Naming the Name of Christ

[firehill]

Shiloh, I hope you don't mind if I zig here but I want to ask/talk about something you said earlier, and it might have been this thread or another one I'm not sure.

You said that Christian's are never called sinners. So I checked your right. Yeah I see that smile breaking out on your face. I understand it to a point, but must admit to some confusion. How can all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and yet not be sinners at the same time?

A sinner is not someone who sins. The Bible never defines "sinner" in that fashion. 100% of the time a sinner is referred to as one who is unredeemed.

Christians are always referred to as saints, in the New Testament. When you get saved, there is a change of status. For example:

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:9-10)

Notice what Paul says: "When we were sinners;" "when we were enemies." He speaks in the past tense. "We were sinners" implies that we are something else now. I was sinner before I accepted Christ.

Justification is a change in status. I was once guilty, but now have been justified by faith. I am declared innocent and have been delared as being in rightstanding with God. My sin nature has not been eradicated yet, but that is not how I am judged.

We were sinners, but now we are saints. We were slaves to sin, but now we are sons and daughters of God and a kingdom of priests. We were once darkness, but now we are light in the Lord. Salvation is both an inward transformation and an a legal change of status. We are new creations, old things have passed away and all things have become new. We are born of God, of incorruptable seed. We are to reckon ourselves dead to sin because are identifed with Christ in death and are identified with Him in His resurrection. We are dead to sin, but are also risen with Christ to walk in the newness of life.

You're correct Shilo.

[Scarletprayers]

Shiloh, I hope you don't mind if I zig here but I want to ask/talk about something you said earlier, and it might have been this thread or another one I'm not sure.

You said that Christian's are never called sinners. So I checked your right. Yeah I see that smile breaking out on your face. I understand it to a point, but must admit to some confusion. How can all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and yet not be sinners at the same time?

A sinner is not someone who sins. The Bible never defines "sinner" in that fashion. 100% of the time a sinner is referred to as one who is unredeemed.

Christians are always referred to as saints, in the New Testament. When you get saved, there is a change of status. For example:

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:9-10)

Notice what Paul says: "When we were sinners;" "when we were enemies." He speaks in the past tense. "We were sinners" implies that we are something else now. I was sinner before I accepted Christ.

Justification is a change in status. I was once guilty, but now have been justified by faith. I am declared innocent and have been delared as being in rightstanding with God. My sin nature has not been eradicated yet, but that is not how I am judged.

We were sinners, but now we are saints. We were slaves to sin, but now we are sons and daughters of God and a kingdom of priests. We were once darkness, but now we are light in the Lord. Salvation is both an inward transformation and an a legal change of status. We are new creations, old things have passed away and all things have become new. We are born of God, of incorruptable seed. We are to reckon ourselves dead to sin because are identifed with Christ in death and are identified with Him in His resurrection. We are dead to sin, but are also risen with Christ to walk in the newness of life.

Okay, before we get into this fess up, you smiled when I said you were right didn't you!

I know this is gonna sound like I'm some kinda idiot, but, that just really boggles my mind. I've read/heard all those verses 1000+ times or more and I never put it together, that way.

So by saying we are sinners, in a way we are putting a label on ourselves and in our minds, that we no longer carry. I've always felt weird and sacrilegious in a way saying I was a saint, it just seemed self righteous or something, Peter and Paul were saints and well I'm just me, a sinner. I think I shall read my Bible in a new light with this in mind. Thank you brother, I feel rather light hearted after reading this.

[firehill]

Shiloh, somehow you're not hearing me. The church does not save. Jesus saves. John is saved because he repented of all the sins he knows he commits and he gives his life to Jesus and he belongs to Jesus and is a member of the Body of Messiah. Romans 10:9-10.

It is the Church's Job to show John BEFORE becoming a Christ that homosexuality is a sin and to not accept him as a Christian until he comes to that place. A homosexual must be shown from the Scriptures that it is sin and if he refuses to accept the Bible's definition of sin, and repent of it ALL, then he is not ready to turn to Christ.

It is not the churches JOB to show John BEFORE becoming a christian that homosexuality is a sin. Chapter and verse please. I also say this because that is too general of a statement though those who are gifted in teaching have their responsibilites in Christ... Nothing is that simple Shilo and I'd expect you to know that. No, we can too accept one's testimony of salvation though not their conduct. I do agree though that a homosexusl should be shown thier sin from scriptures and that once he 'Understands with heart mind and soul' what the bible says on the matter (IF God has not already shown Himself to John regarding the matter) then and only then if he refuses to repent that we can safley conclude that one has not decided to turn to Christ.

'The truth is never simple.' Which means a WHOLE lot.

The Bible teaches that repentance precedes salvation. Jesus said that he came to call the sinners to repentance. We do not operate from a higher moral standard than Jesus does. No one can profess Christ while living in aberrant sin. I don't care what your liberal Cracker Jack "theology" says. The Bible is very clear on that matter. If a person rejects the Scriptures and the Scripture's definition of sin, they cannot see themselves as sinners or their need for Christ. One cannot be gay AND be a true follower of Christ. It is the Church's job to teach what the says about sin. No one practicing homosexuality can enter the Kingdom of God. They lost, they without Christ and are sliding down a greased pole straight into hell. They need Jesus, they need their sin to be exposed not coddled.

Yes, the bible teaches that repentance precedes salvation. But how well and accurtley does the IC teach the message of repentance? That's the question, it's not about what the bible teaches.

Yes, the bible is clear on the matter of homosexuality but how clear is th IC? I agree that one's rejection of what they are aware of speaks of unrepentence. I also agree that one cannot live in pleasure a gay lifestyle and be a true follower of Christ but I also believe that everyone comes from a diferent walk of life and especialy considering the state of this world including the IC which is a part of it. God is actualy more gracious than you're words show.

[firehill]

So by saying we are sinners, in a way we are putting a label on ourselves and in our minds, that we no longer carry.

Yes!

I've always felt weird and sacrilegious in a way saying I was a saint, it just seemed self righteous or something, Peter and Paul were saints and well I'm just me, a sinner.

Paul was the worst of sinners!!! There is no room for a view of self righteous towards oneself when we are focusing on God and are righteousness in His Son. It's a matter of a renewel of the mind.

Sorry to respond when the post wasn't directed to me.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, the bible teaches that repentance precedes salvation. But how well and accurtley does the IC teach the message of repentance? That's the question, it's not about what the bible teaches.

Yes, the bible is clear on the matter of homosexuality but how clear is th IC? I agree that one's rejection of what they are aware of speaks of unrepentence. I also agree that one cannot live in pleasure a gay lifestyle and be a true follower of Christ but I also believe that everyone comes from a diferent walk of life and especialy considering the state of this world including the IC which is a part of it. God is actualy more gracious than you're words show.

God's grace does not cancel out his holiness. The fact that you have conceded that repentance precedes salvation makes my point. In fact, you are really quite unclear on exactly what you are opposing with respect to my view.

What is the "IC" you are referring to? It would help if you would clarify acronyms and not make me guess at what they mean.

And yes, it IS about what the Bible teaches. The Bible is quite clear on the matter, explicit actually.

[firehill]

Yes, the bible teaches that repentance precedes salvation. But how well and accurtley does the IC teach the message of repentance? That's the question, it's not about what the bible teaches.

Yes, the bible is clear on the matter of homosexuality but how clear is th IC? I agree that one's rejection of what they are aware of speaks of unrepentence. I also agree that one cannot live in pleasure a gay lifestyle and be a true follower of Christ but I also believe that everyone comes from a diferent walk of life and especialy considering the state of this world including the IC which is a part of it. God is actualy more gracious than you're words show.

God's grace does not cancel out his holiness.

True.

The fact that you have conceded that repentance precedes salvation makes my point.

The fact that I conceded that repentance precedes salvation doesn't make all you're arguments but rather a point.

In fact, you are really quite unclear on exactly what you are opposing with respect to my view.

I don't know your whole view though what I've responded to hasd not been unclear.

What is the "IC" you are referring to?

Institutionalized church.

And yes, it IS about what the Bible teaches. The Bible is quite clear on the matter, explicit actually.

Agreed but what the bible teaches and what man teaches and how they teach do not agree.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

The fact that you have conceded that repentance precedes salvation makes my point.

The fact that I conceded that repentance precedes salvation doesn't make all you're arguments but rather a point.

Actually you have conceded to the ONLY point I have been trying to make. Repentance preceding salvation is the ONLY platform I have been working from.

QUOTE

In fact, you are really quite unclear on exactly what you are opposing with respect to my view.

I don't know your whole view though what I've responded to hasd not been unclear.

Perhaps it is clear to you, but I have noticed you have a hard time putting clear thoughts into coherent posts. You are not really that articulate on deeper subjects, especially related to theology.

QUOTE

And yes, it IS about what the Bible teaches. The Bible is quite clear on the matter, explicit actually.

Agreed but what the bible teaches and what man teaches and how they teach do not agree.

Actually my view has been in complete with the Bible and you have already conceded that I my position is correct. So at least for my part, I do not fall into the parameters of the institutionalized church. Several posts back I demonstrated quite clearly what the Bible teaches about the need for repentance and how it is required prior to salvation.

[firehill]

Actually you have conceded to the ONLY point I have been trying to make.

Repentance preceding salvation is the ONLY platform I have been working from.

I've not read the whole thread. At least we're in agrement on the one point. Now expand your view which is more than a platform.

Perhaps it is clear to you, but I have noticed you have a hard time putting clear thoughts into coherent posts. You are not really that articulate on deeper subjects, especially related to theology.

You are correct. My weakness is of expression (which I've posted on before many times) but not of understanding.

Actually my view has been in complete with the Bible and you have already conceded that I my position is correct.

Incorrect. I've agreed with you only that repentence preceeds salvation.

So at least for my part, I do not fall into the parameters of the institutionalized church.

I've not said that you have within this thread.

Several posts back I demonstrated quite clearly what the Bible teaches about the need for repentance and how it is required prior to salvation.

This is your platform or foundation if you will and we're not in disagreement. Where we disagree at thus far here in this thread is where EVERY SINGLE person finds themselves at after repenting in the form of having received the gospel in so many words from the IC. Let me put it this way. If the message (UNlike John the baptists) is not anointed it cannot be received from God.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Actually you have conceded to the ONLY point I have been trying to make.

Repentance preceding salvation is the ONLY platform I have been working from.

I've not read the whole thread. At least we're in agrement on the one point. Now expand your view which is more than a platform.

I have no need to do that.

QUOTE

Actually my view has been in complete with the Bible and you have already conceded that I my position is correct.

Incorrect. I've agreed with you only that repentence preceeds salvation.

Which is the platform upon which everything else I have said, rests. Again, you have basically affirmed the foundation of everything else I have said.

QUOTE

Several posts back I demonstrated quite clearly what the Bible teaches about the need for repentance and how it is required prior to salvation.

This is your platform or foundation if you will and we're not in disagreement. Where we disagree at thus far here in this thread is where EVERY SINGLE person finds themselves at after repenting in the form of having received the gospel in so many words from the IC. Let me put it this way. If the message (UNlike John the baptists) is not anointed it cannot be received from God.

Once again, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. For one thing, I am not talking about institutionalized church, so you are really not on the same page I am. What does this have to with an anointing? I am simply relating what the Bible says about repentance. If there is an "anointing," it is anointed only because it is from the Scriptures. You really to work on your articulation, because it is really unclear what point you are trying to make.

[firehill]

I have no need to do that.

So you say.

Actually my view has been in complete with the Bible and you have already conceded that I my position is correct. Which is the platform upon which everything else I have said, rests. Again, you have basically affirmed the foundation of everything else I have said.

Basicaly I've affirmed the foundation that we are in agreement on. I've not affirmed the rest of the foundation you are building off of. Are you saying that the fact that only repentace (a message given by the anointed or God) leads to salvation (by faith) is your only foundation on which you build?

Once again, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. For one thing, I am not talking about institutionalized church, so you are really not on the same page I am.

Oh, I didn't know that you are anointed and thereby speaking for every professing believer as judge. And no I don't think you are speaking or teaching from an anointing. What I'm saying is that those who seem to have not repented by the observance of their lifestlye (homesexual) alone perhaps didn't really receive the message from God and His anointed and if they had received a message from the IC (surely God's message comes forth somewhere from there) they then might have recived it only in part and not whole.

What does this have to with an anointing? I am simply relating what the Bible says about repentance. If there is an "anointing," it is anointed only because it is from the Scriptures.

Anointing comes from God which His word is not in disagreement with. Apparently we agree too on this point also.

You really to work on your articulation, because it is really unclear what point you are trying to make.

Let me try again. You're correct that repentance leads to true salvation for all. BUT you are not correct about where every person finds themselves after having receivced 'the message' from somewhere (which alot of the time is from the IC) which is where I was speaking from the whole time. You brought up the message that the church sends. Well, the message that the IC and the body of Christ sends are two different messages and result in different outcomes. If we agree here then really what's the argumernt?