Forget & Forgive?

[Joe Sperling]

Chuck----

Very well put--I appreciate your post very much, and your sincerity. From the
direction your posts seemed to be going I thought you were espousing "overcomer"
theology, but as you have stated, perhaps that wasn't the case.

God bless you Chuck.

--Joe

[vernecarty]

Chuck----

Very well put--I appreciate your post very much, and your sincerity. From the
direction your posts seemed to be going I thought you were espousing "overcomer"
theology, but as you have stated, perhaps that wasn't the case.

God bless you Chuck.

--Joe

In my humble opinion, there is defnitely a case to be made that the vast majority of us remain spiritual infants far longer than we should. I consider the kinds of issues Chuck is raising to be in the category of "strong meat"
His core point on the need to live in a manner that glorifies God is very well taken.
I fear a lot of us have not had our senses sufficiently excercised...
Verne

[Sondra Jamison]

For in all of this, it has occurred to me that, somewhere there is a believer who is sitting in a cold dark prison, starved and beaten, suffering and tormented, forgotten by many of his or her brothers and sisters and yet rejoicing in the inner knowledge that the Lord Jesus is with Him and will help to sustain him in his ordeal.  He may not  know much about the theological arguments for justification, sanctification, glorification, predestination, overcomers, methods of interpretation, etc., etc. What He does know to the very depth of his soul and spirit is that Jesus died so that he might have his sins forgiven and rose again so that he might have eternal life, and that some day he will be with Him in heaven.  Nothing that his tormentors do to him deters him from testifying to the love of Christ to others, and nothing compares to the joy he experiences when he guides another hopeless sinner to receive Jesus as his Savior.

Inadvertently he accomplishes the ideologues of the Calvinist, the Arminian, and the Overcomer in that he perseveres to the end; he does nothing to lose his salvation; and he overcomes in the world - all the while being oblivious to the fact that he is doing so.  Pray for him, but don’t pity him, for his reward in heaven is great (Matt 5:12) and his is the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:10).  Pray not for his release or relief from his persecution, but pray that he will continue to accept whatever is God’s will for his life,  and that he would remain a good witness for Christ in his ordeal. 

In a conversation with Betty years ago I was questioning her on "works."  Her perspective was one of outward works it seemed to me.  I was sick at the time and made the point that it would seem to me that if God has given equal opportunity to all to achieve the perfected Love of 1 Cor 13, shouldn't a quadrapelegic be able to achieve perfected love in Christ?  My point is not Betty's response, but I think a lot of former Assembly members can relate. 

Not all can serve the man in prison except to pray.  Martyrdom is to die in prisons, but I don't believe the bars need to be made of steel necessarily.  My heart surely goes out to all of God's loving, dying people who are suffering under a terrible trial or perhaps several at the same time, but to win the crown means great suffering and that of lonliness is often the breaking straw.

Sondra

[Chuck Miller]

 [Continued from above]

YOU WROTE: 

The thief on the cross had no time to "work out his salvation with fear and trembling", he had no time to "earn a crown", yet Jesus said "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise".

 Good point, Joe, but first consider that Jesus couldn’t have been saying “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise," since He, Himself didn’t rise until the third day.  One Bible scholar suggests :

“The word “verily” points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said.  The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word “today” with “I say.”  “Verily, I say unto thee this day.”  This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die.  This day, I say to thee, “Thou shalt be with Me in paradise. “

That certainly makes more sense to me - and note that Jesus didn’t mention earning a crown or rewards or anything else except the promise to the man that he was going to be with Him in paradise.

YOU WROTE: 

In the Assembly "fatihfulness" to us meant many meetings, total days of worship, much evangelism, stewardships, etc. etc.---these things were supposed to be "forming us into the image of Christ", and such "faithfulness" would one day be rewarded. There was an "elitism" attached to all of this, and a feeling we were doing more, and thus were far more faithful than other Christians.

All of these externals may give an appearance of holiness, but don’t reflect the feelings of the heart and did nothing to form anyone into the image of Christ.  Rewards for this type of “faithfulness?”  No, I don’t think so, Joe and neither do you.  So don’t judge anyone else’s admonition to holiness with your Assembly experience.

YOU WROTE:

I still say that when one has a mentality that one might "lose out" he will work hard alright, he'll slave on in fear, and fill his days with anything that will keep him from falling. His "faithfulness" will all be based on fear of failure, and of doors being shut.  But when one knows he is "saved to the uttermost", "Has obtained an inheritance", is "more than a conqueror in Christ" he will rejoice in thankfulness, and run full force towards the Lord who loves him so much.

 I remember going out sharing in the parks in Omaha, after the Sunday morning meeting.  I really didn’t have my heart in it, but it was something that we were all expected to do, especially, the Leading Brothers.

I also remember spending 30 days with my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse, in Hungary right after the wall came down.  It was a joyous time of sharing and prayer with nothing to motivate us except the love of Christ and the desire to share that love with ones who didn‘t know Him.  The greatest reward was to feel His pleasure, and we looked forward to each coming day when we could go out again.   

YOU WROTE:

"There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus".

 I believe there is a reason for Paul specifying, “those who are ‘IN’ Christ Jesus,” otherwise, why would Paul say ”But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned“ (Gal 2:11).  Was Peter “in Christ” when he hypocritically withdrew from the Gentiles.

I believe the “condemnation” of which Paul speaks of in Romans 8:1 is the same as Paul used in (Gal 2:11) - and in the same sense that James used  “judgement” in reference to teachers -  “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1)


YOU CONTINUE:   

It is the Lord himself pushing us towards "crowns" because he doesn't want anyone to come up short. He is not some being standing there with a hammer over your head saying "You'd better be faithful or you might lose out" or "Look out or I might just shut the door on you!!"   NO---he is like the faithful loving father on the sidelines of a race shouting "Go Joe Go!! Remember, I love you and I'm always with you--I will never leave you nor forsake you--keep running Joe!!!"  And you know what? Whether I come in first, or come in last he STILL LOVES ME with all of his heart, just like any loving father who has children and wants the best for them.
I believe this is the God of the Bible.

 Right, Joe, but if we don’t bother to train, or if we don’t put forth our best effort, is He going to say, “Well done thou good and faithful servant?“  And wasn’t He also urging on those carnal Christians in Corinth; yet not all responded.  And didn’t He still love those who were weak and sick, and those whom He took in death?   And regarding the immoral man in the church (1 Cor 5: 1)  didn’t Paul say “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5).   I’ll admit that I don’t know exactly what that’s all about,  but it seems to me that Paul is indicating that even this immoral man could be saved.

Anyway, if anyone has a different view on this, I’m still reading the BB.

God bless,

Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

Joe, 

YOU WROTE:

Chuck, …….From the direction your posts seemed to be going I thought you were espousing "overcomer" theology, but as you have stated, perhaps that wasn't the case.

Perhaps, like Joe, some of you may have gotten a wrong impression from my last post on the board.  Call it “overcomer” theology, or what you will, I don’t believe all believers will heed the warnings or admonitions that Jesus gave in His messages to the seven churches (Rev 2:1 to 3:22) and will suffer consequences.

I don‘t feel the need to always get in the last word, but in light of Joe’s statement, I‘ll address his post to me from November 21st.   

YOU WROTE:

Chuck---

No--I don't believe I am physically crucified with Christ, or at this present moment seated in the Heavenlies. But, IN GOD'S EYES I am already there with him. I AM seated with Christ in the Heavenlies because the end and the beginning are the same with the Lord.
"If any man be IN CHRIST he IS a new creation, old things have passed away, behold ALL THINGS HAVE BECOME NEW"(2 Cor 5:17). There is a tendency on our part to read this verse and think "OK, we have been given the power to become something new, we just have to work at it faithfully". But does the verse say we will slowly change into something new, or that WE ALREADY ARE NEW? Does the verse teach that we are pigs slowly being turned into sheep, or that we WERE pigs who have been turned into sheep in an instant? And once a sheep, can you be anything else? No--you are always a sheep.

Then the question I have, Joe, is -“Did not God also see the brethren at Corinth “seated with Him in the heavenlies,” and didn’t He see them as those who “overcome“?“  Yet Paul said,

“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
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.
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?“(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Vines Expository Dictionary defines carnal (sarkikos) as follows:

from sarx, "flesh," signifies (a) "having the nature of flesh," i.e., sensual, controlled by animal appetites, governed by human nature, instead of by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:3 (for ver. 1, see below; same mss. have it in ver. 4); having its seat in the animal nature, or excited by it, 1 Pet. 2:11, "fleshly," or as the equivalent of "human," with the added idea of weakness, figuratively of the weapons of spiritual warfare, "of the flesh" (AV, "carnal"), 2 Cor. 10:4; or with the idea of unspirituality, of human wisdom, "fleshly," 2 Cor. 1:12; (b) "pertaining to the flesh" (i.e., the body), Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11.

I don’t believe we could say that they were being governed by the Spirit of God or that the were IN CHRIST, even though they were brethren.  Nor do I believe, Joe, that they were “pigs slowly being turned into sheep.”   But we know that His sheep can go astray (Matt 18:12)  and that "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice"(John 10:4).  Yet we see that some of His sheep followed the voice of another (i.e. George Geftakys) even though John said, "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." (John 10:5).

YOU WROTE: 

It says if any man be in Christ he "IS" a new creation. We may still feel like pigs because of our failings and sins, but the Bible says we ARE sheep, and completely new creatures. That is how GOD SEES US. And according to the Bible that is WHO WE ARE IN CHRIST. When the Bible says "we HAVE OBTAINED an Inheritance" do I believe it and rejoice? Or do I want to change the meaning into something that will fit my theology? False teachers like to twist obvious meanings of verses to fit their theology, and ruin the "simplicity that is in Christ". False teachers bring people into  bondage and fear, and into a "works mentality". But "perfect love casts out all fear".

Again, Joe, I notice it says “IF any man is IN CHRIST.”   Why would Paul put in the “if?“  I don’t believe that every believer is constantly IN CHRIST.  I find that I still have to battle some of the “old things” while there are some that I have gotten victory over.  However, I don’t want to get the false notion that I can’t slip back into some of those “old things” I used to do.  When Christians attend  “R“ rated movies,  are they “in Christ” when they do?  Paul said:

“Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:25-27)

From what was Paul concerned about being disqualified?
[Continued below]

[vernecarty]

YOU WROTE: 
Again, Joe, I notice it says “IF any man is IN CHRIST.”   Why would Paul put in the “if?“  I don’t believe that every believer is constantly IN CHRIST.  I find that I still have to battle some of the “old things” while there are some that I have gotten victory over.  However, I don’t want to get the false notion that I can’t slip back into some of those “old things” I used to do.  When Christians attend  “R“ rated movies,  are they “in Christ” when they do? 

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong on this this, but your line of reasoning poses some real difficulty as to how we should interpret Paul's use of this same expression in 2 Corinthians 5:17.
The subjunctive mood is tricky as the English does not always make it clear if one is talking about the conditional if, or the resultant since. Either way, if you apply your understanding of "in Christ" to  2 Corinthians 5: 17, you can see that it raises some weighty questions...good points though...
Verne

p.s one of the things that has had a profound influence on my own view of my sin is an increasing awareness that the Spirit of God is present with me in all circumstances...

[Joe Sperling]

Chuck----

I won't reply to everything in your post, but in response to your questions about
2 Cor. 5:17, you said that a person isn't "in Christ" if they fall into old sins. But ask
yourself what the verse says--"If any man be "in Christ" he is a new CREATION"--now,
if a person fails and falls into sin, do they need to be CREATED again anew? Of course
not!! A new CREATION is a brand new thing!! To be "in Christ" is to be born-again. And
once you are born-again, you cannot become unborn once again. You will always be
"In Christ" from that point on--God sees you in his son "positionally".

A Christian can and will sin. A Christian can backslide into old things and forget, as Peter
mentions, that "he was cleansed from his old sins". But he will still be "in Christ"--but will
be chastened by God if he truly is born-again and a child of God. The test is whether a
person can backslide and be comfortable there--if yes, he isn't a child of God. A child of
God can fall miserably, but there will always be something inside(The Holy Spirit) convicting,
and calling and making that person miserable until they return to him.

The prodigal son is a good example of this. Did the Prodigal Son stop being a son (or "out of the
family") for straying away? Did the Father see him as no longer "in the family"? No--he ran and
embraced him immediately. In like manner no Christian is "out of Christ" because they stray. They
are eternally saved--but will be severely chastened for their turning away--and chastened in love.
You cannot be "in" and "out" of Christ and created and recreated again. You are positionally a mem-
ber of God's family forever.

Concerning the thief on the cross, Jesus did not say "verily I say unto you today, thou shalt be with
me in paradise"--he said "Verily I say unto you, Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise"---and this is why: When Jesus died he descended to preach to those below in Hades. There were two sections to Hades--Sheol(Hell) and Paradise--these were separated by a great gulf(see the story of Lazarus and the rich man). Jesus entered the Paradise section and told the good news---so the very day he
died he did go to Paradise, and so did the thief. The thief was most likely the last man to enter that section of Hades before it was eternally closed forever. I point this out because some teachers have tried to manipulate the passage to have Jesus say "I say unto you today" to refute the teaching that one immediately appears before God---they are teachers of "soul sleep" and want to say the thief will "one day" be in Paradise---but that is not the true teaching of the verse. The thief was immediately in Paradise(the paradise section of Hades) with Jesus after he died.

Cephas wasn't "out of Christ" when Paul confronted him. Peter "stood condemned" but not in any eternal
sense, but in a moral and spiritual sense. Again, Scripturally, a man cannot be "in" and "out" of Christ evey time he slips up or falls. "There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" is an eternal proclamation!! Once you are "in Christ" you are justified before the Lord forever through the righteousness
of Jesus Christ. You are "positionally" justified before God and no one can condemn you(see all of Romans 8--who can separate us from the Love of God? Nothing can--not even ourselves!!).

To hold a position that one is "in Christ" when he is faithful, but "out of Christ" if one falls puts righteousness
and justification into our hands, and dependent on US. The Bible simply does not teach this. Our righteousness and justifiaction are "of God"--whom he declares righteous IS righteous. As Tom mentioned, the Bible calls out (2) classes of people: The righteous and the unrighteous(see Daniel when he speaks of judgement day). The righteous are those who have been eternally justified before God, and are "in Christ"--the unrighteous are those who refuse the Gospel and are "out of Christ".  Can one be declared righteous by God and then undo this through his own power? The Bible says "No one can take them out of my Father's hand".

--Joe

[Elizabeth H]

Again, Joe, I notice it says “IF any man is IN CHRIST.”   Why would Paul put in the “if?“  I don’t believe that every believer is constantly IN CHRIST.  I find that I still have to battle some of the “old things” while there are some that I have gotten victory over.  However, I don’t want to get the false notion that I can’t slip back into some of those “old things” I used to do.  When Christians attend  “R“ rated movies,  are they “in Christ” when they do?  Paul said:

Ok, let me get this straight: Jane Christian, walks up to the movie ticket booth "in Christ," but once she purchases a ticket for an R-rated movie, WHAM! she is "out of Christ"?

Falling in-and-out of Christ is a pretty scary assertion to make, especially when being "in" or "out" is determined by such (arbitrary) measures  as which movies are/are not "in-Christ" appropriate.

Besides which, is the verse Chuck (partially) quoted REALLY addressing the issue of our supposed conditional position in Christ?

[soul dreamer]

Let us try a different angle besides the question of, “Am I in Christ or not in Christ.”  Consider Chuck’s questions through the lens of the reality that the apostle Paul teaches in Gal. 5, “Am I in the Spirit… or in the flesh at this moment?”  If I am in the flesh in this moment, is there any possibility that this moment shall be reviewed by Christ the Consuming Fire at His Judgment Seat?  Not so much for what I did perhaps, because the Blood shall remove my fleshly moments, but for what I was supposed to be doing when I instead gave into the flesh.  Was there something else that I should have been doing that could have been recompensed with His, “Well done, good and faithful servant?”

“To him that knows to go good and does it not, to him it is sin” (Jam. 4:17).

“So run, that you may obtain” (I Cor. 9).

Rick

[vernecarty]

Let us try a different angle besides the question of, “Am I in Christ or not in Christ.”  Consider Chick’s questions through the lens of the reality that the apostle Paul teaches in Gal. 5, “Am I in the Spirit… or in the flesh at this moment?”  If I am in the flesh in this moment, is there any possibility that this moment shall be reviewed by Christ the Consuming Fire at His Judgment Seat?  Not so much for what I did perhaps I did, perhaps, because the Blood shall remove my fleshly moments, but was I supposed to be doing when I instead gave into the flesh.  Was there something else that should have been doing that could have been recompensed with His, “Well done, good and faithful servant?”

“To him that knows to go good and does it not, to him it is sin” (Jam. 4:17).

“So run, that you may obtain” (I Cor. 9).

Rick

As in the physical creation, God's spiritual work in redemption proceeds in stages.
There is evening, and morning in both.
In both, the work is advanced by the power of God's Word, not by effort of the creature.
In both the ultimate purpose is the creation of God's image - this is God's work!

A preoccupation with rewards, or loss of them, which after all is the outcome of our work, is to entirely miss the larger issue.
If we pay attention to God's work, the question of rewards (our work) becomes moot.
What I said will go right past a lot of you, for some the lights will go on...I hope...

God did not redeem so we could glory in rewards, He redeemed us so we could be conformed to the image of His Son!

Verne

p.s George and his ilk have served too many with a pot of fear-inducing and poisonous stew...

[Oscar]

Rick,

You said:

With great interest I have followed the discussion of inheritance and rewards on various threads of this bulletin board.  The discussions have prompted me to dig out my copy of Joseph Dillow’s THE REIGN OF THE SERVANT KINGS - A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man.  I heartily recommend reading this book, and, for those of us who have been given the responsibility of teaching in the body of Christ, even re-reading some chapters from time to time.  I think we all agree that when the Lord judges his people that there are going to be different rewards for grateful and faithful service.  In Dillow’s 650-page book I believe he does a thorough job teaching from the scriptures two main truths: 1) That if one has truly been born into God’s family through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, then he shall always be in God’s family, but 2), a child of God can still suffer negative rewards both in this age and at the beginning of the age to come at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

I am familiar with Dillow’s book, and find that there are some interesting insights in about several scriptures.  However, I would not recommend it to anyone for any positive purpose.  It is rife with circular reasoning, theological speculation, attempts to use analogies to “prove”  interpretations, and appeals to fine points of Greek as a method to avoid the clear meaning of texts that don’t fit into his scheme.  Thankfully, most folks will not be willing to endure all 605 pages of text as he spins his theories out in detail.  The book is, IMHO, mind numbing.

Having said that, I must go further.  When I read Chapter 23, entitled “Negative Judgement and the Believer”, I was quite plainly shocked and alarmed.  It will take a few paragraphs to explain what I mean.

Here is the statement that first caused my sense of alarm, and further statements that strengthened that feeling:

1.  “The atonement must therefore be a satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception.” (p.540)

2. “…the atonement must be a satisfaction for sin in a special sense.” (p.541).

At this point I was saying to myself, “Can he really mean what I think he means?”  He then goes on to convince me that he does.

3. Describing the ideas of a theologian named Dabney, he says, “He argues that the satisfaction of Christ does not obligate God to cancel our whole indebtedness, precisely the view of this writer. His acceptance of Christ’s death as a legal satisfaction ‘was, on His part, an act of pure grace; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than God is pleased to allow it.’ “. (p.541)

I became alarmed because I recognized what he was teaching.  He confirms this over the next several pages. 

Earlier in this discussion I stated that anyone holding the Overcomer teaching must have a “low view of the forensic theory of Christ’s atonement, ie, that Christ bore the punishment for our sins and that our account is “reckoned” clear by God when we believe, who subsequently imputes the righteousness of Christ to us.  From then on we have a standing with God as possessing Christ’s righteousness.  All our sins are forgiven when we enter heaven.

I was wrong.  Dillow does not have a low view of this crucial doctrine. He has rejected it outright!   In its place, he has resurrected the medieval Catholic speculations known as the “Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement”.


According to this theory, taught by speculative Catholic theologians such as Anselm of Canturbury, (1033-1109AD), God, the great sovereign of the universe, has been “offended” by man’s sin.  Now these folks understood just how much trouble you could get into if you offended a king or other high ranking official.  These folks were powerful and could do terrible things to you if they wished to.  God, in this view, condemns man because his honor is offended. 

The way to get back into a king’s, or in this case God’s, good graces is to make up for the offence, and then to go beyond the damage you did to the king and do something really great for him.  He will then have received sufficient “satisfaction” to restore you to favor to the degree he wishes to do so.  This is the meaning that this theory places upon Christ's work upon the cross.  He satisfied God's offended honor when we could not do so.

The reformers of the 16th century rejected this teaching and insisted upon a return to Apostolic and Biblical theology.  The Catholic Church rejected their pleas, and you know what happened.  It was the cries of “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”, (Scripture alone and faith alone), that were the battlecries of the Reformation.  It was for preaching the apostolic doctrine of forensic justification by faith alone that many were persecuted, even burned alive, by Catholic officials.

Now a few “evangelical” theologians such as Dillow and Hodges are returning to the errors of past ages in order to find a way to teach that only some of our sins are forgiven, and that we will have to bear others into heaven.

I will not be following these fellows any time soon.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

[vernecarty]

Rick,

You said:
I am familiar with Dillow’s book, and find that there are some interesting insights in about several scriptures.  However, I would not recommend it to anyone for any positive purpose.  It is rife with circular reasoning, theological speculation, attempts to use analogies to “prove”  interpretations, and appeals to fine points of Greek as a method to avoid the clear meaning of texts that don’t fit into his scheme.  Thankfully, most folks will not be willing to endure all 605 pages of text as he spins his theories out in detail.  The book is, IMHO, mind numbing.

Having said that, I must go further.  When I read Chapter 23, entitled “Negative Judgement and the Believer”, I was quite plainly shocked and alarmed.  It will take a few paragraphs to explain what I mean.

Here is the statement that first caused my sense of alarm, and further statements that strengthened that feeling:

1.  “The atonement must therefore be a satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception.” (p.540)

2. “…the atonement must be a satisfaction for sin in a special sense.” (p.541).

At this point I was saying to myself, “Can he really mean what I think he means?”  He then goes on to convince me that he does.

3. Describing the ideas of a theologian named Dabney, he says, “He argues that the satisfaction of Christ does not obligate God to cancel our whole indebtedness, precisely the view of this writer. His acceptance of Christ’s death as a legal satisfaction ‘was, on His part, an act of pure grace; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than God is pleased to allow it.’ “. (p.541)

I became alarmed because I recognized what he was teaching.  He confirms this over the next several pages. 

Earlier in this discussion I stated that anyone holding the Overcomer teaching must have a “low view of the forensic theory of Christ’s atonement, ie, that Christ bore the punishment for our sins and that our account is “reckoned” clear by God when we believe, who subsequently imputes the righteousness of Christ to us.  From then on we have a standing with God as possessing Christ’s righteousness.  All our sins are forgiven when we enter heaven.

I was wrong.  Dillow does not have a low view of this crucial doctrine. He has rejected it outright!   In its place, he has resurrected the medieval Catholic speculations known as the “Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement”.


According to this theory, taught by speculative Catholic theologians such as Anselm of Canturbury, (1033-1109AD), God, the great sovereign of the universe, has been “offended” by man’s sin.  Now these folks understood just how much trouble you could get into if you offended a king or other high ranking official.  These folks were powerful and could do terrible things to you if they wished to.  God, in this view, condemns man because his honor is offended. 

The way to get back into a king’s, or in this case God’s, good graces is to make up for the offence, and then to go beyond the damage you did to the king and do something really great for him.  He will then have received sufficient “satisfaction” to restore you to favor to the degree he wishes to do so.  This is the meaning that this theory places upon Christ's work upon the cross.  He satisfied God's offended honor when we could not do so.

The reformers of the 16th century rejected this teaching and insisted upon a return to Apostolic and Biblical theology.  The Catholic Church rejected their pleas, and you know what happened.  It was the cries of “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”, (Scripture alone and faith alone), that were the battlecries of the Reformation.  It was for preaching the apostolic doctrine of forensic justification by faith alone that many were persecuted, even burned alive, by Catholic officials.

Now a few “evangelical” theologians such as Dillow and Hodges are returning to the errors of past ages in order to find a way to teach that only some of our sins are forgiven, and that we will have to bear others into heaven.

I will not be following these fellows any time soon.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Tom's analysis of Dillow is good...very good in fact, and I for one agree with this assessment...

  I will confess to one and all that I tried my very best to be the most pure, committed, surrendered, yielded, dead to self, denying myself etc. (all by faith in God's grace, btw) believer that I could be, however----- I never improved my actual character one little bit as attempted to assainate my sinful old man!

 .

                     God bless those that know they need it!   Mark C.

This the confession of every mature saint of God. Thank you Mark!
Anybody holding forth to you about some method of achieving holiness, other than growing in grace, namely maturity, is either dishonest or deluded IMHO...
Verne

p.s. One thing that is becoming clear to me is that to many of us as Christians lack a true grounding in the fundamentals of the faith. If more of us really understood the basic doctrines taught in the Scripture, we would be far less susceptible to error in the form of "winds of doctrine".  The doctrine of the atonement is one such fiundamental concept and much erroeneous teaching has issued from either its misunderstanidng or its misuse.

[soul dreamer]

Hello Tom,

I reread chap 23 of Dillow's book and am meditating on your points below.  In trying to understand what the atonement of our Savior accomplished,  how do you explain that I as a believer can be saved, but at the Judgment Seat I still might "suffer loss" (1 Cor 3:15), and I might still have to answer for "bad" things done in my body (2 Cor. 5:10)?

Blessings,

Rick Samuel

[Chuck Miller]

Rick wrote

Hello Tom,
I reread chap 23 of Dillow's book and am meditating on your points below.  In trying to understand what the atonement of our Savior accomplished,  how do you explain that I as a believer can be saved, but at the Judgment Seat I still might "suffer loss" (1 Cor 3:15), and I might still have to answer for "bad" things done in my body (2 Cor. 5:20)?

Good questions Rick, but I haven’t gotten any answers to the questions I asked a couple of weeks ago, and later, even re-phrased to satisfy Tom.

And now I have another for Elizabeth who wrote:

Ok, let me get this straight: Jane Christian, walks up to the movie ticket booth "in Christ," but once she purchases a ticket for an R-rated movie, WHAM! she is "out of Christ"?

Falling in-and-out of Christ is a pretty scary assertion to make, especially when being "in" or "out" is determined by such (arbitrary) measures  as which movies are/are not "in-Christ" appropriate.

Besides which, is the verse Chuck (partially) quoted REALLY addressing the issue of our supposed conditional position in Christ?

O.K., Elizabeth, let me pose a hypothetical question to you

Your neighbor (or co-worker, relative, whoever) who is not a Christian, invites you to go out for coffee.  After a little small talk, she says, "Elizabeth, I saw you at the movie last night and since it is rated "R," I wondered - ’If I were to become a Christian would it still be O.K. to go to movies like that?  It was pretty bad.'"

How would you answer her?  Now don't be too hasty, Elizabeth.  Remember that your greatest concern is for her eternal life and your greatest desire is to win her to Christ.

Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

Mark C wrote:

I will confess to one and all that I tried my very best to be the most pure, committed, surrendered, yielded, dead to self, denying myself etc. (all by faith in God's grace, btw) believer that I could be, however----- I never improved my actual character one little bit as I attempted to assainate my sinful old man!

God bless those that know they need it!   

Vern responded:

This the confession of every mature saint of God. Thank you Mark!
Anybody holding forth to you about some method of achieving holiness, other than growing in grace, namely maturity, is either dishonest or deluded IMHO...

Mark,

Let's assume for a moment that there are some unbelievers reading this BB.  One of them decides to respond and he writes:

"Hey, Mark, I've been having the same problem for years.  I've even reformed my life a time or two, but it never lasts. You sound like a bumper-sticker I saw on a Christian's car that read "Christians aren't different, they're just forgiven"  I've heard Christians talk about how their lives changed when they got "born again," but It doesn't sounds like it worked for you.  How does that make me any worse off than you, a "mature saint of God," as your friend calls you?   As I began reading your post I was assuming you were an "unbeliever" like me, but I see I was wrong.  I guess it doesn't make any difference, since I figure God won't be any tougher on me that He is on you.  Anyway, thanks for your help.  I feel better about myself now.

Signed,

Relieved