"Go and sin no more"

[Eventide]

There are none good but one and that is God...

I disagree - I see no Biblical evidence whatsoever of this "dual" state - one where the believer has the "old self" still "inside" him.

I would agree that the believer can choose to go back to the old state. But this is not the same as saying the believer exists in this schizophrenic condition where he is both "renewed" and "not renewed".

It's basically the meat of the gospel Drew.. that if we shall seek to save OUR LIFE we shall lose it, and if we lose it for CHRIST and the gospel, we shall save it.

It's a biblical fact that all in the first Adam are under condemnation, and that all can be justified freely in Christ who is the LAST Adam. This is why we MUST be born again..

The Lord Jesus Christ says that if any man comes after Him, that he must DENY HIMSELF, take up his cross and follow HIM.

So once again.. we are all born naturally the first time according to the FLESH.. that's WHO we are.. we exist and according to the word of God we have all gone astray, gone our OWN way.. and that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world is calling all men to repentance and faith in Him... to turn us from the darkness of Satan to the glorious LIGHT of Christ.

And.. according to scripture.. Adam was not deceived.. (which doesn't mean that he can't be deceived).. and this means that he was disobedient.. there's a difference between deception and disobedience..

The gospel of God concerning His Son is a crossroad for every last one of us.. are we denying ourselves and taking up our cross, even daily as Paul says..? As mentioned, if we've been in Christ for a couple decades we begin to see how often this struggle arises between the FLESH and the SPIRIT.. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of this as the sin which so easily besets us.. and we can see by that true light that my old nature isn't improving one iota.. it's dying and considered dead according to the word of God.. so once again..

It's not Christ AND me.. it's Christ IN me.. that's our hope of glory.

 

[smaller]

I still have a problem treating sin like a substance and not a choice.

That's part of the problem of discussing these matters. Sin is not 'substance.' It is the working of the anti-Christ 'spirit' and the access that has to the minds of mankind. It is only apparent in 'actions.' It has zero to do with substance. Don't even know how that thought got inserted into your head, wink wink.

I don't see how I can sin and following Jesus at the same time.

If you can't say you have, present tense, no sin, meaning you 'have' same and be 'in Truth' I don't know how one can follow Jesus and lie about it.

I don't know how God could allow rebellious beings into His kingdom.

That doesn't happen. If you think the deceiver that penetrates the mind, meaning we factually carry that working, is somehow going to be obedient and graced that is also a lie. God in Christ has not for example 'authorized' adulterous thoughts. Few men can say they have no such thoughts and be 'honest.'

I don't see how responsibility is not tested in loving the Lord before entrance into eternal life.

Temptation by the tempter is assuredly a test of faith.

I can not reconcile how Jesus in the flesh can be tempted, yet not considered sinful

The prince of this world had 'nothing' In Him, period.

or how Eve, perfectly made and righteous, can sin if sin was not in her previously the way popularly professed doctrines suggest about me. The doctrines don't add up.

Jesus' Words on this matter ARE TRUTH. Where the Word is sown, Satan enters the heart to steal, to deceive, to lie, to disobey, to tempt, to eventually KILL. That is all that happens upon his entry into the heart and Jesus was not lying or a liar. It's a fact and it happens. An unbeliever does not BELIEVE His Words. The deception of the deceiver in the hearts deceives the 'believer' by saying 'that doesn't happen to YOU.' That is exactly how deception transpires. The fact is it DOES HAPPEN and does so by the deceiver. Deception in the hearts says any form of temptation is only 'your' thoughts, not Satan's.

5:21 but test everything; hold fast to what is good; 5:22 abstain from every form of evil.

There are reasons to 'test.'

Gal. 4
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Children of the flesh are children of the devil, children of the wicked one, the evil seed of 'temptation thought' that is planted in the ground/mind of all by the wicked one.

s

 

[Drew]

You can make any claims you think you see Drew. The fact that the tempter inserts temptation thoughts of SIN in MIND places Satan 'in mind' and having access internally to the mind in order to do so. You can also claim that is not sin, but it IS SIN.

It is difficult for me to believe that you are not intentionally misrepresenting what I post.

I simply questioned whether your use of Mark 7 to support the argument that Satan tempts believers.

As any reader who has been following this thread will surely know, I have repeatedly affirmed that Satan can influence the believer.

Are you going to continue to ignore post 102?

If so, why? What justification can you offer for your continued refusal to address a post that speaks directly to your assertion that Romans 7 describes the state of the believer.

Do you believe it is morally acceptable to ignore legitimate counter-arguments to your position? It is, of course, "legal" in terms of the TOS to ignore whatever you want.

But forget that for the moment - let's address each other as two individuals who are supposed to Christians, seeking truth in an honest and forthright manner. You have made assertions about Romans 7. I have directly challenged those assertions, not least in the form of a simple, clear, Biblically grounded argument in post 102.

I am fascinated to know why you think its acceptable to simply ignore that argument.

 

[smaller]

It is difficult for me to believe that you are not intentionally misrepresenting what I post.

I simply questioned whether your use of Mark 7 to support the argument that Satan tempts believers.

Why strain at what you admit to?

We know for a fact from His Words that where the Word is sown, Satan enters the heart. Since 'all' have sin and sin is of the devil the factual math for this matter is not hard to add up.

As any reader who has been following this thread will surely know, I have repeatedly affirmed that Satan can influence the believer.

Unfortunately your press is for external influences. That too is the direction that Satan leads, NEVER wanting any person to see the facts of Jesus' Words that Satan enters the heart. That makes that working internal and also means 'none' of us are alone in heart. Evil comes from within and the heart/mind is the attack zone.

Are you going to continue to ignore post 102?

Your theories to deflect matters of sin from Paul as a believer are not credible, period. You are however welcome to imagine whatever trail you want. Paul is pretty clear about the fact of having sin himself, POST SALVATION, evil present, even a DEVIL. Yet for all of that you still want to claim that is not the case for post salvation Paul, even when it's all up in your face to the contrary. What is the point of that Drew? The point is there is no point in denying the obvious. Believers have sin, that included Paul, and sin is of the devil. End of conversation.

If so, why? What justification can you offer for your continued refusal to address a post that speaks directly to your assertion that Romans 7 describes the state of the believer.

We cannot say 'we have NO SIN' and be 'in Truth.' Paul couldn't either. Are you seriously trying to claim otherwise? If so, just say so. Was Paul sinless perfection? Did Paul have zero sin post salvation. Never a tempting thought? Or thoughts of temptation not being SIN? You know if you go there that is just a false claim, not only for Paul, but for you. Why make lies about these things?

Do you believe it is morally acceptable to ignore legitimate counter-arguments to your position?

I see absolutely no point whatsoever in lying.

But forget that for the moment - let's address each other as two individuals who are supposed to Christians, seeking truth in an honest and forthright manner. You have made assertions about Romans 7. I have directly challenged those assertions, not least in the form of a simple, clear, Biblically grounded argument in post 102.

Just tell me then if Paul was sinless post salvation. y/n That should settle the matter. If you say yes, then Paul was speaking for himself in Romans 7, just as he says when deploying "I" and "ME" and "MY"

Your claim is that Paul, even though using those terms was NOT being forthright, but was slinging around some deceptive sleight thereby deferring him from having sin, as if Paul had NO SIN.

The matter should be quite settled if you acknowledge that Paul had SIN post salvation.

s

 

[Drew]

God is influenced by the power of evil, too. He destroyed Sodom because of the evil in that city and three others. If the evil hadn't existed then he would not have done it.

My point was that the believer is subject to being 'lured' into evil by Satan. I would not say this is the case for God (understatement of the year). God may react to evil, and even use human evil for His purposes, but He cannot be corrupted or influenced to be an agent of evil.

 

[lightbearer]

I'm very sorry, but if your claim is that the tempter does not tempt you in MIND, this placing that tempter then within your mind, you are not being honest with me as a believer. That's where this conversation stops with me. Temptation thoughts of SIN are SIN, period.

All such claims of NON-temptation are OPEN FALSEHOODS. Lies.

s

Faith blocker. Words of doubt and condemnation.

I have made no claim. This is not a discussion about me it is a discussion about the Gospel and what God wants in our lives. But in regards to your commit Jesus himself said, "why callest thou me good there is none good but GOD. The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

Paul said the same thing in other words throughout his writings, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." For we are the Temple of the Most High God. It is He that worketh in us both to will and do His Good pleasure.
This all believers should be able to proclaim. The Gospel; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily.

Col 1:27-29; Gal 2:20; John 14:10-12

 

[smaller]

Faith blocker. Words of doubt and condemnation.

Yeah, those scriptures that state those facts are certainly faith blockers. :eeeekkk

I certainly wouldn't want to believe the truth of those parts of scripture for myself would I?

I have made no claim. This is not a discussion about me it is a discussion about the Gospel and what God wants in our lives.

The fact has nothing to do with either of us as children of God. The fact does however speak to that factual working.

But in regards to your commit Jesus himself said, "why callest thou me good there is none good but GOD.

I would probably have to call Jesus Perfect rather than just good.

This all believers should be able to proclaim.

Paul said he did evil:

Romans 7:

19 For the good that I wouldI do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

You see there is no sense in avoiding this matter. It was a fact for Paul. It is a fact for us as well.

This led Paul to an entirely interesting matter about the 'sin' that indwelt his flesh:

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

I believe we are all called to divide from Evil and not let that working dominate us, that is, in our flesh. Nevertheless Paul also did not claim himself perfect and sinless:

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Do you know where this LAW is written?

The Gospel; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily.

Col 1:27-29; Gal 2:20; John 14:10-12

We are assuredly looking for our Perfect Reflection, which is God in Us and with NO SIN present. That is a continuing promise and HOPE of the Gospel and it is the very HOPE that in fact 'saves us.'

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Our FAITH is the promise of a body without sin. The 'redemption' of our BODY.

Romans 8:23
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

A believer HOPES when they see and deal with the fact that we NEED this and WHY. Scriptures show the fact. The Spirit confirms the truth. Apart from the Spirit of Truth, no man can admit the presence of a liar in the form of the tempter is with their mind. I admit that fact, and LONG for a release from that working.

Don't YOU? Seriously? Don't YOU?

s

 

[Drew]

Paul said he did evil:

Romans 7:

19 For the good that I wouldI do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

You see there is no sense in avoiding this matter. It was a fact for Paul. It is a fact for us as well.

This led Paul to an entirely interesting matter about the 'sin' that indwelt his flesh:

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

I believe we are all called to divide from Evil and not let that working dominate us, that is, in our flesh. Nevertheless Paul also did not claim himself perfect and sinless:

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Do you know where this LAW is written?

This text does not desribe Paul as a believer. Here is an argument that you have repeatedly ignored - even though you have been called on it - that I believes rules out the possibility that the "I" in Romans 7 is Paul the believer.

1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

2. The Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

3. If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.

 

[smaller]

This text does not desribe Paul as a believer. Here is an argument that you have repeatedly ignored - even though you have been called on it - that I believes rules out the possibility that the "I" in Romans 7 is Paul the believer.

I've asked you this repeatedly Drew.

No one can say they have no sin and be in Truth.

So, did Paul have sin, yes or no?

s

 

[Drew]

I've asked you this repeatedly Drew.

No one can say they have no sin and be in Truth.

So, did Paul have sin, yes or no?

s

Not the point. We have been over this time and time again. So what I post now is primarily intended for other posters since it appears you are unable, or unwilling to process my statements:

1. I am not - as been repeatedly made clear - denying that Paul, or me, or any other believer continues to sin.

2. This, of course, does not mean that every statement Paul make about sin indwelling a person has to be about a Christian. Is Paul not permitted to make statements about non-Christians??!!

Please, please try to undertand this: Madonna was born in 1958. This obviously does not mean that any statement about an unnamed person who was born in 1958 has to be about Madonna!!

Same thing in the Romans 7 text: Given that a case can be made that "I" does not refer to Paul - and I have presented this case that the term "I" can be used by Paul as a literary device to refer to someone other than Himself -we cannot simply assume that the "I" here in Romans 7 must be Paul.

Other posters: Please tell me that you "get this", even if you do not agree with it.

 

[smaller]

Not the point. We have been over this time and time again. So what I post now is primarily intended for other posters since it appears you are unable, or unwilling to process my statements:

1. I am not - as been repeatedly made clear - denying that Paul, or me, or any other believer continues to sin.

Then Paul was speaking of the fact for himself. There was no need for a 'literary device' to avoid the obvious conclusion that Paul, just as the balance of us had sin. It was a fact for Paul personally and it remains a fact for all of us.

2. This, of course, does not mean that every statement Paul make about sin indwelling a person has to be about a Christian. Is Paul not permitted to make statements about non-Christians??!!

I certainly believe the condition of sin applies to unbelievers as well, even moreso because it is the 'god of this world' who blinds their minds. That places that presence of the 'god of this world' OVER their minds and with them to do the blinding.

Believers are called to OVERCOME that same working because we 'know' we have it and from whom it is from. Paul did not deny the fact for himself.

Please, please try to undertand this: Madonna was born in 1958. This obviously does not mean that any statement about an unnamed person who was born in 1958 has to be about Madonna!!

The fact of 'having sin' is common to 'all' mankind from the beginning. The function of that working in time is irrelevant to the fact. It's a fact regardless of 'when' a person was born in time.

Are you saying because you were born recently that sin somehow doesn't apply to you?

Same thing in the Romans 7 text

Uh, no, time is irrelevant. The sin that people had from day 1 is no different than it is today.

: Given that a case can be made that "I" does not refer to Paul

If Paul had sin then it certainly is a first person account of Paul of the fact. There is no use dodging that fact.

- and I have presented this case that the term "I" can be used by Paul as a literary device to refer to someone other than Himself -we cannot simply assume that the "I" here in Romans 7 must be Paul.

If Paul had sin there is no use trying to avoid that fact trying to claim Paul had no SIN via literary device.

s

 

[Drew]

While we are on the subject of not being able to 'process' things.

For my part, I cannot make any sense of how it is that you think it is acceptable to repeatedly ignore a clear argument that challenges your position.

I simply could not do so - my sense of "fair play" in the setting of a putatively serious debate would cause to be consumed with finger-nail gnawing guilt if I left any argument of an "opponent" repeatedly unaddressed.

You seem to not suffer from such self-recriminations. And you are not alone. I can think of another poster that repeatedly refused to deal with Trinitarian arguments that I was providing in response to his anti-Trinitarian position.

How, exactly, do you justify to yourself your refusal to engage other people's clear, Biblical arguments. Perhaps I could learn this technique you from you and I would not feel so obliged to respond to my "opponent's" arguments.

And yes, I am being sardonic, and may well get pinged for this by the moderators. Well, if you can call me a liar, when you have no case for such a claim, perhaps this little excursion of mine will be countenanced.

 

[smaller]

While we are on the subject of not being able to 'process' things.

For my part, I cannot make any sense of how it is that you think it is acceptable to repeatedly ignore a clear argument that challenges your position.

I simply could not do so - my sense of "fair play" in the setting of a putatively serious debate would cause to be consumed with finger-nail gnawing guilt if I left any argument of an "opponent" repeatedly unaddressed.

You seem to not suffer from such self-recriminations. And you are not alone. I can think of another poster that repeatedly refused to deal with Trinitarian arguments that I was providing in response to his anti-Trinitarian position.

How, exactly, do you justify to yourself your refusal to engage other people's clear, Biblical arguments. Perhaps I could learn this technique you from you and I would not feel so obliged to respond to my "opponent's" arguments.

And yes, I am being sardonic, and may well get pinged for this by the moderators. Well, if you can call me a liar, when you have no case for such a claim, perhaps this little excursion of mine will be countenanced.

I do not believe that speaking the fact that we have sin is a sin. It is in fact a TRUTH. It is also a fact that 'believers' who claim either themselves or other believers to NOT HAVE SIN are in fact NOT IN TRUTH. Therefore, what are they in but a position of DECEPTION?

Who brings deception to the MIND but the DECEIVER?

So I don't even BLAME the people who hold such nonsense, knowing that there is an adversary who is 'busy' at work trying vainly to 'guard his hold' in the mind.

So no offense to you. I believe you are a saved child of God regardless of those attempts.

s

 

[Drew]

If Paul had sin there is no use trying to avoid that fact trying to claim Paul had no SIN via literary device.

Textbook example of begging the question at issue.

The fact that Paul the believer sinned - and I agree that he did - does not mean that every statement about an unnamed person sinning must be about Paul!!!

How can you not understand this?

Now - I fully accept that, at least, provisionally, the use of the "I", would suggest that Paul is talking about himself.

But, and let's be clear about this:

1. A number of arguments I have provided, including one you repeatedly ignore, make the case that the "I" cannot be Paul the believer;

2. It is demonstrably plausible that the "I" could be a literary device.

 

[Drew]

I do not believe that speaking the fact that we have sin is a sin. It is in fact a TRUTH. It is also a fact that 'believers' who claim either themselves or other believers to NOT HAVE SIN are in fact NOT IN TRUTH. Therefore, what are they in but a position of DECEPTION?

Who brings deception to the MIND but the DECEIVER?

So I don't even BLAME the people who hold such nonsense, knowing that there is an adversary who is 'busy' at work trying vainly to 'guard his hold' in the mind.

So no offense to you. I believe you are a saved child of God regardless of those attempts.

s

I will no longer be engaging you. No hard feelings.

 

[smaller]

Textbook example of begging the question at issue.

The fact that Paul the believer sinned - and I agree that he did - does not mean that every statement about an unnamed person sinning must be about Paul!!!

How can you not understand this?

There is no unnamed person available to see. Paul is speaking openly about himself and the factual condition of having sin, which is applicable to all, believer and unbeliever. I think it quite admirable for him to speak forthrightly about the fact of it personally. In fact I thank God in Christ that he did so!

Now - I fully accept that, at least, provisionally, the use of the "I", would suggest that Paul is talking about himself.

Ya think? There is no doubt to me. How many times have I highlighted all the 'first person' terms that Paul uses in Romans 7 and how many times have you blew those facts off and tried to claim it was not Paul speaking of himself? I don't see your logic in that whatsoever.

But, and let's be clear about this:

1. A number of arguments I have provided, including one you repeatedly ignore, make the case that the "I" cannot be Paul the believer;

And why could it not? You admit that Paul certainly had SIN. He in fact HAD to admit it to be IN TRUTH. That is one SIGN of an Apostle. They MUST speak TRUTHFULLY on this exact matter.

John the Apostle was thankfully even more bold when he connected SIN to the DEVIL. I thank God in Christ for that disclosure as well.

You see Drew, we are all called to be against evil and sin, which same is of the DEVIL. That battle is for EACH of us to make. But to deny that we have that battle is to have already fallen.

2. It is demonstrably plausible that the "I" could be a literary device.

It is not even remotely a possibility if Paul had sin, and he DID. It was mandatory for Paul to speak truthfully about this matter PERSONALLY in order for him to even have credibility.

It is only the pharisee class that seeks to justify the entirety of themselves, even while the Apostle claims EVIL PRESENT.

The Apostle is IN TRUTH. Those who can not 'presently' sit in the seat of this fact are NOT in truth. No amount of wafer ingestion is going to make the fact go away, but that is often sold to the masses.

Temporary SINLESSNESS is also a lie.

We will know sinlessness when we see Jesus as we will be LIKE HIM. That is when we are LIFTED from our present BODY which is subject to the workings of SIN in the flesh, which same is OF THE DEVIL who has access to same to DECEIVE us.

s

 

[childeye]

Many people take away "sin no more" as the lesson here. I take away that we all are sinners and will be judged according to our own measure of judgment. Hence Jesus asks the adultress, "Where are all your accusers?" She answers, "you have made them all go away".

 

[smaller]

Many people take away "sin no more" as the lesson here. I take away that we all are sinners and will be judged according to our own measure of judgment. Hence Jesus asks the adultress, "Where are all your accusers?" She answers, "you have made them all go away".

Exactly! Some just can't read the Old Testament and SEE the Living Hand of Jesus: THE LORD OF LIFE

Jeremiah 17:13
O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

Sound familiar to the woman the account of 'pharisees' who wanted to STONE her for her SIN?

What did JESUS say? That's right....look to yourselves sinners. They didn't dare raise a stone in hand before God in Christ, and instead the ACCUSERS went away ACCUSED in heart by their own SIN.

A little hearing lesson inDEED

s

 

[Adullam]

Exactly! Some just can't read the Old Testament and SEE the Living Hand of Jesus: THE LORD OF LIFE

Jeremiah 17:13
O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

Sound familiar to the woman the account of 'pharisees' who wanted to STONE her for her SIN?

What did JESUS say? That's right....look to yourselves sinners. They didn't dare raise a stone in hand before God in Christ, and instead the ACCUSERS went away ACCUSED in heart by their own SIN.

A little hearing lesson inDEED

s

But unless we repent we will perish. The soul that sins it WILL die.

 

[smaller]

But unless we repent we will perish. The soul that sins it WILL die.

No liars will be entering Heaven.

To be in Truth requires a truthful confession that we carry A LIAR in the form of the TEMPTER. There is no avoiding the obvious. Only those 'in Truth' can speak TRUTH.

s