Fair enough, I might have been mistaken in that assumption. However, when it comes to sin, God does not tempt beyond our ability to resist, and our ability to resist is only able to overcome temptation when we remain in Christ. Therefore, the command, "sin no more", is able to be obeyed. It is at least possible.However, the Bible never tells us that just because God commands something, the person who is commanded has the ability to perform the action
veritas aequitas et pax
But we are not dead. We have new LIFE with Christ. We are alive as long as we remain in the giver of life, Christ Jesus. We are only "completely incapable" of obedience if we don't remain in Christ. Because through faith in Christ, comes obedience...The fact of the matter is that although we are rational, moral creatures and physically capable of obedience, from a spiritual standpoint we are completely incapable. We are dead in sin. Dead people cannot obey.
"Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith."
(Romans 1:5)
With Christ, you can obey.
It is only bound by sin when we are apart from Christ. The truth, that is, Christ, sets us free (John 8:32).Our will is bound by sin and the only inclination it has is to do evil.
Of course it doesn't, but he keeps his promises. One of which is, "if you remain in me you will be my desciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." He promises to give us the ability out of love, not out of obligation. It isn't that he is bound to do it because he "must", but simply because He said he would.God has every right to require of us whatever He wants, because He is God. God's command to obey does not place God in some subordinate relationship to His command in which now He must grant spiritual ability.
veritas aequitas et pax
It does not say that He merely gives us the ability to love. The Bible says that if we are born of God we will love.Of course it doesn't, but he keeps his promises. One of which is, "if you remain in me you will be my desciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." He promises to give us the ability out of love, not out of obligation. It isn't that he is bound to do it because he "must", but simply because He said he would.
Do you know of anyone who has obeyed this command? How long has it been since you have sinned? It seems that one would have to have very, very superficial view of sin to think that they could go an hour without sinning while on this earth.Therefore, the command, "sin no more", is able to be obeyed. It is at least possible.
Sola Gratia,
WildBoar
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
In the 1 Cor. 10:13 sense--we may avoid acts of outright and deliberate rebellion against Christ and his gospel. Actually, the context of the verses prior to 1 Cor. 10:13 show that the sin of apostasy is that which God has provided a guaranteed escape from for all Christians.
The flesh is still present in the believer. Every wrong impulse is a sin. It is impossible to be perfectly free from sin until glory. Do we need to discuss all of the biblical support for the continuance of the flesh and its impact upon our spiritual condition in this life?
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
A) I didn't say that. I said God gives us the ability to resist sin OUT OF love for us, rather than out of obligation.It does not say that He merely gives us the ability to love. The Bible says that if we are born of God we will love.
B) God does give us the ability to love, we cannot love unless he gives us the ability to do so. If God doesn't do this, who does?
Well, could you go a second without sinning? Am I sinning while working a math problem? Is it a sin to pray? There are instances in your life where you are not sinning, at least not actually sinning. Now, in regards to the queston, "Do I know anyone who obeyed this command?" Sure, the theif on the cross. After Jesus told the man that he would be with Him in paradise, I find it hard to believe that that man just continued in sinful ways. But since you might think I have a superficial view of sin, I would like you to define sin for me. And could you go an hour on earth without sinning? Sure you could, with Christ and His grace, all things are possible. Now there is a fundamental difference between "not sinning" being at least possible, and not an actuality being lived by any human today. Just because no one is doing it doesn't make it impossible. Alas, I guess it depends on the definition of "sin".Do you know of anyone who has obeyed this command? How long has it been since you have sinned? It seems that one would have to have very, very superficial view of sin to think that they could go an hour without sinning while on this earth.
AmenIn the 1 Cor. 10:13 sense--we may avoid acts of outright and deliberate rebellion against Christ and his gospel.
A) You reject the different magnitude/degrees of sin, yet you single out only "acts of outright and deliberate rebellion against God and His gospel". Your description sounds a lot like the Catholic idea of mortal sin. And I'm sure you are quite glad I pointed that out...not. =)Actually, the context of the verses prior to 1 Cor. 10:13 show that the sin of apostasy is that which God has provided a guaranteed escape from for all Christians.
B) The context also includes idolatry, sexual immorality, testing the lord, and grumbling.
C) The verse says, "And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.". What in the context, if you could show me, would lead to the perspicuity of this verse relating ONLY to "acts of outright and deliberate rebellion against God and his gospel" and not all sin?
Of course not, I am not denying that the flesh has a severe impact on our lives. I AM saying that with the power of God's grace, the flesh can be overcome.Do we need to discuss all of the biblical support for the continuance of the flesh and its impact upon our spiritual condition in this life?
INdeed it is. Be that as it may, the flesh is in now way stonger than the grace of Christ, and can therefore be overcome by it.The flesh is still present in the believer. Every wrong impulse is a sin. It is impossible to be perfectly free from sin until glory.
veritas aequitas et pax
Men sin while praying all the time and while working math problems. Anything not done completely to the glory of God is sin. Anytime we do not love God with all of our being it is sin. Men ascribe all kinds of false things to God in their prayers and ask for things they ought not. They become distracted by some stray thought and lose their focus upon God. Whatosever is not of faith is sin.Well, could you go a second without sinning? Am I sinning while working a math problem? Is it a sin to pray?
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Thank you for the reply. Can you provide the scripture that shows that "anything not done completely to the glory of God is sin"? While my examples might not have been good choices, I would like to try another. Does man sin at the moment he receives the grace of faith?Men sin while praying all the time and while working math problems. Anything not done completely to the glory of God is sin. Anytime we do not love God with all of our being it is sin. Men ascribe all kinds of false things to God in their prayers and ask for things they ought not. They become distracted by some stray thought and lose their focus upon God. Whatosever is not of faith is sin.
While that is going on, I am not trying to argue the fact that I don't sin. I am asking if not sinning is at least possible.
veritas aequitas et pax
I'm sure they do, but is it possible to do a math problem while not sinning?Men sin while praying all the time and while working math problems
This is trivial information. Of course it is a sin to pray sinfully. I do not deny that. But not every prayer is a sinful prayer.Men ascribe all kinds of false things to God in their prayers and ask for things they ought not
Bill Said
By this I think he meant the sinful flesh, or whatever. If that is so, and after a man is justified, this sinful flesh remains, how does that work with the follwoing scripture...The flesh is still present in the believer.
"1: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2: By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"
(Romans 6:1-2 RSV)
Paul is addressing those who are under the error that their sins are actually somewhat a good thing (at least I think), but that isn't my point. My point is within Paul's following explanation.
"3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6: We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7: For he who has died is freed from sin. 8: But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
Would this not show that the sinful flesh, the sinful body has been destroyed in baptism? If this is so, why do you say it persists?
veritas aequitas et pax
"Body of sin" is definitely a figurative expression, since scripture nowhere states that sin is biological or resides in the genes of man. It definitely does not; otherwise Christ himself would have been a sinner. Sin is purely a spiritual principle and resides in the spirit of man only, the same as righteousness is a spiritual principle and resides in the spirit of man only. It manifests itself in acts of the body, however.
When one thinks he/she sins due to bodily weakness, this is what 'seems to be'--but it is a deception. Biology is not what drags us down. It is only what drags us down in our worldly method of thinking. The very fact that we blame our sin on our physical weaknesses shows how much we misunderstand it.
So if the Christian has 'crucified' the flesh, how can it remain at all? If there were no remaining 'flesh' in us to be concerned about, there would be no need for Christ, Paul, or any of the apostles to warn us against fulfilling its lusts--thus exhorting us to wage war against it. Clearly, the 'crucifixion' is one of imputation on our part and not one of a complete ontological reality in this life.
Rom. 6:11: Count or reckon yourselves dead unto sin.
This is the only thing that WE are able to do by the power of the Spirit: crucify the flesh in our reckoning. Any actual work to END the actual DOMINION of the flesh in us is God's act of grace and not ours AT ALL. So the only thing that we can do is to RECKON or IMPUTE ourselves dead to it--even though it is still present in a measure (though no longer in DOMINION if we are born from above).
1 John speaks of three kinds or manifestations of sin in the world. One type is completely absent from the believer (that mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:6-13), another is absent only when the believer is walking in the Spirit, a third is always present with us until glory. I will elaborate further when I have a moment to expand upon all of it.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Thank you for the reply, Bill
I agree"Body of sin" is definitely a figurative expression, since scripture nowhere states that sin is biological or resides in the genes of man. It definitely does not; otherwise Christ himself would have been a sinner. Sin is purely a spiritual principle and resides in the spirit of man only, the same as righteousness is a spiritual principle and resides in the spirit of man only. It manifests itself in acts of the body, however.
AgreedWhen one thinks he/she sins due to bodily weakness, this is what 'seems to be'--but it is a deception. Biology is not what drags us down. It is only what drags us down in our worldly method of thinking. The very fact that we blame our sin on our physical weaknesses shows how much we misunderstand it
This is exactly my question. If our old "sinful bodies" are destroyed as it says in Romans 6:6, and yet we are still capable of sinning, there are two possible reasons.So if the Christian has 'crucified' the flesh, how can it remain at all? If there were no remaining 'flesh' in us to be concerned about, there would be no need for Christ, Paul, or any of the apostles to warn us against fulfilling its lusts--thus exhorting us to wage war against it.
1) Some of the "sinful body" still remains
2) Some other thing is able to choose sin
The reason I think 2 is a possibility is because before the fall, the flesh was in a "non-fallen" state, it was not yet corrupted. Otherwise, if that is not so, Adam and Eve were sinning before the fall, thus making the fall not the first sin of man. This being so, Adam and Eve were able to sin before the corrupt flesh. This is why I believe 2 to be at least possible right now.
Now, if 2 is a possibility, it also could be the reason Christ, Paul or any of the apostles exhoted us to wage war against the impulse of sin.
Indeed, Christ and his grace can crucify our sinful flesh and grant us freedom from its sinful ways. That is exactly my point.This is the only thing that WE are able to do by the power of the Spirit: crucify the flesh in our reckoning. Any actual work to END the actual DOMINION of the flesh in us is God's act of grace and not ours AT ALL.
Actually, we can do nothing in regards to our sinful flesh. Only God and his grace can, as far as I understand.So the only thing that we can do is to RECKON or IMPUTE ourselves dead to it--even though it is still present in a measure (though no longer in DOMINION if we are born from above).
That being so, where in scripture is it perspicuous that after the flesh is crucified, after we begin our new life in Christ, that some of the old life remains?
veritas aequitas et pax
Well, “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23) and “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb 11:6) whereas what is done by faith is by its nature done to the glory of God. Growing strong in faith is said to result in “giving glory to God” (Rom. 4:20) The Apostle Paul exhorts us: “whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31, see also 1 Pe 4:11). The only valid motive for obeying any scriptural command is to glorify God, hence, since sin is wilful disobedience, then the motive in disobedience is never to glorify God. Romans 3:23 teaches that in sinning, all men come short of the glory of God.Originally Posted by thepaulinator
I think you may be missing the point BillTwisse is making when he says that ”Clearly, the 'crucifixion' is one of imputation on our part and not one of a complete ontological reality in this life.”. I.e. our physical flesh has not really been crucified. Our physical flesh is unaltered by regeneration – as Paul says “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor 4:7). Hence, this is why all we can do is “reckon ourselves dead to sin.”
I think 2 Cor 4:7 quoted above answers this as does Rom. 7:18-25.
Martin
Martin i think you have missed the point of b.t, our physical flesh is intrinsicaly not sinful,the bible does not teach this. Jesus came in human flesh with out sin,. Ivor Thomas,....
To make clear what i said in last post the bible does not teach our physical flesh is intrinsically sinful,. Ivor Thomas,...
Oops! I think you're right!Martin i think you have missed the point of b.t, our physical flesh is intrinsicaly not sinful,the bible does not teach this. Jesus came in human flesh with out sin,. Ivor Thomas,....
I believe the use of flesh in the bible is much wider than just physical flesh and has reference to our sinful nature and certainly it is within the heart of man that sinful thoughts originate - not in their flesh. In Romans 7:18-25 Paul speaks of there being two 'natures' or 'laws' at work in our "inner being": one that delights in God's law (v. 22) and the "sinful nature" (v. 18), that is, the "law of sin at work within" him, "waging war against against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner" (v.23). (See also Gal 5:17 which one translation has as "your choices are never free from this conflict"). All of this is to say that a sinful nature remains within the believer that is never completely eradicated or "crucified" in this mortal body. I realise that this may still leave still unanswered thepaulinator's question of how then can there still be some of the "sinful body" remaining if the old self was crucified with Him (Romans 6:6). I think the difference lies between the mind and the sinful nature. The “old self” that was crucified and given new life and hence set free from sin is the mind – in which Paul says he is now a “slave to God’s law”. The sinful nature which remains makes war against the mind that has been set free and delights in God’s law whereas, in the unregenerate, there is no such conflict, since “the whole head is sick” (Isa 1:5)
Hope this makes things a bit clearer!
Martin
Indeed this last part does.I think the difference lies between the mind and the sinful nature. The “old self” that was crucified and given new life and hence set free from sin is the mind – in which Paul says he is now a “slave to God’s law”. The sinful nature which remains makes war against the mind that has been set free and delights in God’s law whereas, in the unregenerate, there is no such conflict, since “the whole head is sick” (Isa 1:5)
A question though. The mind is now set free from sin. The sinful nature remains, and makes war against the mind that is set free. With the grace of Christ, is the mind incapable of winning the war against the sinful nature? I would say with the grace of Christ, sin can always be overcome, even sin that comes from the sinful nature (1 cor 10:13).
Further, if the "mind" is now set "free" from sin, could this possibly be considered the will now set free, or free will?
veritas aequitas et pax
If the will is always subject to the condition of the mind: "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he," then the will can never rise above the condition of the mind and heart. It is always subject to it.
The free-will theory of saint (?) Justin Martyr ff., in the history of dogma, has always proposed that the will can act contrary to the mind. In both directions! It proposed that a perfect Lucifer who was created in extreme holiness acted contrary to all of his exalted holy desires of obeying God supremely--instead committing eternal sin 'just for the hell of it'! Paradox theology. So if we accept this proposition, any stupid nonsense can be promoted as truth, since there is no logical harmony in any of God's ways! He created beings in his image that can act out of harmony with their true desires at any time in any way.
If John Milton's fable is believed, Paulinator is right! If God removes the sinful nature entirely at conversion, man can still choose to sin again--just like the devil did originally! Methodism and all philosophy based on Justin and Origen's views of free will teach the same thing. Origen was the only consistent philosopher, however, for he was the only one who taught that free-will choices continue into the next life and forever. If the focus of God's eternal purposes are about honoring free-will to the fullest, Origen (condemned by the councils of the 'church') is the best exponent of the meaning of those purposes.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I can't tell is this is still being used in the negative connotation or not, as it could be "any stupid nonsense" promoted as truth. If it is, and is a way of disagreeing, Ihave a question.He created beings in his image that can act out of harmony with their true desires at any time in any way.
When Eve chose to eat the apple, what was the cause?
If the cause was God, God is the author and origin of sin.
If it was Eve, how was she able to choose against her "true desires" if not free will acting apart, separate from grace?
Well, I may be wrong that it is removed entirely at the moment of conversion. However, if some of it is removed and the rest left where is it perspicuously shown in scripture? Once that is done, where is it perspicuous that after conversion, the grace of Christ is not capable of enabling a man to resist the flesh? Further, if all sins are the same, why is it that only some sins are able to be resisted, and others are not? Finally, if all sins are the same, why are the "sins of the flesh" not regarded as those sins that a "saved" person (elect) no longer commit after conversion (e.g. murder, adultery, etc.)?If God removes the sinful nature entirely at conversion...
Question:...man can still choose to sin again--just like the devil did originally
Is it possible for a man to be sanctified without being "regenerate"?
Answer:
No
"28: A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29: How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?"
(Hebrews 10:28-29 RSV)
This following these verses:
"26: For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27: but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."
(Hebrews 10:26-27 RSV)
After receiving knowledge of the truth, as well as being sanctified, a man is described as sinning deliberately. Either this is because the man has no free will, and therefore his actions are controlled by God, making God the author of his sin, or the sin is committed because the will chose sin rather than grace. A foolish thing to do, of course, which is exactly why sin is so absurdly foolish.
veritas aequitas et pax
Paulinator said:
"Either this is because the man has no free will, and therefore his actions are controlled by God, making God the author of his sin, or the sin is committed because the will chose sin rather than grace. A foolish thing to do, of course, which is exactly why sin is so absurdly foolish."
Romans 9:13
""As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,""
As for Adam and Eve, there is no Scripture that says it was an "apple".
Adam and Eve are not like the regenerate elect.
Adam and Eve had no "ability" nor "free-will". God created them perfect and not with this "Satanic ability to obey".
God did not create Adam and Eve to obey or else they would have obeyed.
To say more or less is to deny what actually happened. To say Adam and Eve had [TRUE] Free-will is to deny that God ORDAINED whatsoever cometh to pass {Ephesians 1:11}. God not only knew Adam and Eve would disobey, but PLANNED it. Our God is not one in a watchtower who awaits what his wayward, unpredictable creatures will do. Because this is so...God says:
""Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?""
If I were to worship a "god" who did not know and PLAN what occurs in this wicked mess, I would be truly without hope and subject to chance and every fear man could come up with.
But:
Psalm 115:1 Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.
2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?
3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.""
plainly tells me that our God does not want to do something or {anything} that he has not already planned from all eternity with the most perfect infallible certainty imaginable.
Romans 9 makes it clear that there is no "unrighteousness with God" making God the creator of sin and not guilty of any evil himself.
James says all evil is the creature's fault, not God's:
James 1:3 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
Bill
Do we really know who first came up with this doctrine of "free-will" of man in who is to be saved?
It was LUCIFER!
Isaiah 14:12
""How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
He was the first "free-willer".
Bill
Romans 9 says nothing about God being the author of sin. That text is explicitly dealing with the principle of devine election. If God does not elect someone, that does not make God unrighteous, it just means your will has no bearing on wether God elects you or not. In verse 16, Paul says this: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy". In saying this, your election does not depend on anything inside of you, it is of God. Just because election doesn't originate in our wills, doesn't mean we don't have them. Further, if man is unable to will freely, why would Paul use the phrase, "him that willeth"? Seems odd for someone who denies a free will to mention someone willing something. There is a difference in saying "man has a will, and it is only free when one remains in Christ", and saying "Man is able to will himself into heaven". I say the first, pelagians say the last one.
veritas aequitas et pax
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks