Superiority

[aiki]

Personal definition? No, I don't think so. Scripture is very clear about what constitutes a genuine Christian.

Selah.

 

[Cearbhall]

Personal definition? No, I don't think so. Scripture is very clear about what constitutes a genuine Christian.

The idea that a certain verse in the Bible holds this significance is your personal opinion. Your interpretation of said verse is also a personal opinion of yours. Not every Christian would agree with you on these matters.

 

[Wryetui]

I find hard to link the words "christian" and "superiority", is it just me?

 

[JustHisKid]

By your personal definition.

I don't think so. That is why I posted the passage of Scripture. What is your take on it?

 

[JustHisKid]

The idea that a certain verse in the Bible holds this significance is your personal opinion. Your interpretation of said verse is also a personal opinion of yours. Not every Christian would agree with you on these matters.

All of God's word is significant. The passage needs no interpretation, simply belief. You are free not to believe it.

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm pretty sure that God knows who is a Christian and who isn't.
Let's leave such judgments up to Him.
Meantime, let each of us do his/her best to walk as He would have us to walk...

 

[TheBarrd]

I have my own "favorite verse" defining what a Christian is.
It is John 13:34-45.

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

I see several things here.
I see that Jesus gave us a command in His Own right as Son of God...He is not clarifying a former command, this is a New Command.
So, what is so important to Him that He uses the "C" word?
That we love one another. Wow.
But not just any love will do...it must be a Christ-like, sacrificial love...a love that puts others first.
That's something else, again.
But the clincher to the whole thing...the thing that drives me to my knees...the thing that brings tears to my eyes as I meditate on it is this...
He says that the world will know His disciples by that special love.
When other people look at me, do they see His love in my eyes?
I want to live my life in such a way that the people around me will see that love reflected in me.
That is my goal, every day.
Do I always attain it?
Weeelllllll...uh...no. No, I'm afraid that I don't.
But I'm trying, Lord...please help me to be more patient!

 

[JGG]

I find hard to link the words "christian" and "superiority", is it just me?

No, but we've seen people do it.

 

[aiki]

The idea that a certain verse in the Bible holds this significance is your personal opinion. Your interpretation of said verse is also a personal opinion of yours. Not every Christian would agree with you on these matters.

I'm afraid you can't legitimately reduce everything to opinion, much as you may wish to. Quite apart from any personal preference or interpretation of mine, the Bible very clearly, very explicitly defines what constitutes a Christian. I don't have to read anything into these verses or spin them to fit my perspective; they are straightforward and plain and as such do not allow for just whatever interpretation a person may wish to give them.

It doesn't really matter whether or not other people agree that the verses say what they say. Truth is truth regardless of who accepts it. A person can deny that the POISON label on a bottle of arsenic is to be taken literally, or that the meaning of the label is open to interpretation, but when they deny the plain and obvious meaning of the label and mix the arsenic in their tea, they quickly discover that the POISON label means exactly what it says. So, too, with those Bible verses that define what a Christian is. You may want to ignore their plain and natural meaning, but when you stand before God one day and hear that you've never been a true Christian, you'll come to regret very deeply your "That's just your opinion!" mantra.

Selah.

 

[oi_antz]

But not due to any moral superiority they have attained for themselves.

I remember these words in OP: "what other ways are Christians superior?" I listed those scriptures for an answer, since everybody was not acknowledging them.

And the whole "Saint vs. normal guy"-division is unbiblical and a lie of Rome. A Christian is a saint - that's the way the Scriptures speak of us.

Thanks, I will look into that.

 

[TheBarrd]

I remember these words in OP: "what other ways are Christians superior?" I listed those scriptures for an answer, since everybody was not acknowledging them.

Thanks, I will look into that.

Antz, you rock!

 

[AlexDTX]

No.
We are sinners, every mother's child of us. If we were not, we would not need a savior, would we?
There are some folks out there who simply have not seen the light...perhaps because the ones responsible for it are hiding it under a bushel?
Arrogance tends to make one hoard the light to themselves.
Not only that, it is not attractive behavior in a Child of God...one who is supposed to be humble.
Remember the parable of the publican and the sinner?
Which one went down justified before the Lord?
.

A person who accepts salvation through the new birth of Christ was a sinner. In the sense that their sin nature is removed and replaced with the new creation that Christ became through the Holy Ghost. Paul told the Corinthians:

But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)​

And Peter said:

Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Pet. 1:4)
​

Our spirits after the new birth are perfect because we are transformed and joined to Christ. This doctrine that we remain sinners that are only forgiven contradicts the Lord. Jesus said that we can not serve two masters (Matt. 6:24) and James said a double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). What kind of salvation would it be for God to leave us in this schizophrenic state where we have a dual nature of sinner and saint?

But do Christians sin? Yes, they do. It doesn't take a sin nature to sin. Adam and Eve were perfect in the garden of Eden. God did not create them with a sin nature, yet they sinned and were changed into sinners with a sin nature. Then why don't Christians change back into sinners with sin natures when they sin after the new birth. Because Adam and Eve did not have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them. The perfect work of Jesus Christ prevents the change back to the sin nature that drove us to sin. We are not sinners. We are saints. We are one with the Lord in our spirits.

Unity is in the spirit, not our soul or body, however. Our souls still need renewing. When Christ returns all saints will be complete in holiness body, soul and spirit when we get our glorified bodies. Meanwhile we are perfect in our spirits, but remain in these earthen vessels.

 

[aiki]

A person who accepts salvation through the new birth of Christ was a sinner. In the sense that their sin nature is removed and replaced with the new creation that Christ became through the Holy Ghost. Paul told the Corinthians:

But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)
And Peter said:
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Pet. 1:4)

So, I'm curious how you reconcile what you've written here with the following:

Galatians 5:17
17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is referring here to the sin-nature when he speaks of "the flesh." He goes on to explain what the "works of the flesh" are:

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like...

It doesn't sound, in this passage, like Paul was confining the meaning of "the flesh" merely to physical impulses like the need to sleep, or eat, or the sex drive. But if Paul did think of "the flesh" and "the sin nature" as synonymous (which, at least in this instance, I think he did), then there's a problem, it seems to me, with your view that "the sin nature was removed." What I see in Scripture is that the sin-nature is rendered powerless, but it is not utterly eradicated. This seems to be borne out by what Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:

Romans 7:18-23
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Paul speaks of two inner and competing "laws" here: one that wills to do good and one that wills to do the opposite. But if he is speaking as a spiritually-regenerated, born-again man here, which verses 22 and 23 clearly indicates he is, then, again, this seems to contradict your view that the sin nature has been completely removed.

Selah.

 

[TheBarrd]

A person who accepts salvation through the new birth of Christ was a sinner. In the sense that their sin nature is removed and replaced with the new creation that Christ became through the Holy Ghost. Paul told the Corinthians:

But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)​

And Peter said:

Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Pet. 1:4)
​

Our spirits after the new birth are perfect because we are transformed and joined to Christ. This doctrine that we remain sinners that are only forgiven contradicts the Lord. Jesus said that we can not serve two masters (Matt. 6:24) and James said a double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). What kind of salvation would it be for God to leave us in this schizophrenic state where we have a dual nature of sinner and saint?

But do Christians sin? Yes, they do. It doesn't take a sin nature to sin. Adam and Eve were perfect in the garden of Eden. God did not create them with a sin nature, yet they sinned and were changed into sinners with a sin nature. Then why don't Christians change back into sinners with sin natures when they sin after the new birth. Because Adam and Eve did not have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them. The perfect work of Jesus Christ prevents the change back to the sin nature that drove us to sin. We are not sinners. We are saints. We are one with the Lord in our spirits.

Unity is in the spirit, not our soul or body, however. Our souls still need renewing. When Christ returns all saints will be complete in holiness body, soul and spirit when we get our glorified bodies. Meanwhile we are perfect in our spirits, but remain in these earthen vessels.

And this:

1 John 1:8-9
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[AlexDTX]

So, I'm curious how you reconcile what you've written here with the following:

Galatians 5:17
17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is referring here to the sin-nature when he speaks of "the flesh." He goes on to explain what the "works of the flesh" are:

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like...

It doesn't sound, in this passage, like Paul was confining the meaning of "the flesh" merely to physical impulses like the need to sleep, or eat, or the sex drive. But if Paul did think of "the flesh" and "the sin nature" as synonymous (which, at least in this instance, I think he did), then there's a problem, it seems to me, with your view that "the sin nature was removed." What I see in Scripture is that the sin-nature is rendered powerless, but it is not utterly eradicated. This seems to be borne out by what Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:

Romans 7:18-23
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Paul speaks of two inner and competing "laws" here: one that wills to do good and one that wills to do the opposite. But if he is speaking as a spiritually-regenerated, born-again man here, which verses 22 and 23 clearly indicates he is, then, again, this seems to contradict your view that the sin nature has been completely removed.

Selah.

Aiki,
These are great questions to ask. The first question that needs to be answered, is, what is meant by the flesh? If you think the sin nature is the same thing as the flesh, then the new birth becomes meaningless. But it is not. Our souls - our conscious minds - is in the pivotal place of choice. If the soul chooses to follow the promptings of the spirit, then it is spiritual. If it chooses to follow the appetites of the body, then it is carnal. The appetites of the body are not in of themselves sinful, they become sinful depending on usage. Eating is necessary for life, but gluttony is abuse of eating. Sexual pleasure is the gift of marital relations, but fornication and adultery abuse the gift.

Temptation to abuse the gifts come from Satan and the world of lost people who engage in such lifestyles because they still have the sin nature. Renewing our minds begins with crucifying self (not sin nature but putting self first - Gal. 2:20 ) and crucifying the world to us (Gal. 6:14). We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but principalities, powers and rulers of high places (Eph. 6:12). That does not mean other people only, but ourselves, too.

Romans 7 is not a declaration of Paul having a sinful nature as we are erroneously taught. He begins the chapter stating to whom he is speaking, messianic Jews still struggling with with reconciling the Mosaic law with faith in Christ.

Know you not, brothers, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (Rom. 7.1)
​

Paul was under the law once so he is empathizing with the struggle of trying to be good under the law without the benefit of the new birth. His conclusion is not an endorsement of the doctrine of a dual nature. Rather it is a summation of our choices.
Rom. 7:24-25

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [That is, unregenerate life]
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Who gives us the regeneration]
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. [As an unregenerate under the law]
Chapter 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [Make the choice to follow the Spirit, not the world]​

As long as a believer thinks he or she still has a sin nature, the devil has a field day of destroying them. If you recognize the flesh as the choice to follow the appetites of the body selfishly and the encouragement of the world to do so, you can resist the devil and he will flee. As long as you don't resist the devil, nor recognize that it is the devil, then you will be devoured by him every time.

 

[TheBarrd]

Does anyone else know this poem:

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not shouting, “I’ve been saved!”
I’m whispering, “I get lost sometimes
That’s why I chose this way”

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t speak with human pride
I’m confessing that I stumble –
needing God to be my guide

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not trying to be strong
I’m professing that I’m weak
and pray for strength to carry on

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not bragging of success
I’m admitting that I’ve failed
and cannot ever pay the debt

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t think I know it all
I submit to my confusion
asking humbly to be taught

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not claiming to be perfect
My flaws are far too visible
but God believes I’m worth it

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartache
which is why I seek God’s name

When I say, “I am a Christian”
I do not wish to judge
I have no authority
I only know I’m loved

 

[TheBarrd]

Aiki,
These are great questions to ask. The first question that needs to be answered, is, what is meant by the flesh? If you think the sin nature is the same thing as the flesh, then the new birth becomes meaningless. But it is not. Our souls - our conscious minds - is in the pivotal place of choice. If the soul chooses to follow the promptings of the spirit, then it is spiritual. If it chooses to follow the appetites of the body, then it is carnal. The appetites of the body are not in of themselves sinful, they become sinful depending on usage. Eating is necessary for life, but gluttony is abuse of eating. Sexual pleasure is the gift of marital relations, but fornication and adultery abuse the gift.

Temptation to abuse the gifts come from Satan and the world of lost people who engage in such lifestyles because they still have the sin nature. Renewing our minds begins with crucifying self (not sin nature but putting self first - Gal. 2:20 ) and crucifying the world to us (Gal. 6:14). We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but principalities, powers and rulers of high places (Eph. 6:12). That does not mean other people only, but ourselves, too.

Romans 7 is not a declaration of Paul having a sinful nature as we are erroneously taught. He begins the chapter stating to whom he is speaking, messianic Jews still struggling with with reconciling the Mosaic law with faith in Christ.

Know you not, brothers, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (Rom. 7.1)
​

Paul was under the law once so he is empathizing with the struggle of trying to be good under the law without the benefit of the new birth. His conclusion is not an endorsement of the doctrine of a dual nature. Rather it is a summation of our choices.
Rom. 7:24-25

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [That is, unregenerate life]
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Who gives us the regeneration]
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. [As an unregenerate under the law]
Chapter 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [Make the choice to follow the Spirit, not the world]​

As long as a believer thinks he or she still has a sin nature, the devil has a field day of destroying them. If you recognize the flesh as the choice to follow the appetites of the body selfishly and the encouragement of the world to do so, you can resist the devil and he will flee. As long as you don't resist the devil, nor recognize that it is the devil, then you will be devoured by him every time.

The problem is whether or not all of this should be something to boast of, thinking that because Jesus saves you that you are somehow better than other people.
This in itself, is sin.

 

[TheBarrd]

Even Paul, that so many Christians think so highly of, was a humble man, thinking himself the least of all the saints:
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

 

[aiki]

Aiki,
These are great questions to ask. The first question that needs to be answered, is, what is meant by the flesh? If you think the sin nature is the same thing as the flesh, then the new birth becomes meaningless. But it is not. Our souls - our conscious minds - is in the pivotal place of choice. If the soul chooses to follow the promptings of the spirit, then it is spiritual. If it chooses to follow the appetites of the body, then it is carnal. The appetites of the body are not in of themselves sinful, they become sinful depending on usage. Eating is necessary for life, but gluttony is abuse of eating. Sexual pleasure is the gift of marital relations, but fornication and adultery abuse the gift.

Well, it isn't a question, I think, of what I believe is meant by "the flesh," but what Paul meant by it. And as I pointed out, he seemed to think "the sin-nature" and "the flesh" were synonymous. In the passage from Galatians 5 he listed the "works of the flesh," which included things like sorcery, selfish ambition, and jealousy. But these are not merely abuses of physical appetites like you mention above, they are sins of attitude, sins of heart and mind.

I wonder, too, how a person from whom the sin-nature has been removed - as you claimed - could be induced to choose to follow the desires of the flesh. If I have no sin nature, the impulse to sin arising from that nature is gone.

Temptation to abuse the gifts come from Satan and the world of lost people who engage in such lifestyles because they still have the sin nature. Renewing our minds begins with crucifying self (not sin nature but putting self first - Gal. 2:20 ) and crucifying the world to us (Gal. 6:14). We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but principalities, powers and rulers of high places (Eph. 6:12). That does not mean other people only, but ourselves, too.

But if I have no sin nature, why would I not be impervious to all sinful temptation? A deaf man is impervious to sound, as is a blind man to sight.

I read in Scripture that as a born-again child of God I am already crucified with Christ. (Ro. 6; Col. 3:3; Ga. 5:24). My crucifixion with Christ is a "done deal" the moment I am saved. So, why do you speak of "crucifying self"? Paul wrote to the believers in Colosse:

Colossians 3:3
3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Paul seemed to think all saved people were "dead to sin and alive unto God through Jesus Christ" (Ro. 6:11) as a product of their conversion. Crucifying oneself seems, then, unnecessary (as well as impossible). Paul also explains in the verse from Galatians chapter 6 that you cited that the Christian has been crucified to the World through Christ. It is not something we must do for ourselves.

Galatians 6:14
14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Do you see why I find your comments puzzling? Paul says here that he has been crucified to the World by the work of Christ on the cross, not that he must crucify himself to the World.

His conclusion is not an endorsement of the doctrine of a dual nature. Rather it is a summation of our choices.
Rom. 7:24-25
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [That is, unregenerate life]
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Who gives us the regeneration]
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. [As an unregenerate under the law]

But, Romans 7:22 make it quite clear that Paul is speaking as a regenerate man:

Romans 7:22
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

An unregenerate man does not delight in the law of God. As Paul clearly declared:

Romans 8:7
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

And:

Ephesians 2:1-3
1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Paul here describes the nature of the unregenerate person, which does not (actually, cannot) entail "delighting in the law of God." It seems pretty plain to me, then, that in the latter part of Romans 7, Paul was speaking of a regenerate person who was struggling with a "law of sin in his members." And this is reinforced by how Paul describes being taken captive by sin in verse 23, rather than being a willing participant in it as an unregenerate person typically would be.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

The problem is whether or not all of this should be something to boast of, thinking that because Jesus saves you that you are somehow better than other people.
This in itself, is sin.

Hmmm...I'm not so sure. Certainly, Christians are different - whether or not that difference is perceptible to others. And that difference entails adoption into God's family, spiritual regeneration, and fellowship with God. Is the possession of these things not better than their lack? If so, could it not be said that those who have obtained these things are, at least, better off than those who lack them? I think so.

Selah.