"Jesus DID NOT die to give us...

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

the chance to earn our salvation."


What does this statement mean to you?
How do you understand it?
What are some of the implications of this statement?
Do you agree with those implications?

I think we put to much on the salvation issue. The whole point was to bring us back into relationship with God. Jesus said I and the door no man comes to the father but by me.

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

When we get so wrapped up in works of salavation we spend less time communing with God.

[Nitehawk013]

I would argue the opposite. I would say there is not nearly enough study and discussion on the issue of salvation, or the study of Soteriology in general. That is why you have so many people within the Apostolic ranks who cannot agree on any basic points.

You have those who apparently think just believing is all it takes and that anything else (ACTS 2:38, tongues, holiness, etc) is just optional.

You have the other end of the spectrum where everything under the sun is a heaven or hell issue and you are just hoping to be lucky enough to slide into Heavens gates by the skin of your teeth.

Personally, I'd say that the more people understood the Propitiation, Redemption, Sanctification and Justification of the cross the more they would understand that believing is just a small first step and that everything is important. "Holiness" is absolutely important, although I wish people would call the "standards" what they really are: sanctification. They are setting oneself apart form the world of sin. That is what Sanctification is, a setting apart. Both immediately in position (we are set apart from being labeled a sinner at the cross) and progessively as we seperate ourselves and grow closer to God as Paul admonished us to continually work at sanctifying ourselves.

It all matters and it all works together to form athe beautiful result: our salvation. Leaving out any part shows a misunderstanding of the principle.

[jmarkoa]

Thank you Nitehawk013!

Very well said! Your description of standards brings me to new understanding.

How would you then define Holiness?

I myself have always fought against some standards that were taught to me as sins, such as drinking wine. I am beginning to see how I do need to make some changes, not because they are or are not sins, but because giving up some things helps me to grow closer to God.

Mark

[Nitehawk013]

Holiness IMO is an abstract principle. It is related to God who is Holy. Holy means seperate, but not in the way we take it commonly. In relation to God, I think it means seperate as in nothign else properly describes Him. He is unlike anything else in our world. He is th eonly one of an only kind. Unique. He is therefore seperate in that nothing can relate to Him.

Holiness then, is the work of our becoming more and more like Him via His working in us. We cannot make ourselves holy because it can only come form God. So our holiness is from the Lord.

I don't really fight standards. I understand that submitting to my Pastor even on standards that I know are not biblical doesn't hurt anyone. Biblically there is nothing wrong with having a beard or gotee. My Pastor ask that ministers not have facial hair. It doesn't hurt anyone to shave their face. So why cause a stink? It doesn't hurt any woman to not cut her hair or wear a skirt. SO why cause a stink?

It seems childish to want to make a big stink over these things. They don't hurt anyone. They aren't that difficult to follow. Fighting to show how intelligent one is or to prove they are "right" and a standard isn't biblical usually just ends up hurting the unity of a church. The "liberty" just breeds confusion most of the time. There are usually at least a couple younger siants who end up leaving church over the mess. Yeah...it really sounds worth it to prove "the bible doesn't say women should wear a dress'.

Here is something to think on. Whetehr it is lawful or not, the question should be "is it expedient?". Whether or not something is black and white in the book, we should ask ourselves instead, "is it good for me"? Everyone gets so stuck on what is lawful. No one seems to care about what is good for you or for the church in general.

I can drink wine if I want to. It is lawful. The better question however is "is this good for me". If I have a weakness to alcohol...then no I shouldn't. If I am surrounded by new saints or people who may stumble if they see me drinking, then no I shouldn't. Sure, lots of things are lawful for me, but many of them are not expedient.