SALVATION

[setst777]

This is completely non-responsive. I said that all sins are committed in weakness, but you say:

None of those verses discuss "sins committed in weakness". The reason they don't is that the "weakness" of man to live up to the requirenets of the law are because of the depravity of the flesh that all men possess.

The Passages I quoted (1 John 3:7-9; Romans 1:32; Romans 6:1-4; Romans 6:12-14) are not false Scriptures. These New Testament Scriptures are God's Words of admonition and teaching to Christians teaching us that those Christians who continue practicing sin, living in sin, allowing sin to reign in their bodies, are not in the faith.

Yes, a Christian will commit sins in weakness, but that is never the will or desire of the true Christian to sin, or to give into temptation. But if a Christian continues in any sin, if they are living in sin, practicing sin, they have fallen, or were never in the faith to begin with. They do not belong to Christ; rather, they are of the devil.

1 John 2:1-4 [addressing and warning born-again Christians] My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one. 2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world. 3 This is how we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments. 4 One who says, “I know him,” and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn’t in him.

If a Christian is living in any sin, practicing any sin in his life, whether it be sexual immorality, greed, and other selfish ambitions, then according to the New Covenant, such a Christian is not in the faith, and the Spirit does not dwell in him - he does not belong to Christ.

Galatians 5:16 I say, walk by the Spirit, and you [the Galatian Christians who are indwelt by the Spirit] won’t fulfill the lust of the flesh... 21 I have repeatedly warned you that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

Galatians 5:24-25 [instruction for Christians] 24 Those who belong to Christ [saved] have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

I asked if you would say that if a person sins in weakness once every day is living in sin. How about one sin per week? If frequency of sin is the measure, how often is too often? You deflected completely and just repeated your referenced 1 John 3:7-9. Is there a reason you can't anwer the question?

There is a big difference between a Christian who commits a sin in weakness with a Christian who lives in any sin.

For instance, a Christian may be tempted to steal a pack of gum that he forgot to include in his purchase of groceries while going through the self-checkout lane. That is a sin of weakness. However, if the Christian is tempted to continue stealing small things to save money while shopping, then he is now living in sin, allowing sin to reign in his body; he is practicing sin and attempting to justify himself with good reasons why stealing small things is okay. Any repentance for doing these things is not authentic. True godly sorrow for sin always leads to true repentance, turning from sin to follow Lord Jesus.

Another example: A Christian may be tempted by his girlfriend or boyfriend to have sex before marriage. In the heat and passion of the moment, they may follow through, being overcome by their passion, and have sex. That is a grievous sin against the Spirit of God, because the Christian has defiled his body, which is the Temple of the Spirit. Even so, God will forgive those Christians if they have true godly remorse and repent. However, if these Christians decide to continue in sexual immorality, because they feel it's okay since they love each other anyway, then they are now living in sin, practicing sin, letting sin reign over them within their bodies. They are letting their feelings have power over them, making excuses for their sin to try and justify themselves while continuing in sin.

There are many Biblical examples of this as well. One that comes to mind is when King David lusted for Bathsheba, and had her husband killed so he could take her for himself in marriage. Later on, however, David had sincere godly remorse for his terrible sins and repented, and God forgave him, although David did suffer the consequences of his actions. David shows to us that his repentance to God was genuine by the Psalm he wrote regarding this (Psalm 51:1-13).

Do you think God would have forgiven David of this terrible sin if David said he repented to God, but continued to lust after women, and have their husbands killed so he could marry them?

If we keep ourselves in God's Love, then God is faithful and able to keep the faithful from falling into temptation (Jude 1:21-25); in that, he will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). This is a promise for all true Christians.

Therefore, if a "Christian" deliberately continues in any sin, he is not saved; rather he will be condemned because he is still walking in darkness (1 John 3:9; Hebrews 10:24-31).

The only Christians who are cleansed of any sins they do commit in weakness are those Christians who are walking in the light.

I John 1:7 (WEB) 7 If we [believers, which are disciples] walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

Finally, I wanted to know at what point does a person's repeated failures to follow through on his commitment indicate that his commitment was worthless. This was your response:

God judges the hearts and actions of all mankind righteously. However, we can know whether we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, by observing in ourselves whether we are really obedient to Christ, following Him, just as the Scriptures teach us.

1 John 2:3-4 (WEB) 3 This is how we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments. 4 One who says, “I know him,” and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn’t in him.

1 John 2:5-6 (WEB) 5 This is how we know that we are in him: 6 he who says he remains in him must also walk just like he walked.

Matthew 10:38 He who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

John 8:12 (WEB) He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.

If a Christian says that this is impossible for him to do, then he obviously does not have true faith in Lord Jesus, and so, the Spirit of God does not dwell in him to guide him into all righteousness, because all true Christians do walk by the Spirit, and have renounced sin to follow Christ.

Galatians 5:24-25 [instruction for Christians] 24 Those who belong to Christ [saved] have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

 

[setst777]

It appears that you only see Christian liberty as an opportunity to indulge the flesh. Perhaps that is why you refuse the call to liberty.

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh (Ga 5:13).​

I do not get the impression from reading fhansen's replies to you that Christian liberty affords us the opportunity to indulge the flesh.

A Christian is free to make choices in life to serve God in any number of ways, but only in holiness (sanctification).

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
For this is the will of God: your sanctification, that you abstain from sexual immorality, 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in sanctification and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who don’t know God

A Christian is not free in Christ to sin, or choose to sin. If we do sin, we sin against God, and show that we are rejecting God and His Spirit living in us. If not repented of, turning from sin, such sins would condemn us. Instead, the Christian is continually cleansed from any sins, remaining holy before God, as he is diligent to walk in the light, as he is in the light.

1 Thessalonians 4:7-8
7 For God did not call us [Christians] to be impure, but to live a sanctified life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction rejects God, not man. This is the very God who gives to you his Holy Spirit.

I John 1:7 (WEB) 7 If we [believers, which are disciples] walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

I believe that is the continual context of fhansen's messages in reply to you. While a Christian does not live a totally holy life onto God, that is his goal, if he is a true Christian walking in the light as the Spirit leads. Where we do fall short, God forgives, continually leading us into that holy life that we committed to when we, by faith, turned to God in repentance, following Lord Jesus for Eternal Life.

Hebrews 5:9 Being made perfect, he became the author of Eternal Salvation to all those who obey him

 

[fhansen]

And what happens when we don't? A second rebirth, then a third, then a fourth, etc? Or just condemnation?

We turn to Him once, and if we stray we can turn back to Him as many times as it takes, if we really care enough to do so. His forgiveness is always present. We can also remain in our sins, preferring them and ourselves to Him. We experience this in everyday life. If I'm unfaithful to my wife and she keeps forgiving me, but I continue over and over to persist in my waywardness, then my "faithfulness" is really a joke, nothing has changed; her love and mercy have had no effect, have meant nothing to me. Now if I change, if I'm affected by that love such that I love in return, then her self-giving has produced something good. We're expected to love with the love that's been shown us. For example:

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14-15

I see the the righteousness that I possess as emanating from the Lord who lives in me, Who I have been joined with, and with Whom I am one spirit. You say it is virtual, but I see it and it is really there.

Alright…if you say it’s really there then you have the ability to overcome sin. Sin is unrighteousness, after all. So apparently you agree that we must overcome sin, since that was the question you were responding to here!?

No, I do not believe that. I belive Adam and Eve had a choice and could have resisted temptation. But things changed after they died spiritually. And they became the source of corruption for mankind; God was not the source. Death came through Adam, but life came through Jesus...

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Ro 5:18–19)

Yes, as many become sinners-truly unrighteousness- by Adam’s act, many will become truly righteous- able to avoid sin- by Jesus’ obedience. And, incidentally, if you believe in sanctification you already believe in this anyway.

What your theory fails to address is the inability of people who are saved to refrain from sin. There is no differnce between the sins of a saved person and the sins of a lost person. They are all sins. And you can say that saved people have the ability to not sin, but there is not a saved person alive who does not sin. So what causes that? Answer: we live "with" the flesh (not "in" the flesh) even after we are saved. It will only go away upon our physical deaths. In the meantime, if we want to deny the flesh what it wants, we must walk in the Spirit.

It's not just a matter of want, but we can and must deny the flesh. You say that all sin, and that is true but sin will earn believers and nonbelievers the same death in any case. That's what Jesus came to end, so that you will not sin, to free you from the slavery of sin, so that you will not be a sinner. The new covenant is not, ever, a carte blanc reprieve from the penalty of all sin past, present, and future but is the freedom from sin, not perfectly in this life but sufficiently to please and satisfy God by refraining from such deeds of the flesh that will keep us from heaven as per Gal 5 and elsewhere. To be under grace, to walk in the Spirit, does not mean or require perfect sinlessness, but it means and enables overcoming sin nonetheless. So, again, should a believer expect to get into heaven if persistently engaging in wanton, grave sin? Your theory just avoids the issue by pretending that sin doesn't exist for those under grace- but the church faces and deals with sin head-on, honestly: Post #669.

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48
Again, Jesus isn't trying to fool or confuse anyone here; He's speaking plainly and truthfully. To be under grace is to be on that path to perfection that comes as the branches receive their nourishment from the Vine, rather than wallowing and remaining in our imperfections.

We don't need to worry ourselves with it because our heavenly Father corrects us from inside our hearts when we go astray. He never leaves us alone. And we will never wake up one day a millioin miles away from Him without knowing how we got there.

5 “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD,Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens,And scourges every son whom He receives.”7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Heb 12:5–11)

He never leaves us alone, except, presumably, finally in hell if total freedom from Him ends up being our choice, but we can leave Him alone, we can fail to remain in Him. To say otherwise means that we already love Him perfectly, and no one here does. We aren't yet necessarily "sold out " to good over evil which is why the struggle against sin persists. Sin opposes God's will by its nature.-and He's gives you all the grace you need to overcome it.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

There's never been more than one way to God-and that's to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength-and then our neighbor as ourselves. That's our salvation, our very purpose-why man was created. And that love will obey God and fulfill the law, authentically, willingly, by its nature. It will never offend but only praise and serve God; it will never harm neighbor. It's to know God, and to know Him is to love Him.
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

The law came with a blessing and a curse. The blessing is to those who obey it completely. The curse is to those who do not. The other way to be blessed is through faith in Christ.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Ga 3:10–14)​

Again, to be "under the law" means to be under the commandments. These are the "works of the law" that Paul specifically objected to because, again, mere external obedience does not equal holiness. It's that simple.

No, being "under the law" is subjecting oneself to the law's requirements for righteous living in order to gain or maintain right-standing with God. In order to judge oneself as successful in this endeavor, a person must find a way to not count against himself his failures to live up to the standard that the law sets.

You misunderstand the purpose of grace. It's not forgiveness of past sin only, but freedom from the slavery to sin now. Rom 5:17:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

The purpose of grace is to demonstrate to all creation the greatness of God's goodness and kindness. We don't need to argue about this, it is plainly written...

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that ["in order to, for the purpose of, so that" Louw Nida Greek-English Lexicon] in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4–7)​

Further explained by Rom 6:22
"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life."

Yes!! Only with God can man avoid sin!! That reconciliation and resulting union is the basis of the new covenant-and man's righteousness.

This is consistent with your view that "you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God" applies to a person's self control of the flesh.

Augustine put it this way:
“It is the grace of God that helps the wills of men; and when they are not helped by it, the reason is in themselves, not in God.”

I agree with Augustine's statement. If with all God's help a person continues to be a sinner after he is saved/baptized/converted/freed from sin/etc., God is not to blame. What's funny is all the effort that goes into trying to qualify as righteous those who are obviously sinners.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

There is a big difference between a Christian who commits a sin in weakness with a Christian who lives in any sin.

For instance, a Christian may be tempted to steal a pack of gum that he forgot to include in his purchase of groceries while going through the self-checkout lane. That is a sin of weakness. However, if the Christian is tempted to continue stealing small things to save money while shopping, then he is now living in sin, allowing sin to reign in his body; he is practicing sin and attempting to justify himself with good reasons why stealing small things is okay. Any repentance for doing these things is not authentic. True godly sorrow for sin always leads to true repentance, turning from sin to follow Lord Jesus.

Another example: A Christian may be tempted by his girlfriend or boyfriend to have sex before marriage. In the heat and passion of the moment, they may follow through, being overcome by their passion, and have sex. That is a grievous sin against the Spirit of God, because the Christian has defiled his body, which is the Temple of the Spirit. Even so, God will forgive those Christians if they have true godly remorse and repent. However, if these Christians decide to continue in sexual immorality, because they feel it's okay since they love each other anyway, then they are now living in sin, practicing sin, letting sin reign over them within their bodies. They are letting their feelings have power over them, making excuses for their sin to try and justify themselves while continuing in sin.

There are many Biblical examples of this as well. One that comes to mind is when King David lusted for Bathsheba, and had her husband killed so he could take her for himself in marriage. Later on, however, David had sincere godly remorse for his terrible sins and repented, and God forgave him, although David did suffer the consequences of his actions. David shows to us that his repentance to God was genuine by the Psalm he wrote regarding this (Psalm 51:1-13).

Do you think God would have forgiven David of this terrible sin if David said he repented to God, but continued to lust after women, and have their husbands killed so he could marry them?

Ok, finally! Thank you for addressing the differnce between "living in sin/practicing sin" and "sinning in weakness".

Let's say a person commits a different sin every day of his life, and follows each sin with genuine sorrow and repentance and never returns to commit the same sin again. Is that person committing "sins in weakness", or is that "practicing sin"? Let's say those are "sins in weakness". Now let's change the sins to be more frequent than once a day and allow for some of the sins to be repeated. Are those still "sins in weakness" if they are each followed by genuine sorrow and repentance?

Where exactly is the line drawn? Is it the frequency or duration of the sin, or is it the presence or absense of sorrow and repentance? If the latter, then how long can a person go without sorrow and repentance before he is considered not a Christian? David, for instance, plotted and carried out a plan that obviously spanned several weeks or months and only repented after he was confronted by Nathan. But He kept Bathsheba as His wife.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I do not get the impression from reading fhansen's replies to you that Christian liberty affords us the opportunity to indulge the flesh.

A Christian is free to make choices in life to serve God in any number of ways, but only in holiness (sanctification).

The flesh sees Christian liberty (i.e., the fact that we are not under law but under grace) as an opportuinty to indulge its desires. That's why Christian liberty is characterized as "anti-nomian" or as "permission to endulge in all sorts of sin". People who argue such things recognize that the temptation to indulge the flesh exists, but they do not want to give up their righteousness that they have "through obedience to the law" because they fear turning from the law leads to lawless living.

But God calls us to liberty. Why? Because our rightness with Him is because our sins are forgiven, not because we live righteously. And it is an affront to Christ and to His sacrifice to think otherwise.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The new covenant is not, ever, a carte blanc reprieve from the penalty of all sin past, present, and future but is the freedom from sin, not perfectly in this life but sufficiently to please and satisfy God by refraining from such deeds of the flesh that will keep us from heaven as per Gal 5 and elsewhere.

I think we need to explore this concept more fully. I've never seen anyone put it this way, but it explains a lot of our disagreements.

 

[setst777]

Ok, finally! Thank you for addressing the differnce between "living in sin/practicing sin" and "sinning in weakness".

I shouldn't have had to explain it at all, as the Scriptures, which I quoted for you to read, plainly explain it (1 John 1:5-7; 1 John 3:7-9; Romans 1:32; Romans 6:1-4; Romans 6:12-14; Galatians 5:16-21; Hebrews 10:24-31; John 8:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8).

Let's say a person commits a different sin every day of his life, and follows each sin with genuine sorrow and repentance and never returns to commit the same sin again. Is that person committing "sins in weakness", or is that "practicing sin"? Let's say those are "sins in weakness". Now let's change the sins to be more frequent than once a day and allow for some of the sins to be repeated. Are those still "sins in weakness" if they are each followed by genuine sorrow and repentance?

Where exactly is the line drawn? Is it the frequency or duration of the sin, or is it the presence or absense of sorrow and repentance? If the latter, then how long can a person go without sorrow and repentance before he is considered not a Christian? David, for instance, plotted and carried out a plan that obviously spanned several weeks or months and only repented after he was confronted by Nathan. But He kept Bathsheba as His wife.

David had to keep Bathsheba as his wife because he had no grounds to divorce her, since she is innocent of the sins of David. God does not permit divorce except for adultery.

Your questions are a mockery against God and His Word. You cannot see, and that is a spiritual issue that I cannot undue for you. God will judge the hearts of all mankind, and will give to each man according to his works.

 

[setst777]

The flesh sees Christian liberty (i.e., the fact that we are not under law but under grace) as an opportuinty to indulge its desires. That's why Christian liberty is characterized as "anti-nomian" or as "permission to endulge in all sorts of sin". People who argue such things recognize that the temptation to indulge the flesh exists, but they do not want to give up their righteousness that they have "through obedience to the law" because they fear turning from the law leads to lawless living.

But God calls us to liberty. Why? Because our rightness with Him is because our sins are forgiven, not because we live righteously. And it is an affront to Christ and to His sacrifice to think otherwise.

Your personal interpretation makes a mockery of God and His Word.

Galatians 5:13-25 (NIV) Paul addressing born-again believers who have the Spirit
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we [Christians] live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (Paul addressed the born-again Christians, admonishing them) 3 For this is the will of God: your sanctification, that you abstain from sexual immorality, 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in sanctification and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who don’t know God, 6 that no one should take advantage of and wrong a brother or sister in this matter; because, the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we keep warning you. 7 For God called us [Christians] not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. 8 Therefore he rejects this rejects God, not man. He is the very one who has also given his Holy Spirit to you.

1 John 2:3 We [Christians] know that we know him if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” and doesn’t keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn’t in him. 5 But God’s love has surely been perfected in whoever keeps his word. This is how we know that we are in him: 6 he who says he remains in him must walk just like he walked.

Romans 6:1-6 (WEB) What should we conclude then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 And so, we were buried with him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection

Romans 6:19-22 … 19 For as you presented your bodily parts as slaves to uncleanness and to all kinds of wickedness, even so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. 21 What was the fruit you once bore of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now, being made free from sin and having become slaves of God, the fruit you bear is in sanctification and the result is Eternal Life.

 

[fhansen]

I think we need to explore this concept more fully. I've never seen anyone put it this way, but it explains a lot of our disagreements.

Fair enough, and post #669 goes far in showing how both sides of this coin was addressed, centuries ago.

Either way, walking in the Spirit does not free us from the obligation to be righteous but empowers us to accomplish that very thing, along with peace, joy, happiness, incidentally. It’s a new way, giving us the grace to walk as children of God should, orienting and leading us towards an ultimate perfection to be complete only in the next life while freeing us from the necessity for absolute perfection, judged by a set of rules, now. Man was not meant to live that way, by a rule book. The need for one to begin with only demonstrates the injustice within him- that the law cannot cure anyway! Communion with God is the only cure. Augustine:

“God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read it is heart.”

The new covenant is obviously not about man consciously observing a set of rules, regardless of how right they may be, in order to please God and be on His team as if man had the power to do so, as if he could justify himself, as if he could reconcile himself with God. That is to put the cart ahead of the horse. Rather, the new covenant is about becoming reconciled with God first, by turning to Him while acknowledging our injustice, our unrighteousness, our sin...acknowledging our inability to overcome sin while accepting the free gift of reconciliation that can come only from Him and which His Son sacrificed Himself to obtain for us, dying for us while we were yet sinners. That's sheer grace; that's sheer love. That reconciled state is the essence and basis of your righteousness as it now grafts you into the Vine from which His life flows.

We don't obey the law in order to be right with God; rather we become right with God in order to begin to be able to obey the law, the right way now, His way, the way of the Spirit, not of the letter, the way of love.

 

[fhansen]

The law came with a blessing and a curse. The blessing is to those who obey it completely. The curse is to those who do not. The other way to be blessed is through faith in Christ.

The law was always a curse-because none could fulfill it, not apart from grace in any case. There's only one way to God-and getting there is the point and purpose of the NC, of the gospel, of the entire bible.

No, being "under the law" is subjecting oneself to the law's requirements for righteous living in order to gain or maintain right-standing with God. In order to judge oneself as successful in this endeavor, a person must find a way to not count against himself his failures to live up to the standard that the law sets.

No, being under the law is to subject oneself to the law in order to become righteous. Being under grace is to subject oneself to God in order to become righteous-and that subjection is the object of faith. And this righteousness is now available, a righteous that the law could only testify to (Rom 3:21), could only reflect , could only describe, a righteousness that fulfills the the righteous requirements of the law while being apart from the law (Rom 8:4). The law is only the letter, a group of words. But we must be changed inside first-then we begin to fulfill the law without reference to the law. The Spirit, IOW, can do what the law cannot.

A chief error of the Reformers was to deny man's obligation to be righteous under the NC, or have the obligation only fulfilled vicariously, and this is a pernicious error.

The purpose of grace is to demonstrate to all creation the greatness of God's goodness and kindness. We don't need to argue about this, it is plainly written...

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that ["in order to, for the purpose of, so that" Louw Nida Greek-English Lexicon] in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4–7)

God showers His grace upon us in many ways. With promptings and urgings and with the gifts of faith, hope, and love as well as the other virtues and gifts of the Spirit, to name a few.

This is consistent with your view that "you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God" applies to a person's self control of the flesh.

Man has self-control to the extent that he's subjugated to God in a bond consisting of and cemented by faith, hope, and love. That's grace, that's the Holy Spirit operating within.

I agree with Augustine's statement. If with all God's help a person continues to be a sinner after he is saved/baptized/converted/freed from sin/etc., God is not to blame. What's funny is all the effort that goes into trying to qualify as righteous those who are obviously sinners.

What's funny is to insist that grace is irresistible, as so many do. A person can refuse to respond to grace, or respond to it but then later go back to the flesh, to the world-as per Scripture. So, yes, what would really be funny would be to try to qualify one as righteous by declaration only while that person was to continue to persist in grave, wanton sin, or return to it after turning away from it.

 

[AbbaLove]

You have a fixation on a novel theology IMO, similar to mine as a Protestant though with a somewhat different flavor. I just came to be impressed, after many years and to my own surprise, with the original basic teachings of the church, consistent between the the EO, ECFs, and the RCC.

True Christianity is not as much an organized religion (EO, RCC) as it is a personal relationship with Christ (Lord and Savior).

The "original basic teachings" of mainstream [religious] Christianity (EO, RCC and Reformed Protestant) in no way is an advantage when it comes to ensuring/encouraging one's SALVATION.

Mankind tends to believe the [correct] religious entity is an essential to enhancing one's SALVATION. The RCC is apparently/seemingly your preferred Christian denomination over that of say a reformed Protestant or another mainstream Christian denomination. You seem quite favorably assured (just as other Christians) of their preferred choice.

Yet you'd have to admit that God is no respecter of man's religious [Christian] denominations when it comes to which one He ranks as His favorite leading to one's SALVATION ... even though you seem to favor the RCC,

 

[setst777]

fhansen said:
You have a fixation on a novel theology IMO, similar to mine as a Protestant though with a somewhat different flavor. I just came to be impressed, after many years and to my own surprise, with the original basic teachings of the church, consistent between the the EO, ECFs, and the RCC.

True Christianity is not as much an organized religion (EO, RCC) as it is a personal relationship with Christ (Lord and Savior).

The "original basic teachings" of mainstream [religious] Christianity (EO, RCC and Reformed Protestant) in no way is an advantage when it comes to ensuring/encouraging one's SALVATION.

Mankind tends to believe the [correct] religious entity is an essential to enhancing one's SALVATION. The RCC is apparently/seemingly your preferred Christian denomination over that of say a reformed Protestant or another mainstream Christian denomination. You seem quite favorably assured (just as other Christians) of their preferred choice.

Yet you'd have to admit that God is no respecter of man's religious [Christian] denominations when it comes to which one He ranks as His favorite leading to one's SALVATION ... even though you seem to favor the RCC,

The points you are making implies that "fhansen"

• Does not quite understand that True Christianity is a personal relationship with Lord Jesus, or
• That he somehow is in error by favoring the RCC over other denominations because we don't know how God ranks denominations.

On both points, you are presuming your own assumptions onto "fhansen," and admonishing him for no reason.

I, personally, get the impression, from reading "fhansen's" messages that

• He does understand that to be a Christian means we have a personal relationship with Lord Jesus, and
• That his favoring one denomination over another has nothing to do with how God feels about different denominations.

For instance, "fhansen" plainly shows that he does believe that to be a Christian means we have a personal relationship with God in Lord Jesus:

fhansen said:
Sorry, the gutting has been done by novel gospels around 5 centuries old now. I've been quite clear, giving the fuller-orbed understanding of faith and its purpose. Faith means relationship with God, to come to know and to enter right relationship with Him, a relationship that was snubbed by Adam at the Fall, and which Jesus came to reconcile, a relationship which is the basis of justice for man-that which makes him just, while alienation from Him is the basis of fallen man's injustice. Jesus is the express image of God. Everything Jesus said and did is an expression of who God is; when we see Him we see God. When we believe in Him we believe in God. The following verses help on this:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." Heb 11:6

"He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:20-21

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

 

[fhansen]

True Christianity is not as much an organized religion (EO, RCC) as it is a personal relationship with Christ (Lord and Savior).

The purpose of the church has always been to introduce you to and help establish and nurture that relationship with Him. Sometimes throughout history it's done a better or worse job of that but it mainly depends on the teachers themselves, of course.

The "original basic teachings" of mainstream [religious] Christianity (EO, RCC and Reformed Protestant) in no way is an advantage when it comes to ensuring/encouraging one's SALVATION.

It's the surer way, at least with the EO and RCC, of fully knowing the means of salvation. And the denominations and the Reformers in general have greatly influenced the theology of many in one way or another. In fact, we depend much on our forbearers, more than some may like to admit. But salvation is a corporate affair as well as an individual one, with God using us, the cloud of witnesses, in the lives of others. And even the Bereans couldn't understand Scripture without the help of others -from the group that knew the Lord from the beginning.

And as to the ancient churches I was much surprised to find, after growing in my understanding over the years, that they were agreeing with me on so many of the basics. I finally couldn't ignore that-and that's really how it should be anyway. Without the historic church, with warts and all, Christianity may well be nothing more than a minor footnote in history by this time. This is the church that sat at council and decided on relevant matters regarding the nature of Christ and the Trinity, which was highly controversial and divisive back in the day and still is for some now. This is the church that formulated teachings on the absolute necessity of grace for the salvation of man, and how that all plays out in his life. This is the church that assembled the canon of Scripture. Just to name a few things, but unity of faith comes by unity within the church in any case.

Mankind tends to believe the [correct] religious entity is an essential to enhancing one's SALVATION. The RCC is apparently/seemingly your preferred Christian denomination over that of say a reformed Protestant or another mainstream Christian denomination. You seem quite favorably assured (just as other Christians) of their preferred choice.

Yet you'd have to admit that God is no respecter of man's religious [Christian] denominations when it comes to which one He ranks as His favorite leading to one's SALVATION ... even though you seem to favor the RCC,

It's all about TRUTH.

 

[AbbaLove]

The purpose of the church has always been to introduce you to and help establish and nurture that relationship with Him. Sometimes throughout history it's done a better or worse job of that but it mainly depends on the teachers themselves, of course.

The Teacher is Christ and His Church are the "called out ones" (ekklesia) and by no means limited to the RCC. To those loyal to the Pope, his bishops and priests; while the Protestant ekklesia (church) has good reason to believe the Pope is just so much impressive religious window dressing.

You come across as if you actually believe the RCC is more faithful to interpreting Christ's teachings than are Protestant ekklesia (churches). Hundreds of thousands of faithful Protestants could have stated the same [TRUTH}] theology just as well as you have in your above reply. It's all about His TRUTH not limited to the RCC.

You're mistaken if you think the RCC has more TRUTH about SALVATION than those that consider themsleves more a member of a Protestant "ekklesia" than a member of a Catholic "ekklesia" (RCC). It's apparent that you have a RCC Salvation agenda.

When Christ Jesus says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” and all human paternity (whether a Catholic Preist or the Pope) is only an imitation of the divine paternity of Father GOD​

The Pope as the supposed "Vicar of Christ" (by some) is a prime exmple of a manmade religious con/deception that plays well, but does little to encourage a Spiritual "annointing" and personal relationship with Christ ...

When Christ Jesus says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” He is emphasizing that all true paternity is in God the Father, and all human paternity is only an imitation of divine paternity. Another error is the Pope mistakenly thinking he as a Vicar of Christ by misinterpreting or amending the Words of Christ ...

8 “But do not allow yourselves to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master, and you are all brethren. 9 Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 You must not be called ‘teacher,’ for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you must be your servant. (Matthew 23:5-11 - New Catholic Bible)​

The above and following are just two reasons why for centuries "Carholics" were under the impression that it was not necessary for them study their "Catholic Bible" but rather consult a Catholic Priest ...

And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you have no ned for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you remain in Him. (1 John 2:27 - New Catholic Bible)​

Are you so entranced with the RCC that you think only Catholic Priests and the Pope can receive an "annoiniting" and one or more of the nine Spiritual Gifts that are still in operation today (e.g. Catholic charasmatic renewal) ...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) is a spiritual movement within the Catholic Church that emphasises the availability of the power and the many gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer, and the need for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in order to live life to the fullest (aka Catholic Pentecostal).​

 

[AbbaLove]

The Teacher is Christ and His Church are the "called out ones" (ekklesia) and by no means limited to the RCC. To those loyal to the Pope, his bishops and priests; while the Protestant ekklesia (church) has good reason to believe the Pope is just so much impressive religious window dressing.

You come across as if you actually believe the RCC is more faithful to interpreting Christ's teachings than are Protestant ekklesia (churches). Hundreds of thousands of faithful Protestants could have stated the same [TRUTH}] theology just as well as you have in your above reply. It's all about His TRUTH not limited to the RCC.

You're mistaken if you think the RCC has more TRUTH about SALVATION than those that consider themsleves more a member of a Protestant "ekklesia" than a member of a Catholic "ekklesia" (RCC). It's apparent that you have a RCC Salvation agenda.

When Christ Jesus says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” and all human paternity (whether a Catholic Preist or the Pope) is only an imitation of the divine paternity of Father GOD​

The Pope as the supposed "Vicar of Christ" (by some) is a prime exmple of a manmade religious con/deception that plays well, but does little to encourage a Spiritual "annointing" and personal relationship with Christ ...

When Christ Jesus says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” He is emphasizing that all true paternity is in God the Father, and all human paternity is only an imitation of divine paternity. Another error is the Pope mistakenly thinking he as a Vicar of Christ by misinterpreting or amending the Words of Christ ...

8 “But do not allow yourselves to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master, and you are all brethren. 9 Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 You must not be called ‘teacher,’ for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you must be your servant. (Matthew 23:5-11 - New Catholic Bible)​

The above and following are just two reasons why for centuries "Carholics" were under the impression that it was not necessary for them study their "Catholic Bible" but rather consult a Catholic Priest ...

And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you remain in Him. (1 John 2:27 - New Catholic Bible)​

Are you so entranced with the RCC that you think only Catholic Priests and the Pope can receive an "annointing" and one or more of the nine Spiritual Gifts that are still in operation today (e.g. Catholic charasmatic renewal) ...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) is a spiritual movement within the Catholic Church that emphasises the availability of the power and the many gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer, and the need for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in order to live life to the fullest (aka Catholic Pentecostal).​

 

[fhansen]

The Teacher is Christ and His Church are the "called out ones" (ekklesia) and by no means limited to the RCC. To those loyal to the Pope, his bishops and priests; while the Protestant ekklesia (church) has good reason to believe the Pope is just so much impressive religious window dressing.

The Church is the Church, which Christ established for the purpose of preserving and carrying His message down through the centuries to man. And the Reformers necessarily had to reject a centralized earthly voice as authoritative in order to be able to change doctrine, adopting Scripture as the sole authority. But this led to what Luther actually feared, more division as each person essentially became their own pope, pronouncing on the truths of the faith as they interpreted Scripture privately, often disagreeing on those truths with others who were doing the same, as we see repeated right here in this thread. It really doesn't bother me if the ancient churches happened to have things right.

You come across as if you actually believe the RCC is more faithful to interpreting Christ's teachings than are Protestant ekklesia (churches). Hundreds of thousands of faithful Protestants could have stated the same [TRUTH}] theology just as well as you have in your above reply. It's all about His TRUTH not limited to the RCC.

Some are close while some farther away; it's sort of a crap shoot as it's dependent on personal opinion, private interpretation, although some haven't abandoned earlier teachings, conciliar decisions, etc, altogether, which generally helps keep them more on track with the truth.

You're mistaken if you think the RCC has more TRUTH about SALVATION than those that consider themsleves more a member of a Protestant "ekklesia" than a member of a Catholic "ekklesia" (RCC). It's apparent that you have a RCC Salvation agenda.

We've been discussing that very thing, the nature of salvation, and so far I've seen a great deal of division on that matter. So, what is the truth of the matter? Anyone can call themselves church, and, for its part, the RCC considers most Protestants to be part of the one church, even if not so perfectly informed and connected.

As far as the "call no man father" issue is involved, that's just so much fundamentalist pop-tripe. Yes, Jesus was making a point; He wants us to know who our true Father ultimately is. But do you think He was telling us not to call our earthly fathers, father? Do/did you call your father, father? We understand the fatherhood of God only because the concept of father is an earthly one to begin with! So was Stephen wrong in Acts to call Abraham our father in faith? Or John or Peter in addressing followers as "son", or "my little children"? Was Paul wrong in Rom 9:10 for calling Isaac our father? Or saying,

"For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

“Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17)

“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2);

“To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

“This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18)

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1)

“But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4)

“I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10)

Do you call no man teacher?
"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1

"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers..." Eph 4:11

The Pope as the supposed "Vicar of Christ" (by some) is a prime exmple of a manmade religious con/deception that plays well, but does little to encourage a Spiritual "annointing" and personal relationship with Christ ...

Whenever anyone reads the bible and claims to know and proceeds to proclaim the faith, they are acting as the Vicar of Christ. There's no difference. And many claim to be anointed or Spirit led-with quite a variety of beliefs held among them.

Are you so entranced with the RCC that you think only Catholic Priests and the Pope can receive an "annoiniting" and one or more of the nine Spiritual Gifts that are still in operation today (e.g. Catholic charasmatic renewal) ...

It's not entrancement, just agreement-after studying their material rather than primarily everyone else's. And, no, God touched me in powerful ways before I became Catholic and He works in and through Protestants now. I was once an AOG member and later a Catholic Charismatic BTW. Not particularly impressed with either at this point, however.

The above and following are just two reasons why for centuries "Carholics" were under the impression that it was not necessary for them study their "Catholic Bible" but rather consult a Catholic Priest ...

Before and even after the advent of the printing press when bibles could become more widely available, arguably few were literate down through those centuries anyway, since the beginning. And the church was right, as Luther was, in wisely thinking that once people thought they could interpret a centuries old book for themselves and know with certainty what the authors and God intended just by reading it, a free for all could result. The church, in the east and west, already knew and taught the gospel correctly, while the Reformers were much further from the truth.

Anyway, the question posed in the OP isn’t about who's right to begin with but about what’s right. What is the truth regarding the means of salvation?

 

[AbbaLove]

As far as the "call no man father" issue is involved, that's just so much fundamentalist pop-tripe.

"pop-tripe" (typo) meant to be "pope-tripe" which is a growing concern of parish members.

Whether "fundmentalist" or a "liberal" Catholic church they do not view the Pope as "Father"... St. Sophia ,,, This 'liberal Catholic parish may be more to your liking than that of a more traditional "fundamentalist" RCC that is NOT Pro-Choice.

But do you think He was telling us not to call our earthly fathers, father? Do/did you call your father, father?

When wanting to get my dad's attention always used "daddy" or "dad" whether a child, teenager or adult. Same with my son and daughter when referring to me.

So you expect us to believe you and your wife (if married with children) taught your child/children to say "father" instead of "daddy" or "dad" and that you still prefer that you are addressed more formally as "father" instead "dad'? Some born again Christians might refer to you as a "stuffed shirt" Roman Catholic.

The Pope, a Bishop or a Priest is NOT my "father" or your "father" ... for you to give them the title of "Father" is NOT Biblical; especially when they are not your earthly dad.

9 "Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and He is in heaven. 11 (Matthew 23:9 - New Catholic Bible)​

The Pope as the [supposed] Vicar of Christ can misinterpret and/or amend Christ's Word (Matt. 23:9) with the purpose being to give the Pope, a Bishop, or a Priest an aire of superiority over a lay member of a Catholic Parish or Protestant chosen ones (ekklesia).

Apparently you have or are in the process of swallowing the proverbial "hook, line and sinker" of the RCC. Hopefully as you grow more in HIS Word and less in the religious dogma/doctrines of the RCC you will hopefully gain the Spiritual insight enabling you to correctly interpret His Word versus the religious indoctrination of the RCC and amending of His Word by the Popes over centuries of religiousity meant to impress man more than our heavenly Father.

Our Father, who art in heaven,​

 

[fhansen]

"pop-tripe" (typo) meant to be "pope-tripe" which is a growing concern of parish members.

Whether "fundmentalist" or a "liberal" Catholic church they do not view the Pope as "Father"... St. Sophia ,,, This 'liberal Catholic parish may be more to your liking than that of a more traditional "fundamentalist" RCC that is NOT Pro-Choice.

Pop-mythology would've been the better choice I suppose. There's no liberal or fundamentalist Catholicism while there are individual "Catholics" who may or may not qualify for those monikers. Either way, anyone can use the term "Catholic", as some Protestants do for themselves. But that's a word game-and not what we're discussing here as you know. St Sophia, for example, is not Roman Catholic. If one wishes to understand Roman Catholicism they must look at their material. In any case Catholicism as we've been using the term is wholly pro-life.

 

[Valletta]

The Pope, a Bishop or a Priest is NOT my "father" or your "father" ... for you to give them the title of "Father" is NOT Biblical; especially when they are not your earthly dad.

9 "Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and He is in heaven. 11 (Matthew 23:9 - New Catholic Bible)​

The Pope as the [supposed] Vicar of Christ can misinterpret and/or amend Christ's Word (Matt. 23:9) with the purpose being to give the Pope, a Bishop, or a Priest an aire of superiority over a lay member of a Catholic Parish or Protestant chosen ones (ekklesia).

The Bible refers to spiritual fathers such as Paul and the Abraham. The pope is a shepherd, a spiritual father.
Individual interpretations of the Bible are subject to error. The magisterium of the Catholic Church, in almost a 2000 year history, has only formally interpreted a Bible passage a number of times which is in the single digits. And even those decisions were made from interpretations by Catholics, from lay people to popes, of the deposit of the faith which ended with the death of the last Apostle. Catholics are free to interpret the Bible within the beliefs of the Catholic Church. A Catholic would not be allowed to, say, deny the Holy Trinity in a passage of the Bible. It has nothing to do with an air of superiority, popes and bishops and all priests are not superior to lay people--they just have a different role. Some lay people know the Bible better than some priests.