What does it mean "there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus".....

[Scott Downey]

There is another verse saying this in a slightly different way, but it applies in the same context of family of God, and it is not all men who are of the family.
Not all people are children of God.
Romans 8
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

v29, in another way this says, those God foreknew, He predestined to be Christians. As only Christians does God conform to the image of Christ. And God did this for Christ, that HE would have a family of followers to be like and love Him, with Christ as the firstborn, the first fruits of the resurrection.

There is an order to the Resurrection. Christ is first, then those who are Christ's at His second coming, and then comes the end, the final judgement when the wicked are raised up. There will be a resurrection of the righteous, and a resurrection of the wicked.

 

[robert derrick]

Reader,

The forgiveness of God, is not applied to a Christ Rejector, who is never born again... = John 3:36

The Salvation of God has been applied to God's redeemed, (Born again).... and all their sin has been dealt with by the Cross of Christ.

Romans 4:8 teaches that God does not charge the born again with their sin.
Why?
Because God has judged Jesus on the Cross for all their sin, already.... 2000 yrs ago.

Notice this verse, carefully... 2 Corinthians 5:19

You've been reported again.

It really would be best for you to keep your own word and leave people alone, that you want to be left alone from.

You do have a serious problem of malice, in dealing with people that disagree with you.

 

[robert derrick]

Thank you everyone, I don't need anymore help on this scripture but you guys can still continue. It says there's no condemnation for those who are in Christ, who walks not in the flesh, but by the Spirit, so it should mean if as a Christian we walk by the flesh and not by the Spirit we're still condemned. I need help with the other thread I made called "fruit of the Spirit". Thanks :)

You mean, you actually read the words written, and just agree with them as written.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

This is not possible with false teachers, who make no sense of what is written, but only in their own minds.

 

[robert derrick]

Being in Christ commences in Election in Him before the foundation of the world, prior to actual physical existence Eph 1:4

Then all the pre-elected who actually physically do sinful works of the flesh, are condemned with other un-pre-elected, that do the same and are condemned.

 

[robert derrick]

One of the worst hypocritical teachings about the blood and grace of the Lamb, is that people despise others as condemned, while justifying themselves when doing the same things.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds.

Jews did it in the law, and so do Christians 'by grace'.

To say one man is not condemned for doing the same thing, as another man that is condemned, is the height of filthy favoritism judgment with respect of persons.

Either all men are condemned for doing the same thing, or no man is condemned for doing it.

The doctrine of no-condemnation-for-pre-elected-Christians doing the same as others, is why the world blasphemes the blood, grace, and forgiveness of Jesus Christ, even as they blasphemed the law of God because of the Jews.

Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

It's the exact same thing as Islamists violating their own law, when not in their own Islamic state.

Everything is made a pathetic hypocritical joke.

 

[brightfame52]

Then all the pre-elected who actually physically do sinful works of the flesh, are condemned with other un-pre-elected, that do the same and are condemned.

What ? What are you talking about ?

 

[Phoneman777]

The NT Greek MSS "Textus Receptus" correctly includes "who walk not after the flesh" in Romans 8:1 KJV and you wouldn't be asking this question if your NT was based on it. I'd strongly suggest you obtain one, because that filthy "Critical Text" rival has omitted, by comparison with the TR, enough words to account for everything written after the middle of the book of Acts in the KJV.

There's no condemnation for those who aren't walking after the flesh because condemnation is for those who walk after that very thing.

 

[Jim B]

The NT Greek MSS "Textus Receptus" correctly includes "who walk not after the flesh" and I would strongly suggest you obtain a NT whose translation is based on that MSS, because that filthy "Critical Text" MSS has omitted enough words to account for everything written after the middle of the book of Acts in the KJV.

There's no condemnation for those who aren't walking after the flesh because condemnation is for those who walk after that very thing.

Your obviously biased opinion conflicts with the opinion of respected modern scholars. Here is the translators' note for Romans 8:1: "The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M."

Why should anyone believe what you wrote over what they wrote? And what, specifically, is "that filthy "Critical Text"? And why don't you understand that the KJV is just one (archaic) translation, created to codify the Protestantism of the secular king of England of the early 17th century?

 

[brightfame52]

The NT Greek MSS "Textus Receptus" correctly includes "who walk not after the flesh" and I would strongly suggest you obtain a NT whose translation is based on that MSS, because that filthy "Critical Text" MSS has omitted enough words to account for everything written after the middle of the book of Acts in the KJV.

There's no condemnation for those who aren't walking after the flesh because condemnation is for those who walk after that very thing.

Thats in time. Those who were in Christ before the foundation is before time. Now when they are converted in time, they are given faith, then they walk after the Spirit. So that just describes their walk in time, but they were in Christ before time, and that's where their non condemnation in Christ originated.

 

[Scott Downey]

Then all the pre-elected who actually physically do sinful works of the flesh, are condemned with other un-pre-elected, that do the same and are condemned.

It is described this way in Ephesians 2 regarding the children of wrath
That we were like them, but we had a different destiny.
We were not them, the OTHERS, God had a different plan, purpose for us.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

The difference was and is the mercy of God towards US by His grace, but not the others.

This destiny God gave to us before time began to be saved, but not all did God give that destiny.

 

[Scott Downey]

Look at what verse 9 says. How many actually believe it, or even v12 which is our eternal salvation that cannot be lost.

8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God,

9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher [c]of the Gentiles. 12 For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

Jesus truly is the author and finisher of your faith. the work God started in you, He will bring to completion on the Day of Jesus Christ.
God is not like some people who start projects and never finish them.

 

[Phoneman777]

Your obviously biased opinion conflicts with the opinion of respected modern scholars.

As does yours. So, let's stick to the facts.

Here is the translators' note for Romans 8:1: "The earliest and best

Considered "best" by who? What you need to understand is that "older" doesn't mean "better", it simply means "old", understand? Say it with me: "older" means nothing more than "older".

witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M."

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. The Alexandrian MSS family is strongly believed by many notable Christian men who, unlike most Christians today, are thoroughly acquainted with church history, to be nothing more than leftovers from the 50 copies of Emperor Constantine's Ecumenical Bible. The compilation was politically motivated in an attempt to weld a fracturing empire, and was overseen by Eusibius, disciple of Origen. Why is this of critical importance?

Origen (185-254) idea of Christianity was loaded with false teachings. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture, rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis, accepted infant baptism, believed in purgatory and that the Holy Spirit was a created being, believed that human souls are pre-existent, denied the bodily resurrection, believed Jesus to be a created being and not eternal, allegorized the Bible, and was one of the fathers of the a millennial method of prophetic interpretation further developed by Augustine and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church doing away with the imminence of the return of Christ.

Eusebius (263-339) promoted the erroneous teachings of Origen, and was hired by Constantine to produce Greek New Testaments. Many of the omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period. Many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, even though Origen had considered these two uninspired and fanciful books as canonical Scripture. Constantine, however, ordered them included.

Do you really think such men can be trusted to be anywhere near Scripture, much less be involved with copying and maintaining it?

Why should anyone believe what you wrote over what they wrote? And what, specifically, is "that filthy "Critical Text"? And why don't you understand that the KJV is just one (archaic) translation, created to codify the Protestantism of the secular king of England of the early 17th century?

Because anyone who takes the time to examine history instead of merely swallowing the "popular" ideas of "scholars" will agree that the Alexandrian belongs back in the garbage bin from which it was "rescued".


BTW, THERE ARE LETTERS WRITTEN BETWEEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WHICH ARE OLDER THAN ANY BIBLE MSS AND CONTAIN REFERENCES TO VERSES THAT ARE ABSENT IN THAT FILTHY CRITICAL TEXT, BUT PRESENT IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, SO THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ADDED ANYTHING, BUT OF WHY THE CRITICAL TEXT ELIMINATED ANYTHING...BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE DEVIL HATES CHRIST AND THE TRUTH OF THE WHOLE TESTIMONY OF GOD.

 

[Phoneman777]

Thats in time. Those who were in Christ before the foundation is before time. Now when they are converted in time, they are given faith, then they walk after the Spirit. So that just describes their walk in time, but they were in Christ before time, and that's where their non condemnation in Christ originated.

The OT people were saved no differently than we are saved - by grace through faith. The only diff is they in faith looked forward to the Cross, and evidenced that faith by their works, while we in faith look backward to the Cross and evidence our faith by the same, according to 1 John 2:3-4 KJV.

 

[brightfame52]

The OT people were saved no differently than we are saved - by grace through faith. The only diff is they in faith looked forward to the Cross, and evidenced that faith by their works, while we in faith look backward to the Cross and evidence our faith by the same, according to 1 John 2:3-4 KJV.

Thats not the issue here. The issue is people who were chosen in Christ before the foundation, are in Him and so not condemned. When they are born into the world as sinners, they are not condemned by God like other sinners who are not chosen in Christ before the foundation.

 

[Gospel Believer]

Because if you haven’t repented you are not in Christ. No contradiction.

A person who did not Believe in Paul’s Gospel , given to Paul personally by Jesus , and found in 1Cor15:1-4, and then “ Changes his Mind” about that Gospel..... ( “Metanoia” In the Greek—- it literally means mind change”—- to “repent” does not automatically mean to “ repent of sins”—— God “ Repented” nearly a dozen times in Scripture!).....That man has done all the “Repenting” he need do in order to get Saved and stay Saved......it’s a Promise Of God ......The Faith That Saves is BELIEVING a Promise Of God —No different from the Faith that got Abraham Justified —— “ Abraham *BELIEVED* GOD and it was “ Counted unto him as Righteousness”.......Take the Promise Of God that was given to all of us this side of the Cross in order to be Saved.....Simply Believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the Grave....

Sorrow and regret for the sins in your life and resolving to “ do better” —- THOSE types of Repentance are all positive things and they may “ lead” to Turning to Jesus with Faith in the Gospel , But in and of themselves they do NOT save a person.....The Bible surely says to “ Repent of Sins “ , but NEVER does the KJV Bible say “ Repent Of Sins in order TO BE SAVED!” Nowhere. Faith in Christ to “ take away” those sins is what saves—— Nothing else! The old hymn had it right all along......for Salvation it really * IS* Nothing But The Blood......

 

[Jim B]

As does yours. So, let's stick to the facts.

Considered "best" by who? What you need to understand is that "older" doesn't mean "better", it simply means "old", understand? Say it with me: "older" means nothing more than "older".

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. The Alexandrian MSS family is strongly believed by many notable Christian men who, unlike most Christians today, are thoroughly acquainted with church history, to be nothing more than leftovers from the 50 copies of Emperor Constantine's Ecumenical Bible. The compilation was politically motivated in an attempt to weld a fracturing empire, and was overseen by Eusibius, disciple of Origen. Why is this of critical importance?

Origen (185-254) idea of Christianity was loaded with false teachings. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture, rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis, accepted infant baptism, believed in purgatory and that the Holy Spirit was a created being, believed that human souls are pre-existent, denied the bodily resurrection, believed Jesus to be a created being and not eternal, allegorized the Bible, and was one of the fathers of the a millennial method of prophetic interpretation further developed by Augustine and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church doing away with the imminence of the return of Christ.

Eusebius (263-339) promoted the erroneous teachings of Origen, and was hired by Constantine to produce Greek New Testaments. Many of the omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period. Many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, even though Origen had considered these two uninspired and fanciful books as canonical Scripture. Constantine, however, ordered them included.

Do you really think such men can be trusted to be anywhere near Scripture, much less be involved with copying and maintaining it?

Because anyone who takes the time to examine history instead of merely swallowing the "popular" ideas of "scholars" will agree that the Alexandrian belongs back in the garbage bin from which it was "rescued".


BTW, THERE ARE LETTERS WRITTEN BETWEEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WHICH ARE OLDER THAN ANY BIBLE MSS AND CONTAIN REFERENCES TO VERSES THAT ARE ABSENT IN THAT FILTHY CRITICAL TEXT, BUT PRESENT IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, SO THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ADDED ANYTHING, BUT OF WHY THE CRITICAL TEXT ELIMINATED ANYTHING...BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE DEVIL HATES CHRIST AND THE TRUTH OF THE WHOLE TESTIMONY OF GOD.

Obviously your mind is closed. Additionally, you attack me for showing you your error. You think you know the facts of the matter, but you don't. I respect scholars, not people with unqualified opinions.

 

[Jim B]

The OT people were saved no differently than we are saved - by grace through faith. The only diff is they in faith looked forward to the Cross, and evidenced that faith by their works, while we in faith look backward to the Cross and evidence our faith by the same, according to 1 John 2:3-4 KJV.

1 John 2:3-4, " Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we keep his commandments. The one who says “I have come to know God” and yet does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in such a person." This has nothing to do with being saved. It has to do with keeping God's commandments, so your point is dismissed as irrelevant.

 

[Jim B]

As does yours. So, let's stick to the facts.

Considered "best" by who? What you need to understand is that "older" doesn't mean "better", it simply means "old", understand? Say it with me: "older" means nothing more than "older".

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. The Alexandrian MSS family is strongly believed by many notable Christian men who, unlike most Christians today, are thoroughly acquainted with church history, to be nothing more than leftovers from the 50 copies of Emperor Constantine's Ecumenical Bible. The compilation was politically motivated in an attempt to weld a fracturing empire, and was overseen by Eusibius, disciple of Origen. Why is this of critical importance?

Origen (185-254) idea of Christianity was loaded with false teachings. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture, rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis, accepted infant baptism, believed in purgatory and that the Holy Spirit was a created being, believed that human souls are pre-existent, denied the bodily resurrection, believed Jesus to be a created being and not eternal, allegorized the Bible, and was one of the fathers of the a millennial method of prophetic interpretation further developed by Augustine and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church doing away with the imminence of the return of Christ.

Eusebius (263-339) promoted the erroneous teachings of Origen, and was hired by Constantine to produce Greek New Testaments. Many of the omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period. Many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, even though Origen had considered these two uninspired and fanciful books as canonical Scripture. Constantine, however, ordered them included.

Do you really think such men can be trusted to be anywhere near Scripture, much less be involved with copying and maintaining it?

Because anyone who takes the time to examine history instead of merely swallowing the "popular" ideas of "scholars" will agree that the Alexandrian belongs back in the garbage bin from which it was "rescued".


BTW, THERE ARE LETTERS WRITTEN BETWEEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WHICH ARE OLDER THAN ANY BIBLE MSS AND CONTAIN REFERENCES TO VERSES THAT ARE ABSENT IN THAT FILTHY CRITICAL TEXT, BUT PRESENT IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, SO THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ADDED ANYTHING, BUT OF WHY THE CRITICAL TEXT ELIMINATED ANYTHING...BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE DEVIL HATES CHRIST AND THE TRUTH OF THE WHOLE TESTIMONY OF GOD.

There is at least one forum that prohibits King-James-only people -- for good reason. KJVOs have closed minds! They are stuck in unreality and think that a flawed translation, based on a limited set of sources, is the only one that is actually God's word (as though God spoke in archaic Englyshe). Sad!!!!

 

[Gospel Believer]

If we truly are in Christ Jesus, we will not fulfill the deeds of the flesh.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
Romans 8:1

I'm not sure where you are coming from with "repent or perish" although, it is true if we do not repent of our sins, we will not be saved so, I see no contradiction there.. But He gives us so many chances to turn to Him, we don't know when our last day on Earth will be so...today IS the day of salvation! :)
Hope others will chime in here and give their take.

If “ repenting of Sins” Saves a person, Judas is in Heaven as we speak....I have some serious doubts about that .....how about you?

 

[Jim B]

If we truly are in Christ Jesus, we will not fulfill the deeds of the flesh.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
Romans 8:1

I'm not sure where you are coming from with "repent or perish" although, it is true if we do not repent of our sins, we will not be saved so, I see no contradiction there.. But He gives us so many chances to turn to Him, we don't know when our last day on Earth will be so...today IS the day of salvation! :)
Hope others will chime in here and give their take.

Pay no attention to those who don't understand the truth and reply to your message inappropriately, including "Gospel Believer".. You are correct in what you write. God bless.