intentional sins?

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

I think there is a very basic misunderstanding of the difference between choosing to do good works and doing the works that saves Mankind. Only Christ could do the works necessary to save Mankind. But Mankind was called to do good works even before he lost his Salvation, even before he Fell into sin.

When we choose to do good works as a non-Christian, we obey God's call upon our conscience to obey His word, to live in His image. But this choice to do good works, as much as it pleases God, does not save us.

It's the same with the Christian. When we choose to accept Christ, or when we choose to obey Christ and do righteousness after we have been saved, we are not saving ourselves. We are just obeying God's word to our conscience to do good, and to live in God's image.

There is nothing Man can do to earn his own Salvation. But we are *always* called upon to do good, to obey God's word. We should not conflate the choice to obey God and to do good with earning Salvation. Not the same thing!

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
Who said it was? Please quote where I said it was?

Here is the quote:

Randy Kluth said:
his salvation rested on his choice to live in the righteousness of Christ.

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

justbyfaith said:
But not *self-effort*...and it is disputable as to whether he is exercising *human effort*.

Because his labouring in context is according to the grace of God; and therefore it would be motivated by the Spirit rather than the flesh.

No, it is *not* disputable whether Paul was exercising his "human effort."

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
When we choose to do good works as a non-Christian, we obey God's call upon our conscience to obey His word, to live in His image. But this choice to do good works, as much as it pleases God, does not save us.

That's because our righteousness is as filthy rags before we are saved, Isaiah 64:6, Revelation 19:8.

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
No, it is *not* disputable whether Paul was exercising his "human effort."

It is indeed disputable, for the reasons that I stated in my post.

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

justbyfaith said:
Here is the quote:

You need to quote my statement *in context.* Half the truth is as bad as a lie.

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
You need to quote my statement *in context.* Half the truth is as bad as a lie.

You need to not even make half-statements that can be misconstrued as your promoting false doctrine. Because if you do, you can be certain that I will call you on it.

So tell us, please, how the context of your statement nullifies your statement; which I find to be a statement of false doctrine.

CharismaticLady · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
Obviously, Paul is giving us his own personal experience. He began under the Law, an experience in which he intermittently felt he was free of the Law, not being conscious of his sin.

No, Romans 7:9 is mankind before and after the law. So unless Paul was over 1300 years old, he is not speaking of himself, presently, as a Christian.

Randy Kluth said:
But then Paul came to his senses, because his knowledge of the Law convicted him. He was fighting against the goads of Christ.

No, Paul lived under the law and according to his own account lived a blameless life.

Philippians 3:5-6
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Randy Kluth said:
So Paul then continues to apply his experience under the Law as a non-Christian to his experience with God's eternal Law as a Christian. These are two distinct applications of the "Law of God," one the eternal Law of God for man, that we live in His image, and the other having to do with the old covenant made through Moses.

This is not in Romans 7. Not until he is FREE in Romans 8:2.

Randy Kluth said:
Under the Law Paul was condemned and had no hope for eternal life, nor did he have the New Nature that Christ offers, to live without the Law and yet under the Law of Christ. To come under God's covenant affords us a *new nature.*

I agree. Romans 8:9

Randy Kluth said:
While under the Law, Paul had not been under a covenant with God, since the Law was passe. And so, Paul was left without a new nature and with only the condemnation of death.

Until Christ, yes.

Randy Kluth said:
Paul was arguing that as a non-Christian and as a Christian he had the same experience of God's Law and the sin nature. However, having come under a new covenant with Christ, Paul was able to experience both a new nature and a liberation from the condemnation of death.

As a Christian he is free of the sin nature, itself, not just condemnation, but that too, of course. His nature is born again. "For you are NOT in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God indwells you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he does not belong to Him. In the Spirit he can now partake of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1:2-4.

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

By way of reminder, this was my response to your half-statement:

justbyfaith said:
If that were the case, then his salvation would have in a sense relied on his works. So this is not a biblical statement.

Paul's salvation rested solely on what Christ did for him on the Cross; this was his only trust: not in his own righteousness; neither in any practical righteousness that he might live out as the result of being born again: but on the righteousness of Christ as it was imputed to him through faith in the Cross.

To @Randy Kluth

cont'd from posts #122 (intentional sins?), #127 (intentional sins?).

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

justbyfaith said:
That's because our righteousness is as filthy rags before we are saved, Isaiah 64:6, Revelation 19:8.

This is one of the most misused passages in the Scriptures. The quote there refers to the end game of living under the Law *for a nation.* If for a nation the Law could not bring justification, what could provide it?

Obviously, a system had to come into play that would work with the percentage of the population who would meet the criteria of faith. And that system provided the redemption of Christ, which applies to those who have faith.

Prior to Christ, the Law of God applied to a whole nation, when not all the nation chose to exercise faith. Righteousness, then, ended up with a good percentage of the population choosing to disobey God. And the result was like leaven--the rebellion spread in all the nation due to the weakness of the sin nature in all men.

Thus, "righteousness" in Israel became no better than a bandaid for sin. The sacrifices only worked for those with faith, and ultimately it became a false cover for the whole corrupted nation.

None of this has a thing to do with genuine righteousness under the Law, or with Christian righteousness properly exercised. That you don't see the difference is frustrating for me!

Offerings under the Law, properly given, were a genuine form of righteousness. And it was not viewed, by God, as "filthy rags." It only came to be viewed as "filthy rags" when the righteousness of the Law, with its offerings, became an artificial righteousness, hiding a boatload of internal and overt sins.

It is the same with Christian righteousness. If Christians perform their righteousness before men, and not before God, it is a false form of righteousness, and no better than filthy rags. But this never meant that Christian righteousness cannot be pure and cleansed of sin.

CharismaticLady · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
You need to quote my statement *in context.* Half the truth is as bad as a lie.

Edit that remark. It is beneath you. J just made a mistake is all. Take off that last sentence and remain in love.

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

justbyfaith said:
It is indeed disputable, for the reasons that I stated in my post.

It is logically impossible for man to do good works without "human effort."

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
Edit that remark. It is beneath you. J just made a mistake is all. Take off that last sentence and remain in love.

What is "beneath me?" I was answering a point made by someone else!

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
Prior to Christ, the Law of God applied to a whole nation, when not all the nation chose to exercise faith. Righteousness, then, ended up with a good percentage of the population choosing to disobey God. And the result was like leaven--the rebellion spread in all the nation due to the weakness of the sin nature in all men.

We are all born in iniquity; and therefore rebellion did not "spread through the nation". Rebellion was in the nation through and through from the beginning. It was only by the calling out by grace of certain people that any of them were even righteous. All were dead, according to 2 Corinthians 5:14; and the only way any of them became righteous was through being born again through looking forward to Messiah. Those who were born again in this fashion, in the OT, became prophets (see 1 Peter 1:11).

Randy Kluth said:
Thus, "righteousness" in Israel became no better than a bandaid for sin. The sacrifices only worked for those with faith, and ultimate it became a false cover for the whole corrupted nation.

None of this has a thing to do with genuine righteousness under the Law, or with Christian righteousness properly exercised. That you don't see the difference is frustrating for me!

There is no such thing as genuine righteousness under the law...the law does not have the power to impart life, Galatians 3:21.

And the only righteousness that would be accepted under the law would be absolute perfection in keeping the law, Galatians 3:10, james 2:10, Matthew 5:48.

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
No, Romans 7:9 is mankind before and after the law. So unless Paul was over 1300 years old, he is not speaking of himself, presently, as a Christian.

I don't understand? This has nothing to do with mankind--only Paul's experience as a non-Christian when he practiced the Law of Moses.

Rom 7.9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

CharismaticLady said:
No, Paul lived under the law and according to his own account lived a blameless life.

Philippians 3:5-6
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

That was when, as he said, he lacked a sense of the Law. But then the Law came to his conscience, and sin came alive. You will notice that he saw himself as "blameless," even as he "persecuted the church." But then "sin came alive" when the Law arose in his consciousness.

CharismaticLady said:
This is not in Romans 7. Not until he is FREE in Romans 8:2.
I agree. Romans 8:9
Until Christ, yes.
As a Christian he is free of the sin nature, itself, not just condemnation, but that too, of course. His nature is born again. "For you are NOT in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God indwells you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he does not belong to Him. In the Spirit he can now partake of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1:2-4.

You are misinterpreting Paul. Paul indicated that the sin nature would not have dominion over him. But he never said the sin nature had been exterminated--only in Christ had it been effectively dealt with. But until we are glorified we still have the sin nature, and must choose to overcome by grace.

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
It is logically impossible for man to do good works without "human effort."

There is the motivation of the Holy Spirit's love (see Romans 5:5). That is not human effort, that is graceful obedience.

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

justbyfaith said:
We are all born in iniquity; and therefore rebellion did not "spread through the nation".

That is about as ignorant a statement as one could make! What do you think the statement means when reference is made to leaven that "leavens the whole lump?" Surely I misunderstand you!

justbyfaith said:
Rebellion was in the nation through and through from the beginning. It was only by the calling out by grace of certain people that any of them were even righteous. All were dead, according to 2 Corinthians 5:14; and the only way any of them became righteous was through being born again through looking forward to Messiah. Those who were born again in this fashion, in the OT, became prophets.

The language is such that despite authentic righteousness by obedient Israelis, they were still "dead" with respect to the curse of death upon all mankind. No matter how righteous they were, they could not be saved unto eternal life.

This is a far cry from calling the righhteousness of Abraham, Noah, or David "filthy rags." No, this is just Paul's use of hyperbole to show where all our righteousness ends up without the grace of Christ. We have no means of covering our *past failures.* The record remains of our sins no matter how much righteousness we do!

justbyfaith said:
There is no such thing as genuine righteousness under the law...the law does not have the power to impart life, Galatians 3:21.

On the contrary, the Law itself said that those who perform the Law will "live by it." That is, the blessings of life come upon those who obey the Law. That is, they will likely live a full life, and be prosperous in their land.

You are referring to a technical use of the word "life," which means "Eternal Life." Men could do authentic righteousness under the Law that provided the means of a blessed life. But Eternal Life can be had only after the atonement of Christ is applied. None of this means that righteousness before Christ was inauthentic, or "filthy." It just contained a record of human failure under the Law, which alone disqualifies us all from Eternal Life apart from our faith in Christ.

justbyfaith said:
And the only righteousness that would be accepted under the law would be absolute perfection in keeping the law, Galatians 3:10, james 2:10, Matthew 5:48.

No, Israel's righteousness under the Law was accepted for the purpose of blessing and often, long life. However, it could not provide what was necessary for Eternal Life.

Randy Kluth · Jun 6, 2020

justbyfaith said:
There is the motivation of the Holy Spirit's love (see Romans 5:5). That is not human effort, that is graceful obedience.

You are self-contradictory. If someone is motivated by God's love, then he is motivated to *willfully do something!* That means he is putting forth *human effort!*

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
You are self-contradictory. If someone is motivated by God's love, then he is motivated to *willfully do something!* That means he is putting forth *human effort!*

No, the effort originates in the Holy Ghost.

justbyfaith · Jun 6, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
What do you think the statement means when reference is made to leaven that "leavens the whole lump?"

Leaven = doctrine; and leaven leavening the whole lump is referring to saints in the new testament being corrupted in their theology by false doctrine.

Randy Kluth said:
The record remains of our sins no matter how much righteousness we do!

This is true in one sense. No amount of doing righteousness will bring forgiveness of sins. In another sense, the record of our sins does not remain when we appoprriate the blood of Jesus to our lives and are forgiven (Romans 4:7-8)

Randy Kluth said:
None of this means that righteousness before Christ was inauthentic, or "filthy."

Those who were born again before Christ came had the righteousness spoken of in Revelation 19:8. But all others had the righteousness spoken of in Isaiah 64:6. Bottom line.

Randy Kluth said:
No, Israel's righteousness under the Law was accepted for the purpose of blessing and often, long life.

I see you are ignoring my verses again. Please look up and think about the following scripture; especially in the kjv:

Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48.

intentional sins?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads