"Christ is our Life"

[Tenchi]

Paul had a confrontation with Barnabas and Peter, "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel" Galatians 2:14. They were not walking according to the Gospel because they didn't know what the Gospel was.

This just isn't true, brother. When Peter preached in the street in Acts 2, three thousand people were converted and added to the Church (Acts 2:41).

I know of many Christians who could tell me what the Gospel is but who regularly fail to live in the truth of it. This is a common fault across Christendom today, and has been for two millennia. If Peter is guilty of anything, it isn't an ignorance of the Gospel but yielding to the pressure of Jewish culture and prejudice. You'll recall he wrestled with this matter very directly in Acts 10:9-16.

 

[Robert Pate]

This just isn't true, brother. When Peter preached in the street in Acts 2, three thousand people were converted and added to the Church (Acts 2:41).

I know of many Christians who could tell me what the Gospel is but who regularly fail to live in the truth of it. This is a common fault across Christendom today, and has been for two millennia. If Peter is guilty of anything, it isn't an ignorance of the Gospel but yielding to the pressure of Jewish culture and prejudice. You'll recall he wrestled with this matter very directly in Acts 10:9-16.

Then why did Barnabas and Peter act like a law keeping Jews at the dinner? And why did Paul have to correct them?

 

[Tenchi]

Then why did Barnabas and Peter act like a law keeping Jews at the dinner?

As I said, they were yielding to the pressure of their fellow Jews and to their own life-long inculcation in the Jewish culture, not because they were ignorant of the Gospel but because of this pressure and a natural Jewish bias.

Paul corrected them because he knew as well as they did that they were behaving badly, bowing to cultural pressure in a partisan, even prejudiced, way.

 

[Robert Pate]

This just isn't true, brother. When Peter preached in the street in Acts 2, three thousand people were converted and added to the Church (Acts 2:41).

I know of many Christians who could tell me what the Gospel is but who regularly fail to live in the truth of it. This is a common fault across Christendom today, and has been for two millennia. If Peter is guilty of anything, it isn't an ignorance of the Gospel but yielding to the pressure of Jewish culture and prejudice. You'll recall he wrestled with this matter very directly in Acts 10:9-16.

If Barnabas and Peter understood the Gospel they would not have been acting like law keeping Jews. Paul had to straighten them out, Galatians 2:16.

 

[Tenchi]

If Barnabas and Peter understood the Gospel they would not have been acting like law keeping Jews. Paul had to straighten them out, Galatians 2:16.

Yes, you've said this before. Repeating it doesn't make it true. There is another perfectly reasonable alternative to what you're proposing though, which I've explained. It just doesn't follow that, because Peter and Barnabas were yielding to Jewish pressure, they didn't understand the Gospel. As you and I both know, many times Christians don't act in accord with God's truth though they know it very well. This is, in fact, what Scripture says:

James 4:17 (NASB)
17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

See? James has indicated that it is possible to know what is right to do and not do it.

Peter had done something very much like this when he denied Christ three times. Did Peter do so because he didn't know Jesus? Applying the thinking you've used concerning Peter's migration toward law-keeping, this is what we'd have to conclude. But it would be an obviously wrong thing to assert that Peter's denial of Christ meant he didn't actually know the (God)man he'd been following for three years. Peter denied the truth, not because he was ignorant of it, but because he was scared.

In the case of Peter's caving to Jewish pressure and migrating toward OT law-keeping, it was not ignorance of the Gospel that was the cause, but Peter's long-held Jewish prejudices and fear of the censure of his fellow Jews.

Galatians 2:12-13 (NASB)
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Paul's quite clear here that Peter acted, not out of ignorance, but out of fear. This is reinforced by Paul's description of Peter's conduct as hypocrisy, not mere ignorance. As is the case with all hypocrisy, one knows but one does not do, just as James explained above. Here, then, in Paul's own words is the truth of Peter's yielding to "the party of the circumcision."

 

[Robert Pate]

Yes, you've said this before. Repeating it doesn't make it true. There is another perfectly reasonable alternative to what you're proposing though, which I've explained. It just doesn't follow that, because Peter and Barnabas were yielding to Jewish pressure, they didn't understand the Gospel. As you and I both know, many times Christians don't act in accord with God's truth though they know it very well. This is, in fact, what Scripture says:

James 4:17 (NASB)
17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

See? James has indicated that it is possible to know what is right to do and not do it.

Peter had done something very much like this when he denied Christ three times. Did Peter do so because he didn't know Jesus? Applying the thinking you've used concerning Peter's migration toward law-keeping, this is what we'd have to conclude. But it would be an obviously wrong thing to assert that Peter's denial of Christ meant he didn't actually know the (God)man he'd been following for three years. Peter denied the truth, not because he was ignorant of it, but because he was scared.

In the case of Peter's caving to Jewish pressure and migrating toward OT law-keeping, it was not ignorance of the Gospel that was the cause, but Peter's long-held Jewish prejudices and fear of the censure of his fellow Jews.

Galatians 2:12-13 (NASB)
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Paul's quite clear here that Peter acted, not out of ignorance, but out of fear. This is reinforced by Paul's description of Peter's conduct as hypocrisy, not mere ignorance. As is the case with all hypocrisy, one knows but one does not do, just as James explained above. Here, then, in Paul's own words is the truth of Peter's yielding to "the party of the circumcision."

Peter had problems with Paul's Gospel, "As also in all his (Paul's) epistles speaking in them of these things in which are somethings hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" 2 Peter 3:16.

It appears that Peter is saying that Paul's Gospel is hard to understand.

 

[Tenchi]

Peter had problems with Paul's Gospel, "As also in all his (Paul's) epistles speaking in them of these things in which are somethings hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" 2 Peter 3:16.

It appears that Peter is saying that Paul's Gospel is hard to understand.

Yes. But this doesn't erase what Paul indicated about Peter's motive for yielding to the "party of the circumcision." Paul identified Peter as fearful in that instance, not ignorant. See my last post.

In 2 Peter 3:16, I think Peter is likely referring to what Paul taught in his letter to the Christians at Rome. Of all the teaching I cover in discipling men, the Letter to the Romans offers some of the "meatiest" spiritual truth and thus the most difficult to "chew."

In any case, as I've explained from Scripture, Peter knew the Gospel well, bringing many to faith in Christ as he preached the Good News to the lost. His rebuke by Paul addressed his fearful caving to the pressure of his fellow Jews who were loathe to give up what they considered an essential feature of being a Jew: Circumcision.

 

[Robert Pate]

Yes. But this doesn't erase what Paul indicated about Peter's motive for yielding to the "party of the circumcision." Paul identified Peter as fearful in that instance, not ignorant. See my last post.

In 2 Peter 3:16, I think Peter is likely referring to what Paul taught in his letter to the Christians at Rome. Of all the teaching I cover in discipling men, the Letter to the Romans offers some of the "meatiest" spiritual truth and thus the most difficult to "chew."

In any case, as I've explained from Scripture, Peter knew the Gospel well, bringing many to faith in Christ as he preached the Good News to the lost. His rebuke by Paul addressed his fearful caving to the pressure of his fellow Jews who were loathe to give up what they considered an essential feature of being a Jew: Circumcision.

What Peter preached on the day of Pentecost had nothing to do with being justified by faith. Otherwise, he would not have included repentance and baptism, which are works, as a means of salvation, Acts 2:38.

 

[Tenchi]

What Peter preached on the day of Pentecost had nothing to do with being justified by faith. Otherwise, he would not have included repentance and baptism, which are works, as a means of salvation, Acts 2:38.

You cited the business in Galatians as proof of Peter's ignorance of the Gospel which, as I pointed out, isn't what Paul himself said was the problem with Peter's yielding to the "party of the circumcision." It was fear, not ignorance, that motivated Peter's leaving off eating with Gentiles. So, arguing for Peter's ignorance of the Gospel doesn't work from the Galatians 2 account of Paul's rebuke of Peter.

I am really puzzled by your idea that repentance - changing one's thinking about something - has nothing to do with salvation. Here's why:

Christ preached repentance.

Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Luke 13:1-5 (NASB)
1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?
3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
4 "Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?
5 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Christ's disciples preached repentance.

Mark 6:12
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Peter preached repentance as a central feature of the Gospel.

Acts 3:19-20
19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,

Paul preached repentance in his evangelistic efforts.

Acts 17:30-31
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Since trusting in Christ as one's Savior and Lord requires that one know and is convinced of the truth of the Gospel, changing one's mind about one's sin, independence from God, and need of a Savior, the idea that doing so is a "work" and thus excluded from involvement in conversion, appears to be seriously unbiblical. Consider what Paul wrote to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:12
12 ...for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Repentance is the process of taking in new knowledge (I know), becoming convinced of it (I am convinced), and then acting on that knowledge about which one has become convinced (I have entrusted to Him). Here, then, is a bare-bones rendering of repentance, which Christ, his disciples, and Paul himself all preached as part of the Gospel. How, then, do you hold that repentance is excluded from the Gospel and as a prerequisite to salvation?

Baptism is very closely-associated with salvation in that it is the action that "completes," or practically manifests, what one has accepted as true concerning the Gospel. It is saving faith expressed, nothing more. But the naturalness with which such faith finds expression in corresponding action prompts an almost synonymous description of the two things by Peter, James and Paul himself. Saving faith, though, exists independent of action, as the thief on the cross illustrated, or does someone coming to faith in Christ on their death-bed, or when, by injury, they are totally incapacitated. This is how Peter was speaking of baptism, I believe; he was not indicating that baptism was itself salvific.

 

[Robert Pate]

You cited the business in Galatians as proof of Peter's ignorance of the Gospel which, as I pointed out, isn't what Paul himself said was the problem with Peter's yielding to the "party of the circumcision." It was fear, not ignorance, that motivated Peter's leaving off eating with Gentiles. So, arguing for Peter's ignorance of the Gospel doesn't work from the Galatians 2 account of Paul's rebuke of Peter.

I am really puzzled by your idea that repentance - changing one's thinking about something - has nothing to do with salvation. Here's why:

Christ preached repentance.

Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Luke 13:1-5 (NASB)
1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?
3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
4 "Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?
5 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Christ's disciples preached repentance.

Mark 6:12
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Peter preached repentance as a central feature of the Gospel.

Acts 3:19-20
19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,

Paul preached repentance in his evangelistic efforts.

Acts 17:30-31
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Since trusting in Christ as one's Savior and Lord requires that one know and is convinced of the truth of the Gospel, changing one's mind about one's sin, independence from God, and need of a Savior, the idea that doing so is a "work" and thus excluded from involvement in conversion, appears to be seriously unbiblical. Consider what Paul wrote to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:12
12 ...for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Repentance is the process of taking in new knowledge (I know), becoming convinced of it (I am convinced), and then acting on that knowledge about which one has become convinced (I have entrusted to Him). Here, then, is a bare-bones rendering of repentance, which Christ, his disciples, and Paul himself all preached as part of the Gospel. How, then, do you hold that repentance is excluded from the Gospel and as a prerequisite to salvation?

Baptism is very closely-associated with salvation in that it is the action that "completes," or practically manifests, what one has accepted as true concerning the Gospel. It is saving faith expressed, nothing more. But the naturalness with which such faith finds expression in corresponding action prompts an almost synonymous description of the two things by Peter, James and Paul himself. Saving faith, though, exists independent of action, as the thief on the cross illustrated, or does someone coming to faith in Christ on their death-bed, or when, by injury, they are totally incapacitated. This is how Peter was speaking of baptism, I believe; he was not indicating that baptism was itself salvific.

Repentance follows salvation and is not the cause of it. Repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit that proceeds salvation, so is baptism. The Bible plainly teaches that we are saved and justified by faith, Galatians 3:2. Doing things that proceeds salvation will not save anyone. In many cases it is an attempt to be saved by the works of the law which is by what we do. There are multitudes of counterfeits that think that they are saved because they were baptized, when they are confronted with the Gospel they reject it.

At one time I did street witnessing with "Christians-in Action" I have personally talked to hundreds maybe thousands of people concerning their salvation, most are trusting in something that they did or in something that they have become to be saved, which is themselves.

 

[Tenchi]

Repentance follows salvation and is not the cause of it.

No, brother, as the verses I offered to you indicate, repentance comes before salvation and is the means by which one comes to accept the Gospel as true. I suspect you have mixed-up repentance with confession, and demonstrations of sorrow, and so on. All that repentance is, at bottom, is a change of one's mind about a thing (or things). Obviously, if one is a lost sinner, content to live as such, without a thought for God or Christ, and one hears the Gospel of salvation, one must alter one's thinking, change one's mind - repent - about one's living, about God, about the fundamental nature of reality, even, in order to accept the Gospel and be saved. How you can think this change of thinking can happen after one is saved is entirely a mystery to me. Is salvation not resting on a knowledge of the Gospel?

Repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit that proceeds from salvation,

No, it is a work the Spirit does prior to salvation in order that salvation might be made possible. One cannot be saved if one does not first know one needs to be saved, and if one is ignorant of how to be saved. God "gives repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25) which, in part would be the Good News of salvation. He helps an acknowledgement of the truth - repentance - so that the lost person may "recover themselves out of the snare of the devil" (2 Timothy 2:26).

Doing things that proceeds salvation will not save anyone.

Brother, if I'm dying of a cancerous brain tumor and I refuse to accept the fact that I am, if I further refuse to undergo treatment of the tumor, submitting to brain surgery to remove the tumor, I will surely die of my tumor. But if I do these things and find myself finally on the operating table because of my choices, I can do nothing to remove the tumor myself. I can only lay there, in the end, and receive the saving work of the surgeon, contributing nothing to the surgery that frees me of my deadly growth. Has it, then, been my willingness to accept the diagnosis of my tumor and seek treatment of it that has saved me? No. These things brought me to the surgeon but it is only his work upon me that saves me. Apart from his removal of my tumor, which I could only receive, my willingness to acknowledge my disease and desire that it be treated are quite useless.

In the same way, I must hear the Gospel and accept its diagnosis of my sin-sickness as true - repentance - and then act upon it, seeking, by faith, the saving work of the Great Physician. But the work he does to save me, is entirely his work, that I can only receive, contributing nothing. You seem to be thinking, though, that accepting the Gospel as true and trusting in Christ by faith contribute to my salvation. But they don't do so any more than accepting I have a brain tumor and trusting in the brain surgeon to remove it from me contribute to the removal of my tumor. The removal of my tumor only the surgeon can do and the removal of sin-sickness only Christ can do. In both cases, in the end, all I do is receive their work on my behalf.

 

[Robert Pate]

No, brother, as the verses I offered to you indicate, repentance comes before salvation and is the means by which one comes to accept the Gospel as true. I suspect you have mixed-up repentance with confession, and demonstrations of sorrow, and so on. All that repentance is, at bottom, is a change of one's mind about a thing (or things). Obviously, if one is a lost sinner, content to live as such, without a thought for God or Christ, and one hears the Gospel of salvation, one must alter one's thinking, change one's mind - repent - about one's living, about God, about the fundamental nature of reality, even, in order to accept the Gospel and be saved. How you can think this change of thinking can happen after one is saved is entirely a mystery to me. Is salvation not resting on a knowledge of the Gospel?



No, it is a work the Spirit does prior to salvation in order that salvation might be made possible. One cannot be saved if one does not first know one needs to be saved, and if one is ignorant of how to be saved. God "gives repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25) which, in part would be the Good News of salvation. He helps an acknowledgement of the truth - repentance - so that the lost person may "recover themselves out of the snare of the devil" (2 Timothy 2:26).



Brother, if I'm dying of a cancerous brain tumor and I refuse to accept the fact that I am, if I further refuse to undergo treatment of the tumor, submitting to brain surgery to remove the tumor, I will surely die of my tumor. But if I do these things and find myself finally on the operating table because of my choices, I can do nothing to remove the tumor myself. I can only lay there, in the end, and receive the saving work of the surgeon, contributing nothing to the surgery that frees me of my deadly growth. Has it, then, been my willingness to accept the diagnosis of my tumor and seek treatment of it that has saved me? No. These things brought me to the surgeon but it is only his work upon me that saves me. Apart from his removal of my tumor, which I could only receive, my willingness to acknowledge my disease and desire that it be treated are quite useless.

In the same way, I must hear the Gospel and accept its diagnosis of my sin-sickness as true - repentance - and then act upon it, seeking, by faith, the saving work of the Great Physician. But the work he does to save me, is entirely his work, that I can only receive, contributing nothing. You seem to be thinking, though, that accepting the Gospel as true and trusting in Christ by faith contribute to my salvation. But they don't do so any more than accepting I have a brain tumor and trusting in the brain surgeon to remove it from me contribute to the removal of my tumor. The removal of my tumor only the surgeon can do and the removal of sin-sickness only Christ can do. In both cases, in the end, all I do is receive their work on my behalf.

Many become convinced that they are sinners, but instead of calling on Christ to save them, Romans 10:13, instead they join the Catholic church and become religious (repentance). Religion is an indication of the absence of faith. Hearing and believing the Gospel is not repentance, but it will produce repentance. Nothing happens until we hear and believe the Gospel. It is then that we receive the Holy Spirit, which brings about repentance. Paul said, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law (because you did something (repentance) or by the hearing of faith (hearing and believing the Gospel) Galatians 3:2.

We are saved by hearing and believing the Gospel. This is what Paul taught, Ephesians 1:13. If you don't believe that Jesus fulfilled the law for you and atoned for your sins you will never see heaven.

 

[Tenchi]

Many become convinced that they are sinners, but instead of calling on Christ to save them, Romans 10:13, instead they join the Catholic church and become religious (repentance).

Uh huh.

Religion is an indication of the absence of faith.

This depends upon what you mean by "religion."

Hearing and believing the Gospel is not repentance, but it will produce repentance.

??? If you've believed the Gospel when once you didn't, you've changed your mind and thus repented, which is what the word means.

Nothing happens until we hear and believe the Gospel.

??? Both hearing and believing are things that happen...

It is then that we receive the Holy Spirit, which brings about repentance.

Brother, if the Holy Spirit has not already been at work convicting the unsaved person of righteousness, judgment and sin, as Jesus said he does (John 16:8), making it possible for you to understand and choose to believe the Gospel (2 Timothy 2:25), you cannot ever be born-again by the Spirit. His conviction and illumination are necessary predicates to changing your mind - repenting - about yourself, your sin and the Savior. Somehow, you've got things pretty tangled when it comes to repentance and salvation...

Paul said, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law (because you did something (repentance) or by the hearing of faith (hearing and believing the Gospel) Galatians 3:2.

When you have to insert stuff into Scripture in order to make it say what you want it to say, you've got a sure sign you've gone awry in your understanding of it. As I explained in my cancerous tumor analogy, changing one's mind about one's state of being (yes, I accept I have a brain tumor), and acting to have that state of being corrected (I need a surgeon to remove my tumor for me), contributes nothing to the actual event that corrects one's state of being (the removal of the tumor). There is, then, no salvific power in repenting and accepting the Gospel as true and trusting, by faith, in Christ to cleanse you of the stain of your sin and reconcile you to God. These things merely bring you to Christ who alone saves you from your sin and from whom you can only receive salvation.

In your attempt to argue against works-salvation, it appears you've migrated into a scripturally-untenable position that mistakenly sees repentance, and perhaps even faith, as saving works. As the tumor analogy illustrates, though, this isn't the case and so you're arguing against a non-existent state-of-affairs that's forcing you to contort God's word.

 

[Robert Pate]

Uh huh.



This depends upon what you mean by "religion."



??? If you've believed the Gospel when once you didn't, you've changed your mind and thus repented, which is what the word means.



??? Both hearing and believing are things that happen...



Brother, if the Holy Spirit has not already been at work convicting the unsaved person of righteousness, judgment and sin, as Jesus said he does (John 16:8), making it possible for you to understand and choose to believe the Gospel (2 Timothy 2:25), you cannot ever be born-again by the Spirit. His conviction and illumination are necessary predicates to changing your mind - repenting - about yourself, your sin and the Savior. Somehow, you've got things pretty tangled when it comes to repentance and salvation...



When you have to insert stuff into Scripture in order to make it say what you want it to say, you've got a sure sign you've gone awry in your understanding of it. As I explained in my cancerous tumor analogy, changing one's mind about one's state of being (yes, I accept I have a brain tumor), and acting to have that state of being corrected (I need a surgeon to remove my tumor for me), contributes nothing to the actual event that corrects one's state of being (the removal of the tumor). There is, then, no salvific power in repenting and accepting the Gospel as true and trusting, by faith, in Christ to cleanse you of the stain of your sin and reconcile you to God. These things merely bring you to Christ who alone saves you from your sin and from whom you can only receive salvation.

In your attempt to argue against works-salvation, it appears you've migrated into a scripturally-untenable position that mistakenly sees repentance, and perhaps even faith, as saving works. As the tumor analogy illustrates, though, this isn't the case and so you're arguing against a non-existent state-of-affairs that's forcing you to contort God's word.

Your acceptance of Christ as your savior is not what saved you. We are saved by the doing and the dying of Jesus. Accepting Christ as your savior was common sense because you don't want to go to hell.

The Holy Spirit is in the world convicting all to come to Christ. However, you cannot receive the Holy Spirit until you accept Christ as your savior. The condition for receiving the Holy Spirit is that God must see you spiritually "In Christ".

We are not cleansed from sin. We are sinners saved by grace until Jesus appears. It is then that we are totally sanctified, Colossians 3:4. We are reconciled unto God by the doing and the dying of Jesus, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.

 

[Tenchi]

Your acceptance of Christ as your savior is not what saved you. We are saved by the doing and the dying of Jesus. Accepting Christ as your savior was common sense because you don't want to go to hell.

"There is, then, no salvific power in repenting and accepting the Gospel as true and trusting, by faith, in Christ to cleanse you of the stain of your sin and reconcile you to God. These things merely bring you to Christ who alone saves you from your sin and from whom you can only receive salvation."
I guess you're not bothering to read and actually understand what I'm writing...

The Holy Spirit is in the world convicting all to come to Christ. However, you cannot receive the Holy Spirit until you accept Christ as your savior.

Yes. I've not indicated otherwise.

The condition for receiving the Holy Spirit is that God must see you spiritually "In Christ".

??? This is...confused. You are only "in Christ" by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9-14).

We are not cleansed from sin. We are sinners saved by grace until Jesus appears. It is then that we are totally sanctified, Colossians 3:4.

??? Yes, we are cleansed from sin. See 1 John 1:7 and 9.

It is then that we are totally sanctified, Colossians 3:4.

Positionally, in Christ, we are already fully sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:2, 19). If we were not so, God could not accept us. In our practical condition, our daily living, however, we are bringing the reality of our complete sanctification in Christ into greater and greater manifestation. Only when we're in glory with him, though, will we be forever and totally free of the presence of sin.

We are reconciled unto God by the doing and the dying of Jesus, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.

Yes. I've said as much in my posts...

 

[Robert Pate]

"There is, then, no salvific power in repenting and accepting the Gospel as true and trusting, by faith, in Christ to cleanse you of the stain of your sin and reconcile you to God. These things merely bring you to Christ who alone saves you from your sin and from whom you can only receive salvation."
I guess you're not bothering to read and actually understand what I'm writing...



Yes. I've not indicated otherwise.



??? This is...confused. You are only "in Christ" by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9-14).



??? Yes, we are cleansed from sin. See 1 John 1:7 and 9.



Positionally, in Christ, we are already fully sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:2, 19). If we were not so, God could not accept us. In our practical condition, our daily living, however, we are bringing the reality of our complete sanctification in Christ into greater and greater manifestation. Only when we're in glory with him, though, will we be forever and totally free of the presence of sin.



Yes. I've said as much in my posts...

We are not totally sanctified yet. We are still here in our unredeemed Adamic bodies that are prone to sin, Romans 8:23. Paul struggled with sin, Romans 7:14-25. Our acceptance by God is based totally and completely on the merits of Jesus Christ. We are accepted only in him and because of him.

 

[Tenchi]

We are not totally sanctified yet. We are still here in our unredeemed Adamic bodies that are prone to sin, Romans 8:23. Paul struggled with sin, Romans 7:14-25. Our acceptance by God is based totally and completely on the merits of Jesus Christ. We are accepted only in him and because of him.

Are you disagreeing with me? 'Cause what you've written here basically repeats what I wrote in my last post.

 

[Robert Pate]

Are you disagreeing with me? 'Cause what you've written here basically repeats what I wrote in my last post.

My disagreement with you is when you said we are already totally sanctified. We will not be totally sanctified until we receive our new bodies. The bodies that we have now are prone to sin, Romans 8:23. They have not been redeemed yet.

 

[Tenchi]

My disagreement with you is when you said we are already totally sanctified. We will not be totally sanctified until we receive our new bodies. The bodies that we have now are prone to sin, Romans 8:23. They have not been redeemed yet.

This is actually what I wrote. Positionally, in Christ, the born-again person is fully sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:2, 19) because, if they're not, God cannot accept them as His own. But the practical living-out of this position of sanctification continues all throughout the believer's life until the time when, in glory, God finally removes sin entirely. So, there is positional sanctification that is full and complete in Christ and a practical sanctification that is progressively worked out in the life of the believer.

 

[Robert Pate]

This is actually what I wrote. Positionally, in Christ, the born-again person is fully sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:2, 19) because, if they're not, God cannot accept them as His own. But the practical living-out of this position of sanctification continues all throughout the believer's life until the time when, in glory, God finally removes sin entirely. So, there is positional sanctification that is full and complete in Christ and a practical sanctification that is progressively worked out in the life of the believer.

I agree that God spiritually sees the believer as perfect and complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10. However, physically the believer is still a sinner because of his unredeemed Adamic body, Romans 8:23. I think that we may be saying the same thing.