Ted Haggardbs bspiritual restorationb

[xman3]

OK MCM, I have to admit, I'm with jbk on this one. What about that righteousness question. I have always been of the notion, and I believe it to be based on scripture, that we are as righteous as we will ever be (and always be in most cases) when we become Christians. I must admit, I find that set of verses in James to kind of throw a wrench in some of the things I've been taught, but it doesn't convince me that anything more is required for our righteosness.

To me, balance of scripture indicates we are made righteous upon salvation and that that righteousness is imparted to us at that moment and is as much an aspect of our nature as unrighteousness was previously. That doesn't translate to living what we call righteously, but as for our state before God, we remain righteous despite ourselves. That's kind of my understanding in a nutshell. Any comments?

[xman3]

I must clarify that by righteousness, I mean that we are Christians and have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, and are in covenant with God through our faith in Jesus, washed in the blood so to speak, and considered to be, by nature, completely righteouss or free from sin and its consequences in an eternal sense, and in the sense of relating to a perfect and Holy God. This, despite our many failings in the flesh, both known and unknown.

[john_r_jones]

X,you have hit upon the essence of Luther's dilemma with the church and the Gospel.

Jonesee

[mcmstaff78]

Jonathan, I believe there is great confusion (especially since Luther) between "righteous" and "forgiven". We gone over this ground before, but there is no scriptural distinction between God "declaring" one righteous and one becoming experientially righteous. The danger in the West has been that too often the former is made dependent upon the latter (legalism) or the latter is ignored altogether in favor of the former (anti-nomianism).

Just to be clear, by "positional" I mean the concept that one enjoys some benefit by some fiat or "declaration" of God. I don't buy into Luther's view of "justification by faith" - certainly not as the whole story of what it means to be a Christian.

Christian faith, life, redemption, salvation, is not about merely being "declared" righteous so that one might escape the just deserts of one's sins. It is about becoming like God by His Grace. This is a real experience and is a process of repentance, purification, illumination and glorification.

Quite honestly, folks can prattle on all they want regarding being "righteous in Christ" and claim all sorts of benefits because of it. But the one benefit of relationship with God is to be drawn ever deeper into God, to be healed of the fallen human passions and to become Christlike, not in word only "but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18). It really is unsupportable that the Apostle James is speaking of anything other than the prayers of a man who has become, through the Grace of God, experientially righteous, in deed and in truth. A truly righteous man denies he is such, recognizing the infinite distance he is from God's perfection and with profound awareness of his own sinfulness. His life to those outside of himself, however, shines like a sun, illuminated with the Grace and Glory of God. He is not simply "positionally" righteous, but his life exhibits the love and grace of Christ in all that he does.

Quite honestly, those are the only prayers I've ever found to be "effectual" and "fervent", availing much - i.e. having real power and authority. Everything else seems little more than tilting at windmills and delusions of grandeur.

Forgive me, a sinner!

[firstgarden]

Here's a question. And definitely not a loaded one:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all righteousness."

Here's how one wise man posed it:

How much righteousness are we cleansed from?

ALL.

How much UNrighteousness does that leave?

NONE.

As I understand it, we are in need of continual washings, brothers.

Experientially? Positionally? I'm sure that the distinctions are important.

Another wise man (Chuck Smith) said, "Just live in such a way so that you don't have to worry about the difficult questions... Besides, who would want to live under a question mark?"

Not to make light of the questions, of course. They are important as part of the process of examining ourselves to see if we are in the faith.

Personally, I have found no conflict with James' epistle. It was never salvation plus works. It's more a matter of genuineness; that of roots and fruits. Saving faith naturally results in works, as surely as a mother gives birth to a child. True faith is impregnated with works. It is a sign of Life. His Life in us. And that is the beauty of it.

Your thoughts, brothers?

(I'm new here. If there's any sisters here, forgive me. Not leaving you out at all).

(Message edited by firstgarden on September 01, 2007)

(Message edited by firstgarden on September 01, 2007)

[mcmstaff78]

Question: What "all" does "all" entail? Does it entail "all" that we confess? Does it entail "all" even if we don't confess? Does it entail "all" past, present and future from the moment we confess (thus negating the need to ever confess our sins again)?

See "all" isn't quite so simple as simplistic preachers make it out to be.

[firstgarden]

It's not that complicated, unless one makes it so.

I was refering to true believers here.

All means all.

A common sense application of the passage would imply an ongoing process. Wouldn't it?

It is neither esoteric, gnostic, antinomian, legal, Roman or hermeneutically challenged.

A child could understand it.
A better question might be asked:

How sincere is the heart of the child?

All blessings. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

(Message edited by firstgarden on September 01, 2007)

[jbkrems]

mcmstaff: Let me share a bit of what I believe. This is just "thus saith Jonathan," and does not necessarily represent the views of my pastor or church, etc. I believe that when one becomes a Christian, in that he is born again, because he has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in accordance with Romans 10, then two things are present. First, God has declared that person righteous because of the person's decision to place saving faith in the work of Christ on the cross. But second, that person now has a responsibility in spiritual formation to "walk out salvation with fear and trembling." One IS declared righteous, but still --- "you reap what you sow." In other words, just because you are declared righteous by God because of your faith, does not mean you automatically can "escape the just deserts of one's sins." I completely agree, mcmstaff, that the Christian life is about becoming conformed to the image of the Son. I agree it is a REAL process, just as you describe it, too, in that paragraph. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Where I disagree, mcmstaff, is in the next paragraph where you say "the truly righteous man denies that he is one." I do not believe the Scriptures teach that. I believe the Bible teaches us to be HONEST and people of INTEGRITY. To deny reality concerning one's status with God is DISHONEST and LACKS INTEGRITY. I do agree with what you say after that, that your life should exhibit God's love and grace, etc.

Firstgarden, I am a bit confused. We are not cleansed from righteousness, but un-righteousness. Could you clarify your questions please - ???

[mcmstaff78]

It's not "dishonest", it's a matter of perspective. It's about recognize where you truly are in the pilgrimage, not presumptuously boasting about who you are in Christ.

[verduin]

I know I don't post very often but I had a few minutes this afternoon and just couldn't help myself....

From one of my all time favorite books (can you tell from my username?), The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, I love Leonard Verduin's unique and brilliant prose (imho):

“Let us take for example that very central doctrine of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification by faith and its bearing on the place of good works in the scheme of salvation. In his haste to establish the doctrine of justification by faith rather than by works Luther down-graded good works; the only place he had left for good works was at the very end, as a sort of postscript or appendage, something that needed attention after salvation was an accomplished fact. We meet in Luther, to put it theologically, a very heavy emphasis on the forensic aspect of salvation and a correspondingly light emphasis on the moral aspect. Luther was primarily interested in pardon, rather than in renewal. His theology was a theology that addresses itself to the problem of guilt, rather than to the problem of pollution. There is an imbalance in this theology between what God does for man and what He does in man. It was this imbalance that caused Luther to collide with the Epistle of James.

The people of the Second Front [Anabaptists] showed from the very first a critical attitude toward Luther’s disparagement of good works. They did not go along with his one-sidedly forensic theology. They complained that “Luther throws works without faith so far to one side that all he has left is a faith without works.” They suggested that Luther’s sola fide was heresy – if taken, as it was taken by some, to mean faith unaccompanied.” 1

“Robert Friedmann has said that “the main line of Protestant theology is a onesided interpretation of the Pauline teaching of justification by faith; although including this doctrine in its foundation, sixteenth-century Anabaptism shows definitely a different orientation.” With the Reformers there is indeed an imbalance between the forensic and the moral, between salvation as pardon and salvation as renewal. Against this imbalance the Stepchildren [Anabaptists] braced themselves from the very first; and it was this different orientation that made them feel less than happy in the parade headed by Luther. This difference between the two parties came to expression very clearly in the doctrine of baptism. For the Reformers, baptism speaks principally of pardon; for their Stepchildren, it speaks as eloquently of renewal. Although there was nothing being said that the Reformers needed as badly to hear, they stopped their ears, as it were. Fortunately for us the old hymn has been written: “Be of sin the double cure, save from wrath and make me pure.” In this hymn the imbalance of the Reformers has been overcome (A second hymn in which the imbalance of the Reformers is surmounted is that hymn in which it is said that “He breaks the power of cancelled sin…!” Here also is a link forged between pardon and renewal. [significantly, these hymns do not emanate from the mainline stream of the continental Reformation]).” 2

BTW, it is my understanding that Verduin was a committed Calvinist who became familiar with and began to admire the Anabaptists while translating the works of Menno Simons.

Blessings to all.

aka Moose

1 pg. 12
2 pg. 217-218

[firstgarden]

jbkrems - I'm sorry. My bad. And too late to edit at this point of time. I meant unrighteousness. But you knew that, didn't ya? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font> Hi all, Catching up

In all fairness, it the discussion, it should be noted that with MCM 78, when referring to grace; it is in the context of the grace of the Eastern Orthodox church, in particular the Constantinople
church that oversee the USA Church.
This is way in an earlier post # 250, he mentioned early Christians confessing their faults and sins to one another, and the priest then making a prayer for forgiveness.

I thought we were to be priests and kings before our Lord,as it says in NT.

He will correct me, if I got that wrong, no doubt.}

[jbkrems]

mcmstaff: You said, "...not presumptuously boasting about who you are in Christ." Well, the Scriptures teach in Jer. 9:23-24, "Thus says the Lord, 'Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,' declares the Lord." So boasting about our identity of Christ is approved in the Word.

Firstgarden: Cool, yeah, I thought you meant that, and I agree with your post, amended.

Copper: Hey, how are you? Yes, we are all to be priests and kings before the Lord, AMEN!

[xman3]

A lot is wrapped up in faith and confession in my view. JBK comes from a text book WoF perspective, as a wise man said. He can't confess or admit he is a sinner, because he believes he WAS a sinner and WAS saved by grace. It would be a lie in his mind, and all of those who believe thusly. Perfectly understandable, whether we agree or not.

My view is that although that is an aspect of faith, it is only part. The sins one commits, although they do not make one unrighteous in that prespective, do have an effect on their faith. Scripture tells us that IF our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before the Lord.

Here is the dilemna. Confess your righteousness all you want, but it is a faithless confession if ones heart is not right. This is new testament also, not old. Living righteously has an essential place, even in the faith camp, in it's right place, but that part is seriously under taught and under emphasised.

I think it's more than semantics, but mostly because too many folks are trying to confess their way out of any number of situations, but are faithlessly confessing away because their heart is not right, and they know it. Some call this unrighteousness. Maybe that's semantics, but what really matters is how does this affect us in real life.

Maybe they're "positionally" righteous, but what good is it doing them in this life. I think it actually hinders them in dealing with things, because there is this inherent fear that acknowledging weakness and real sin would be contrary to their confession of what they believe is REALLY true, despite how it looks. Problem is the sin and problems don't go away until one humbles themselves and deals with them.

I'm speaking all of this from the WoF perspective remember. I mean, from their perspective, rather than claiming it as my own. We know I am a 50-50 WoF guy myself anyway, but I'm interested in finding out why this stuff isn't working and "fixing" it. Starting with me of course. I'm beginning to wonder if some of it isn't working simply because it's a bunch of baloney.

JBK,I like your answer on boasting in the Lord. Putting it in proper practice is not always so easy though. Seems like a lot of what people think is boasting in the Lord is boasting in themselves.

[jbkrems]

Xman3: Good post. I agree that living a righteous life is under taught and under emphasized in the faith movement. Thank God my church does teach we need to live righteously, so we can be that bold witness to the world.

Yes, faithlessly confessing away because your heart is not right IS unrighteousness. It IS hypocrisy. Yes, problems don't go away until one humbles himself and deals with them.

[mcmstaff78]

Copper, first of all everything I write, I strive to right from the perspective of the Orthodox teaching, so anything to which I refer it would be in that context just as anything to which you refer would be in the context of your own faith tradition.

Second, there is no one Patriarchate that "oversees" the Church in America. Due to the unfortunate tragedy of the Bolshevik Revolution, the various ethnic congregations which, at the time, were hierarchically connected to the Russian Patriarchate sought to have bishops come from their home countries once Russian became communist. So we have numerous patriarchs who provide "oversight" to various groups within the US. I happen to belong to the one Orthodox group that is self-ruling (autocephalous), the Orthodox Church in America.

Third, "Priest" in English is the short handed version of the Greek "presbyter", which entered late Latin as "presbyter" and evolved through the Old English "prEost", to middle English "preist" and, ultimately, modern English "priest". The use of the term for the OT Hebrew "kohane" (in the LXX "hiereus") is, it seems, more of convenience that one to one translation. While in English the two concepts use the same word, they really are different.

As for the "kings and priests" reference, isn't that the song of the martyrs in heaven? We could discuss the concept of the "royal priesthood" which the Apostle Peter writes of, but that pretty much takes us far off topic.

The point is, whose prayers are effectual that the Apostle James is speaking of? Are these just any Christian's prayers? If so, why does he not simply say "your prayers" or "the prayers of the brethren"? Also, no one has dealt with the fact that it is James who writes that "faith without works is dead" and "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only". The issue really isn't what one believes about being "righteous", but what did the Apostle mean. It's pretty clear, I think, that the Apostle meant the prayers of one experientially, really, righteous.

Jonathan, you again turn the Scriptures upside down. I pray one day you learn the meaning of humility.

[jbkrems]

mcmstaff: I'd like to respond to some of your concerns in the last paragraph above the one that begins with my name.

You asked, "If so, why does James not simply say 'your prayers' or 'the prayers of the brethern?'" The reason why is that not every "Christian" is righteous before God, because they have not necessarily fully repented of their sins. Repentance is a continual life-long process. If we do not stay repentant before God, then we lose our righteousness with God, even though we are declared righteous, because we are not living righteous. Further, James writes in the next verse, in James 5:17-18, "Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for 3 years and 6 months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit." Thus, James gives this illustration of Elijah as someone who was righteous before God, and whose prayers were effective because they were answered. So, I believe the answer to your question, "What did the Apostle mean?" is found in a character study of the life of Elijah.

[mcmstaff78]

Jonathan, you make my point. The person James is referring to is the one who is experientially righteous. He is not just "confessing" his righteousness, he's not simply "declared" righteous, he is, by the experiencing the Grace of God, actually living a righteous life and so his prayers are powerful and effective. This is not true of everyone who professes the name of Christ or to be a Christian.

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font> Hi 78,

Oh so you are following the Russian Orthordox faith, then, I did not know that and others who read may not know that either. It is out a view of candid discussion that I asked that. Although I don't know ,if was worth it !http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gifTake it easy !

So you are subject to your local parish priest in your religion?

Was the Russian church part of the break in th 11 century ? Does you church think that they and you are a continuation of the original Catholic church ?}
Sorry if these questions bother you, I think that they are fair.

[jbkrems]

mcmstaff: I think we agree on that point, then.

[mcmstaff78]

Miracles never cease! ;-)