Title: Why do Christians feel condemned?

[alaric]

In the bible, there is a verse that says whoever is in Christ, there will no longer be condemnation.

Romans 8:1 = Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

I have come to this conclusion that many Christians DO NOT believe that God has removed ALL their sins. They only believe that God removed the sins that they did before becoming a Christian. And they have to follow the law and try to live a sinless life (or try to sin less) to please God.

When they try to follow the law to please God, they are essentially arming the devil with a weapon. And whenever they break a law, the devil will use the law to condemn them. In Colossians 2:14-15, it says God disarmed the devil by Jesus’ death on the cross.

Colossians 2:14-15 = When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

How did God disarm the devil?

It is written in Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

When Jesus died on the cross, he took our sins and paid the penalty on our behalf.

2 Corinthians 5:21 = God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Having paid fully for our sins, Jesus magnified and fulfilled the law. Since Jesus has fully paid for our debts (sins), we are no longer slaves under the law.

Imagine a man who purchase a house from HDB. Because he does not have money, therefore he has to take a loan from the bank. Every month, he has to pay the bank every month until the loan + interest is 100% cleared. Then one day, his father wanted to clear the loan for his son and paid everything that the man owes to the bank. Once the loan has been fully paid, the man is no longer under debt to the bank. When the next month come, even if the man receive a letter from the bank for loan payment. He can ignore the letter and penalty for non-payment because he knows the house have already been fully paid.

How do we know that Jesus has paid for my past, present and future sins?

Hebrews 9:26 & 28 says that Jesus appeared ONCE to do away with sin.

Hebrews 9:26 = Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28 = so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

God created time. Therefore, God is outside time. Most of the prophesies in the bible, God wrote them thousands of years in advance. It is written in the bible that God knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 46:9-10 = Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

Revelation 22:13 = I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

If God knows the future, then God knows every single sin that we are going to do from the day we are born to the day we die. Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is payment for our past, present and future sins.

How clean are we after Jesus paid for our sins?

It is written in the bible that we are like Jesus in this world.

1 John 4:17 = This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus.

This means that if you are born again, your identity is in Christ.

If Jesus is sinless, so am I

If Jesus is righteous, so am I

If Jesus is holy, so am I

If Jesus is seated on God’s right hand, so am I

If Jesus is blessed, so am I

If Jesus has favour with the Father, so am I

Once you believed that ALL your sins have been washed away, you should not have consciousness of sin.

Hebrews 10:2 = For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

And the devil will no power over you. And you will be able to live a life that Christ paid with his life for you to have.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the bible, there is a verse that says whoever is in Christ, there will no longer be condemnation.

Romans 8:1 = Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

I have come to this conclusion that many Christians DO NOT believe that God has removed ALL their sins. They only believe that God removed the sins that they did before becoming a Christian. And they have to follow the law and try to live a sinless life (or try to sin less) to please God.

When they try to follow the law to please God, they are essentially arming the devil with a weapon. And whenever they break a law, the devil will use the law to condemn them. In Colossians 2:14-15, it says God disarmed the devil by Jesus’ death on the cross.

Colossians 2:14-15 = When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

How did God disarm the devil?

It is written in Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

When Jesus died on the cross, he took our sins and paid the penalty on our behalf.

2 Corinthians 5:21 = God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Having paid fully for our sins, Jesus magnified and fulfilled the law. Since Jesus has fully paid for our debts (sins), we are no longer slaves under the law.

Imagine a man who purchase a house from HDB. Because he does not have money, therefore he has to take a loan from the bank. Every month, he has to pay the bank every month until the loan + interest is 100% cleared. Then one day, his father wanted to clear the loan for his son and paid everything that the man owes to the bank. Once the loan has been fully paid, the man is no longer under debt to the bank. When the next month come, even if the man receive a letter from the bank for loan payment. He can ignore the letter and penalty for non-payment because he knows the house have already been fully paid.

How do we know that Jesus has paid for my past, present and future sins?

Hebrews 9:26 & 28 says that Jesus appeared ONCE to do away with sin.

Hebrews 9:26 = Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28 = so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

God created time. Therefore, God is outside time. Most of the prophesies in the bible, God wrote them thousands of years in advance. It is written in the bible that God knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 46:9-10 = Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

Revelation 22:13 = I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

If God knows the future, then God knows every single sin that we are going to do from the day we are born to the day we die. Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is payment for our past, present and future sins.

How clean are we after Jesus paid for our sins?

It is written in the bible that we are like Jesus in this world.

1 John 4:17 = This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus.

This means that if you are born again, your identity is in Christ.

If Jesus is sinless, so am I

If Jesus is righteous, so am I

If Jesus is holy, so am I

If Jesus is seated on God’s right hand, so am I

If Jesus is blessed, so am I

If Jesus has favour with the Father, so am I

Once you believed that ALL your sins have been washed away, you should not have consciousness of sin.

Hebrews 10:2 = For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

And the devil will no power over you. And you will be able to live a life that Christ paid with his life for you to have.

The reason why Christian often feel condemned is that many churches trade on judgment and condemnation instead of grace and power.

This is especially true of churches that hold to Arminian theology - that a person can be saved today and lost tomorrow.

 

[Oldmantook]

In the bible, there is a verse that says whoever is in Christ, there will no longer be condemnation.

Romans 8:1 = Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

I have come to this conclusion that many Christians DO NOT believe that God has removed ALL their sins. They only believe that God removed the sins that they did before becoming a Christian. And they have to follow the law and try to live a sinless life (or try to sin less) to please God.

When they try to follow the law to please God, they are essentially arming the devil with a weapon. And whenever they break a law, the devil will use the law to condemn them. In Colossians 2:14-15, it says God disarmed the devil by Jesus’ death on the cross.

Colossians 2:14-15 = When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

How did God disarm the devil?

It is written in Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

When Jesus died on the cross, he took our sins and paid the penalty on our behalf.

2 Corinthians 5:21 = God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Having paid fully for our sins, Jesus magnified and fulfilled the law. Since Jesus has fully paid for our debts (sins), we are no longer slaves under the law.

Imagine a man who purchase a house from HDB. Because he does not have money, therefore he has to take a loan from the bank. Every month, he has to pay the bank every month until the loan + interest is 100% cleared. Then one day, his father wanted to clear the loan for his son and paid everything that the man owes to the bank. Once the loan has been fully paid, the man is no longer under debt to the bank. When the next month come, even if the man receive a letter from the bank for loan payment. He can ignore the letter and penalty for non-payment because he knows the house have already been fully paid.

How do we know that Jesus has paid for my past, present and future sins?

Hebrews 9:26 & 28 says that Jesus appeared ONCE to do away with sin.

Hebrews 9:26 = Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28 = so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

God created time. Therefore, God is outside time. Most of the prophesies in the bible, God wrote them thousands of years in advance. It is written in the bible that God knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 46:9-10 = Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

Revelation 22:13 = I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

If God knows the future, then God knows every single sin that we are going to do from the day we are born to the day we die. Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is payment for our past, present and future sins.

How clean are we after Jesus paid for our sins?

It is written in the bible that we are like Jesus in this world.

1 John 4:17 = This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus.

This means that if you are born again, your identity is in Christ.

If Jesus is sinless, so am I

If Jesus is righteous, so am I

If Jesus is holy, so am I

If Jesus is seated on God’s right hand, so am I

If Jesus is blessed, so am I

If Jesus has favour with the Father, so am I

Once you believed that ALL your sins have been washed away, you should not have consciousness of sin.

Hebrews 10:2 = For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

And the devil will no power over you. And you will be able to live a life that Christ paid with his life for you to have.

All of your PAST sins have been forgiven upon repentance and conversion: "God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed" Rom 3:25.
This verse regarding the propitiation of Jesus' blood says nothing about present or future sins yet to be committed. One cannot repent of future sins that one has not yet been guilty of. Upon the moment of salvation our past sins are forgiven - not all sins present or future.
As for Rom 8:1, you have to read a little further for proper context. V.4 states: "in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
We are not condemned when we fulfill the righteous requirement of the law by not walking according to the flesh. Conversely, Christians who continue to walk according to the flesh are condemned.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When they try to follow the law to please God, they are essentially arming the devil with a weapon.

Then what would you suggest? Stop being obedient and living life as a Christian?

I hope this thread isn't one of many pushing "Do what you want, sin as you want, it's the only way to Heaven".

Someone please tell me it's not that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

All of your PAST sins have been forgiven upon repentance and conversion: "God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed" Rom 3:25.
This verse regarding the propitiation of Jesus' blood says nothing about present or future sins yet to be committed. One cannot repent of future sins that one has not yet been guilty of. Upon the moment of salvation our past sins are forgiven - not all sins present or future.
As for Rom 8:1, you have to read a little further for proper context. V.4 states: "in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
We are not condemned when we fulfill the righteous requirement of the law by not walking according to the flesh. Conversely, Christians who continue to walk according to the flesh are condemned.

Although I quite happily agree with the rest of your post, I have a bit of an issue with your interpretation of this last paragraph.

Romans 8:4 describes a condition, not a requirement. There is a major difference. Being converted to Christ and becoming the righteousness of God in Him is the righteous requirement of the law. We are made righteous in Christ apart from the law.

The first covenant was made on the foundation of the law, but it was broken, and because of the breach of contract, the covenant was made ineffective, and anyone trying to use the law as the basis of righteousness brought a curse upon himself.

But the new covenant consisted in God writing the law on our hearts so that we will follow it as our greatest desire. This is why the Scripture says that those who walk in the Spirit shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not in their hearts to walk in the flesh, therefore genuinely converted Christians do not walk in the flesh at all.

In Romans 8:4, this is exactly what Paul is saying, that we are the righteousness of God in Christ, apart from the law, and therefore we do not walk in the flesh, but we walk according to the Spirit.

If a person is walking in the flesh, he is not genuinely converted to Christ at all. He came over the religious wall instead of the narrow gate of faith alone in Christ.

The truly converted Christian came to Christ by faith and his righteousness was given as a gift from God, and he continues to walk by faith and not by sight. Also, the Scripture says, "The just shall live by faith". So the faith life in Christ continues and the converted Christian no longer walks in the flesh but in the Spirit.

This is not Arminian doctrine that is based on self-righteousness, that if we keep to the religious and moral rules we will remain saved, but if we break them we will be lost. It is a deceptive doctrine that the devil uses to keep good believers in a state of uncertainty about the spiritual state in order to make them unfruitful.

Genuinely converted Christians are not condemned and never will be.

 

[Oldmantook]

Although I quite happily agree with the rest of your post, I have a bit of an issue with your interpretation of this last paragraph.

Romans 8:4 describes a condition, not a requirement. There is a major difference. Being converted to Christ and becoming the righteousness of God in Him is the righteous requirement of the law. We are made righteous in Christ apart from the law.

The first covenant was made on the foundation of the law, but it was broken, and because of the breach of contract, the covenant was made ineffective, and anyone trying to use the law as the basis of righteousness brought a curse upon himself.

But the new covenant consisted in God writing the law on our hearts so that we will follow it as our greatest desire. This is why the Scripture says that those who walk in the Spirit shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not in their hearts to walk in the flesh, therefore genuinely converted Christians do not walk in the flesh at all.

In Romans 8:4, this is exactly what Paul is saying, that we are the righteousness of God in Christ, apart from the law, and therefore we do not walk in the flesh, but we walk according to the Spirit.

If a person is walking in the flesh, he is not genuinely converted to Christ at all. He came over the religious wall instead of the narrow gate of faith alone in Christ.

The truly converted Christian came to Christ by faith and his righteousness was given as a gift from God, and he continues to walk by faith and not by sight. Also, the Scripture says, "The just shall live by faith". So the faith life in Christ continues and the converted Christian no longer walks in the flesh but in the Spirit.

This is not Arminian doctrine that is based on self-righteousness, that if we keep to the religious and moral rules we will remain saved, but if we break them we will be lost. It is a deceptive doctrine that the devil uses to keep good believers in a state of uncertainty about the spiritual state in order to make them unfruitful.

Genuinely converted Christians are not condemned and never will be.

Thanks for your courteous reply and your interpretation. I disagree for the following reasons. Notice in Rom 8:4 that the verse states "...that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." The word "might" is indicative of possibility - not certainty. Righteousness in Christ not only requires "positional" but also "practical" righteousness. IF and when we practice righteousness as a result of being saved, we then fulfill the righteous requirement of the law. That is precisely why 1 Jn 3:7 states "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
Just a few verses later in Rom 8:13, Paul reaffirms that righteousness in Christ is dependent upon our obedience, or lack thereof. Rom 8:13 in the Greek is what is known as a 1st class conditional sentence. The word IF in this verse is the conditional particle (ei), which introduces a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The conditional particle ei, “if” is employed with the indicative mood of the verb zao, “you are living.” Together, they explicitly convey a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. In other words assuming the protasis is true (living according to the flesh), then the apodosis is true (you will spiritually die). Paul's warning to the brethren thus conveys - If and let assume brother that it is true for the sake argument you are living in submission to the flesh, i.e. the sin nature.” The apodasis is “(then) you brother will die, i.e. spiritual death.

The "deceptive doctrine" that you allude to is ironically the notion that genuine believe can never lose their salvation and face spiritual death. Paul's warning to the brethren in Rome (v.13) contradicts your belief. Eternal security is the same lie that the serpent said to Eve when he told her in Gen 3:4 "You will not surely die...." Satan delights in genuine believers who fail to acknowledge that believers are required to walk in obedience according to the Spirit and not according to the desires of the flesh. Because they have been taught eternal security that believe that they will not surely die - even if they disobey God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks for your courteous reply and your interpretation. I disagree for the following reasons. Notice in Rom 8:4 that the verse states "...that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." The word "might" is indicative of possibility - not certainty. Righteousness in Christ not only requires "positional" but also "practical" righteousness. IF and when we practice righteousness as a result of being saved, we then fulfill the righteous requirement of the law. That is precisely why 1 Jn 3:7 states "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
Just a few verses later in Rom 8:13, Paul reaffirms that righteousness in Christ is dependent upon our obedience, or lack thereof. Rom 8:13 in the Greek is what is known as a 1st class conditional sentence. The word IF in this verse is the conditional particle (ei), which introduces a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The conditional particle ei, “if” is employed with the indicative mood of the verb zao, “you are living.” Together, they explicitly convey a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. In other words assuming the protasis is true (living according to the flesh), then the apodosis is true (you will spiritually die). Paul's warning to the brethren thus conveys - If and let assume brother that it is true for the sake argument you are living in submission to the flesh, i.e. the sin nature.” The apodasis is “(then) you brother will die, i.e. spiritual death.

The "deceptive doctrine" that you allude to is ironically the notion that genuine believe can never lose their salvation and face spiritual death. Paul's warning to the brethren in Rome (v.13) contradicts your belief. Eternal security is the same lie that the serpent said to Eve when he told her in Gen 3:4 "You will not surely die...." Satan delights in genuine believers who fail to acknowledge that believers are required to walk in obedience according to the Spirit and not according to the desires of the flesh. Because they have been taught eternal security that believe that they will not surely die - even if they disobey God.

Thanks for all that. I see your points.
What concerns me is that you are saying that the Christian life is a mixture of grace and law, in that we receive the grace of God as long as we are obedient to the moral law. Am I right?

Also, I believe that genuinely converted Christians will not walk in the flesh but in the spirit. That is what the new creation is all about. They are born again with a new heart and so they would never think about disobeying God by willfully sinning and rebelling against Him. It would be contrary to their new nature in Christ.

So, if a professing Christian is walking in the flesh, then all they have is religion and not true conversion. They are just religious sinners still dead in their sins. They will be the ones who will stand before Christ and He will say, "depart from me, ye wicked. I never knew you."

That is the great difference between religious people and genuine converts to Christ. You actually cannot tell which is which by just looking at the outward appearance, but God sees all and knows the hearts, and so He knows who are genuinely converted and who are mere religious hypocrites.

This is why the way to true conversion is narrow, and few there be who find it. Who knows? In many churches we might find out one day that 80 percent of the members are religious hypocrites and only 20 percent are true converts! And this might apply to any denomination you can name.

 

[Oldmantook]

Thanks for your objections as it helps me to understand where you're coming from which leads to further clarification. I used to believe as you do as I graduated from a Reformed Seminary and my professors who were sincere men of God, all taught from a Reformed/Calvinist view point. I being a student (decades ago) just accepted what I was taught. It was not until years later that I changed my belief after studying the Word for myself as I could not reconcile troubling verses that appeared to contradict the doctrine of eternal security. I took me several years to change my view, made more difficult as I had to unlearn what I previously learned as my held biases colored my interpretation of Scripture. With that being said, on to your questions.

What concerns me is that you are saying that the Christian life is a mixture of grace and law, in that we receive the grace of God as long as we are obedient to the moral law. Am I right?

The law as you know was the tutor, showing us that we were unable to keep and obey God's righteous standard for humankind to abide by. Grace through the atoning blood of Jesus was bestowed not only for the forgiveness of sin but also as the means to obey God - something the law could not do. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit and our new nature now enables us to obey the moral law - something that was previously impossible with our old nature. We also know that Scripture warns that grace is not a license to sin. So the germane question is, what happens to regenerated believers who misuse the grace of God and instead use it as a license to sin? Paul addressed this question when he penned Rom 8:13. He warned the brethren in Rome that if they are living according to the flesh (misusing grace), they will die. Grace does not cover believers who refuse to repent of habitual sin as their chronic sin is the plain evidence that they have not repented. The moral law is the standard. God's grace provides us with the ability to abide by the moral law. We Christians are fond of quoting Jn 3:16 for eternal life but neglect to quote Heb 5:9 which specifies obedience as a requirement for eternal life. In both of these verses, the Greek verb tenses are in the present tense. Thus these two verses state that one must go on "believing" and go on "obeying" in order to have eternal life. If a believer for whatever reason ceases to believe or obey, he/she is no longer assured of having eternal life.

So, if a professing Christian is walking in the flesh, then all they have is religion and not true conversion.

That is a common argument that Calvinists propose when faced with the discrepancy that someone who was a believer is no longer a believer as evidenced by their sinful lifestyle or their recanting of the faith. They claim that "they went out from us, but they were not of us" citing 1 Jn 2:19 to buttress their claim. However that is a half-truth. It is a logical fallacy otherwise known as an overgeneralization. While it is indeed true that SOME were never truly converted in the first place, it does not logically imply that ALL who walk in the flesh were never truly converted. That would be like saying because some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. In fact if we go back to Rom 8:13, Paul wrote IF you are living according to the flesh, you will die.... This clause cannot refer to an unconverted person because such persons have no choice but to live according to the flesh since they are unregenerated. If Paul were referring to an unbeliever in this clause, he would have used the word "since." "IF" can only apply to the believer who can choose if to live according to the flesh OR if to live according to the Spirit; each with its attendant consequences.

That is the great difference between religious people and genuine converts to Christ. You actually cannot tell which is which by just looking at the outward appearance, but God sees all and knows the hearts, and so He knows who are genuinely converted and who are mere religious hypocrites.

Though we humans cannot see the heart, the Bible does state that we shall know them by their fruits. Thus outward actions are an indicator. A person who claims to be a believer but sins does not automatically entail that he/she is not a genuine believer as I wrote earlier as that may be an over statement. The apostle James contradicts such a notion that they are hypocrites and not genuine believers in Js 5:19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James is addressing the brethren; not the unsaved. The brother who sins/wanders is referred to as a sinner, who faces spiritual death if someone does not turn him away from his wandering away. So while it is true that only God sees the heart, we as fellow brethren have the obligation and responsibility to correct our fellow brother lest his continued wandering lead to the loss of his soul which is spiritual death.

Unlike 99% of the people on this forum that I discuss this subject matter with, you at least seem honestly open to a differing opinion. The vast majority remain steadfast in their held belief which is their prerogative but they are closed to any scriptures which contradict their doctrine. Iron sharpens iron as you continue to pursue the truth.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks for your objections as it helps me to understand where you're coming from which leads to further clarification. I used to believe as you do as I graduated from a Reformed Seminary and my professors who were sincere men of God, all taught from a Reformed/Calvinist view point. I being a student (decades ago) just accepted what I was taught. It was not until years later that I changed my belief after studying the Word for myself as I could not reconcile troubling verses that appeared to contradict the doctrine of eternal security. I took me several years to change my view, made more difficult as I had to unlearn what I previously learned as my held biases colored my interpretation of Scripture. With that being said, on to your questions.


The law as you know was the tutor, showing us that we were unable to keep and obey God's righteous standard for humankind to abide by. Grace through the atoning blood of Jesus was bestowed not only for the forgiveness of sin but also as the means to obey God - something the law could not do. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit and our new nature now enables us to obey the moral law - something that was previously impossible with our old nature. We also know that Scripture warns that grace is not a license to sin. So the germane question is, what happens to regenerated believers who misuse the grace of God and instead use it as a license to sin? Paul addressed this question when he penned Rom 8:13. He warned the brethren in Rome that if they are living according to the flesh (misusing grace), they will die. Grace does not cover believers who refuse to repent of habitual sin as their chronic sin is the plain evidence that they have not repented. The moral law is the standard. God's grace provides us with the ability to abide by the moral law. We Christians are fond of quoting Jn 3:16 for eternal life but neglect to quote Heb 5:9 which specifies obedience as a requirement for eternal life. In both of these verses, the Greek verb tenses are in the present tense. Thus these two verses state that one must go on "believing" and go on "obeying" in order to have eternal life. If a believer for whatever reason ceases to believe or obey, he/she is no longer assured of having eternal life.


That is a common argument that Calvinists propose when faced with the discrepancy that someone who was a believer is no longer a believer as evidenced by their sinful lifestyle or their recanting of the faith. They claim that "they went out from us, but they were not of us" citing 1 Jn 2:19 to buttress their claim. However that is a half-truth. It is a logical fallacy otherwise known as an overgeneralization. While it is indeed true that SOME were never truly converted in the first place, it does not logically imply that ALL who walk in the flesh were never truly converted. That would be like saying because some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. In fact if we go back to Rom 8:13, Paul wrote IF you are living according to the flesh, you will die.... This clause cannot refer to an unconverted person because such persons have no choice but to live according to the flesh since they are unregenerated. If Paul were referring to an unbeliever in this clause, he would have used the word "since." "IF" can only apply to the believer who can choose if to live according to the flesh OR if to live according to the Spirit; each with its attendant consequences.


Though we humans cannot see the heart, the Bible does state that we shall know them by their fruits. Thus outward actions are an indicator. A person who claims to be a believer but sins does not automatically entail that he/she is not a genuine believer as I wrote earlier as that may be an over statement. The apostle James contradicts such a notion that they are hypocrites and not genuine believers in Js 5:19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James is addressing the brethren; not the unsaved. The brother who sins/wanders is referred to as a sinner, who faces spiritual death if someone does not turn him away from his wandering away. So while it is true that only God sees the heart, we as fellow brethren have the obligation and responsibility to correct our fellow brother lest his continued wandering lead to the loss of his soul which is spiritual death.

Unlike 99% of the people on this forum that I discuss this subject matter with, you at least seem honestly open to a differing opinion. The vast majority remain steadfast in their held belief which is their prerogative but they are closed to any scriptures which contradict their doctrine. Iron sharpens iron as you continue to pursue the truth.

I spent my formative years in the Pentecostal movement and was adamant about believing from that point of view. However, as I have matured and now old, there are a lot of things from that movement I have had to unlearn as I have been able to see Scripture as it is written and not as interpreted by my previous mentors.

Paul is quite right when he said that we see "through a glass darkly" and that none of us have a really clear appreciation of the ways of God, and this is why we have forums like these with folks discussing and debating from different perspectives.

No one is absolutely right about everything, and we have a lot to learn from each other.

I am now 71 and have been a Christian for 52 years, and I am just discovering the extent of the grace and mercy of God in a much more clearer perspective. Charles Spurgeon says that as we get older, we clear away what is not necessary and concentrate on what Jesus did for us on the cross, because our attitude toward Him is what will make the difference when we get out into eternity, which for me, will not be too many years in the future.

I love praying in tongues. It brings me into the presence of God and a closer fellowship with Him. I guess it's not exactly the tongues, but it is the close fellowship that I love. I have just been working through grief over losing our poor old kitty cat of 18 years. She died a horrible death being suspended by one of her claws on a coat hanging at our back door, while my wife and I were away from home for the day. The stress of being suspended and not getting herself free caused her heart to fail, and we discovered her when we got home. I didn't think that I would get so emotional over our kitty cat and I couldn't express it in English; but I could express exactly how I felt in tongues, and the language was very expressive, and in return I felt comfort from the Lord.

I just wonder how I would have coped if I didn't have the ability to pour out my heart in grief to the Lord through tongues? I thanked the Lord for the ability, and said how sorry I was for those who went through grief and were not able to pour out their hearts in this way.

People can argue intellectually about whether tongues is for today or not, or whether we have Scripture instead, but for me, in my hour of grief, I needed to pour out my heart to the Lord in tongues, and I am so glad I did. Experience wins over an argument every time!

 

[Oldmantook]

I spent my formative years in the Pentecostal movement and was adamant about believing from that point of view. However, as I have matured and now old, there are a lot of things from that movement I have had to unlearn as I have been able to see Scripture as it is written and not as interpreted by my previous mentors.

Paul is quite right when he said that we see "through a glass darkly" and that none of us have a really clear appreciation of the ways of God, and this is why we have forums like these with folks discussing and debating from different perspectives.

No one is absolutely right about everything, and we have a lot to learn from each other.

I am now 71 and have been a Christian for 52 years, and I am just discovering the extent of the grace and mercy of God in a much more clearer perspective. Charles Spurgeon says that as we get older, we clear away what is not necessary and concentrate on what Jesus did for us on the cross, because our attitude toward Him is what will make the difference when we get out into eternity, which for me, will not be too many years in the future.

I love praying in tongues. It brings me into the presence of God and a closer fellowship with Him. I guess it's not exactly the tongues, but it is the close fellowship that I love. I have just been working through grief over losing our poor old kitty cat of 18 years. She died a horrible death being suspended by one of her claws on a coat hanging at our back door, while my wife and I were away from home for the day. The stress of being suspended and not getting herself free caused her heart to fail, and we discovered her when we got home. I didn't think that I would get so emotional over our kitty cat and I couldn't express it in English; but I could express exactly how I felt in tongues, and the language was very expressive, and in return I felt comfort from the Lord.

I just wonder how I would have coped if I didn't have the ability to pour out my heart in grief to the Lord through tongues? I thanked the Lord for the ability, and said how sorry I was for those who went through grief and were not able to pour out their hearts in this way.

People can argue intellectually about whether tongues is for today or not, or whether we have Scripture instead, but for me, in my hour of grief, I needed to pour out my heart to the Lord in tongues, and I am so glad I did. Experience wins over an argument every time!

It appears you are addressing the wrong thread as our discussion on this thread has nothing to do with tongues so I think you mistook me for someone else.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It appears you are addressing the wrong thread as our discussion on this thread has nothing to do with tongues so I think you mistook me for someone else.

What I was saying was that I was taught from a particular perspective when I was first starting out in the Christian life, and was pretty dogmatic about it for a number of years. But as I matured and studied the Bible more comprehensively and just saw what was there without trying to find some sort of "spiritual" sub-text, I abandoned some of my earlier beliefs, and held on to what I knew was always correct.

No one has the perfect answer to all the theological issues, we live in our own worlds wherever we are and are shaped by them. We have different life and church experiences, and God meets us where we are. What He doesn't like about us, how we live and what we believe, He can and will change, if we love and a committed to Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

 

[Oldmantook]

What I was saying was that I was taught from a particular perspective when I was first starting out in the Christian life, and was pretty dogmatic about it for a number of years. But as I matured and studied the Bible more comprehensively and just saw what was there without trying to find some sort of "spiritual" sub-text, I abandoned some of my earlier beliefs, and held on to what I knew was always correct.

No one has the perfect answer to all the theological issues, we live in our own worlds wherever we are and are shaped by them. We have different life and church experiences, and God meets us where we are. What He doesn't like about us, how we live and what we believe, He can and will change, if we love and a committed to Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

Yes our beliefs are subject to change as we understand the scriptures better. However we must then be able to defend our doctrinal beliefs against any scriptures/arguments that appear to contradict our held belief or else we might just be wrong. That is why I quote scripture and state what I believe it means and hold it up for scrutiny for others to either concur with or disagree with. If they disagree and have better scriptural evidence/argumentation, then it up to me to counter their argument or even change my view point. Case in point, every person who I have posed this scenario to, who holds to eternal security has refused to answer this question directly. Instead they claim to speak for what someone else might do or they confidently proclaim what they would do in the future as if they had a crystal ball. This scenario I believe demonstrates the feeble underpinnings of the doctrine of eternal security.

My question is: if you find yourself in the position of having to decide whether or not to take the mark of the beast, would YOU take the mark?
As far as I know, they have 3 possible options:
1. Yes, take the mark because I’m eternally secure. This response indicates that the person is at least consistent in their belief. However I’ve found no one responding in this manner because they know that this affirmative response directly contradicts the plain warning given in Rev 14:9-11.
2. No, don’t take the mark because if I do it would demonstrate that I was never a believer to begin with. This option puts to rest the notion that those who continue to sin or no longer believe were never believers in the first place. The person knows that he/she is a genuine believer yet at the same time has to acknowledge the consequences of his/her losing salvation upon taking the mark. It puts them in a quandary because they would never consider themselves to be unbelievers who fall away from the faith. It demonstrates in a practical manner that regenerate believers can indeed lose their secure position if they take the mark. They can no longer use the excuse that persons who fall away from the faith never really believed.
3. No, don’t take the mark because if I do I’m condemned to the lake of fire. If this option is taken, a person who adheres to eternal security acknowledges that the warning of taking the mark applies to him/her personally and the doctrine of eternal security is no longer a valid belief.

A person who believes in the pre-trib rapture might protest and claim that this is not valid and is only a hypothetical example since the church is raptured before the great tribulation. However Rev 14:12 notes that the saints are still present at the time when the mark is presented. Whether this is the entire church or only tribulation saints is another matter for discussion. The main point is that v.12 commands the saints to persevere and be patient by keeping God’s commandments and their faith. Taking the mark would demonstrate that the saint has not kept the commandments and his/her faith.

The person who states that he is 100% certain that he would never take the mark is at least as confident as Peter was when he boasted that he would never deny Jesus. As both you and I know, Peter who walked and talked with Jesus face-to-face on a daily basis denied Jesus not once but thrice. So Peter who saw Jesus and his miracles in person denied Jesus, yet we who are not witnesses to such things think that we cannot, under any circumstances, deny the Lord. If we are honest, the best we can say is that we HOPE we will never deny the Lord relying on the grace that God provides. This scenario I think demonstrates in a practical manner the false teaching regarding eternal security.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes our beliefs are subject to change as we understand the scriptures better. However we must then be able to defend our doctrinal beliefs against any scriptures/arguments that appear to contradict our held belief or else we might just be wrong. That is why I quote scripture and state what I believe it means and hold it up for scrutiny for others to either concur with or disagree with. If they disagree and have better scriptural evidence/argumentation, then it up to me to counter their argument or even change my view point. Case in point, every person who I have posed this scenario to, who holds to eternal security has refused to answer this question directly. Instead they claim to speak for what someone else might do or they confidently proclaim what they would do in the future as if they had a crystal ball. This scenario I believe demonstrates the feeble underpinnings of the doctrine of eternal security.

My question is: if you find yourself in the position of having to decide whether or not to take the mark of the beast, would YOU take the mark?
As far as I know, they have 3 possible options:
1. Yes, take the mark because I’m eternally secure. This response indicates that the person is at least consistent in their belief. However I’ve found no one responding in this manner because they know that this affirmative response directly contradicts the plain warning given in Rev 14:9-11.
2. No, don’t take the mark because if I do it would demonstrate that I was never a believer to begin with. This option puts to rest the notion that those who continue to sin or no longer believe were never believers in the first place. The person knows that he/she is a genuine believer yet at the same time has to acknowledge the consequences of his/her losing salvation upon taking the mark. It puts them in a quandary because they would never consider themselves to be unbelievers who fall away from the faith. It demonstrates in a practical manner that regenerate believers can indeed lose their secure position if they take the mark. They can no longer use the excuse that persons who fall away from the faith never really believed.
3. No, don’t take the mark because if I do I’m condemned to the lake of fire. If this option is taken, a person who adheres to eternal security acknowledges that the warning of taking the mark applies to him/her personally and the doctrine of eternal security is no longer a valid belief.

A person who believes in the pre-trib rapture might protest and claim that this is not valid and is only a hypothetical example since the church is raptured before the great tribulation. However Rev 14:12 notes that the saints are still present at the time when the mark is presented. Whether this is the entire church or only tribulation saints is another matter for discussion. The main point is that v.12 commands the saints to persevere and be patient by keeping God’s commandments and their faith. Taking the mark would demonstrate that the saint has not kept the commandments and his/her faith.

The person who states that he is 100% certain that he would never take the mark is at least as confident as Peter was when he boasted that he would never deny Jesus. As both you and I know, Peter who walked and talked with Jesus face-to-face on a daily basis denied Jesus not once but thrice. So Peter who saw Jesus and his miracles in person denied Jesus, yet we who are not witnesses to such things think that we cannot, under any circumstances, deny the Lord. If we are honest, the best we can say is that we HOPE we will never deny the Lord relying on the grace that God provides. This scenario I think demonstrates in a practical manner the false teaching regarding eternal security.

You have brought up a new point about the mark of the beast, which I don't believe in. But this is not the thread to debate that issue. A lot of teaching around that is just dreamed-up fantasy, because it is unreliable to base doctrine on apocalyptic literature.

However, I side with the Martin Luther, who maintained that justification and peace with God is by faith alone in Christ.

 

[Oldmantook]

You have brought up a new point about the mark of the beast, which I don't believe in. But this is not the thread to debate that issue. A lot of teaching around that is just dreamed-up fantasy, because it is unreliable to base doctrine on apocalyptic literature.

However, I side with the Martin Luther, who maintained that justification and peace with God is by faith alone in Christ.

Doctrine states that Jesus returns ro earth again which is in apocalyptic literature. So do you believe in Jesus' second coming? You believe one and not the other perhaps?
Respectfully, you have not attempted to counter my arguments which does not bode well for your belief system but it's your prerogative to believe whatever you wish.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Doctrine states that Jesus returns ro earth again which is in apocalyptic literature. So do you believe in Jesus' second coming? You believe one and not the other perhaps?
Respectfully, you have not attempted to counter my arguments which does not bode well for your belief system but it's your prerogative to believe whatever you wish.

I firmly believe in the second coming of Christ. My view is pre-trib Rapture. It is just that I don't hold to a lot of the speculative teaching about the details of it. I was a youth leader in a church when one of these end time preachers came and spoke a lot of speculative stuff about disobedient Christians having to go through the tribulation and getting their heads cut off, etc., and this generated fear and condemnation in the young people, and we have to spend time counselling and praying for them to be released from a demonic spirit of fear. Good Biblical teaching does not terrify people like that.

I have a couple of good commentaries on Revelation, one written by a Puritan author, and I have found them very sound doctrinally without generating fear and uncertainty.

 

[Oldmantook]

I firmly believe in the second coming of Christ. My view is pre-trib Rapture. It is just that I don't hold to a lot of the speculative teaching about the details of it. I was a youth leader in a church when one of these end time preachers came and spoke a lot of speculative stuff about disobedient Christians having to go through the tribulation and getting their heads cut off, etc., and this generated fear and condemnation in the young people, and we have to spend time counselling and praying for them to be released from a demonic spirit of fear. Good Biblical teaching does not terrify people like that.

I have a couple of good commentaries on Revelation, one written by a Puritan author, and I have found them very sound doctrinally without generating fear and uncertainty.

Nothing wrong with commentaries which are men's interpretations of what they think Scripture states however nothing beats the words of Jesus himself regarding his own return from Rev 16:
15 “Look, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who is alert and remains clothed so that he may not go around naked and people see his shame.” 16 So they assembled the kings at the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.
Pre-tribbers believe that Jesus comes one time as thief to secretly rapture the church and then another time at his second coming which is a publically visible event. Problem is Jesus never stated that he returns twice - only once. Moreover as this passage indicates Jesus himself states that he is coming like a thief just prior to the battle of Armageddon which is post-tribulation not pre-tribulation. I prefer to believe Jesus instead of the commentaries.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nothing wrong with commentaries which are men's interpretations of what they think Scripture states however nothing beats the words of Jesus himself regarding his own return from Rev 16:
15 “Look, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who is alert and remains clothed so that he may not go around naked and people see his shame.” 16 So they assembled the kings at the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.
Pre-tribbers believe that Jesus comes one time as thief to secretly rapture the church and then another time at his second coming which is a publically visible event. Problem is Jesus never stated that he returns twice - only once. Moreover as this passage indicates Jesus himself states that he is coming like a thief just prior to the battle of Armageddon which is post-tribulation not pre-tribulation. I prefer to believe Jesus instead of the commentaries.

Jesus is only coming as a thief for those who are unconverted. That day will come as a surprise to them. But not for converted Christians, who will know as the Day approaches and they will be ready for His coming.

 

[Oldmantook]

Jesus is only coming as a thief for those who are unconverted. That day will come as a surprise to them. But not for converted Christians, who will know as the Day approaches and they will be ready for His coming.

You totally overlook the fact that Jesus plainly stated in Rev 16:15-16 that he's coming as a thief right before Armageddon which takes at the end of the tribulation - not before the tribulation. Why do you ignore that? Pre-tribbers believe Jesus comes before the 7 yr. trib.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You totally overlook the fact that Jesus plainly stated in Rev 16:15-16 that he's coming as a thief right before Armageddon which takes at the end of the tribulation - not before the tribulation. Why do you ignore that? Pre-tribbers believe Jesus comes before the 7 yr. trib.

Who was He talking to when He said that? Not converted Christians.

 

[Oldmantook]

Who was He talking to when He said that? Not converted Christians.

Don't you realize that your statement is totally irrelevant? He comes back as a thief/rapture because the unsaved don't anticipate his coming and thus are taken by surprise (like a thief). The saved however anticipate Jesus' coming; are ready and are anticipating his return. The pertinent question is WHEN does this "rapture" occur. Jesus stated just before Armageddon - not before the tribulation as you claim.