The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I hope I am wrong, but you seem to be a defender of sin.
Is that really the case?

@glorydaz if I might answer this for you...

@Hoping Our response to this is the same as Paul's:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,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.For he who has died has been freed from sin.Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:1-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:1-23&version=NKJV
 

Hoping

Well-known member
EITHER everything meant for the Jews must not be taught to Christians OR everything meant for the Jews MUST be taught to Christians.
Don't we Christians learn everything the Jews were taught?
My own study today was on the law of leprosy.
It seems to be a "picture" of the fallen Israel itself...and, a way, a hope, of recovery.
We glean from our OT readings the "picture" or "presage" of Christ and a new covenant.
There's a third option:
Some things in the Bible are specifically for the Jews, and some things are specifically for the Gentiles, and yet the entire Bible is for everyone to LEARN FROM, but not necessarily keep. (For example, as mentioned before, God commanded Noah to build an ark of a specific size, yet "Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37) doesn't mean that we should go and build an ark like Noah did.)
I wasn't inferring that the things from the OT must be adopted by anyone in the NT.
Option 3 is true.
Only in the dispensation of Grace.
NOT in the dispensation of Law.
The Jews were no longer under the Law after Jesus fulfilled the Law and prophets.
They had everything the Christians had, by the grace of God.
Just because some didn't want to join with Peter and the rest of the disciples only means not all of the Jews wanted to come out from under the Law that we have been enabled to die to.
The Jews had the same chance we did to die to the Law.
Some came with us, and others were left, or stayed, behind.
The difference is that there are different "house rules" that they shall be judged by.
As the old testament is over, we will all be judged the same way.
And became Christians.
Nope. The Old Testament and the New Testament are sections of the Bible. The Old Testament ended with Malachi, and begins with Matthew.
The OT having ended, the Jews that continued to cling to it were, for lack of a better phrase, left behind.
Unless you mean COVENANTS... In which case sure, the new covenant started when Christ died on the Cross. But it has since been put on hold, about a year afterwards, in fact, just as Jesus said.
Testament/covenant...same thing to me.
Put on hold?
You mean we are not under the new covenant?
I don't agree at all.
The New Covenant was put on hold by God because of Israel's unbelief. It currently cannot be accessed by ANYONE, Jew or Gentile.
Well, there is a new topic for discussion.
It would mean we are not able to be saved.
I see no reason to believe that.
As for those who were Jews but not partakers of the New Covenant after God cut off unbelieving Israel and turned to working with the Body of Christ, any Jew who became a believer after that point would have become a Christian, neither Jew nor Gentile.
I see from whence you speak now.
"3" classes of men.
1. Jews, 2. Gentiles, 3. Converts.
I'll try to remember to call the Jewish converts "Jewish Converts" from now on.
The verse you quoted does not put them before Paul. In fact, Paul makes it explicit in 1 Timothy 1:16.0
Not being able to track down the "them" you cite, I really can't respond.
But to use 1 Tim 1:16 to imply that Paul was the very first convert seems ludicrous.
Who laid his hands on Paul at Damascus?
Who baptized him?
Who was Saul persecuting in Jerusalem?
Unbelievers?
I think not.
Yes, that's the point we're making.
Again: In THE BODY OF CHRIST there is NEITHER Jew nor Gentile.
In the NEW COVENANT, however, there are Jews and proselytes (Gentile converts), and there are Gentiles. The Jews and proselytes are part of the New Covenant. The Gentiles are not.
Things that are different are not the same.
Now that I know you have a third kind of man in mind, I can follow your line of thought...better.
The body of Christ is comprised of ex-Jews and ex-Gentiles.
Again, In the Body of Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Again, In the Body of Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Think of the time we could have saved if you had stated the "third kind of man" point at the beginning.
Pentecost was a NEW COVENANT event. It has nothing to do with the Dispensation of the Grace of God given to Paul.
I disagree with the second part of your reply.
That would imply the apostles and disciples who now had the gift of the Holy Ghost were still under the OC.
That isn't true.
Maybe if I quote scripture, it will sink in:

Galatians 3:26-29
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
OK, we'll just call them Jewish-converts and/or Gentile-converts from now on
Please explain what you mean by "The entire NT is the fulfillment of the OT."
The OT was the picture of what was to come.
It came.
Because of the different house rules given to different people.
Conversions changed which rules a man lived under.
Paul, a Jew, wasn't forced to be circumcised or eat no bacon after his conversion.
Something else that is ALSO my point is that the New Covenant has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. It has different house rules, a different oikonomia, than does the BoC.
You mean the body of Christ, the church, doesn't participate in the New Covenant?
I can't wait to see your reasoning for that comment.
Surely you don't believe that?
I know it to be true.
Just go to any church destroyed by the pastor's unfaithfulness to his wife.
They are not Christians if they are not in Christ.
There is no sin in Christ, and "converts" are all in Christ.
Or just ask Paul, Romans 7:14, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.[/I]"...
Paul was writing his recollection of his pre-conversion life while tying to live the Law..and failing.
I agree with Paul, re: Galatians 5:24.
Good, so without the flesh, or its vile affections and lusts, men can't commit sin.
James wrote that lust is one of the key elements to what is called a sin in James 1:14-15
Without it, no sin.
However, you seem to have forgotten what Paul wrote 3 books earlier, in Romans 7:

Romans 7:13-25
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 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. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
You need to remember that Paul is writing in the present-narrative tense, wherein he is recalling a former time while still under the Law.
Rom 7:5..."For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."
He wasn't in the flesh anymore when he wrote Romans.
Rom 7:23..."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."
Answered in Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Rom 7:24..."O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Answered already in Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Paul presented his OC laments, but also the NC answers to them.
Rom 6 is about the death of the flesh, old man.
Rom 7 is about Paul's recollections of desperation under the OC.
Rom 8 is about walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
That's not how it works.
It sure is that way.
As Jesus said, no man can serve two masters. (Matt 6:24)
He also said whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. (John 8:34)
We can't serve sin and Christ Jesus.
Old Toyota?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
@glorydaz if I might answer this for you...

@Hoping Our response to this is the same as Paul's:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,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.For he who has died has been freed from sin.Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:1-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:1-23&version=NKJV
Glorydaz seemed to denigrate my statement that men must turn from sin to be saved.
What was I to think?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
May I ask what you are?
I don't really identify with "charismatic" as a group, as I am not familiar with all their stances.
You can ask.....I can tell you need some attention.
I hope I am wrong, but you seem to be a defender of sin.
Is that really the case?

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think you're even saved yet.
Maybe you think you've figured out the correct formula, but blown around with every wind of doctrine.

I'll tell you this. The only way you will be saved is through the cross.
Better hurry, though, because the Lord will be coming soon.

No amount of repenting of sin, and obeying, and pretending you've been crucified with Christ will gain you access to heaven.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Don't we Christians learn everything the Jews were taught?

I was repeating your argument in my own words.

My own study today was on the law of leprosy.
It seems to be a "picture" of the fallen Israel itself...and, a way, a hope, of recovery.
We glean from our OT readings the "picture" or "presage" of Christ and a new covenant.

I wasn't inferring that the things from the OT must be adopted by anyone in the NT.
Option 3 is true.

Thank you for conceding the point.

The Jews were no longer under the Law after Jesus fulfilled the Law and prophets.

Wrong.

Jesus said:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:17&version=NKJV

The law remained after Christ's fulfilling of the law. That's why Christ said, after teaching nothing but the law for three years, to "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you."

They had everything the Christians had, by the grace of God.

Nope. The Jews had the law, undergirded by grace. But they still had to follow the law.

Christians have grace. No requirement to follow a law.

Just because some didn't want to join with Peter and the rest of the disciples only means not all of the Jews wanted to come out from under the Law that we have been enabled to die to.

Peter taught the New Covenant and the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel.

Your premise is wrong, thus your argument is wrong.

I agree that some didn't want to join with Peter and the rest of the disciples (excluding Paul, who wasn't in the picture yet). The problem is that you're conflating Paul's gospel with that of the Twelve. Here's a breakdown of what happened from Christ's ascension to Paul's conversion (which I consider the beginning of the Body of Christ, he being the first Christian), basically Acts 1 to Acts 9, and a little beyond:

Christ ascends and gives the Twelve (currently 11) the Great Commission.
The Twelve choose Matthias as Judas Iscariot's replacement.
The Twelve (now twelve with Matthias) are given the Holy Spirit to preach to those (as far as I can tell, only the Jews) around them.
The congregation of Jews living under the New Covenant, expecting Christ to return soon, begin sharing all things, living in communes, selling all that they had (what use do they have for earthly things when their Savior and Messiah will be returning soon?).
Ananias and Sapphira lie to God, being an image of the current condition of Israel (at the time).
Things only get worse from there, and not in a "we're obeying God, and suffering because of it" way, but in a "we're disobeying God and suffering because of it" way.
Stephen is accused of blasphemy.
Saul (Paul) persecutes the congregation of believing Jews, those who had recognized Christ as their Messiah and King and were part of the New Covenant.
Stephen is executed, overseen by Saul.
Saul, on his way to Damascus, is confronted by Jesus for persecuting the believing Jews, and places his faith in Christ, becoming the first Christian.
Paul, still blinded from his encounter with Christ, seeks out Ananias #2, who, through the laying of hands, transfers the authority of God to him. This is another image of the current state of Israel (at the time), where God has now officially cut unbelieving Israel off and grafted in the Body of Christ.
Later in Acts, we see Ananias #3, also an image of the current state of Israel (at the time), as someone who has fully rejected his Messiah (and Israel hers).

The Jews had the same chance we did to die to the Law.

Nope.

Some came with us, and others were left, or stayed, behind.

Nope. That's not what the Bible describes. Have you even read Acts, just to get an overview of it?

As the old testament is over, we will all be judged the same way.

Nope. We are not under the New Covenant God made with Israel, because we are not Israel.

And became Christians.

True. What's your point?

The OT having ended, the Jews that continued to cling to it were, for lack of a better phrase, left behind.

Still conflating the New Covenant with Paul's Gospel of Grace.

The believing Jews (and the proselyte gentiles who) were under the New Covenant. They were still Jews/proselytes. Not Christians.

The Jews Paul converted were NOT part of the New Covenant, but were saved under his gospel of grace. They were now "no longer Jew nor Greek," but Christians.

Testament/covenant...same thing to me.

I recommend using "covenant" to make it less confusing.

Put on hold?

Yes. Jesus spoke of this in a parable.

He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV

Jesus came for three years, seeking for Israel to bear fruit.

After three years, it had bore none. He gave it an extra year, and since it STILL did not bear fruit, He cut off Israel, putting His plan for them on hold, and grafted in the Gentiles.

You mean we are not under the new covenant?

Correct. We are under Paul's gospel of the grace of God.

I don't agree at all.

That's because of your paradigm. Try widening/changing your view a bit.

Well, there is a new topic for discussion.
It would mean we are not able to be saved.

Never said that, nor implied it.

The only reason you believe that to be the case is because of your paradigm of beliefs, which mashes together the New Covenant and Paul's gospel.

Separate the two, and that problem goes away.

I see no reason to believe that.

That's nice.

I see from whence you speak now.
"3" classes of men.
1. Jews, 2. Gentiles, 3. Converts.
I'll try to remember to call the Jewish converts "Jewish Converts" from now on.

Technically 4, if you include Christians. I won't even mention Gentile proselytes.

Jews, believing Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.

Jews, being Israel as a whole.
Believing Jews, those who accepted Christ as their Messiah under the New Covenant.
Gentiles.
And Christians, which are neither Jew nor Gentile, only exist under Paul's gospel of Grace for the whole world, and do not exist under the New Covenant made with Israel.

Not being able to track down the "them" you cite, I really can't respond.
But to use 1 Tim 1:16 to imply that Paul was the very first convert seems ludicrous.

Paul was the pattern for believers in the Body of Christ. He says so. God isn't disorganized that He needs to go thousands of believers before setting a standard for how someone should be saved.

Who laid his hands on Paul at Damascus?

Ananias #2.

Who baptized him?

Supra.

Who was Saul persecuting in Jerusalem? Unbelievers?

No. He was persecuting Jews who have accepted Christ as their Messiah, who are under the New Covenant.

I think not.

Yeah, you do. Just not well enough. You're too focused on the trees that you miss the forest.

Now that I know you have a third kind of man in mind, I can follow your line of thought...better.
The body of Christ is comprised of ex-Jews and ex-Gentiles.

I guess it can be worded that way, but it's somewhat misleading.

Rather, under the current dispensation of grace, "Jew" is just an ethnic group, just another nationality in a world full of nations. In other words, they're a nation full of humans in need of a Savior. There's nothing inherently special about them (aside from their history and God's future plans for them). Thus, Galatians 3:28...

Think of the time we could have saved if you had stated the "third kind of man" point at the beginning.

It's been the point I've been making this entire time, Hoping!

I disagree with the second part of your reply.

That's nice.

That would imply the apostles and disciples who now had the gift of the Holy Ghost were still under the OC.
That isn't true.

Wrong.

It means they would still be under the New Covenant, which you seem to be leaving out, or merging with Paul's gospel, on of the two.

Old Covenant => made with Israel
New Covenant => made with Israel
Gospel of Grace => provided for the whole world.

Things that are different...

OK, we'll just call them Jewish-converts and/or Gentile-converts from now on

Or, you know, just call them Christians...

The OT was the picture of what was to come.
It came.

I don't get it. You're going to have to be more detailed than that.

Conversions changed which rules a man lived under.

Yup. But those who were saved under the New Covenant could not get saved under Paul's gospel, and vice versa. Or perhaps for the former, "did not," might be a better phrase to use, though the latter is certainly true.

Paul, a Jew, wasn't forced to be circumcised or eat no bacon after his conversion.

Consider this: Paul, a Jew, never entered the New Covenant God made with Israel. Instead, God gave him a different dispensation, a different set of house rules, to follow and preach.

You mean the body of Christ, . . . doesn't participate in the New Covenant?

Correct.

... the church, ...

There are at least two churches in Scripture. Conflating the two will only cause confusion.

I can't wait to see your reasoning for that comment.

It's what I've been explaining this entire time!

I know it to be true.

And I gave you two examples, one generic and one specific, that shows you to be wrong.

They are not Christians if they are not in Christ.

Agreed. Yet that's not what we're talking about, is it?

There is no sin in Christ,

Agreed. Yet, again, Paul says:

Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.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.For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.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.O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. - Romans 7:13-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:13-25&version=NKJV

I want you to reread that again. Yes, again, after reading it just now.

Paul states explicitly that we who are in Christ, who are still inhabiting fleshly bodies, are still subject to the flesh. It's the flesh that causes us to sin, despite our identity being "in Him."

and "converts" are all in Christ.

Yes, Christians are "in Him."

Paul was writing his recollection of his pre-conversion life while tying to live the Law..and failing.

You're rationalizing. You're trying to make scripture fit your beliefs, and not the other way around.

Paul says "I am carnal, sold under sin."

He's not speaking in the past tense. He's talking about his current life as a Christian.

Thus disproving your "Christians don't sin" claim.

Or are you going to claim that every pastor who cheats on his wife with another woman, gets caught, and destroys his marriage, are all non-believers?

Good, so without the flesh, or its vile affections and lusts, men can't commit sin.

And yet, men still live "in the flesh." Thus, while we are freed from sin, we still have to deal with the fleshy bodies we inhabit.

Our flesh is what causes us (yes, even Christians) to sin, when we give into it. Hence Paul's encouragement 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.

James wrote that lust is one of the key elements to what is called a sin in James 1:14-15
Without it, no sin.

Maybe you've heard of "lusts of the flesh"?

Last I checked, we still inhabit bodies of flesh.

You need to remember that Paul is writing in the present-narrative tense, wherein he is recalling a former time while still under the Law.

Or, he's writing about his past, while still including his current situation. No?

Rom 7:5..."For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."
He wasn't in the flesh anymore when he wrote Romans.

So he didn't have a body? (I kid)

So he didn't have to deal with his flesh anymore?

Because one chapter earlier, he said "I

Rom 7:23..."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."
Answered in Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Rom 7:24..."O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Answered already in Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Paul presented his OC laments, but also the NC answers to them.
Rom 6 is about the death of the flesh, old man.
Rom 7 is about Paul's recollections of desperation under the OC.
Rom 8 is about walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.

I deny your interpretation of these Scriptures.

Paul in Romans 7 is telling us that, as a Christian who struggles with sin, though that might be too strong a word to use, that our flesh is at war with Christ, while we are in Him. He's not talking about his time before his conversion. And the only way for one to arrive at that conclusion is to read it into the text, ie, eisegesis.

It sure is that way.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

As Jesus said, no man can serve two masters. (Matt 6:24)

Agreed. Never said nor indicated otherwise.

He also said whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. (John 8:34)

Yup.

We can't serve sin and Christ Jesus.

Agreed.

Why do you think Paul exhorts us in Romans 6 to "not let sin reign in our mortal bodies" if we cannot sin?

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. - Romans 6:12-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:12-14&version=NKJV

Old Toyota?

supra - used in academic or legal texts to refer to someone or something mentioned above or earlier.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
You can ask.....I can tell you need some attention.
I guess you have something to hide...eh?
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think you're even saved yet.
My salvation won't be assured until I hear my name read from the book of life.
I have been converted, however, from a child of the devil to a child of God.
As long as I endure faithfully till the end, that will happen.
Maybe you think you've figured out the correct formula, but blown around with every wind of doctrine.
What I "figured out" was that I don't have to commit sin anymore.
And I thank God for that power by the grace of God and the Holy Ghost.
I'll tell you this. The only way you will be saved is through the cross.
Better hurry, though, because the Lord will be coming soon.
You are correct, and I was baptized into Christ, on that cross, a long time ago, thanks be to God.
No amount of repenting of sin, and obeying, and pretending you've been crucified with Christ will gain you access to heaven.
One repentance from sin should be all that is necessary.
If you turn away from sin, no more sin is in your future.
 

marke

Well-known member
I guess you have something to hide...eh?

My salvation won't be assured until I hear my name read from the book of life.
There are Christians who already know they are saved.

1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Wrong.
Jesus said:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:17&version=NKJV
He was successful at fulfilling it, thanks be to God.
The law remained after Christ's fulfilling of the law. That's why Christ said, after teaching nothing but the law for three years, to "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you."
The Law was only practiced by unbelievers, after Jesus fulfilled it.
It is written on the hearts of those now in Christ.
Nope. The Jews had the law, undergirded by grace. But they still had to follow the law.
Christians have grace. No requirement to follow a law.
We don't need to follow every written precept, but things like Thou shalt not kill, lie, commit adultery, steal, are now part of the reborn's divin nature.
Peter taught the New Covenant and the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel.
Sounds like a new thread, with clear distinctions from the New Covenant and the gospel Paul preached.
Your premise is wrong, thus your argument is wrong.
I agree that some didn't want to join with Peter and the rest of the disciples (excluding Paul, who wasn't in the picture yet). The problem is that you're conflating Paul's gospel with that of the Twelve. Here's a breakdown of what happened from Christ's ascension to Paul's conversion (which I consider the beginning of the Body of Christ, he being the first Christian), basically Acts 1 to Acts 9, and a little beyond:
This is what Peter preached..."Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

This is what Paul preached..."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Cor 15:3-12)

Show me the differences
The believing Jews (and the proselyte gentiles who) were under the New Covenant. They were still Jews/proselytes. Not Christians.
The Jews Paul converted were NOT part of the New Covenant, but were saved under his gospel of grace. They were now "no longer Jew nor Greek," but Christians.
I can't see why you distinguish between believing Jews under the NC and believing Gentiles, also under the NC, when both were required to do the same things.
All of both groups were Christians, whether they were called that or not.
Yes. Jesus spoke of this in a parable.
He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV
Jesus came for three years, seeking for Israel to bear fruit.
After three years, it had bore none. He gave it an extra year, and since it STILL did not bear fruit, He cut off Israel, putting His plan for them on hold, and grafted in the Gentiles.
I think you kind of went off on a tangent there, as Jesus knew exactly what would happen right from the beginning.
Correct. We are under Paul's gospel of the grace of God.
Isn't that same grace available to Jews?
I think it is, as Peter and the disciples would up using it.
The only reason you believe that to be the case is because of your paradigm of beliefs, which mashes together the New Covenant and Paul's gospel.
Separate the two, and that problem goes away.
I see no reason to separate them.
As you noted earlier, there is no longer Jew and Gentile..as we are all one now.
Technically 4, if you include Christians. I won't even mention Gentile proselytes.
Jews, believing Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.
I see all "converts" as Christians.
It doesn't matter if they are from Israel or Tonga.
"Jew/Israelite" is just a nationality to me.
Paul was the pattern for believers in the Body of Christ. He says so. God isn't disorganized that He needs to go thousands of believers before setting a standard for how someone should be saved.
The "standard" was set in Acts 2:38.
And, as you wrote, that God didn't need to go thousands more converts before setting a standard with Paul
No. He was persecuting Jews who have accepted Christ as their Messiah, who are under the New Covenant.
I can't remember what that refers to.
Rather, under the current dispensation of grace, "Jew" is just an ethnic group, just another nationality in a world full of nations. In other words, they're a nation full of humans in need of a Savior. There's nothing inherently special about (aside from their history and God's future plans for them). Thus, Galatians 3:28...
It's been the point I've been making this entire time, Hoping!
That's nice.
Wrong.
It means they would still be under the New Covenant, which you seem to be leaving out, or merging with Paul's gospel, on of the two.

Old Covenant => made with Israel
New Covenant => made with Israel
Gospel of Grace => provided for the whole world.
Things that are different...
The new Covenant made with Israel is for both Israel and anyone else who wants to partake in Jesus Christ.
The whole world.
Israeli is just a nationality.
Or, you know, just call them Christians...
There you go.
I don't get it. You're going to have to be more detailed than that.
It would take pages and pages to list all the "shadow" things that Jesus, the caster of the shadow, fulfilled.
Just a few...high priest, atonement for sin, sacrificial lamb.
Yup. But those who were saved under the New Covenant could not get saved under Paul's gospel, and vice versa. Or perhaps for the former, "did not," might be a better phrase to use, though the latter is certainly true.
I can't agree.
Consider this: Paul, a Jew, never entered the New Covenant God made with Israel. Instead, God gave him a different dispensation, a different set of house rules, to follow and preach.
I can't agree.
God didn't give one group of men different requirements for salvation from any other group.
There are at least two churches in Scripture. Conflating the two will only cause confusion.
You are incorrect.
You put yourself in the steps of Peter who mistakenly separated himself from the Galatians in Gal 2.
Agreed. Yet, again, Paul says:
Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.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.For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.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.O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. - Romans 7:13-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:13-25&version=NKJV

I want you to reread that again. Yes, again, after reading it just now.

Paul states explicitly that we who are in Christ, who are still inhabiting fleshly bodies, are still subject to the flesh. It's the flesh that causes us to sin, despite our identity being "in Him."
You have misread it.
Just because we have skin and bones doesn't mean we are "in the flesh".
Rom. 8 makes the distinction clearer.
Maybe you've heard of "lusts of the flesh"?
Last I checked, we still inhabit bodies of flesh.
Thankfully, it is written..."And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal 5:24)
I believe that.

Why do you think Paul exhorts us in Romans 6 to "not let sin reign in our mortal bodies" if we cannot sin?
So we don't, and thankfully, by the grace of God, he tells us why we don't have to sin anymore.
Our old man is dead, crucified with Christ.
supra - used in academic or legal texts to refer to someone or something mentioned above or earlier.
Thank you.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
There are Christians who already know they are saved.

1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Praise God for that.
Now, all they have do is retain that belief until the return of the Lord.
I like their confidence, but "Let him that stands beware lest he falls."
Then they will be saved at the return of the Lord!
 

marke

Well-known member
Praise God for that.
Now, all they have do is retain that belief until the return of the Lord.
I like their confidence, but "Let him that stands beware lest he falls."
Then they will be saved at the return of the Lord!
It is true reprobates can think they are saved when they are not, but if you are walking with Jesus like you claim there is no excuse for you claiming you don't know if Jesus has transformed your life by His Spirit when you were born again.

2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Amen to that, and we have received so much more than just an atonement for our past sins.
Glory to God !

Ah, that little addition of "PAST SINS" proves you are still in the dark.

You also failed to address the fact that we already have received the atonement.
Do you know what that means?
It means your wait until later to be saved is a bunch of malarkey.
The two do not mix.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
It is true reprobates can think they are saved when they are not, but if you are walking with Jesus like you claim there is no excuse for you claiming you don't know if Jesus has transformed your life by His Spirit when you were born again.

2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
I do know He transformed my whole being when I was born again and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
But what I don't know is whether or not I will continue to abide by His wishes. until the day of judgement.
Who knows what tomorrow may bring?
I just have to remain true to Him, and thankfully, His commandments are not grievous.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Ah, that little addition of "PAST SINS" proves you are still in the dark.

You also failed to address the fact that we already have received the atonement.
Do you know what that means?
It means your wait until later to be saved is a bunch of malarkey.
The two do not mix.
It is written..."Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Heb 10:38-39)
Some "draw back" into unbelief.
But for those who maintain their walk in Christ, there will be no "more sin" to be atoned for.
My atonement was for sins past, as Rom 3:25 makes clear..."Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"
I thank God for it.
 

marke

Well-known member
I do know He transformed my whole being when I was born again and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
But what I don't know is whether or not I will continue to abide by His wishes. until the day of judgement.
Who knows what tomorrow may bring?
I just have to remain true to Him, and thankfully, His commandments are not grievous.
If you fall away now that you have 'fallen forward,' then you will lose your 'salvation' forever.

Hebrews 6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
If you fall away now that you have 'fallen forward,' then you will lose your 'salvation' forever.

Hebrews 6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
I agree, but with this stipulation...
Those that "seem" to fall away were never converted to begin with.
As it is written..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."...those who are really born of God's seed cannot commit sin.
A "fall" would manifest that they were not born of God.
With that in mind, I would do all I could to get that person to come to a real repentance from sin and start being a "real Christian" from that date.
 

marke

Well-known member
I agree, but with this stipulation...
Those that "seem" to fall away were never converted to begin with.
As it is written..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."...those who are really born of God's seed cannot commit sin.
A "fall" would manifest that they were not born of God.
With that in mind, I would do all I could to get that person to come to a real repentance from sin and start being a "real Christian" from that date.
I get the impression that you believe you have already been converted yet fear falling away, proving you were never converted.
 
Top