Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If any attribution of anything results in dishonestly saying we 'have' [present tense] no sin such declarations would seem little more than a present fantasy and a fib against the facts of scripture to boot.
So heaven has a fantasy about our present condition as well?
So heaven has a fantasy about our present condition as well?
Heaven (God's perspective) sees your cause for sin (your flesh) as having been crucified with Christ.
Doesn't mean sins won't be judged either. The notion that is promoted with many is that by (whatever measure is used, justification, grace, forgiveness, repentance, etc) they conclude that it is 'just-as-if-I've-never sinned' and that is simply not a truthful conclusion.That is why our sins can never condemn us.
There is no understanding that can honestly make us conclude we 'have' (present tense) no sin. The instant we make that conclusion we are not truthful/honest to the measure of 1 John 1:8 and therefore lying and not in TRUTH.The problem that sin causes for the believer is that the Holy Spirit can not be one with us in our experience when we fall into sin. Its the cutting us off from the filling of the Spirit that concerns God.
Which equation means sin without judgment. I find that to be a rather hollow conclusion, particular measured with the fact that we do reap what we sow regardless of our begging to God after the fact. To say otherwise is to equate sin without consequences, which is where many end up landing.So, when we sin? And, realize we have, and name it to God. God forgives us for having gotten off course with Him. He never condemns us fort our sins. That condemnation was assumed by Christ on the Cross.
Jesus was pretty clear that the thought of sin is sin, even if not externalized, that it is evil and that it is defiling. What would you propose to avoid that fact set? And secondly, why would we say otherwise if those fact sets are facts?Some assume that since our sins have been paid for by Christ bearing the penalty for our sins? (He was forsaken, not us, as he bore being forsaken of God for our sins on the Cross). Some believe since there is no no condemnation? That we have nothing to do to please God.
Sin without consequences or judgment is not a presentation of scripture that I'm aware of. There is an avalanche of scripture making the exact opposite conclusion.God freed us from the condemnation so that God could have us freely walk with Him in the Spirit. Its when we now sin that it cuts us off from God's fellowship, discontinuing our walking together.
That still does not equate to sin without consequence or sin without judgment.God quickly forgives our sins as soon as we will admit we sinned (1 John 1:9) ... In doing so? We have agreed with each other, that such an act is is sin, and we are able to begin walking together in the filling of the Spirit once more!
Indeed it would seem so. The box canyon on these matters is purposefully designed to instill close examinations of the facts.That is why our sins are still an issue,
That conclusion would not appear sufficient to run the gauntlet of understandings either:but no longer able to be any cause for our condemnation. Its no longer a legal matter, but a matter of relationship as in a family matter.
Christ's bloody sacrifice not much of a fantasy my friend, ie, you didn't directly state this, but it's what its about.
Thank you again,
Old Jack
The conclusion of the scripture [inclusive of law] seems exceptionally clear to me:
Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
There is no reason to discount either statement of fact. Not making that same conclusion with regards to being concluded under sin would be lying against both fact and scripture statement of such a fact in favor of discounting that and only taking the second portion as fact.
Did you not know? Paul plainly states....
What are you talking about?
Not to the extent of claiming I have no sin. I would consider that a lie on any basis.I said the following:
Did you not know? Paul plainly states....That is so hard to grasp for you?
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now
live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with
Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that
we should no longer be slaves of sin.
You think it is a lie to say we are sinners or have sin? Is that what passes as truth suppression?If I did not know any better.. I would swear that you feel its your duty to obfuscate and to suppress truth.
It may seem of more import to be truthful about having sin.
The sacrifice was not so we could kid ourselves through some fantasy Jack.
I wouldn't consider, again, Rom.3:24-26, ie, v.25 any fantasy my friend, "cover of the mercy seat through faith in His blood,..."
An ontological reality,
Old Jack
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Rom 7)
The Lord saves sinners. Ok. That's a fact. If we were not sinners we would not need to be saved. But, believers are not to be considered sinners after they are saved. Paul before his salvation had the worst of sinners. He was blindly self righteous. And, he was persecuting the church and having many believers put to death.Obfuscate this and get back to me if you want, and tell me why any of us would come to any different conclusion?
1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
The Lord saves sinners. Ok. That's a fact.
The fact is genez, Paul, an Apostle no less, claimed he was the chief of sinners after salvation.
Trying to escape that honest conclusion by any amount of fancy dancing just doesn't cut it.
You say he doesn't function as such? Then he should have said I WAS not I AM.
Is it fair to read the statement as present tense? I AM would certainly indicate so.
If you are interested he also shows HOW he derived that fact. But those who can't walk in the simplicity of that fact will never know how he got there. And do you know why?
Because they are not honest about the fact for themselves.
You mean there are still some not willing to admit they are sinners? Calling sin by another name is just plain silly. St. Paul was truthful. Now if he said it today, he'd be second fiddle as I am Chief. I see no sin worse than my own as I am convinced I know better and still find myself in sin.
What exactly are you calling the law?
The fact is genez, Paul, an Apostle no less, claimed he was the chief of sinners after salvation.
You say he doesn't function as such? Then he should have said I WAS not I AM.
Is it fair to read the statement as present tense? I AM would certainly indicate so.
If you are interested he also shows HOW he derived that fact. But those who can't walk in the simplicity of that fact will never know how he got there. And do you know why?
Because they are not honest about the fact for themselves.
You mean there are still some not willing to admit they are sinners? Calling sin by another name is just plain silly. St. Paul was truthful. Now if he said it today, he'd be second fiddle as I am Chief. I see no sin worse than my own as I am convinced I know better and still find myself in sin.
Well, being an apostle? That would make him your chief.
Please bear with me through the conversation. I'm not about to land in a bad place on this subject.This is silly. You are arguing with me as if I am someone who believes in sinless perfection after they are saved. That is a mistake. I am a sinner saved by grace. I am not sinless, but I have been granted the power not to sin where I used to by grace.
Please to not jump the cart and presume in my behalf. I take facts from text. The same facts are easily taken by anyone else by simply reading.I see. So, you are telling me he was still murdering Christians, and still living in ultra legalism? I see what you mean. Thanks for the insight!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?