What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??

[shturt678s]

If any attribution of anything results in dishonestly saying we 'have' [present tense] no sin such declarations would seem little more than a present fantasy and a fib against the facts of scripture to boot.

When did I say we have no sin from our view, ie, I stated repeatedly from heaven's view my friend.

Thank you, ie, appreciate your feedback, old Jack

btw I'm even a worse sinner than you from our view, ie, nothing about me self-righteous.

 

[squint]

When did I say we have no sin from our view, ie, I stated repeatedly from heaven's view my friend.

So heaven has a fantasy about our present condition as well?

 

[shturt678s]

So heaven has a fantasy about our present condition as well?

Christ's bloody sacrifice not much of a fantasy my friend, ie, you didn't directly state this, but it's what its about.

Thank you again,

Old Jack

 

[GenemZ]

So heaven has a fantasy about our present condition as well?

Heaven (God's perspective) sees your cause for sin (your flesh) as having been crucified with Christ. That is why our sins can never condemn us. The problem that sin causes for the believer is that the Holy Spirit can not be one with us in our experience when we fall into sin. Its the cutting us off from the filling of the Spirit that concerns God.

So, when we sin? And, realize we have, and name it to God. God forgives us for having gotten off course with Him. He never condemns us fort our sins. That condemnation was assumed by Christ on the Cross.

Some assume that since our sins have been paid for by Christ bearing the penalty for our sins? (He was forsaken, not us, as he bore being forsaken of God for our sins on the Cross). Some believe since there is no no condemnation? That we have nothing to do to please God.

God freed us from the condemnation so that God could have us freely walk with Him in the Spirit. Its when we now sin that it cuts us off from God's fellowship, discontinuing our walking together.

God quickly forgives our sins as soon as we will admit we sinned (1 John 1:9) ... In doing so? We have agreed with each other, that such an act is is sin, and we are able to begin walking together in the filling of the Spirit once more!

Amos 3:3

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

​

When we now sin, we confess that sin to God (1 John 1:9).. and once a believer does? he stands in agreement with God on what is sin. Two are then agreed! Commence walking together..


That is why our sins are still an issue, but no longer able to be any cause for our condemnation. Its no longer a legal matter, but a matter of relationship as in a family matter.

 

[squint]

Heaven (God's perspective) sees your cause for sin (your flesh) as having been crucified with Christ.

The conclusion of the scripture [inclusive of law] seems exceptionally clear to me:

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

There is no reason to discount either statement of fact. Not making that same conclusion with regards to being concluded under sin would be lying against both fact and scripture statement of such a fact in favor of discounting that and only taking the second portion as fact.

Doesn't compute nor produce a truthful statement.

That is why our sins can never condemn us.

Doesn't mean sins won't be judged either. The notion that is promoted with many is that by (whatever measure is used, justification, grace, forgiveness, repentance, etc) they conclude that it is 'just-as-if-I've-never sinned' and that is simply not a truthful conclusion.

The problem that sin causes for the believer is that the Holy Spirit can not be one with us in our experience when we fall into sin. Its the cutting us off from the filling of the Spirit that concerns God.

There is no understanding that can honestly make us conclude we 'have' (present tense) no sin. The instant we make that conclusion we are not truthful/honest to the measure of 1 John 1:8 and therefore lying and not in TRUTH.

So, when we sin? And, realize we have, and name it to God. God forgives us for having gotten off course with Him. He never condemns us fort our sins. That condemnation was assumed by Christ on the Cross.

Which equation means sin without judgment. I find that to be a rather hollow conclusion, particular measured with the fact that we do reap what we sow regardless of our begging to God after the fact. To say otherwise is to equate sin without consequences, which is where many end up landing.

Some assume that since our sins have been paid for by Christ bearing the penalty for our sins? (He was forsaken, not us, as he bore being forsaken of God for our sins on the Cross). Some believe since there is no no condemnation? That we have nothing to do to please God.

Jesus was pretty clear that the thought of sin is sin, even if not externalized, that it is evil and that it is defiling. What would you propose to avoid that fact set? And secondly, why would we say otherwise if those fact sets are facts?

I find little use for lying or hypocrisy about these matters as there is even deeper depths of 'issues' that we are also clearly warned of, as in being turned into a lying hypocrite.

It might seem that honesty is the forthright approach, first and foremost.

God freed us from the condemnation so that God could have us freely walk with Him in the Spirit. Its when we now sin that it cuts us off from God's fellowship, discontinuing our walking together.

Sin without consequences or judgment is not a presentation of scripture that I'm aware of. There is an avalanche of scripture making the exact opposite conclusion.

God quickly forgives our sins as soon as we will admit we sinned (1 John 1:9) ... In doing so? We have agreed with each other, that such an act is is sin, and we are able to begin walking together in the filling of the Spirit once more!

That still does not equate to sin without consequence or sin without judgment.

That is why our sins are still an issue,

Indeed it would seem so. The box canyon on these matters is purposefully designed to instill close examinations of the facts.

The same man (Paul) who said sin not also claimed to be the chief of sinners after salvation, so again, there is a purposefully set dichotomy in play.

but no longer able to be any cause for our condemnation. Its no longer a legal matter, but a matter of relationship as in a family matter.

That conclusion would not appear sufficient to run the gauntlet of understandings either:

1 John 3:
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

I fully accept the conclusion of scripture and the correct and rightful condemnation of sin by either law or grace, just as Paul showed us as how Jesus Measures, here for example:

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That conclusion is the conclusion of Jesus regarding sin in the flesh. There are no excuses available to dodge that quite rightful conclusion of condemnation to sin. We certainly aren't going to be sliding into home plate laden with same attached to us and claiming otherwise when His positional statement is already on record.

There is no use lying about having sin. About the fact that evil thoughts being evil and defiling us. About sin being condemned. About sin having consequences.

These are Rock Solid scriptural facts. No 'truthful' dodging is available. Falling headlong into being made into a lying hypocrite is NOT a credible solution.

s

 

[squint]

Christ's bloody sacrifice not much of a fantasy my friend, ie, you didn't directly state this, but it's what its about.

Thank you again,

Old Jack

It may seem of more import to be truthful about having sin.

The sacrifice was not so we could kid ourselves through some fantasy Jack.

 

[GenemZ]

The conclusion of the scripture [inclusive of law] seems exceptionally clear to me:

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

There is no reason to discount either statement of fact. Not making that same conclusion with regards to being concluded under sin would be lying against both fact and scripture statement of such a fact in favor of discounting that and only taking the second portion as fact.

What are you talking about?



I said the following:

Originally Posted by genez

Heaven (God's perspective) sees your cause for sin (your flesh) as having been crucified with Christ.​

Did you not know? Paul plainly states....

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now
live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.


Romans 6:6

knowing this, that our old man was crucified with
Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that
we should no longer be slaves of sin.
​

That is so hard to grasp for you?

If I did not know any better.. I would swear that you feel its your duty to obfuscate and to suppress truth. Instead.. I will just chalk it up as a bad case of presumptuous dogmatism. I ask you. Are you determined to obscure what is to be plainly seen by anyone willing to read (and believe) what the Word holds out for us to take?

May God have mercy.

 

[squint]

What are you talking about?

About scripture concluding the fact that all are under sin.

I said the following:
Did you not know? Paul plainly states....

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now
live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.


Romans 6:6

knowing this, that our old man was crucified with
Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that
we should no longer be slaves of sin.
​

That is so hard to grasp for you?

Not to the extent of claiming I have no sin. I would consider that a lie on any basis.

If I did not know any better.. I would swear that you feel its your duty to obfuscate and to suppress truth.

You think it is a lie to say we are sinners or have sin? Is that what passes as truth suppression?

Thought the facts were laid out sufficiently to arrive at an honest conclusion.

Obfuscate this and get back to me if you want, and tell me why any of us would come to any different conclusion?

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

s

 

[shturt678s]

It may seem of more import to be truthful about having sin.

The sacrifice was not so we could kid ourselves through some fantasy Jack.

I wouldn't consider, again, Rom.3:24-26, ie, v.25 any fantasy my friend, "cover of the mercy seat through faith in His blood,..."

An ontological reality,

Old Jack

 

[squint]

I wouldn't consider, again, Rom.3:24-26, ie, v.25 any fantasy my friend, "cover of the mercy seat through faith in His blood,..."

An ontological reality,

Old Jack

No amount of ontology should lead us to lying Jack.

If Paul derived this faithful fact, worthy of acceptance about himself after salvation it is unlikely any of us can measure any differently:

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Fancy dancing is not going to avoid an honest conclusion NOR is it deceived to speak honestly and arrive at the same place Paul did above. Between me and you I consider it a lie to say otherwise.

s

 

[Tangible]

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Rom 7)

 

[squint]

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Rom 7)

Few are willing or able to follow Paul's footsteps to an honest conclusion, unfortunately. Rather to dodge the obvious.

At least kudos to you for seeing the fact of it. It does not end there in those footsteps. Paul does provide some interesting positions on these matters that have yet to be unfolded in this thread.

 

[GenemZ]

Obfuscate this and get back to me if you want, and tell me why any of us would come to any different conclusion?

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

The Lord saves sinners. Ok. That's a fact. If we were not sinners we would not need to be saved. But, believers are not to be considered sinners after they are saved. Paul before his salvation had the worst of sinners. He was blindly self righteous. And, he was persecuting the church and having many believers put to death.

Paul held a record of being the worst sinner the Lord ever saved. He spoke as one who held that title, not that he remained being the chief sinner! Paul held that title as he wrote that passage. Mr. Chief of Sinners. God's grace trophy!

So, you believe Paul remained functioning as the chief of sinners, even as an apostle?

2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the
old things passed away; behold, new things have come.


​

Paul held the title Chief of sinners. But, he no longer functioned as such. To think otherwise? It would make no sense realizing to requirements to be an apostle.

From what you tell me? I have a feeling that you believe what you do, about all being sinners, is because you are trying to eradicate a sense of self loathing. It seems that you must think you are a terrible sinner and need to comfort yourself by using Scripture to tell yourself that you are just being normal.

That may not be the case. But, by how you present your argument? Its a logical place to go.

 

[squint]

The Lord saves sinners. Ok. That's a fact.

The fact is genez, Paul, an Apostle no less, claimed he was the chief of sinners after salvation.

Trying to escape that honest conclusion by any amount of fancy dancing just doesn't cut it.

You say he doesn't function as such? Then he should have said I WAS not I AM.

Is it fair to read the statement as present tense? I AM would certainly indicate so.

If you are interested he also shows HOW he derived that fact. But those who can't walk in the simplicity of that fact will never know how he got there. And do you know why?

Because they are not honest about the fact for themselves.

 

[Rev Randy]

The fact is genez, Paul, an Apostle no less, claimed he was the chief of sinners after salvation.

Trying to escape that honest conclusion by any amount of fancy dancing just doesn't cut it.

You say he doesn't function as such? Then he should have said I WAS not I AM.

Is it fair to read the statement as present tense? I AM would certainly indicate so.

If you are interested he also shows HOW he derived that fact. But those who can't walk in the simplicity of that fact will never know how he got there. And do you know why?

Because they are not honest about the fact for themselves.

You mean there are still some not willing to admit they are sinners? Calling sin by another name is just plain silly. St. Paul was truthful. Now if he said it today, he'd be second fiddle as I am Chief. I see no sin worse than my own as I am convinced I know better and still find myself in sin.

 

[squint]

You mean there are still some not willing to admit they are sinners? Calling sin by another name is just plain silly. St. Paul was truthful. Now if he said it today, he'd be second fiddle as I am Chief. I see no sin worse than my own as I am convinced I know better and still find myself in sin.

It almost scares me to try to make that claim as much as I know it's true when comparing myself to an Apostle. Another one of those dichotomy/conundrum thingy's...

My point WAS that if it was a fact for Paul after salvation, it is beyond any doubt so for the balance of us. genez thought I had some deep dark secret to hide and feel loathing for, but any sin is worth loathing regardless of 'size.' Hating the garment even spotted by the flesh I believe is part of the terms deployed.

anyway...I just like to see who can man up, even if it means having to actually be truthful without specific disclosures. seems pretty fundamental to most I would think.

 

[Wordkeeper]

A good place to provide an analogy. Imagine that during the Ford Administration, the penalty for murder was death. Imagine during a subsequent administration, say Carter*, kinder, gentler terms and conditions are passed. Correction and rehabilitation, empowerment to rejoin society with new skills and resources.

Thus you could say that the first administration was law and the second was grace. Paul frequently uses the word "Law" to differentiate the result of believing God before the Cross, from the result obtained under the aegis of the Spirit of Grace.

To summarise, requirements are the same, compliance is obligatory, future judgment is in place and in view, but ability to comply has been gifted. IOW, Paul differentiates between how man's actions were administered before the Cross, Law, and how it was administered after, Grace.

*I'm aware it was George Bush who coined the phrase, "A kinder, gentler administration"!

What exactly are you calling the law?

 

[GenemZ]

The fact is genez, Paul, an Apostle no less, claimed he was the chief of sinners after salvation.

Well, being an apostle? That would make him your chief.

This is silly. You are arguing with me as if I am someone who believes in sinless perfection after they are saved. That is a mistake. I am a sinner saved by grace. I am not sinless, but I have been granted the power not to sin where I used to by grace.

You say he doesn't function as such? Then he should have said I WAS not I AM.

I see. So, you are telling me he was still murdering Christians, and still living in ultra legalism? I see what you mean. Thanks for the insight!

Is it fair to read the statement as present tense? I AM would certainly indicate so.

Paul called himself the Chief of Sinners. That was a title he gave to himself. Why? Because of who and what he was before God saved him.

"You want to know who was the one who was the Chief of sinners before he was saved? That is me! I am the Chief of sinners!"

If you are interested he also shows HOW he derived that fact. But those who can't walk in the simplicity of that fact will never know how he got there. And do you know why?

Stop playing these guessing games. Stop hiding your cards under your skirt. Put em out to be seen. How can I know what you think? People have surprised me in the past by finally telling me their reasons for their conclusions that I would have never thought of.

Because they are not honest about the fact for themselves.

Give em to me! What are you being the neighborhood bully for?... Its not even your neighborhood!

 

[GenemZ]

You mean there are still some not willing to admit they are sinners? Calling sin by another name is just plain silly. St. Paul was truthful. Now if he said it today, he'd be second fiddle as I am Chief. I see no sin worse than my own as I am convinced I know better and still find myself in sin.

Some here are confusing being able to sin after they are saved, and Paul calling himself the Chief of sinners, to mean he remained in terrible sin while he served God. Are you saying you believe that Paul lived in terrible sin while serving God as he had???

 

[squint]

Well, being an apostle? That would make him your chief.

Pretty funny genez.

no, make that real funny.

This is silly. You are arguing with me as if I am someone who believes in sinless perfection after they are saved. That is a mistake. I am a sinner saved by grace. I am not sinless, but I have been granted the power not to sin where I used to by grace.

Please bear with me through the conversation. I'm not about to land in a bad place on this subject.

You might understand that Paul, as an Apostle, put himself on the frontlines of spiritual warfare. You might also understand that a good bit of that warfare takes place between our own two ears.

Paul makes a compelling case for that fact. And if so, then these matters were not just about Paul, but also of the adversary to faith. The tempter in mind for christians should be a well known fact. And when THAT fact is on the table, it is quite easy to see 'how Paul' saw that matter, it being not just about 'himself, alone.' But of his/our adversaries in faith.

I doubt very much that you would disagree and it is easily provable by the texts. Is that a slur on you or any believer?

NEVER.

I see. So, you are telling me he was still murdering Christians, and still living in ultra legalism? I see what you mean. Thanks for the insight!

Please to not jump the cart and presume in my behalf. I take facts from text. The same facts are easily taken by anyone else by simply reading.

On matters of LAW, do you think that more than just mankind are moved into action by THE LAW, the WORD of God?

Read Mark 4:15 and the other associated parables in Matthew 13 and Luke 8 and you will readily and instantly see that where The Word is sown, THINGS HAPPEN with Satan/the devil as well.

It is on that ground that the behind the scenes activity take place. More than just man move to action in adverse ways against Gods Words.

That's all I can say until you see it. If you can't see it, you can't. But it's a fact regardless.

Satan was meant to resist The Word and Paul both wrote of that fact and layed it on himself in many places in the text. So did John. So did Peter. It's not hard to get all the parties on the table of discussions.

s