“In Christ Jesus”

[netchaplain]

“In Christ Jesus” is the definition of all Christians, and it defines them as a people identified with the One who as a man has entered into the presence of God; “for in that He died unto sin once; but in that He lives, He lives unto God” (Rom 6:10). “In Christ” is the language of complete identification. Crucified with Him on the Cross, His resurrection was the divine declaration of our acceptance with Him in His work and place. Henceforth the eye of God sees us ever in Him alone. We are reckoned, and are to reckon ourselves, as with Him dead, buried, quickened, risen and in Him seated in the heavenly places before the Father. His delight in us is His unchangeable delight in His Beloved Son; therefore Jesus says, “Because I live, you shall live also” (Jhn 14:19).

How could there be a doubt about the believer’s perfect security if this were realized? It would be impossible. Can He change, or will His Father say to Him, I cannot any longer accept You as standing for this people? Or, once again, if standing for them, is He on probation yet? Is His work completely done, of still to do? It is finished, blessed be God: He sits in the glory of God. His heart is at rest, and ours may be. Had He not entitled our hearts to rest, His own heart would not allow Him to be seated there.

“There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). “In Christ”—can God’s own eye find fault with Him? “In Christ” is there any flesh—any body of death, anything for men to improve or alter? And in Christ we are! There our chains drop off. Much more, but still that. We are delivered: we are free! Let us understand well. This is not walk yet; it is the principle, the position—the key, and when applied by the Holy Spirit, the power for it. We are to “walk as Christ walked” (1Jhn 2:6); we are to walk “in Christ”; and “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” sets us “free from the law of sin and death.”

Thus the responsibility of a right walk is still ever ours. It is not that Christ’s walk is substituted for ours. It is not yet the question of how to walk, but of what I am; it’s a question which, when settled in God’s way, stops necessarily the effort to be what no effort of mine* can make me, and what, thank God, His infinite grace has already made me: “complete in Him” (Col 2:10). “As Christ is, so are we in this world” (1Jhn 4:17).

Could effort of ours make us “as Christ is”? I would be clearly impossible; and yet nothing by this would reach up to the standard God has given us. Nothing short of this would be perfection, and nothing short of perfection could we tightly rest in. If imperfection God cannot accept, and perfection I cannot bring Him, what then? Then I must accept a perfection of my Father’s providing, and find in the Lord Jesus a new self that needs no mending and cannot be improved, where no body of death disturbs or oppresses, and occupation with which is not legalism, nor Pharisaic.

I am privileged to turn away from what I find in myself as a man down here, then, because in the death of the Cross, that death wherein I died with Him, “sin in the flesh” has been fully dealt with. The condemnation of it by God has already found its full expression on the Cross. For faith, not for experience, I too have died, and that “to sin,” because “He died unto sin once.” I reckon myself (not feel or experience) to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11).

- F W Grant


Poster’s Opinion:
*”no effort of mine”: There’s nothing that believers do that adds to or detracts from what they are in Christ at rebirth. His favor in the Christian cannot for any reason ever increase nor decrease from its position, for it is based in His favor in the Lord Jesus. Thus any feelings of being in trouble with God are purely self-generated! He knows our desire is always for His “pleasure” because He makes us this way in Christ (Phil 2:13).

 

[Obadiah]

In light of this being a debate forum, please clarify in concise terms the one resolution you wish to debate and the scripture that applies to it. Thanks.

 

[netchaplain]

In light of this being a debate forum, please clarify in concise terms the one resolution you wish to debate and the scripture that applies to it. Thanks.

Hi Obadiah - I usually debate only when there is a reply and someone wants to discuss an issue. I post in this forum so the article can be debated if one desires so, but if a post has to be presented as a debate, I'm posting in the wrong forum. Hope I'm not too confusing with my reply. Thanks for your concern and site labors!

 

[Obadiah]

Yes, this is a debate forum. The guidelines for this forum state: "Original posts should reference specific scripture and what it is the member wants to say or ask about that scripture." When the original post is long and doesn't make a clear resolution to be debated, the threads simply degenerate into fights and arguments, as has happened too many times.

I'm just asking you to clarify the resolution you would like debated here. Whether or not you actually take part in the debate is totally up to you.

 

[netchaplain]

Yes, this is a debate forum. The guidelines for this forum state: "Original posts should reference specific scripture and what it is the member wants to say or ask about that scripture." When the original post is long and doesn't make a clear resolution to be debated, the threads simply degenerate into fights and arguments, as has happened too many times.

I'm just asking you to clarify the resolution you would like debated here. Whether or not you actually take part in the debate is totally up to you.

Thanks for your reply. I believe I may have misunderstood this forums purpose and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I never post anywhere for the purpose of debating but I do not mind properly debating. I believe much can be learned in properly debating an issue if one is seeking to learn truth. I suppose that to avoid interfering with this forum it might be best for me to discontinue posting here. What do you think?

 

[Obadiah]

Thanks for your reply. I believe I may have misunderstood this forums purpose and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I never post anywhere for the purpose of debating but I do not mind properly debating. I believe much can be learned in properly debating an issue if one is seeking to learn truth. I suppose that to avoid interfering with this forum it might be best for me to discontinue posting here. What do you think?

Or perhaps simply state a resolution (the "resolution" is the single point you want to have discussed, in case I caused confusion by using that debating term) backed by scripture and let everyone debate it. Maybe you've already done that with a statement like "There’s nothing that believers do that adds to or detracts from what they are in Christ at rebirth" (or some other point you've already made) and we just need clarification of your main topic you wish to present. You don't have to be the one to actually debate it if you don't want to. We have plenty of members that love to carry on a debate, even into thousands of posts sometimes!

 

[netchaplain]

Or perhaps simply state a resolution (the "resolution" is the single point you want to have discussed, in case I caused confusion by using that debating term) backed by scripture and let everyone debate it. Maybe you've already done that with a statement like "There’s nothing that believers do that adds to or detracts from what they are in Christ at rebirth" (or some other point you've already made) and we just need clarification of your main topic you wish to present. You don't have to be the one to actually debate it if you don't want to. We have plenty of members that love to carry on a debate, even into thousands of posts sometimes!

The comments I make with the asterisk are my opinions on the preceding material as to what I think the author may have intended. I like debating but it's difficult for me to choose a certain issue, because there are a great many significant issues.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

“In Christ Jesus” is the definition of all Christians

Do you think that to be in Christianity (i.e., a Christian) corresponds to being in Christ?

 

[netchaplain]

Netchaplain,
Do you think that to be in Christianity (i.e., a Christian) corresponds to being in Christ?

Hi JS - Thanks for your reply and question. One cannot be a Christian or born again without being in Christ.

 

[WIP]

Hi JS - Thanks for your reply and question. One cannot be a Christian or born again without being in Christ.

This opened a question for me. I'm not trying to debate but seeking an answer. Can we "be in Christ" or is Christ in us? I've come to think it is the latter but if the former, can you direct me to scripture that would support this?

Thanks.

 

[netchaplain]

This opened a question for me. I'm not trying to debate but seeking an answer. Can we "be in Christ" or is Christ in us? I've come to think it is the latter but if the former, can you direct me to scripture that would support this?

Thanks.

Hi Brother - The two phrases are one and the same!

"Christ in you": Rom 8:10; Col 1:27

Us in Christ: Rom 8:1; 1Cor 1:30; 2Cor 5:17; 1Pet 5:14

 

[WIP]

Hi Brother - The two phrases are one and the same!

"Christ in you": Rom 8:10; Col 1:27

Us in Christ: Rom 8:1; 1Cor 1:30; 2Cor 5:17; 1Pet 5:14

Thanks for the help!

 

[netchaplain]

You're greatly welcome anytime. Thank you too and all the site workers.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

Netchaplain said:
The two phrases are one and the same!
"Christ in you": Rom 8:10; Col 1:27
Us in Christ: Rom 8:1; 1Cor 1:30; 2Cor 5:17; 1Pet 5:14

Doubtful that Paul would confuse the issue through such an apparent use of synonyms. Nor would God who is ultimately the source of the Bible (an issue of sufficient complexity that it requires mentioning more than one or two verses), and as the source of the Bible had a definite goal in mind for the existence of the Bible. Consider the following statement:

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. (John 17:21 KJV)

Do you think the phrases "art in me, I in thee, one in us" are just synonymous phrases? That Jesus was merely exercising his right to verbosity when he said them? Or do "art in me and I in thee" have two separate meanings that must both be true and work together to complete a purpose? Oneness between Father And Son. So also "one in us". That together with the other two effectuate oneness between three: the Father, the Son, and the ones who believe into Christ. With an ultimate goal in mind. "that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." A necessary goal that must be achieved for salvation to take place. For if the world does not believe that God sent the Son, as did the Jews who had a part in the crucifixion of the Son, then there could be no salvation. Which salvation is ultimately the goal of God sending his only begotten Son in the first place:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18 KJV)

And the salvation of mankind in Christ is the ultimate goal of God regarding mankind:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim 2:3-6 KJV)

Apart from this ultimate goal toward mankind, there would have been no Bible. For there would have been no reason for God to communicate to mankind. A fallen race that would apart from the grace of God be doomed as a whole to ultimate condemnation (John 3:18, note the word "already"; see Rom 5:12-21). And it would have to be another race (if God so chose to create them) that comes up with ideas such as the "Gap Theory".

Netchaplain said:
One cannot be a Christian or born again without being in Christ.

Three synonymous terms? Do you think that every Christian who exists today, who designates him or her self a Christian and is thus regarded as a Christian by all ( with the possible exception of certain Christian Fundamentalists), is born again and in Christ? All 2.8 billion of them? More than 1/3 of the present world population of 6.9 billion? Are there determining factors that limit who is to be regarded as within the parameters of a Christian who is born again and in Christ?

 

[netchaplain]

Do you think the phrases "art in me, I in thee, one in us" are just synonymous phrases?

HI JS - Appreciate your reply, which I believe contains some good points, as in the above. I agree there is a significant difference between the two statements "you in Me, and I in you" (John 14:20), but the intent of my statement concerning them being the same was in reference to them producing the same outcome, which is oneness or union. I suppose there are times when further clarification would be helpful, but can only be provieded when one knows it is needed, so thanks for your input.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

the intent of my statement concerning them being the same was in reference to them producing the same outcome, which is oneness or union.

I appreciate your emphasis on unity in Christ. It's one of my chief concerns as one who has been denied Christian status by authoritative Christian Lords following authoritative Christian denominational Traditions and Creeds. Particularly over the quintessential essential doctrine of Trinitarianism. I've been denied Christian status by both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian denominations because my view conforms to neither. Which together represents 100% denial. Every Christian denomination I've had contact with (that wasn't so liberal that the Bible had so little to do with their philosophy as to be nil) has denied me Christian status.

I can't in good conscience claim to be a Christian in spite of it all based on my association with Christ. Simply put, Christ and Christianity are not the same thing. To be a Christian, one must have faith in Christianity, and particularly in at least one denomination of Christianity. And more importantly, one must be accepted by at least one denomination of Christianity. Neither are valid for me.

Obviously, I'm not a Christian. As far as Christians are concerned, it's my own fault because I refuse to bow down to their rulers and rules. Seeing as I'm already in the kingdom of the Son, I see no reason to be forced against belief and conscience to become part of any of the kingdoms of Christianity.

But I do regard myself as being in Christ. Placed there by God alone having believed into the name of his Son (John 1:12-13, 3:16-18; 1 Cor 1:27-31; Col 1:12-14). If I did not, after my unfortunate experience with Christianity, I would have already reverted to Atheism. Thinking I had been duped by religion and more against it than I never was before (had no reason to care before).

And I regard myself as in union with all Christians who are in Christ. Most of whom do not regard themselves in union with me. Because they choose to submit to a Christian Lord or a Christian Tradition instead of Christ. One can't follow two masters (Matt 6:24). This simple principle is very clear. And I'm not so much speaking against Christianity when I say that, but against the perpetrators of its chief visible characteristic as it exists today. Denominationalism. Christians themselves, upon seeing the characteristic and realizing its negative effects, often speak out against it.

Things might have been different had I been converted to a Christian denomination before reading the Bible. Then I would be following the dictates of a religion, a denomination, and understanding the Bible accordingly. No doubt a Fundamentalist Baptist denomination, seeing as how it was a member of such that first gave me a Bible and encouraged me to read it before I knock it. Whether or not following the dictates of a religion would also be following the dictates of Jesus Christ.... Can one have Jesus as savior and not also have Jesus as Lord? More to the point, can one have Jesus as savior while having someone (or some thing) other than Jesus as Lord?

As it happened, I interacted with Christianity after I already had a belief system in place that corresponds with the Bible alone (apart from any influence of Christian history and Traditions). After I had already read the Bible several times and been converted from Atheism to the God and Son of God, and the human condition with its rectification, described clearly therein.

Christians are united today by a simple and natural principle. As natural to man as are the judicial systems of social interaction within nations; as natural as the unwritten codes of inter-city gangs. Christians are united by authoritative doctrinal Standards that serve as foundations for their denominational structures. Extra-Biblical Standards created by man and purported to summarize Biblical and/or historical truth. A principle of unity perpetuated since the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century (which I think is the beginning of traditionalistic Christianity).

But here's the thing. All those denominational summarizations of Biblical truth that exist today? They can't all be true. Simply because they differ enough to be foundational for separate denominational structures. Can even one be true? Seeing as it then becomes an issue of who decides? That is, who among men decides? The RCC Pope in the name of Peter, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Smyth, Menno Simons; you, me, anyone? Who decides?

Which doesn't mean that the idea of separate structures is wrong. Only that the idea of separate denominational structures is wrong. Because of the outcome produced (John 17:22-23; 1 Cor 3:3-4). I for one don't think denominationalism is glorious. I think that denominationalism is of the flesh (1 Cor 3:1-4; Eph 4:3).

The NT records the existence of separate structures each with a city as its local address called ekklesia (commonly mistranslated as "churches" in English Bible translations). That are united within and to one another by one thing and one thing alone. And that's not an extra-Biblical Standard. It's in a living person and in the Lordship of that person, Jesus Christ (Eph; Col; see 1 Cor especially in light of 2 Cor). Compare the difference between the ekklesia as recorded in the NT with Christianity as recorded by history and as it exists today. Are they really the same? Is one really a true development of the other? Personally, I think not.

Most Christians practice closed communion (a form of semi-banishment) as the way to enforce the Christian idea of doctrinal unity. The practice has a long history and works best in a denomination such as the RCC, wherein Communion (referring to the essence of the Eucharistic ritual) is regarded as important to salvation. Fear is a powerful thing. Doesn't have the same force in most Protestant denominations, wherein communion is not (or not as) important to salvation. Exacerbated by the proliferation of denominations. Wherein one simply joins a different denomination that has a Standard regarded as more acceptable by individuals subjected to closed communion under another Standard. I believe it's commonly called "Church-hopping" when too many denominations are involved. Otherwise it's called conversion, wherein one is "converted" from one denomination to another.

But the reality is that most Christians are content in whatever denomination they find themselves, believing in whatever it claims, and thus have no such problem. Their Christian experience being limited to an hour or two in church on Sunday; their "spirituality" limited to participating in the ritual or listening to the sermon of a Seminary educated Pastor. Far from the thinking of Paul (1 Cor 10-11; Phil 3). Or of Jesus Christ for that matter, who all through the Gospels stood against the educated and their Traditions of men.

As a non-Christian, I'm not subject to Christian extra-Biblical Standards. Nor have I been influenced by Christian history. The only visible Standard I follow is the Bible. The purported source of many of the Christian extra-Biblical Standards produced in Christianity. Thinking (or miss-thinking, depending on one's point of view) that the Bible alone as explained by Jesus Christ (Eph 4:20-21; Col 2:6-12, the faith referred to in v. 7 not being a Christian Tradition or Creed, but rather the faith of Christ...Rom 3:22 KJV, so also in Eph 4:5 & 13, Col 2:7, 1 Tim 3:9 & 13), through the Holy Spirit that dwells within (Rom 8), is the only Creed for the one who is in Christ. And that unity founded on history, a Christian denominational Tradition or Creed, or a Christian Lord....is not the reality of true unity in our true Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:4-6; Eph 4:4-6). Consider why the NT refers to the "Lord Jesus Christ" 82 times (in the KJV at least, 63 times in the NASB & ESV, 60 in the NIV).

I've not been able to clearly understand the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura. Because in spite of the clear implication of the phrase Sola Scriptura, it obviously includes extra-Biblical elements. A contradiction so far as I'm concerned. Which is why if it were possible for me to convert to any Christian denomination, it would be to the RCC. They at least appear to be internally consistent. That's not to say that they're consistent with the Bible. Which is why I said, "IF it were possible".

I find it incongruous that Protestants who claim Sola Scriptura would deny me Christian status. Seeing as I follow the Bible alone as I understand it. I can't understand why the idea of Sola Scriptura doesn't include the freedom to understand the Bible, at the very least, according to one's own conscience. Without having to suffer the fate of Martin Luther who was subjected to closed communion (excommunicated) for what he felt was true Biblical faith and practice. Having already suffered that fate, should I also do what Protestants have been doing pretty much from their beginning? Create a new denomination just so I can be part of a community wherein the participants understand things like I do, with its own "Biblically based" Tradition and Creed, where I'm not subject to closed communion?

Do you think that the doctrinal unity idea of Christianity fulfills or is in accord with the oneness or union idea as described by Jesus Christ (John 17:17-23) and Paul (1 Cor 1-3; Eph 4:1-4)?

Do you think that being in Christ (Rom 8:1-4, 12:5; 1 Cor 1:27-31, 3:1-4, 15:22; 2 Cor 5:17, 11:3; Gal 2:4; etc.) is the same as being in Christianity?

 

[netchaplain]

Do you think that being in Christ (Rom 8:1-4, 12:5; 1 Cor 1:27-31, 3:1-4, 15:22; 2 Cor 5:17, 11:3; Gal 2:4; etc.) is the same as being in Christianity?

HI JS - I appreciate your sensitivity in sharing what you have and for now I wish to reply to your question above, but will later address the rest of your reply.

Those who are Christ's are personally confirmed and reassured by the Spirit of God that they "are the children of God" (Rom 8:16). I believe this is obvious to the believer in two ways: by the Father's work (Phil 2:13); by the Spirit's work (Gal 5:17). In these we always find that the "desire to do God's pleasure" is ultimately always made most important to us by the Spirit, and the priority is of course loving God first, which can only be accomplished by by loving others as Christ loves us (John 15:12; 1John 4:20, 21).

Anything attempted without this being our primary goal will lack understanding and fullness concerning the Gospel of Christ and the will of the Father. Let me know what your think of this reply so I may know more accurately where your interests are.

God's blessings to your Family, and God be blessed!

 

[netchaplain]

JS - May I ask what you mean by being denied Christian status? My concern is to attempt to begin sharing with you my answers to your questions.

God's blessings to you!

 

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

May I ask what you mean by being denied Christian status?

In this world, being a Christian is associated with Christianity. It's the box everyone (whether other religions, the secular world, or Christians themselves) has come to accept. One can't be a Christian outside of the chosen box. In spite of Fundamentalists who try to define it differently. According to it's own rules, it can easily be ascertained that this venue is built on the premise as stated.

Christian status is dependant, NOT on being in Christ, but on being in a Christian denomination adhering to a specific Tradition with a specific denominational Creed. Even then membership in a denomination might not guarantee that all Christians will regard one as a Christian. Catholics didn't regard Protestants as Christians until the 1960's. Protestant Fundamentalists and Evangelicals still don't regard Catholics as Christian.

Christian Status is dependant on doctrine. Go against that which is regarded as essential doctrine as defined by the foundational Creed of the denomination, and one will experience that reality pretty quickly.

While there are many doctrines that are regarded as sufficiently essential to be a problem if one disagrees with any one of them, there is only one doctrine that is quintessentially essential. The doctrine of the Trinity. Even those who are non- or anti- Trinitarian regard this doctrine and their view related to it in this way.

Consider. It's like the militantly Atheistic. They don't believe there's a God. Yet it's their relationship to this non-existent God that defines them. It's their quintessential definition of Atheism that's the basis for all they are and all they do. Which is why I'm thankful that two of my favorite contemporary YouTube scientists (Neil deGrasse Tyson & Michio Kaku) regard themselves as Agnostics. Sufficiently open minded to be real scientists in my book. Unlike the militant Atheist Richard Dawkins. Who's so closed minded that he's come to think that the Science Fiction idea that aliens started evolution on earth is more plausible than by the act of a creator God. Even though there's much more natural proof for the existence of such a God then for the existence of aliens. And even though there's no conclusive proof either way. Certain proofs are only certain to those who are already predisposed toward their certainty. Which is why the Holy Spirit is here (John 3:5-6, 6:63, 15:26, 16:3; Rom 8:1-4; Eph 4:1-6; etc.). If there were proofs certain to all, man would be without excuse and the Holy Spirit would be superfluous.

I don't think Trinitarianism, in any of its three "orthodox" forms (99.9% of Christianity adheres to one of these three forms) is the correct view of God. In fact, my view of God (or of any of the three persons of the so-called Trinity) doesn't agree with any definition of any denomination of Christianity that I'm aware of. I think my view is Biblical. The Christian denominations think it is not. Every denomination of Christianity that I've been in contact with has denied me membership in their denomination based on the fact that my view of the Trinity disagrees with theirs. There are other doctrines held by this or that Christian denomination that I disagree with. But it's this uniquely quintessential essential doctrine (whether for or against) that membership is based upon first and foremost. Indeed, it can be said that it's this singular quintessential essential doctrine that defines Christianity to those outside of Christianity. And has defined Christianity since its inception in the 4th century. Ask any Jew or Moslem, indeed any secular source, and they will agree with that assessment (with the exception of inception being in the 4th century).

Having already defined themselves doctrinally, Christians are incapable of admitting they might be wrong. So far as they're concerned, their view is objective truth. So the responsibility relating to those who might disagree with their "objective truth" rests totally on the shoulders of everyone but them. The fault is with the individual who won't submit to the authoritative doctrine of the institution and/or human Lord. That's arrogance according to my dictionary. But here's the thing. This arrogance affects unity. Not only regarding the quintessential essential doctrine. But other doctrines are regarded as objective truth as well. Contributing to the denominational character that's so obviously evident in Christianity today.

Personally, I don't think that way about my own view. I will contend for it as if it's objective truth. But the difference between Christians and myself is that I would never deny anyone unity with myself based on our differences regarding Trinitarianism. Or any other doctrine for that matter. Because, as is easily seen in the history of Christianity and how it exists today, doctrine is fluid. Dependent and based upon human interpretation of observed facts. Whether the observed facts of the Bible or upon other observable facts such as what can be observed of the universe. How many Christian Evolutionists do you know or know about?

According to Paul, doctrine is a matter of individual growth (Rom 12:1-2 & Eph 4:11-16 for example). Unity, on the other hand, is based on life, a different life within (John 1, 15, 17, etc; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:20; Eph 4; see also such as Rom 8; Gal 5; 1 John 5:11-21; etc. etc. etc.)

According to Paul, the Christian predilection toward unity according to humanly defined doctrine in the form of Creeds is of the flesh, that is, naturally and essentially according to fallen man following fallen men (1 Cor 1-3).

Ergo, I've been denied Christian status in Christianity by Christian institutions represented by Christian Lords following Christian Traditions based on what are clearly humanly derived Christian Creeds. Differences in denominational truth based on these Creeds clearly bears that out.

And ergo, I won't call myself a Christian. In my opinion, to do so would disrespect God and the Christians. Not to mention myself, considering what I know. And anymore, based on my experience of Christianity, plus the difference in what we think is authoritative, I no longer have any desire to be one.

Nevertheless, I do regard myself as being in Christ. Which is why I contend the view that being in Christ and being a Christian is synonymous. The only view that appears to have basis in fact is that some Christians are also in Christ.

In spite of my experience of Christianity, I regard anyone who is in Christ, even if they are a staunch member of Christianity, one with myself in Christ and in Spirit. Regardless of whether or not such reciprocate. And many, indeed most, do not.

In Christianity, unity is institutional and doctrinal. Which can only lead to what is clearly manifested in Christianity today. Extreme division in the form of denominationalism without a qualm (see 1 Cor 1-3; the Corinthians were so blinded by their own divisions that Paul saw the need to point out the underlying carnality to them in the hope their eyes might be opened). Biblical unity is centered in Christ in Spirit (John 17:17-23; Eph 4:1-16). Resulting in life (primarily a quality - John 4:14, 6.27, 48, 63; Col 3:1-4 that results in quantity - John 3:16) and peace (John 14:27, 16.33; Gal 5:22; Eph 4:3). I think the difference is self-evident.

Does this help?

 

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

Part 2

My concern is to attempt to begin sharing with you my answers to your questions.

I was perusing your thread regarding legalism (The Legal Path). Found the comments therein to be both interesting and revealing.

Christians tend toward a common human failing. That of emphasis. Balance is hard to find among them. And by balance, I don't mean compromise. This too contributes to the denominational character of Christianity.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (Phil 2:12-13 KJV)

Paul isn't presenting a contradiction, conundrum, or paradox. Rather, he's pointing out the necessity of balance in one's life in Christ. A balance between personal responsibility and the responsibility of God. When one's thinking or actions become unbalanced, one can be sure that it's the flesh, rather than the Spirit, that's being followed (Gal 5:16-25).

The Bible is composed of two parts. Christians have done their best to abrogate one part by interpretation (OT) through their emphasis on the other part and it's interpretation (NT). And their ideas have become unbalanced and unreal as a consequence.

For example, the Psalms. The "hymnal" that was good enough for the people of God through much of the OT era. While there are Christian apologists who speak in favor of the Psalms, they will follow a scenario wherein the extra-Biblical is added to the Psalms or replaces them altogether. In the Divine Office of the RCC, wherein the Psalms are central, they have added all sorts of extra-Biblical prayers, songs and writings. It's ultimate expression is in four volumes. That's a lot of extra-Biblical additions. In most sermon services of the Protestants, an extra-Biblical hymnal is used instead of the Psalms. All in the name of Christianization.

Who are the people of God in this era (1 Pet 2:10)? Why isn't the Psalms, that most Commentators agree is a very balanced expression of the relationship between God and man and man with each other, good enough for them? Are the extra-Biblical additions inspired, like the OT Psalms (2 Tim 3:14-17)? Indeed, who's to say where inspiration begins and ends under those conditions? By who's authority? Who has the authority of a God to say?

Another example, the Law. The Law and its commentary is uniquely given in its entirety in the OT. For good reason. And that reason isn't just to announce the coming of the Messiah or just to be "our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal 3:24 KJV). The reason is for the good of man. Fallen man (2 Tim 3:14-17). Pick and choose, or abrogation, is outside of God's will regarding the Law he himself has given for our good.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God. ‘You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. ‘You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. ‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD. (Lev 18:1-5 NASB)

Not live in the sense of eternal life, though that may be included, since the Law is supposed to lead to Christ (Gal 3:17-24). But primarily so that they might know how to live on earth. That they might know that their ways are not the way of God (see Rom 1-3 and the need for justification by an outside source Rom 3:22 & Rom 7 and the need for living by an outside source Rom 8:1-16).

The Law itself is an outside source, but is ineffectual by itself (Rom 7). Nevertheless, it's a tool given by God. Thus the need to be in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and led by the Spirit (John 16:13; Rom 8:14); by whom the tool is used. Do you think that not being under the Law (Gal 5:18) implies the Spirit of God will lead one contrary to the Law of God? The Law is one package. If the Law is abrogated, who is man to think he has the authority of a God to say that homosexuality and abortion is sin? Who has the authority of a God to say any behavior is a sin (1 John 3:4)? Indeed, who has the authority of a God to say the Law has been abrogated in first place? Jesus himself didn't think he had that authority (Matt 5:17-18). When will all be fulfilled if not when all who are in Christ are fully like Christ and the Law will no longer be needed (1 John 3:2)? The only thing that's changed is a ritual connected to the Law. The Tabernacle Ritual. It changed into the Lord's Table (1 Cor 10-11; Hebrews).

Christians have for the most part abrogated the Law by the interpretation of certain NT passages in favor of an ethereal idea that in a practical sense allows them to create their own Law. The vacuum left by the abrogation must be filled with something. Christians either don't believe they are actually a part of the New Covenant and don't think that "I will put my [note "my"] laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts" (Heb 8:10 KJV) applies to them -- or -- they think that this law so written is a different Law than the one given by God in the OT. One has to ask oneself, how many different Law scenarios has God created? Is anarchy the right way, wherein each Christian is a Law unto himself (as guided by the God of many Law scenarios, of course)?

The only reason Christians don't eat one another (an unclean food according to OT Law - Lev 11:3; man neither chews the cud nor is cloven hoofed) is because it's regarded as uncivilized to do so. Having abrogated the Law, they no longer have the Bible to tell them that there is something else wrong with human cannibalism than simply being uncivilized. Doesn't stop them from eating pigs, rabbits, squirrels, frogs, oysters and snails (all unclean foods that civilization allows to be eaten). To such Christians, being led by the Spirit doesn't include following him in God's idea (according to the Law of his own creation) of what's healthy and unhealthy for man to eat (Lev 11).

The dietary Laws aren't simply for personal health, but rather for the health of the whole people of God. When God's Law isn't followed, why should the world think that the God who created the Law sent his Son? Any more than the nations believed that the nation of Israel was chosen by God for a certain purpose when they ceased to follow the Law? Why should they believe there is a God, for that matter? Why believe in a God that even the Christians don't or won't follow?

Think of the gay Atheist activist Dan Savage who pointed out in as condescending a manner possible that it's all good under an abrogated Law. Christians have become unbalanced as to their diet. They are as sickly as non-Christians, being subject to the same diseases as non-Christians. And no amount of positive thinking can change what only a return to balance can achieve.

Some will emphasize the 10 commandments as being the only portion of the Law that should be followed, because it's reiterated in the NT or some such. The dietary Laws aren't mentioned in the 10 commandments. Because the 10 commandments only refer to man's intended relationship toward God and man (Matt 22:36-40). Of course, if the Law has been abrogated, and the 10 commandments are clearly a part of the abrogated Law (Ex 20:1-17; Deut 5:1-22)....

The denominational character of Christianity is just the tip, a tip very visible to the whole world, of a very deep iceberg. Any reason why I shouldn't be concerned by that? Those who are in Christ and realize that what is clearly said in the Bible is objective truth, and experientially realize through the Spirit that Christ walks among them even to this day through the Spirit (Matt 18:20; Rev 1:12-18, 2:1), they should also realize that today's situation is of great concern to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (John 17:17-23).

Does this help?