Rukkus

Ovedya, what do you think of my rewrite of that section (post 10)? Can you find anything specifically wrong by quoting it and then pointing it out? I really want to get to the bottom of this.

Alright, I rewrote a part of the article, that I think clears up something you said, Ovedya . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- See, Paul wasn't just talking about sinners who would forever be in bondage to their sin. When he says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save . . ." That part, about being saved applies to Paul just as much as the "sinners" part, right? So was he saying that he was chief of those who are forever bound to sin, with no deliverance? No, he was chief of sinners, but he didn't stay that way. How do we know? Read that verse again. Notice that the sinners that he refers to, were being saved and delivered from sin. Not sinners who remained in their sin. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." It doesn't say, "Christ Jesus came into the world to leave sinners the way they are, full of sin." But that's the way you hear it, right? The way people quote that verse implies that even though Paul was a Christian, he was still left in his sins, with no deliverance. No, Paul is not making reference to plain old sinners. He's making reference to why Christ came: To deliver us from our sins. And really, if you read the entire context, that's exactly what you see. Paul goes back and recalls his time before he was saved (1Tim 1:12-13), up until the point that God had mercy on him (1Tim 1:16).

Ovedya says . . . I believe I was specific. Paul never makes the argument that he is the foremost among delivered sinners. Alright, well let me ask you a question . . . When Paul says "of whom" who is he referring to in that verse? To have done so would have meant that he was exalting himself above all other delivered sinners, which not only goes against his character, it goes against everything that he stated concerning himself. Paul never viewed himself above any other in any respect. Well, it's important to remember that the word "save" used in that verse is a verb. It's not an adjective. In other words, it's not a description of the the sinners, just a statement about what was happening to them. so that means The of "of whom" part of 1Tim 1:15 is referring to the 'sinners' part. So Paul did say he was foremost among sinners . . . But also mentions that these sinners were being saved and delivered from sin. Do you see what I'm saying? In other words, to be exact about it, he's not saying "I am foremost when it comes to being delivered from sin." He's saying he's foremost of those sinners that were being delivered from sin . . . You know . . . The more you get me talking about this the more I wonder if that article is due for some even more changes . . .

Ovedya said, Rukkus, You appear to be falling prey to a classic case of assuming something from the Scriptures that really isn't there. In your attempt at expositing Paul's statement in 1 Tim. 1:15 you are making assumptions out of context with the message he is trying to deliver. You'll have to prove this . . . To begin with, verse 15 is in context with Paul's message concerning different teachings, which essentially goes from verse 3 to verse 17. In this passage Paul first warns Timothy of those that are teaching differently; he warns of their error in attempting to teach the Law without having intimate knowledge of the Law and its function (vv. 7-10). In verses 11-17 Paul is explaining to Timothy that, despite his previous condition (13) the Lord appointed him to the ministry, having saved him from his former manner of life. I agree. In reading this passage, and especially this verse, you need to take note that Paul is referring to himself as the "foremost" (A more accurate translation of the word, BTW) of sinners not just because of his former sinful condition but also because of his former persecution of the church (Incidentally, writing, "Of whom I am foremost" is the same as writing "I am the foremost")! I agree. In verses 13 Paul includes the word "persecution." Here he is specifically addressing his former persecution of the church. And, contrary to your statement that Christians believe Paul to be the great apostle, this stands in stark contrast to what Paul considered of himself because of his having formerly persecuted the church! In 1 Cor. 15:9 Paul called himself the least among the apostles, and not even fit to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church (cf. Phil. 3:6; Acts 8:1-3; Gal. 1:13). Well, most Christians I've met still regard Paul as a great apostle, whether he thought he was or not. That's what my statement was based on. I wasn't trying to determine whether he was great or not, simply pointing out that many Christians view him thus. It was during his persecution of the church that Paul was also one of the most esteemed leaders of Judaism, by the way (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6; Gal. 1:14). He obviously considered his appointment to such a position to be divine. However, he understood after his conversion that his persecution of the church was out of zeal for the law and pure ignorance (1 Tim. 1:13; cf. Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17). I agree. Therefore, in verses 13-15 Paul's point is that, although he was actively persecuting the church from the standpoint of being an authority (And being blameless according to the Law, BTW), God' showed mercy, grace and loved toward him through Christ Jesus (vv. 14, 16). Well, he makes more points than that. Like the fact that he is chief (or foremost) among sinners who are delivered and set free from sin. So is Paul describing himself as a pattern in these verses? No! Verse 16 says, "Because of this [the sacrifice of Christ, v. 15] I was shown mercy, that in me, the foremost, Jesus Christ might display all His long-suffering for a pattern to those who are to believe on Him unto eternal life." (Emphasis and references added). Finally, verse 17 gives glory and honor to God - Amen! So it is not Paul that is a pattern! It is the long-suffering of Christ Jesus that is the pattern. Paul is just an example. So Paul here is not pointing to himself at all - he is pointing to Jesus Christ, and specifically, the long-suffering of Christ through Paul's ignorance and his zeal for the law! Alright This passage of Scripture has absolutely nothing whatever to do with being sinless. Well, part of the problem is your word usage. I didn't use the word "sinless" in the article, therefore for me to try and defend that point would be me defending a point I never made. If you mean 'sinless' as being delivered and set free from sin, then yes, it says so in 1Tim 1:15, Christ Jesus came to deliver and set free sinners (those who are bound to sin) from their sin. That's what it says. Whether you believe it or not I'm not concerned with. I'm concerned with whether the Bible says it or not. That's what I say at the beginning of the article. In fact, if anything, it shows us how we can be zealous for our religious ideals, teachings, doctrines, etc. and still actually be damaging the true Body of Christ. However, Christ is long-suffering, full of grace and love, and patient to the uttermost! Alright. One more brief point, Rukkus. I just shudder to think that you are putting this on a website without further carefull examination and consideration of your points. Well, any point can be further examined. If all you ever did was examine it, and not share it, no one would ever learn about it, because you're not teaching it. But we examine these things to the best of our ability, then post them, then stay open to further correction on them. This particular article I've changed about 5 times. No major changes, just added a little as we got more light. One partcularly damaging point in your article is the following: The logical outcome of you analysis (flawed as it is) is that we must arrive at the conclusion that Paul is the chiefest among persons who were delivered from their sin! How is that flawed? Which part is inaccurate? Paul says Christ came to deliver and set free sinners from their sin, of whom he is chief. Do you disagree with that? If so, why? You need to be specific. However, Paul's very own statements regarding himself in Phil 3 directly contradict this conclusion! Not really. This deals with Legal and Vital Sides of Redemption.

Hello everyone. This is an article we have on our web site and I just wanted to know if anyone can find anything that is biblically untrue in it . . . let me know Paul wrote to Timothy and said "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." So . . . Was Paul chief of sinners? First thing I want to consider is the ramifications of this verse if Paul was presently the chief of sinners. People say "See, if Paul, the great apostle who wrote most of the New Testament, was chief of sinners, how much more are we?" That statement doesn't make sense if you think about it. If Paul truly was chief of sinners while he wrote that letter to Timothy, then you wouldn't be more of a sinner than him. He was the chiefest! You wouldn't be able to get any worse than Paul. Chief is the biggest you get! We would all be better off than Paul, if that were the case. Not only that, but you would have to question Paul's salvation because Peter wrote and said . . . And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (1Pt 4:18) On top of that, in the very same chapter that Paul called himself that, he had said earlier that the law was made for sinners (1Tim 1:9). And how could that be if he said that we no longer needed to be under the law (Gal 3:24-25)? And instead of trying not to sin, we, as Christians, should be as Paul is (Gal 4:12). We should imitate him (1Cor 11:1). But not just in word. Because faith without works is dead (Jms 2:17). Christians should not only be talking, but walking like Paul, chief of sinners. No one would have any business telling us not to sin. Paul himself, that great apostle, was chief. All of us, no matter how much we sinned, would be doing better than Paul because he was chief of sinners! What would it do to the Church today if Paul were the chief of sinners in the present tense when he wrote that letter to Timothy? You can see from above, it wouldn't be pretty. Now, as complicated and difficult as it would be to accept the fact that Paul was chief of sinners, if the Bible said it, we ultimatley would still have to accept it. Even if we didn't understand completely how it could be true. After all, our loyalty to God's Word does not depend on what makes sense to us. We believe because God cannot lie. Whether we understand all of it or not. So the real question to ask is Does the Bible really say this? Because regardless of how many questions and difficulties it might raise, if the Bible says it, we must accept it. But I know of no one who truly believes Paul was chief of sinners at the present time when he wrote to Timothy. Yet they continually talk like he was. This whole, "Well, after all, Paul was chief of sinners" mentality that floats around the Church today seems to be one of those gray areas, that no one really understands or can explain. But at the same time, they continue to say it. So . . . . . Was Paul chief of sinners? Look at the statement again 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. (1Tim 1:15) Notice first of all, that Paul actually never did say, "I am chief of sinners." So for starters, 90% of people quote this verse wrong. It doesn't say, "I am chief of sinners." It says "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." And the fact that Paul was referring to sinners who were being saved, makes all the difference in the world when we talk about this verse. I'll show you why . . . Let me start by defining some terminology he uses here. Let's take the first part of it . . . This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners . . . First, what is a sinner? According to Strong's 268, a sinner is someone who is devoted to sin. Or, someone who is in bondage to sin. But in this passage, something was happening to these sinners. What was it? They were being saved. It says Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Now that we have defined sinner, what does save, mean? In Greek it implies being delivered from, or set free from something (Strong's 4982). So these sinners were being set free, or delivered from something. What were they being delivered from? Well, let's look at other scriptures for more light. Matthew 1:21 . . . And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now we know what Jesus would deliver sinners from. This verse shows us that one thing sinners would be delivered and set free from is sin, right? So now that I've pointed these things out, let's read the entire verse again in this light . . . This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save (set free, and deliver) sinners (from their sin); of whom I am chief. (parenthesis added) See, Paul wasn't just talking about sinners who would forever be in bondage to their sin. When he says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save . . ." That part, about being saved applies to Paul just as much as the "sinners" part, right? Yet people don't acknowledge that. For the most part, we have ignored the fact that Paul was talking about sinners being saved and delivered from their sins (because that's what Matthew 1 says He would save us from), and we hold to the sinner part. To interrupt Paul, and pay no attention to why he says Jesus came, is a dangerous stance to take. Why did Jesus come? Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners! Christ Jesus came into the world to deliver us from our sin! Christ Jesus came into the world to put sin away by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 9:26)! That's why He came. And it's at this point that Paul says "Of whom I am chief" Chief of sinners? No! He couldn't have been calling himself chief of sinners because Paul wasn't talking about sinners. Paul was talking about sinners being saved from their sins. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." It doesn't say, "Christ Jesus came into the world to leave sinners the way they are, full of sin." But that's the way you hear it, right? The way people quote that verse implies that even though Paul was a Christian, he was still left in his sins, with no deliverance. No, Paul is not making reference to plain old sinners. He's making reference to why Christ came: To deliver us from our sins. And really, if you read the entire context, that's exactly what you see. Paul goes back and recalls his time before he was saved (1Tim 1:12-13), up until the point that God had mercy on him (1Tim 1:16). So in conclusion, Paul never did call himself chief of sinners. Because he wasn't talking about just sinners. That verse specifically shows that Paul was referring to sinners that were set free and delivered out of sin. And in reference to these, he says "I am chief." Paul had even written to the Corinthian church claiming that he knew of nothing against himself (1Cor 4:4). This proves Paul did not remain a sinner (devoted to sin, and in bondage to it), but that what Jesus came to do, He accomplished (1Tim 1:15).

WhySoblind said . . . Man has always been made righteous by faith. Genesis 15:6 - And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Romans 4:3 - For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Right . . . But I was seeking scripture on people being saved through faith, under the Law? Can a person be lost and righteous at the same time? The answer is a resounding "No". Man has always been justified by faith: Habakkuk 2:4 - Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. This is a stated fact which Paul refers to (Gal 3) but I was wondering who was justified, while living under the law, by faith? Romans 1:17 - For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Man has always recieved the glorified body by faith. Genesis 5:24 - And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.(See also 2 kings 1 and Hebrews 11) Again, I appreciate your commentary, but you're saying one thing and the scriptues are saying another. You say that you could always receive a glorified body by faith, then reference where Enoch was taken. But your reference don't say anything of a glorified body. Over and over again David refers to his own salvation, and the Lord as "The God of my salvation." David WAS saved. Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Psalms 18:46 - The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted. Malachi 3:6 - For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Hmmm. You're right . . . I guess a more appropriate question to ask is "saved in what way"? But that's too far off the subject. Thanks for the scriptures though. God's nature has not change. Faith in Jesus has always been the means of salvation. You haven't shown this scripturally yet. That is, the faith in Jesus part. Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. What is this? Paul specificly says Moses faith was in Christ!! Yes, that's pretty interesting . . . But whether it was faith in Christ being raised from the dead, is another story . . . And another subject. 2 Samuel 22:3 - The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. Is not faith best defined as Trust? Is this suffiecient scriptural support for my previious statements? Yes, some things you were able to show by scriptures. Other things you claimed were true, but the reference you gave did not say what you claimed. But for the most part, I'd have to say you enlightened me . . . Thanks Although, this is off the original subject but . . .

WhySoBlind Ah, but therein lies a mystery of God, and of the Bible, that few understand. The plan of salvation has never changed. People got saved in the old Testament the exact same way they get saved in the new, but with one exception. In the Old it was through faith in the PROMISE, in the New, it is faith in the HISTORICAL FACT of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It has always been through faith in the crucified and resurrected Lamb of God, and I'll show that as well. Alright . . . Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel....21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Where, in this verse does it speak of being saved through faith? Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. And what about this one? Where's it say you could be saved in the Old Testament, through faith? 1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Where in these verses does it say you could be saved through faith, in the OT? The Passover looked FOREWARD to the cross, just as Communion, or "The Lord's Supper" looks back to the cross. In the wilderness the people had to look at a snake on a pole in order to be healed, this was evidence of their faith in the promise of the redeemer! It was? How do you know scripturally ? It has always been through faith, not in the sacrifice or symbol itself, but in what that represented: Jesus Christ and what he did at the cross. What has always been through faith? Salvation? If so, what scriptures do you have that say you could be saved through faith, in the OT? Again . . . I want to emphasize that I'm not interested in commentaries about the scriptures. I want soley scriptures on these matters . . . I appreciate you taking the time to write, but I'm only wanting to hear the scriptures speak for themselves. That's why I want to know if there is a verse that says you could be saved, through faith, under the Old Covenant? Isn't that what you originally said you would show? Let me requote you . . . People got saved in the old Testament the exact same way they get saved in the new, but with one exception. In the Old it was through faith in the PROMISE, in the New, it is faith in the HISTORICAL FACT of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Here is your statement. And here are the scriptures you gave . . . Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel....21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Where in any of these scriptures, does it say you could be saved, through faith, in the OT?

I think I'm about to wrap this up. I've gotten pretty much everyone's input on it, and the objections can be summed up as follows . . . 1. It appears people are reading and believing only parts of scriptures, instead of all of them. For instance, reading Romans 7 and coming to the conclusion that we will always have sin and be in bondage to it, even though Romans 8:2 clearly shows this does not have to be the case. Or, reading 1Jn 1:8, and coming to the conclusion we all have sin, even though 1Jn 1:7, 9 shows an alternative. 2. The other objection I've seen is people unwilling to accept that their flesh has been crucified like the scriptures say (see original message) because their experiences don't line up with it, so they side in with their experience. This is answered by simply stating that we ought to be walking by faith, and not by sight (2Cor 5:7) or, by reading our article, "Legal and Vital Sides of Redemption" So . . . I'm going to be taking off pretty quick. I may drop in a few more times to see if someone brings up a new objection.. . . Thanks guys . . .

WhySoBlind said . . . David was annointed by God, AND prophesied, and we know that the Spirit of the Lord moved upon him many times before his great sin in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba. So, was David "Not saved" before he committed this sin? If he was saved, you claim above that he couldn't have sinned. Don't you see the contradiction in your interpretation of the scriptures? Here is an excerpt from the prayer David prayed after Nathan came to him: Psalm 51: 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. No we know the unredeemed don't have the Holy Spirit. So we see then that David HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT even while he was murdering Uriah. That is almost unfathomable for us to understand, but it happens to be true, else David wouldn't pray this way. If he was NOT already in God's presence, why pray for God not to cast him away? If he did not already have the Holy Spirit, why ask God not to take him away? So then people DO sin even after they are saved. Sin isn't of God. Sin comes from satan in its origins, there is no "Gray matter". Therefore sin comes from the satanic/sin nature that is still left over in our mortal bodies. Peter had been with Jesus, and had even worked miracles in Jesus name, but on the date of the crucifixion, he denied Jesus three times. Did he become "unsaved" during that time? No. Hmmm . . . Interesting statements . . . But you would need to show me scripture of how someone could be 'saved' before the Resurrection of Christ, since the Bible says it's by confessing Him as Lord, and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead. That we get saved (Rom 10:9-10) That's a past tense belief. You have to believe God raised Him from the dead (past tense) so how could David, or Peter, have believed this? And where does it say they believed it before the Resurrection?

FenWar said . . . I don't think this is an either/or question, and once again it is because people have held such a tight, literal view of scripture, squeezing meanings out of the words that the authors never intended. If I were to say "Chelsea have won the league already" (helpful skim reading for those of you who don't follow English football ) I would "literally" be incorrect - there are plenty more matches to go in the season and they are a long way from securing the title. But that doesn't mean I'm "wrong" - they are runaway leaders, winning all their games so far, and it is pretty much inevitable that they will finish as champions. In a similar way when Paul says "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" he is not saying "this is an absolute, instant transformation". In the context of the chapter he is clearly talking about the tension between our "earthly tent" - our sinful, human nature - and our "heavenly dwelling" - which is the new creation. He is writing to encourage Christians and points to the Holy Spirit as the "guarantee" - the evidence that this transformation is inevitable. Well, I thank you and appreciate you taking the time to address this discussion. And I don't want you to get the wrong impression, but I was looking for scritly scripture on this subject. I understand people can interpret different ways and come up with different meanings . . . But I was only interested in what the Bible actually says. Just as Chelsea can point to Roman Abramovich's pot of gold as the "deposit guaranteeing their inheritance" of the league... Hope that analogy didn't lose too many people Much of the scripture quoted around this issue is being read as some kind of "absolute statement of theological truth". What the authors are actually doing is writing to encourage people struggling with the tension between knowing they will be made perfect, and not actually being there yet. They are encouraging believers to stay focussed on their future, promised state, not their present inner struggles. Well, like I said above, I'm just interested in what the Bible actually says.

This is sorta off the subject, but I was wondering . . . I've had alot of people address me on these boards, and then after I reply to them they stop talking to me. Is this because people are concluding, "he's hard hearted, he won't listen. Might as well not reply."? Or is it because people didn't see my reply, and so thought that I had yet to reply? I mean . . . I'm new here . . . But everyone at this board does know that if you click on the page numbers at the bottom, or top of each page, it will take you to that page, so you can see if maybe you got a reply, but missed it because we went to another page? Or . . . Maybe people just don't have a reply to what I say . . . I don't mean to shoot everyone down . . . But either the Bible says it or it doesn't. Most objections I've had so far concerning this subject can be solved by either reading more of the context (like Romans 7, to Romans 8) or by understanding that there is two sides to our Covenant with God (see Legal and Vital post 60)

Tubal said . . . I fail to see how if you still have a sinful nature that you can consider yourself born again. In reality, you are no different than any of the atheists on here. According to your bible, when one is baptised in the Holy Spirit, the old sinful nature is slain and buried. "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." ~1 John 3:9 Christians have cheapened the meaning of "Born Again" by proclaiming that they are not perfect, just forgiven. And they will come up with every verse and excuse as to why they are allowed, and even expected to sin. However, according to the above verse, if you feel like sinning, you may be a christian, but you are NOT Born Again. Let me ask you . . . Have you placed your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that God raised Him from the dead for our justification?

I'm posting our "Legal and Vital Sides of Redemption" article so I can reference it when people ask . . . A very important concept that needs to be understood by Christians is what we call, "Legal and Vital sides of Redemption." Many Christians don

WhySoBlind said . . . Ok, I've read enough. First of all, your language of "Mere men" is startling, because sin itself started with man wanting to be more than a "mere man". Well, that's actually not my language. 1Cor 3:1-3, from the NKJV uses that wording. In other words, your very language entails a doctrine of moral evolution in this body, the Bible simply doesn't teach what you are claiming. Well, again, it's not my language. You can read it for yourself in 1Cor 3:1-3. As far as it entailing a doctrine of moral evolution. I didn't say any of those things. So I'm not able to respond to you according to what I've said unless you quote me specifically. So, where in my post did I say that my doctrine entails moral evolution? I have been saved by grace for a large portion of my life, and I can assure you I still have a sin nature, and the Apostle James said it plainly too: James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. 17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: Well thank you for providing scripture for what you've said. I'll admit that James 5 has stumped me in the past. But when you read specifically who he was writing it to, it does make since . . . He's writing to people who are sinning (Jms 4:8) and he describes how sin operates in James 1:15. So if these people were sinners (Jms 4:8) they obviously had gone through what James 1:15 talks about, because that's how sin happens. And so it makes since that he would say that they were subject to like passions as Elias was . . . And this deals with Legal and Vital Sides of Redemption. I'll post that article later today so I can reference it when people ask about these things. James was writting this to BELIEVERS, so if they dont still have a sin nature, how come they need to repent? This deals with Legal and Vital also Regarding struggle with sin, there are several passages in the Bible in which Paul describes just that in the believer, but I'll use this one. Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. First, it saying "lay aside the sin . . ." That sure doesn't sound like a struggle to me. If I walk in from a blizzard, and someone says, "go ahead and take that jacket off and lay it to the side." Am I going to get the impression that I've got to fight and struggle to get the jacket off? As far as striving against sin . . . I have read that before, and don't understand the verse. Because it says "not yet" so if it's "not yet" then you can't say conclusivley that we are striving against sin at this present time, because according to the Bible, it's "not yet" Paul is definitely describing a struggle, or strife, with sin, though he encourages the reader by saying that they are not yet dead from it. If I don't have a sin nature, then why do I have lust, fears, laziness, greed, etc, etc? Those don't come from God at all, but are "works of the flesh", which IS the sin nature. This deals with Legal and Vital also . . . I'll get that article up.

Fiosh, before you answer, I want to take back part of what I said. I was wrong about something. Romans 7 does mention a warring that goes on between the law of the mind, and the law in Paul's members (verse 23). So I did want to correct myself on that. Besides that, I'd appreciate if you could reply to my last post to you. Thanks

Fiosh said . . . Hey Rukkus, Read Ephesians 6: 10-20; 2 Cor 4: 7-12 & 10: 3-6. We are in constant battle. Yes, we have the weapons needed to fight and the victory is ours------but the battle rages. peace, Fiosh Well I'm talking about whether or not Christians have a sinful nature. Not whether or not there is a fight. I know there is a fight. But I just don't think it's against the flesh. Ephesians 6 says it isn't against the flesh. Now, in your other post (I can't reply to both cause Worthy boards has this weird rule that you have to wait like 20 minutes before you can reply more than once, so I'll just reply to you in this message.) You said you disagreed with my interpretation of Romans. Let me ask, which part was my interpretation, and which part of it did you disagree with? I need specifics in order to reply specifically. Otherwise, the conversation won't go anywhere.

Fiosh said . . . Romans 7 : 13-25 Well thank you for the biblical reference. But nowhere in Romans 7:13-25 does it say Paul was struggling with his flesh. There's no struggle in those verses. Paul lays it out plain and simple in verse 25. That his flesh was serving the law of sin. He says clearly that he was brought into captivity (23). If you're held captive by someone, then they have the power over you. So to assume there is a struggle, just isn't supported by that text. It's plainly stated that what he wants to do, he can't do because he's carnal and sold under sin. And of course anyone who is carnal and sold under sin will experience Romans 7. But the thing to note is that Paul did not stay in Romans 7. He went on in Romans 8:2 and says clearly that he was made free. And you can too. Not if you're carnal and sold under sin. But you don't have to be carnal or sold under sin. 1Cor 3:1-4 shows clearly that being carnal (which is also being a babe in Christ) is a choice. 1Cor 3:1-4 also shows clearly that being a baby Christian, you will also walk as a mere man. Well, mere men will experience Romans 7. They're carnal. And the carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom 8). But you see, Paul didn't live in Romans 7 his whole life. In fact, all it took was one chapter later, and you see he got free from that law that was holding him. And later, in 1Corinthians 4 he was able to say that he knew of not one single thing against him. So I emphasize to everyone to put your faith in the whole Bible, not just parts. Don't believe Romans 7, but not Romans 8. Don't believe 1Jn 1:8 and not verse 9. Believe the whole Bible, and you'll be able to enjoy the whole thing.

Fiosh . . . Well, I started typing out a reply to you, but then I remembered that Faith and Works is not the subject. Although you did say Paul struggled with his flesh . . . Where does the Bible say this?

Anymore responses? If not we can call this a wrap.

Fiosh Well, if that works for you, bless you brother. I prefer to try to live my life after the example given by my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Peace, Fiosh well, since it's not the subject, I won't get into it. But I really think you'd be blessed by clicking this link and reading our tract "Faith and Works"

Shiloh said . . . Romans 4:4-8 does not say that faith makes you righteous. It says in v. 6 that God imputes righteousness to us. This is also reiterated in Romans 4:22-24. We are not MADE righteous when put faith in Christ. We are DECLARED righteous. There is a big difference. We are not infused with righteuosness, but just as Abraham was declared righteous by faith, so are we. Justification is a legal declaration, only. It is nothing more. Well what was John talking about when he said this . . . 1Jn:3:7: Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. Because here he says that someone who acts righteous, is as righteous as God Himself. Is God's righteousness only legal? And what about Romans 5? Paul said that the same way sin was passed upon us by Adam, so now righteousness is passed upon us . . . 19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Here Paul says in the same way we were made sinners by Adam, we are made righteous by Christ. So if our righteousness is only a legal standing, and nothing else . . . That means no one is actually a sinner? Because the same way we were made sinners, we are now made righteous. And what about 1Jn 1:9? If we are cleansed of all unrighteousness . . . What would that make us? Yes, you're right that Romans 4 talks about righteousness being imputed. But then there are other scriptures that say plain and simply that we are righteous. Not that it was imputed to us, but that we simply are righteous. Here's some . . . 1Cor:6:11: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 2Cor:5:21: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2Cor:6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Eph:4:24: And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Phil:3:9: And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: We are declared righteous and will not receive the fullness of it until we receive our new bodies. What scripture are you referring to? And if we are declared righteous . . . I thought God can't lie? Are we righteous, or not? If God declares us righteous, is He lying? What Roman 4:8 says is blessed is the man to whom God does not impute SIN. He did not say SINS (the things we do,) but SIN (the condition we are in before salvation). You're defining your own terms here (in parenthesis of your statement). You need to show me scripture that shows a difference between "sin" and "sins" besides that one is plural and the other singular. To claim that we no longer need to confess our sins, is nonsense. It shows that you don't know what confession of sin is for. This is a statement you need to address biblically. I can't do anything with it at this point.

Fiosh said . . . Rukkus, It sounds like a very "carefree" Christianity with absolutely no responsibility. Peace, Fiosh Oh it is. And it's great too. Nothing like living in what Christ did for you. It's just like Hebrews 3 and 4 talk about. Believing, and then entering into rest, and ceasing from your own works. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. . . . (Heb 4:3) For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (Heb 4:10)

Joy in the Journey said . .. So- you repented once and that's it ? You no longer sin so you point it out in others instead huh ? Nice I think Jesus addressed such people... Luke 18:11-14 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men

Fiosh said . . . I must admit I didn't read the whole article and I only breezed thru all the posts. Here's my 2 cents based on what I read in the Bible---all the verses have already been posted. Although the bar is set unbelievably high.....we are called to strive to be perfect, compared to a holy God.....most of us never reach that goal. What makes you think it has anything to do with you? The Bible says Christ has perfected us already, and in Him we are complete (Heb 10:14, Col 2:10). Christians tend to have a 'works consciousness' that it's about how hard you work, how hard you try. But the Bible says that once you get in Christ, all things become of God (2Cor 5:17-18). If you work, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But if you believe, and not work, it's counted as Righteousness. (Rom 4) If you think you have no sin, you need to get down on your knees and beg the Holy Spirit to reveal your sin to you. He will. Trust me. It's the prayer I dread to pray, because it is ALWAYS answered. I don't doubt that. But this is a different subject. If you hope to grow in your relationship with Jesus Christ you must be prepared to open you eyes to the sin you hide from yourself, and eliminate it from your life. do you have any scripture for these remarks? You will be surprised how those things you never considered "sin", suddenly seem like filth to you. Peace, We talk all about this in our book "The End of The Sin Problem" you can find it free on our site.

Geioke said . . . So are you saying that if you commit a sin after you've confessed and repented of that same sin, you are no longer a christian? No, I'm simply saying that alot of Christians think that 1Jn 1:8 is a continual process. But John was just conveying the original Message (1Jn 1:5-10). Nowhere in 1Jn 1 does it say the believer must continually confess (or, acknowledge in Greek) their sins in order to be forgiven. Rom 4:4-8 says that by simply believing on Jesus makes you righteous, and righteousness is defined as your iniquities forgiven (verse 7) and then sin no longer imputed to you (verse 8). So, if God is no longer imputing sins (in Greek that simply means not held against you, or considered, or taken into account) to us, why do we think that we have to confess them in order to be? If you're already forgiven, and sins no longer imputed, how is God going to forgive you if He stopped holding them against you because of your faith in Jesus? No, see, when we come to Christ we acknowledge our sins, don't we? So, according to 1Jn 1:8, now you're forgiven and cleansed (because you acknowledged your sin). Then you believe in Jesus, and according to Romans 4, from that point foreword, sins are not imputed to you. So if sins are no longer imputed . . . What are we doing going to God, telling Him our sins, in hopes of forgiveness? God can't forgive what He isn't holding against you. Not only that, God doesn't even remember your sin. The Bible says He won't. We may come to Him trying to remind Him, but the Bible says under the New Covenant, He won't remember them (Heb 8:12)