From Law To Life
- Thread starter Netchaplain
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If it were dead in the believer, the Spirit wouldn't oppose it (Gal 5:17) and Paul wouldn't write about it (Rom 7) and it wouldn't require "mortification" (Rom 8:13; Col 3:5).Episkopos said:
Then why warn? That doesn't make sense. Why warn those who won't come back. What is the warning for? And if the truly regenerated WILL COME BACK, then the warnings are superfluous and a waste of time, since it is a given that they come back.NetChaplain said:
Look at the shadows and types in the OT. Many were SAVED out of Egypt ( a type of being born-again) yet God destroyed them in the wilderness (a type of the world) because of Unbelief (and longing for Egypt once again. Idolatry).
I do not see it as a warning (Heb 10:38, 39) but Paul stating a fact, that he was not of them who draw back.Axehead said:
The deliverance out of Egypt was not related to their salvation but to their bondage to the Egyptians (400 years). The perishing of many Israelites was related to those who showed in their freedom that they were unbelievers.
I would echo that.mjrhealth said:
I know a Jew who had lived a good and religious life by following Moses and all the commandments and laws.
At midlife he became a Messianic Jew (Christian believer)
With a great sigh of relief and a wipe of his brow .... he finally grasped the righteousness found in Christ and was relieved to set Moses and the law aside.
Then he started visiting the gentile Christian churches and guess what ..... to his amazement he found some of us have more rules and regulations and strange practices than even Moses and the Law .... he thinks we are a weird bunch and I do not blame him.
For that reason we do not find Messianic jews within our congregations .... they tend to form their own small "churches"
A Messianic Jew understands Christ better than most of us .... we would be wise to listen to them once in a while.
What was the purpose of worrying about this on Paul's part?NetChaplain said:
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Why would he weep for these?
Php 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Why would Paul care if some were bewitched if it only proves they are not part of us? What happens if they stayed bewitched, believing another Gospel?
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Why are we told to be Doers of the word and not just Hearers if truly regenerated people are by nature "Doers"?
Are all of these (below) written to Unbelievers? They are speaking to the Church, but you say they are speaking to Unbelievers?
According to God's Word, it is possible to:
- let the things which you have heard slip (Heb. 2:1)
- go astray (Mt. 18:12,13)
- err from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10,21)
- err from the faith and overthrow the faith of others (2 Tim. 2:18)
- lose your savour (saltiness) (Lk. 14:34,35)
- be offended by Jesus (Mt. 11:6; Mk. 14:27,29)
- fall away from grace (Gal. 5:4)
- believe for awhile but in time of temptation fall away (Lk. 8:13)
- be offended, betray one another and hate one another (Mt. 24:10)
- have your faith shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19)
- turn back and no longer follow Jesus (Jn. 6:66)
- forsake the right way and go astray (2 Pet. 2:15)
- stop abiding in Christ and as a branch, be withered and thrown away (Jn. 15:6)
- be offended (Jn. 16:1)
- turn aside after Satan (which implies AWAY from the LORD) (1 Tim. 5:15)
- depart from the faith, having your conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim. 4:1-2)
- turn your ears away from the truth and turn unto fables (2 Tim. 4:4)
- acquire an evil heart of unbelief and depart from the living God (Heb. 3:12)
- fall away to the point where you can’t be renewed to repentance (Heb. 6:6)
- refuse Him that speaketh from heaven (Heb. 12:25)
- become lukewarm and get spit out of the body of Christ (Rev. 3:15,16)
- not remain faithful and be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:10,11)
- have God take away your part from the tree of life and in the holy city (Rev. 22:19)
- be led away with the error of the wicked and fall from your steadfastness (2 Pet 3:17)
- be carried away by all kinds of strange doctrines (Heb. 13:9)
[SIZE=small]Keep [/SIZE][SIZE=small]yourselves[/SIZE][SIZE=small] in the [/SIZE][SIZE=small]love[/SIZE][SIZE=small] [/SIZE][SIZE=small]of[/SIZE][SIZE=small] [/SIZE][SIZE=small]God[/SIZE][SIZE=small], looking for the mercy [/SIZE][SIZE=small]of[/SIZE][SIZE=small] our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. ([/SIZE]Jude 1:21[SIZE=small] )[/SIZE]
Paul's concerns and "warning" (v 31) to those he knows are regenerated was not towards fear of any leaving the faith, but only towards being distracted from it, in order to attempt "to draw away disciples after them" (v 30), same as "false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt 24:24). As shown in this verse, a believer (elect) cannot be ultimately misled from his new life in Christ, but a "babe in Christ can be distracted," until he matures in the Word.Axehead said:
Why do we play "gymnastics" with the Word? Seems clear to me. "Fall away from grace", "have your faith shipwrecked", "stop abiding in Christ", "depart from the faith", "become lukewarm and spit out of the body of Christ", etc. etc. What is it about these thoughts that are so difficult to understand? This is plain speech.NetChaplain said:
err from the faith and overthrow the faith of others (2 Tim. 2:18)
fall away from grace (Gal. 5:4)
believe for awhile but in time of temptation fall away (Lk. 8:13)
be offended, betray one another and hate one another (Mt. 24:10)
have your faith shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19)
turn back and no longer follow Jesus (Jn. 6:66)
forsake the right way and go astray (2 Pet. 2:15)
stop abiding in Christ and as a branch, be withered and thrown away (Jn. 15:6)
turn aside after Satan (which implies AWAY from the LORD) (1 Tim. 5:15)
depart from the faith, having your conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim. 4:1-2)
acquire an evil heart of unbelief and depart from the living God (Heb. 3:12)
become lukewarm and get spit out of the body of Christ (Rev. 3:15,16)
not remain faithful and be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:10,11)
have God take away your part from the tree of life and in the holy city (Rev. 22:19)
Ax, I don't have a problem with whatever you wish to call our correspondence with this issue. All the passages you listed mean the same thing. Either one is "eternally saved" (Heb 5:9) or was never saved at all (1 John 2:19), because this is the only type of salvation of which Christ is the Author, which is something that cannot come by being convinced, but by the teaching and revelation of the Spirit with the Word.Axehead said:
Same as knowing for sure that there is definitely a large gold nugget in the area you're in, which keeps you constantly searching because you also know for sure you're going to find it eventually.
For example, can one truthfully say he was in grace if he believed righteousness came by the Law (same as today as one believing your works is your righteousness)? The person may have desire to please God but can only approach grace and until he understands it must be given and can never be earned, he will only be near grace but not in it yet.
I can discontinue the desire to understand grace and "fall away" from my pursuit of it, but there would be no reason why I would leave it once understanding it and being in it; esp. if its source keeps me from desiring to leave it and ensures it will never be taken back (irrevocable--Rom 11:29 NKJ).
This does not apply to anyone who claims to be saved, but lives in opposition to Scripture, which is evidence of never being regenerated by the Spirit, for what reason could there possibly be for one to no longer desire eternal life with God? Nearly everything one does is because they desire to do it. If after giving yourself to Christ and accepting and believing in Him, along with the Spirit continually working in you the desire "to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13), it would be too difficult to imagine that anyone might eventually desire to work against all of this.
We are having a similar conversation on another site...and this regarding the fate of the wicked saved ones.
I believe you have to look at the "outer darkness" as comparative in relation to the rest of heaven. There are several reasons for this, which I will attempt to be brief in explaining.
In the references to "outer darkness" in Matt 8:12 and 25:30, a sticky problem arises if we are to employ the argument of what I call "stock phrases" consistently. "Stock phrases" are those which, if they appear once and mean one thing, they must always mean that same thing. This is poor hermeneutics.
As someone else wrote, "outer darkness" has to mean exactly what it says, and they refer to Matthew 8:12, where it is said that the "sons of the kingdom" (hoi huioi tes basileias) are thrown into this "outer darkness." The normative interpretation of these "sons" is that they are Israelites, i.e., those Jews who were part of the national entity we call Israel, but who eventually showed by their rejection of Jesus as Messiah that they were not faithful to God. Yet in the parable of the tares in Matt 13:38, the only other usage of the phrase hoi huioi tes basileias, it is clearly defined as the "good seed." The traditional "stock phrases" hermeneutic must now be abandoned at this point, leaving us with no objective guidelines to determine when, or when not, to assume one phrase always means the same thing. With the inconsistent application of this in 8:12, we are left strictly with the whim of the individual interpreter, not just for that phrase, but for all.
A similar problem exists in 25:30, which concludes the parable of the talents in which the master has entrusted varying sums of money to his three servants (v 14; douloi, lit., "slaves") for investment while he is away. There is no problem with the traditional view assigning the first two industrious slaves to the realm of the "saved," but when it comes to the unwise third slave, who is said to be cast into the "outer darkness," the 'tune' changes. Because the "stock phrase" method is applied to the "outer darkness," this third slave must, by interpretive tradition, be designated as unsaved.
Yet the very method which is used to establish this conclusion is at the same time violated in the very same passage. The word slave (doulos) is used to describe all three individuals, not just the first two. The text offers no differentiation in their relation to their master. He gives all of them the "gift" of the talents to invest, to varying degrees among the three. God does not grant spiritual gifts to unsaved persons. To consistently use the "stock phrase" method, we must apply the status of "saved" to all three individuals. Yet we cannot do this because that would violate the same method used for "outer darkness." What we wind up with is a hopeless situation involving inconsistent reasoning and arbitrary hermeneutical decisions.
The word doulos, used many times by Paul to describe himself, is pregnant with meaning and significance. We cannot arbitrarily dismiss the third slave as being "unsaved" simply because we do not understand the cryptic, hard-to-understand expression "outer darkness." Too many times, we allow personal emotion and psychology to enter into our view of Scripture. We assume, without good hermeneutics in the process, that the reference to the "outer darkness," with its inclusion of "weeping and gnashing of teeth," cannot refer to Christians because we simply cannot envision this happening to a true believer. It is simply too emotionally disturbing and doesn't fit our own stereotypical view of heaven. It is somewhat self-centered in that it interprets the text on the basis of the perspective of the individual interpreter rather than the perspective of the biblical author. It is emotional in that psychological factors enter into the interpretation and bias its outcome.
With respect to the point just made, 1 Cor 10:1-13 is truly an amazing passage of Scripture. Paul is relating to the "brethren" (v 1) in Corinth examples from the people of God in the OT, particularly the wilderness wanderings, as being directly applicable to all believers of the church age. Observe the four experiences Paul ascribes to these people ("our fathers," v 1) in the wilderness: (1) They were all under the cloud. (2) They all passed through the sea. The spiritual significance of these two happenings is enormous and too lengthy to cover here.
We will let it stand that there was no distinction of some being "true wanderers" and some being "pseudo-wanderers." They all experienced these things. Even more amazing are the next two: (3) They all "ate the same spiritual food" and (4) They all "drank the same spiritual drink" (vv 3-4). To leave no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind, Paul specifically defines the spiritual drink as being from the spiritual Rock of which they drank, which was none other than Christ! Paul could not have made it more plain. There are here no "pseudo-people of God"! They all had an authentic spiritual experience with God in the exodus.
The telling blow comes in v 5: "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well pleased, fand they were laid low in the wilderness." Paul goes on to mention the idolatry, sexual immorality, and mass death that occurred among those who partook of the spiritual drink from the Rock which was Christ. Looking at the phrases "outer darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" honestly, by themselves, and apart from any theological grid, it is difficult to see how these expressions can be seen as so much worse than what Paul ascribes to the wanderers who "experienced Christ." It is, therefore, not these phrases themselves that tell us whether the individuals described are "saved" or "unsaved"; rather, both the immediate and broader contexts must determine this.
I am getting far too lengthy here, so I will attempt to condense my last example, the wedding feast of Matthew 22:1-13, and the wedding guest who was not properly attired. We must place the parable within the cultural background of the Jewish people, and how that affects the interpretation of the "outer darkness." The feast is the Jewish wedding feast, often celebrated in the evening. On the occasion in question, the celebration was originally scheduled to begin at midday, but was delayed by the refusal of the guests to come.
The wedding garment is the appropriate piece of clothing to be worn to the wedding feast. The significance of the lack of the garment is a lack of preparation and readiness due to the priority of worldly self-interest. The "outer darkness" is that darkness which is outside the banquet hall within which the evening feast is taking place. As it would in the literal setting, exclusion from the feast signifies a loss of the joy and the closeness of fellowship that occurs inside the feast. As a result of not being able to take part, due to giving priority to self-interest rather than to commitment to discipleship, these privileges are lost. But this loss is not due to a lack of "saving" faith.
Verse 14 also becomes clearer given this context. The "elect" are those who obtain the inheritance of joy characterized by the feast. The "called" are all those, both unbeliever and believer, who were invited to the feast but did not respond to the invitation. They either overtly rejected it or allowed worldly interests and pleasures to interfere with their preparation and readiness. The unbeliever loses joy totally in hell. But the "poorly dressed" believer, represented here, enters the kingdom with a loss of that fullness of joy portrayed by the wedding feast. For the believer this is no special judgment in heaven, but simply the execution of the judgment already given at Christ's Bema Seat.
The lesson from all this must be that God's grace is so free that it is given unconditionally, with full knowledge and without the expectation of return, that is, without the subtle threat that unless certain conditions are met (e.g., moral living, participation in "Christian" activities, commitment) this "free" gift will be nullified or withdrawn. It won't be. But the life of that believer will be less than it should be on this Earth, and the rewards in heaven will be few if not none. Heaven is not our goal. Our goal is to live in Christlikeness in this life, using the "talents" we have been given wisely, effectively, and profitably for the Kingdom of God.
Unfortunately, we see many churches preaching an enslaving "salvation" that requires production in order to hold onto it. It amounts to "conditional eternal security" that states we must produce for the Kingdom in order to hold on to it. This teaching is ravaging the church today by robbing the believer (and unbeliever, of course) of the only transforming power available to him or her for breaking the shackles of emotional and spiritual bondage. Many Christians, frustrated by years of attempting to be a "good Christian," are flocking to counselors' offices with burned-out lives. Regrettably, their church has only offered them a form of grace without "the power thereof," that is, without the power of unconditional love and grace.
I believe you have to look at the "outer darkness" as comparative in relation to the rest of heaven. There are several reasons for this, which I will attempt to be brief in explaining.
In the references to "outer darkness" in Matt 8:12 and 25:30, a sticky problem arises if we are to employ the argument of what I call "stock phrases" consistently. "Stock phrases" are those which, if they appear once and mean one thing, they must always mean that same thing. This is poor hermeneutics.
As someone else wrote, "outer darkness" has to mean exactly what it says, and they refer to Matthew 8:12, where it is said that the "sons of the kingdom" (hoi huioi tes basileias) are thrown into this "outer darkness." The normative interpretation of these "sons" is that they are Israelites, i.e., those Jews who were part of the national entity we call Israel, but who eventually showed by their rejection of Jesus as Messiah that they were not faithful to God. Yet in the parable of the tares in Matt 13:38, the only other usage of the phrase hoi huioi tes basileias, it is clearly defined as the "good seed." The traditional "stock phrases" hermeneutic must now be abandoned at this point, leaving us with no objective guidelines to determine when, or when not, to assume one phrase always means the same thing. With the inconsistent application of this in 8:12, we are left strictly with the whim of the individual interpreter, not just for that phrase, but for all.
A similar problem exists in 25:30, which concludes the parable of the talents in which the master has entrusted varying sums of money to his three servants (v 14; douloi, lit., "slaves") for investment while he is away. There is no problem with the traditional view assigning the first two industrious slaves to the realm of the "saved," but when it comes to the unwise third slave, who is said to be cast into the "outer darkness," the 'tune' changes. Because the "stock phrase" method is applied to the "outer darkness," this third slave must, by interpretive tradition, be designated as unsaved.
Yet the very method which is used to establish this conclusion is at the same time violated in the very same passage. The word slave (doulos) is used to describe all three individuals, not just the first two. The text offers no differentiation in their relation to their master. He gives all of them the "gift" of the talents to invest, to varying degrees among the three. God does not grant spiritual gifts to unsaved persons. To consistently use the "stock phrase" method, we must apply the status of "saved" to all three individuals. Yet we cannot do this because that would violate the same method used for "outer darkness." What we wind up with is a hopeless situation involving inconsistent reasoning and arbitrary hermeneutical decisions.
The word doulos, used many times by Paul to describe himself, is pregnant with meaning and significance. We cannot arbitrarily dismiss the third slave as being "unsaved" simply because we do not understand the cryptic, hard-to-understand expression "outer darkness." Too many times, we allow personal emotion and psychology to enter into our view of Scripture. We assume, without good hermeneutics in the process, that the reference to the "outer darkness," with its inclusion of "weeping and gnashing of teeth," cannot refer to Christians because we simply cannot envision this happening to a true believer. It is simply too emotionally disturbing and doesn't fit our own stereotypical view of heaven. It is somewhat self-centered in that it interprets the text on the basis of the perspective of the individual interpreter rather than the perspective of the biblical author. It is emotional in that psychological factors enter into the interpretation and bias its outcome.
With respect to the point just made, 1 Cor 10:1-13 is truly an amazing passage of Scripture. Paul is relating to the "brethren" (v 1) in Corinth examples from the people of God in the OT, particularly the wilderness wanderings, as being directly applicable to all believers of the church age. Observe the four experiences Paul ascribes to these people ("our fathers," v 1) in the wilderness: (1) They were all under the cloud. (2) They all passed through the sea. The spiritual significance of these two happenings is enormous and too lengthy to cover here.
We will let it stand that there was no distinction of some being "true wanderers" and some being "pseudo-wanderers." They all experienced these things. Even more amazing are the next two: (3) They all "ate the same spiritual food" and (4) They all "drank the same spiritual drink" (vv 3-4). To leave no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind, Paul specifically defines the spiritual drink as being from the spiritual Rock of which they drank, which was none other than Christ! Paul could not have made it more plain. There are here no "pseudo-people of God"! They all had an authentic spiritual experience with God in the exodus.
The telling blow comes in v 5: "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well pleased, fand they were laid low in the wilderness." Paul goes on to mention the idolatry, sexual immorality, and mass death that occurred among those who partook of the spiritual drink from the Rock which was Christ. Looking at the phrases "outer darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" honestly, by themselves, and apart from any theological grid, it is difficult to see how these expressions can be seen as so much worse than what Paul ascribes to the wanderers who "experienced Christ." It is, therefore, not these phrases themselves that tell us whether the individuals described are "saved" or "unsaved"; rather, both the immediate and broader contexts must determine this.
I am getting far too lengthy here, so I will attempt to condense my last example, the wedding feast of Matthew 22:1-13, and the wedding guest who was not properly attired. We must place the parable within the cultural background of the Jewish people, and how that affects the interpretation of the "outer darkness." The feast is the Jewish wedding feast, often celebrated in the evening. On the occasion in question, the celebration was originally scheduled to begin at midday, but was delayed by the refusal of the guests to come.
The wedding garment is the appropriate piece of clothing to be worn to the wedding feast. The significance of the lack of the garment is a lack of preparation and readiness due to the priority of worldly self-interest. The "outer darkness" is that darkness which is outside the banquet hall within which the evening feast is taking place. As it would in the literal setting, exclusion from the feast signifies a loss of the joy and the closeness of fellowship that occurs inside the feast. As a result of not being able to take part, due to giving priority to self-interest rather than to commitment to discipleship, these privileges are lost. But this loss is not due to a lack of "saving" faith.
Verse 14 also becomes clearer given this context. The "elect" are those who obtain the inheritance of joy characterized by the feast. The "called" are all those, both unbeliever and believer, who were invited to the feast but did not respond to the invitation. They either overtly rejected it or allowed worldly interests and pleasures to interfere with their preparation and readiness. The unbeliever loses joy totally in hell. But the "poorly dressed" believer, represented here, enters the kingdom with a loss of that fullness of joy portrayed by the wedding feast. For the believer this is no special judgment in heaven, but simply the execution of the judgment already given at Christ's Bema Seat.
The lesson from all this must be that God's grace is so free that it is given unconditionally, with full knowledge and without the expectation of return, that is, without the subtle threat that unless certain conditions are met (e.g., moral living, participation in "Christian" activities, commitment) this "free" gift will be nullified or withdrawn. It won't be. But the life of that believer will be less than it should be on this Earth, and the rewards in heaven will be few if not none. Heaven is not our goal. Our goal is to live in Christlikeness in this life, using the "talents" we have been given wisely, effectively, and profitably for the Kingdom of God.
Unfortunately, we see many churches preaching an enslaving "salvation" that requires production in order to hold onto it. It amounts to "conditional eternal security" that states we must produce for the Kingdom in order to hold on to it. This teaching is ravaging the church today by robbing the believer (and unbeliever, of course) of the only transforming power available to him or her for breaking the shackles of emotional and spiritual bondage. Many Christians, frustrated by years of attempting to be a "good Christian," are flocking to counselors' offices with burned-out lives. Regrettably, their church has only offered them a form of grace without "the power thereof," that is, without the power of unconditional love and grace.
So NetChap,
What is your status right now, this very minute?
Are you saved or would you characterize your status as "being saved"?
Axe
So, Netchap,NetChaplain said:
What is your status right now, this very minute?
Are you saved or would you characterize your status as "being saved"?
Axe
The believer is now saved from sin's curse which provides for being saved from its punishment latter.Axehead said:
And how do you know who a believer is since you have not seen the end of their life yet, to witness if they endured till the end, and did not depart from the faith?NetChaplain said:
Concerning those who are other than yourself, only God knows for sure, just as He does for all. Concerning yourself, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom 8:16). This continual reassurance of the Holy Spirit to the believer comes only through understanding how Scripture supports this and believing in what it says, as the Spirit gives to us faith and understanding according to how "yielding" we are to Him.Axehead said:
First I would need you to explain your meaning of "the wicked saved ones" because a saved one is not wicked.Episkopos said:
Concerning "outer darkness" it is a "phrase expressive of the miserable state and condition of persons out of the kingdom of heaven; who are weeping for what they have lost, and gnashing their teeth with the pain of what they endure." JG
HolySpirit knows and can enable the gift of discerning of spirits and word of knowledge. :)Axehead said:
Do you mean an unbeliever who might become a believer? You need to clarify "a struggling saint."Axehead said:
It's always speculative when attempting to determine another's condition (saved or unsaved) and such concern is acceptable if it's out of love, but if it is a believer he will eventually continue to exhibit more of godliness than ungodliness. As always is the case in every situation concerning everyone, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Rom 14:4).Axehead said:
The point is that neither you nor I know who is SAVED or not and we cannot even presume to have reached some "special status" whereby we stop "working out our own salvation with fear and trembling". Because what happens to us if we become complacent and lukewarm? Can we rest on the "special status" we received when we prayed a prayer a long time ago or walked the aisle or were even baptized? No. The Children of Israel had no special status conferred on them because they still had to gather manna daily, look to the Lord daily in faith and fight their enemies chief of which was their own heart.
1Jn_5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
How do you keep yourself from the sin of presumption, Netchap?
Presumption simply means that a person thinks he is in a position or some kind of status with God because of some doctrinal belief or some kind of religious experience or activity that they have encountered or that they have been involved in.
"Saved in Sin" or "Saved from Sin"?
Some take the view that one cannot be free from sin, just forgiven. In many places one sees the motto: "Christians aren't perfect just forgiven." The acceptance of imperfection and unrighteousness seems to be the norm for the church. What this motto really says to the world is, "I am a sinner just like you, but I'm forgiven and you are not." The emphasis is put on forgiveness instead of righteousness. Many have the attitude of a Christian minister who was in an adulterous relationship; when confronted he responded, "Every night before I go to sleep, I just ask the Lord to forgive me."
Is there more than forgiveness? Is there freedom from sin? Many respond to these questions by talking about the sin nature in the believer, saying one can never be free from sin because sin will always be in him until he dies. They say the righteousness of Christ in no way changes the carnal nature, neither does the carnal nature affect the divine nature. Here man finds himself in a schizophrenic dualism of confusion and failure. The emphasis is upon"saved IN sin" rather than "saved FROM sin". One finds himself living in a two story house with no connecting stairway. On one floor there can be no sin, while on the other floor there is nothing but sin.
Paul does not assume that those who name the name of Christ will depart from sin so he instructs the church that whoever does name the name of Christ, they should be departing from and ceasing from sin.
2Ti_2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
1Jn_5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
How do you keep yourself from the sin of presumption, Netchap?
Presumption simply means that a person thinks he is in a position or some kind of status with God because of some doctrinal belief or some kind of religious experience or activity that they have encountered or that they have been involved in.
"Saved in Sin" or "Saved from Sin"?
Some take the view that one cannot be free from sin, just forgiven. In many places one sees the motto: "Christians aren't perfect just forgiven." The acceptance of imperfection and unrighteousness seems to be the norm for the church. What this motto really says to the world is, "I am a sinner just like you, but I'm forgiven and you are not." The emphasis is put on forgiveness instead of righteousness. Many have the attitude of a Christian minister who was in an adulterous relationship; when confronted he responded, "Every night before I go to sleep, I just ask the Lord to forgive me."
Is there more than forgiveness? Is there freedom from sin? Many respond to these questions by talking about the sin nature in the believer, saying one can never be free from sin because sin will always be in him until he dies. They say the righteousness of Christ in no way changes the carnal nature, neither does the carnal nature affect the divine nature. Here man finds himself in a schizophrenic dualism of confusion and failure. The emphasis is upon"saved IN sin" rather than "saved FROM sin". One finds himself living in a two story house with no connecting stairway. On one floor there can be no sin, while on the other floor there is nothing but sin.
Paul does not assume that those who name the name of Christ will depart from sin so he instructs the church that whoever does name the name of Christ, they should be departing from and ceasing from sin.
2Ti_2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Similar threads
