Organized Religion and the Gospel

[James Rondon]

You two deserve each other.  Have fun.

What do you mean by that, WS? Please elaborate.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, I am going to reply to you knowing full well that you might turn around and say I think I have a license to sin. -- But the truth is that I hate sin, just as Paul did.  But I find myself in a body that sins, just as Paul did and I seek to be rid of it. But God says His grace is sufficient for me.

I noticed your mention of 2Cr 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for thee". I would like to point out that sin is not mentioned in the context of this passage. Paul is talking about his infirmities and his "thorn in the flesh", which many (a great many) have used to hedge their sins. But if you were to look into the word "astheneia" or "infirmities" is not describing someones sin or their sinful state. Or with that reasoning you would have Paul stating that the closing of the verse "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my sins", then concluding the chapter he rebukes the Corinthians for not repenting for their sins. How is someone who glories in their sins going to "bewail many which have sinned"?

That makes no sense.

## Do you struggle against sin?

*** In Romans 7:23, Paul does not say he is successful. In fact in verse 25 he indicate that he has given up trying to subject his sinful flesh nature to his will and thanks God for Jesus Christ.

Paul doesn't say he has given up in verse 25. Much to the contrary, in verse 25 he says with his mind serves the law of God and his flesh serves the LAW of sin. Not that his flesh serves sin. Please note that in the very next chapter he explains that there is no condemnation for Christians who "who walk not after the flesh".

Now I would like to mention another passage from 1Cr 9:27, Paul clearly states "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection." That doesn't seem like someone who has given up on trying to bring their flesh into subjection. And then he further states "lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway", so the consequence of not bringing yourself into subjection is becoming a castway.

This doesn't sound like someone who has given up, but someone to is continuing to run the race and fight the fight. And someone who knows what the consequence of giving up is.

*** No I don't struggle with sins of the flesh any longer. I can't, nor can anyone else, win that struggle and there is no longer any need for me to do so. I already have the victory over my sins of the flesh and I thank God for that victory. --- I have entered God's rest. (See Hebrews 4 and notice that the ones that do not enter God's rest are those that are disobedient = do not ""believe,"" verse 3).  In verse 10 we see that those that believe have entered God's rest and ceased from their own works just as God did from His. --- Why do others try and make the children of God leave their rest in God and go back to struggling with the flesh? Is it lack of faith?

I am just going to briefly comment on your exposition of Herbrews 4. If you read the very next verse after 10 you will see it says "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.". So either you have entered that rest before everyone else, or you believe for some reason that you don't have to labor like the rest of us to enter into that rest.

Either way, I believe you should look again at that chapter.

*** Okay, go on to Romans chapter 8. In verse 1 He says the same thing I am saying, "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." --- Paul is saying that a child of God walks in the Spirit, not that he has a choice to do so. --- Now it seems to me that you will understand this to mean walking without sinning in the flesh. I DON"T! It can't mean that since no man can stop sinning in the flesh.   Verse 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.  ---- You can't be free from it if you still think it can condemn you.  verse 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His on Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin;

Richard, Romans 8:1 says "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." not "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who cannot walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit." So you have effectively rewritten Romans 8:1 to support your argument and made the Paul say something he has neither said not implied.

So again you have eisgeticly inserted your doctrines and changed the text to further justify your antinomianism.

People are going to have to come down on one side or the other. Either they are free of their sinful nature or they are not. Either they place their faith in Jesus OR in their ability to not sin in the flesh. The only way to be free of the flesh is "in Christ." And that does not mean your sinful nature has changed.

This is where I will rest my point. I have already proven that there is a change in the outward behavior earlier in my post with a great number of passages. These passages cannot be dismissed nor ignored, and show clear evidence that either their should be a change in the sinful inclinations in the believer, or that believer needs to examine themselves if they even be in the faith (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

The only way to be free of sin is in death, and to be freed of penalty of sin is in the death of Jesus. We are in complete agreement in that. But once the criminal has been pardoned, a truly penitent criminal will strive to commit crimes no more. That is the change, its a change of heart that brings forth a change of actions (cf. Pro 15:28, Mat 12:35).

[James Rondon]

Great post, Charles. You systematically dismantled his post, and by appealing to context, clearly demonstrated the errors of utter depravity and antinomian theology.  ::manna::

[RichardBurger]

If a person is walking in the Spirit they are not sinning. Well I guess no one walks in the Spirit, since I don't see anyone not sinning. Do you see how impossible that idea is?

As long as people are preaching a person MUST strive to not sin then they are saying a person has to work at not sinning. That means there is no rest in God from their sinful nature. Jesus did not really free people from the burden of their sins (sinful nature). They still have to carry the burden and struggle with them. They are still under the Law of Moses. There is no peace with God since people must continually struggle with their sin nature. They have no victory because they can't stop sinning. --- That means they ARE still in the flesh and not in the Spirit.

Thank God I am free of all that rubbish. I am in Christ. I am walking in faith that Jesus can keep me even when I sin. And if a person is not doing that then they are walking in the fleshly idea that they can stop sinning by their own fleshly choices.

Now that does not mean that I go about trying to sin, sin, sin; It means I no longer feel I must carry the burden of a struggle that Jesus has already won for me; a struggle that you are trying to put me back under.

Make fun of what I say all you want to but I know in whom I believe. I place no confidence (faith, trust, hope) in my flesh to be able to keep from sinning. Therefore I am not in the flesh and am in the Spirit. Read Philippians 3:1-11. You will see that Paul placed no confidence in the flesh. Reading verse 1-11 you will see that he talks about all the religious teachings and the things he did in religion and came to the realization that they were all rubbish.

But if people want to place their confidence (faith, trust, hope) in their religions and their ability to stop sinning then they are placing it in the flesh and are walking in the flesh.

You said; I noticed your mention of  2 Cr 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for thee". I would like to point out that sin is not mentioned in the context of this passage. "Paul is talking about his infirmities and his "thorn in the flesh", which many (a great many) have used to hedge their sins."

First of all I did not mention 2 Cor. 12:9, you did. --- Now you want to beat me down with it. You didn't need to say the above Charles. It is a putdown. It has me trying to hedge my sins. But since you said it you must have meant that I am doing it. Okay, tell me how do you hedges your sins? Oh, I get it! You don't have any to hedge, your sinful nature has changed, and if you do sin you can always pull out the "repentance" license to sin.

As I said, I did not bring up what Paul said in 2 Cor. 7-13. """You did."""
--- I brought up the fact that God's grace is greater than my/our sins. See 1 John 3:18-23.  Verse 20 says, "For if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and knows all things."  Verse 21 says, Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence towards God. Verse 22 says, "And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.' Verse 23 says, "And this is His commandment: that we should """believe""" on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave commandment." --- I am sorry for you if you do not feel His grace is sufficient to cover your sins.

Pardon me for having my confidence towards God and NOT feeling my heart condemning me, that His grace is sufficient to cover my sins with Jesus' blood. Now if you feel, as I do, that His grace is sufficient to cover your sins, then why do you fault me for saying His grace is sufficient for mine?

You said, " Paul doesn't say he has given up in verse 25. Much to the contrary, in verse 25 he says with his mind serves the law of God and his flesh serves the LAW of sin. Not that his flesh serves sin.

Amazing! You said, "Paul said his flesh serves the law of sin, BUT not that his flesh serves sin. And you want to say it doesn't mean his flesh follows the law of sin.

verse 25, ----- So then., with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. ---- Looks like he came to a conclusion to me.

You said, "Please note that in the very next chapter he explains that there is no condemnation for Christians who "who walk not after the flesh".
--- Charles, to you, walking NOT after the flesh is trying not to sin. But everyone sins.
----According to John 3:16-18 the only sin that condemns a person is the sin of unbelief. Therefore walking in the Spirit is walking in faith that Jesus paid for your sins on the cross. You can't walk in the Spirit if you do not believe Jesus paid for your sins.

You said, "I am just going to briefly comment on your exposition of Herbrews 4. If you read the very next verse after 10 you will see it says "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.". So either you have entered that rest before everyone else, or you believe for some reason that you don't have to labor like the rest of us to enter into that rest.

If you will open your eyes you will see that the writer says in verse 3. "For we who have believed ""do"" enter that rest, as He has said" ----  Note the word "do", it is not future tense. In this chapter

***Romans chapter 8:1-3
1. 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.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His on Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin;

You said, "Richard, Romans 8:1 says "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." not "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who cannot walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit." So you have effectively rewritten Romans 8:1 to support your argument and made the Paul say something he has neither said not implied.

You can't be "IN Christ" and not be walking in the Spirit. I'll bet if I said a child of God cannot sin you will take issue with that too.

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

Remember what God said to Peter, "do not call what God has cleansed, un-clean."

As to the last part of your reply. You said, "This is where I will rest my point. I have already proven that there is a change in the outward behavior earlier in my post with a great number of passages. These passages cannot be dismissed nor ignored, and show clear evidence that either their should be a change in the sinful inclinations in the believer, or that believer needs to examine themselves if they even be in the faith (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

When a person goes to Christ he/she has already made a change. They have turned TO Christ FROM the flesh. --- But that does not mean they have changed, or can change, their sinful nature.

Many on this forum think as you do and they prove what I am saying about the sinful nature. They do not show love for others. They show no evidence that their sinful inclinations have changed. They are to busy placating their ego by making put down remarks about others and thinking God approves of it. On this very thread there are those that are acting like pack dogs after a prey.

This ends my discussion with you Charles.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You two deserve each other.  Have fun.

What do you mean by that, WS? Please elaborate.

I mean, in order for two things to be opposites, they have to have everything in common except for one key difference.  Charles and Richard remind me of each other, except they have radically different soteriologies.

BTW, why wasn't this thread put-in-the-naughty-chair after this:

[quote link=topic=23889.msg461155#msg461155 date=1202325087]
Your are either stupid, mental, or just plain deceitful.

I never claimed to live a sinless life, and I am tired of your blind stupidity and ignorance to my constant defense against your slanderous mischaracterizations. I don't know what is wrong with you, but if you are not even bothering to read my posts before quoting and responding to them I am simply wasting my time discussing this or any topic with you.
[/quote]

Are moderators unable to read strikethrough?

[Charles Sloan]

BTW, why wasn't this thread put-in-the-naughty-chair after this:

Your are either stupid, mental, or just plain deceitful.

I never claimed to live a sinless life, and I am tired of your blind stupidity and ignorance to my constant defense against your slanderous mischaracterizations. I don't know what is wrong with you, but if you are not even bothering to read my posts before quoting and responding to them I am simply wasting my time discussing this or any topic with you.

Are moderators unable to read strikethrough?

Maybe not because they can't read strikeout, but can and do read the following posts.

Okay, I'm sorry for calling you names and insulting you. But Richard, you are making it very difficult for me to discuss this with you by fashioning me into a strawman who says I am sinless when I never did. I know you would really like me to say that cause it would make it easier to dismiss me as a sinless perfectionist to justify your antinomian doctrines. But I'm sorry that I can't oblige.

And just for those who would like to know why I didn't just delete the post in the first place, that was because after I realized that I had crossed with that line the post, it had already been on the board for about an hour. So I didn't think it fair to allow some people to have seen me insult Richard without an apology and just delete the post compared to allowing Richard to fairly read what I had said and see my honest apology.

If you don't agree with my reasoning thats fine. But at least I was the one reasoning about how was the right way to handle my own actions.

[RichardBurger]

BTW, why wasn't this thread put-in-the-naughty-chair after this:

Your are either stupid, mental, or just plain deceitful.

I never claimed to live a sinless life, and I am tired of your blind stupidity and ignorance to my constant defense against your slanderous mischaracterizations. I don't know what is wrong with you, but if you are not even bothering to read my posts before quoting and responding to them I am simply wasting my time discussing this or any topic with you.

Are moderators unable to read strikethrough?

Maybe not because they can't read strikeout, but can and do read the following posts.

Okay, I'm sorry for calling you names and insulting you. But Richard, you are making it very difficult for me to discuss this with you by fashioning me into a strawman who says I am sinless when I never did. I know you would really like me to say that cause it would make it easier to dismiss me as a sinless perfectionist to justify your antinomian doctrines. But I'm sorry that I can't oblige.

And just for those who would like to know why I didn't just delete the post in the first place, that was because after I realized that I had crossed with that line the post, it had already been on the board for about an hour. So I didn't think it fair to allow some people to have seen me insult Richard without an apology and just delete the post compared to allowing Richard to fairly read what I had said and see my honest apology.

If you don't agree with my reasoning thats fine. But at least I was the one reasoning about how was the right way to handle my own actions.

Charles, what you said did not bother me. I know how it is to get carried away in a discussion.---- Don't worry about it.

Richard

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, what you said did not bother me. I know how it is to get carried away in a discussion.---- Don't worry about it.

Richard

Thank you Richard, and I'm grateful for your understanding.

I just wanted to explain this for everyone since some people want to make a big deal about it, and some even would go as far as flagging it to the moderators and insist that I be "dealt with". Even after I apologized and struck it out, figure I must really chap someones hide...

I plan on responding to your post later today.

[Charles Sloan]

If a person is walking in the Spirit they are not sinning. Well I guess no one walks in the Spirit, since I don't see anyone not sinning. Do you see how impossible that idea is?

This has never been my point, nor do I believe I said this. But if you took myself to have said this I am sorry. Let me clear this up, if someone is walking after the flesh they would not be mortifying the deeds of the flesh. Those who walk in the spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh.

This does not mean they won't sin, but that they avoid sin as a result of walking after the spirit. Whereas the unregenerate sinner falls headlong into sin.

As long as people are preaching a person MUST strive to not sin then they are saying a person has to work at not sinning. That means there is no rest in God from their sinful nature. Jesus did not really free people from the burden of their sins (sinful nature). They still have to carry the burden and struggle with them. They are still under the Law of Moses. There is no peace with God since people must continually struggle with their sin nature. They have no victory because they can't stop sinning. --- That means they ARE still in the flesh and not in the Spirit.

If you are saying that if someone preaches that people must strive not to sin, that they are preaching the law... then you have a serious problem and one more serious then the discussion of this thread.

As I have pointed out numerous times, Paul, John and other Apostles continually preached and taught people not to sin. If you think that they are preaching law because they are exhorting believers not to sin you either do not understand the New Testament, or you are reinterpreting these passages because they don't fit your theology. Let me mention a few:

Jhn 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

1Cr 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak [this] to your shame.

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

Tts 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 

These passages, like the passages I pointed out here; can't be just ignored. I understand that people do sin, but thats the reason the Lord and his Apostles tell us not to. Repent means to turn or change, if your not turning or changing your ways as a result of your conversion again I would suggest selfexamination (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

Thank God I am free of all that rubbish. I am in Christ. I am walking in faith that Jesus can keep me even when I sin. And if a person is not doing that then they are walking in the fleshly idea that they can stop sinning by their own fleshly choices.

Now that does not mean that I go about trying to sin, sin, sin; It means I no longer feel I must carry the burden of a struggle that Jesus has already won for me; a struggle that you are trying to put me back under.

I'm not trying to do anything to you Richard. You are free to believe what you want, and do what you want. Just understand when you start posting these beliefs on an open forum others are going to respond. You don't have to reply to a single of my posts, your involvement in this discussion is purely voluntary.

But I don't believe that resisting temptation is a carnal decision or of the flesh as you are trying to make it into. We are commanded to resist the devil (cf. Jam 4:7), that we are to escape temptations (cf. 1Cr 10:13), and to flee from sins (cf. 1Cr 6:18, 1Cr 10:14, 1Ti 6:11, 2Ti 2:22). These are not carnal battles, but spiritual ones (cf. Eph 6:12).

Make fun of what I say all you want to but I know in whom I believe. I place no confidence (faith, trust, hope) in my flesh to be able to keep from sinning. Therefore I am not in the flesh and am in the Spirit. Read Philippians 3:1-11. You will see that Paul placed no confidence in the flesh. Reading verse 1-11 you will see that he talks about all the religious teachings and the things he did in religion and came to the realization that they were all rubbish.

Richard, why not read the entire context?

Phl 3:12-14 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.  Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.


Paul says that he has not already attained, nor where already perfect. He also is pressing toward the mark, and the high calling of Christ Jesus. Again, not sounding like someone who as given up or considers his work here accomplished.

And remember I am not talking about works based salvation, but works produced from salvation.

You said; I noticed your mention of  2 Cr 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for thee". I would like to point out that sin is not mentioned in the context of this passage. "Paul is talking about his infirmities and his "thorn in the flesh", which many (a great many) have used to hedge their sins."

First of all I did not mention 2 Cor. 12:9, you did. --- Now you want to beat me down with it. You didn't need to say the above Charles. It is a putdown. It has me trying to hedge my sins. But since you said it you must have meant that I am doing it. Okay, tell me how do you hedges your sins? Oh, I get it! You don't have any to hedge, your sinful nature has changed, and if you do sin you can always pull out the "repentance" license to sin.

I believe you did mention 2Cr 12:9 with this comment:

But I find myself in a body that sins, just as Paul did and I seek to be rid of it. But God says His grace is sufficient for me.

The only place God says that is in the Bible is in 2Cr 12:9, correct me if I am wrong. But please don't try and make it seem like I am personally attacking you with my comments on your misapplication of this passage, my intention is just to show you that you are mistaken. 2Cr 12:9 is not dealing with sin, but with sickness and weakness.

But personally I try not to hedge my sins, I seek to confess them (cf. 1Jo 1:9)

As I said, I did not bring up what Paul said in 2 Cor. 7-13. """You did."""

Actually, I don't think either of us brought up 2Cr 7-13.

But since it has come up I think it I think it interesting that an Apostle was commanding believers to stop sinning, and also to take drastic measures to see that they were put to shame. No wonder you were thinking about this section of Scripture, it completely defies everything you have been saying about how our attitude should be toward sin.

Thanks for bringing it up.

--- I brought up the fact that God's grace is greater than my/our sins. See 1 John 3:18-23.  Verse 20 says, "For if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and knows all things."  Verse 21 says, Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence towards God. Verse 22 says, "And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.' Verse 23 says, "And this is His commandment: that we should """believe""" on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave commandment." --- I am sorry for you if you do not feel His grace is sufficient to cover your sins.

No Richard, I certainly do believe that God's grace is sufficient to cover my sins. But I also believe we should neither sin so that grace may abound (cf. Rom 6:1-2).

So as usual, I would again like to call to attention it is not an either/or.

Pardon me for having my confidence towards God and NOT feeling my heart condemning me, that His grace is sufficient to cover my sins with Jesus' blood. Now if you feel, as I do, that His grace is sufficient to cover your sins, then why do you fault me for saying His grace is sufficient for mine?

I don't fault you for saying anything. I'm just correcting you that 2Cr 12:9 isn't about sin.

You said, " Paul doesn't say he has given up in verse 25. Much to the contrary, in verse 25 he says with his mind serves the law of God and his flesh serves the LAW of sin. Not that his flesh serves sin.

Amazing! You said, "Paul said his flesh serves the law of sin, BUT not that his flesh serves sin. And you want to say it doesn't mean his flesh follows the law of sin.

verse 25, ----- So then., with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. ---- Looks like he came to a conclusion to me.

Everyone flesh serves the law of sin Richard, the law of sin is death (cf. Rom 8:2) and the soul the sins it shall die (Eze 18:4, 20). Everyone who sins shall die, thats the law. And everyones flesh most certainly faces that law.

But you want to remove the word law from this passage and make it say "with my flesh I serve sin". That just isn't Biblical, nor is it moral to say such things. My point is that the passage says what is says, not what you would like it to say.

You said, "Please note that in the very next chapter he explains that there is no condemnation for Christians who "who walk not after the flesh".
--- Charles, to you, walking NOT after the flesh is trying not to sin. But everyone sins.
----According to John 3:16-18 the only sin that condemns a person is the sin of unbelief. Therefore walking in the Spirit is walking in faith that Jesus paid for your sins on the cross. You can't walk in the Spirit if you do not believe Jesus paid for your sins.

See, this is your strawman. I haven't said that walking in the spirit was trying not to sin. But infact walking in the spirit would result in trying not to sin. Big difference.

So the remainder of comments addressing this false notion I will ignore.

You said, "I am just going to briefly comment on your exposition of Herbrews 4. If you read the very next verse after 10 you will see it says "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.". So either you have entered that rest before everyone else, or you believe for some reason that you don't have to labor like the rest of us to enter into that rest.

If you will open your eyes you will see that the writer says in verse 3. "For we who have believed ""do"" enter that rest, as He has said" ----  Note the word "do", it is not future tense. In this chapter

Richard, verse 3 cannot supplant verse 11. Context doesn't work in reverse. Look at verse 9 and consider the word "remaineth" (or "remains" for all you non-kjv'ers). The progression of passages define the context, thats why the writer of Hebrews didn't just stop at verse 3.

As to the last part of your reply. You said, "This is where I will rest my point. I have already proven that there is a change in the outward behavior earlier in my post with a great number of passages. These passages cannot be dismissed nor ignored, and show clear evidence that either their should be a change in the sinful inclinations in the believer, or that believer needs to examine themselves if they even be in the faith (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

When a person goes to Christ he/she has already made a change. They have turned TO Christ FROM the flesh. --- But that does not mean they have changed, or can change, their sinful nature.

So either you are agreeing that their will be a change in their outward behavior, or you are saying the change is just positional and merits no change in outward behavior. In the case of the latter that is clearly wrong due to the landslide of Scripture already brought to the discussion.

But its hard to tell what you mean since your ambiguous use of words gives rise to equivocation.

Many on this forum think as you do and they prove what I am saying about the sinful nature. They do not show love for others. They show no evidence that their sinful inclinations have changed. They are to busy placating their ego by making put down remarks about others and thinking God approves of it. On this very thread there are those that are acting like pack dogs after a prey.

I hope you consider me a dog because I have taken the time to discuss this topic with you. I have taken much of my personal time to try an honestly answer your questions and expose the fallacies you consider to be sound doctrines. I know I have said some things that crossed the line of appropriate dialogue, which I admitted I was wrong and appealed to your forgiveness.

This ends my discussion with you Charles.

As I mentioned with the earlier in my response, your participation in this discussion is not mandatory but appreciated.

[RichardBurger]

Charles, You said: --- "As to the last part of your reply. You said, "This is where I will rest my point. I have already proven that there is a change in the outward behavior earlier in my post with a great number of passages. These passages cannot be dismissed nor ignored, and show clear evidence that either their should be a change in the sinful inclinations in the believer, or that believer needs to examine themselves if they even be in the faith (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

I replied: --- When a person goes to Christ he/she has already made a change. They have turned TO Christ FROM the flesh. --- But that does not mean they have changed, or can change, their sinful nature.

You said: --- So either you are agreeing that their will be a change in their outward behavior, or you are saying the change is just positional and merits no change in outward behavior. In the case of the latter that is clearly wrong due to the landslide of Scripture already brought to the discussion. --- But its hard to tell what you mean since your ambiguous use of words gives rise to equivocation.

OKAY! Let us establish some of what we believe!

1. I believe that the work of Jesus (God) on the cross reconciles us to God. We respond by believing in His work on the cross. We are NOT saved, or kept saved, by our works.
--------- Can we agree on this?

2. I believe that a child of God "

[Charles Sloan]

I thought you had ended the discussion with me. But since you have further interest in discussing this topic , I would be delighted to try and answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Charles, You said: --- "As to the last part of your reply. You said, "This is where I will rest my point. I have already proven that there is a change in the outward behavior earlier in my post with a great number of passages. These passages cannot be dismissed nor ignored, and show clear evidence that either their should be a change in the sinful inclinations in the believer, or that believer needs to examine themselves if they even be in the faith (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

I replied: --- When a person goes to Christ he/she has already made a change. They have turned TO Christ FROM the flesh. --- But that does not mean they have changed, or can change, their sinful nature.

Then we are in agreement.

But you would also have to agree is they have turned to Christ from there flesh there will be a difference in how they act upon their sinful nature.

1. I believe that the work of Jesus (God) on the cross reconciles us to God. We respond by believing in His work on the cross. We are NOT saved, or kept saved, by our works.
--------- Can we agree on this?

We are not simply saved by believing, but also receiving (cf. Jhn 1:12). I know there are many verses that makes it seem that belief is exclusive, but there are more verse than just Jhn 3:16. We are all familiar with Jam 2:19, so faith alone is dead. Faith that is a saving faith will bring forth works, such as repentance since this seems to be your main point of contention.

2. I believe that a child of God "

[RichardBurger]

I thought you had ended the discussion with me. But since you have further interest in discussing this topic , I would be delighted to try and answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Charles, You said: --- "As to the last part of your reply. You said, "This is where I will rest my point. I have already proven that there is a change in the outward behavior earlier in my post with a great number of passages. These passages cannot be dismissed nor ignored, and show clear evidence that either their should be a change in the sinful inclinations in the believer, or that believer needs to examine themselves if they even be in the faith (cf. 2Cr 13:5).

I replied: --- When a person goes to Christ he/she has already made a change. They have turned TO Christ FROM the flesh. --- But that does not mean they have changed, or can change, their sinful nature.

Then we are in agreement.

But you would also have to agree is they have turned to Christ from there flesh there will be a difference in how they act upon their sinful nature.

1. I believe that the work of Jesus (God) on the cross reconciles us to God. We respond by believing in His work on the cross. We are NOT saved, or kept saved, by our works.
--------- Can we agree on this?

We are not simply saved by believing, but also receiving (cf. Jhn 1:12). I know there are many verses that makes it seem that belief is exclusive, but there are more verse than just Jhn 3:16. We are all familiar with Jam 2:19, so faith alone is dead. Faith that is a saving faith will bring forth works, such as repentance since this seems to be your main point of contention.

2. I believe that a child of God "

[Charles Sloan]

Reading the scriptures you have given seems to mean a child of God no longer does any of those things; his/her nature has changed. If that is true then the child never sins again, right? --- Why are so many preaching that a child of God MUST/HAS TOO, stop sinning since they no longer do those things?

Because maybe some need to be rebuked. (cf. Rev 2:5, 2:16, 2:21, 2:22, 3:3, 3:19)

You said, "If someone is preaching doing good works like the Lord so often did and that inspires guilt upon a believer, I don't think you should fault the preacher."

So you are saying you think it is a good idea to place quilt on the children of God. --- I don't believe that at all. That is what the Devil does in an attempt to get a child to lose their faith in what God did on the cross. --- It is the same thing I wrote about on the forum topic "A Tragic Story."

IMHO, those that place quilt trips on the children of God do the same things they do and God will judge them for being hypocrites when they tell others to do what they can't do themselves.

You also would be calling Paul a hypocrite because he does the same things. (cf. 1Cr 6:1-10, 1Cr 15:34, 2Cr 7:8-9)

Would you accuse Jesus of being a hypocrite for telling his disciples to sin no more? (cf. Jhn 5:14, Jhn 8:11)

And calling them to repent? (cf. Rev 2:5, 2:16, 2:21, 2:22, 3:3, 3:19)

[RichardBurger]

Charles, you posted the following:
You also would be calling Paul a hypocrite because he does the same things. (cf. 1Cr 6:1-10, 1Cr 15:34, 2Cr 7:8-9)
Would you accuse Jesus of being a hypocrite for telling his disciples to sin no more? (cf. Jhn 5:14, Jhn 8:11)
And calling them to repent? (cf. Rev 2:5, 2:16, 2:21, 2:22, 3:3, 3:19)
*****
Very good, now it is my turn:

Romans 2:1 You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2 And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3 Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God's judgment when you do the same things? 4 Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

Romans 14:1 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it's all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don't. And those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them.

4 Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord's help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval.

5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. 6 Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. 7 For we don't live for ourselves or die for ourselves. 8 If we live, it's to honor the Lord. And if we die, it's to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead.
10 So why do you condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand

[VerbumReale]

The religious mind is what crucified Jesus and has always persecuted the children of God.

Ehhhhh, wrong answer!!!! It was the sinful mind that persecucted Jesus. There were religious people who happened to be involved in the persecution of Jesus, just as there were political officials involved, but it was neither the political nor the religious mind that persecuted Jesus, it was the sinful mind.

It's the same mind that we all have and struggle with and daily persecute Jesus with. Like it or not your sin puts Jesus up on the cross every bit as much as any "religious" person. I know I am wasting my time with you because I have gone down this road with you before and it is like talking to a brick wall. I'll try to show you that you are directing all of your condemnation at a symptom and not at the cause and you'll just keep regurgitating this self-righteous "All you religious people need to be more like Richard Burger garbage."

You spend a lot of time condemning "religious" people and accusing them of not proclaiming Christ. Well here's an idea. If your concern is that Christ isn't being proclaimed enough then here's a thought, start proclaiming Him and stop spending alll your time condemning those who do things differently than you. Until you do that you are just as guilty as you think "religious" people are.

And BTW: Since when do we look to Thomas Jefferson or any of the founding fathers for their views on religion?? They were great visionaries when it came to establishing democracy, but I hate to break it to you, that doesn't make them good theologians of biblical scholars. Thomas Jefferson was a deist.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, you posted the following:
You also would be calling Paul a hypocrite because he does the same things. (cf. 1Cr 6:1-10, 1Cr 15:34, 2Cr 7:8-9)
Would you accuse Jesus of being a hypocrite for telling his disciples to sin no more? (cf. Jhn 5:14, Jhn 8:11)
And calling them to repent? (cf. Rev 2:5, 2:16, 2:21, 2:22, 3:3, 3:19)
*****
Very good, now it is my turn:

Romans 2:1 You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2 And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3 Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God's judgment when you do the same things? 4 Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

Romans 14:1 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it's all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don't. And those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them.

4 Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord's help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval.

5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. 6 Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. 7 For we don't live for ourselves or die for ourselves. 8 If we live, it's to honor the Lord. And if we die, it's to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead.
10 So why do you condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand

So you have effectively turned both Jesus and Paul into hypocrites. I suppose you'll say something like Jesus who knew no sin can command people to repent, but what about Paul, isn't he the chief of sinners? So how can a sinner call another believer to repent without being a hypocrite by your line of reasoning?

But consider these verses in your answer: (Act 5:1-11, Gal 2:11-14, 2Th 3:14-15, 1Ti 5:20, Tts 1:13, Jam 5:19-20)

[RichardBurger]

Charles, you posted the following:
You also would be calling Paul a hypocrite because he does the same things. (cf. 1Cr 6:1-10, 1Cr 15:34, 2Cr 7:8-9)
Would you accuse Jesus of being a hypocrite for telling his disciples to sin no more? (cf. Jhn 5:14, Jhn 8:11)
And calling them to repent? (cf. Rev 2:5, 2:16, 2:21, 2:22, 3:3, 3:19)
*****
Very good, now it is my turn:

Romans 2:1 You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2 And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3 Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God's judgment when you do the same things? 4 Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

Romans 14:1 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it's all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don't. And those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them.

4 Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord's help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval.

5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. 6 Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. 7 For we don't live for ourselves or die for ourselves. 8 If we live, it's to honor the Lord. And if we die, it's to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead.
10 So why do you condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand

So you have effectively turned both Jesus and Paul into hypocrites. I suppose you'll say something like Jesus who knew no sin can command people to repent, but what about Paul, isn't he the chief of sinners? So how can a sinner call another believer to repent without being a hypocrite by your line of reasoning?

But consider these verses in your answer: (Act 5:1-11, Gal 2:11-14, 2Th 3:14-15, 1Ti 5:20, Tts 1:13, Jam 5:19-20)

Charles, I am no longer in a discussion with you. My scriptures say all that I needed to say. Jesus agrees with the scriptures I gave when He said to remove the log in your own eye then you can see clearly to remove the splinter in the other's eye. --- Now the religious will come back and say "well I have removed the log from my eyes now I am good and can judge others." -- But the truth is that no one can remove the log in their own eyes and no one is good but God. Even Jesus said that no one is good but God.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, I am no longer in a discussion with you. My scriptures say all that I needed to say. Jesus agrees with the scriptures I gave when He said to remove the log in your own eye then you can see clearly to remove the splinter in the other's eye. --- Now the religious will come back and say "well I have removed the log from my eyes now I am good and can judge others." -- But the truth is that no one can remove the log in their own eyes and no one is good but God. Even Jesus said that no one is good but God.

Richard,

I understand you no longer wish to discuss this, so I leave you with this passage:

1Ti 5:20  "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

This passage clearly does not fit with your understanding of Scripture. Jesus agrees with every passage of Scripture, not just the ones you choose to cite. Calling someone to repent isn't judging them, or picking at specks. Its preaching the whole counsel of God, and following Biblical example. (cf. Mat 3:2, Mat 3:8, Mat 4:17, Mat 9:13, Mar 1:15, Mar 2:17, Mar 6:12, Luk 3:3, Luk 3:8, Luk 5:32, Luk 13:3, Luk 13:5, Luk 24:47, Act 2:38, Act 3:19, Act 8:22, Act 17:30, Act 20:21, Act 26:20)

[Catholic Crusader]

Religion is a terrible thing, it causes men to focus on other things than Christ.

If you think that, then you have bought into a false idea of what religion is. I would ask, why does the Church already evolve into a hierarchy in the Bible if it is wrong?

HIERARCHY
Deacon (greek - diakonos / dιάκονος - from the Bible)
Priest (greek - presbyteros / pρesßυteρος - from the Bible)
Bishop (greek - episkopos / epίsκοpος - from the Bible)

This is the hierarchy already described in "Acts" in the Bible. Other titles, in my Church that is, are honorary. For example, Cardinals are just bishops, but they can vote in a conclave. The pope is actually a bishop too, but since his diocese is Rome, where Peter last ministered, he is the successor of Peter, and therefore "pope". An arch-bishop is just a bishop of a large diocese. But it comes back down to the main three (above). The Church today is hierarchical, just like the Church began in the Bible.