Sin remains in the flesh, Paul did not. When we were in flesh, we were the sinner. Now we are a new creation, we are in spirit, and we are not the flesh.
For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells.
Much love!
Romans 7: Sin and the Christian
- Thread starter marks
- 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!
For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells.
Much love!
To be clear, I agree with this point most strongly, that Paul does not in this chapter excuse sin, or make allowances for it, nor does he say it cannot be defeated. He explains what's happened so we can understand how we do now in fact have power over the flesh that we didn't before.
Much love!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Where does Paul say we have power over the flesh? I don't see that.
I see this implicit in:
Romans 6:11-13 KJV
11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Romans 6:18-22 KJV
18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19) I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20) For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21) What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Romans 7:21-25 KJV
21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Romans 8:12-13 KJV
12) Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
In all the places we're told to "put off the old man", or things like that, it's implicit that we are actually able to do so. To deny the sins of the flesh.
Much love!
And I've found more who would agree with you than with me, however, I feel the Scriptures are clear on this point. We are a brand new person, no longer the man from Adam, having been born of God.
Much love!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Okay, that's a good example. In this passage, Paul urges his readers to refrain from giving in to their desires. As you mentioned, Paul assumes that his readers are capable of doing this. However, it's worth noting that the mention of the Holy Spirit is absent from his message. Some people suggest that we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to avoid giving in to our sinful desires, but I am hesitant to add anything to Paul's words that he didn't intend.
According to Paul, a Christian can yield their members as instruments of righteousness without the aid of the Holy Spirit. All they need to do is consider themselves dead to sin, meaning "unaware of or insensitive to" sin. As we are often enticed by our lust, it's best to avoid situations or activities that might tempt us.
It's important to note that although Paul says we have been freed from sin, he also acknowledges the weakness of our flesh. This is why he encourages his readers to use their bodies as servants of righteousness. In this context, freedom from sin means that we are no longer under pressure to give in to our desires. We are no longer compelled to obey our lusts. However, because our flesh is weak, we still have to make a conscious decision to use our bodies for good. We must choose to do what is right.
In the previous two passages, Paul urged us to refrain from giving in to our lustful desires and instead use our bodies for righteous deeds. However, in this section, he introduces a different point. Paul argues that even if we resist acting on our lust, it will still exist within us. In his view, lust is an inherent evil that cannot be fully eradicated. Therefore, he believes that as long as we have lust, we are in need of salvation and are considered miserable individuals.
In my opinion, anyone with a strong character, regardless of their religious belief, can resist giving in to lust. Therefore it is important to consider these verses in context. Paul's talk considers those who resist lust, who are also committed to the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ. The promise of salvation is being guaranteed to those who are being led by the Spirit; And the fact that they are resisting lust is a marker identifying those who are being led by the Spirit.
Agreed.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Theologians differentiate between "potential" and "actual" salvation in the Bible. This is because there are unfulfilled promises of salvation. To understand this, we can look at the concept of holiness. Holiness means that God sets aside a person or a thing for a specific purpose. So, we can ask, "What distinguishes a Christian?"
What sets true Christians apart from others? According to Paul, we are distinguished by the fact that God has poured out His Spirit into our hearts. This means that God has given us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our inheritance. Additionally, we are distinct because we are led by the Holy Spirit and sanctified by His Word, which Paul refers to as our "sanctification." This means that we have been set apart for salvation, and being sanctified is the initial requirement for salvation.
While our sanctification is a present reality, our glorification is yet to be realized. Glorification refers to the final state of salvation, which will be accomplished when Jesus returns at the last trumpet. The "new man" is the "sanctified man" who is being led by the Holy Spirit, who will also be glorified in the future.
"Does this mean that our bodies are not ourselves?" I don't believe that to be true. Instead, as Paul suggests, we must be liberated from our "body of death" and we must wait until the day of our glorification to receive it.
Yes?
But, we’re not in the flesh were in the Spirit?....if one doesn’t know in their heart that they have been Born Again of imperishable seed, then they are going to have difficulty understanding that their sins are forgiven, that can only be done through “ Spirit gives birth to spirit “?...
When God makes your spirit Born Again?...that can’t be explained as it’s a supernatural act of God, that is the Living Spiritual Rebirth?....try explaining that to someone who is still carnal in their thinking/ understanding.
We were chosen and are being made into the image of Jesus, God chose us for his purpose and his plan, when he made us Born Again, you must know that’s a done deal, we are HIS, nothing on the planet can change that..we’re in a different realm?
What realm are we in?
Romans 8:9-11
King James Version
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Last edited:
I likewise find it best to stick with the way the Bible says things. I prefer to think "Scripturally".
Personally, I think it's the Holy Spirit within us that allows us the opportunity to be dead to sin. I believe we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin because we are.
I don't think this means that we are unaware, insensate to sin, but that we've been separated from sin by death in the same way the soul is separated from the body at death.
I don't see that death means to become inactive, insensate, rather, that it is separation. The soul separates from the body, that's physical death. Spiritual death is the soul separated from God. At physical death the soul does not become inactive or insensate, just like "and you who were dead in transgressions and sin . . ." this person is not inactive, but they are dead.
I believe that we are joined to Christ as He is crucified, buried, and raised, and that His resurrection allows us that new life, dead to sin, risen in Christ.
Agreed.
Romans 7:21-25 KJV
21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I see this differently.
Paul understands that even though his flesh remains corrupt, with the "law of sin" in his members, that is, body parts, a literal description of our bodies, that in his spirit he is free in Christ.
And then he goes on to explain how it's the law of the spirit of life in Christ that set him from from the law of sin and death, that law being resident in his flesh.
What do you feel is the difference in relation to temptation and sin between the "saved" and the "unsaved"?
Definitely we are to take the verses in context, but with all respect, not necessarily in conjunction with our own opinions of human nature. God proved in Job that He is the one who truly understands human nature, so His words will come first, and then our own opinions need to conform.
I'd agree that everyone has things they won't do, that they feel that if they don't do that, it means they are still a "good person", even though they do such and such. Honor among thieves, and all that.
Paul wrote to the Galatian church the ongoing lust between spirit and flesh, each with their lusts contrary to the other. I completely agree with you that our battle against sin demonstrates our new nature.
Much love!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Formerly, when Paul wrote the word "nomos:law" I thought he meant one of two things, 1) Torah or 2) principle. So, for instance, when he says, "I see another law in my members . . ." I thought he was talking about a fundamental truth of our reality. But in that context, we would expect a balanced comparison between "I delight in the law of God": and "I see another law in my members." What do the two things have in common?
I learned that the word "Torah" literally means "instruction". Given this definition then, we have a basis for comparison. What Paul means to say in the text above is this.
22) For I delight in the Torah (instruction) of God after the inward man:
23) But I see another (instruction) in my members, warring against the (instruction) of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the (instruction) of sin which is in my members.
It's a matter of Paul deciding between obeying the instructions in his mind from the Torah or following the instructions from my body. His description is a current reality, and his hope for freedom is a future reality. He currently sees another set of instructions in his members.
I agree with you, but in what sense is he really free? Paul talks about being free from the law of sin and death while discussing the idea of being liberated from condemnation. Therefore, it's evident that Paul is referring to forgiveness, not transformation. In other words, he isn't suggesting that the Holy Spirit takes away our desires or our craving for things. Instead, what he means is that we are being released from the consequences of sin, which is death."
Our justification couldn't be provided by the Torah. Therefore, we have found it by having faith in Jesus Christ. He doesn't imply that he
is no longer tempted by lust. The temptations still exist, but if we walk in the Spirit, we will be able and willing to follow his teachings.
Enlightenment is one of the fundamental roles of the Holy Spirit. People who are being saved are being enlightened in the wisdom and teachings of God. In addition to this, the Holy Spirit also corrects our intentions and character, reorienting our priorities. An unsaved person usually tends to be self-centered and prioritizes pleasure over welfare. They often excuse moral failures and blame others for their mistakes. On the other hand, a saved person prioritizes welfare over pleasure. They do not excuse moral failures and take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming others. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes a marked difference in a person's life.
Last edited:
I see in the Bible that we have been saved, that we are being saved, and that we will be saved. I know that there are those who say the salvation we have now is actually the potential that we might be saved in the time to come. Some on this forum speak of "born again" as something that maybe you will get to have after your life is over if you've tried hard enough to be good.
I think we need to be more definitive with these terms.
To me, saying, potential, that's a term of uncertainty, of possibility, but I believe I am born again forever.
The heart of the matter!
I think there is much Paul had to say about what distinguishes us.
It is seeming to me that you maybe think of "saved" differently than I do. I believe we are recreated spiritually into the person we will be forever, and that we are still living in corrupted and corruptible bodies, but that these will be transformed to match our new spirit, incorruptible. I believe that this was accomplished by Jesus' death and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit is our seal of God's ownership, which He does not revoke.
I agree, holy is being separated for a purpose, something that serves the Master's use. As it seems to me, I think we are separated for the purpose of expressing God's love for humanity, His loving and merciful nature, by our care of and service to others.
Is there true love in our hearts for those around us, no matter who they are?
I keep getting stuck on your wording, "the initial requirement for salvation". What are the various requirements you see?
Ephesians 5:29
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Man's natural state is to care for himself. That which distinguishes the Christian is the Spirit of Christ united to mine so that instead of being the natural man who cares first for himself, that I be the spiritual man who cares first for others, having cared for what pleases God.
Having died to sin, I'm no longer bound in it's deceptions about myself, the "deceitful lusts", the lies I tell myself, because the mind of Christ enlightens me.
Interestingly, in Romans 8, whom He predestinated He also called, and whom He called He also justified, and whom He justified He also glorified, these are all in the same Aorist tense. There is a glory in the new man, which will be revealed in that day.
Colossians 3:4 KJV
When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
Rmoans 8:17-18 KJV
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
We will be glorified together with Christ when His glory is revealed, and ours shall be also.
I see this like a ship with a broken rudder. We've been born again, but we live in bodies corrupted by sin. So I'm the captain of a ship with a broken rudder, and it's very hard to steer. As time goes on, I get better at it, and can even patch together a few repairs. But it still takes a lot of effort to steer, and even sometimes still gets out of control.
Once day, it's going to be fully refurbished, such like I've never seen! I've only known the wrecked version.
Much love!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course. I didn't mean to suggest that our salvation was uncertain or contingent. My point was to highlight the difference between a promise made and a promise kept. I am taking my cues from passages like the following.
Romans 8:24-25
For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
In the passage mentioned above, the writer emphasizes that our journey of faith comprises of two important aspects: present assurance and future expectation. We are being saved through the process of sanctification by the Spirit, and at the same time, we are hoping for our glorification.
Some who teach the doctrine of Entire Sanctification mistakenly believe that we can have our glorification now by appropriating the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't think this is true.
No, that is a pretty good summary of what I also believe.The heart of the matter!
I think there is much Paul had to say about what distinguishes us.
It is seeming to me that you maybe think of "saved" differently than I do. I believe we are recreated spiritually into the person we will be forever, and that we are still living in corrupted and corruptible bodies, but that these will be transformed to match our new spirit, incorruptible. I believe that this was accomplished by Jesus' death and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit is our seal of God's ownership, which He does not revoke.
I apologize if my wording is confusing at times. Perhaps you have heard theologians speak about 3-stages (or aspects) of salvation: justification, sanctification, and glorification. Justification is a legal term that refers to being pardoned and forgiven by God, resulting in being accounted as righteous in his sight.
Sanctification is a process where the Holy Spirit works within the heart of a believer to provide insight, strength of character, a change of will, a new perspective toward the world and God, and a love for truth.
Glorification is a state of being, typical of Jesus Christ, which is perfectly moral, righteous, good, and wise.
I agree with all that. Well said.
This is true. The Aorist tense has no time aspect, though it is translated as the past tense in English. We can interpret Paul's words as follows: "Those whom God has chosen, he will justify and glorify." This means that everyone whom God predestined will be glorified and none of them will fail to receive this glory.
Amen.
Good analogy in my opinion. Thanks.
I understand. Our faith looks to today, what God says about us now, and looks ahead, what He has promised.
I'd make a distinction between having been sanctified by God, and our experience of our sanctification, as we grow in the Lord, and are more consistent in our walk.
I see our "being saved", maybe as expressed here:
1 Peter 1:5 KJV
Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
or here:
Galatians 2:16 KJV
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:20 KJV
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I see that we've been set apart - made holy - in Christ, and to walk in the Spirit is to live holy. The progressive part in our training to consistently walk in the Spirit.
I'll save this for another post . . .
Ditto!!
As I understand "justification", it's to "render righteous", whether by declaration, imputation, or impartation. I think in the case of the New Testament believer, God does all of these.
We've been forgiven of all sin, all is removed at the cross. We've been accounted as righteousness just like Abraham, having believed, and received. And we've been recreated to be righteous, created after God, that is, patterned after Him, in righteousness and true holiness.
So that He's not looking at a sinner, and calling him righteous. He's looking at His righteous child, righteous with His Own righteousness. He sees us holy, and righteous, not as an accounting trick, but because that's what we truly are.
Sanctify is to "make holy". I believe our new spirit - the spirit child of God - is in fact holy, and we are involved in the process not of becoming more holy, but learning/being trained to live out that holiness in our lives.
Like in many things, I suppose, I see an inner glorification that happens now, as we are beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, being transformed into that same image, this is ongoing. And then the outer glorification, as He transforms "the body of our humiliation" to become like His glorious body. And then yet another glorification as those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars of heaven forever.
Chosen wasn't actually in that passage, though. Whom He called, He also justified, and whom He justified, He also glorified. The difficulty is in finding the English tense that fits the Greek and makes sense to us. You've put above, "he will justify and glorify", but why not include justified with called, both already completed? But then the question extends itself, glorified has the same tense, so why not include that?
As you've said, the Aorist doesn't have to mean a past completed action, more that it's punctiliar, if I'm remembering my Greek right. Which to my thinking makes this passage ambiguous in this respect, as one use seems clearly to be past, and one use seems clearly to be future, but they are the same tense.
Romans 4 makes a strong case for justification having already happened for the redeemed. Glorified, I can see inner and outer, so I can look at it either way.
Much love!
Our glorification, as in, the transformed body? Or do you mean something different?
I believe that by faith we are able to walk in the Spirit, but that we tend to do this inconsistently. Even so, by the Holy Spirit's power, as we stand in grace through faith,
Romans 5:1-2 KJV
1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
we are able to live sanctified lives. Now, I don't think that means we become qualified to say whether or not we are committing sins. Paul wrote,
1 Corinthians 4:4 KJV
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
I wouldn't go beyond that myself, and declare myself to never commit sins. Not that there's any question for me at the moment!
But God has the ability and will to grant sanctification in our lives, I know because He did this for me, about 5 weeks time, with a distinct beginning point and end point. Interestingly, not too long after that I because obsessed with Ecclesiastes for about the same amount of time, reading it 3 or 4 times a day, audio version nonstop at work, and in my car. A few hundred times in that about 5 weeks time. And then came about 5 weeks of major depression - I had it bad! - sustained by God's clear preparation of me.
I've learned that God can and does do all manner of things in our lives, and He knows what's best. Some experience things that others don't, and how are we to conceptualize that for which we have no precedent, nothing to compare to?
But I don't try to compare myself to others, all I know is my relationship with God, and how He is with me.
There's one sense where I see myself as a worker, trying to hone my skills, trying to be productive, give quality, like that. But mostly I see myself as a somewhat gnarly little plant, that the Father has potted in His garden. He is training it to grow a certain way, pruning off the unproductive parts, trying to get it to produce some fruit. And here I am trying to be patient, trying to help, feeling like I get in the way.
I've found it's best to just not worry about anything, even if that includes certain deficiencies in my self control, just don't worry about anything, and enjoy the moment that God has given to me. If in the next moment things go south, God will still care for me, for my need.
Much love!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I understand that both the Reformers and the Catholics taught something similar to this, but I don't agree with either one. Rather, God declares we are "justified" based on his forgiveness and pardon, not on anything meritorious about us.
Just like "justification", which is a declaration, "holy" is also a declaration. We can't get more or less holy. Either we are holy or we are not holy. As holy people, we want to be like God and share his values and so a "holy one" will naturally try to live a life worthy of our election. While we can't become more holy, we CAN become more upright.
The word "foreknown" implies the idea of choice based on the Hebrew meaning of "to know". In the Bible, "to know" someone signifies choosing to establish an intimate relationship with them.
It's important to note that while our translations use past tense verbs in English, the Greek Aorist tense doesn't always indicate past tense. The aorist tense has no time aspect. Some grammars might describe the aorist as a "simple past tense," but this can be misleading. Sometimes, Paul uses the aorist tense to indicate certainty, rather than past action. The meaning of the aorist tense is determined by the context in which it is used.
In Romans 8, Paul aims to provide a strong foundation of hope to his readers. Therefore, he begins a list of verbs which start with "those whom he predestined." As the verb indicates the creative activity and power of the creator God, the verbs that follow are as certain as the first. Paul is establishing an unbroken link between being "predestined" and "glorified," using the aorist tense. This is to convey that God will not fail to glorify anyone whom he previously predestined.
Don't misunderstand, God's recreation of us does not go to our credit. But rebirth is a real thing, not "flowery Pauline speech".
When you say "declaration", what does that mean? A change in our nature, or a new description given of us?
Does one who IS holy "try" to act holy?
Yes, I've heard this argument before, but I don't consider it to be valid. Paul was not writing that God was going to have sex with us. Personally I find this argument very distasteful. There is no such implication at all in this passage. "Know" is a Biblical idiom for sex, not friendship.
Yes, I know that about aorist. I'm pointing out that Paul used the same tenses for his whole list, and you can see it in various ways. My question is, are you being consistent? But this is one of "those" passages, that leaves the ambiguity, and we each must answer it for ourselves.
Here, the context is "along with the others". So are they all in the same time? Or no?
Again, I'll point to the references that we will be revealed, that when Christ is revealed in glory, we with Him. Glory to be revealed?
Are we pre-selected for salvation?
Much love!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I agree. However, The reformers believe in a theological concept of "Imputed Righteousness." Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology proposing that the "righteousness of Christ...is imputed to [believers]—that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith." It is on the basis of Jesus' righteousness that God accepts humans. This acceptance is also referred to as justification.
I do not agree with the idea of "justification" as it is commonly understood, which suggests that the righteousness of Christ is credited to believers. According to the Bible, this is not the case. If it were true, then our justification would be based on merit, even if indirectly. However, God does not account the righteousness of Christ to our credit, as this would be both deceptive and immoral.
God's justification is based on the concept of propitiation, which means "to turn away God's wrath", whereby our sin is pardoned and forgiven on the basis that we have agreed to believe and follow his son Jesus Christ.
I am using the term "declaration" to indicate a new description, not a change in our nature. For instance, one way to describe holiness is to consider the holy implements used in the temple service.
Suppose I have two identical bowls with no differences in their nature, shape, material, or form. The only difference is that one bowl is used for eating cereal, while the other is dedicated for use in the temple service. Although the two bowls are indistinguishable, the second bowl is considered holy because it has been consecrated for service to God. It will never be used for any other purpose, such as eating cereal.
God declared that the children of the Patriarchs were his holy people. As his holy people, they were indistinguishable from any other people group. The only reason why these folks were "holy" is because God chose them. And he chose them in particular because he loved their fathers. (Deuteronomy 7:7-8) Two bowls: one his holy the other is not. From all the people groups on the Earth: one is holy, the rest are not.
Yes, the one whom God has chosen to give service to him, should serve him in both character and behavior.
Sex is not the only way to be intimate or special. But I have related the true and valid meaning of the verb "to know." I didn't make it up.
Consider what Jesus said,
Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.
In this passage, Jesus is talking about people who not only hear his teachings but also put them into practice. He is warning against those who only pretend to know and follow him but don't actually do so. Jesus will declare "I never knew you" to such people, indicating that they haven't made the commitment to trust and follow him. Instead, they practice lawlessness.
If Jesus "knows" us, this means that we have followed and obeyed him. We are in a covenant relationship with him. And speaking from the historical point of view, if Jesus knew us during our lifetime, then we are foreknown.
The only valid way to see it is how he meant it.
We can't know the answer to that question from this text because all the verbs are in the aorist tense. All we can know from the text is that the line between "foreknown" and "glorified" will remain unbroken for those whom God is saving.
Yes, we are pre-selected for salvation.
This will have a lot to do with our differences in our views. So maybe we shouldn't get too caught up in the details over which we may disagree. Otherwise I both enjoy, and profit from our exchanges.
To me this seems to be a clear presentation in Scripture, such as in:
Philippians 3:8-9 KJV
8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Paul rejects anything he's done that would be considered righteous, instead desiring to have "the righteousness which is of God by faith".
I don't see the merit, myself, of faith. What is it to your credit that you accept what is true?
I see a distinction in Scripture between works and faith, and that faith is not counted as a work, and therefore is not meritorious.
I don't see imputation of righteousness to be any more deceptive than the forgiveness of sins. Sins are sent away, counted no more, except, we did in fact sin. And righteousness is given, except, we didn't in fact do what was right.
To me, this passage addresses this point:
Romans 4:3-8 KJV
3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
I like to use the same anologies for holy. The temple tongs, identical to what you use at home, except these are dedicated to temple service. They might even be bent, difficult to use, drop things, but they are still holy, having been set apart.
I see our salvation, rebirth, being a complete change in nature. Unlike tongs, we are not fit to serve without regeneration. The one who is in flesh cannot please God, and therefore must be changed.
I see in this passage an illustration of righteousness and holiness:
Ephesians 4:22-25 KJV
22) That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23) And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25) Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
We are recreated in righteousness and true holiness. We speak truth (righteousness) because we are members one of another (holiness). We do what is right because we've been set apart from Adamic humanity to be included in Christ's humanity, members one of another.
The change to our nature renders us members of His body, and members of one another. So I see more than a declaration.
True, but sex is what "know" is an idiom for in the Bible. When it says that Joseph didn't know Mary until after Jesus was born, there was a specific thing this referred to. The verb ginosko is to know something, or someone, and is also used as an idiom for sex. I'm not making this up.
I'd suggest that they didn't really put His teaching into practice, they practiced what they wanted, maybe Jesus' teaching gave them a format, but they were not doing what He said. Maybe the only thing they did was make claims, "we cast out demons, etc.", but maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But yes, aside from that, I agree with these things.
Those He did foreknow means those of whom God had advance knowledge. Using "foreknow" as indicating previous relationship, you are stuck with that idiom.
Too bad he's not here to ask! But the Holy Spirit is.
It's an interesting construction no matter how you look at it.
Much love!
Similar threads
