Freedom from Sin: Overcoming the Wet Paint Principle (the complete version)

[justbyfaith]

edited post #248. not Isaiah 53:12; Isaiah 57:12.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

edited post #248. not Isaiah 53:12; Isaiah 57:12.

Isaiah 57:12 is talking about the offspring of sorcerers and idolaters (See Isaiah 53:3). The righteous are spoken of separately in Isaiah 53:1-2.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

32 As many as receive Him, to them He gives the power to live as sons of God, even to all those who believe on His name.

33 And those who live as sons of God are sons of God: provided that their holiness is not cut off from the primary root: faith in Jesus Christ.

34 Herein is power in the Holy Ghost to live a holy life: Christ in you, the hope of glory; the fullness of God’s love.

35 Therefore if I appear to be holy, but this holiness does not come from faith, my holiness will avail for me nothing.

36 For a heart of obedience, if it is not the result of faith in Jesus Christ, is not truly a heart of obedience because in it there is no substance of faith and therefore it is as the outside of a cup that is cleansed when the inside is not clean.

I believe works stem from having faith in Jesus Christ, too. Works are the result of the Lord working in us. But if we go back to regarding sin (Which is possible because we have free will), then God cannot agree with our thinking to do that because He is holy and good.

The difference between our faiths in Christ is that I do not believe the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is a license for immorality. If we break God's laws that are serious we are not still saved but we need to repent and get our hearts right with the Lord. For if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins (1 John 1:9).

I mean, think about it like this:

Are not all babies saved by Christ's sacrifice if they were to die?
However, when they grow up, they fall into sin (and are clearly not saved).
They need Jesus and His salvation again.
What changed between the time of when they were a baby and when they grew up?
It was their sin and unbelief.
That is what separated them between GOD.
They need to get clean by the Savior by asking for His forgiveness.
This is essentially what the Parable of the Prodigal Son is about.

 

[justbyfaith]

I do NOT believe that grace is a license for immorality. It does cover the believer with an obedient heart, if he should fail to live up to God's standard because of human imperfection (and the fact that sin dwells in every one of us). But if a person has a heart inclined towards disobedience for lack of the Holy Spirit, I believe my doctrinal statement is clear in saying they do not have salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Nice way of averting and disregarding what the Spirit would say to you by Isaiah 57:12. Saying that the context declares it doesn't apply to me is a classic way of disregarding the word of the Lord and what the Holy Spirit is trying to say. To bring it to the forefront, Isaiah 57:12 says, I will declare your righteousness and your works, but they will not profit you. It may be the very thing that led Paul to write what he wrote in Romans 4:3-8. (If you will think on and meditate on what these scriptures are actually saying). re #262

 

[justbyfaith]

children are only saved if they die, if one or both parents is saved (1 Corinthians 7:14).

 

[justbyfaith]

In Hebrews 6:1-8, we find that if a person loses their salvation, it is impossible for them to repent. This defeats the Arminianist view that a believer can go in, and then out, and then back in, to salvation. It requires that if someone returns to the Lord, they were a son while away from their father, even a prodigal.

 

[justbyfaith]

I went back and read over all of @Jason0047's posts: I really think that in his posts @Jason0047 is focused on only one side of the coin in scriptural truth.

It says in Colossians 4:6, Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how to answer every man.

I would say that his posts are about 1% grace and 99% salt.

I feel that my doctrinal statement Freedom has a better mixture of grace and salt...and therefore I find assurance from the Lord that Freedom will survive the onslaught that has been laid against it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I went back and read over all of @Jason0047's posts: I really think that in his posts @Jason0047 is focused on only one side of the coin in scriptural truth.

It says in Colossians 4:6, Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how to answer every man.

I would say that his posts are about 1% grace and 99% salt.

I feel that my doctrinal statement Freedom has a better mixture of grace and salt...and therefore I find assurance from the Lord that Freedom will survive the onslaught that has been laid against it.

Making generalized statements is one thing. Getting into the text is and explaining the verses I put forth is another matter entirely.

 

[justbyfaith]

Making generalized statements is one thing. Getting into the text is and explaining the verses I put forth is another matter entirely.

I may decide to do this in a different thread when I get the time. In the meantime, @Jason0047's posts exhibit a one-sided picture of God's view on the issues. I am not knocking God's requirement for holiness, which @Jason0047 has set forth in his posts quite nicely, but this is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the grace of our Lord, which docrine is severely lacking in his posts. I remember one time I put salt instead of sugar into my grape nuts, thinking that it was sugar. Needless to say, when I took a bite I realized there was WAY too much salt.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that the question that must be asked is, Did Jesus come merely to give us a new moral standard, or did He come to bring forgiveness to us for that we have broken God's moral standard as set forth in both the Old and New Testaments?

Did Jesus come to destroy the old moral standard and establish a new one? See Matthew 5:17-20 for the answer.

Freedom 3:1-24 shows how the change in law spoken of in Hebrews 7:12 doesn't mean that the old law has been destroyed. It stands as a moral compass for all. It is a schoolmaster to lead lost sinners to Christ (Galatians 3:23-25). It defines sin for us (Romans 3:20, 1 John 3:4). And also the moral tenets in the New Testament are established as the law of the New Testament so that because I am not under the law, I am forgiven of every violation of both Old and New Testament law. For I consider that "the law" is the standard of righteousness established in the heart of God, which is identified for us in both the Old and New Testaments. And therefore, being forgiven of past, present, and future sin through the blood of Christ, I am no longer condemned by the violation of any tenet of righteousness, whether it be found in the New Testament or the Old. This forgiveness is predicated on my being born again of the Holy Spirit, so that who I really am is inclined towards righteousness and not sin. If I sin as one who is born again, I have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One. Nevertheless as one who is born of God, I am motivated by the love of God, against which there is no law (Galatians 5:22-23). And since the law defines sin, I cannot sin as long as I walk according to love, even according to who I really am as a new creature in Christ. But if my old nature should rise up and I sin in the practical sense, Jesus ever lives to make intercession for me so that the Father in His Omnipotent Sovereignty might forgive me and also restore me to righteousness in the power of His Spirit. In the meantime, I don't cease to be one of His children.

 

[justbyfaith]

I wrote post #271 because I get the impression from @Jason0047's doctrine that we might be forgiven of violating the law of the Old Testament, but if we violate the morality of the New Testament we are not forgiven. For he has said that the Old Testament law is no longer valid but that we are bound by the laws of the New Testament. His doctrine is in agreement with that old cult-leader at grace-centered forums monikered Swordmaster, who taught that as believers we are under the law of Christ and that such verses as Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, and Romans 7:6 are not a reality for the believer because they refer only to the law of Moses and not the moral tenets found in the New Testament.

 

[justbyfaith]

The truth is, the law that I am not under, am dead to, and am delivered from is referring to the condemnation that comes from not living up to God's righteous standard perfectly. This righteous standard is set forth in the New Testament and not only the Old. And when it comes to forgiveness, it should be clear that we are forgiven of not living up to the New Testament standard, because if we aren't, no one will be saved; for everyone has fallen short of the New Testament standard in their lives. Therefore we do not come out from the condemnation of the old law only to be condemned by the new testament law. We are under neither. And in another sense we are under both. The law no longer condemns us from the outside, it governs us from the inside. This law is God's righteous standard as defined by both testaments.

 

[justbyfaith]

We are not subject to the law's condemnation (Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 3:21-25, Galatians 5:18, Galatians 5:22-23, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 7:18-19).

We are subject to the governing influence of the law in Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21, Hebrews 8:7-10, Hebrews 10:14-17, Galatians 5:18, Galatians 5:22-23, Romans 8:4-7) because we are born again and therefore inclined towards obedience.

 

[justbyfaith]

The "wet paint principle" is defined by the following scripture:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

 

[justbyfaith]

That was Romans 7:7-13.

The way of dealing with the wet paint principle is the unmerited forgiveness of Christ. Because we are forgiven of past, present, and future sins, our relationship to the law has changed. We are no longer condemned by it. We are not under it (Romans 6:14). We are dead to it (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19). And we are delivered from it (Romans 7:6). This doesn't mean we aren't governed by it (see Hebrews 8:10, 10:16). It means no condemnation. And because there is no condemnation, the wet paint principle is rendered null and void. For without the law sin is dead (Romans 7:8-b). The law still governs us as believers, but because it doesn't condemn us (we are forgiven), its effect of working in me all manner of concupiscence is rendered inept. Because the law CANNOT condemn me if I am in Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

bumping...

 

[justbyfaith]

bump...

 

[justbyfaith]

After a season of edifying my soul by reading a printed out version of the OP of this thread every day, I have found victory and have crossed over from easy-believism into a more practical faith, without denying the integral principle of scripture found in Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[justbyfaith]

bump...