Doctrinal amp Scripture Duscussion

[Anonymous (24.172.44.98)]

Please use this thread to discuss doctrinal issues and items related to scripture.

[Sushil Melville (202.63.181.169)]

Dear MARTIN T. Let me explain the doctrine of adamic old sin nature.Read Romans 7 vs 14-25)especailly vs 21.WE have to keep confessing our sins and keep short accounts with God 1JOHN CH 1 VS 1-10.oUR RELATIONSHIP WITH cHRIST IS SECURE.Instead we should confess so that we can enjoy maximum fellowship and Joy with him. Also James ch5 vs16 James ch4vs8.Why are these thing written.?All born again christians struggle due to the presence of the old sin nature Adamic nature.We are being saved through this. It is called SANCTIFICATION PROCESS.Someday in the future when we are glorified there will be no sin in us Whom GOD justifies he SANCTIFIES AND WHOM HE SANTIFIES HE GLORIFIES.Also read 1peter 2vs1-3 AND COLLOSIANS 3VS1-10.All born again christians have and old sin nature and the bible talks of putting this under control of the holy spirit please read those scripture verses, Eternal security is als a major doctrine many dont seem to understand.Justification is God justifies a christian throug the blood of Christ even in his sinning state.Please ponder on these truths and may God Bless you

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Dear Sushil Melville,

Thanksfor you thoughts, but I have had this conversation with many over the years and have to keep reiterating that the word "confess" in First John 1:8-10 - is NOT used by John towards believers. Many people have extremely poor reading comprehension and end-up missing this no matter how much it's explained because they have rehearsed it the wrong way so many times it has become habit. Let me try again.

Please follow this very carefully and you might see what I am trying again to explain, then everything will begin to make sense:

"CONFESS" is a word that has been INCORRECTLY understood because of its misuse for ages and "christianized" to apply to believers but it is not. The "confess sins" instruction was an instruction to UNBELIEVERS to mentally acknowledge THE TRUTH that there IS such a thing as personal sin and offence against a Holy and righteous God. These individuals to whom John was writing,thought they had fellowship with God, but THEY WERE DECEIVED AND LIVED IN DARKNESS, OUTSIDE OF THE FELLOWSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CONCEPT OF SIN AND THEREFORE WERE UNABLE TO ACKNOWEDGE IT BEFORE GOD, REPENT, AND ENTER INTO CHRIST AND FELLOWSHIP IN THE LIGHT AS HE IS IN THE LIGHT. THEY WERE UNBELIEVERS WHO THOUGHT THEY KNEW GOD, BUT WERE DECEIVED.

John's logical argument to them because he loved them and desired them to be truly happy (Chapter 1 vs. 4) was that if they confess and acknowledge that they sin (if they were to say they are a sinner), that Christ would faithfully (as promised) forgive sin (the "Us" is added and is not in the original), and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. These UNBELIEVERS were told that if they walk in the light as He is in the light they will enjoy a mutual fellowship together in Christ, clean from ALL sins. (Ch. 1 vs. 7-8).A believer never needs to be cleansed from all or any unrighteousness, because they are made completely and totally righteous. Since all unrighteousness is sin, and a transgression of the Law of God, it is a judgeable and condemnable offence until it is judicially and legally absolved and forgiven by God who is the judge of the living and the dead.

ALL SIN IS OF THE DEVIL (1 John 3) and is a fruit of those who abide in the sphere of sin, and darkness and who are children of the Devil, John would have to contradict himself and call a believer a trangressor and son of the Devil if this were true. The "practice" of righteousness is the acceptance and acknowledgement of sin (confession), the changing of direction towards God in the acknowledgement of it, and the receiving of his total cleansing and provision of righteousness and holiness as a free gift.

I don't agree with your assessment under the Doctrine catagory. I understand entirely what you say and had believed similarly since I received Christ thirty years ago. In fact I don't blame anyone looking at these statements that A Christian Cannot Sin, and think I am some kind of a nut, I probably would have done the same and closed my mind to any idea of such blasphemy. But Look - Most people thought the world was flat.

There's something here that can liberate us from the tyranny of "religion", and of always trying to get to God, get closer to him, stay in him, please him and know him. The key is to understand that when one is Born of God they enter into the full experiance of Righteousness as a free gift - they have all of the Holy Spirit they are ever going to get - never more or less - thhat they are in the will of God and are oriented to him in every way because they are in Christ. Thats good enough. Not only is the believer free to see themselves in the finished work as no longer a sinner in the eyes of God, but they are fundamentally free to see their fellow "body members" in the same value as Christ sees them- as having no sin, and in the full value of perfection as God is content and well pleased to know then as.

In this mindset - when one takes up their cross, they are making the committment to be faithful to see themselves as holy and blameless and as without sin as Christ made them to be. They do not judge themselves for offences that have been judged, and do not judge others who have been given the same gift of life. The believer is free from death. They are free to abide in the Law of love without judgement towards themselves and others, they are free to rest in the ability of God to deal with behavior that needs allignment and with the correction of the love of God as he matures and guides both themselves and others, and they can stop trying to control everything and everybody. We are being conformed to the image of Christ, God is building the Church, God is reaching the lost, God is doing the saving, the convicting, and the leading.

Because of the Gospel that the Apostle John and Paul preached - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - I think it's OK for Believers to say "Thank you God for forgiving my sins and placing me as sinless within the Body of your Son Jesus Christ. Thank you God for filling me with all of yourself, and making me holy and granting me the gift of righteousness. Grant me the ability to rest completely in you and not judge myself or others whom you have also, by your Grace, made free from sin, as you have done for me. Help me to learn to Love and have compassion and not try to controll and manipulate myself or others to conform to outward standards that I think are right for the sake of making me feel comfortable, but may I point others to the comfort of the Christ who Loves unconditionally and who has given his life , and who serves Grace and mercy when It is not deserved, even when it is not appreciated or understood."

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

Martin L fails to grasp that the truths of divine revelation are full of paradoxes. Has he not noticed there appear to be many contradictions in the Bible? This is because truth can very often be expressed to the human mind only by two statements which appear to be antithetical.

Much harm is done when men like Martin L seize only one side of the paradox and teach it as if it were the whole truth. Others feel that they can easily "harmonize the apparent contradictions." Failing to appreciate that the full truth is a paradox, they bend one side of the paradox to "harmonize" with the other. This results in a distortion of the message of God's Word. Have you ever looked into a mirror which throws a distorted image of your figure? All your features may be there, but they are thrown out of proportion. Martin L's message is twisted distortion of the truth cause by using only one side of the two edged sword

Let me illustrate these principles of paradoxical truth with some concrete examples from the Word of God:

1. Fear and Confidence

The Bible writers commend that spirit which fears God and trembles at His Word (see Isa. 66:5; Phil. 2:12; Heb. 4:1; Rev. 14:7). They also exhort us to approach God with fearlessness: "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace...." "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter...." Heb. 4:16; 10:19.

Here is a paradox. We are admonished to live before God with fear and fearlessness, trembling and confidence. Luther, perceiving the truth of the paradox, said that the Christian must live in a sort of "desperate confidence."

Consider the serious distortion that will result from only stressing one side of the paradox. The timid soul, distrustful of self, needs the assurance that the great King on the eternal throne opens wide His everlasting portals to the trembling touch of a little child. On the other hand, the confident clamor of modern day familarity with the thrice-holy God so common among so many christians is dangerous. Many today need to be confronted with the truth that reverence and godly fear are the first law of worship. Our God is awful in majesty, holiness and sin-hating purity. The New Covenant did not change who God is! We must not dare to approach Him with any careless familiarity or to make of Him a popular somebody. Remember what Luther said about some of the radical spirits of Wittenberg? "They talk to God," complained the Reformer, "as if He were a shoemaker's apprentice." We too should protest against the irreverent familiarity of much popular revivalism. We do not need youth leaders who merely tell our young people to approach God with fearless boldness, lest they fall into the error of irreverent presumption. The youth need the whole truth of God's Word. When they are taught to fear the Majesty of heaven and to tremble at His judgment seat, then may they properly understand what it means to come boldly before Him by faith in the name of Jesus.

2. Rest and Activity

The gospel is a call to rest. The Lord invites us, "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28. And the apostle Paul says, "He that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His." Heb. 4:10 Yet the believer in Jesus is just as earnestly called to labor. Jesus adds, "Take My yoke [an instrument of toil and service] upon you. . . " Matt. 11:29. The apostle Peter admonished believers, giving all diligence, add to your faith.... give diligence to make your calling and election sure." 2 Peter 1:5, 10. Again he says, "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind...." 1 Peter 1:13.

Jesus and His apostles repeatedly call us to strive, labor, work, be careful to maintain good works, carry the cross, suffer, endure tribulation, fight the good fight and run the race with patience.

He who rests most fully upon Christ and His free grace will be the most earnest in active labor for Him. A continual emphasis on resting in Jesus and waiting on the Lord, to the exclusion of an adequate emphasis on the other side of the paradox, leads to mystical quietism. An exaggerated emphasis on the duty of Christian activity leads to pietistic activism. The true message of justification by grace through faith becomes obscured when either one of these truths is emphasised at the expense of the other.

3. Faith and Works

It was Melanchthon the reformer who said, "We are justified by faith alone; but the faith which justifies us is never alone." The great apostle Paul is noted for his insistence on faith as the only instrument to receive God's justifying grace. Yet Paul could be just as insistent on the necessity of a labor of love. No one will be saved by his good works; yet it is just as certain that no soul is saved who remains without good works.

People can become lazy through a one-sided emphasis on faith. Luther was led to complain about this. Of course, he was fully aware of the opposite error. The Reformer likened his efforts with some of his people to getting a drunken German peasant onto a horse — put him up on one side and he falls off the other. Some teachers will keep harping, "There is nothing for you to do. All you have to do is believe." We cannot deny that this is true.Christ alone Faith alone Grace alone is our only foundation. But many people do not understand Faith or Grace in the fullest sense. The preaching of the cross of Christ will create faith—a faith that will be busy and active in the service of God and man. Faith is not an opiate that lulls people to sleep. Faith is a stimulant that will stir all the energies of the soul. Never should the impression be given that good works are unnecessary or unimportant. No one can really read the practical teachings of Jesus and obtain this distorted impression.

Two things are clearly taught in Paul — justification by faith and a final judgment according to works. These two great truths may appear to be paradoxical, but both need to be taught. Martin L in his blinkered approach to scriptue fails to grasp this paradox and hops along like some Long John Silver appealing to us all to enjoy the pleasure of only having one good leg.

In his great classic on The Doctrine of Justification (reprinted by The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961). James Buchanan reports how his teacher, Dr. Chalmers, used to say, "I would have every preacher insist strenuously on these two doctrines—a present Justification by grace, through faith alone—and a future Judgment according to works." Buchanan adds, "And all faithful ministers have made use of both, that they might guard equally against the peril of self-righteous legalism, on the one hand, and of practical antinomianism on the other."—Pages 252, 253. Thank you Dr Stevens for being faithful to this truth.

4. Law and Gospel

The whole Bible may be divided into these two—----law and gospel. Law requires us to do, work and run the way of God's commandments. Anything that commands us what we should do, how we should live and what we must be, is law, e.g., "Love thy neighbor," "Be kindly affectioned one to another," "Love not the world,"" Live peaceably with all men." Law is not only taught in the Old Testament but all through the New Testament. On the other hand, the gospel says. "Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord," "Be still, and know that I am God." "Look unto me." "Believe and be saved" It does not tell us what our hand owes to God but proclaims what God's hand freely gives to us. In Jesus Christ, God gives us all that the law requires (Rom.10:4) — perfect righteousness for its fulfillment and perfect atonement for its satisfaction.

How could we know our sin and the greatness of our debt without the law? (Rom. 3:20; 7:7-13). He who has never had the law instruct him about the bitterness of his sin, could never appreciate the sweetness of the gospel of saving grace. Further, since the gospel gives us all that the law demands of us (Rom. 10:4), how can we appreciate what God gives unless we have first heard the law?

Law and gospel must be carefully distinguished. This is the cornerstone of the Reformation. Yet both must be preserved in proper tension.

The power of gospel preaching will be in proportion to the power of preaching the law. Let the law fall into disuse, and the gospel becomes a tame old tale, a mere sentiment, "cheap grace," a message that bores the world. Let the law be exalted and proclaimed as the expression of God's holy will, and sinners will cry out, "What must I do to be saved?" On the other hand, when the gospel is pushed aside, moralism, pharisaism and self-righteousness triumph, and the social-gospel advocates try to establish the kingdom of God by human activity.

If we are grounded in the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, we shall see that the gospel does not cancel out the law nor does the law weaken the free gift of the gospel. Neither can be neglected without neglecting the other.

We live in an age when authority is under fire, and back of all this is the human hostility against the authority of God, His government and His law. Much of today's so-called preaching of justification by faith by so-called Protestants, is wishy-washy sentimentalism that does not lead the hearers to repent of their transgression of God's holy law nor does it produce lives that show any great respect for the holiness of God. Such preaching bears no resemblance to the message of the Puritans, the Reformers and, least of all, the New Testament.

So then is Dr Stevens wrong when he says christians are sinners? According to Martin L, yes. Luther struggled with this problem until he produced the famous formula that became a firm plank in all Reformation theology — simul justu: et peccator, which means, at the same time righteous and a sinner. This is a tremendous paradox. The Roman Catholic party could not grasp it (and neither can this Martin L who spews his lack of bible comprehension on this forum). But the more this paradox is examined, the more it shines with light, throwing clarity on many otherwise unsolvable riddles.

The believer in Jesus is righteous before God because God pronounces him righteous for the sake of Christ. Further, he has, by the Spirit, become a new creature and has actually begun to be righteous in his experience. On the other hand, he must not imagine that he is without sin (1 John 1:8), must confess the sinfulness of his nature (Rom. 7:14-25) and must constantly plead the shed blood of Christ in that he continues to fall short of God's ideal in his best endeavors and holiest duties (Eccl. 1:20; Rom. 3:23). He still has a sinful nature the same as all men, and, because of this, the flesh fights against the Spirit and the Spirit fights against the flesh (Gal. 5:17).

In order to have a true view of the Christian life, both sides of the paradox need to be considered—-----daily victory over sins and the sinful nature by the indwelling power of God's Spirit on the one hand, and the inevitability of sinfulness on the other hand. We need to know that we are perfect in Christ, clothed with his righteousness and yet sinners in and of ourselves. I wonder would Martin L's wife like to advise us as to whether her husband is really sinless in his expierence...if the truth were only known.....!!!

Those who hold the ancient perfectionist error (Martin L) emphasize the victorious life and sinless life as the true christian life. This error dwells on such statements as, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." It emphasizes much truth that cold, formal orthodoxy needs to hear. However, this kind of teaching falls into the serious distortion that comes by too little attention to the other side of the paradox ------the inevitable sinfulness of all the saints (saved sinners ie sinners who are saved)in this life, which is graphically portrayed in Romans 7:14-25.1

Than you Dr Stevens for proclaiming to your hearers, of which I once was one, both sides of the two edged sword....that we are at the same time perfectly righteous and yet sinners.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Dear Old Friend -

The problem with the generic brand "X" of your brand of Christianity (as beautifully systematic and categorical as it is )is that - since you cannot reconcile the seeming "paradoxes" and "contradictions" you believe exist, you make up your own pseudo/scriptural aberrations to compensate. It only makes matters worse and builds upon a base of error. You try to put me in a box and discredit me, but all the while you discredit the very scriptures you use to support your ungodly "theories" about God. Although you neglect the Facts. I don't believe you are sinning and are a sinner though - you are just wrong and need to repent from it. I call it unwise and foolish and ungodly behavior - you can call it what you want.

Christ's Gospel of Grace is undeserved, unearned, and supernatural. It is God "doing" the saving and purification and cleansing. The vessel is clean and entirely fit for service to God because God made it to be that way. What the vessel (the Believer)does with the gift and by the decisions they make in response to the gift and relationship they have been GIVEN by God is both personal and accountable to God himself and for no-one else to judge. Those behaviors (good and bad) are within the ability of God to deal with and correct and mature or encourage, but they occur within the realm of and sphere of the sprit in which Christ has placed us as children of God.

The Glorious "NO SIN" Gospel was delivered to the unlearned and common person and was viewed as foolishness to the supposed thinking "intellectuals" (the Greeks) and a stumbling block to the religious crowd who had all the "spiritual learning" (like yourself). Its simple message - that Paul proclaimed "God came to save sinners - of which I WAS the greatest" is true. Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - Jesus has!

The Gospel was not a complicated set of doctrines. The doctrine of this and that in order to follow and keep and know and abide and cleanse and appropriate, etc. etc. The only justification I have to call myself a "non" sinner, and realize I cannot sin is Jesus Christ himself on the basis of the cross and resurrection. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Remember the Apostle John himself believed that One who is born of God cannot sin and is not able to. He said in First John 1

"That which was from the beginning (Christ), which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you (THE UNBELIEVER) that eternal life, which was from the Father and was manifested to us;)

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (THE UNBELIEVER), so that you may also have fellowship with us (THE BELIEVERS): and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

IN Chapter 3 vs. 7 - John says "LITTLE CHILDREN LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU... (VS 8)HE THAT SINS IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH (continues in sin)FROM THE BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE WAS THE SON OF GOD MANAFESTED - THAT HE WOULD DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL (sin is the works of the devil and Christ destroyed sin)

(verse 9) WHOEVER IS BORN OF GOD (Christians) DOES NOT COMMIT SIN; FOR HIS (the DNA of Christ’s sinless nature) SEED REMAINETH IN HIM: AND HE CANNOT SIN (is not able to ) BECAUSE HE IS BORN OF GOD!

Now - the problem here occurs if you are not willing to accept the truth "by faith" as you tell others to do. Since you as well as many Christians see themselves incorrectly as sinners, I can understand the difficulty you have with this passage because you would perceive it as an incitements that YOU are of the Devil. (which is not what I'm saying). Since you believe that as a saved person you are not of the devil and that you are not a child of the Devil - what is the paradox here and the solution? I say just think with God for once. Believe what Pastor John the Apostle says instead of Stevens or anybody else for that matter. You as a believer are not "IN SIN" - you are "IN CHRIST - and IN CHRIST THERE IS NOT SIN!!!!! Simply see yourself that way and there will be no conflict.

Here, I present a critical analysis of the common error the Apostle John warns about - and not to let anyone deceive you in this, and you think exactly what he told YOU not to. I think you have it backward. You are not at issue with me - your issue is with God and you need to change your direction and repent of it like you tell others to do.

"Old Friend" - instead of taking the advice you tell others to - you are a hypocrite and hide behind you credentials and office - but you are responsible to preach the truth no matter what the cost. I say you need to stand for the Bible like you tell others to do - but you don't. Many pastors like yourself don't stand for truth because it wouldn't be popular. They couldn't control others when they would not have any "sin" to talk about. and that might bring resolution to the conflict and all you can do is reiterate the same old, same old instead of considering what I have had to say. Instead of considering the what if and thinking it through - you read from the Doctrine weekly booklet or some facsimile that has been the textbook of incorrect suppositions in the first place.

My question is why can't you accept the fact that I'm right on First John. That it wasn't written to Christians, and that because of that True fact, you are unwilling to repent from the error and rethink your entire system of false suppositions.

I really am not as concerned personally with you or Carl Stevens as I am with the entire system you preach about. I am in amazement and marvel that no-one can see this, despite the fact that I have brought it down to 3rd grade level.

We are not even talking about doctrine and spiritual principals at this point, We are talking about basic language and context, and English comprehension and critical thinking here.

Come-on Old Friend - you can do better than that!

Let's explore some exciting prospects that will set you free instead of settling for the bondage of Sin in the believers life and listening to Satan’s lie and teaching others the kind of garbage John warns about.

I am convinced that since the Devil could not keep Christ from paying the debt and penalty for sin and fulfilling the Law - once and for all - the only thing he could do is defraud the Believer from their true inheritance through a lie, and have those who suppose themselves to be the bearers of Good news, dish-out a half baked version of gospel. No wonder the Church is emaciated and sick and hurting and ineffective. They are so consumed with battling and overcoming their own "supposed" sins and bickering over the supposed sins of others - they don't even realize that the war has been over.

I wouldn't be so thankful to anyone who is willing to Go against "Gods man" and teach the opposite of the Scriptures. The Apostle John (whom Jesus Loved) has allot more authority than Stevens or any other pastor or teacher.

The question is: When the "Bible Speaks... are YOU willing to EVER really listen?

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Dear Old Friend(s) -

Perhaps if you all get-off your high horses and instead of reading just one post and building your stand against me on it - read some of the others which I haven taken the time to be more specific and defer to Pastor John the Apostle's take on. I suspect that your listening skills are just as bad as your reading skills and you probably take the same sloppy approach to the Bible you pride yourself in knowing about what I have shared.

The issue is simple - like Pastor Paul the Apostle said: that it is all about knowing what it means to know Christ and Him Crucified, and nothing else. Since we (as believers) were also crucified with him (The old sin man) then it has to do with knowing who we are in him as well.

I challenge anyone who wants to argue about the context of First John to stay with the subject here on this forum of false teachings. Ask some intelligent questions like "What about this or what about that? instead of just saying your doctrine. Show me you have some analyitical skills and a willingness to converse on a particular and specific idea. Then we can take it to the next step. IN THIS LETTER of FIRST JOHN. Let's put this one small but powerful book behind us.

I will listen to what you have to say specificlly and logically - if you listen to me. Then we evaluate what can be substantiated as fact and agree on it, then we apply this understanding to look at how it might relate to the rest of the letter from John and then to the Episletory literature of the New Testament. OK?

You see it a different way - I know - but that does not mean you and everybody else is right (or that I am) - What makes you think that the early Church fathers - or Luther or the footnotes notes in your Bible are correct on this. Lets start with a blank slate.

Who thinks that John is speaking to Believers and give me some specifics? Within the book. Keep to the book. Look at the language, the concepts, and the terms like "light" and "darkness"

I say John was speaking to Gnostics who though they knew God and yet who, in fact and in reality, did not! I think John was the last Apostle who was facing one of the greatest lies and deceptions to cpme against the church sinc its inception. Who were the Gnostics and what were their beliefs of God and Jesus, and truth, and light and darkness? Did they think they knew God? What secrets did they believe in and teach others to believe in? And what do you think the people the Apostle John was speaking to believed about God and where did they get their ideas about it? In other words, at that time in history, what was being taught that John started writing his letter the way he did? What was the deception he was warning about and what supports your thinking on this?

Let's keep it simple and uncomplicated. John was a simple and plain kind of guy, whereas the Apostle Paul was a brilliant and logical and methodical thinker who had known the Jewish religion from both sides of the track.We migh even be able to talk about some of the statements he made that have been wrongly interpreted.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

TO ALL READERS:

IF YOU WISH TO SEE MORE OF THE ISSUES CONCERNING THESE POSTINGS OF MINE AND MY FRIENDS GO TO THE FORUM "THE FALSE TEACHINGS OF CARL H. STEVENS"

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

Martin L, I have below posted a sermon from Wesley on sin in the believer. While I do not heartily concur with everything he says on this subject that eminent scripture scholar and historian makes it abundantly clear that the doctrine you hold on this subject was nowhere heard of until the 1700's. No reformed church ever taught it and no church from the beginning ever taught it. According to your theory then, all churches from the beginning were in error on this subject. Paul got it wrong , Peter got it wrong, the Fathers got it wrong, The Reformers got it wrong but you have got it right! Wow! Can you really be that arrogant?

As for the question of to whom 1 John was writted I will do as you suggest and re-read the book. I will let you know my conclusions in due season....and no I won't try to support my doctrine by reading into the passage what I want it to say. I leave that exercise to you since you are already wonderfully skilled at so doing.

Wesley wrote....
I. Is there then sin in him that is in Christ? Does sin remain in one that believes in Him? Is there any sin in them that are born of God, or are they wholly delivered from it? Let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity; or, that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. Rather, it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian, the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness.

And yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive church. Indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. And so far as I have ever observed, the whole body of ancient Christians, who have left us anything in writing, declare with one voice that even believers in Christ, till they are "strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might," have need to "wrestle with flesh and blood," with an evil nature, as well as "with principalities and powers."

And herein our own church (as indeed in most points) exactly copies after the primitive; declaring in her ninth article, "Original sin is the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby every man is in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin."

The testimony is given by all other churches; not only by the Greek and Romish churches; but by every reformed church in Europe, of whatever denomination. Indeed some of these seem to carry the thing too far; so describing the corruption of heart in a believer, as scarce to allow that he has dominion over it, but rather is in bondage thereto; and by this means, they leave hardly any distinction between a believer and an unbeliever.

To avoid this extreme, many well meaning men, particularly those under the direction of the late Count Zinzendorf, ran into another, affirming that "all true believers are not only saved from the dominion of sin, but from the being of inward as well as outward sin, so that it no longer remains in them." And from them, about twenty years ago, many of our countrymen imbibed the same opinion, that even corruption is no more in those who believe in Christ.

It is true that when the Germans were pressed upon this head, they soon allowed, (many of them, at least,) that "sin did still remain in the flesh, but not in the heart of a believer"; and after a time, when the absurdity of this was shown, they fairly gave up the point, allowing that sin did still remain, though not reign, in him that is born of God.

But the English, who had received it from them, (some directly, some at second or third hand,) were not easily prevailed upon to part with a favorite opinion; and even when the generality of them were convinced it was utterly indefensible, a few could not be persuaded to give it up, but maintain it to this day.

II. For the sake of those who really fear God, and desire to know "the truth as it is in Jesus," it may not be amiss to consider the point with calmness and impartiality. In this, I use indifferently the words, regenerate, justified, or believers; since, though they have not precisely the same meaning, (the first implying an inward, actual change, the second a relative one, and the third the means whereby both the one and the other wrought) yet they come to one and the same thing, as every one that believes is both justified and born of God.

By sin, I here understand inward sin, any sinful temper, passion or affection, such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree, such as lust, anger, peevishness, any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ.
The question is not concerning outward sin, whether a child of God commit sin or no. We all agree and earnestly maintain, "He that committeth sin is of the devil." We agree, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." Neither do we now inquire whether inward sin will always remain in the children of God; whether sin will continue in the soul, as long as it continues in the body; nor yet do we inquire whether a justified person may relapse either into inward or outward sin; but simply this: Is a justified or regenerated man freed from all sin as soon as he is justified? Is there then no sin in his heart?—nor ever after, unless he fall from grace?

We allow that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious. He is born again, "not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." He is a child of God, a member of Christ, an heir of the kingdom of heaven. "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keepeth his heart and mind in Christ Jesus." His very body is a "temple of the Holy Ghost," and a "habitation of God through the Spirit." He is "created anew in Christ Jesus;" he is washed, he is sanctified. His heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed "from the corruption that is in the world"; "the love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto him." And so long as he "walketh in love," (which he may always do) he worships God in spirit and in truth. He keepeth the commandments of God, and doeth those things that are pleasing in His sight; so exercising himself as to "have a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man"; and he has power both over outward and inward sin, even from the moment he is justified.

Ill. But was he not then freed from all sin, so that there is no sin in his heart? I cannot say this; I cannot believe it; because Paul says to the contrary. He is speaking to believers, and describing the state of believers in general, when he says, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: these are contrary one to the other" (Gal. v.17). Nothing can be more express. The apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit, even in believers; that even in the regenerate, there are two principles, "contrary one to the other."

Again: when he writes to the believers at Corinth, to those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, (1 Cor. i: 2), he says, "I, brethren, could not speak unto you, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. Ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal?" (ch. iii. vers. 1-3). Now here the apostle speaks unto those who were unquestionably believers,~whom in the same breath he styles his brethren in Christ, as being still, in a measure, carnal. He affirms, there was envying (an evil temper), occasioning strife among them, and yet does not give the least intimation that they had lost their faith. Nay, he manifestly declares they had not; for then they would not have been babes in Christ. And (what is most remarkable of all) he speaks of being carnal, and babes in Christ, as one and the same thing; plainly showing that every believer is (in a degree) carnal, while he is only a babe in Christ.

Indeed, this grand point, that there are two contrary principles in believers, nature and grace, the flesh and the Spirit, runs through the epistles of St. Paul, yea, through all the Holy Scriptures; almost all the directions and exhortations therein, are founded on this supposition, pointing at wrong tempers or practices in those who are, notwithstanding, acknowledged by the inspired writers to be believers. And they are continually exhorted to fight with and to conquer these, by the power of the faith which was in them.

And who can doubt that there was faith in the angel of the church of Ephesus, when our Lord said to him, "I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience: thou hast patience, and for my name's sake hast labored and hast not fainted" (Rev. ii. 2-4). But was there, meantime, no sin in his heart? Yea, or Christ would not have added, "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." This was a real sin which God saw in his heart; of which, accordingly, he is exhorted to repent; and yet we have no authority to say that even then he had no faith.

Nay, the angel of the church at Pergamos, also, is exhorted to repent, which implies sin, though our Lord expressly says, "Thou hast not denied my faith" (v. 13-16.) And to the angel of the church in Sardis, he says, "Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die." The good which remained was ready to die; but was not equally dead (chap. iii. 2.) So there was still a spark of faith even in him; which he is accordingly commanded to hold fast (ver. 3.)

Once more: when the apostle exhorts believers to "cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit" (2 Cor. vii. 1) he plainly teaches that those believers were not yet cleansed therefrom.

Will you answer, "He that abstains from all appearance of evil," does ipso facto "cleanse themselves from all filthiness." Not in any wise. For instance: a man reviles me; I feel resentment, which is filthiness of spirit; yet I say not a word. Here I "abstain from all appearance of evil"; but this does not cleanse me from that filthiness of spirit, as I experience to my sorrow.

And as this position, there is no sin in a believer, no carnal mind, no bent to backsliding, is thus contrary to the word of God, so it is to the experience of his children. These continually feel a heart bent to backsliding, a natural tendency to evil, a proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. They are daily sensible of sin remaining in the heart, pride, self-will, unbelief; and of sin cleaving to all they speak or do, even their best actions and holiest duties. Yet at the same time they "know that they are of God"; they cannot doubt it for a moment. They feel his Spirit clearly "witnessing with their spirit, that they are the children of God." They "rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement." So that they are equally assured, that sin is in them, and that "Christ is in them the hope of glory."

"But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is?" Undoubtedly he can. Otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. Where the sickness is, there is the physician,
"Carrying on His work within,
Striving till He cast out sin."
Christ indeed cannot reign where sin reigns; neither will He dwell where any sin is allowed. But He is and dwells in the heart of every believer who is fighting against all sin; although it be not yet purified, according to the purification of the sanctuary.

It has been observed before that the opposite doctrine, that there is no sin in believers, is quite new in the church of Christ; that it was never heard of for seventeen hundred years; never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendonf. I do not remember to have seen the least intimation of it, either in any ancient or modern writer; unless, perhaps, in some of the wild, ranting Antinomians. And these likewise say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin in their flesh, although no sin in the heart. But whatever doctrine is new must be wrong; for the old religion is the only true one; and no doctrine can be right, unless it is the very same "which was from the beginning."
One argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. One says, "I felt anger today." Must I reply, "Then you have no faith"? Another says, "I know what you advise is good, but my will is quite averse to it." Must I tell him, "Then you are an unbeliever, under the wrath and the curse of God"? What will be the natural consequence of this? Why, if he believe what I say, his soul will not only be grieved and wounded, but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch as he will "cast away" that "confidence which hath great recompense of reward"; and having cast away his shield, how shall he "quench the fiery darts of the wicked one"? How shall he "overcome the world"?—seeing "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." He stands disarmed in the midst of his enemies, open to all their assaults. What wonder, then, if he be utterly overthrown; if they take him captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wickedness to another, and never see good any more? I cannot therefore by any means receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; first, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture; secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children 6f God; thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; and lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal consequences, not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.

IV. However, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavor to support it. And it is from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. They argue thus: "The Scripture says, Every believer is born of God, is clean, is holy, is sanctified, is pure in heart, has a new heart, is a temple of the Holy Ghost. Now, as 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh,' is altogether evil, so 'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,' is altogether good. Again: a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy. He cannot be pure and impure, or have a new and an old heart together. Neither can his soul be unholy while it is a temple of the Holy Ghost."
I have put this objection as strong as possible, that its full weight may appear. Let us now examine it, part by part. And, 1. "'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit' is altogether good." I allow the text, but not the comment. For the text affirms this, and no more, That every man who is "born of the Spirit" is a spiritual man. He is so. But so he may be, and yet not be altogether spiritual. The Christians at Corinth were spiritual men, else they had been no Christians at all; and yet they were not altogether spiritual; they were still, in part, carnal. "But they were fallen from grace." St. Paul says no. They were even then babes in Christ. 2. "But a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy." Indeed he may. So the Corinthians were. "Ye are washed," says the apostle, "ye are sanctified"; namely, cleansed from "fornication, idolatry, drunkenness," and all other outward sin (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11); and yet, at the same time, in another sense of the word, they were unsanctified; they were not washed, not inwardly cleansed from envy, evil surmising, partiality. "But sure they had not a new heart and an old heart together." It is most sure they had, for at that very time their hearts were truly, yet not entirely renewed. Their carnal mind was nailed to the cross, yet it was not wholly destroyed. "But could they be unholy while they were 'temples of the Holy Ghost'?" Yes; that they were temples of the Holy Ghost is certain (1 Cor. vi. 19), and it is equally certain they were in some degree carnal, that is, unholy.

"However, there is one Scripture more which will put the matter out of question: 'If any man be (a believer) in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new' (2 Cor. v.17). Now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once." Yes, he may; he may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. They were doubtless "renewed in the spirit of their mind," or they could not have been so much as "babes in Christ"; yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they envied one another. "But it is said expressly, 'Old things are passed away; all things are become new.' " But we must not so interpret the apostle's words as to make him contradict himself. And if we will make him consistent with himself, the plain meaning of the words is this: His old judgment concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed, concerning the things of God in general, is now passed away; so are his old desires, designs, affections, tempers, and conversation. All these are undeniably become new, greatly changed from what they were. And yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. Still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the "old man," too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, though they cannot gain any advantage over him as long as he watches unto prayer.

This whole argument, "If he is holy, he is holy" (and twenty more expressions of the same kind may easily be heaped together), is really no better than playing upon words; it is the fallacy of arguing from a particular to a general of inferring a conclusion from particular premises. Propose the sentence entire and it runs thus: "If he is holy at all, he is holy altogether." That does not follow; every babe in Christ is holy, and yet not altogether so. He is saved from sin, yet not entirely; it remains, though it does not reign. If you think it does not remain (in babes, at least, whatever be the case with young men or fathers), you certainly have not considered the height, and depth, and length, and breadth of the law of God (even the law of love laid down by St. Paul in the thirteenth of Corinthians), and that every disconformity to, or deviation from this law, is sin. Now is there no disconformity to this in the heart or life of a believer? What may be in an adult Christian is another question; but what a stranger must he be to human nature who can possibly imagine that this is the case with every babe in Christ?

"But believers walk after the Spirit (Romans viii. 1) and the Spirit of God dwells in them; consequently they are delivered from the guilt and power, or in one word, the being of sin."
These are coupled together as if they were the same thing. But they are not the same thing. The guilt is one thing, the power another, and the being yet another. That believers are delivered from the guilt and power of sin we allow; that they are delivered from the being of it we deny. Nor does it in any wise follow from these texts. A man may have the Spirit of God dwelling in him, and may "walk after the Spirit," though he still feels "the flesh lusting against the Spirit."

"But the 'Church is the body of Christ' (Col. i. 24); this implies that its members are washed from all filthiness; otherwise it will follow that Christ and Belial are incorporated with each other."

Nay, it will not follow from hence, "Those who are the mystical body of Christ still feel the flesh lusting against the Spirit," that Christ has any fellowship with the devil, or with that sin which he enables them to resist and overcome.
"But are not Christians 'come to the heavenly Jerusalem,' where 'nothing defiled can enter'?" (Heb. xii. 22). Yes; "and to an innumerable company of angels, and to the spirits of just men made perfect"; that is,
"Earth and heaven all agree,
All in one great family."
And they are likewise holy and undefiled while they "walk after the Spirit," although sensible there is another principle in them, and that "these are contrary to each other."

"But Christians are reconciled to God. Now this could not be if any of the carnal mind remained, for this is enmity against God; consequently, no reconciliation can be effected but by its total destruction."

We are "reconciled to God through the blood of the cross," and in that moment the corruption of nature, which is enmity with God, is put under our feet; the flesh has no more dominion over us. But it still exists; and it is still in its nature enmity with God, lusting against his Spirit.

"But 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts' "(Gal. v.24). They have so, yet it remains in them still, and often struggles to break from the cross. "Nay, but they have 'put off the old man with his deeds' " (Col. iii. 9). They have, and in the sense above described, "old things are passed away; all things are become new." A hundred texts may be cited to the same effect, and they will all admit of the same answer. "But to say all in one word, 'Christ gave himself for the Church, that it might be holy and without blemish' " (Eph. v.25-27). And so it will be in the end; but it never was yet, from the beginning to this day.

"But let experience speak; all who are justified do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin." That I doubt; but if they do, do they find it ever after? Else you gain nothing. "If they do not, it is their own fault." That remains to be proved.
"But in the very nature of things, can a man have pride in him and not be proud; anger, and yet not be angry?"

A man may have pride in him, may think of himself in some particulars above what he ought to think (and so be proud in that particular), and yet not be a proud man in his general character. He may have anger in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, without giving way to it. "But can anger and pride be in that heart where only meekness and humility are felt?" No; but some pride and anger may be in that heart where there is much humility and meekness.

"It avails not to say, these tempers are there, but they do not reign; for sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign; for guilt and power are essential properties of sin. Therefore, where one of them is, all must be."

Strange indeed! "Sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign." Absolutely contrary, this, to all experience, all Scripture, all common sense. Resentment of an affront is sin; it is disconformity to the law of love. This has existed in me a thousand times; yet it did not and does not reign. "But guilt and power are essential properties of sin; therefore where one is all must be." No; in the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all, no condemnation from God upon that account. And in this case it has no power; though it lusteth against the Spirit, it cannot prevail. Here, therefore, as in ten thousand instances, there is sin without either guilt or power.

"But the supposing sin in a believer is pregnant with everything frightful and discouraging. It implies the contending with a power that has the possession of our strength, maintains his usurpation of our hearts, and there prosecutes the war in defiance of our Redeemer." Not so; the supposing sin is in us does not imply that it has the possession of our strength, any more than a man crucified has the possession of those that crucify him. As little does it imply that "sin maintains its usurpation of our hearts." The usurper is dethroned; he remains indeed where he once reigned, but remains in chains. So that he does, in some sense, "prosecute the war," yet he grows weaker and weaker, while the believer goes on from strength to strength, conquering and to conquer.

"I am not satisfied yet; he that hath sin in him is a slave to sin. Therefore you suppose a man to be justified while he is a slave to sin. Now if you allow men may be justified while they have pride, anger, or unbelief in them; nay, if you aver, these are (at least for a time) in all that are justified, what wonder that we have so many proud, angry, unbelieving believers?"

I do not suppose any man who is justified is a slave to sin, yet I do suppose sin remains (at least for a time) in all that are justified.

"But if sin remains in a believer, he is a sinful man if pride, for instance, then he is proud; if self-will, then he is self-willed; if unbelief, then he is an unbeliever; consequently, no believer at all. How, then, does he differ from unbelievers, from unregenerate men?" This is still mere playing with words. It means no more than if there is sin, pride, self-will in him, then—there is sin, pride, self-will. And this nobody can deny. In that sense, then, he is proud or self-willed. But he is not proud or self-willed in the same sense that unbelievers are, that is, governed by pride or self-will. They obey sin, he does not. Flesh is in them both, but they walk after the flesh; he walks after the Spirit.

"But how can unbelief be in a believer?" That word has two meanings. It means either no faith, or little faith; either the absence of faith or the weakness of it. In the former sense, unbelief is not in a believer; in the latter, it is in all babes. Their faith is commonly mixed with doubt or fear, that is, in the latter sense, with unbelief. "Why are ye fearful (says the Lord), oh ye of little faith?" Again, "Oh thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" You see here was unbelief in believers; little faith and much unbelief.

"But this doctrine, that sin remains in a believer, that a man may be in the favor of God while he has sin in his heart, certainly tends to encourage men in sin." Understand the proposition right, and no such consequence follows. A man may be in God's favor though he feel sin, but not if he yield to it. Having sin does not forfeit the favor of God; giving way to sin does. Though the flesh in you "lust against the Spirit," you may still be a child of God; but if you "walk after the flesh" you are a child of the devil. Now this doctrine does not encourage to obey sin, but to resist it with all your might.

V. The sum of all this: There are in every person, even after he is justified, two contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul, the flesh and the Spirit. Hence, though even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. In a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet, in a degree, they are carnal. Accordingly, believers are continually exhorted to watch against the flesh, as well as the world and the devil. And to this agrees the constant experience of the children of God. While they feel the witness in themselves, they feel a will not wholly resigned to the will of God. They know they are in Him, and yet find a heart ready to depart from Him, a proneness to evil in many instances, and a backwardness to that which is good. The contrary doctrine is wholly new—never heard of in the Church of Christ, from the time of His coming into the world, till the time of Count Zinzendorf; and it is attended with the most fatal consequence. It cuts off all watching against our evil nature, against the Delilah which we are told is gone, though she is still lying in our bosom. It tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith, and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Let us, therefore, hold fast the sound doctrine "once delivered to the saints," and delivered down by them, with the written word, to all succeeding generations; that although we are renewed, cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether; but the flesh, the evil nature, still remains, though subdued, and wars against the Spirit. So much the more let us use all diligence in "fighting the good fight of faith." So much the more earnestly let us "watch and pray" against the enemy within. The more carefully let us take to ourselves, and "put on the whole armor of God," that, although "we wrestle" both "with flesh and blood, and with principalities, and powers, and wicked spirits in high places," we "may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

My Old friend

To the contrary - the Apostles John and Paul both spoke at length on the death of Sin, it is the doctrine of man that has distorted it, and yes it began to be distorted in the very beginning by false teachers like yourself who perpetuate the lie. Satan started the lie, that Christians sin, as a way of robbing the Believer of their true inheritance as Saints.

The only way to unravel the twisted yarn and the "Not so good news Gospel" you preach is to go through First John and Romans. Piece by piece as starters. If we cannot establish concretely and unequivocally, the context of those Letters, and the subjects to whom they have been written, there is no use going any further and discussing any doctrine - at least between us!

The debate you post is nice and speaks on many doctrinal issues, but the issues would not be suspect if the message had been clearly understood in the first place.

The "No sin" Gospel can’t be all that hard to understand. Either I’m free or I’m not. Either I’m a slave to sin or I am a slave to righteousness. Either I abide in the sphere of the flesh or I abide in the sphere of the spirit of God. Either I am dead (in sin) or I am alive “In Christ”.

Either sin has been put to death on the cross, i.e.: no longer alive, or, according to your gospel, it lingers as some half mangled “road- kill”, dragging its bleeding carcass and guts across the road after it was run over by a car.

Old Friend - please stick to the subject that I initially asked to correspond about. To whom was the Apostle John writing, and why do you think so. A discussion please!!!

[dave (4.242.204.103)]

Martin L.

"Either sin has been put to death on the cross, i.e.: no longer alive, or, according to your gospel, it lingers as some half mangled “road- kill”, dragging its bleeding carcass and guts across the road after it was run over by a car."

I just skimmed through what is going on and have not read everything, but are you saying that after Christ was crucified we no longer sin at all?

[Anonymous (4.139.90.80)]

PLEASE... monosyllabic responses are prefered!

[Sushil Melville (202.63.181.160)]

Martin.Are you saying a truly born again christian arrives at SINLESS PERFECTION STAGE?And so never ever commits a sin ? Could you explain Romans 7 CHAPTER .

[Anonymous (4.139.18.209)]

Thank you Sushil Melville for the "abbreaviated version."

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Sushil -

Label it whatever you want. UNBELIEVERS are "IN SIN", that is what seperates them from intimate fellowship and intercourse with The Father and The Son. Sin is never used in the bible in any other sence than a serious offence and seperating pricipal. It is used as a term describing the abode of the unbeliever. Sin = darkness and lostness and enmity. Sin is not anything less that the most repugnant, defilement against holiness. God is holy. He does not fellowship with darkness, There is no darkness in him. He cannot make his home withing a body of sin. These are just a few reasons what is called sin is not in the Child of God. It is in the child of the devil. This is how you can understand what it is.

The wages of sin is DEATH and ETERNAL SEPERATION FROM GOD. If it is eternal seperation from god, either it has to be completely eliminated, or else the person who is "IN SIN" would continue to abide in eternal death and seperation from God.

I will post my most recent explanation of 1st John terminology if that will help. Then I will have to look at Romans 7 and get back to you on that one.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Good morning everyone in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Today we will conclude the issue on the matter of First John 1.

Since no one has taken the thing further, I will continue.

The word “CONFESS”, as in “confess our sins”, in First John 1:9, is defined in Strong’s dictionary of Greek words. It is listed as #3670 and in its basic form means “to assent and acknowledge”. The word “assent” in Webster’s means “the acceptance of an opinion or proposal – to concur” . The word “Accept” means in Webster’s: “To take what is offered – and receive it, to approve, and to submit to and resign oneself to the thing – to believe.”

The Greek root derivative of the word “Confess” IS #3674 AND 3056 in Strong’s. They mean the inclusion of the thought in ones reasoning of the mind – a discourse of reasoning in computation.

Therefore the word “CONFESS” has a much deeper meaning than commonly used within today’s communication and comprehension.

So it is my opinion, taking in all the information from the authoritative sources of language and context, that when John was speaking to a group of unsaved “Gnostics”. The letter he was writing was evangelistic in nature, and when he was telling them to “CONFESS” their “SIN”, it was part of his discourse of logic concerning the thing so they could correctly think about how to have true “fellowship” (Intimacy and spiritual intercourse with) himself, and with the Father , and with the Son.

In light of this it should be recognized that to John, Sin was the most definite issue here with these “unbelievers” at this one particular point of John’s “negotiations” with their understanding. Since they were “in darkness” and were not yet within the light of fellowship with God because of it, John was appealing for them to reason the thing to the conclusion that after careful thought and calculation , they would give it-up; that they would accept the proposal (if one were to say) and submit and resign themselves to the fact.

The finalization of this matter of John’s appeal and negotiation with these Gnostic unbeliever’s minds, was that, by accepting and receiving the truth, they would receive the “cleansing from sin” through the blood of Jesus Christ God’s Son.
Thus the John 3:16 declaration that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life” is understood as the impetus behind Johns writing. 1st John was not written to Christians and Believers, any more than John 3:16 was; it was written to unbelievers.

Johns warning to the UNBELIEVER was that if they say they have no sin (to confess), they “DECIEVE” themselves and the truth is not in them; as “sinners” they have no fellowship, and they remain and abide in darkness.

John’s hope and encouragement to them was the reward of experiencing the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing from All unrighteousness (vs. 9).

John reiterates in vs10 for clarification purposes, that if they insist on saying “they have not sinned” and continue in their offended a Holy God who is light, they would be calling God a liar, and the truth would not be anywhere to be found in their false belief.

The entire false assumption and application of this evangelistic letter is that it was written to Christians and it was NOT. If the explanation of this is not satisfactory, let me know, but in light of what I can understand and do some basic homework on, the Doctrine of the Believer “confessing” their sins, as inferred by the wrong interpretation and application of this book and Johns teaching here, is wrong and needs to be adjusted big-time. My challenge here is to take the foundation of true understanding and work-out the rest of the book correctly and then see how the doctrine changes, and how understanding becomes enlightened, and how freedom and liberty unfold. Jesus promised that in knowing the truth we will be set free!

It is so easy to skim over important information which is plainly recorded in the Word of God for our benefit. Words have been used or understood sloppily and assumptions have been made on their understanding based on today’s sloppy language comprehension.

One last false assumption which is almost universally and incorrectly made by Believers is that because an Apostle is writing, and because his letter is included in what has been accepted as the Canon of Scripture, that they are automatically writing to Christians. It’s not to say that the Believer cannot benefit from the understanding of the communication, but their benefit may be more in understanding how to communicate with the lost and issues concerning them, than how to follow Christ personally.

There will undoubtedly be many “what abouts” that the mind will begin to want to answer in light of the new information you have received today. Relax and take it a little at a time. It is not an overnight thing to correctly understand writings that have been portrayed in a different light. Doctrine gets mixed-up with the wrong phrases and incorrectly tied to the wrong teachings. – That’s part of the difficulty of working through Carl Stevens teachings that have been built upon misunderstandings of the Bible, no matter how studied and sincere he is. The teaching that Christians confess their sins is false. That is why later-on in the letter of 1st John 3:4-10, he states that One who is Born of God is not able to sin, because that sin, that kept them in darkness as an unbeliever had been forgiven and they, as a person, were made “CLEAN” (gleaming white, free from dirt, contaminates and impurities; sinless). Look it up!

John is not contradicting himself in one place saying there is no sin in those who are born of God, and in the other place saying that Unbelievers who say they have no sin will remain and abide in darkness – outside of fellowship with God, and are in denial of the truth. It makes perfect sense. The unbeliever who recognizes the folly of their thinking, and receives the truth, gets cleaned from their sin – they do not have it any longer because they have been cleaned. What part of “clean” and “forgiven” don’t you understand?

The word “Forgive” here in 1st John is the word # 863 in Strong’s. It means to send forth, yield, forsake and sent away. From the root word # 575, which means “ usually denoted as separation, departure, cessation, completion and reversal.

THE UNBELIEVER SAYS “BYE BYE” TO SIN and THE BELIEVER NEVER LOOKS BACK.

BYE, BYE

MARTIN L.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Dave

Yes - in answer to you question, and if we both understand the correct meaning of what sin is, the unbeliever, once thay become a child of God, cannot sin (Like Pastor John the Apostle said in the 3rd chapter of 1st John. In light of correct understanding of sin.

The challange here will be how to correctly understand behavior "in Christ" spiritually and correctly by the Word of God. But that is the next issue and we have not even gotten throgh the first.

I will say this much, not to get too offtrac - Believers are accountable to live Godly and fruitful lives; walking in a manner that shows wisdom, and maturity as they grow in the Grace and Knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are to walk in a manner worthy of their calling, but they are not ever "in sin". The Believer is "IN Christ" otherwise they would be constantly falling into seperation and Jesus would have to be constantly "bailing them-out" everytime they fall out of fellowship. This is not what the Bible means when it says "He ever liveth to make intercession as our high priest"

That's another issue

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Sushil

I will be back on the Romans 7 thing when I get a chance

Thanks, Martin L

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

I John, to whom written?

Martin L insists the epistle of 1 John was written to the Gnostics and not to believers. I do not intend to list all the instances of where he is wrong but will take just a few and them make some comments

2:7 John calls the recipient of his letter BRETHREN! These brethren had partaken of the word since the beginning. These same Brethren he addresses, not as little children, but as MY LITTLE CHILDREN.(2:1) Are we then to believe that John’s spiritual children are in fact unsaved and children of darkness? These little children to whom he refers also have an advocate with the Father. Only the redeemed have a present advocate to represent them. Surely Martin L does not believe that Christ Jesus is presently representing the unsaved enemies of the gospel as their mediator!

In 2:8, we read that for his listeners the darkness has past…hardly a truth for unbelievers.

In 2:9-12 He teaches that if they are in the light they will love their brothers. Martin, are you saying that he is concerned that the Gnostics should love one another? This is the obvious conclusion if the letter is written to Gnostics.

IN 2:12, his readers, the little children, have had their sins forgiven for His name’s sake. So, Martin, are we now to believe that the Gnostics are part of the redeemed community? Since you insist this letter is written to Gnostics we must, in the light of this scripture, accept them then as blood washed. If blood washed they are then believers. If they are believers then we must conclude that believers can also sin.

2:20, Wow!! I didn’t realize Gnostics had the unction of the Holy One! Cool

2:21, History teaches that Gnosticism was a heresy. They did not understand the Gospel, failing to grasp that God had manifested himself in flesh. However, if this letter is written to them then we have been all wrong about them for John says to them, “I have not written to you because ye know not the truth but because ye know it.

2:24, John’s readers are to continue in the Son and in the Father. Once more we must conclude the Gnostics to be Christian believers if indeed the recipients of this epistle are, as you insist, Gnostics.

2:26, Some one is trying to seduce these Gnostics and John warns them about this. Come on Martin, knock it off! Do you really expect anyone to believe that this letter is an evangelistic tract written to Gnostics to convert them? Who in the world would try to seduce Gnostics with bad doctrine? Furthermore why would John warn them. Oh maybe John just doesn’t want their doctrine to get any worse..LOL

2:27 These Gnostics have an abiding anointing.

2:28 These Gnostics are to continue abiding in Christ? Again, if they are in Christ they are believers…..not Gnostics

2:28 These Gnostics, as you call them, as they continue abiding in Christ are to have confidence and not be ashamed at the return of the Lord. Now that’s priceless Martin. If John is trying to convert them how can he tell them they have an abiding anointing and that they are to look with confidence towards the appearing of our Lord.

But why should we concern ourselves about your view of 1 John? Among other reasons, If what you teach is correct Martin, then the doctrine of Sanctification becomes obsolete. Furthermore, the work of the Spirit in conforming us to the image of God’s Son is made redundant. In addition, if you are already sinless there remains no more need of an advocate mediator. Christ the High Priest can retire. However, for we lesser mortals who still find the flesh lusting against the Spirit, we are delighted that we still have an advocate with the Father who ever lives to make intercession for us.

I have noticed those who hold to this same doctrine as you actually enter into a form of self-deceit whereby they re-define sin as consisting only of outward acts and conveniently exclude bad motives and the thoughts and intents of the heart. What the rest of us know plainly to be sin you excuse by saying it’s a mistake or a fault. Phariseeism and legalism usually find a healthy breeding ground in your kind of climate. The unfortunate seeker of truth who buys into your kind of error so easily makes shipwreck of his faith since, in spite of his doctrine, he finds he is not able to maintain the level of sinlessness he falsely thought was once his. He becomes painfully aware that his life is filled with inconsistencies: But what can he do? The poor soul either has to deny that he has any sins and thus becomes a hypocrite and liar or else he has to excuse his failings and say that they are not really sin. In this situation despair often creeps in and the poor soul has to either become a bigger hypocrite by continuing to testify to having something he does not possess (in his experience) or he simply denies that God's promise (supposed) is true. In either scenario, he becomes a casualty.


As I have said, the Holy Spirit and the Lord Christ are made virtually redundant with your teaching Martin. The gospel is seen as something which is initial and necessary only to get the believer started. The Gospel of Christ, under this teaching, does not need to be viewed as the very power of God onto salvation since full salvation has arrived as a present reality.

Under your teaching of sinless perfection you rob the believer of his Hope. The Hope of the return of the Lord and the consummation of salvation become less significant. You evidently have little left to anticipate since perfection has already been attained.


According to you Martin, the believer is entirely holy already. Of course the scripture nowhere teaches anything which resembles sudden and instant sanctification. Although, you evidently hold no place for sanctification in your thinking since you have been already perfected in your experience, I feel it may not be an entire loss to draw to your attention some things about this great truth. In scripture believers are often likened to trees "ye shall be like a tree" (see Psalms 1.) Have you ever watched a tree grow? Not much happens day to day. The growth is very gradual and almost imperceptible. Yet over the years, it is obvious that growth has taken place. That's the way it is with holiness. It's not an instant experience where it suddenly happens all at once or a gift given wherby we attain perfection all at once. We can't hurry holiness. Growth in holiness is always presented in scripture as a gradual process, never as an immediate and sudden mysterious experience. Sanctification, unlike regeneration, is not completed in us all at once. It is a continuous process for we are told "the path of the just is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" (Proverbs 4:18.) . In fact so far from being sudden, this growth and holiness is, as already stated. almost at times un-noticeable for the apostle tells us that “though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."(2 Cor. 4:16) . But why would our inward man need to be renewed if what you say is true Martin? Think about it, how does the outward man perish (grow old)? Does it happen suddenly or gradually? Well, for most of us, I'm sure you'll agree, aging is a very slow and usually unobserved process. But in the same almost undetectable way as the outward man is perishing the inward man is being renewed day by day... that's sanctification. And just like the aging process, sanctification requires time. But then, perhaps I waste my efforts on this since if Martin is correct sanctification has no place in the Christian life.
I will post a further thought on sanctification later.

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

I'm still waiting to hear whether or not Martin ( he will not at this time of the night have read my last post) believes in Sanctification. If he does not then he is once more in error by teaching that sanctification is optional or a non issue for the believer. Throughout history there have been groups who have taught that sanctification was an unessential part of the Christian life. Now that we are saved, they say, it doesn't much matter how we live. We are saved, they argue, even if we decide to become atheists, curse God, and deny that Jesus is the Christ. So then Martin, how say you?

Some people push the truth so far that it falls out the window. Of course we are saved entirely and only by the finished work of Christ, but one of the reasons He saves us is to make us like Himself. He saves us to make us holy and to conform us to his image. "And you...hath He reconciled...to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight" (Colossians 1:21-22.) "Without holiness no man will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14.) The old reformer Melanchthon used to say it like this "we are justified by faith alone but the faith which justifies us is never alone."

"Yes, but what about the thief on the cross?" says someone. "He made it without works. He had no works and therefore no holiness." This is all very true and I'm thankful we are accepted in Heaven without works. I am totally delighted that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works. But saving faith should always be accompanied by works. The poor old thief on the cross didn't have much of a chance to produce works. Had he lived, I’m sure he would have had an abundance of good works because he was a true believer. Anyhow, the truth is that the thief on the cross, in reality, did have good works in the very few moments he had on earth as a Christian. Why do I say this? It's simple, he began to defend the Lord Jesus Christ against the attacks of his former friend.....that’s a good work! Of course, that work didn't save him, but it flowed automatically out of him because he was saved. There was no command to him to produce works. But his very union with Christ could do nothing less than produce some good works even in such wretched conditions.


God does not merely give us the gift of eternal life for the sole purpose of taking us to Heaven. If that was so, He would only need two preachers, one to save us and the other to shoot us. There's much more, however, to this Christian life than getting saved, dying and then going to heaven.

God has a great purpose beyond giving us the gift of eternal life ...that of conforming us to the image of His Son. He washes us in His blood and then sets us apart unto Himself by putting a new Spirit within us. This new principle of life separates us from our old affections with its lusts and darkness. Not only does He deliver us from the penalty of sin (justification). He delivers us from the pleasure of sin (sanctification). Sanctification is the unavoidable result of justification. It's never an option. When we are united by faith to Christ this union cannot help but produce fruit. From the moment of justification, sanctification begins. The branch of the vine which has no fruit is a dead branch. There's no life in it and it therefore is worthless for God. Or as Jesus taught in John 15:4 "Abide in me and I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; and no more can ye except ye abide in me." I am the vine ye are the branches; he that believeth in me and I in him the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. " "If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and the men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned."

You may be a new believer and worried about the lack of fruit in your life (not talking to Martin here since he's far from being new to this and believes that he is already enjoying the fulfillment of future promises). But for the young believer, don't worry, it will eventually come, just keep on abiding in Christ. Don't just stop around for a visit with Him every now and then. Abide in Him, let His words abide in you and fruit will be produced. Don’t sit around all day in endless hours of self examination trying to find the fruit. That could drive you crazy. Learn, rather, to occupy yourself with Jesus and the fruit will take care of itself.

A very common mistake for young Christians to make is that in trying to grow with God they become terribly legalistic. They say "I'm going to pray hard, I'm going to read my Bible longer, I will strive against sin,"-----well, you ask, what in the world is wrong with that? The answer is simple, everything! Bible study and prayer and resisting sin are indeed necessary things and excellent in their own place but did you notice what was said- "I will pray, I will study, I will strive, I, I, I." But do you remember what Jesus said in John 15:15? There he clearly states "without me ye can do nothing." And again, 2 Cor. 3:5 says "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything else of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God."

Christ is the source of all of our sanctification and the Holy Spirit is working within us to conform us to the image of God's Son. Although we respond to this process we have got to recognize that without Christ and the energizing power of His Spirit we can accomplish absolutely nothing.

Even our prayers are so often very ineffective because we put our faith in the very act of praying rather than simply depending upon the One to whom we have prayed. "I have prayed so it will be all right" ----no, it won't be all right unless you're trusting in the One who can make it all right. You can pray from morning to night about overcoming sin but it just won't happen until you come by faith to the One to whom you are praying. He is the Savior and deliverer-...not our prayers. He is the One who is able to keep us from falling (Jude 24)......He.....not our efforts.

As we learn to occupy ourselves with Christ Jesus, His doing, His dying, His exaltation, His glory, we will continue to grow in holiness. Fruit will abide in our life. If we focus on ourselves and our performance what sorry people we will be. If we focus on Christ and His excellencies we will grow in grace and be made like Him.


D. L. Moody was once having his hair cut by the local barber. When he left the shop a little boy said to the hairdresser "Sir, was that Jesus?" That story hits home doesn't it? Have any of us, except for Martin (sorry...uncalled for ) I wonder, ever been mistaken for Jesus?

"Well of course," you say "that's a very silly question to ask"----- "Why should anyone mistake me for Jesus?"

Well, why not? The Father's purpose for us in this life is to conform us to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29.) This task, of course, will not be completed until we see the Lord Christ face to face in glory, but there should be at least some evidence that the process is actually taking place right here and now. Now according to Martin the conformation has already taken place since he is sinless. But Martin confuses who he is in Christ with the Martin who is being presently conformed to the image of God's own Son.

However, don't forget, the Lord desires us to become like Him and for that purpose has sent forth His own Spirit, the Holy Spirit, to reside within us. According to John 16:14 the Holy Spirit’s ministry is to glorify Christ. He never, ever, points us to Himself or to our experience but causes us to focus on the Lord Jesus. The wonderful thing about the Spirit-filled believer is that he is Christ-centered in his thinking and believing. And as we learn to focus and dwell upon Christ, we are changed to become more and more like Him, and thus we grow in sanctification. Or as the apostle says, "But we all, with an open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18.)

The Holy Spirit, in this matter of sanctification, is always leading us to behold the glory of the Lord. This means He is always leading us to diligently inspect God’s glory in the face of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). It is not, therefore, enough to give the Lord Jesus an occasional glance and expect to be changed to His likeness. No rather, we are to contemplate His Glory. Contemplate? There’s a word we don’t hear too often! It’s sad to say but contemplation of Christ is an all but forgotten spiritual exercise today.

Christ’s prayer for us, however, was that we would behold His Glory (Jn.17:24) and He gave us the Holy Spirit to help us do just that. So what, might I ask, are we doing focusing on anything else ? We have become experts at contemplating our navels when we could be occupying ourselves with His glory. We have, like the Israelites of old, taken the things made of gold and replaced them with brass (1 Kings 14)

But what if we see no glory in Him? If we see no glory in Him we are in reality, as John Owen astutely points out, calling Him Ichabod ....(Ichabod means, “Where is the glory”). In that case it would be wise to inquire as to whether or not we are in the faith. There is the glory of His divine nature to be contemplated. There is the glory given to Him by the Father to be thought upon. There is the glory of His exaltation to meditate upon. There’s the glory of His Name, that name above all other names, to dwell upon. There’s the glory of His offices as Prophet, Priest and King to be focused upon. And as we contemplate His glory we are promised we will be changed into His image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The genuine Spirit filled life is a life occupied with Christ and His glory. And this is a life growing in sanctification. Furthermore, let me point out, there are but two ways of beholding His glory, one by faith (that’s in this life) and the other by sight (that’s in the life to come). And as Owen said “No man shall ever behold the glory of Christ by sight hereafter who does not in some measure behold it by faith here in this world.”

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Hello Sushil

Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ to all!!!

Good to see your back Old Friend

and to Sam and his "cronies" who are here somewhere - welcome.

I know we all have a life outside of this board and can't always spend allot of time here, but I, for one, would like to make it "quality time" with my “board brethren”.

On the lighter side and as my own personal reflection, I love going to the “Church in a Box” at least three times a day- 7 days a week, let alone three times a week. (That’s more than I have ever done at any church). Wow, in looking back, I guess I have really grown and have reached a spiritual peak. I can’t wait to get my rewards. If you are nice to me, you might also share in my rewards, and if you pray for me, you will get to count all of my rewards and Jesus will put them on YOUR spiritual bank account in heaven. Just in case your “finances” are not too good when you stand before Jesus, because you have “unconfessed sin” and therefore you were back-charged in the reward department, not to worry, because your “Pastor” will stand-up for you and present your case before Jesus to help you get through the Bema “hot” seat interview, (he’ll give you some of his and he has gazillions) before you are allowed to be issued your white robe and golden candlestick. God bless you.

Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, I would like for a moment to address Romans 7 which I have no doubt you all have as part of your arsenal of defenses as to why you (if you are born of God) sin. Romans 7 cannot and will never be understood correctly if you assume that Romans is Paul’s doctrine for the church. We will get nowhere with this than what we already have thus far on 1st John if we can’t establish the context of “to whom Paul was addressing” The meaning is tied to the subject. I don’t have much time now, but I will get to the point:

!!!!! THE LETTER (to the) ROMANS WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!

I know your first inclination, as you have been taught this for years, and it is in every Bible commentary ever produced etc. etc. would be to tell me I’m out to lunch on this one too, but I have many valid and thoughtful ideas to support this proposal and will share them with you on my next posting.

Martin L.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

To my Old Friend

You are making 1 John 1 way too complicated.

My main emphasis had been to establish the fact that John's initial thrust and focus of attention concerned those who were not believers because they did not fellowship in the light - they were in darkness, and that they decieved themselves, and could therefore not be Born of God. Unbelievers could not enter into fellowship with God as long as they were in denial about their sin. But as a matter of hope - if they could come to accept and come to the understanding that they were sinners , then Jesus would be faithful to forgive their sins and cleanse them from ALL unrighteousness. John furthar reinforced that if they continued in this deception (that there was no such thing as sin) they would remain in darkness - out of fellowship and children of the devil.

But for those that do confess their true condition "in darkness" and "in sin" and thus their need to be saved from it, they would become children of light, "IN CHRIST" , Born of God, and as such - they would be unable to sin because in 1 John 3 3-10 those that are born od God cannot sin! That's plain and simple to me . Sounds like VERY Good News. Sound like the Gospel of John who spoke in the name and authority of Jesus Christ - (and he was best friends with Jesus - he should know).

and Just in case they accept this whole crazy idea - John reminds them at the end of his letter in Chapter 5 - not to forget that those who are born of God are not able to sin. If John said it two times I think he was trying to make a point.

My Old friend - you can't seem to get this simple point - so what's your the point?

You want to convince me that once I was dead in my sins , but thanks be to god, NOW I AM ALIVE IN MY SINS ???????????? I't does not make sense and it does not sound like good news to me.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

NEW TOPIC:

“ROMANS WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO CHRISTIANS”, NOR TO GENTILES, but was addressed to “UNSAVED JEWS”

I will try to keep this as brief as possible

General comments:

Romans is a letter that is almost universally accepted as having been addressed to Christians or the Church, and it is NOT. I will briefly share a few points of argument to this position.

Chapter 1:

Vs. 1 – Paul was identifying himself as an Apostle, which means “special messenger”. His “special message” was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

ANSWER 1. Why would Believers need a “special message” when they already would have had it and received it and embraced it and Believed it?

Vs. 2& 3 – Paul immediately speaks of two important Jewish things concerning covenant – “the promise of the (Jewish) prophets, vs.3 – “the seed of David”. It has to do with lineage - an issue which was important for “inheritance” and promise. To the Jews, the prophets were the mouthpiece of God and was a part of their Scriptures, that were divided into the Law and the Prophets.

ANSWER 2. If Paul is speaking to “Gentiles” why would care less about Jewish heritage? It was not their history and it never had any significance other than that the Jews were “separatists” and that if anything would have made them suspicious.

Vs. 6 & & – Paul addressed those whom he identified “the called of Jesus Christ”, “beloved of God” – “called to be Saints”

ANSWER 3. Were not the Jews the first who were called-out? Were they not the chosen people. They understood the idea of calling and being separated unto. It was a Jewish concept, not a Gentile one. It is one thing to be called, but when one responds to the call they become chosen. Why would Paul call them “called to be…” if they already were believers and would have therefore been chosen? They were not yet saints. These Jews were now being “called of Jesus Christ”. It is a new call and an election to a new covenant.

Vs. 7 – “beloved of God”
Answer 7: God so loved the world, while they were yet sinners… You can be an unbeliever and still be beloved of God.

Vs. 8 – “I thank God through Jesus for your “faith”.

ANSWER 8: Their “faith” cannot be assumed as Christian”. It was their “Jewish Faith”. Paul didn’t have to say “Jewish” because it was understood. Paul was a Jew, and they knew it. Paul was proud of their faith insomuch that as concerning the Law – they were good Jews and were faithful and diligent in it and were an example of that faith throughout the entire world.

Vs. 11 – Paul wanted to see them so that he could “IMPART” a spiritual gift for the purpose of “establishing” them. The word “establish” means: “to bring to pass” vs. 12. The mutual “faith” of both be and you. Paul and these Jews did not have a mutual faith in Jesus Christ as of yet and it was Paul’s desire to impart the spiritual gift (of righteousness and eternal life through Jesus Christ). Impart is to give and deliver. If they were believers they would have already had it imparted and would have been experiencing it.

Vs 13. – “brethren”

Answer: These were Paul’s fellow Jewish Brethren, and not Christian brethren. Later in vs. 16 Paul emphasizes his allegiance” to the Jew first”. This would have been an insult to the Gentiles, had Paul talked to them that way. Paul acknowledged elsewhere that he was willing to “become all things to all men so that he may save some”. Although Paul’s gospel eliminated Jew and Gentile in the “one new man” of faith in Jesus Christ, he still had to convince his fellow countrymen, of the necessity of Jesus Christ and what his righteousness would represent to them. Paul was beginning the task of helping facilitate the change of their thinking about spiritual things. This was a daunting task, but as a wise master builder, Paul was about to embark on the most brilliant explanation of the faith to the Jewish mind and how to perceive of Christ than has ever been done before.. Paul, a Jew, was called of Jesus Christ and knocked off his horse when God got his attention. Paul understood all the ideas of the Jewish faith inside and out as he was a Pharisee of Pharisees.

Paul sought “fruit” (unto salvation) of them (Jews) “at Rome” as he did among other “Gentile” (Nations) who were not Roman. Rome was a Gentile Empire.

Vs. 15 – Paul was “ready to preach the Gospel (of salvation) to you at Rome also”

ANSWER: Why would Paul have to preach to Christians? They would have already heard, and Paul did not have fruit in Rome yet.

Vs. 16 – Paul was not “ashamed” of the Gospel of Christ.

Answer: only the religious Jew would be ashamed of something perceived to be anti Jewish. The word “ashamed” in its root form means “disgrace”. It was no “disgrace” for Paul to be the “special messenger” of Jesus Christ, whom the Jews were historically “offended”. Jesus, the cornerstone, was a stumbling-block of offence to them.

Paul is boldly making no apology for the “spiritual gift) the special message we wished to declare to those Jews in Rome. He made it a point of “special treatment” for them to understand it was to be communicated to them “first”

This gospel message of Good news would be the Power of god unto salvation to the Jews first, just as it had been Gods choice to make them a “special” nation first among the Gentiles from whom they were called to represent Him as God’s people.

Chapter 3 –

Paul says “what advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is the circumcision?

Answer: He defends them in their special call.

Chapter 4:1 – “Abraham OUR Father… as pertaining to the flesh”

Answer: The Gentile does not have Abraham as a father – only the Jew. The Gentiles could care less because they were not Jewish. The “flesh” means by genetics and heritage”. Paul speaks of Gentiles in the second person, the Jew as first person, he included.

In summary, this is the basis for the idea that Paul’s letter to all that are in Rome is a letter to all the Jewish brethren (not Jewish Christians) who are in Rome and whom he wishes to have like faith with in the future and have “fruit” among them. The entire letter should be rethought from this context and not “Christianized” in order to untangle the Gospel doctrines that are so universally but incorrectly linked to this letter. There were Chapter breaks and subtitles in the original letter. It was a flowing thought and needs to be seen as such.

The typical mistake is to interpret Paul speaking to one group in one chapter and then to another in a different chapter. This methodology is disjointed and unnatural to what one might expect from a carefully crafted and thought-out letter aimed evangelistically to the Unsaved Jew. These Jews had thousands of years of heritage and were not about to relinquish it and change faith based on some shabby discourse. It would be a shameful thing for them to deny their faith among their brethren – UNLESS- Paul could convince them completely, from their own scriptures, and using their own logic – as he effectively does in the Letter.

Think on these things my brethren in the Faith of Christ.

Martin L.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

I apologize for re-posting this, but it seems Martin is in "this room" right now.

Martin,

I appreciate your systematic treatment of this issue, but it doesn't explain why there are passages in the NT scriptures that address sin with respect to believers--for example the often-quoted passage (on this board) in I Tim. 5: 19-20: "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who CONTINUE IN SIN, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning." Are we to infer that these elders are unsaved?

There are also other scriptures dealing with church discipline. If believers no longer sin, why would discipline be necessary?

I ask these questions respectfully--as I have followed your postings with interest.

Sincerely,
Karen

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Hello Karen -

You may be one of the few who actually take the time to read through my postings. I realize it is tedious at times. It has taken me 4 years of rethinking about this stuff to begin to clear up the many "what abouts" such as the one you have just expressed to me.

All I know is that there is no sin in the Body of Christ , in whom I am joined, and I dare to take that literally (by faith) and experientially and not positionally as it has been so effectively taught in most churches today.

I will take a look at this question and get back to you. This can be put on the what about thread that I will begin so as to not lose the current topic of Romans. Go to the "what abouts" to discuss this or any other questions.

So many of these issues simply clear-up after you get the "NO SIN" concept. It seem I cannot convince anyone here of that - that is up to the Holy Spirit at this point. I am just trying to be as honest as I can. I have no vested interest other than communicating the truth that has set me free from the bondage of sin and the many years of indoctrination of GGWO doctrine that I was not free to challange publicly.

[Chris Brown (70.16.7.106)]

Couldn't this be easily answered in that the Body of Christ is Christ Himself, not our flesh but the Spirit within us. Our flesh does not comprise the Body of Christ. Therefore, there is no sin in the true Body of Christ. Now, if all of us yielded fully, and at all times to the Holy Spirit as Jesus did, then there would be no old man ever ruling and then it could be said that we don't sin.

Christ in us is the Holy One. He does not come into us and make our flesh spiritual, and holy. No, our flesh needs to die, to be co-crucified with Christ in our experience and then Christ, the One without sin can live through us.

Just some thoughs that the Holy Spirit has impressed on my heart the last few years.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Chris Brown

Good thoughts, but back to the same struggle. If it depends on us "to do" then it is no longer of Christ. The Jews tried hard "to do" and look where that got them. Those "In Christ" HAVE crucified the flesh, and the flesh has been put to death at the cross with Christ.

This is why we are perfect and holy and blameless before him. (in Ephesians)

It is "Christ in us - living his life through us - without any help or assistance from us". This is the "Christ-IN" life.

It is his righteousness imparted to us, and it is his faith that we live by, not our own. We just receive it and thank God for it.

I would like to keep the discusion on Romans on this board and take the "what abouts" to the "What about board" on the main page. If this does not work I will start a "Discussion on Romans board" to lesson confusion.

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

According to Martin L he no longer is a sinner. Our friend, however, has taken a hold only of one side of the truth and thus completely misunderstands the gospel upon which we take our stand. The Christ of the New Testament is One who has already dealt with sin (Heb. 1:3; 9:26). Having utterly defeated "all the powers ranged against us, He exposed them, shattered, empty and defeated, in His final glorious triumphant act!" Col. 2:15,

Some incorrectly feel that the cross inspires us to deal with sin. But we believe the New Testament message that the cross actually dealt with and solved the sin problem. In this point, Martin L is in agreement. Furthermore, we no longer live in the Old Testament era, which could only look forward, saying, "Behold, the days come. . . ." How can we believe the gospel while we continue to look forward, expecting that Christ and His people will one day solve the sin problem?



Here is the crux of the matter: The New Testament everywhere presents the gospel as the good news of what God has done in the Christ event. All the glorious promises of the Old Testament — the promise of victory over death and evil, judgment and deliverance, the coming of the kingdom of God and the new created order, and even every promise of God's mighty eschatological salvation — all were fulfilled in the Christ event (2 Cor. 1:20; Acts 13:32, 33). To confess anything less is to confess that Jesus is not God's Messiah.

The New Testament declares that the long-expected kingdom (rule) of God has arrived in Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15). It declares that in Him the old age has passed away and the new age and the new creation have come to light. Therefore all who are now in Christ by faith are already part of the new order (2 Cor. 5:17), and they are already translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:12). To be sure, believers still wait for the final manifestation of the kingdom at the consummation, when they will embrace their inheritance by sight. .Martin L would have us believe, however, that he has already arrived at the benefits of the Eschaton while living in time. But, in spite of Martin L being wrong on this issue, we must never forget the gospel declares that the kingdom has already arrived in Jesus, and we by faith are already part of this new creation.
If there is anything better than this gospel which will more effectively kill the love of the world in our hearts, we would like to know what it is. As Luther said, if we would only believe this gospel and constantly affirm it in our hearts, we would utterly despise all the pomp and vainglory that this world has to offer. However, Martin L sees the gospel as useful only for sinners who are as yet unsaved. He totally misses the point that the Gospel is actually the power of God unto salvation. Salvation, and I'm sure Martin knows this, does not merely consist of Justification but rather it encompasses the totality of God’s salvivic work issuing forth in total deliverance from all our foes.

Again, the New Testament echoes the marvelous news that Satan has been utterly defeated and cast down (John 12:31, 32; Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12:10). He is a vanquished foe, for our David has single-handedly overcome this Goliath who terrified us night and day. Even the last enemy, "the king of terrors" (Job 18:14) — that is to say, death itself — has been abolished by Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 1:10). Thus Jesus says, ". . . whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die." John 11:26. This gospel is seen and grasped only by faith, for Christians appear to go down into the pit as others. To the believer, however, death is a harmless serpent whose fangs have been drawn out, a mere painted death, for in Christ he has already triumphed over it and is raised far above its power (Eph. 1:18-23; 2:1-6). If there is anything better than this gospel that will give us more boldness in the face of death, I would like to know what it is.
I will continue this in the next posting.

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

And what of sin? Martin has somewhere bought into some teaching somewhere which is only partially true. All heresy must have some truth in it to make it plausable. But to continue with this post.......
Is it not quite obvious that if Christ has abolished death, which results from sin, He must have made an utter end of sin? Indeed He did! In the fullness of time God's Messiah appeared "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity." Dan. 9:24. In the gospel the righteousness of God (an Old Testament expression meaning the righteous judgment of God) is revealed (Rom. 1:16, 17). In the year AD. 31 God arraigned a guilty world — Gentile and Jew — to give account at His righteous judgment seat. There all were found guilty and judged worthy of death (cf. Rom. 1:18-3:20). God Himself stood at the side of the accused, and in the Person of Christ He stood with us and for us. Thanks be to God's unspeakable mercy and Christ's unfathomable love, One stood at that tribunal as the representative Man bearing the sins of His people. Here this representative Man — the Man who was there as you and me — was judged and found worthy of death, yet not on account of His own sins, but on account of ours.

When God set forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2), He really dealt with our sins. Our sins were punished in Christ and put away by Christ. Then in Jesus' resurrection God caused His acquitting verdict to be proclaimed openly, declaring that those who believe are justified — that is, they stand innocent and free from sin in the eyes of the Judge. It is therefore not possible for God to find any sin in the man who confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believes in his heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

According to the writer of Hebrews, Christ purged our sins before He sat down at God's right hand (Heb. 1:3). Calvary not only enables God to do something with sin, but Calvary did something with sin. The death of Christ was God's judicial atonement whereby sin was both judged and purged by Him. As the high priest of old sprinkled the blood on the hilasterion (the lid of the ark, the mercy seat) and made full satisfaction for the claims of the law, so Christ on Calvary made hilaskesthai (Heb. 2:17, Greek). That is to say, He actually became our Mercy Seat whereby the claims of the law have been fully satisfied in respect to all our sins ". . . once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Heb. 9:26. by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Heb. 10:14. This means that the whole community of believers has already been perfected in Christ. Or as Paul distinctly states, "You are complete (have been brought to perfection) in Him." Col. 2:10. The words of the prophet are therefore fulfilled, " . . . the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found . . . " Jer. 50:20.
To be continued.....

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

To continue, if we go to the witness of the apostle John, we find that eternal life, the very life of the age to come, has come to us in Jesus Christ. The Lord declares, "He that heareth My words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24.

Thus does the New Testament everywhere proclaim the significance of Christ's triumphant cry, "It is finished!" John 19:30. God has already judged and acquitted us in Jesus Christ. He has already purged, put away sin, and perfected us in His redemptive act in Jesus. And He has already given us eternal life in His Son. Therefore the message of the New Testament is, ". . . all things are ready . . . . " Matt. 22:4. All who believe are pure and righteous before God. That is, in God's estimation — which is the only estimation that matters — they are free from sin, judged righteous, pure, perfect, and they sit at His own right hand in heavenly places.

We must further insist that this work of God has gloriously triumphed whether man believes it or not. Man's unbelief cannot make of none effect the faith of God (Rom. 3:3; cf. Is. 49:5). God’s people have already been rescued and made the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ as surely as this representative Man is at God's right hand. We say this because some people talk as if Calvary has accomplished nothing unless they bring their marvelous power of choice or exercise of faith into it — as if it is all darkness and lifeless until that human contribution sparks everything to life and saving efficacy.

Of course, God gives us the privilege of believing in what He has done. The gospel calls us to say, "Amen. That is the truth." To believe is to be savingly in Christ and to be therefore included in the victory. To believe not is to call God and His apostles liars and to turn down "the birthright." But faith cannot do anything to bring into existence what God has already brought into existence.

No wonder the gospel prophet commands us to tell Zion the good news "that her warfare is accomplished." Is. 40:2. What unrestrained joy there is in the message which declares:
I have [past tense] blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto Me; for I have redeemed thee. Sing, 0 ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, 0 forest, and every tree therein. . . . —Is. 44:22, 23.
As for the sinful human nature, the gospel also proclaims that this has been crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20). "If one died for all, then all are dead." 2 Cor. 5:14. When Paul told the Colossians, "For ye are dead [ye died] . . . " (Col. 3:3), it was not because they were supersaints who had finally mastered the technique of self-crucifixion. The real problem in the Colossian church was that they were trying by some program to crucify the sinful nature — but their efforts were absolutely useless (cf. Col. 2:20-23). Their victory-life piety was an expression of unbelief in the reality of the gospel. They were, in fact, guilty of hypocritically lying to one another (sin). They were judgmental and unforgiving to others (sin). But I suppose Martin will announce to us that after close consideration he now feels the letter to the Colossians was not written to Christianshttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif However I digressed, Paul did not tell them that they ought to be "dead," nor did he tell them how to become "dead," but he set before these poor, fumbling, sinful believers the good news that they had died. Only on that basis could he appeal to them, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth. . . ." Col. 3:5. One has to believe that he is a son of God through Jesus Christ before he can act like a son of God. In the same way, we have to be persuaded that we have died to sin before we can act as those who are alive from the dead.

to be continued

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

AS we continue on this subject of whether or not sin has been dealt with we observe,the gospel calls us to a life of faith. On the basis of what has been done, we are to believe that we are already part of the new creation, even though we will not see it until Jesus comes. By faith we are to see that death is conquered when death stares us in the face. Because of the flesh, faith is not without trial. We may have to confess that death is conquered while we say goodbye to our dearest on earth. We are called to believe that we are righteous with God when we cannot feel ourselves to be righteous.

God has made our humanity pure and righteous in Jesus Christ, and therefore everyone who believes is truly righteous with God. This is righteousness by faith. God will not, cannot find any sin in any man who believes this gospel. But this life of faith is not without severe trial. It is the man who lives nearest to God who knows only too well that the viper of sin still lives in his own bosom. The more holy his life, the more sensitively he feels the power of indwelling sin and realizes that even his most pious works do not escape the taint of inbred corruption. At times he is severely tempted to doubt that he has a righteousness which is valid with God. Yet God sends His Spirit to sustain the Christian's faith and nerve him so that in the midst of conflict his remaining sin does not become reigning sin. In this way does God marvelously cause indwelling sin to be a great blessing to the believer (Poor Martin know nothing of this ). It not only keeps his faith fastened upon that "alien righteousness of Christ," but it causes him to "groan" in earnest anticipation of "the hope of righteousness" at Christ's return (Rom. 8:23; Gal. 5:5). This tension between having (faith) and not having (hope) must not be dissolved until the advent, for life is not fulfilled in the historical process.

But however there are some souls who are in too great haste to become pure and sinless saints in their existential situation. They are not content with the righteousness of faith. They want an existential salvation in which they know and feel no sin at all. When they find that God does not cooperate with their excessive zeal, they are in danger of sinking down in discouragement. The flesh wants to live by a "righteousness of sight," and it verily appears to the flesh that a God who does not exterminate this indwelling sin is a weak God or an unwilling God; or the believer is caused to needlessly berate himself for not having enough faith.

To be sure, every believer must always confess his sinnerhood (Ps. 143:7; 1 John 1:8). The fact that he must continue to do this is not due to either a lack of power on God's part or a lack of faith on his part. The thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him, is not removed by the prayer of faith. God says to him, as He said to Paul, "My grace is sufficient for thee; for My strength is made perfect in weakness." 2 Cor. 12:9.

To be continued

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

Martin,

Romans 1 "called to be saints"

"to be" is in italics. That usually means that it was not in the original language.

If the accurate translation is "called saints", to me that means it was written to Christians.

[Old Friend (68.224.60.26)]

Final Installment:
That a believer in the midst of his sinfulness of nature can be pure and righteous before God is more an exhibition of God's power and grace and wisdom than the final transformation from mortal sinfulness to immortal sinlessness. The latter is the exercise of creative power, which is wonderful indeed; but the former is by the power of the cross. It is where sin abounds that grace does much more abound (Rom. 5:20). Wonderful indeed is the power that can utterly exterminate this viper of indwelling sin by one little word in God's good time, but far more wonderful is the power that can keep us precious and pleasing in the sight of infinite holiness in the midst of our human imperfection.

Alas poor Martin L,
Who says he knows so well
That no sin in his life doth dwell
No room in him for dregs of Hell

His Gospel that none other knows
Has made him pure from head to toes
But when his scheme is fully played
He hath his Christ redundant made

No priest or advocate he needs
At God's right hand for him to plead
'I'm perfect now' is all his creed
Poor Martin L, how poor indeed!

To feel no sin or distress about our wretchedness and then to have faith that we are righteous before God is not the faith of apostles and saints. But to be conscious of how far we fall short of God's glory, even in our most pious tasks, yet to be confident that we are righteous with God because of Jesus Christ — that is real faith. It was in the midst of present weakness, suffering and groaning in the daily conflict with his sinful human nature (Rom. 7:14-25; 8:1-23) that Paul could yet look up and cry, "It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" (Rom. 8:34, 35) — and we could add, or any time of trouble to come, or our own imperfection? Nothing, absolutely nothing, can separate the believer from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:38, 39). Let it be settled, therefore, that so long as a man believes the gospel, he is righteous. Just as no good work can justify the believer, but faith, so no sin can damn him. I am fully aware that this gospel cannot be preached without being suspected of antinomianism, but we have to take that risk. The gospel, however, is not a soft pillow on which hypocrites can rest their heads, nor is it any comfort for those who want to take sin lightly. The faith of which we have been speaking will never lead its possessor to exercise sin. It will, in fact, do more to kill the love of evil in the heart and to promote holiness than all the spiritual techniques that men can invent.

In Jesus Christ, God has made man upright. It is better to live by faith in that than to seek out many self improvment techniques. These ingenious inventions on how to live the victorious life are poor substitutes for believing the gospel. They do not cure sin, but they actually stir it into life, regardless of much pious-sounding talk. If sanctification is not built on faith in the gospel, it is only an expression of unbelief. It is for this reason that so much victory-life piety is not a conquest over sin, but the perpetuation of it. What else could it be when it is unbelief in the gospel? We must not entertain the idea that Christ sits at God's right hand waiting for His people to believe that He can vanquish sin. He has already done it. Christ is Lord! That is the ring of the New Testament. Time does not tarry for Christ to deal with sin, not even for Him to carry out a mopping-up operation against the enemy. It tarries solely because He is not willing that His people should perish (2 Peter 3:9) We can have no higher work or greater privilege than was given to those despised publicans who "justified God" (Luke 7:29), not through some rare spiritual feat, but simply by repentance and faith.

The New Testament's greatest question, therefore, is simply this: "Who hath believed our report?" isa. 53:1; Rom. 10:16. For those who do comes the assurance, "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not [under any circumstances] be ashamed." Rom. 10:11.

[Martin L (65.96.153.178)]

Adam and Eve were Created Sinless:

Adam and Eve were created sinless and immortal - this was the fundamental nature of their created identity. As such - they were put into the perfect place (the Garden) and were told to go out into the entire world and to be fruitful and multiply. Likewise, as the new creation, when we are “birthed-again” and made “sinless” once and for all, we are given the freedom and privilege of being fruit bearing as you will see later. Adam and Eve were sinless and without shame. It was a natural thing for them. It is not inconceivable for God to have made them so, because they were His creation. It pleased Him to make them in His image – both male and female, and for them to be sinless. He also gave them the freedom to make choices.

Is it, therefore, any less conceivable, that God, through redemption, could restore humanity back to the very same sinless state they had previously enjoyed before their fall - if given the opportunity to choose? I say not! If Adam and Eve were originally created sinless, why does everyone have a problem with the idea that – once the plan of redemption was enacted for fallen humanity, that we could not be exactly what God had created them to be in the first place? Let me explain:

First-off - Adam and Eve missed the mark (sinned) was when they made the choice to believe a lie. They became separated from God by that choice, and experienced painful negative emotions and guilt because of it. Their eyes became opened and enlightened to the dark light of iniquity. Pain and suffering was the result. This happened when Satan challenged God’s authority in the garden with the statement: “Hath God said?”, and when Adam and Eve believed him. Lucifer, the Serpent, planted seeds of doubt through a “lie” into their minds. Their acceptance of the lie brought them into a wrong relationship with God. Through this lie from Satan (iniquity conceived) unreality was substituted for reality. In such an insidious lie, Adam and Eve took on a wrong identity, and in this fallen state, lost the purity and innocence of life. Their fruit was the fruit of death. The resulting fruit of their fellowship with a lie and the wrong choices that followed showed itself to be rotten as well. What did this produce? It produced the rotten fruit of “self-consciousness” when there should have been only “God –consciousness”. Here entered-in “unrighteousness” and the rotten fruit of Guilt and Shame and Fear. The perception of being “naked” and without a spiritual “covering” also had its root here when they hid themselves from their Creator, the One to whom they should have had a transparent relationship with.

Secondly, God, not wishing that any would perish, and knowing they would be eternally lost in their fallen and rotten position, gave them death. Death, in this case, was a modality of grace exhibited, in that, they would be prevented by it from living forever in a fallen state because of Sin. God, not wishing that they would be able to partake of His knowledge apart from Himself – prevented mankind from being eternally fallen in their immortality, and by denying them access to the Tree of Life at this time. He knew that if they were allowed to remain living in an eternally fallen condition, there was no hope of their redemption.

Here is a prime example of God’s amazing mercy and love and compassion; He immediately dealt with the issue of sin (missing the mark) by providing a covering. The animal skins He provided to cover their nakedness were God’s first provision for sin, howbeit a temporary one. Let me go further:

God did not view Adam and Eve’s nakedness as an issue, for it was how He had made them to be; naked and not ashamed. Their odd behavior of “self-consciousness”, however, revealed their having perception and knowledge that they should not have had. God asked them: “Who told you that you were naked”. He was asking them to reflect on where they had gotten their self-conscious knowledge? Had they eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – of which they were forbidden? Yes! – and they were not equipped to know how to rightly judge what they had become aware of about themselves; reacting in fear the best they could do was hide. Interestingly, their conscience understood their ultimate accountability to the truth. God provided a way for them to deal with their fallen and negative emotions. By providing a covering of animal skins to cover their nakedness, they would not have to see themselves in their fallen identity. Luckily, their choice to receive the covering God gave them, (through the sacrifice of the innocent life of an animal) was sufficient, temporarily, until such time as a more acceptable sacrifice could be made. You see, God had never intended His human creation to exist separately (unto themselves), in self-orientation. Never was it God’s intent for them to live in an independent relationship from, and unaccountable to Himself. They were never intended to make judgments about things which were not theirs to know and judge between. God’s heart toward them, however wrong their choices and fallen behavior, was one of reparation and redemption; that none would perish - this was God’s creative option.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Some Bedtime thoughts for you late nighters.

THE FINALITY OF LOVE:

“Christ was the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.” Understand this, and one begins to start to see the unfathomable glory of God, in His creative and omniscient, perspective and plan. Left to themselves, Adam and Eve would have still been in the garden, hiding behind some bush, naked and ashamed, denying themselves their God-given purpose of being fruitful and multiplying and subduing the entire earth. Had they not been restricted from the tree of life after they partook of the forbidden knowledge, they would have been forever sidetracked from the freedom of their Devine purpose – without any hope of redemption, and Satan would have prevailed. Satan – had his will been done, would have plunged the entire world into eternal blackness and “lost-ness”, through the false light of knowledge forbidden outside of God, and though the unreality and distortion of a lie. God would not let it be so – he made it impossible through Grace. Had Adam and Eve not been cast out of the garden, they would not have discovered the world that God had made for them – they would have been paralyzed by their own fear and misperceptions due to the distortion of satanic lies.

Thankfully, they were not abandoned, not even for a moment. Because they had been “birthed sinless” by The Eternal One, by Love itself; they had an eternal destiny. This is the great “Amen” of creation “So as it has been said – so let it be done”. This was a job for the “King of Kings”, and “Lord of Lords”. Jesus is “The Amen”. Jesus is the “beginning and the end”. Jesus is the “first and the last”. Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega”. God had a plan.

God is love, and love never fails. Death is not the final story – Love is. God’s love is stronger than death. Love was first and fundamental in God’s creation, death was not. However, as death reigned through one man’s disobedience (Adam); life much more reigns through one man’s obedience (Jesus Christ). Let me quote a brief passage from my letter to Rome:

Romans 5:15 – 6: 2, 18, 22

“The free gift is not like the offence. For if by one man’s offence many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift of grace by the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came through the one offence resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came as the result of many offences resulted in justification. For if by one man’s (Adam’s) offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of Grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man’s offence judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s (Christ’s) righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many will be made righteous, moreover the law entered that the offence might abound, but where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? …For he who has died has been freed from sin…. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves to righteousness… But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.”

Goodnight,

Martin L.

[Chris Brown (151.196.137.233)]

Martin,

It is plain to see, as you said, that Adam and Eve were created sinless. Then you said that they missed the mark (sinned), and became separated from God by choice. If God restored us to our original state as you say, to be sinless like Adam and Eve, then we still have our free will and can miss the mark (sin) again. What's so hard to believe about that Martin?

So, we are perfect in Him, while we are yielded to Him, until we miss the mark (sin) just like Adam and Eve. I hope you're not saying that God took away our sin nature and our free will. You can't have it both ways.

Christ is and always will be our Holiness, and only when we choose to yield to Him will we experience that Holiness, and be free from sin. We have been freed from the power of sin, and have the potential to never sin, based upon our experience of co-crucifixion with Christ. This puts us back to the Adam and Eve setting, but we still have a sin nature.

It seems to me that you didn't like GGWO doctrine in this area of sin yet you go completely the other way. They have you in the mind set of planning to sin instead of planning to live holy, while you seem to say that we can never sin. So, in either case what is the motivation to live a holy life in obedience to the Lord?

[Sushil Melville (202.63.181.50)]

Hi Martin .Iam quite convinced of GGWO doctrine when it comes to SOTERIOLOGY.If YOU say GGWO doctrine in soteriology is false then all the SOUTHERN BAPTIST AND THE PRESBYTERIANS should be false.When God looks at the body of christ he sees it as perfect because of our union with Christ.Also Christ fulfilled the Law so perfectly on our BEHALF.Because we in our natural strenghth cannot keep it.Thats the Finished work message.Why does Jesus intercede for us before God the Father ie In Hebrews the 4th chapter.Why does he intercede on our behalf if we have no SIN. Martin please think!In 1john it says If we say we have no sin we are Liars.

[Chris Brown (151.196.137.233)]

Martin,

In my post of May 30- 6:48 P.M. you answered me and said, 'good thoughts but back to same struggle'. Yielding to the Lord is not a struggle nor does it produce a struggle, living in the flesh produces a struggle.

You said that it if it depends on us 'to do' something then it is not of Christ. I disagree on one point, that is, we do need to do something- to make a choice to live a surrendered life, then Christ takes over and He does it all as we continually yield to Him.

You said those 'in Christ' had crucified the flesh. And this is true if you are truly 'in Christ'. What does it mean to experience being 'in Christ'. I say experience because just as Jesus died for the sins of all, only those who are drawn to Him and receive Him get to experience salvation. Why did Paul say 'I die daily' if there was no need to do this? We need to knowingly and on purpose live a yielded life every day and then we get to experience the 'not I but Christ'.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Hi Chris B.

When Pastor Paul the Apostle talks about putting down the flesh and denying the flesh, the flesh part of himself as he spoke of himself was those things that were gain, that he could boast-on - his pharisaical credentials and reputation as a leading teacher of the Jews - his utmost obedience to the Torah etc. etc. He encouraged Jews to understand that in Christ, they were not subject to ordnances such as "touch not or taste not, which perish with the using, but that "in him" all thing would be lawful (because there would be no external law to uphold) Paul told them that at some future time they would not be saying Know the Lord, because they would know him. The Jews, however, were pre-disposed in most of their theology to self attainment and sacrifice and abstinence and sacrifice for sin. They were the ultimate in sin-centeredness. Paul counted all things as dung and was willing to count them as waste (loss) for the Excellency of knowing Christ.

Choice as you say - to receive his righteousness - is necessary, but not to maintain it as if an external thing. The believer should see themselves in the eternal one - in the "I Am" and now ness of Gods' holiness and righteousness as a free gift - the doing will be the result of that freedom and not the cause.

The "reward" part of knowing him is in the actual day to day "outworking" of what is in. The joy and pleasure of responding in that fellowship (spiritual intercourse) is a pleasure reserved for that special personal union only. It is not any-ones elses business what goes on behind the closed doors of the "bedroom" of that fellowship. What God has put together no man should criticize or "put asunder" (enter into that space - in between). The right decisions, or wrong, do not change the commitment and marriage in that sense. Pain and suffering may occur as the result of bad choices, one sows what they reap in life, but pain and suffering are also a part of life regardless of decisions, and throughout the dynamic of grace that gives and takes - there is Growth and progress in Gods plan for that individual - for he is perfecting that which concerneth thee.

It is not the pursuit of Knowing God, which was an occupation of those under the law to try to attain, but rather in “being know of him”. If there is any measure of "working-out" salvation in the practical details, it is for the believer to grow and mature in their ability to receive. If the believer concentrated on the receive part, instead of fixating on the denial part, they would be appear much more relaxed and become much more attractive as an example to the lost, instead of uptight and controlling of everything that goes on around them – and dissuade them. That’s why Jesus was free to sit at meat with sinners and prostitutes and tax collectors. He was not afraid of defilement. His vessel was clean.

Martin L.

[Chris Brown (141.157.72.196)]

Martin,

I know what I believe and am very confident in what the Lord has shown me for my own life. Could you please make this a little easier for me to understand you, by giving me part of your personal testimony- what has the Lord done lately in your life? How is your life different than before because of this new understanding that you say you have concerning sin.

Thanks

Chris

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Here's simply where I'm at.

If you have been reading some of this boards discussions you would have been facing the questions of the presence of sin in a believer's life. This discussion seemed fundamental because of what I perceive as Carl Stevens false teaching that the sin and sin nature that belonged to the unbeliever, continues, remains and abides within them after they become born of God. To be entirely fair, this is not Stevens fault, because he has only passed on the understanding of it he Got from others, all the Scholars and Bible commentators and preachers he could get his hands on - with a few embellishments of his own. This is a problem within all Christendom, not Stevens' exclusively.

I have tried to explain from the Book of 1st John how this was not so, because he taught that "Those who are Born of God do not sin". This has met with resistance, and understandably so, because of the many years of indoctrination in "the lie" and falsehood; that Sinners are dead in their sins without Christ and that Believers continue in it when they are made alive in Christ. This is a double message and seems contradictory to me. I think the Apostles would agree if they were here.

Pastor Apostle Paul, in Romans, deals with the sin issue as equally well as Pastor Apostle John does in 1st John. Paul states: "Shall we continue in sin that grace shall abound, god forbid, how can those who have been made free from sin (dead to it)live any longer in it? They can't because they don't, even if they think they do!!!

Since no one on this bard who has responded to me as of yet has expressed their ability to see this, I have decided to take a different approach to explain it. I have come to the conclusion that the word "sin" has been so loosely used and its definition diluted into a meaning that is less than representative of its severity. Sin has lost its meaning over the last 2000 years so I will explain it more graphically in the sense that I believe the Apostles understood it.

I cannot seem to get anyone to equate the detestableness of sin to God and why it is improperly used by Christians as some wrong behavior that God will overlook because of Christ. Let me clear-up the matter once-and-for-all. With the following:

Here Goes.

My Dear Little Ones, its time to grow-up and face the real world. I will see you later when the "dust" settles after all the spaghetti hits the fan.


!!!!! THE SIN FACTOR - DON'T SAY THAT!!

You see - this “sin factor” was the only element that stood between man and God. Sin is what separates. Sin is everything unholy -- it is the most detestable and vile thing. Sin is abhorrent and abominable to God and his holy nature. Sin is associated with spiritual death in all cases: “for the wages and sin is death”. Sin is extremely strange and excruciatingly repulsive to God. It is not a welcomed guest in the kingdom of God. The only word that can be used in the English language that can come close to describing the despicableness of sin, and lend a sense of understanding of the nastiness of the nature of sin in relation to a Holy God, would be to call it “****ing” sin.

Now I understand that the mere mention of the words “****” would make the average Christian reader uncomfortable, especially those not accustomed to such words, but I use it to make a point. Here, that point must be made harshly until it creates a high level of discomfort with the very notion of it. Please bear with me as I am also unaccustomed to speaking so crudely – especially concerning spiritual things - but let’s cut to the chase and call it for what it really represents in the most vivid terms of human communication.

The fact is: Sin is an enemy of God; Satan is the author if it and its diabolical plan, and those that do so and participate in it in any shape of form are at enmity with God as well. Sin not only messed-up the entire human race, but it also wasn’t so nice that The Christ had to suffer to the extent that he did for it either. To call sin anything less would be to soften its ugliness to the entire person and character of a Holy God. Here we go:

The Webster's dictionary defines the word “****” in its slang usage as an undesirable or contemptible person. Another usage of the word is commonly applied as a way to describe someone with great and unusually malicious unfairness, especially to one who treats someone else in such a way. The vulgar, slang usage of the word “****ing", is “damned” or “extremely”. As a note within the Webster's dictionary, it states: “although hundreds of years old, (the word) “****” has only rarely been recorded in print until recent years; even the trend of its use is still confined largely to reported speech, and is generally regarded as offensive to prevailing notions of propriety”. How fitting. Enough said, but the word “sin” in his proper contextual understanding would be more fairly understood as “****ing sin”.

Sin is always “f’n sin” from God’s standpoint and those who practice it are “f’n sinners”. Jesus Christ died for the “f’n sins” of the whole “f’n sinful world” (as all men” f’n sin” and fall short of the glory of God). The Apostle Paul stated in the book of Romans in the New Testament: that “There are none righteous -- no not one”… but God not wishing that any would perish “Gave His Only Son” God so loved the world. He did something for mankind that they could not do for themselves – no matter how “good” they could be.

Sin is so bad, that it took only ONE “f’n sin” to plunge humanity into outer darkness and into eternity; separated without God forever. Thanks to God, as I will more fully develop and explain - it took only ONE sovereign act of Loving-kindness and righteousness to bestow holiness upon the receiver, and save them from the whole “f’n mess”.

John 3:16 in the Bible states: "For God so love the world that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life”. This is why a believer cannot be “in ****ing sin” and “in Christ” at the same time. Sin and God, Sin and Christ, and Sin and The Body of Christ are all mutually exclusive relationships, but the Law of sin and death (eternal separation from God) has been over-ruled by the Law of Grace and the Spirit of life. Do not say that Christians sin every day any more than Christ would. Based on the sure promises of God, I, as one who is "Born of God", do not consider myself a ****ing sinner any longer. If you are a believer, I do not think you should want to call yourself or your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ “****ing sinners” any longer. Christ does not look at you that way any longer. Remember, never say the word "sin" without properly associating the "F" word to it and then you will understand how uncomfortable it should be for us, as believers , to ever be equated, in any way, with it!!

Don't say that "sin" word!

[Anonymous (64.12.116.66)]

DEAR MARTIN
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO STOOP TO SUCH CARNALITY (DUH ITS THE SIN NATURE IN YOU) BY DEFINING THE WORD "****" TO US, WE ARE MOSTLY ALL ADULTS HERE ON THIS FORUM AND HAVE SOME KIND OF A BRAIN....

WE DON'T USE "****" IN OUR DAILY CONVERSATIONS (OR WE TRY NOT TO DO THIS). I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU, YOU STATED ABOVE THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE BORN OF GOD YOU ARE NO LONGER A ****ING SINNER ANYMORE.


SINCE YOU HAVE NOW BECOME PERFECT LIKE JESUS CHRIST, THEN HAVE A NICE TRIP ON YOUR WAY TO "****ING HELL." TO USE YOUR TERMS. MAY GOD FORGIVE ME, I'M ON MY WAY TO GO REPENT, BECAUSE WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, I THINK EVEN USING THE WORD **** AT ALL IS A SIN...AND I AM GOING TO WASH MY OWN MOUTH OUT RIGHT NOW BEFORE GOD.

MY APOLOGIES TO THE BRETHREN IN CHRIST WHO HAD TO SEE THIS, IT IS NOT MY "NORM"...JUST THOUGHT THIS ARROGANT PERSON NEEDED TO SEE THINGS AS HE PORTRAYS THEM.

NOT YOUR FRIEND

[Anonymous (207.44.132.115)]

I wish the "name of God discussion would have stayed here.

[PG (69.67.254.39)]

Martin,

Please control your mouth, or fingers or however it is that sinless people like you type.

[Martin L. (65.96.153.178)]

Pg –

I can see you are an insincere, and ingenuous person, this is the end of our discussions.

Martin L.

[Anonymous (24.88.32.43)]

clearing the garbage to the bottom.

[Anonymous (69.67.254.41)]

Why float garbage to the top, just let it settle where it belongs

[Anonymous (209.6.151.215)]

,

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

do something Satan doesn't want you to do tonight....PRAY