No Law = no sin?

[musterion]

Some commentators seem to assume that before the Law was given, there could have been no sin as such; that until the time of Moses and the giving of the Law, men did sin, and died due to sin, but God did not reckon them as sinners because there was no Law recognized by men as coming from Him for them to break.

However, the Bible is clear that the Law was added so that "sin might become exceeding sinful...," "that the offence [sin] would abound...," that is, that sin might become transgression. Yet even before this, men died because there was "sin in the world, and death because of it."

Gentiles had (and still have, if they have nothing else) the witness of their consciences, excusing or accusing themselves because of their sin, even though"Gentiles...have not the Law..." (Romans 2). Consider Sodom and Gomorrah as just one example:

And the LORD said, "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous" (Gen.18:20).

The sins of these men evidently WERE imputed to their account, well before the Law:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 7).

Whether its the broken Law or the violated conscience, no man from Adam onward has had any excuse for sin before God. This is why it says "for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

 

[AndyBern]

The Law makes us aware of the sin that is already there in us.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
According to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, Moses' covenanted law
isn't retroactive. And if that law isn't retroactive; then of course no law is. In
other words; it is impossible to break a law that has yet to be legislated and
signed into law; which is precisely why God couldn't prosecute Cain for the
murder of his kid brother Abel. It was morally wrong to kill his brother, yes,
but it wasn't illegal to do so. In other words; men were pretty much at
liberty to go on safari and hunt each other in Cain's day because there was
no law against it.

The key here regards not law per se; but law that has criminal penalties
attached. Take for example Moses' covenanted law. The consequences for
breaking it can be pretty severe. In some cases the consequence is death;
and even in non-capital cases the consequence is at the very least a curse in
accordance with Deut 27:26.

This principle-- where there is no law, there is no transgression --is a
tremendous advantage to believing Christians because by means of Christ's
crucifixion, they have undergone the curse of Deut 27:26 and have been
transferred to a zone where Moses' covenanted law has zero jurisdiction.

In a nutshell: believing Christians can now, if they wish, break every last one of
the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and not
have to fear going to hell for doing so; including, but not limited to: rape,
murder, theft, perjury, idolatry, blasphemy, covetousness, scorning the
Sabbath, incest, sodomy, lesbianism, and dishonoring parents; et al. You
name it. If it's listed in the four books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy; people who underwent the curse of Deut 27:26 via Christ's
crucifixion are now exempt from any, and all, of the penalties stipulated for
breaking the laws contained in those four books.

Pretty amazing isn't it. No wonder the angel at Luke 2:10 announced: "I
bring you good tidings of great joy"

Great joy easily surpasses ordinary joy. If the good tidings that the angel
brought have not given someone cause for unsurpassed joy, then I have to
say they have yet to hear and believe the gospel. They're a disbeliever; and
there's certainly no cause for the angel's unsurpassed joy in that condition.

Buen Camino
/

 

[williemac]

.
According to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, Moses' covenanted law
isn't retroactive. And if that law isn't retroactive; then of course no law is. In
other words; it is impossible to break a law that has yet to be legislated and
signed into law; which is precisely why God couldn't prosecute Cain for the
murder of his kid brother Abel. It was morally wrong to kill his brother, yes,
but it wasn't illegal to do so. In other words; men were pretty much at
liberty to go on safari and hunt each other in Cain's day because there was
no law against it.

The key here regards not law per se; but law that has criminal penalties
attached. Take for example Moses' covenanted law. The consequences for
breaking it can be pretty severe. In some cases the consequence is death;
and even in non-capital cases the consequence is at the very least a curse in
accordance with Deut 27:26.

This principle-- where there is no law, there is no transgression --is a
tremendous advantage to believing Christians because by means of Christ's
crucifixion, they have undergone the curse of Deut 27:26 and have been
transferred to a zone where Moses' covenanted law has zero jurisdiction.

In a nutshell: believing Christians can now, if they wish, break every last one of
the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and not
have to fear going to hell for doing so; including, but not limited to: rape,
murder, theft, perjury, idolatry, blasphemy, covetousness, scorning the
Sabbath, incest, sodomy, lesbianism, and dishonoring parents; et al. You
name it. If it's listed in the four books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy; people who underwent the curse of Deut 27:26 via Christ's
crucifixion are now exempt from any, and all, of the penalties stipulated for
breaking the laws contained in those four books.

Pretty amazing isn't it. No wonder the angel at Luke 2:10 announced: "I
bring you good tidings of great joy"

Great joy easily surpasses ordinary joy. If the good tidings that the angel
brought have not given someone cause for unsurpassed joy, then I have to
say they have yet to hear and believe the gospel. They're a disbeliever; and
there's certainly no cause for the angel's unsurpassed joy in that condition.

Buen Camino
/

You have guts to say this. But it is the truth.

But to head the objections off at the pass, I will add that the Lord reserves the right to chasten His children. Paul suggested to deliver a sexually immoral man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that his spirit may be saved. As well, Jesus threatened to put some men through great tribulation, whom He called His servants, whom were in sexual immorality. These are examples of chastening and temporal consequences. Those can still apply. However, it is unlikely that they who come to the Lord will just be blatantly committing sin anyway, as the recognition of the sacrifice for sin is part of the process in coming to Him for forgiveness in the first place. Blessings, Howie

 

[Mungo]

.
According to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, Moses' covenanted law
isn't retroactive. And if that law isn't retroactive; then of course no law is. In
other words; it is impossible to break a law that has yet to be legislated and
signed into law; which is precisely why God couldn't prosecute Cain for the
murder of his kid brother Abel. It was morally wrong to kill his brother, yes,
but it wasn't illegal to do so. In other words; men were pretty much at
liberty to go on safari and hunt each other in Cain's day because there was
no law against it.

The key here regards not law per se; but law that has criminal penalties
attached. Take for example Moses' covenanted law. The consequences for
breaking it can be pretty severe. In some cases the consequence is death;
and even in non-capital cases the consequence is at the very least a curse in
accordance with Deut 27:26.

This principle-- where there is no law, there is no transgression --is a
tremendous advantage to believing Christians because by means of Christ's
crucifixion, they have undergone the curse of Deut 27:26 and have been
transferred to a zone where Moses' covenanted law has zero jurisdiction.

In a nutshell: believing Christians can now, if they wish, break every last one of
the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and not
have to fear going to hell for doing so; including, but not limited to: rape,
murder, theft, perjury, idolatry, blasphemy, covetousness, scorning the
Sabbath, incest, sodomy, lesbianism, and dishonoring parents; et al. You
name it. If it's listed in the four books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy; people who underwent the curse of Deut 27:26 via Christ's
crucifixion are now exempt from any, and all, of the penalties stipulated for
breaking the laws contained in those four books.

Pretty amazing isn't it. No wonder the angel at Luke 2:10 announced: "I
bring you good tidings of great joy"

Great joy easily surpasses ordinary joy. If the good tidings that the angel
brought have not given someone cause for unsurpassed joy, then I have to
say they have yet to hear and believe the gospel. They're a disbeliever; and
there's certainly no cause for the angel's unsurpassed joy in that condition.

Buen Camino
/

But what about breaking the law under the New Covenant.

Paul says
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21)

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

And John says:
Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (1Jn 3:15)

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Sin was not imputed before the law.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Now we have to look at Adam and Eve, they died the day that they ate of the tree, spiritually. Since that time all men are born dead, spiritually. What is scriptural confirmation?

Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
In the scripture above, a dead man that believes in Jesus he will become alive, spiritually.

Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
In this scripture, if this man will believe in Jesus, he will never die, spiritually.

This is why our resurrection comes when this body of ours dies. We go right on up to be with the Lord.

For the Jews that died before the church age, resurrection would happen when Jesus returned in judgement upon that generation. Jesus told us in Matthew 24 that we would know the time by the destruction of the temple.

Joh 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Joh 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.


To much to explain in detail on this post.

Be blessed.

 

[musterion]

Sin was not imputed before the law.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

True, yet God could and did judge sin just the same (Sodom&Gomorrah). Law was not yet in the world, but conscience was.

 

[Webers_Home]

Paul says etc, etc, etc,

Paul also says:

†. Rom 8:2-3 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free
from the law of sin and death.

John says; etc.

John also says:

†. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The New Testament is both pro-OSAS and anti-OSAS. Most people lean one
way or the other way; while a few people actually know how to bring those
two ways together and make them click.


Buen Camino
/

 

[musterion]

Paul also says:

†. Rom 8:2-3 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free
from the law of sin and death.



John also says:

†. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The New Testament is both pro-OSAS and anti-OSAS. Most people lean one
way or the other way; while a few people actually know how to bring those
two ways together and make them click.


Buen Camino
/

I know how to reconcile them, but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you do it.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Below is one of John's statements

"He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his
brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life
abiding in him." (1John 3:14-15)

Compare John's statement to one of Christ's

"I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe in God who
sent, me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but
they have already passed from death into life." (John 5:24)

John seems to be saying that people with eternal life are neither hateful nor
murderous; while Christ seems to be saying that if somebody with eternal
life should be hateful and murderous; they won't go to hell for it.

John's statement appears anti-OSAS; while Christ's appears pro-OSAS.

Below are two more of John's statements. Note their differences.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is
not in us." (1John 1:8-10)

The pronouns "we" and "ourselves" and "us" indicate that John included
himself as a practitioner of sin in that statement. But here's what he said
later on in the very same epistle:

"We know that whoever is born of God does not sin" (1John 5:18)

Was John a born-again Christian? Well; if he was, then according to that
statement, he should have been sinless; but he said in the previous
statement that were he to say he was sinless; he'd not only be deceiving
himself but also making God out to be a liar.

(chuckle) I love those kinds of contradictions in the New Testament because
they go to show that the Bible isn't as easy to understand as the anti-OSAS
crowd makes it out to be. But then, it's a bit tricky for the pro-OSAS crowd too.


Buen Camino
/

 

[musterion]

I have a different explanation but you won't like it.

 

[Webers_Home]

I have a different explanation but you won't like it.

Will Christ like it?


Buen Camino
/

 

[musterion]

I'm pretty sure it was His idea, right there in the pages of the Bible for all to see.

And you still haven't explained your interpretation, if I may point it out.

 

[williemac]

In my case, I am neither pro nor anti Osas. But I am pro SO (saved once). According to Heb.6:1-6 if we fall away from the life we have in Christ, it is impossible to regain it.Therefore salvation (eternal life) is a one-time event that cannot be repeated. The pro OSAS people insist that it is impossible to fall away. Many anti OSAS people usually give a scenario where one may fall away but repent and confess their way back. Neither of these are correct.

In regards to the OP, we are in fact, not under law and therefore are not under judgment for sin. This is assured by Jesus in John 5:24. His perspective is that once a person is saved, He has no intention of changing that fact. The only person that can change it is the one who accepted it, by afterward rejecting it. The only way life can be rejected is to fall from the faith that was used to accept it. The law cannot condemn us. We have been freed from its enforcement thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus once for all. Where sin abounds grace abounds the more. We are cautioned not to take advantage of this fact. But this caution is proof that we could do just that without recourse from the law. But it will hurt us in other ways. Just not in eternal ways.

 

[Webers_Home]

I'm pretty sure it was His idea, right there in the pages of the Bible for all to see.

(chuckle) That's what they all say; on both sides of the aisle.


Buen Camino
/

 

[musterion]

The only person that can change it is the one who accepted it, by afterward rejecting it. The only way life can be rejected is to fall from the faith that was used to accept it. The law cannot condemn us. We have been freed from its enforcement thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus once for all. Where sin abounds grace abounds the more. We are cautioned not to take advantage of this fact. But this caution is proof that we could do just that without recourse from the law. But it will hurt us in other ways. Just not in eternal ways.

A few questions, please...

1. Does the Bible teach a believer has the authority and the power necessary to reject Christ during this dispensation of grace, thereby undoing ALL He is and has done for us? I don't see it at all, but it's necessary for you to be correct.

2. Paul says God has forgiven ALL the believer's sin. The Greek allows no wiggle room: all means ALL. In order for a believer to walk away from Christ forever - which surely would be sin - it would necessitate Paul's guarantee to be false.

3. (worst for last) If we're dead to the Law - and we are - we are dead to the only just means of condemnation God has (hence Romans 8:1). Without the Law, He has NOTHING with which to condemn our hypothetical post-salvation reprobate. So for your position to be correct, God would have to not only [a] undo EVERYTHING He did at salvation for the sinner but dismember the Body of Christ in order to remove the offending member. They'd have to be truly, literally severed from Christ, and not in the mere practical sense of a Christian reverting to the Law for sanctification as in Gal. 5. Do you see any hint in Scripture that such an abominable thought - which your position demands be possible - IS possible, that God the Father would dismember the spiritual body of His Son, our Lord?

(chuckle) That's what they all say; on both sides of the aisle.

All sides of the aisle, too.

 

[williemac]

A few questions, please...

1. Does the Bible teach a believer has the authority and the power necessary to reject Christ during this dispensation of grace, thereby undoing ALL He is and has done for us? I don't see it at all, but it's necessary for you to be correct.

2. Paul says God has forgiven ALL the believer's sin. The Greek allows no wiggle room: all means ALL. In order for a believer to walk away from Christ forever - which surely would be sin - it would necessitate Paul's guarantee to be false.

3. (worst for last) If we're dead to the Law - and we are - we are dead to the only just means of condemnation God has (hence Romans 8:1). Without the Law, He has NOTHING with which to condemn our hypothetical post-salvation reprobate. So for your position to be correct, God would have to not only [a] undo EVERYTHING He did at salvation for the sinner but dismember the Body of Christ in order to remove the offending member. They'd have to be truly, literally severed from Christ, and not in the mere practical sense of a Christian reverting to the Law for sanctification as in Gal. 5. Do you see any hint in Scripture that such an abominable thought - which your position demands be possible - IS possible, that God the Father would dismember the spiritual body of His Son, our Lord?

1: If an unbeliever has the authority to reject Christ, then how does this change after having received Him? Do we lose our free will after salvation? And how does Heb.6:1-6 make any sense if it is merely a hypothetical situation? What would have been the point?

2. The forgiveness of sin is offered to the entire world (2Cor.5:19,20). It is a matter of a response that God is pleading for. John 17:3 relates eternal life as a relationship with God. My own marriage required a proposal and a response. However, at any time, one party or the other can leave the relationship. In God's case, He has assured us that He has no intention of changing His mind. We are not talking about sin, here. We are talking about the agenda and intention of the human. Lucifer had an agenda to become as God. He rejected his God given purpose in doing so. I suppose a believer can make a similar decision at some time in his life, which would include the walking away from the relationship. Repentance simply means to change one's mind. Would it not be possible to do that again? Though the likelihood is slim at best.

Furthermore, since it was by faith we received and receive all things from God, including forgiveness, we have more than a few places in scripture that exhort us to remain in that faith. If we could not turn from faith, those exhortations would be redundant.

3. This is nothing more than a logical assumption. If the body of Christ can be added to, which is done continually, then it does not remain constant anyway. You make it sound as though "dismemberment" leaves the body fragmented. However, at any given time, the body of Christ is a complete and whole body. If it is fragmented when losing a member, then it was fragmented before the member was added. Your assumption is nothing more than a guess. As well, like I said, this is not about what God is doing, since the believer is guaranteed to not come into judgment (John5:24). It is about what the believer determines for himself. I think these instances are probably very few and very far between, if at all. But to rule out the possibility is to deny free will.

 

[musterion]

1: If an unbeliever has the authority to reject Christ, then how does this change after having received Him? Do we lose our free will after salvation? And how does Heb.6:1-6 make any sense if it is merely a hypothetical situation? What would have been the point?

For just one thing, the Bible says clearly we are no longer our own because God owns the believer. We would still HAVE to wholly own ourselves to do what you say is possible.

2. The forgiveness of sin is offered to the entire world (2Cor.5:19,20). It is a matter of a response that God is pleading for. John 17:3 relates eternal life as a relationship with God. My own marriage required a proposal and a response. However, at any time, one party or the other can leave the relationship.

At marriage, neither you nor I were fundamentally altered into what amounts to an entirely new species (spiritually alive to God in Christ rather than naturally dead to Him in sin). Believers are also SEALED with the Holy Spirit, a mark of ownership. Again, it bears repeating - the believer is no longer his own and thank Christ for it!

In God's case, He has assured us that He has no intention of changing His mind. We are not talking about sin, here. We are talking about the agenda and intention of the human. Lucifer had an agenda to become as God. He rejected his God given purpose in doing so. I suppose a believer can make a similar decision at some time in his life, which would include the walking away from the relationship. Repentance simply means to change one's mind. Would it not be possible to do that again? Though the likelihood is slim at best.

Sorry, but to utterly and finally break the unity with Christ would still be sin - the gravest sin possible, a sin so despicable that Paul, to my knowledge, never considers the possibility. And as I said repeately to whatsisname...if one can be totally forgiven of all sin (as Paul guarantees) EXCEPT for the one hypothetical, potential sin of later willfully turning away from Christ, then the Bible is a book of lies because ALL sins are NOT forgiven and no one, in fact is saved nor has salvation. Probation, yes, but saved means SAFE, and no one is safe if there's even the slightest shred of possibility it can be lost.

Sorry, you can't have this both ways: either ALL sins are forgiven and you cannot escape Christ, or all sins are NOT forgiven in which case you aren't safe, meaning you aren't saved. There's no middle ground, it's one or the other.

Furthermore, since it was by faith we received and receive all things from God, including forgiveness, we have more than a few places in scripture that exhort us to remain in that faith. If I could not turn from faith, those exhortations would be redundant.

They are there to encourage us to never forget, and to live up to, WHO and WHAT we NOW are IN CHRIST, not to warn us that we're going to Hell if we're not careful.

Do you realize that, with all the deep writings on salvific matters Paul did in almost all his letters, that phrase - "lose your salvation" or some variant of it - is THE most obvious phrase he surely would have used had it been a possibility? Yet he never once said it.

3. This is nothing more than a logical assumption. If the body of Christ can be added to, which is done continually, then it does not remain constant anyway. You make it sound as though "dismemberment" leaves the body fragmented. However, at any given time, the body of Christ is a complete and whole body.

Now that's a puzzling statement. Paul said the Body was yet being built in his day - nor is it complete now.

If it is fragmented when losing a member, then it was fragmented before the member was added.

No, not fragmented. Not yet fully grown. What YOU purport is not mere fragmentation but dismemberment. It is HIS Body you're talking about here, do not forget that.

Your assumption is nothing more than a guess.

Then so are yours.

As well, like I said, this is not about what God is doing, since the believer is guaranteed to not come into judgment (John5:24). It is about what the believer determines for himself.

So if a believer could sever himself from Christ, he would not come under judgment for it? How exactly could that possibly work?

 

[williemac]

1: If an unbeliever has the authority to reject Christ, then how does this change after having received Him? Do we lose our free will after salvation? And how does Heb.6:1-6 make any sense if it is merely a hypothetical situation? What would have been the point?

For just one thing, the Bible says clearly we are no longer our own because God owns the believer. We would still HAVE to wholly own ourselves to do what you say is possible.

2. The forgiveness of sin is offered to the entire world (2Cor.5:19,20). It is a matter of a response that God is pleading for. John 17:3 relates eternal life as a relationship with God. My own marriage required a proposal and a response. However, at any time, one party or the other can leave the relationship.

At marriage, neither you nor I were fundamentally altered into what amounts to an entirely new species (spiritually alive to God in Christ rather than naturally dead to Him in sin). Believers are also SEALED with the Holy Spirit, a mark of ownership. Again, it bears repeating - the believer is no longer his own and thank Christ for it!

In God's case, He has assured us that He has no intention of changing His mind. We are not talking about sin, here. We are talking about the agenda and intention of the human. Lucifer had an agenda to become as God. He rejected his God given purpose in doing so. I suppose a believer can make a similar decision at some time in his life, which would include the walking away from the relationship. Repentance simply means to change one's mind. Would it not be possible to do that again? Though the likelihood is slim at best.

Sorry, but to utterly and finally break the unity with Christ would still be sin - the gravest sin possible, a sin so despicable that Paul, to my knowledge, never considers the possibility. And as I said repeately to whatsisname...if one can be totally forgiven of all sin (as Paul guarantees) EXCEPT for the one hypothetical, potential sin of later willfully turning away from Christ, then the Bible is a book of lies because ALL sins are NOT forgiven and no one, in fact is saved nor has salvation. Probation, yes, but saved means SAFE, and no one is safe if there's even the slightest shred of possibility it can be lost.

Sorry, you can't have this both ways: either ALL sins are forgiven and you cannot escape Christ, or all sins are NOT forgiven in which case you aren't safe, meaning you aren't saved. There's no middle ground, it's one or the other.

Furthermore, since it was by faith we received and receive all things from God, including forgiveness, we have more than a few places in scripture that exhort us to remain in that faith. If I could not turn from faith, those exhortations would be redundant.

They are there to encourage us to never forget, and to live up to, WHO and WHAT we NOW are IN CHRIST, not to warn us that we're going to Hell if we're not careful.

Do you realize that, with all the deep writings on salvific matters Paul did in almost all his letters, that phrase - "lose your salvation" or some variant of it - is THE most obvious phrase he surely would have used had it been a possibility? Yet he never once said it.

3. This is nothing more than a logical assumption. If the body of Christ can be added to, which is done continually, then it does not remain constant anyway. You make it sound as though "dismemberment" leaves the body fragmented. However, at any given time, the body of Christ is a complete and whole body.

Now that's a puzzling statement. Paul said the Body was yet being built in his day - nor is it complete now.

If it is fragmented when losing a member, then it was fragmented before the member was added.

No, not fragmented. Not yet fully grown. What YOU purport is not mere fragmentation but dismemberment. It is HIS Body you're talking about here, do not forget that.

Your assumption is nothing more than a guess.

Then so are yours.

As well, like I said, this is not about what God is doing, since the believer is guaranteed to not come into judgment (John5:24). It is about what the believer determines for himself.

So if a believer could sever himself from Christ, he would not come under judgment for it? How exactly could that possibly work?

Please explain Rom.11:19-22..... 19" You will say then 'branches were broken off that I might be grafted in'. 20 ". Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear (reverent respect)" 21 " For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 " Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God; on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off."

He owns me? What does that even mean? Am I a piece of meat? Do I own my wife? She's mine. Does that make me an owner of a person?

If you know me, you will know that I am constantly engaged in disputing those who deny or diminish assurance and guarantee. Don't confuse me with these, please. But Paul placed an "if" into the equation. This was not my doing. I can't be concerned with metaphysical concepts such as spiritual body dismemberment. The body of Christ is nothing more than a body (group) of believers. We are members of Him and one another. This is a relationship term. But we are also individuals. One does not nullify the other.

God gives us pictures that we can relate to in order to help us understand things that are spiritual. This is what a parable does. The body of Christ is also such a picture. This whole dismemberment argument cannot be proven whether or not it is a correct assessment.

 

[musterion]

He owns me? What does that even mean? Am I a piece of meat? Do I own my wife? She's mine. Does that make me an owner of a person?

You really don't know?

Believers are called SLAVES to both God and Christ (Rom 6:22; 1 Cor 7:22; Eph 6:6). Paul says believers are VESSELS in God's household, used by Him as He sees fit. Believers are also SEALED [marked] by the Holy Spirit as a sign of God's ownership in advance of the day of redemption. All three terms as well as others (children, sheep, etc) denote His loving ownership of the believer, all of whom - do I really need to remind you? - were BOUGHT by the blood of Christ.

If you don't like Paul's use of those words, then your argument isn't with me but with the One who inspired his very deliberate use of those words. Take it up with Him.

If you know me, you will know that I am constantly engaged in disputing those who deny or diminish assurance and guarantee. Don't confuse me with these, please. But Paul placed an "if" into the equation. This was not my doing. I can't be concerned with metaphysical concepts such as spiritual body dismemberment.

Friend, you should be concerned with it because that's the logical conclusion, if only as a hypothetical one, of your position.

The body of Christ is nothing more than a body (group) of believers. We are members of Him and one another. This is a relationship term. But we are also individuals. One does not nullify the other.

You contradict yourself. Your concept of invincible individualism not only hypothetically nullifies but trumps the organic, spiritual BUT VERY REAL unity of the Body of Christ and, in fact, thwarts His will.

If you're right, human will is potentially the most powerful force in the universe if it can self-sever a believer from Christ.

God gives us pictures that we can relate to in order to help us understand things that are spiritual. This is what a parable does. The body of Christ is also such a picture. This whole dismemberment argument cannot be proven whether or not it is a correct assessment.

The Body is not parabolic, analogical nor figurative. It is real....spiritual, even mystical, yes, but real. Paul made that clear. And your position DEMANDS that it can be severed and dismembered. Sorry...you've no way around it. Either it can't or it can. Your position says it can.

Side note: Parables, at least the way Christ used them during His earthly ministry, were not intended to reveal or illustrate deeper levels of truth but to HIDE truth from those who had rejected previously given truths. The principal of pearls before swine.