Sinless Perfection?

[Hepzibah]

What do you have to say about the Scriptures that say everyone was "by nature children of wrath"? What does this mean, by nature?

What about the Scripture that says through Adam all men were made sinners?

By nature I understand it to mean the signifying quality of a man and as he was created to be an obedient servant, it is either to God or Satan where he takes on the nature of either. Men are made sinners the verse says, not born. If they were born sinners they couldnot be said to become sinners. They do become sinners though, through the sin that entered the world by Adam. The scriptural case for original sin is very weak.

So when you're born again, the sin nature completely disappears, then when you die again, its like a new original fall of man, this process repeating as long as you sin and repent, sin and repent? Is that a correct understanding?

Well I don`t think it works like that. If a man falls deliberately choosing sin, which is very unusual, then it is impossible for him to be restored, crucifying again the Lord. Impossible through repentance that is. A man might fall but he suffers so much that if the Lord does grant restoration, he will generally make sure he does not fall agin.

Mark it is not easy to use scriptures when you are interpreting them in a different way to us here (epi whitestone etc)

You are wanting to know exactly how entire sanctification functions, but it is impossible to understand in the flesh it must be experienced in order to understand. Even so, there are many things at this level that take a long time to discerne and no-one becomes an expert.

The scriptures I use are the same ones as others here have quoted. Also I am sorry but I am limited with my time at present due to a house move. If you wish however I can quote as many scriptures as you like as the whole Bible teaches this doctrine once you have seen it. That is holiness not original sin - I expect I differ from others here on this.

 

[JohnnyB]

Completely in agreement.



What do you have to say about the Scriptures that say everyone was "by nature children of wrath"? What does this mean, by nature?

What about the Scripture that says through Adam all men were made sinners?



So when you're born again, the sin nature completely disappears, then when you die again, its like a new original fall of man, this process repeating as long as you sin and repent, sin and repent? Is that a correct understanding?


O
I'd just like to see you interacting with the doctrine, and the Scriptures, instead of making it an argument against me.

Love in Christ,
Mark

A believer will RUN to the Father and ask for forgiveness! They are sorrowful for what they have done, sin separates, repentance restores.

If one does not have conviction for their sin, then do theyhave the Holy Spirit? How can it be? God wants us to deal with our sin head on, a person doesn't do that if they believe its already forgiven.

Why are you fighting so hard to remain in your sin?

 

[mark s]

A believer will RUN to the Father and ask for forgiveness! They are sorrowful for what they have done, sin separates, repentance restores.

If one does not have conviction for their sin, then do theyhave the Holy Spirit? How can it be? God wants us to deal with our sin head on, a person doesn't do that if they believe its already forgiven.

I adore my Father for the forgiveness He's given me. I'm so very thankful that He has made me His child, and live my life to honor His precious gift!

Do I not sorrow over sin? Of course I do! Does the Holy Spirit not address my sins lest I continue in them? Of course he does!

But I don't understand what this has to do with the post you were responding to.

Isn't this yet another post telling me how unspiritual I am?

Why are you fighting so hard to remain in your sin?

Case and point.

But this is a complex question, a logical fallacy, along the lines of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Why would you think I even want to remain in sin, much less am fighting so hard to stay there?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[JohnnyB]

I adore my Father for the forgiveness He's given me. I'm so very thankful that He has made me His child, and live my life to honor His precious gift!

Do I not sorrow over sin? Of course I do! Does the Holy Spirit not address my sins lest I continue in them? Of course he does!

But I don't understand what this has to do with the post you were responding to.

Isn't this yet another post telling me how unspiritual I am?



Case and point.

But this is a complex question, a logical fallacy, along the lines of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Why would you think I even want to remain in sin, much less am fighting so hard to stay there?

Love in Christ,
Mark

I responded to that particular post because you stated that you don't believe a person must repent again and again.

It's not that difficult to figure out, what does the Bible say we are doing? We are conforming to Christ, how do you do that when you're sinning? You don't.

God told us to be Holy, how do you do that when you're sinning? You don't.

How do you stop sinning? You STOP

Jesus' very words- Go and sin no more.

 

[mark s]

I responded to that particular post because you stated that you don't believe a person must repent again and again.

I think you need to go back and read my post.

 

[JohnnyB]

I think you need to go back and read my post.

We all know your belief is that all past, present and future sins are forgiven.

What you were asking is does a person repent again and again for the sins they commit- yes, John talks about this.

More importantly is what Jesus has to say about sin.

 

[mark s]

We all know your belief is that all past, present and future sins are forgiven.

What you were asking is does a person repent again and again for the sins they commit- yes, John talks about this.

More importantly is what Jesus has to say about sin.

What I was asking was whether Hepzibah believes that the repetition of spiritual rebirth and spiritual redeath, as we sin, then repent, sin then repent, are born again, then die again, then are born again, then die again, if each of these are like the original fall of Adam, as he went from sinless innocence to spiritual death.

It's right there in my post.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[JohnnyB]

What I was asking was whether Hepzibah believes that the repetition of spiritual rebirth and spiritual redeath, as we sin, then repent, sin then repent, are born again, then die again, then are born again, then die again, if each of these are like the original fall of Adam, as he went from sinless innocence to spiritual death.

It's right there in my post.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Mark I know what you are asking and I am trying to point out that you are making it so complex.

Did you read my previous post?

What does Jesus say about sin? He says not to.

Can we become holy as Christ is holy in sin? NO

It is not in and out, it is a PROCESS.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos,

Very good treatise until the final conclusion.

We cannot have "faith in His blood". That is a wrong conclusion. Nowhere else in the bible do we see that faith in blood does anything. We are to have faith in Christ ,,,,we are not believers in blood. So the text could also have been written...in His blood by faith...which is the idea being conveyed.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of

sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; ​

Brother, I think it's a figure of speech that Paul used, a bit like when he said 'I'm a citizen of no mean city' - which was a double negative for emphasis. called litotes. In this case, he's referring to a part as an indication of the whole: this is called synecdoche.


However, I do disagree with, 'Nowhere else in the bible do we see that faith in blood does anything.'

The whole sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law demanded blood to be shed for sin to be covered in acknowlegement of God's wrath against it. If the people had not believed in the efficacy of those bloods to preserve them from God's wrath for sin, would they be saved today, or, would they have been among those who turned to idol worship to feed their religious zeal and perish in the end?

.
Hi Mark,

I haven't fully read this page yet, but I note your answer to Johnny. What I wonder is, why does it matter what individuals here 'believe' if we are all here to investigate with one another, what scripture shows us of God's thought and God's ways?

Is it not possible for you to focus on objective truth. That's what I'm here for. Always, we have to seek to understand God.

It is only as we see Him more clearly, that our own misunderstandings and preconceived ideas (often legitimate inasfaras they go) can be changed in line with scripture. This is the basic meaning of 2 Cor 3:18. We look at Him, and in so doing we are changed.

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Episkopos,



Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of

sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; ​

Brother, I think it's a figure of speech that Paul used, a bit like when he said 'I'm a citizen of no mean city' - which was a double negative for emphasis. called litotes. In this case, he's referring to a part as an indication of the whole: this is called synecdoche.


However, I do disagree with, 'Nowhere else in the bible do we see that faith in blood does anything.'

The whole sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law demanded blood to be shed for sin to be covered in acknowlegement of God's wrath against it. If the people had not believed in the efficacy of those bloods to preserve them from God's wrath for sin, would they be saved today, or, would they have been among those who turned to idol worship to feed their religious zeal and perish in the end?

.
Hi Mark,

I haven't fully read this page yet, but I note your answer to Johnny. What I wonder is, why does it matter what individuals here 'believe' if we are all here to investigate with one another, what scripture shows us of God's thought and God's ways?

Is it not possible for you to focus on objective truth. That's what I'm here for. Always, we have to seek to understand God.

It is only as we see Him more clearly, that our own misunderstandings and preconceived ideas (often legitimate inasfaras they go) can be changed in line with scripture. This is the basic meaning of 2 Cor 3:18. We look at Him, and in so doing we are changed.

The subtle difference between putting faith in Christ Himself as opposed to His sacrifice has caused many to claim the sacrifice for themselves as if Jesus were offering that sacrifice for men rather than for God.

The old sacrifices were again done in obedience so that when GOD saw the blood (not men) HE would forgive or pass over.

 

[dragonfly]

.
Hi Hepzibah,

You mention Ron Bailey and I have had some discussions with him. Do you mind me asking whether his theology is the same as the others here eg epi you whitestone?

I am fairly new to this forum, too, and have not yet had extensive discussions with either Episkopos or whitestone but there is common ground between both of them and Ron Bailey... I am not in a position to know where they diverge.

Ron Bailey has been a good influence on my understanding, but I would hesitate to say that my 'theology' is 'the same as' his, for the same reason as with the others here. He is way out ahead in terms of years, experience, study, ministry... and I am very much still learning...

.
Hi again Episkopos,

The old sacrifices were again done in obedience so that when GOD saw the blood (not men) HE would forgive or pass over.

Yes. That is true. But the people arranging for the blood to be shed precisely as God required, also had to believe in it. People simply do not do religious exercises in which they do not believe.

The subtle difference between putting faith in Christ Himself as opposed to His sacrifice has caused many to claim the sacrifice for themselves as if Jesus were offering that sacrifice for men rather than for God.

Okay... I was going to reply to the second quote, but I think it would be helpful if you'd say a bit more about what you believe is wrong with 'claim the sacrifice for themselves as if Jesus were offering that sacrifice for men', please?

I believe He offered Himself on our behalf. Is that not 'for men'?

Or, are you referring to the covenant with Abraham, to which God had to give His sacrifice?

 

[Episkopos]

.
Hi Hepzibah,



I am fairly new to this forum, too, and have not yet had extensive discussions with either Episkopos or whitestone but there is common ground between both of them and Ron Bailey... I am not in a position to know where they diverge.

Ron Bailey has been a good influence on my understanding, but I would hesitate to say that my 'theology' is 'the same as' his, for the same reason as with the others here. He is way out ahead in terms of years, experience, study, ministry... and I am very much still learning...

.
Hi again Episkopos,



Yes. That is true. But the people arranging for the blood to be shed precisely as God required, also had to believe in it. People simply do not do religious exercises in which they do not believe.



Okay... I was going to reply to the second quote, but I think it would be helpful if you'd say a bit more about what you believe is wrong with 'claim the sacrifice for themselves as if Jesus were offering that sacrifice for men', please?

I believe He offered Himself on our behalf. Is that not 'for men'?

Or, are you referring to the covenant with Abraham, to which God had to give His sacrifice?

The difference is what creates the problem we see among so many. Richard Burger maintains that he puts his entire trust faith confidence in the shed blood of Christ. When we take a God-ward view and turn it inside out to make it man-ward we get an exact subversion of the truth.....same words....opposite meaning.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

I'm not sure whether there's a need to quote from one of your posts, because I've finally finished reading this page and your discussion with JohnnyB.

Personally, I find it helpful to consider the narrative of the children of Israel, because we know that God was faithful to them in the wilderness, even the generation which came out of Egypt as adults, all died apart from Joshua and Caleb. This is a picture of the flesh being slowly put to death by our unbelief in it, and the new generation - freed from sin (Egypt) - being empowered (by the Spirit) to take the land through the operation of the faith of God.

You know that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground (earth, clay), and the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof; and yes, the clay was marred (by sin) but He puts us back on the wheel and makes a perfect new vessel according to His good pleasure, which shows off HIs glory; if we will let Him.

The leaving of Egypt was symbolic of making a break with sin, and it is the single most vital change that has to take place in us through coming to the Lord - that we understand God has no truck with sin. They brought their idols with them - and we find ourselves battling with strongholds we had never anticipated discovering after we have accepted that sin is incompatible with pleasing God. This is a natural progression from the time when we were so dead in sin we were by nature unable to please God.

I saw your question about 'by nature' and 'children of wrath'. I have no difficulty accepting 'in Adam all died'. This is a really key statement. It's the best way to explain why it is we are all born in sin - like when a little poison (sin) is put on a plant, and that's all it will take to kill it in the end. (Perhaps rather than 'the doctrine of original sin', it should be called 'the doctrine of inevitable death'.) The plant might continue to show signs of life, but its days are numbered, just like ours. This gracious extension of Adam's life which God gave through multiplying Eve's conception, is kinda reversed by Paul when he speaks of Jews and Gentiles being made into 'one new man', but if you can 'see' that, it may help you keep perspective on the whole picture.

Now I want to apologise if you think I should 'know' what you know... but I'm confused about what you 'know', now, because of the questions you're asking... so please bear with me! :mellow:

The death of Christ really is the focal point as far as salvation can be obtained by men. I don't think there is any escape from taking up one's cross daily to follow Him, but even this is misunderstood. (Or perhaps it is abused.) It is made easier (in my view) if we have already understood what it means to be dead in Him... to have lost all our rights to an opinion about anything, and to have no agenda in our whole being, except His.

I have the idea that there has been corruption of this somehow in the prosperity gospel, so that believing in Jesus becomes a means to an end: Jesus is added to one's own agenda as a kind of blessing machine, but there is no concept in the mind of this kind of believer, that He is there for something other than the fulfilment of their every dream. They have no idea that they are there for the fulfilment of His desires, and that Psa 37:4 is not optional but mandatory.

Here is one of my favourite Spurgeon quotes. Can you see how the life of God is supposed to affect our sinful flesh?

'the mouth of poverty is welcome to stoop down and quaff the flowing flood. Blistered, leprous, filthy lips may touch the stream of divine love; they cannot pollute it, but shall themselves be purified.

I believe what Spurgeon poetically describes, is what Paul wrote in more than one place.

Romans 8:11 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. ​

2 Corinthians 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest

in our mortal flesh.​

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


In order to experience this kind of victory, we have to be reconciled to our own death in Christ's, and we have to bring our flesh under its control - which is only possible with the help of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:13.

But as Paul said, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. 2 Cor 10:4

The various battle plans which God gave David, can be quite instructive when building up strategies against sin. But it's not all God's work. The emphasis in the last line of Isaiah 59:20 applies just as much as Paul's slight re-interpretation of it at Romans 11:26.


Very much more could be said... but I will stop here for now.

.
Hi Episkopos,

The difference is what creates the problem we see among so many. Richard Burger maintains that he puts his entire trust faith confidence in the shed blood of Christ. When we take a God-ward view and turn it inside out to make it man-ward we get an exact subversion of the truth.....same words....opposite meaning.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Please could you answer the original questions I posed? It might be easier...? :unsure:


There is also a need to be aware that the Lord has received some people, even though their theology is incorrect. Surely I and you have been corrected by the Lord many times and many ways?

 

[IanLC]

Sin is rebellion against God. And God likens rebellion unto witchcraft!(1 Samuel 15:23) And He declares suffer not the witch to live.(Exodus 22:18) Yet by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the atonement of sin(1 Peter 2:24) we would all die and be condemned to Hell(Mark 9:48)! Yet by God's mercies we are not consumed! (Lamentations 3:22)Yet He still requires us to be holy! (Hebrews 12:14)

 

[mark s]

Mark I know what you are asking and I am trying to point out that you are making it so complex.

Did you read my previous post?

What does Jesus say about sin? He says not to.

Can we become holy as Christ is holy in sin? NO

It is not in and out, it is a PROCESS.

Hi JohnnyB,

I'm asking Hepzibah simply to confirm his previous statements. I am basically reflecting back to him what he has said. Myself, I don't agree with this view. I am simply trying to clarify with him his view.

OK?

I'm not the one saying in and out, Hepzibah is. So perhaps you should address him.

Love in Christ, Mark

================================================================

Hi Mark,

I haven't fully read this page yet, but I note your answer to Johnny. What I wonder is, why does it matter what individuals here 'believe' if we are all here to investigate with one another, what scripture shows us of God's thought and God's ways?

Is it not possible for you to focus on objective truth. That's what I'm here for. Always, we have to seek to understand God.

It is only as we see Him more clearly, that our own misunderstandings and preconceived ideas (often legitimate inasfaras they go) can be changed in line with scripture. This is the basic meaning of 2 Cor 3:18. We look at Him, and in so doing we are changed.

Hi dragonfly,

To me, knowing what others believe is an important part of the discussion. I don't know how to separate that out. "What do you think this means?", isn't this what we do together?

Objective truth - Yes, that's it exactly. That is what I seek to learn and promote. So many people have so many ideas without really knowing where they came from, or even how they interact with each other. MY thing is this . . . I not only what Objective Truth for myself, I want it for others also.

2 Cor 3:18 is an amazing verse!

This is one I don't like the ESV translation so much, it loses something. We behold as in a mirror God's glory, being transformed into the same image, that is, into the Lord's glory, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.

God's glory revealed in us transforms us, as His glory (genetive case glory - coming from glory) becomes our glory (accusitive - the recipient of the verb, transforms us).

That His glory is revealed in us - beholding as in a mirror.

That we are not there yet - transforms us.

That we are becoming like Him - from glory to glory.

This is echoed in the next chapter in a number of ways, and this whole section of Scripture presupposes that we are not immediately made perfect, as JohnnyB said, it is a process. And yet even not being yet perfect, God's glory still shines in us.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos,

The difference is what creates the problem we see among so many. Richard Burger maintains that he puts his entire trust faith confidence in the shed blood of Christ. When we take a God-ward view and turn it inside out to make it man-ward we get an exact subversion of the truth.....same words....opposite meaning.

I'm sorry brother, but I need you to actually answer my questions rather than not clarifying what you've already said that I didn't understand.

Do you accept that Romans 3:25 contains the phrase to which you objected - 'faith in His blood'?

Do you see that the distinction when discussing RichardBurger's statement, is that he is misusing the words 'faith', 'trust' and 'confidence', rather than there being an issue with whether he mentions Christ, or, Christ's blood?

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Episkopos,



I'm sorry brother, but I need you to actually answer my questions rather than not clarifying what you've already said that I didn't understand.

Do you accept that Romans 3:25 contains the phrase to which you objected - 'faith in His blood'?

Do you see that the distinction when discussing RichardBurger's statement, is that he is misusing the words 'faith', 'trust' and 'confidence', rather than there being an issue with whether he mentions Christ, or, Christ's blood?

I accept that the KJV says what it says...it is the interpretation of what it says that is at issue.

Hi D.

Ironically the verse you quoted showed the ESV version which reads



Romans 3:25


25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

I think this version more accurately states the case.

 

[mark s]

The difference is what creates the problem we see among so many. Richard Burger maintains that he puts his entire trust faith confidence in the shed blood of Christ. When we take a God-ward view and turn it inside out to make it man-ward we get an exact subversion of the truth.....same words....opposite meaning.

I can't understand what this means. What are you saying here?

Jesus Christ shed His blood - sacrificed His life - to pay my - and your - debt due to God for our sins. He died for us. Of course His sacrifice was an propitiation before God. It was God Who required our death. So to appease God's righteous demand, Jesus died in our place.

And we, trusting in the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, are redeemed - purchased to God by His blood. Now, I haven't been able to find Richard's statement that you are referring to, but just from your representation, it's not difficult for me to see this is what Richard is referring to.

Or do you think otherwise?

Or do you disagree with this altogether?

But what about this is "God-ward", "man-ward", what do you mean?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Episkopos]

Hi JohnnyB,

I'm asking Hepzibah simply to confirm his previous statements. I am basically reflecting back to him what he has said. Myself, I don't agree with this view. I am simply trying to clarify with him his view.

OK?

I'm not the one saying in and out, Hepzibah is. So perhaps you should address him.

Love in Christ, Mark

================================================================



Hi dragonfly,

To me, knowing what others believe is an important part of the discussion. I don't know how to separate that out. "What do you think this means?", isn't this what we do together?

Objective truth - Yes, that's it exactly. That is what I seek to learn and promote. So many people have so many ideas without really knowing where they came from, or even how they interact with each other. MY thing is this . . . I not only what Objective Truth for myself, I want it for others also.

2 Cor 3:18 is an amazing verse!

This is one I don't like the ESV translation so much, it loses something. We behold as in a mirror God's glory, being transformed into the same image, that is, into the Lord's glory, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.

God's glory revealed in us transforms us, as His glory (genetive case glory - coming from glory) becomes our glory (accusitive - the recipient of the verb, transforms us).

That His glory is revealed in us - beholding as in a mirror.

That we are not there yet - transforms us.

That we are becoming like Him - from glory to glory.

This is echoed in the next chapter in a number of ways, and this whole section of Scripture presupposes that we are not immediately made perfect, as JohnnyB said, it is a process. And yet even not being yet perfect, God's glory still shines in us.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Concerning coming in and out of Zion in Christ....do you live in a house? Do you ever leave that house? Are you living in and out of your house?

It takes great faith to enter into Christ...it takes faithfulness to remain. If our faith /faithfulness is found wanting for whatever reason...we cannot remain there. So we find ourselves out...until we seek again and re-enter.

I can't understand what this means. What are you saying here?

Jesus Christ shed His blood - sacrificed His life - to pay my - and your - debt due to God for our sins. He died for us. Of course His sacrifice was an propitiation before God. It was God Who required our death. So to appease God's righteous demand, Jesus died in our place.

And we, trusting in the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, are redeemed - purchased to God by His blood. Now, I haven't been able to find Richard's statement that you are referring to, but just from your representation, it's not difficult for me to see this is what Richard is referring to.

Or do you think otherwise?

Or do you disagree with this altogether?

But what about this is "God-ward", "man-ward", what do you mean?

Love in Christ,
Mark

We are not saved by trusting in the efficacy of the blood. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ through faith in order to enter into Christ. We never see the blood but only the effect of bringing us into His presence. We aren't trusting in an historical event but in a person whom we are coming into close fellowship with.

It is like saying that I am putting my faith in the professors education so that I might get a diploma. But this is not how we get a diploma. We must enter into the teaching of the professor and know it well enough to understand it.

...and apply it!

 

[mark s]

HI dragonfly,

I only have a few more minutes, so I'm certain I won't get as far as I'd like to!

While I agree that the OT stories are meaningful and useful, without actual Biblical interpretation, they can be used in many different ways. For instance, Once baptized in the Red Sea, it was inevitable that Israel would enter the promised land. Israel as a picture of a Christian shows that your full sanctification must happen.

But then, once in the promised land, Israel was oftentimes disobedient. So is the wilderness the time of purging the flesh? Is the promised land the time of purging the flesh? Out of Egypt is deliverance from slavery. They were free. Isn't that . . . well, we could go on.

So while yes, I agree we can see reflections of NT Doctrine in OT history (Ruth is especially rich, imo), we still need to define the doctrine from didactic passages, not narratives. Unless those narratives include these sorts of didactic statements.

I saw your question about 'by nature' and 'children of wrath'. I have no difficulty accepting 'in Adam all died'. This is a really key statement. It's the best way to explain why it is we are all born in sin - like when a little poison (sin) is put on a plant, and that's all it will take to kill it in the end.

I think this really softens the reality. We are born sinners. By our very nature we are under God's condemnation. Without Jesus, that is.

This 'one new man' is a key point too. He does not say we are merged into Israel. Jews and gentiles in Christ become one new man.

The death of Christ really is the focal point as far as salvation can be obtained by men. I don't think there is any escape from taking up one's cross daily to follow Him, but even this is misunderstood. (Or perhaps it is abused.) It is made easier (in my view) if we have already understood what it means to be dead in Him... to have lost all our rights to an opinion about anything, and to have no agenda in our whole being, except His.

IN complete agreement!

I have the idea that there has been corruption of this somehow in the prosperity gospel, so that believing in Jesus becomes a means to an end: Jesus is added to one's own agenda as a kind of blessing machine, but there is no concept in the mind of this kind of believer, that He is there for something other than the fulfilment of their every dream. They have no idea that they are there for the fulfilment of His desires, and that Psa 37:4 is not optional but mandatory.

OK, I'll have to continue later, but I happen to believe that for the child of God, Psalm 37:4 is inevitable.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Concerning coming in and out of Zion in Christ....do you live in a house? Do you ever leave that house? Are you living in and out of your house?

It takes great faith to enter into Christ...it takes faithfulness to remain. If our faith /faithfulness is found wanting for whatever reason...we cannot remain there. So we find ourselves out...until we seek again and re-enter.

Yeah, this is where we differ. born again, dead again, born again, dead again, born again, dead again. . . . I don't see it in the Bible.

We are not saved by trusting in the efficacy of the blood. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ through faith in order to enter into Christ. We never see the blood but only the effect of bringing us into His presence. We aren't trusting in an historical event but in a person whom we are coming into close fellowship with.

OK, I can go with this! But I'd have to add that its through this historical event that we are able to do this, and it is in believing that this historical event occurred, and was sufficient.

As Paul wrote . . . and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead.

Do we agree?

Love in Christ,
Mark