Crucified with Christ

[NewCreation435]

Galatians 2:20-21 says "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

To be crucified means that something or someone has died. Yet, Paul says he lives because Christ lives in him. The life is now lived by faith in Jesus who loves us and died for us. By being crucified it doesn't mean that he negates the grace of God nor does it mean that righteousness comes through the law. Because if that was the case then Jesus' death would have been in vain.

What does it mean to you to be crucified with Christ? Does it always mean I am surrendering my will or that God's will will always be the opposite of mine? How does this affect our practical daily decisions that we make such as what type of job to apply for, where to live or what to buy? Or does it?

 

[Imalive]

It means that I confess it in faith til I see it, just like w healing.

 

[Lamb]

Galatians 2:20-21 is related to our baptism! In our baptism we are given new life in Christ Every day we should remember our baptism and know that Christ is in us and be assured of his Love and Salvation. Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Luther looks at the part of the verse seeing the words "Christ lives in me" and "gave himself for me". In me and for me are important because it's showing how God loves us so much that HE is the one fulfills the requirement for salvation.

 

[NewCreation435]

Galatians 2:20-21 is related to our baptism! In our baptism we are given new life in Christ Every day we should remember our baptism and know that Christ is in us and be assured of his Love and Salvation. Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Luther looks at the part of the verse seeing the words "Christ lives in me" and "gave himself for me". In me and for me are important because it's showing how God loves us so much that HE is the one fulfills the requirement for salvation.

so for you your equating your baptism with conversion? I was saved in 1983 when I asked Christ into my heart, but it wasn't until 1985 that I was baptized as an adult.

 

[Lamb]

so for you your equating your baptism with conversion? I was saved in 1983 when I asked Christ into my heart, but it wasn't until 1985 that I was baptized as an adult.

Lutherans don't look at moments of conversion like other evangelicals do. Scripture never gives the command to "ask Christ into our hearts" so that is something we do not do and don't see that as conversion since man isn't in control of conversion as it's God's work. Baptism is also God's work. In it, we are buried with Christ, our sins are washed, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins won at the cross. It is God working by His Word through the promises He gives in baptism and not because water does anything although baptism isn't a baptism without water...or God's Word.

So to answer, it isn't about a moment in conversion but God's promises assuring us of what HE does for us in our salvation. "for us" as Luther points out and "in us". Being crucified with Christ doesn't mean we were in charge of our old nature dying because that's God's doing within us. It doesn't mean we can force ourselves to do what needs to be done in order to be what God wants. That's why baptism is the connection to the cross that the Christian needs. The Christian is passive in baptism...receiving what God gives.

 

[Albion]

Baptism does mean something significant to most Christian denominations, not that it's just a gesture that shows we obey or submit or something like that. It marks a person as a child of God and as a member of Christ's church, for example. I think Lamm's comments were along these lines, not that the sacrament of Baptism IS the equivalent of a conversion experience in the way that a Pentecostal Christian would understand that.

 

[NewCreation435]

Lutherans don't look at moments of conversion like other evangelicals do. Scripture never gives the command to "ask Christ into our hearts" so that is something we do not do and don't see that as conversion since man isn't in control of conversion as it's God's work. Baptism is also God's work. In it, we are buried with Christ, our sins are washed, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins won at the cross. It is God working by His Word through the promises He gives in baptism and not because water does anything although baptism isn't a baptism without water...or God's Word.

So to answer, it isn't about a moment in conversion but God's promises assuring us of what HE does for us in our salvation. "for us" as Luther points out and "in us". Being crucified with Christ doesn't mean we were in charge of our old nature dying because that's God's doing within us. It doesn't mean we can force ourselves to do what needs to be done in order to be what God wants. That's why baptism is the connection to the cross that the Christian needs. The Christian is passive in baptism...receiving what God gives.

that is very different from anything I have been taught in the past. I understand that salvation is not something we do on our own. But, the other side of the coin is that it isn't something that is forced on us against our will either. The whole idea of asking Jesus into your heart means that we receive what God wants to give to us. I am not a passive unwilling participant in salvation. As you just wrote when you said "receiving what God gives." The act of receiving is not passive. Nor is taking up your cross and following Him. It is a choice.

 

[Lamb]

that is very different from anything I have been taught in the past. I understand that salvation is not something we do on our own. But, the other side of the coin is that it isn't something that is forced on us against our will either. The whole idea of asking Jesus into your heart means that we receive what God wants to give to us. I am not a passive unwilling participant in salvation. As you just wrote when you said "receiving what God gives." The act of receiving is not passive. Nor is taking up your cross and following Him. It is a choice.

When the shepherd discovers one of his sheep is off the ledge of a cliff and has to use his shepherds hook to rescue him (saving him), the sheep doesn't contribute to his being rescued. The sheep doesn't decide to follow the shepherd. The sheep doesn't even maneuver himself to the hook to be lifted up. It's all the shepherd's doing. The sheep is passive. Just like us. We receive. Our wanting to follow Jesus didn't contribute to our salvation because faith came first. Our continuing to follow the shepherd is only done because we were given faith and the trust was built up by the shepherd, our Father.

 

[NewCreation435]

When the shepherd discovers one of his sheep is off the ledge of a cliff and has to use his shepherds hook to rescue him (saving him), the sheep doesn't contribute to his being rescued. The sheep doesn't decide to follow the shepherd. The sheep doesn't even maneuver himself to the hook to be lifted up. It's all the shepherd's doing. The sheep is passive. Just like us. We receive. Our wanting to follow Jesus didn't contribute to our salvation because faith came first. Our continuing to follow the shepherd is only done because we were given faith and the trust was built up by the shepherd, our Father.

In that case why give us commands to obey at all if I'm just a puppet on strings completely passive like you are describing

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

When the shepherd discovers one of his sheep is off the ledge of a cliff and has to use his shepherds hook to rescue him (saving him), the sheep doesn't contribute to his being rescued. The sheep doesn't decide to follow the shepherd. The sheep doesn't even maneuver himself to the hook to be lifted up. It's all the shepherd's doing. The sheep is passive. Just like us. We receive. Our wanting to follow Jesus didn't contribute to our salvation because faith came first. Our continuing to follow the shepherd is only done because we were given faith and the trust was built up by the shepherd, our Father.

This is a good point as long as we don't equate baptism with being the shepherds hook that saves us.

 

[Imalive]

When the shepherd discovers one of his sheep is off the ledge of a cliff and has to use his shepherds hook to rescue him (saving him), the sheep doesn't contribute to his being rescued. The sheep doesn't decide to follow the shepherd. The sheep doesn't even maneuver himself to the hook to be lifted up. It's all the shepherd's doing. The sheep is passive. Just like us. We receive. Our wanting to follow Jesus didn't contribute to our salvation because faith came first. Our continuing to follow the shepherd is only done because we were given faith and the trust was built up by the shepherd, our Father.

Yes and the lost son came to himself and decided to go back.

 

[Lamb]

Yes and the lost son came to himself and decided to go back.

But he was still the son. He didn't have to decide to become it. The Father made him the son just like our Father makes us His children. When we fall away from faith we can turn around to Him in repentance but we can't make ourselves first be the child.

 

[Lamb]

In that case why give us commands to obey at all if I'm just a puppet on strings completely passive like you are describing

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

I'm curious what you're talking about in reference to obey and being a puppet? I've heard other evangelicals complain about some puppet on a string theory but I don't see Paul complaining anywhere in the bible about it. When people use things such as that to make their case that isn't found in scripture, it's hard to back that case up.

What I do see is that a Father doesn't ask the baby's permission before adopting him. The baby doesn't have to decide to love the Father because the trust is built up by the Father's working in Him.

Too many Jesus is my boyfriend songs have brought about the need to have to say Yes and they use the bride and bridegroom reference. But as a Christian, I'm not the bride but I belong to the one true Church which IS the Bride. Do you see how there is a difference? Just because Rachel said Yes doesn't mean that her Yes made the betrothal because it was her Father that had already agreed to the covenant of marriage. And that's how it was done. The Father was the one who agreed to the marriage. It is upon his yes that the covenant is made.

Now, getting back to where you suggested obey...I'm really confused how that works into what I'm talking about for salvation. Do you really think you are doing something for your salvation? We are given faith by God to believe and we do believe but it's not a work. Or are you talking about our daily living now that we are Christians? Being crucified with Christ we have Him living in us. The Holy Spirit guides us into the works we do and the fruits we bear. That's part of being one with God. Is that a puppet?

 

[Lamb]

This is a good point as long as we don't equate baptism with being the shepherds hook that saves us.

The cross would be the hook but there is no good analogy equivalent to what baptism would be in that picture unless we say an ear tag for the sheep is baptism. And I say that because our baptism is our identity. God marks us as His own just like a sheep might get marked (today with an ear tag...not sure if they branded sheep back then?).

Being crucified with Christ is also about identity. It marks who we are.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In that case why give us commands to obey at all if I'm just a puppet on strings completely passive like you are describing

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

She clearly said we do due to the work of the Shepherd (GOD).

Faith is effectual; she isn't denying that in her statement.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm curious what you're talking about in reference to obey and being a puppet? I've heard other evangelicals complain about some puppet on a string theory but I don't see Paul complaining anywhere in the bible about it. When people use things such as that to make their case that isn't found in scripture, it's hard to back that case up.

What I do see is that a Father doesn't ask the baby's permission before adopting him. The baby doesn't have to decide to love the Father because the trust is built up by the Father's working in Him.

Too many Jesus is my boyfriend songs have brought about the need to have to say Yes and they use the bride and bridegroom reference. But as a Christian, I'm not the bride but I belong to the one true Church which IS the Bride. Do you see how there is a difference? Just because Rachel said Yes doesn't mean that her Yes made the betrothal because it was her Father that had already agreed to the covenant of marriage. And that's how it was done. The Father was the one who agreed to the marriage. It is upon his yes that the covenant is made.

Now, getting back to where you suggested obey...I'm really confused how that works into what I'm talking about for salvation. Do you really think you are doing something for your salvation? We are given faith by God to believe and we do believe but it's not a work. Or are you talking about our daily living now that we are Christians? Being crucified with Christ we have Him living in us. The Holy Spirit guides us into the works we do and the fruits we bear. That's part of being one with God. Is that a puppet?

We do not do for salvation, but due to salvation, or rather, faith in the Word of GOD.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

I'm curious what you're talking about in reference to obey and being a puppet? I've heard other evangelicals complain about some puppet on a string theory but I don't see Paul complaining anywhere in the bible about it. When people use things such as that to make their case that isn't found in scripture, it's hard to back that case up.

What I do see is that a Father doesn't ask the baby's permission before adopting him. The baby doesn't have to decide to love the Father because the trust is built up by the Father's working in Him.

Too many Jesus is my boyfriend songs have brought about the need to have to say Yes and they use the bride and bridegroom reference. But as a Christian, I'm not the bride but I belong to the one true Church which IS the Bride. Do you see how there is a difference? Just because Rachel said Yes doesn't mean that her Yes made the betrothal because it was her Father that had already agreed to the covenant of marriage. And that's how it was done. The Father was the one who agreed to the marriage. It is upon his yes that the covenant is made.

Now, getting back to where you suggested obey...I'm really confused how that works into what I'm talking about for salvation. Do you really think you are doing something for your salvation? We are given faith by God to believe and we do believe but it's not a work. Or are you talking about our daily living now that we are Christians? Being crucified with Christ we have Him living in us. The Holy Spirit guides us into the works we do and the fruits we bear. That's part of being one with God. Is that a puppet?

If Rachel didnt say yes her dad wouldnt have forced her against her will.
She could also have acted like a feminist and say: back off w yo camels! Go give em to drink yourself!
Oh wait that was Rebecca. Rachel had nothing to say. He just fooled em all.
http://thetorah.com/how-is-it-possible-that-jacob-mistakes-leah-for-rachel/

 

[Lamb]

If Rachel didnt say yes her dad wouldnt have forced her against her will.
She could also have acted like a feminist and say: back off w yo camels! Go give em to drink yourself!
Oh wait that was Rebecca. Rachel had nothing to say. He just fooled em all.
http://thetorah.com/how-is-it-possible-that-jacob-mistakes-leah-for-rachel/

If Rachel hadn't said yes she would have broken the covenant that her father already agreed to. Think of Mary. She was already betrothed to Joseph and if she rejected him once she was told she was carrying Jesus then it would have been breaking the covenant. It would have been scandalous.

 

[Imalive]

If Rachel hadn't said yes she would have broken the covenant that her father already agreed to. Think of Mary. She was already betrothed to Joseph and if she rejected him once she was told she was carrying Jesus then it would have been breaking the covenant. It would have been scandalous.

I read that normally they had a say, at least w a rapist. He had to keep her or pay, depending on what she wanted. Rebecca wanted herself. Rachel didnt want her sister to marry her boyfriend, but they were sold by their dad they said. So thats a weird example of the church becoming the bride of Christ. God wanted Jerusalem, but they did not want. There has to be consent.

 

[Imalive]

I think Rebecca is a much better example. The Holy Spirit finds a bride for the Son, looks at her character, asks her and then she agrees. Not saying no is saying yes too.