflow, the last enemy death being defeated)...Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-46815444973288054502009-10-08T11:45:43.150-05:002009-10-08T11:45:43.150-05:00Hey Mark,
Appreciate you stopping by! Thanks.Hey Mark,<br /><br />Appreciate you stopping by! Thanks.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-78824938057278224772009-10-08T11:45:00.585-05:002009-10-08T11:45:00.585-05:005. Although I believe very firmly in Justification...5. Although I believe very firmly in Justification by Faith, the ancient truth that we (as a whole) are "declared righteous" by God as a gift of grace, and in no way could ever merit such righteousness...<br /><br />...I'm not the least bit afraid of recognizing some sort of "infused" goodness to our new spirit, IF THAT'S WHAT THE SCRIPTURE TEACHES.<br /><br />And I believe that's what the Scripture does teach. Just one example is Hebrews 10:14, "For by one offering He has PERFECTED for all time those who are sanctified." I find other interpretations of that and similar verses twisted and illogical. But that's because, like many other verses, it truly can't be understood without a 3-part view of man.<br /><br />But here's where it gets a little dicey (remember I agree there is some mystery to these things). We must distinguish between the WHOLE of our being and the PARTS (for lack of better terms).<br /><br />In other words, our WHOLE being must be Justified, declared righteous, in right standing with God -- not just our spirit. And that's what God's gift of His Righteousness (Justification by Faith) does.<br /><br />So this is not to be confused with the awful Roman Catholic view that somehow our WHOLE is infused with righteousness, whereupon with this "righteousness" we MERIT salvation, until it leaks away by venial sins, or is blasted away by a mortal sin, and we must re-instate it with the Priest's sacraments. That is, of course, blasphemy.<br /><br />6. A blog comment can't cover all the details, but let me close by touching on a couple of your other points or questions:<br /><br />a. because of what I've written above, the believer's humanity really IS "different from the non-believer's...they have a new 'bit' that gives them inherently better 'equipment'...", to quote you.<br /><br />b. it's not that we live by some "bit" SEPARATE from the mind, it's that when we walk in TRUTH (a mind thing), we will tend to walk by the Spirit (His and ours). When we walk in DECEPTION, we will tend to walk by the flesh (our old "program" ingrained in our brain, and members, wherein dwells sin). That's why we want our mind renewed by truth, which will set us free, John 8:32.<br /><br />c. I simply wouldn't agree that this still leaves a divided person AS IF they had two natures. <br /><br />A big part of the true point is that when a Christian sins, it is truly AGAINST his nature. This, along with a strong understanding that ALL of our sins are already forgiven, is crucial to our avoiding sin.<br /><br />I am utterly (and biblically) convinced that if we think that sinning is NATURAL for the believer, he will be more inclined to do it.<br /><br />In conclusion, I can't overemphasize that we need to "strive" (nothing wrong with striving while we "rest") to commune with Jesus Himself! Not just theology ABOUT Him. And not just ANY truth will have the same effect on our lives as the New Covenant truths of radical Grace, Forgiveness, Love of Christ, "no condemnation", New Creation, "dead to sin and alive to God through Jesus Christ", etc., etc. (Here a book could be written, of course).<br /><br />Thanks again for your comments.<br /><br />Blessings,<br />TerryTerry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-72994170928495621952009-10-08T11:43:51.603-05:002009-10-08T11:43:51.603-05:00Phil,
I appreciate your thoughtful post. You'...Phil,<br /><br />I appreciate your thoughtful post. You've obviously spent some time thinking on this.<br /><br />1. I think we have to admit that there is some mystery to these things. But that shouldn't keep us from plunging in to determine what we think the Bible teaches, as best we can.<br /><br />Having said that, yes I believe the Scriptures teach quite clearly a 3-part make-up of man, body-soul-spirit (versus the common 2-part view of body-soul).<br /><br />2. On that basis, I would like to say that the Scriptures don't spell it out in direct verses, but it can be REASONED from many Scriptures, as I will attempt to do as follows.<br /><br />3. First, we take the subject of the New Birth, or regeneration.<br /><br />We have to ask the question, "Are we literally born again?" (I don't mean physically, but literally, nonetheless).<br /><br />The biblical answer is "yes". It makes no sense to say otherwise, or our Lord's comments to Nicodemus are gibberish, as are many other portions of Scripture.<br /><br />4. If we are literally born again, or regenerated (2 Cor. 5:17 "new creation") we should ask, "What PART of me is born again?"<br /><br />A 2-part advocate really can't answer that question, if "born again" is to really mean something in the way of a new creation (they won't admit this, of course).<br /><br />But just for sake of argument, if we say man is made up of body, soul and spirit, again "what PART of me is born again?"<br /><br />It's certainly not the body (no one will disagree here).<br /><br />If we define "soul" roughly as mind, emotion and will -- our souls certainly were not born again. Our minds still need renewing, our emotions may jump all over the place, and our wills are subject to all kinds of winds of truth and deceit.<br /><br />So we have to conclude that it's our SPIRIT which is born again. I would further say that it's in this re-born spirit that we really do love Jesus and hate sin. "Old things have passed away, behold all things have become new".<br /><br />(Continued on next comment)Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-74658969749395194292009-10-07T15:15:28.150-05:002009-10-07T15:15:28.150-05:00Terry,
An excellent devotional on the believer...Terry,<br /><br />An excellent devotional on the believer's identity in Christ. I agree 100% . . .<br /><br />MarkMark D. Vilenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397392158425187057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8590322.post-84266940957001625372009-10-07T14:30:54.385-05:002009-10-07T14:30:54.385-05:00Terry, what are your thoughts on this? Namely, the...Terry, what are your thoughts on this? Namely, the biblical basis for a 3-part anthropology where the "spirit" or "nature" is seemingly discussed as a metaphysical entity in its own right? You seem to be of that mind. <br /><br />Being honest, I've felt uncomfortable with some discussion on the new nature because it talks of it like an infused righteousness, and is if the believer's humanity is different from the non-believer's. I.e, that they have a new "bit" that gives them inherently better "equipment" - that "new" means "replaced" rather than "transformed".<br /><br />I've heard Bertie Brits talking about the "heart of man" as his belief system, and I wonder that really, without any distinct anthropological discussion in the bible, other than seeming to point to some sort of distinction between spirit and soul, insofar as both terms are used (at least in English), it's not better to think of the "spirit" or "heart of hearts" as just that - the most basic functioning of the soul according to the fundamental beliefs held, either due to the fall, or redemption.<br /><br />One can still do that and believe one "nature". Just it's moved away from giving the impression that people live by some "bit" separate from the mind, rather than their conscious human faculties renewed. (As well talk of union with God in a sense that almost sounds like absorption).<br /><br />I still feel the "it's not me it's sin in me" thing is wrong, regarding Romans 7...and that the discussion of "the flesh" tends to make out that the problem is an inherently "infected" body/mind, which means folks look to live as if they can't wait to be unclothed from their humanity. Rather than it be "clothed upon","swallowed up in life", glorified. Surely that leaves people viewing the Christian life and "walking in the Spirit" as a "law of gravity vs law of aerodynamics" thing, where moment by moment they have to strive to "let go" of "flesh" to "get go" with "spirit", and that leaves things totally subjective in my book. One's still left with a divided view of the new man, just as if it's said we're two natures. And it makes out that the Spirit is life because of "dying to self/flesh", rather than imputed righteousness, so we're stuck with works-righteousness - "I must do____ to be blessed. <br /><br />What say you?Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.com