And you “respect” Zig Ziglar because…?

Sure. Just checking if that’s another valid way to express Jeff’s clarification.

Of course the word “get” has several meanings in English, and I have made word-play on that. this is blogging after all and not a dissertation for my Ph.D. in theology.
______________________________

Ortho-dj –

Yup. It’s actually necessary.

Do y’all mean the difference between receiving and retrieving?

We “get” them in the passive, receiving sense, but we don’t “get” them in the active, retrieving sense?

I would agree with your clarification; there are other things which might rightly be included there — like our adoption as sons, the propitation before God, the new birth. It was an omission by short-cut and not a systematic omission. The point is that you aren’t the one doing the getting — you are the one who is gotten, and God is the one who does the getting.

I wonder if you couldn’t argue that they are, in one sense, one and the same.

That is, elimination of sin isn’t enough to gain entrance into God’s presence. Perfect righteousness is.
So we’re not really free of sin, until the sin has been eliminated (the cross) AND replaced (the resurrection.

Just a thought.

The Gospel is not how you “get” anything. It is how you are therefore gotten out of sin.

Frank, is it not right to say that getting “gotten out of sin” is only half of what is achieved at the cross and preached in the gospel? In my understanding, Christ’s death gets us “out of sin” by substitutionary atonement, and His perfect life then gets us “into righteousness” by imputation of His perfect obedience.

Just as a tiny comment, I can reasonably imagine someone who would take the death penalty. Someone who was advanced in years and wanted to transfer quite of bit of wealth to his family and was at risk of losing his fortune. In this case, the motivation would probably be to die so that his family would be able to pay for college, etc. If someone were to take such an offer (the option of death) wouldn’t it be assisted suicide? Or wouldn’t it at least be construed as selling parts (or all) of your body to the state for a sum of money and assets that are, by law, owed to the class of harmed?

Comment as to content:

A la Psalm 115, the dead cannot sing praises, but we (those in Christ – theological position taken) will from this time forth and forever more praise him. Why, because death does not mean death. Paul says it is gain to die. He is not referring to death death. But to the particular first death, perhaps. His mind is conscious of “from this time forth and forever more.” Otherwise, dying would not be gain. The equivocation potential is huge. Nevertheless, if what we believe is true, then bring it. I wish my faith were thoroughly systemic. I would prefer to play at the park with my children today.