 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
Galatians 2:20
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. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
1/30/13 12:22 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
If Jesus took all the indignation and wrath of God, why does Paul say it is being revealed from heaven after Calvary, in Romans 1?
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
And why does Paul himself say the wrath of God is coming upon those who are disobedient?
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
The fact is, the Bible nowhere says Jesus' death unilaterally removes the wrath of God from the sinner. If it did, then no one would ever be damned for any amount of sin at all. The wrath of God is removed from the sinner when the sinner repents of his sin and seeks the pardon and mercy offered upon condition of repentance and faith.
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 1/30/13 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/30/13 12:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Did Paul sin? |
Quiet Wyatt |
| spartanfan wrote: | | bradfreeman wrote: | Paul seems to say that, when he sinned, it wasn't him that did it.
Romans 7:16 "But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."
What do you suppose Paul meant by this statement?
Rom. 7:18 "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh ; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."
Paul said it is "no longer" him that does it.
Did it used to be him? What changed?
Romand 7:21 "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members."
What is the "law of God" in his "inner man"?
What is the "law of sin" in his "members"? |
It's interesting - I once heard a homosexual minister say he was sinless in his spirit man but sin was still operating in his body - and like Paul when he sinned it wasn't him that did it. He would love your interpretation of this because it seems to promote being saved in your spirit but still occasionally sinning in your flesh. I disagree.
And you have to be careful about "slipping in" things to substantiate your error like when you said in a post farther down.... "The "law of sin and death" is the law of Moses which "increases sin", is "the power of sin" and which "kills" and brings "condemnation". Our flesh has not experienced the new birth or been freed from the law. We groan and wait for the Romans 8 "redemption of our bodies". It is still under the law of sin."
Wrong again. The law of "sin and death" is found in Ezekiel 18:20 and other places where God says, "The soul that sins, it shall die...."
Paul says in Romans 8:2, "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
How did the law of the Spirit of life set him free? He tells us in Galatians 5:3, "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." If you will live without fulfilling the lust of the flesh then you will live without sinning and you will be set free then by the law of the Spirit of life - free from sin, its dominion, its guilt, its bondage and yes indeed its consequences.
So when you said, "Paul seems to say that, when he sinned, it wasn't him that did it."- you are playing right into the hands of those who promote the devilishy and diobolical duelistic doctrine that divided the disciples in the earlier church suggesting that the spiritual element in man could be released from its bondage in matter- or gnosticism if you prefer. It has always been regarded as a heresy by the true Christian Church.
The "law of sin and death" we are indeed free from but only as we obey the command to "walk in the Spirit", as Romans 8:14 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
My take on this comes from 1 Thessalonians 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Sin has no dominion - no rule - cannot dictate my actions and I can be kept blameless until Jesus comes for me as I walk in the Spirit and refuse to do what is sinful. The homosexual preacher don't like that doctrine. |
Excellent post, spartanfan! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/30/13 12:31 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Did Paul sin? |
Quiet Wyatt |
| bradfreeman wrote: |
God is not a tyrant who requires obedience of those who cannot obey. He requires obedience of those who will not obey. All have sinned and gone their own way. |
Amen to that!
| Quote: | God is a Father of grace and love who sent Jesus to fulfill obedience for the rebels who would not and could not keep the whole law. The obedience of Christ brings us righteousness when we find ourselves in Him by faith. He became sin, we became righteous.
Rom. 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. |
I absolutely agree that it is only by being alive in Christ that we are made righteous. I would only say that the "could not" is determined by the "would not," not the other way around.
| Quote: | | Even though we still occupy the "body of this death" and groan for "the redemption of our bodies" and struggle with sin in our members, in spirit we are holy, righteous, hidden with Christ in God and one with Him. |
What is your definition of sin?
I agree we still will struggle with temptation and the desires of the flesh, but by walking in the Spirit we do not gratify/fulfill those desires. To say that the struggle Paul depicts in Romans 7 is the most a Christian can hope for in this life is simply to ignore the context, especially the chapters preceding and following, in which true victory over sin is described as the normal Christian life. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/30/13 12:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/30/13 12:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Did Paul sin? |
bradfreeman |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I agree we still will struggle with temptation and the desires of the flesh, but by walking in the Spirit we do not gratify/fulfill those desires. To say that the struggle Paul depicts in Romans 7 is the most a Christian can hope for in this life is simply to ignore the context, especially the chapters preceding and following, in which true victory over sin is described as the normal Christian life. |
I think Paul's point throughout Romans on this issue is that:
We will have a struggle with the sin in our flesh until our bodies are redeemed;
There are consequences for sin for the believer and the unbeliever, but they are different;
Our salvation and righteousness is not dependent on our successes or failures in our fight against the flesh but on our faith in Christ.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/30/13 3:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| So I take it you define sin so as to include even impulse/desire and temptation? Would that be your view? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/30/13 3:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | So I take it you define sin so as to include even impulse/desire and temptation? Would that be your view? |
Sin appears to be 2 things in the scripture - a verb and a noun. The context indicates which is being referred to. It is not a sin to be tempted. As James describes, when lust in conceived it brings forth sin. I generally view sin (the verb) as temptation acted on.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/30/13 4:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Randy Johnson |
| bradfreeman wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | So I take it you define sin so as to include even impulse/desire and temptation? Would that be your view? |
Sin appears to be 2 things in the scripture - a verb and a noun. The context indicates which is being referred to. It is not a sin to be tempted. As James describes, when lust in conceived it brings forth sin. I generally view sin (the verb) as temptation acted on. |
I used to use the illustration of fruit on the branches of a tree as an example of sin.
The acts that we call "sins" are actually the fruit of sin.
The "root" of sin is invisible, hidden under the surface. I coined the phrase "Sin must be fought at the level of thought to achieve real victory."
Sinful thoughts lead to sinful actions, but where do sinful thoughts originate?
I once heard an ordained A/G minister who is also a licensed psychologist (and former assistant district superintendent in the state of Ohio) define sin like this:
Dr. Richard Dobbins said, "Sin is a spiritual force that emanates from Lucifer and impacts the physical realm in the human mind".
I always liked that definition because it goes beyond the fruits of sin and get to the root of sin - sinful thoughts introduced to our minds by Satan and his emissaries.
It is how we deal with these sinful thoughts that matters first, because conquering them is the key to conquering the fruit of sin, the outward actions that others can identify by our behavior.
Sin must be fought at the level of thought to achieve real victory.
If you have a fruit tree and cut off all the fruit but do nothing about the root, guess what you will have next year. More fruit.
If people only deal with the acts of sin without dealing with the root of sin, guess what will eventually come back. More sinful actions.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5433
1/30/13 11:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Randy Johnson wrote: | Dr. Richard Dobbins said, "Sin is a spiritual force that emanates from Lucifer and impacts the physical realm in the human mind".
I always liked that definition because it goes beyond the fruits of sin and get to the root of sin - sinful thoughts introduced to our minds by Satan and his emissaries.
|
Doesn't Paul teach that sin is in his members?
Don't James and John teach that lust of the flesh is the source of sin?
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/30/13 11:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dean Steenburgh |
Maybe we have taken the character Paul & superimposed him to be a super hero.
We have lifted him up so high on the theological pedestal for so long & maybe rightfully so that we cannot bear to see the transparency of his comments here in Rom. 7.
I believe we need to answer the question by merely pointing out that first of all Paul was a human who had fleshly desires just like any other man. It was in those weak moments that he found it difficult to say no to his carnal ways/thoughts & he sometimes gave in. For all of us after we sin there is always that ugly feeling of 'why did I fall for that?' or 'Why did I say/do that?'
Paul was no different. We commit a sin but we cannot bear the fact that we insulted the Lord with our sin. It wasn't our Christian man who did the sin but it was the old man of flesh who won the temporary battle over the spirit man & we suffer the consequences of that conviction in our hearts.
I don't think we need a deep theological understanding here as much as we need a reasonable logical understanding that we are human & humans sin ...period.
Christians are human & humans are weak & we don't live as super heroes who are able to fly our cape in the winds of perfection so I think he was saying, 'Hey guys, I'm just like one of you & sometimes I blow it as well, but just so you know, it's not me (Apostle Paul) who is sinning but it is me (Saul the old man) who is weak every once in awhile.
Then again we have made this a much more troubling theological issue for centuries & maybe some enjoy that view even better. 
.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"
Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com
Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on?
Last edited by Dean Steenburgh on 1/30/13 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4682
1/30/13 11:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Dean Steenburgh wrote: | | Christians are human & humans are weak & we don't live as super heroes who are able to fly our cape in the winds of perfection so I think he was saying, 'Hey guys, I'm just like one of you & sometimes I blow it as well, but just so you know, it's not me (Apostle Paul) who is sinning but it is me (Saul the old man) who is weak every once in awhile. |
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/30/13 11:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Randy Johnson wrote: |
Dr. Richard Dobbins said, "Sin is a spiritual force that emanates from Lucifer and impacts the physical realm in the human mind".
I always liked that definition because it goes beyond the fruits of sin and get to the root of sin - sinful thoughts introduced to our minds by Satan and his emissaries. |
While of course it is true that Satan is the Original Sinner and is the Tempter whose aim is always to deceive and influence people to sin, I don't know that I can agree with the terminology of it being a force that emanates from Satan as such. To my mind that goes beyond the Scriptural definition into a sci-fi kind of concept, and comes too close to the Flip Wilson theology of "the Devil made me do it." The plain scriptural definition is that sin is transgression of the law or lawlessness.
| Quote: |
Sin must be fought at the level of thought to achieve real victory.
|
Yes, the mind set in the flesh is death, while the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, as Paul says in Romans 8. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/30/13 11:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| question |
Poimen |
Dean, Jesus was human. Did He sin?
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
1/31/13 12:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I do not see ch. 7 that way at all. |
bonnie knox |
The way I see what Paul is saying in chapter 7 is that the law made him aware that his fleshly desires were wrong but that the law was inadequate to conquer the fleshly desires, but that through God sending Jesus in the flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, all that walk after the Spirit are free from the law of sin and death.
Chapter 7 and 8 go together and are a carefully laid out progression to explain life in the Spirit.
I do not see a "transparency" of Paul saying, "Hey we all sin every once in a while, it's okay, we just can't help it." What I see is Paul saying that the flesh does not want to do the right thing (even when our mind knows right and wrong), but that we are able to walk after the Spirit. In fact, in chapter 7 he has a very striking analogy of believers being married to Christ and "bearing fruit" unto God. In other words, the offspring of this new union is fruit unto God.
| Dean Steenburgh wrote: | Maybe we have taken the character Paul & superimposed him to be a super hero.
We have lifted him up so high on the theological pedestal for so long & maybe rightfully so that we cannot bear to see the transparency of his comments here in Rom. 7.
I believe we need to answer the question by merely pointing out that first of all Paul was a human who had fleshly desires just like any other man. It was in those weak moments that he found it difficult to say no to his carnal ways/thoughts & he sometimes gave in. For all of us after we sin there is always that ugly feeling of 'why did I fall for that?' or 'Why did I say/do that?'
Paul was no different. We commit a sin but we cannot bear the fact that we insulted the Lord with our sin. It wasn't our Christian man who did the sin but it was the old man of flesh who won the temporary battle over the spirit man & we suffer the consequences of that conviction in our hearts.
I don't think we need a deep theological understanding here as much as we need a reasonable logical understanding that we are human & humans sin ...period.
Christians are human & humans are weak & we don't live as super heroes who are able to fly our cape in the winds of perfection so I think he was saying, 'Hey guys, I'm just like one of you & sometimes I blow it as well, but just so you know, it's not me (Apostle Paul) who is sinning but it is me (Saul the old man) who is weak every once in awhile.
Then again we have made this a much more troubling theological issue for centuries & maybe some enjoy that view even better.
. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
1/31/13 12:16 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Lord have mercy.... |
spartanfan |
I didn't realize we had so many doctrinally messed up preachers on Acts. This is ridiculous. We should at least be consistent in the defining of Biblical terms.
Chew on 1 John 3:9 for a moment: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
How does your definition of sin stand in the light of that? |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
1/31/13 1:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Lord have mercy.... |
R. Keith Whitt |
| spartanfan wrote: | I didn't realize we had so many doctrinally messed up preachers on Acts. This is ridiculous. We should at least be consistent in the defining of Biblical terms.
Chew on 1 John 3:9 for a moment: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
How does your definition of sin stand in the light of that? |
DISCLAIMER: This is a general comment and not directed at anyone in particular in this discussion, especially since I have read very few of the posts. Sorry, time is precious
Spartanfan, I think part of the problem is we "gain" our doctrine from popular preachers, instead of the Word. We no longer interact with the whole of Scripture, but pick and choose proof texts to prove our point. Nor, do we engage in the thoughts of those before us who have wrestled with the same issues. I see the rapid resurgence of gnosticism. The old adage is true about history repeating itself....
Keith
_________________
R. Keith Whitt |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 684
1/31/13 7:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I do not see ch. 7 that way at all. |
bradfreeman |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | I do not see a "transparency" of Paul saying, "Hey we all sin every once in a while, it's okay, we just can't help it." |
No one, including Paul, is saying sin is okay. Christ "condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). He hates sin. One sin brought death on the entire human race. Rom. 5:15-19.
What Paul is expressing, here and in other places, is that the flesh has desires that are contrary to the spirit. He, like John, is saying that the real Paul is his spirit and it doesn't sin...ever.
Gal. 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
Rom. 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
John 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this ?"
This statement makes no sense unless Jesus is speaking of spirit, not flesh. We are not our bodies...we live in them (our earthly house). All "corruptible" bodies will die. The real us is spirit and it will never die.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/31/13 7:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Proof texting |
bradfreeman |
| R. Keith Whitt wrote: | | Spartanfan, I think part of the problem is we "gain" our doctrine from popular preachers, instead of the Word. |
Keith, if you feel my doctrine is not based on the Word, I would enjoy a more specific treatment of it from you. It's hard to address such a general attack.
It may be a problem for Christians to "gain" their doctrine from others - but it's unavoidable.
Some get their doctrine from popular preachers, unpopular preachers, pastors and teachers, professors, Oprah, rock stars, TV, music and books. Others say they get their doctrine from the Word and pretend they have not been influenced by unpopular preachers, popular preachers or anyone or anything else, including Oprah. Ultimately, our highest hope is base our doctrine on the Word taught by the Holy Spirit. Sorting out the influences of popular/unpopular preachers etc. is the challenge - though God can and does use people.
| Quote: | | We no longer interact with the whole of Scripture, but pick and choose proof texts to prove our point. Nor, do we engage in the thoughts of those before us who have wrestled with the same issues. I see the rapid resurgence of gnosticism. The old adage is true about history repeating itself.... |
Not that you're speaking to me (but I did start this thread), but I again find it hard to address such a generalized accusations that "we no longer interact with the whole of scripture" (as though we did up until 1992 at which time our views were perfect) or that we neglect views of popular preachers from a different era.
Sometimes when folks make such a generalized statement, it sounds like they are saying "there's some Bible against that view somewhere, I don't know where, but there must be"! I know that's not the case with you, so I encourage you to add all texts or views from other Christians (popular or not) you feel need to be added to this discussion for the issue to get thorough treatment.
It would seem most productive if each of us would "pick and choose proof texts" for his/her point (along with the writings or views of any other Christians/preachers - popular or not) and present them along with our views for discussion so that we may become those "who have wrestled" with these issues. Get in here and wrestle!
As for "proof texting":
Is there some other way to present what the Bible says about a doctrinal point than listing the texts that deal with that issue?
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/31/13 9:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | What Paul is expressing, here and in other places, is that the flesh has desires that are contrary to the spirit. He, like John, is saying that the real Paul is his spirit and it doesn't sin...ever. |
The "real" Paul? When Paul goes through the convoluted section of saying I do that that I would not, etc., he still personally refers to both his flesh and his will as himself (yet they are warring).
As I posted previously, in Galatians 2:20 Paul says "...I live, yet not I..." Yes, there is a paradox in our flesh being physically alive, yet not dictating our walk. But there is also a paradox in the life within us not being our own, as is mentioned in Galatians 2:20. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
1/31/13 9:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
