if im understanding you correctly i have to so disagree!! and strongly. we dont take some bible verses and say we have died to sin!! we get the whole thought of the bible and the thought behind those verses and the verses that were left out, like this one:

that doesnt mean stating a fact, "Jesus was crucified for you", but "getting into it", going into detail about what Jesus suffered and how He responded. that shows us our lack!!

here is another one with the same points mentioned above:



my personal observation is that whether a person believes in that or not is more evident in their behavior, their fruit, than what their mouth says or claims to believe.

Yes, I expect we all agree that Christ's blood, symbolicly charged as it is, is personified in his person. He pleads his own risen self for us, presenting his scared hands. That is I think the end of it, as I've heard nothing more substantial than that in my reading of our leading, conservative scholars.

Wasn't meaning a complete match between Jehovah and all those pieces of stone and other things: simply that sacrifice was understood by heathen religions as gods being appeased by man...

God's holy wrath is different to heathen gods: he acts graceously & mercifully, giving this whole world his only begotten Son as the atoning sacrifice for all men, to reconcile us to himself by Christ's death. God died for us, and his wrath against sin but not sinners doesn't change that.

How do you understand God's wrath against sin, or aren't you quite sure?

Yes, I agree, Teresa, that surrendering to Christ is the response God seeks from us, having studied his Gospel and the Bible story altogether, too. Intellectual assent and "magic" pronouncements are off the menu!

Obedience to God is usually a visible thing, indeed, but preaching and teaching and sharing the truth of dying sin by faith in Christ's death supports that visible witness, doens't it?

Where did you think I was living off one verse of the Bible and a phrase here and there? I agree with all your texts, there, but was myself only dealing with our "old man" crucified in Christ, so we can be reborn of the Spirit, not so?

If she said somewhere that she didn't want the SOP used here, then I missed that, and apologize. Otherwise, quoting from the SOP is routine in this forum -- nearly everybody does it -- so I don't know why you would single me out.



I think my previous comment applies. You wrote:



to which I applied:



I repeat this question.



I didn't discuss Romans 6:4. You seem to be asserting that our understanding of Romans 5 isn't important to our understanding of Romans 3, 6, or 7. I don't see how that's possible. Is this really your position?



You haven't done what I asked. I don't think what you're saying is clear at all. So I'll just set out what I believe.

I believe that Christ revealed the love and character of the Father, above all, on the cross. I believe that the Holy Spirit uses this revelation of Christ to draw us to God, and that if we do not resist this drawing that we will be led to foot of the cross in repentance for our sins, and the Holy Spirit creates a new life in our soul. The law is written in our hearts and mind, meaning that we have been drawn into harmony with God and the principles of His government. Every thought is brought into captivity to Christ, meaning that we are dead to sin. Along with Christ we say, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God."



I don't perceive their to be a difference between our dying to sin and our repenting of sin and accepting Christ. I've said quite a lot about that. To my mind, I have been dealing with this subject.

As far as I know, you haven't said what Christ's dying to sin means, despite my having asked you this question many times. I've said what I think it means, which is that He said no to temptation in all its forms, most clearly seen on the cross.



I believe the penalty for sin is death.



I think you're idea doesn't make any sense. It unnecessarily redundant.



If the glory of God, which is His character, destroys the wicked, and this is what is entailed in their receiving the results of their own choice, how can it possibly make sense to say that their punishment is something in addition to this? Once they've been destroyed, that's the end of the story.



Just what DA 764 says.



Yes we are. There wouldn't have been any. There would have been no need for any. DA 762, which I've quoted repeatedly, explains this. The condition for Lucifer's being pardon is exactly what she says it was; repentance and submission.

This isn't something unique to him, but is the same condition for us. The difference between Lucifer and ourselves is that he understood the character and love of God, while man did not. This is explained in DA 762. For convenience, I'll requote it:



What post? You keep referring to things without providing a post #. I'm asking for the references, but you don't give them. If you'll provide them, I'll be glad to comment.

Why would He have to plead anything to the Father? Does the Father need to be convinced of something? Is His memory faulty? I don't see how it could possibly make sense to take this literally.

you mean that God hates sin, hates it with a passion? that He hates all the pain and suffering we cause each other? that He hates, for one thing among many others, those babies dying every few minutes of every day from slow, painful starvation? that every fiber in His Being wants to end it, but His people arent ready for Him to come?

and so Jesus says, wait, Father........

my point is that we can not do that. we can not deal with the "old man" dying without presenting the story of Christ first, otherwise who knows what the "old man" is or that it needs to die?

Your answer was anything and everything but an explanation of a difference with the penal substitution teaching held by our church behind its statement of belief. Accepting a loose, voted statement of belief is nothing without its supplied detail. On this specific belief you differ in the detail, and you didn't offer anything.

The detail in the chapter is recognised as church teaching, as the publication of beliefs was designed to be from the start.

Therefore, you didn't answer any of my questions; however, that topic is the heart of your own thread, so I'll it up with you there.

This brings up an interesting point. There's a book called "The Faith of Jesus" by Richard B. Hayes (which investigates how "tou pistou iesou" should be understood, whether "faith of Jesus" -- i.e. "Jesus' faith", or "faith in Jesus") where the author presents the point of view that the essential thing in Christian faith to Paul, and the other writers, was not certain theological points (the way Paul is usually discussed) but the story of Christ (the "faith of Jesus").