ECT Nang's Boastful Lie

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks. I'll respond to this later (family Christmas today), before I address anything else.

Okay. I'll be in and out on TOL throughout the day.

 

[musterion]

But yes, I've been tempered by this entire thing, and have found my own behavior very wanting according to my imputed righteousness.

Me too.

That's why I brought it up. It's not always just about you.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Me too.

That's why I brought it up. It's not always just about you.

Yes, I understand.

And THAT is the Musterion that has so stirred my heart many times on TOL, because of that which is in you.

I've lived SO below the imputed righteousness of my salvation.

 

[Nang]

Here's a straight-forward question that Musty and Nick have so far avoided.

Am I saved or unsaved according to the Gospel (of Paul)?!

I've included several long posts in this thread CLEARLY indicating ONE thing. One is saved through faith by grace, and works has absolutely no bearing upon whether one is saved. There is NO single or multiple work/s that can one could ever do to initiate, effect, or accomplish salvation.

By that faith we have access into the grace wherein we stand (Rom 5:2). We are made righteous (justified) by that faith (Rom 5:1). So we have imputed righteousness, which could never be earned or deserved or worked for.

We are saved by grace through faith, not of works. Period. Even the one work of believing (John 6:29) is not a "work". There is not one work involved in us receving the salvation that is by grace through faith. Not one work. Only the finished work of Christ on Calvary.

The disconnect for everyone is that the very word righteousness, also translated justice, means "standard of conduct". So not only are we imputed the character of God's standard without our works, but we're also empowered by that imputation of character for conduct. Righteousness includes conduct, because the very word means recognizing God's claim upon our lives for conduct from character.

The righteousness doesn't come by works. But the righteousness will inherently include works because righteousness is both character and conduct. We could have neither if we didn't have salvation. The conduct can only be accomplished because the character was imputed and will result in conduct.

This in no way refers to individual acts, or that those individual acts could save anyone or leave anyone lost again after salvation. There isn't any one sin or group of sins as actions that could ever void one's salvation.

But in the same way Lordship Salvation is an abomination to the Gospel of Paul, excluding the empowerment of God's standard of conduct from imputed righteous by faith and grace alone is to be in the opposite ditch of the Lordship Salvation ditch.

This is what the MADs refuse to understand; and when their shocking behavior is mentioned, they hide behind an imputed righteousness that is supposed to include conduct FROM that character. And then accusations are made toward non-MADs about their doctrine and behavior because non-MADs don't understand the simple word righteousness.

Like grace and mercy, faith and hope, and other paired things in scripture, the righteousness we are imputed by grace and faith is both to have the character of God's standards and the empowerment to fulfill those standards in conduct. Being made righteous is being made to walk as Jesus walked because we have both His character and conduct imputed to us. It's a package, and it's the inherent definition of the word righteousness. This is not an opinion, it's a linguistic fact.

So presenting shock-value, in-your-face, over-the-top, nasty attitudes and behaviors while lambasting others non-stop and calling it "a war" or "a battle for souls" is absurd. Others are simply looking for the demonstration of the imputed righteousness of character being exhibited as conduct.

That doesn't make them "sons of Cain" or all the other epithets that they're scolded with and judged for. It simply means they have some sense of knowing that imputed righteousness includes conduct with the character, and it's all to be God's standard rather than our own.

And in the end, most MADs and non-MADs alike are mistaking elpis (hope/trust) for pistis (faith) anyway. Hope, which saves us (Rom 8:24-25), is where the Church-at-large is "stuck", thinking it's faith. But that's a whole 'nother related topic.

This argument is one that has divided Believers for centuries, and especially in our lifetimes. It's not a conflict over whether works is salvific. They aren't. PERIOD. Salavation is by grace through faith, and we're imputed the righteousness of God IN CHRIST JESUS.

The problem is in understanding the definition of the righteousness that is imputed to us. Those who DO understand that imputed righteousness includes empowerment for conduct along with the imputed character, will consider others Semi-Pelagian or Antinomian or whatever, and may accuse them of being lost and preaching another Gospel.

Those who DON'T understand that imputed righteousness includes empowerment for conduct along with the imputed character, will consider others as promoting works-salvation or Lordship Salvation or whatever, and may accuse them of being lost and preaching another Gospel.

And this is all clouded by those, like many/most Catholics and other individuals, who ARE depending upon a works-based salvation by their own efforts according to the law or whatever other standard they've set for themselves, which is the very definiton of sin. And we're certainly not saved by sin as works.

This SHOULD clear up the topic, but it won't. Others will proceed on whatever course they're on, for the most part. But behavior IS an inherent part of faith-imputed righteousness. That's not an opinion among other opinions, it's a direct linguistic fact.

Why not just have and be and do according to the complete righteousness of God's standard in everything in our lives? Resting in Christ and having ceased from our own works. All the bullying and silliness just denies the very righteousness we were imputed AS conduct with character.

These highlighted words were very helpful.

Thank you.

There are two schools of thought on the doctrine of Holiness. The legalistic teaching of Perfectionism (e.g. the Keswick Movement) and the lawless teaching of Antinomianism (complete abolition of all Law and moral standards).

MAD tends to follow an Antinomian mindset, and I certainly do not believe or advocate Perfectionism.

The truth lies between the two extremes, and the Epistle of I John is an excellent scriptural guide into practicing righteousness as a child of God without falling into one error or the other.

 

[Nick M]

Here's a straight-forward question that Musty and Nick have so far avoided.

Am I saved or unsaved according to the Gospel (of Paul)?!

I've included several long posts in this thread CLEARLY indicating ONE thing.

I have to be here and see your post. According to Paul, you added to the gospel stating works are a part of salvation. That means you do not believe him.

One is saved through faith by grace, and works has absolutely no bearing upon whether one is saved.

So then you changed your mind from earlier posts?

There is NO single or multiple work/s that can one could ever do to initiate, effect, or accomplish salvation.

How about taking it away? If you murder 600 people today, does that prove you are unsaved or remove salvation?

Here are some hints from the circumcision which you claimed does not exist.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

The author is talking about behavior, which is why he said practicing.

3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Now, is this true of the Body of Christ?

 

[Nang]

Yes I agree with your confession.

Heh! I just received a neg rep from Rusha, saying I was "arrogant" in my agreement with Delmar.

Go figure . . . what is a person to do around here, to avoid persecution?

Rusha:

When I agreed with Delmar I had I John 1:7-10 in mind, and I am sorry I did not quote it.

Would that have made my agreement with Delmar seem more humble to you, or more arrogant?

What is your real problem?

Nang

 

[intojoy]

That was easy.

We don't act we believe. We do not believe in our righteousness but in the righteousness of God.

God did not forgive because He was big hearted enough, He punished Yeshua in our place so that we could be pardoned. Without punishing sin God would be unrighteous.

Yang's statements are complete error from faulty premises. That premise being that we will be justified before God by our righteousness.

 

[Nick M]

I've lived SO below the imputed righteousness of my salvation.

This is why you are to reckon yourself dead to sin. This is why you are not to regard the flesh, when speaking of righteousness. You are to present yourself as an instrument of righteousness, Holy and without blame.

And it has nothing to do with you, so you can not boast.

What I am showing is the gospel of grace given to Paul for us. It is in direct contention with what I just posted for the circumcision. If you continue to say they are the same, then I know you are outside the faith and have evil motives. Like Nang.

 

[TulipBee]

Heh! I just received a neg rep from Rusha, saying I was "arrogant" in my agreement with Delmar.

Go figure . . . what is a person to do around here, to avoid persecution?

Rusha:

When I agreed with Delmar I had I John 1:7-10 in mind, and I am sorry I did not quote it.

Would that have made my agreement with Delmar seem more humble to you, or more arrogant?

What is your real problem?

Nang

I got a neg rep from doom saying I need to grow up or something like be an adult. I don't think Christians are smartmouths. How can they be? He talks like atheists.

 

[intojoy]

Heh! I just received a neg rep from Rusha, saying I was "arrogant" in my agreement with Delmar.

Go figure . . . what is a person to do around here, to avoid persecution?

Rusha:

When I agreed with Delmar I had I John 1:7-10 in mind, and I am sorry I did not quote it.

Would that have made my agreement with Delmar seem more humble to you, or more arrogant?

What is your real problem?

Nang

You're not being persecuted and neither is anyone else. We are simply being prideful and getting our just responses from others who disagree.

 

[TulipBee]

We don't act we believe. We do not believe in our righteousness but in the righteousness of God.

God did not forgive because He was big hearted enough, He punished Yeshua in our place so that we could be pardoned. Without punishing sin God would be unrighteous.

Yang's statements are complete error from faulty premises. That premise being that we will be justified before God by our righteousness.

Believe is an act. Act is believing.

 

[Doom]

We don't act we believe. We do not believe in our righteousness but in the righteousness of God.

I agree. Righteousness and holiness are gifts that we receive when we believe the gospel.

The whole idea that holiness can be created by acting (the word actor literally means hypocrite) is a complete misunderstanding of the word "holy".

To "sanctify" a thing or a person is to set it or them apart. It is to use the thing being sanctified for the purpose and intent for which it was created. Whereas, the term "holy" is to define something or someone as havingbeen set apart (sanctified). It is now holy.

God is holy, for he has always been separate from His creation. There is none like God, He is Holy. To be "holy" is to be incomparable (unique). We cannot compare God to anyone else. He is "Holy", because there is none like Him.

Being made holy by God means that we are uniquely different because we are indwelt by His Spirit. We are separate from those who do not have His Spirit - we are holy. We cannot compare His children to anyone else, nor can we compare ourselves from one another. In Him we are all the same - we are "holy".

 

[intojoy]

Here's a straight-forward question that Musty and Nick have so far avoided.

Am I saved or unsaved according to the Gospel (of Paul)?!

I've included several long posts in this thread CLEARLY indicating ONE thing. One is saved through faith by grace, and works has absolutely no bearing upon whether one is saved. There is NO single or multiple work/s that can one could ever do to initiate, effect, or accomplish salvation.

By that faith we have access into the grace wherein we stand (Rom 5:2). We are made righteous (justified) by that faith (Rom 5:1). So we have imputed righteousness, which could never be earned or deserved or worked for.

We are saved by grace through faith, not of works. Period. Even the one work of believing (John 6:29) is not a "work". There is not one work involved in us receving the salvation that is by grace through faith. Not one work. Only the finished work of Christ on Calvary.

The disconnect for everyone is that the very word righteousness, also translated justice, means "standard of conduct". So not only are we imputed the character of God's standard without our works, but we're also empowered by that imputation of character for conduct. Righteousness includes conduct, because the very word means recognizing God's claim upon our lives for conduct from character.

The righteousness doesn't come by works. But the righteousness will inherently include works because righteousness is both character and conduct. We could have neither if we didn't have salvation. The conduct can only be accomplished because the character was imputed and will result in conduct.

This in no way refers to individual acts, or that those individual acts could save anyone or leave anyone lost again after salvation. There isn't any one sin or group of sins as actions that could ever void one's salvation.

But in the same way Lordship Salvation is an abomination to the Gospel of Paul, excluding the empowerment of God's standard of conduct from imputed righteous by faith and grace alone is to be in the opposite ditch of the Lordship Salvation ditch.

This is what the MADs refuse to understand; and when their shocking behavior is mentioned, they hide behind an imputed righteousness that is supposed to include conduct FROM that character. And then accusations are made toward non-MADs about their doctrine and behavior because non-MADs don't understand the simple word righteousness.

Like grace and mercy, faith and hope, and other paired things in scripture, the righteousness we are imputed by grace and faith is both to have the character of God's standards and the empowerment to fulfill those standards in conduct. Being made righteous is being made to walk as Jesus walked because we have both His character and conduct imputed to us. It's a package, and it's the inherent definition of the word righteousness. This is not an opinion, it's a linguistic fact.

So presenting shock-value, in-your-face, over-the-top, nasty attitudes and behaviors while lambasting others non-stop and calling it "a war" or "a battle for souls" is absurd. Others are simply looking for the demonstration of the imputed righteousness of character being exhibited as conduct.

That doesn't make them "sons of Cain" or all the other epithets that they're scolded with and judged for. It simply means they have some sense of knowing that imputed righteousness includes conduct with the character, and it's all to be God's standard rather than our own.

And in the end, most MADs and non-MADs alike are mistaking elpis (hope/trust) for pistis (faith) anyway. Hope, which saves us (Rom 8:24-25), is where the Church-at-large is "stuck", thinking it's faith. But that's a whole 'nother related topic.

This argument is one that has divided Believers for centuries, and especially in our lifetimes. It's not a conflict over whether works is salvific. They aren't. PERIOD. Salavation is by grace through faith, and we're imputed the righteousness of God IN CHRIST JESUS.

The problem is in understanding the definition of the righteousness that is imputed to us. Those who DO understand that imputed righteousness includes empowerment for conduct along with the imputed character, will consider others Semi-Pelagian or Antinomian or whatever, and may accuse them of being lost and preaching another Gospel.

Those who DON'T understand that imputed righteousness includes empowerment for conduct along with the imputed character, will consider others as promoting works-salvation or Lordship Salvation or whatever, and may accuse them of being lost and preaching another Gospel.

And this is all clouded by those, like many/most Catholics and other individuals, who ARE depending upon a works-based salvation by their own efforts according to the law or whatever other standard they've set for themselves, which is the very definiton of sin. And we're certainly not saved by sin as works.

This SHOULD clear up the topic, but it won't. Others will proceed on whatever course they're on, for the most part. But behavior IS an inherent part of faith-imputed righteousness. That's not an opinion among other opinions, it's a direct linguistic fact.

Why not just have and be and do according to the complete righteousness of God's standard in everything in our lives? Resting in Christ and having ceased from our own works. All the bullying and silliness just denies the very righteousness we were imputed AS conduct with character.

Fail

 

[intojoy]

The fact is

1. Man can not please (serve) God because the sin nature has affected man on every level.

2. Believers who remain in this world are not of this world because they've been delivered from the world and are sent back into the world to serve God.

3. Believers can now serve God with righteousness because they have been born of God.

4. That which is born of God can not sin and never sins.

5. A believer either chooses to serve God with righteousness by walking in his new born capacity made new by the Holy Spirit and empowered to produce the fruit of the new born human spirit because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or the believer can walk after their old sin capacity thru the flesh.

6. The sin nature is the capacity to do things both good and bad that leave God out.

7. A believer can be operating from their old capacity even tho they are not living immoral lives . They are still not pleasing God even tho they may be religious because their acts are not done in the new man. They leave God out of their religious service by assuming that they are doing works or exhibiting righteousness originating from themselves. Righteousness is imputed and is connected to our new born human spirits that CAN NEVER SIN and that by virtue of the salvation package CAN SERVE GOD WITH RIGHTEOUSNESS

 

[Right Divider]

These highlighted words were very helpful.

Thank you.

There are two schools of thought on the doctrine of Holiness. The legalistic teaching of Perfectionism (e.g. the Keswick Movement) and the lawless teaching of Antinomianism (complete abolition of all Law and moral standards).

MAD tends to follow an Antinomian mindset, and I certainly do not believe or advocate Perfectionism.

The truth lies between the two extremes, and the Epistle of I John is an excellent scriptural guide into practicing righteousness as a child of God without falling into one error or the other.

MAD is does NOT advocate LAWLESSNESS, as you and many others claim. We understand the place of the law and what it can and cannot do.

We affirm that the law is good, just like Paul explains in Romans 7. But that IT (the law) must be used LAWFULLY.

1Ti 1:7-11 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. (8) But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
​

Isn't it interesting that the law was made for the lawless?

Rom 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
​

The foolish Galatians thought that they could be "perfected" by keeping the law AFTER they came to faith.

Gal 3:21-26 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
​

Are you still under a schoolmaster?

 

[musterion]

Are you still under a schoolmaster?

Followup question: Has the schoolmaster not attended her funeral (Rom 7:4)?

 

[Nang]

We don't act we believe. We do not believe in our righteousness but in the righteousness of God.

God did not forgive because He was big hearted enough, He punished Yeshua in our place so that we could be pardoned. Without punishing sin God would be unrighteous.

Yang's statements are complete error from faulty premises. That premise being that we will be justified before God by our righteousness.

What statements? Please quote my words if you want to make accusations!

I have never posted anything about "our righteousness" for I believe the only righteousness any of we sinners possess is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I teach and believe that sinners are justified by faith, alone.

So what in the world are you talking about? :madmad:

 

[intojoy]

Dim's op quote

 

[Nang]

Dim's op quote

You mean the one he changed?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I have to be here and see your post.

They're in the thread. It's your choice whether you read them or not. You need not be online at the moment I make a post for it to make any difference whatsoever.

According to Paul, you added to the gospel stating works are a part of salvation.

No. I've never said that. Ever. Not once. Not even a hint. I've said nothing but the opposite, so you'll need to quote the post/s that correspond/s to your false assertion.

That means you do not believe him.

That becomes a non sequitur when I haven't ever stated works are part of salvation.

So then you changed your mind from earlier posts?

No. You're kinda off in Gumbyland or something, presuming I've said that which I've never said, and then quickly judging unrighteous judgment.

How about taking it away? If you murder 600 people today, does that prove you are unsaved or remove salvation?

It doesn't and can't remove salvation, but it might be an indicator one never had salvific faith to begin with. I wouldn't know, since I can't know the hearts of men.

No singular or multiple act/s determine salvation.

Here are some hints from the circumcision which you claimed does not exist.

I don't even know what you're talking about. What circumcision have I allegedly claimed does not exist?

6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

The author is talking about behavior, which is why he said practicing.

Okay. What's the point?

3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Now, is this true of the Body of Christ?

Yes. And if you understood the meaning of keep (tereo) and commandments (entole), you wouldn't have to ask anyone.

We're empowered by faith-imputed righteousness with the character for that conduct. The keeping is "guarding", not accomplishing. And commandments are the charges from God that we are IN by being in Christ.

John is NOT saying we accomplish savlation through works. Just the opposite, actually. It's a low-context conceptualized shallow English perspective that creates these false understandings.

John agrees with Paul, and is bringing out the conduct aspect of our imputed righteousness, which has nothing to do with works UNTO salvation, but rather works FROM imputed righteousness that is by grace and faith apart from works.