Christian perfection

[Guest shiloh357]

The first part of that is about the law, and the second is a law in the flesh, but there's a third law, the law of the Spirit, a new way to serve God that overcomes the flesh.

 

No, the first part is about the struggle to keep the law, the second part is about the struggle against the flesh.   The first part is Paul's struggle as an unbeliever.   The struggle against the flesh makes no sense if we are not talking about Paul as a believer.  Nonbelievers don't struggle against the flesh.   The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death.  The Bible nowhere claims that we will never, ever commit a single sin.  That is not what is meant at all.  It simply means that we are set from the condemnation that our sin brings upon us. 

 

Again the flaw in your theology is the assumption that "overcoming the flesh" means that you will never, ever commit a single sin.   If that were the case, you end up putting everyone under condemnation who is a believer who hasn't lived a perfect life since they were saved.  You also run the risk of measuring yourself against other people by considering anyone who doesn't live as sinless (as you think) you do, as someone who hasn't overcome sin.  It  runs the risk of creating a judgmental spirit.

 

Paul labored and risked his life to establish a foundation and was going back to pour into the work of his labor. Mark bailed out the first time, should he be a partaker of the spoil?  Also, it could have been an issue of Marks character at the time or still dealing with an immaturity and would have been a danger to what was planted, Barnabas had emotional attachment because they were family so Barnabas stuck up for Mark.  Was Paul in the right in not taking Mark, or was Barnabas in error? You see them reconciled later, but it doesn't give you any evidence enough to make a claim that Paul was in unforgiveness.

 

There is quite enough evidence that Paul was holding a grudge.  Barnabas was the person who was willing to forgive and give Mark a second chance.  Paul would not.  I understand that you feel the need to sanitize Paul's grudge because if Paul committed a sin, in your theology, that has some pretty horrific implications for Paul and makes it hard to explain his ministry in the light of a moral or spiritual failing like that.  For your theology stay intact, you can't accept the fact that Paul was in the wrong and failed to walk in forgiveness.

 

Wouldn't unforgiveness defile the conscience?

Acts 23:1Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

 

Well that was at the end of Paul's ministry and if Paul had finally forgiven Mark by that point then no, it would not have defiled his conscience at that point.  Furthermore, you are kind of violating context.   Paul was making the point that He lived in all good conscience with regard to his observances particularly as a Jew.   You need to see  chapter 22 as to what he was being accused of.  His point was that the accusations had no merit and that he was able to rest in the fact that he had was not guilty of what he was accused of and could say so with a clear conscience.

 

Our flesh is not our nature, but the carnal mind that is at enmity against God.

 

No, you are wrong.   Paul uses the Greek word "sarx"  or "flesh" to refer to the sinful nature.  You may not accept that, but it's the truth.  The carnal mind is not something a Christian possesses.  The carnal mind belongs to unbelievers.  There is no such thing as a carnal Christian (despite how often that phrase is thrown around).

 

We are no loner bound to live by the flesh. Holy Spirit empowers us to put to death the deeds of our flesh.

 

 

 

We are no longer bound to the flesh, that is true, but that doesn't mean we won't fail from time to time.  An occasional failure doesn't mean we are a slave to sin or a slave to the flesh.  The Bible is careful to make a distinction between a authentic believer who stumbles from time to time in a sincere attempt to serve God and some who is just living in habitual sin.   Apparently you are either unwilling, or you are not theologically equipped to make that distinction.

 

I'm righteous because He is righteous. He paid for all my sin on the cross, it's gone. He gave me His righteousness, imputed through faith, but it is real righteousness.

 

You are declared in legal right standing with God.  Imputed means that it is credited to you for a future time.  You stand before God justified.  But you feel that you are inherently righteous, you are mistaken.  The Bible doesn't claim that we are either inherently or intrinsically righteous.  We have imputed, not imparted righteousness.  Yes it is real, but it is imputed at this time.

 

Think about it, God declares us righteous, how dare we say, well we're not really righteous, God just pretends that we are.

 

It is not the case that God pretends we are righteous.  Genuine righteousness is imputed to us.  But at this point we are in a legal standing with God.  We are not walking in imparted righteousness.  Declared righteousness is only a legal declaration. 

 

If we believe we are sinners, we will sin by faith, but if we believe that we are righteous, holy, a new creation, our actions will follow. Our actions follow what we believe. I am not a sinner, I am a saint, I am a child of God, and though sometimes I can slip into sin, that is not who I am.

 

Objectively, we are saints.  We are a people set apart from the world unto God.   But we are still sinners.  We still have a sin nature.  Both are true.  It is not an either/or.

 

So your saying its right to believe that we can participate in Christs victory, but wrong to believe that His victory can manifest in and through our lives?

 

No, what I am saying is that just because a Christian commits a sin, it doesn't mean that they don't have victory over sin.  The problem is that you have an incorrect perception of what victory over sin means.  It doesn't mean and is never demonstrated in Scripture to mean that you will never, ever sin again.  The Bible never makes that promise. 

 

An occasion stumble doesn't mean that one is a slave to sin and that they never overcame sin or the flesh or the world or whatever.  That is something you are penciling into the Bible.  You are erecting a standard that says, "if you commit a single sin" you are not in victory, you are not an overcomer.  You stand opposite the grace of God.

 

I thought we're supposed to become like Christ. We are free from the separation sin causes, we are free from condemnation, but we are also free from participating in sin. Your a slave to who you obey, and you no longer have to obey sin!

 

Yes, but that is a process and different Christian are at different stages in that process.  Because we have a sin nature and all of us struggle with it (whether we have the humility to admit that, or not) there are those who still struggle with certain temptations that you and I don't struggle with.   We don't have to sin, but the point is that IF someone does, if someone falls in a moment of weakness or even discouragement, it doesn't mean that they are slaves to sin.   Your theology is very graceless and one dimensional in that it makes no allowances for different maturity levels and the kinds of struggles that people come out of when they get saved.

 

By your logic, most of the people in the churches Paul ministered to were probably unsaved.  Look at the churches in Asian Minor and the churches Paul founded.  Paul never claimed that they were slaves to sin even though there were sins in those churches.   If your theology were accurate, Paul's letters should read much, much different.

 

We are to reckon we are dead to sin, yet be convinced that sin is alive and well in us because of our nature? That doesn't make sense.

 

You are dead to sin, objectively.  That doesn't mean you are dead to the flesh.  If you were dead to the flesh, you could not be tempted. 

 

I don't walk righteous and live holy because I want to be accepted or earn His love, I do because I have been accepted and I know His love and obedience to Him is a responce to that love.

 

And that's as it should be.  But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

[Wildstar]

But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

^  how is that self righteous to believe god took away your sin?

[Guest shiloh357]

But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

^  how is that self righteous to believe god took away your sin?

There is a difference between believing that Jesus bore the penalty of our sin on the cross and believing that we are perfectly sinless.   Jesus is the only Person whoever had the ability to fully please God with works of righteousness.

 

Jesus did not take away your sin nature.   Jesus satisfied God's justice against sin.   Jesus made it possible for us sinners to be in right standing with God.    We are perfected objectively through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10).  We stand before perfected through the work of Christ on the cross.   But we still have a struggle against our sin nature, what Paul calls "the flesh."  

 

God has only one standard perfection:  Himself.   He is the standard of perfection.  For me to claim that I am perfectly sinless means I have to meet that divine standard and that means I have to measure myself against the Lord.  None of us reach the place where we are perfectly flawless/sinless because that would put us on God's level and that takes us into heresy.

[Wildstar]

 

But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

^  how is that self righteous to believe god took away your sin?

There is a difference between believing that Jesus bore the penalty of our sin on the cross and believing that we are perfectly sinless.   Jesus is the only Person whoever had the ability to fully please God with works of righteousness.

 

Jesus did not take away your sin nature.   Jesus satisfied God's justice against sin.   Jesus made it possible for us sinners to be in right standing with God.    We are perfected objectively through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10).  We stand before perfected through the work of Christ on the cross.   But we still have a struggle against our sin nature, what Paul calls "the flesh."  

 

God has only one standard perfection:  Himself.   He is the standard of perfection.  For me to claim that I am perfectly sinless means I have to meet that divine standard and that means I have to measure myself against the Lord.  None of us reach the place where we are perfectly flawless/sinless because that would put us on God's level and that takes us into heresy.

 

Jesus never takes away our flesh, that's true.  But I can't agree with the rest since I believe being sinless is mandatory for a Christian

[Mr Nice]

 

The first part of that is about the law, and the second is a law in the flesh, but there's a third law, the law of the Spirit, a new way to serve God that overcomes the flesh.

 

No, the first part is about the struggle to keep the law, the second part is about the struggle against the flesh.   The first part is Paul's struggle as an unbeliever.   The struggle against the flesh makes no sense if we are not talking about Paul as a believer.  Nonbelievers don't struggle against the flesh.   The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death.  The Bible nowhere claims that we will never, ever commit a single sin.  That is not what is meant at all.  It simply means that we are set from the condemnation that our sin brings upon us. 

 

Again the flaw in your theology is the assumption that "overcoming the flesh" means that you will never, ever commit a single sin.   If that were the case, you end up putting everyone under condemnation who is a believer who hasn't lived a perfect life since they were saved.  You also run the risk of measuring yourself against other people by considering anyone who doesn't live as sinless (as you think) you do, as someone who hasn't overcome sin.  It  runs the risk of creating a judgmental spirit.

 

Please read chapter 7 again.  First Paul says that the law has jurisdiction over those who live. He says the married women is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.  If her husband dies she is no longer bound by the law.  If she marries another while her husband lives she is committing adultery.  We were made to die to the law through the body of Christ so we may be bound to another. But if we die, we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.  If we have not put the old self to death (that is to say our first husband) then we are still bound by the Law.  If we are bound to God (our second husband) while our first husband still lives then we are committing adultery.  Therefore, in order for us to be released from the Law and bound to God our old self must die.  If we are sinning our old self has not died.  We have not crucified it with its passions and desires.  For while we are in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, are at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.  Paul emphasizes the condition we are in when we are trying to be bound to God while the old self still lives.  If we are in the state Paul is describing then we are constantly in an adultrous relationship with God, trying to serve two masters.  This is why says "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"  His answer "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord" is a repeat of what he said in the beginning.  "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." 

 

A person's sin puts them under condemnation, not those who walk according to the Spirit.  It is those who walk according to the Spirit who will live but those who live according to the flesh (continue to sin) will die.  This is God's Word not ours.

 

Rom 8:5-14  For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.  (6)  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,  (7)  because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,  (8)  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  (9)  However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.  (10)  If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.  (11)  But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.  (12)  So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--  (13)  for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.  (14)  For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

 

Living a life of joy and peace having our minds set on the Spirit does not make us judgmental, it makes us desire to bring others to Christ so they can experience the same joy and peace.  This is why I speak about what I believe.  There is no joy and peace in a life that still sins, constantly displeasing God.  How does the desire to improve other's relationship with God make a person compare others to themselves?  You have a false precept. One who gives glory to God for overcoming his weaknesses has nothing to be proud of in themselves.  It is God who has granted them victory.  Please do not assume they would be judgmental.  They would be like Paul who does not compare himself to anyone.  

Paul labored and risked his life to establish a foundation and was going back to pour into the work of his labor. Mark bailed out the first time, should he be a partaker of the spoil?  Also, it could have been an issue of Marks character at the time or still dealing with an immaturity and would have been a danger to what was planted, Barnabas had emotional attachment because they were family so Barnabas stuck up for Mark.  Was Paul in the right in not taking Mark, or was Barnabas in error? You see them reconciled later, but it doesn't give you any evidence enough to make a claim that Paul was in unforgiveness.

 

There is quite enough evidence that Paul was holding a grudge.  Barnabas was the person who was willing to forgive and give Mark a second chance.  Paul would not.  I understand that you feel the need to sanitize Paul's grudge because if Paul committed a sin, in your theology, that has some pretty horrific implications for Paul and makes it hard to explain his ministry in the light of a moral or spiritual failing like that.  For your theology stay intact, you can't accept the fact that Paul was in the wrong and failed to walk in forgiveness.

Please provide the evidence of which you speak.  For when we look at the letters Paul wrote after this incident we will see that Paul is speaking highly of John Mark.  This would have required a change in John Mark who had deserted them in the beginning.  We are also told that if a brother has sinned and comes to you and repents, then we are to forgive them.  It speaks nothing of forgiving those who do not repent.  Luke 17:3-4  "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  (4)  "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."  There is no evidence that John Mark repented for deserting them therefore Paul would not have needed to forgive him.  We also know that John Mark was Barnabas's cousin, he was family.  This may be why Barnabas was fighting to have John Mark come along, not because he had forgiven John Mark.  Please do not make a claim without objective evidence.

 

Wouldn't unforgiveness defile the conscience?

Acts 23:1Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

 

Well that was at the end of Paul's ministry and if Paul had finally forgiven Mark by that point then no, it would not have defiled his conscience at that point.  Furthermore, you are kind of violating context.   Paul was making the point that He lived in all good conscience with regard to his observances particularly as a Jew.   You need to see  chapter 22 as to what he was being accused of.  His point was that the accusations had no merit and that he was able to rest in the fact that he had was not guilty of what he was accused of and could say so with a clear conscience.

 

First Paul says he has lived in all good conscience before God "until this day".  This would be speaking of his life in Christ, not just the day in which he made this claim.  Otherwise it would have only said "this day".  Having made this claim at the end of his ministry makes it even stronger.  If it was made at the beginning of his ministry then one could try to claim he might not have had a good conscience after that day. Exactly, he was not guilty of anything of which they were accusing him which is why he has lived in all good conscience before God.  I guess I must be missing your point.  Paul said he has been innocent until this day.  If he wasn't innocent because he did not forgive John Mark as you claim then his statement would be a lie.  Since Paul's claim is not a lie, then your claim cannot be true.

 

1Co 4:1-4  Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.  (2)  In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.  (3)  But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.  (4)  For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.

 

Here, Paul makes a similar comment about having a clear conscience.  He says he is conscious of nothing against himself.

 

 

Our flesh is not our nature, but the carnal mind that is at enmity against God.

 

No, you are wrong.   Paul uses the Greek word "sarx"  or "flesh" to refer to the sinful nature.  You may not accept that, but it's the truth.  The carnal mind is not something a Christian possesses.  The carnal mind belongs to unbelievers.  There is no such thing as a carnal Christian (despite how often that phrase is thrown around).

 

Thank you so much for making that clear.  There are no carnal Christians for those who are carnal (obeying the flesh) cannot be Christians which is the exact point I have been trying to make.  We cannot sin and be a Son of God at the same time for if we are sinning we are carnally minded.  Why? Because we don't believe.  

 

Romans 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 

 

Paul speaks of some in Corinth the same way because they were putting their faith in man rather than God.  1 Corinthians 3.

 

He also speaks of how we are victorious. 

 

2 Corinthians 10:2-6  I ask that when I am present I need not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh.  (3)  For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,  (4)  for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.  (5)  We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,  (6)  and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.

 

 

We are no loner bound to live by the flesh. Holy Spirit empowers us to put to death the deeds of our flesh.

 

 

 

We are no longer bound to the flesh, that is true, but that doesn't mean we won't fail from time to time.  An occasional failure doesn't mean we are a slave to sin or a slave to the flesh.  The Bible is careful to make a distinction between a authentic believer who stumbles from time to time in a sincere attempt to serve God and some who is just living in habitual sin.   Apparently you are either unwilling, or you are not theologically equipped to make that distinction.

 

Failure means our old self has not died.  Since it has not died, then we are still bound by the law.  If our old self has not died and we are trying to join ourselves to another than we are in an adulterous relationship.  See statement about Romans 7 at the top of this post.  Again, please provide objective evidence about your claim instead of just stating it.  For Christ says those who commit sin are slaves to sin.  John 8:34  Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.  This is singular.  When Christ spoke about sin he said "go and sin no more".  He did not say stop sinning habitually.  The Bible says IF someone stumbles.  It does not say WHEN someone stumbles.  Galatians 6:1 and 1 John 2:1.  No passage in scripture says we will continue to sin habitually or otherwise.  Unless you can produce scripture which agrees with your claim please stop presenting it.

 

I'm righteous because He is righteous. He paid for all my sin on the cross, it's gone. He gave me His righteousness, imputed through faith, but it is real righteousness.

 

You are declared in legal right standing with God.  Imputed means that it is credited to you for a future time.  You stand before God justified.  But you feel that you are inherently righteous, you are mistaken.  The Bible doesn't claim that we are either inherently or intrinsically righteous.  We have imputed, not imparted righteousness.  Yes it is real, but it is imputed at this time.

 

We are righteous because we have believed and obeyed, becoming slaves of obedience, resulting in righteous and sanctification and the outcome of eternal life, Romans 6.  We become slaves through what God has given us, which is His Spirit by whom we are lead.  So yes, righteousness is imputed by God on those who have believed and obeyed.  If it is solely imputed based only on us believing that Jesus is the Son of God then there is nothing we can do that would remove that righteousness from us except to stop believing.  But wait, we disobey because we do not believe being carnally minded, which means if we are still sinning then we have not truly believed.  It is a vicious circle that can only be escaped through all we have been promised, namely the Holy Spirit.  This is exactly what Paul was speaking of in Romans 7.  

 

Christ died so that we could be cleansed so that the Spirit would have a place to reside.  The Spirit will not reside in a heart filled with sin.  For it is out of the heart that evil comes.  Mat 15:18-20  "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.  (19)  "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.  (20)  "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

 

 

Think about it, God declares us righteous, how dare we say, well we're not really righteous, God just pretends that we are.

 

It is not the case that God pretends we are righteous.  Genuine righteousness is imputed to us.  But at this point we are in a legal standing with God.  We are not walking in imparted righteousness.  Declared righteousness is only a legal declaration. 

 

We are only clean and righteous if we are walking in the Light as He is in the Light, for in Him there is no darkness.  Christ said it this way, John 8:11-12  She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."]  (12)  Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."  Notice this statement is made right after he told the harlot to go and sin no more.  He tells her what to do, then follows with how she can do it.  She must follow Him.

 

If we believe we are sinners, we will sin by faith, but if we believe that we are righteous, holy, a new creation, our actions will follow. Our actions follow what we believe. I am not a sinner, I am a saint, I am a child of God, and though sometimes I can slip into sin, that is not who I am.

 

Objectively, we are saints.  We are a people set apart from the world unto God.   But we are still sinners.  We still have a sin nature.  Both are true.  It is not an either/or.

 

Objective evidence: based on visible facts.

 

His statement is true: If we believe we will sin then when we sin it is because we have believed we would.  If you don't believe you can succeed then you never will.  Do you believe God is able to keep you from stumbling?  If so, prove it.  If you cannot prove it then you don't believe it.  I heard it demonstrated this way.  There is a man drowning in a pool and a rescue buoy is thrown to him.  He believes the buoy can save him as he has been told. He has two options.  He can either act according to what he believes by laying hold of the buoy and be saved or he can drown believing the buoy will do all the work.  God will not save us unless we are willing to act on what we believe, plain and simple.  If he will then there is no need to even believe because that requires something of us.  We have to hear.  How do we hear what He has to say?  Someone must teach us which means we have to chose to sit down and listen or we must pick up His Word and read it so we know what he says.  No matter how you look at it we must put forth our own effort.  God is constantly reaching out waiting for us to reach out to Him.

 

So your saying its right to believe that we can participate in Christs victory, but wrong to believe that His victory can manifest in and through our lives?

 

No, what I am saying is that just because a Christian commits a sin, it doesn't mean that they don't have victory over sin.  The problem is that you have an incorrect perception of what victory over sin means.  It doesn't mean and is never demonstrated in Scripture to mean that you will never, ever sin again.  The Bible never makes that promise. 

 

An occasion stumble doesn't mean that one is a slave to sin and that they never overcame sin or the flesh or the world or whatever.  That is something you are penciling into the Bible.  You are erecting a standard that says, "if you commit a single sin" you are not in victory, you are not an overcomer.  You stand opposite the grace of God.

 

How did Christ have victory over death?  He knew no sin.  How do you expect to be victorious without doing the same?  Again, only possible through that which he has given us.

 

Never makes the promise.  Have you read the Bible?  If we practice these things we will never stumble is what Peter states in 2 Peter 1.  That is a fact, a promise.  God is able to keep us from stumbling.  That is a promise.  If we are lead by the Spirit we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh.  That is a fact, a promise.  If we take up the shield of faith we will stop all the flaming arrows of Satan.  A fact and a promise.  You will not be tempted beyond what you are able and He will always provide a way out.  A fact and a promise.   If these are not facts and promises then they are all lies and the Bible would be full of lies.  When God makes a statement, he means it, He cannot lie.  Why are you claiming He does?

 

Yes committing a sin does make you a slave to sin.  Don't believe me, believe Christ.  John 8:34  Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.  This is singular.  When Christ spoke about sin he said "go and sin no more".  Who is that is standing opposite of God?  If I am then Christ is standing there with me because He is the one who said we are slaves to sin if we sin.

 

I thought we're supposed to become like Christ. We are free from the separation sin causes, we are free from condemnation, but we are also free from participating in sin. Your a slave to who you obey, and you no longer have to obey sin!

 

Yes, but that is a process and different Christian are at different stages in that process.  Because we have a sin nature and all of us struggle with it (whether we have the humility to admit that, or not) there are those who still struggle with certain temptations that you and I don't struggle with.   We don't have to sin, but the point is that IF someone does, if someone falls in a moment of weakness or even discouragement, it doesn't mean that they are slaves to sin.   Your theology is very graceless and one dimensional in that it makes no allowances for different maturity levels and the kinds of struggles that people come out of when they get saved.

 

By your logic, most of the people in the churches Paul ministered to were probably unsaved.  Look at the churches in Asian Minor and the churches Paul founded.  Paul never claimed that they were slaves to sin even though there were sins in those churches.   If your theology were accurate, Paul's letters should read much, much different.

 

Your logic that it is progressive illustrates you don't believe you will not be tempted beyond what you are able to endure.  Your actions demonstrate what you believe and completes your faith, either faith in failure as you claim or faith in sanctification by being lead by the Holy Spirit.  We act according to what we believe.  We are to excel still more in what we are doing for the Lord, producing the fruit of the Spirit.  We will all grow at different rates with respect to the fruit we produce for Him.  But the Bible never says ceasing from sin is a process.  He says believe on Me, He who says I am able to keep you from stumbling.  It is either we believe in all He said or we don't.  

 

I would concur that there were many who were not saved, because they were not of those of whom Paul said they once were disobedient, but no longer are.  Paul made a separation between those who obeyed and those who didn't.  

 

We are to reckon we are dead to sin, yet be convinced that sin is alive and well in us because of our nature? That doesn't make sense.

 

You are dead to sin, objectively.  That doesn't mean you are dead to the flesh.  If you were dead to the flesh, you could not be tempted. 

 

Objectively means as a matter of fact.  Quality objective evidence is produced by our actions based on our faith.  Yes we are to be dead to the flesh (sin) and alive to Christ.   Rom 7:6  But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 

 

I don't walk righteous and live holy because I want to be accepted or earn His love, I do because I have been accepted and I know His love and obedience to Him is a responce to that love.

 

And that's as it should be.  But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

 

Again you continue to relate what is being said back to an individuals entire life instead of the life as a Christian of which we have been speaking.  We all agree that we have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  But nothing in scripture says we cannot be like Christ in this world if we believe.  The problem is you want to continually look back using your past life as an anchor for your claim which was without Christ.  Why do you claim we can't do all things through Him who strengthens us?  Who is telling the truth?  You who say we will continually fail or Paul who says he won't.  Same with John, Peter, God, etc.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

^  how is that self righteous to believe god took away your sin?

There is a difference between believing that Jesus bore the penalty of our sin on the cross and believing that we are perfectly sinless.   Jesus is the only Person whoever had the ability to fully please God with works of righteousness.

 

Jesus did not take away your sin nature.   Jesus satisfied God's justice against sin.   Jesus made it possible for us sinners to be in right standing with God.    We are perfected objectively through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10).  We stand before perfected through the work of Christ on the cross.   But we still have a struggle against our sin nature, what Paul calls "the flesh."  

 

God has only one standard perfection:  Himself.   He is the standard of perfection.  For me to claim that I am perfectly sinless means I have to meet that divine standard and that means I have to measure myself against the Lord.  None of us reach the place where we are perfectly flawless/sinless because that would put us on God's level and that takes us into heresy.

 

Jesus never takes away our flesh, that's true.  But I can't agree with the rest since I believe being sinless is mandatory for a Christian

 

From an objective standpoint, we are sinless in that the part of us that is born of God, the part of us that goes to heaven when we die, doesn't sin. 

 

There is no commandment in the Bible that makes being a Christian conditional on living a perfect, sinless life.  Our perfection is in founded in Christ, not in our own efforts.   You can't live up to God's standard of perfection.   God makes you sinless; you don't make yourself sinless through the strength of your will or your works.

 

If you think you are capable of being perfect to the same degree that God is perfect (which is the only standard of perfect the Bible states that God accepts) you are sorely mistaken. 

[Joshua-777]

 

 

No, the first part is about the struggle to keep the law, the second part is about the struggle against the flesh.   The first part is Paul's struggle as an unbeliever.   The struggle against the flesh makes no sense if we are not talking about Paul as a believer.  Nonbelievers don't struggle against the flesh.   The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death.  The Bible nowhere claims that we will never, ever commit a single sin.  That is not what is meant at all.  It simply means that we are set from the condemnation that our sin brings upon us.

Again the flaw in your theology is the assumption that "overcoming the flesh" means that you will never, ever commit a single sin.   If that were the case, you end up putting everyone under condemnation who is a believer who hasn't lived a perfect life since they were saved.  You also run the risk of measuring yourself against other people by considering anyone who doesn't live as sinless (as you think) you do, as someone who hasn't overcome sin.  It  runs the risk of creating a judgmental spirit.

 

A Jew trying to obey the law without the power of the Spirit is going to struggle with the flesh. That was Paul's issue, he delighted in the law, but the law only brought death because the law provided no way to overcome the flesh. Romans 7 is trying to obey the law in the flesh. Romans 8 says we should live according to the Spirit and not the flesh.

Christ overcame the flesh! He overcame the world and He lives in us. Our lives are hidden in Him. Who we were that fell short of the glory is dead, and we are a new creation in Him, born again. We still think like the old so we still sin, there is a process of renewing your mind. A flaw in your theology is that you believe the flesh is more powerful than God Himself living in us. I am also not claiming we don't sin, we will never sin, I'm simply saying that Jesus made the provision for us to walk righteous, His Spirit.

 

There is quite enough evidence that Paul was holding a grudge.  Barnabas was the person who was willing to forgive and give Mark a second chance.  Paul would not.  I understand that you feel the need to sanitize Paul's grudge because if Paul committed a sin, in your theology, that has some pretty horrific implications for Paul and makes it hard to explain his ministry in the light of a moral or spiritual failing like that.  For your theology stay intact, you can't accept the fact that Paul was in the wrong and failed to walk in forgiveness.

 

The implications of my theology are only what you put there. Paul probably went through the process as everyone else, but he also lived in a place where he knew nothing against Himself. Could we live in such a place of intimacy with God that we know nothing against ourselves? Yes, also there is no sin that Jesus lacks the power to help us overcome.

1 Corinthians 4:4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

There is not enough scriptural evidence to say that Paul walked in unforgiveness, especially how the Lord used him to write so much of the NT. That's a heavy thing to accuse Paul of with such little evidence.

Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

 

No, you are wrong.   Paul uses the Greek word "sarx"  or "flesh" to refer to the sinful nature.  You may not accept that, but it's the truth.  The carnal mind is not something a Christian possesses.  The carnal mind belongs to unbelievers.  There is no such thing as a carnal Christian (despite how often that phrase is thrown around).

We are no longer bound to the flesh, that is true, but that doesn't mean we won't fail from time to time.  An occasional failure doesn't mean we are a slave to sin or a slave to the flesh.  The Bible is careful to make a distinction between a authentic believer who stumbles from time to time in a sincere attempt to serve God and some who is just living in habitual sin.   Apparently you are either unwilling, or you are not theologically equipped to make that distinction.

 

Then why all the passages about renewing your mind? If you think like your old man, that's carnal thinking. Before we come to the Lord, we have a lifetime of thinking like the devil, our minds need renewed to the reality of Christ in us. I also am not saying we won't stumble, I'm saying God is able to keep us from stumbling. An occasional failure doesn't mean we are a sinner either. Who we are born again is who we are, our old man is dead, we are alive in Him. If we do sin, we have an advocate. He is amazing, He paid for all our sins, but He doesn't leave us in our sin, He empowers us to overcome it. A sinner is someone whose identity is in sin, I'm a son of God.

 

You are declared in legal right standing with God.  Imputed means that it is credited to you for a future time.  You stand before God justified.  But you feel that you are inherently righteous, you are mistaken.  The Bible doesn't claim that we are either inherently or intrinsically righteous.  We have imputed, not imparted righteousness.  Yes it is real, but it is imputed at this time.

It is not the case that God pretends we are righteous.  Genuine righteousness is imputed to us.  But at this point we are in a legal standing with God.  We are not walking in imparted righteousness.  Declared righteousness is only a legal declaration.

 

. 2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

6:1We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says:

“In an acceptable time I have heard you,

And in the day of salvation I have helped you.”

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

The righteousness He gave me is real righteousness. Shiloh, you are really righteous in Him. He lives in you! You are no longer a sinner, you are free! Rejoice in Him! He doesn't just call you righteous to get you into heaven but He lives in you through the Holy Spirit empowering you to be like Him! Reckon yourself dead to sin and alive in Him! He wants to demonstrate His righteousness through you to the world around you! You are His ambassador, a citizen of heaven here to show the world what He's really like.

Romans 6:4 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.

Romans 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Your theology gives excuse to sin if being dead to sin means only the punishment of it.

1 John 3:17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.

 

No, what I am saying is that just because a Christian commits a sin, it doesn't mean that they don't have victory over sin.  The problem is that you have an incorrect perception of what victory over sin means.  It doesn't mean and is never demonstrated in Scripture to mean that you will never, ever sin again.  The Bible never makes that promise.

An occasion stumble doesn't mean that one is a slave to sin and that they never overcame sin or the flesh or the world or whatever.  That is something you are penciling into the Bible.  You are erecting a standard that says, "if you commit a single sin" you are not in victory, you are not an overcomer.  You stand opposite the grace of God.

 

Christ is our victory over sin. He paid for the sins. We are growing and learning to walk and live out His victory. He has total victory over sin, He was perfect, sinless, and He took away my sins. Now I'm learning to walk according to the righteousness He gave me. Who I am is in Him, if I stumble, I'm acting off an old man who is dead and gone. He really took away my sin! It doesn't exist any more. The blood of Jesus covers me and I'm washed clean, I'm made righteous! Now, I'm learning to walk according to that.

I remember, I was stuck in a cycle for years of shame, believing I was unworthy, wretched, and I viewed myself as a sinner longing for righteousness. I was at a prophetic prayer meeting, and the Lord put on my heart to wash everyone's feet who was there. I did, blocking out my thoughts of how ridiculous that looked, I washed everyones feet, then the Holy Spirit fell and everyone there started getting visions. I saw a picture of a 6 and a 7. Numbers mean something to me, and that was how I viewed myself, a sinful man 6 reaching out for righteousness 7. Then the Lord said NO so loud in my heart that it shook me, then I saw a 7 and an 8 He said, "You are not a sinner reaching out to righteousness, I made you righteous now your reaching onto eternity." I had no idea what that meant at the time but now I'm experiencing the freedom of being made right with God. I see it all through out the bible, sins separated me from Him, but He made me right, now I'm no longer striving to be righteous, I'm living in that place and it's manifesting through my actions. I'm growing from glory to glory instead of bummer to bummer.

 

Yes, but that is a process and different Christian are at different stages in that process.  Because we have a sin nature and all of us struggle with it (whether we have the humility to admit that, or not) there are those who still struggle with certain temptations that you and I don't struggle with.   We don't have to sin, but the point is that IF someone does, if someone falls in a moment of weakness or even discouragement, it doesn't mean that they are slaves to sin.   Your theology is very graceless and one dimensional in that it makes no allowances for different maturity levels and the kinds of struggles that people come out of when they get saved.

By your logic, most of the people in the churches Paul ministered to were probably unsaved.  Look at the churches in Asian Minor and the churches Paul founded.  Paul never claimed that they were slaves to sin even though there were sins in those churches.   If your theology were accurate, Paul's letters should read much, much different.

 

There is a process, and I'm still on it. I just believe that He made me righteous. I can start from that place cause I'm living on His righteousness and not my own. We both interpret the sin nature different, sin is not my nature and it's not yours either. The problem is we have a lifetime of thinking like the old man, our mind needs renewed and that renewal causes transformation (Romans 12:2) Transformation into what? Into the image of Christ.

You assume alot about my theology that isn't true and also do not understand my logic. We are saved by Jesus, it is His work on the cross and His grace in our lives that saved us. We cannot save ourselves, and our salvation is not dependent on whether we slip or not. I am simply saying that God in me is more powerful than sin and His grace can keep us from stumbling. He made us righteous so we can start there because we could never work for that. If we do sin, He pulls us back. We died our lives are hidden in Him. Those Churches are full of people who are discovering who they are in Him and awakening to the grace available to them.

 

And that's as it should be.  But don't fall into the self-righteous trap of thinking you are perfectly sinless.  The ONLY person who can lay claim to that is Jesus.

 

But I am perfectly sinless! Praise the Lord because I used to be really messed up. His blood removed my sin! It doesn't exist anymore. He made me white as snow. Jesus was perfectly sinless, yet became my sin on the cross that I might become His righteousness. The problem is, I actually believe in what He did for me.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west,

So far has He removed our transgressions from us.

If He paid the price for my sin, removed it as far as the east is from the west, took it away, and remembers it no more, do I still have it?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Please read chapter 7 again.  First Paul says that the law has jurisdiction over those who live. He says the married women is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.  If her husband dies she is no longer bound by the law.  If she marries another while her husband lives she is committing adultery.  We were made to die to the law through the body of Christ so we may be bound to another. But if we die, we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.  If we have not put the old self to death (that is to say our first husband) then we are still bound by the Law.  If we are bound to God (our second husband) while our first husband still lives then we are committing adultery.  Therefore, in order for us to be released from the Law and bound to God our old self must die.  If we are sinning our old self has not died.  We have not crucified it with its passions and desires.  For while we are in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, are at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.  Paul emphasizes the condition we are in when we are trying to be bound to God while the old self still lives.  If we are in the state Paul is describing then we are constantly in an adultrous relationship with God, trying to serve two masters.  This is why says "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"  His answer "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord" is a repeat of what he said in the beginning.  "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."

 

The problem in this train wreck of theology is that it fails to take into account that the Bible deals with spiritual truths from an objective standpoint and a subjective standpoint.   What is true about the part of me that was born again isn't true about the part of me that remains unregenerate.  

 

Salvation occurs in three stages and it works its way from the inside out.   Everything about our perfection is objectively true about us from the vantage point of the transformation of the heart.  The part of me that was born again is dead to sin and alive to God.  That is the part of me that goes to heaven when I die.   That is the part of me that never sins.  I cannot sin in my inner man. 

 

But you are still unregenerate in the area of our soul, which is the seat of our mind, our will and our emotions.   That is the part of you that is daily, being sanctified, that is daily being conformed into the image of Christ.  That is the part of you that is in the process of being saved.   Your fleshly sinful nature resides in the soul and while your old unregenerate heart is dead and gone, your soulish, fleshly nature is still alive and kicking.    That is why we need to daily reckon ourselves dead to sin.  We are dead to sin.   But that doesn't mean our sinful nature is eradicated.   So it doesn't follow that if I commit a single sin that I am not dead to sin.   To argue that committing a single sin means you are not dead to sin, is to argue that a person has never been saved since the hallmark of salvation is that our inner man, our spirit is dead to sin.

 

So from that vantage point, there would no way to know in this life if one is truly saved or not.  In fact, if committing a single sin is proof that one is not saved, according to your standard, then no one has any assurance of salvation since all of their hope for salvation rests in their ability to be good enough, and does not at all rest in the work of Christ on the cross.   Jesus, in your theology isn't the object of your faith.   Your ability to be good enough to deserve salvation would end up being the object of your faith.  You are living, not for Christ, but for yourself.  You are living to keep yourself saved. 

 

Please provide the evidence of which you speak.  For when we look at the letters Paul wrote after this incident we will see that Paul is speaking highly of John Mark.  This would have required a change in John Mark who had deserted them in the beginning.  We are also told that if a brother has sinned and comes to you and repents, then we are to forgive them.  It speaks nothing of forgiving those who do not repent.  Luke 17:3-4  "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  (4)  "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."  There is no evidence that John Mark repented for deserting them therefore Paul would not have needed to forgive him.  We also know that John Mark was Barnabas's cousin, he was family.  This may be why Barnabas was fighting to have John Mark come along, not because he had forgiven John Mark.  Please do not make a claim without objective evidence.

 

The evidence of Paul's unforgiveness is in the way he refused to give Mark a second chance.  Again, I realize it is necessary to resist any indication that Paul sinned because it really throws your wacky theology into a tailspin, but the truth is that Paul had a brief or however long grudge against John Mark, and it was so bad that he and Barnabas split ways.  In fact, that split was Paul's fault and it contradicts much of what Paul taught later in his epistles.  Paul had softened up toward John Mark in his later years as we can read.  We tend to forget that Paul wasn't a perfect person, and that one of the chief and most valuable attributes of the Bible is that it doesn't white wash the behavior of the heroes of Scripture.   We see them learning, failing, growing  the same way we do.   The Bible shows us going all the way back to Abraham, that all of us fail in a sincere attempt to serve God, but we see that God is still faithful and that He reaches out to us in grace.

 

Your view of God isn't the God the Bible presents.   God doesn't throw us away the minute we fail, as you seem to think He does.  You claim that committing one sin cancels out salvation and that is simply not in the Bible.  Your view is based on a warped and unbiblical and almost cultish view that makes all of salvation hinge on being spotless and perfect in all of our words and deeds and in doing so, diminishes the perfecting work of Christ on the cross. 

 

 God will not save us unless we are willing to act on what we believe, plain and simple.  If he will then there is no need to even believe because that requires something of us.  We have to hear.  How do we hear what He has to say?  Someone must teach us which means we have to chose to sit down and listen or we must pick up His Word and read it so we know what he says.  No matter how you look at it we must put forth our own effort.  God is constantly reaching out waiting for us to reach out to Him.

 

You have it backwards.  You say that God will not save us until we act, until we live sinlessly.    But that isn't what the Bible says.  God didn't tell the children of Israel that they had to keep the law in order to be delivered from the bondage of Egypt.   He didn't give them the law and demand perfect, flawless obedience in order to be delivered.  God saved Israel by the blood of the Passover Lamb and THEN He gave them the Law and demanded obedience on the grounds of what He had done.  He didn't make obedience the condition of their freedom from bondage.  The freedom came first, and obedience was in response to that freedom.     Even when the children of Israel failed, God was faithful to keep His promises.  He didn't abandon Israel when they failed.  He judged them, forgave and restored them.  In Ezekiel 36 He makes the point that He is not restoring them because they had obeyed them but in spite of their disobedience.  He did it for His glory, not because they deserved it.

 

God was faithful to Abraham even after Abraham lied TWICE about his wife.  He was faithful to Abraham even though Abraham failed by bringing his entire family with Him even though God had told Abraham to leave his country and his family behind.   Your theology is an assault on the faithfulness of God and assumes that the minute you sin, that God kicks you to the curb and if you die three seconds after committing a sin you go to hell.   Your theology is warped and demonic, and full of condemnation and absent completely of grace, mercy, longsuffering, forbearance, forgiveness.   It is false teaching and a doctrine of demons.

 

How did Christ have victory over death?  He knew no sin.  How do you expect to be victorious without doing the same?  Again, only possible through that which he has given us.

 

Jesus didn't have a sin nature.  He wasn't living in corrupted humanity and even more so, Jesus was/is God.   Jesus' victory over sin is never presented in the Bible as guarantee that we will never, ever commit a single sin.   There is so much deception in what you teach it is unbelievable.

 

 

Never makes the promise.  Have you read the Bible?  If we practice these things we will never stumble is what Peter states in 2 Peter 1.  That is a fact, a promise.

 

actually it doesn't say anything about practicing those things will mean that we never stumble.   This is what it actually says:

 

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2Pe 1:8)

 

It never says that you will not stumble.   One way I can always spot false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing,  is the way they misquote and misrepresent the Scriptures to say something that isn't there.

 

We are only clean and righteous if we are walking in the Light as He is in the Light, for in Him there is no darkness.

 

No, the Bible never gives salvific value to our works.  We are righteous ONLY because of the finished work of Christ on the cross.  That is what perfects us and cleanses us.   Walking in the light is the evidence of the cleansing, not the means of procuring it. 

 

Christ said it this way, John 8:11-12  She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."]  (12)  Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."  Notice this statement is made right after he told the harlot to go and sin no more.  He tells her what to do, then follows with how she can do it.  She must follow Him.

 

He was not telling her to be spotless and sinlessly and flawlessly perfect.   She was caught in the sin of adultery.  Jesus was telling her to not commit that sin any more.   "Go and sin no more" has to be looked at the context of the sin she was guilty of at that point.   For Jesus to tell a woman who had not been born again, to live a completely perfect, sinless, and flawless life is rather pointless.

 

Your logic that it is progressive illustrates you don't believe you will not be tempted beyond what you are able to endure.

 

Yeah, that verse isn't talking about temptation of sin.  The Greek word is "tested" and it means that God doesn't allow us to be tested, or tried in tribulation above what we are able to endure.   God puts a limit on how much tribulation and adversity we have to endure.   It has nothing to do with temptation to commit sin.

 

Objectively means as a matter of fact.  Quality objective evidence is produced by our actions based on our faith.

 

No, it is not produced by your actions.  It is provided for in the finished work of Christ on the cross.  You place the root of salvation in your efforts not in Christ.   So really, you are trying to be saved by your actions.  Yours is a works-based, self-based salvation rooted in your efforts to be good enough to deserve salvation.   You don't believe the Gospel.

[Mr Nice]

 

Honestly I cannot claim to be without sin.  Do I think I am saved? No. Am I fine with that? No.

Than you do not believe in what we are told in Ephesians 1:13-14?

 

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

We can, and should, trust scripture. If you have sought salvation through Christ, you can know you are saved as you continue in Him.

 

  The question always goes back to what you have believed.  Believing you have been sealed while still living in sin (committing sin) doesn't mean you have been sealed.  At the same time, what is it that the Holy Spirit was sent to do.  He was sent to sanctify us without which we will not see the Lord.  Having His Spirit sent to us doesn't mean we have been sealed, being lead by the Spirit is what guarantees our salvation to come.  Otherwise, one would say since I have been sealed by believing, then there is nothing I need to do.  I don't even have to obey.  This is "once saved always saved" theology.  Here is where the problem lies with what you believe.  Unless I am mistaken you do not believe in once saved always saved.  If this is the case then you must believe we have to obey.  How much do we have to obey?  Is it dedication of 80% of my life to Christ?  90, 95, 99, or 100%?  The answer is 100%.  If 100% of my life is dedicated to Christ then there can be no darkness in me. 

 

1Pe 4:19  Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

No, the first part is about the struggle to keep the law, the second part is about the struggle against the flesh.   The first part is Paul's struggle as an unbeliever.   The struggle against the flesh makes no sense if we are not talking about Paul as a believer.  Nonbelievers don't struggle against the flesh.   The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death.  The Bible nowhere claims that we will never, ever commit a single sin.  That is not what is meant at all.  It simply means that we are set from the condemnation that our sin brings upon us.

Again the flaw in your theology is the assumption that "overcoming the flesh" means that you will never, ever commit a single sin.   If that were the case, you end up putting everyone under condemnation who is a believer who hasn't lived a perfect life since they were saved.  You also run the risk of measuring yourself against other people by considering anyone who doesn't live as sinless (as you think) you do, as someone who hasn't overcome sin.  It  runs the risk of creating a judgmental spirit.

 

A Jew trying to obey the law without the power of the Spirit is going to struggle with the flesh.

No, he doesn't, not at all.   In Jewish theology, "good and evil" are co-workers in the will of God.   We are born with a good and evil "inclination" in Jewish theology.  In Jewish theology, Satan is a servant of God with a role to fulfill that God has assigned him.  They don't have the same view of sin and the flesh that we have.   You really don't know much about Jewish theology, apparently.

 

That was Paul's issue, he delighted in the law, but the law only brought death because the law provided no way to overcome the flesh. Romans 7 is trying to obey the law in the flesh. Romans 8 says we should live according to the Spirit and not the flesh.

 

For a Jewish nonbeliever that's isn't an issue.  They don't see themselves as "spirit vs. flesh."   They don't see themselves as "fallen sinners."   They don't war against the flesh as they have no concept of a "sinful nature" anywhere in their theology.    Rom. 7:1-13 is how Paul viewed his situation prior to being saved.   Paul switches from the past tense to the present tense in vv. 14-25 to explain that his current struggle with the flesh.   Unbelievers don't struggle with the flesh, they don't have a Spirit that wars against the lusts of the flesh.  That is a uniquely Christian experience that is not part of any other religious ideology.

 

Christ overcame the flesh! He overcame the world and He lives in us. Our lives are hidden in Him. Who we were that fell short of the glory is dead, and we are a new creation in Him, born again. We still think like the old so we still sin, there is a process of renewing your mind. A flaw in your theology is that you believe the flesh is more powerful than God Himself living in us. I am also not claiming we don't sin, we will never sin, I'm simply saying that Jesus made the provision for us to walk righteous, His Spirit.

 

I am not saying that the flesh is more powerful the God himself.   I am saying that nowhere in the Bible is there any promise or anticipation that we will never, ever sin after we are saved.   We live in victory over sin, but nowhere is "victory over sin"  every defined as living, in terms of practical Christian living, without every committing a single sin the for the rest of your life after salvation.

 

Joshua, I don't mean this in bad way, but you may not be quite understanding what this thread is about.   Mr. Nice and other are arguing that we are expected and that our salvation is conditional upon not committing a single sin after you are born again.   He is advocating that if you sin, even one time, after you got saved, you are immediately lost and if you commit a single and die before having the chance to confess/repent of that single sin, you will go to hell.   Mr. Nice makes no distinction between a person who occasionally stumbles in a sincere attempt to serve God vs. someone who claims to be a Christian but lives in habitual sin.

 

So, I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I seek some clarification as to whether you are of that opinion as well.   Do you believe that if a Christian commits a single sin that they are immediately lost and have to get re-saved as Mr. Nice is claiming??