Open Discussion: The Horton Statement That Nobody Wants To Talk About
Christless Christianity, page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Gerry,
I didn’t get too far with your post before I came across that same old misrepresentation. “you and all who teach lawlessness.” Can you please tell me who is teaching lawlessness? I am not. Certainly, you don’t think the old covenant, the Mosaic law, is superior to the new covenant and the law of Christ do you?
LikeLike
Gerry,
Please point me to the verses in the Scripture that indicate a distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial. Paul said anyone who submits to circumcision is a debtor to keep the whole law. That sounds pretty inclusive. Paul said it was the ministration of death “written and engraven in stones” that was being eclipsed by the ministry of righteousness [the gospel]. Was it not the 10 commandments, the words of the covenant that were written on tables of stone. I don’t think that is talking about civil or ceremonial law.
LikeLike
Right, because those who taught circumcision said that one is saved by the ritual, but then must keep the law to stay saved–however, it was a dumbed-down version of the law–not a pick and choose as tradition taught. Also, Paul’s context is justification–not sanctification. He begins to address sanctification in the second part of Galatians–the part of Galatians NCT hacks never talk about: “you were running [oh my, a verb!!!] well, who cut in on you?”[paraphrase].
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
You just can’t deal with a real passage of Scripture can you? I don’t really care what NC does, whatever NC is. We are talking about truth, not your personal witch hunt. Are you afraid if you stop trashing everyone else, you might have to look at yourself for a change?
LikeLike
Randy,
Not everybody sees it you way. Many have written here and said something like this to me: “I didn’t know what the heck was going on with what our elders were teaching until I stumbled upon your blog.” That’s why I’m here Randy–get over it.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Gerry,
You wrote:
“Secondly, in your response to my comments wherein I questioned your understanding of being under the law as a new testament believer, the comment you made today, you say that the context of Gal 4 had no bearing in what I had said was errouneous about your beliefs. This is totally false, it has everything to do with your false teaching about NT believers not being under the Law, born under the Law, just like everyone else is, until they come under grace by believeing in Christ alone for salvation.”
You didn’t question me about being under the law as a New Covenant believer. You asked me if you understood me correctly that I believed Christ was under the law and I said yes. All I needed to quote for that answer was Gal 4;4a. If you had asked me a further question, I would have been most happy to explain my views in that context. Instead, you waited until you thought I wasn’t coming back [indicated by the fact that you didn’t address me but talked about my comments] to make your slanderous remarks. Glad you finally grew a pair and decided to confront me personally.
LikeLike
Gerry,
When you become God, you will have a right to judge my motives for what I do. Until then, keep it to yourself. Do I want the truth to prevail? You bet. But as far as winning an argument against someone who is as ill equipped as Paul wouldn’t be much of a victory would it.
LikeLike
Randy,
I am well enough equipped that people who have been trying to figure out what is being taught in their church for two years finally get it when they find this blog. Coincidence? I doubt it.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Gerry,
You need to read Bunyan again. I think you will be surprised about what you find. No, I did not discover on Paul’s page that Zens was the first to use the term. In fact, when he used the term, I don’t think he was using it in the commonly accepted sense of the term today. I think he meant it merely as a need to work out a new covenant theology as opposed to the covenant theology that existed at the time. I was getting ready to present a paper entitled “The Cross, the heart of NCT” and in the process decided to discuss with John Reisinger, Gary Long and others what we should call our position and suggested to them we should call it NCT. At that time, I had not read Jon’s statement. That isn’t pride, it is just history. I can’t change it. If it strikes you as pride, I am willing to take it off my page. I don’t really care who gets credit for it. What I do care about is being falsely accused by people like you who don’t know what they are talking about.
LikeLike
Paul,
You spew the crap you spew with such flamboyance that those who don’t actually read the quotes you are claiming to expose, might be stupid enough to believe you are telling them the truth. Over and over again you have said a statement was saying something that simply wasn’t there. If you want to stand against error, go for it, but first make sure it is error and then make sure you are reading it rightly and not reading into it. You still haven’t handled one passage of Scripture that bears on our discussion. That is where the rubber meets the road.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
“by the way, I have become rather fond of green eggs and ham. Makes me really happy to be free from the law.”
I am happy to be free to obey the “perfect law of liberty.” Sorry that you see the perfect law of liberty as bondage Randy.
LikeLike
Gerry ,
Are you actually so dense that you can’t understand that the law of God existed before the 10 commandments and continues to exist after that covenant has passed away? Paul [The Apostle] states “The Law Entered. . .until the seed should come to whom the promises were made.” AS A COVENANT, it began and AS A COVENANT, it came to an end. That really isn’t a tough concept. That doesn’t mean God’s law came into existence or came to an end. The Scripture clearly states that the 10 Commandments were the” WORDS OF THE COVENANT.” The New Testament Scriptures clearly teach that the OLD Covenant written on tables of stone, has been eclipsed by the ministry of righteousness, the gospel of the New Covenant. Try to deal with those facts and we will talk. If you want to continue to lie about me and others saying we are teaching lawlessness, go right ahead, but just know that every time you repeat that pernicious lie you are dishonoring the God you profess to serve. If you ca,re about truth, let’s continue our discussion. If you want to keep on puking up the party line, I have much better things to do with my time.
And BTW, I am not indifferent to those who abuse their bodies with food. I don’t think an obese man should ever be a pastor and those who decide to make food their god should repent and find a good life-style diet.
LikeLike
Paul,
I think you are a complete jerk. Lighten up and recognize humor once in a while. I don’t see the perfect law of liberty as bondage. The law of the old covenant was a yoke of bondage.
LikeLike