I think it's just their frustration that they cannot explain the passages without taking all these places and saying the writer didn't mean it, and are not able to find passages that make the direct statements they'd need to support their assertions with the text of Scripture.
Between CL and I, the matter is simply about whether sin lives in our physical body, or whether there is a "spiritual force" called the "sin nature" that goes away when we are reborn.
This idea is refuted in many places, but one of them is 1 Corinthians 4, where Paul says that he knows nothing against himself, that is, his conscience is clear, but that doesn't make him justified, because Jesus is the true judge, knowing our hearts.
So If the Apostle Paul was not willing to say that he was in fact sinless, and instead deferred to Jesus for that determination, who are we to declare anything otherwise? So no, sinfulness does not disappear when we are reborn, but it does remain in our flesh, though we do not. We are reborn God's spirit children. As there is no sin that comes from our new man, therefore, any remaining sins MUST of neccessity come from the flesh, and whether that remains or goes away, again, there is no possibility that it is gone if the possibility of sin remains.
So far as I can tell, this is the main body of disagreement between us. And rather than stay with a purely Scriptural discussion, it becomes a series of Ad Hominem arguments instead.
Between David and I, our main disagreements are twofold, one being whether or not we require a "second benefit" from the Holy Spirit before we are really able to live in love and unity with each other, the other being whether there are a group of "saints" who have been elevated from among the "faithful". I assert all the redeemed are called "saints" in the Bible.
And for these disagreements, I continue to be slandered. We could just continue to disagree, but apparently that's not good enough for some.
Everyone reveals themself in their words.
Much love!
Last edited:
