No they're not. You're conflating those two.
Both justification and sanctification occur at the same time.
At the application of Jesus' blood.
Nope, it's your ignorance, not my invention. For it is written:
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Heb. 5:12-14)
That is indeed a good scripture to make your point.
Men can mature spiritually.
But if they are unspiritual, they won't ever mature spiritually.
Where do sinners fit in that formula ?
They are unspiritual.
And I agree with the Lord himself:
"he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty." (Matt. 13:23)
Good !
But if the fruit is not of God, the seed isn't of God either.
Sinners are not reborn of God's seed.
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. " (Matt. 7:1-2)
I accepted the judgement for my sins.
The judgement was death, which I suffered at my crucifixion with Christ.
And being consistent, no backsliding like Peter or the original receivers of the Hebrew letter.
Correct, though his back-sliding occurred before his real repentance and reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That effort I talked about is no other than our free will. The problem with the teaching of free will is not free will itself, but free will to do WHAT. As Thomas Jefferson said, "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." We are given a free will to resist tyrants and serve God, not resist God and serve tyrants.
Do you have the free will to quit serving sin and start serving God ?
No man can serve two masters...
Then do you disagree or agree? Which one is it? Conscience alone is not sufficient. Paul, before his conversion, as Saul of Tartus brutally persecuted early Christians with good conscience, believing he was purging evildoers for God.
I agree that the sinful churches will fail.
I don't agree that those walking in darkness don't know what sin is.
You're deceiving yourself.
Is "If he is a sinner it is because he is not following Christ." really deception to you ?
I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom. 7:18-24)
You seem to be unaware that the narrative of Paul's Rom 7:23 plight..."But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."...has been answered in Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath
made me free from the law of sin and death."
And, Paul's narrative of his Rom 7:24 plight..."O wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?"...was answered in Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
...that henceforth we should not serve sin.
So, Paul and us are freed from the law of sin, and our old man/body of sin has been destroyed; that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Paul's struggle therein was PRESENT, not a thing of the past, deliverance was future. Go back to school and learn some grammar, man. English is not my mother tongue, and I know this better than you.
As English isn't your first tongue, I will ask you to go to
https://www.papertrue.com/blog/present-tense-narratives-in-novels/... and research the "historic-present tense".
Or Wikipedia's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present .
Paul is narrating events from his past using the present tense during the narrative.