No Condemnation For Those In Christ (Romans 8:1)

[GracePeace]

Late to the party, but glad I'm here!

I long for the Bible to make sense, to cohere with itself. People get mad about that.

 

[Wynona]

In topics concerning salvation, there are plenty of people who aren't willing to be wrong or be corrected.

You can post Scriptures that say something clearly, and they will simply dodge it or find a way to make it back up what they already believe.

I'm trying to get away from just assuming people just have purely evil motives for doing this. I didn't have a pure determination to believe Scripture at all costs either as a newer Christian.

But no matter what someone's motive is for hanging on to unbiblical doctrines lile OSAS, I think its good to engage on forums about it, even if its clear that they aren't willing to consider being wrong.

The opponent may never cave but some in the audience are fence sitters like I was.

I used to sit on the fence and watch forum debates like this. It got ugly at times, but I finally took to reading the New Testament letters in context again to find the truth.

I read it as if I never heard anything about the faith before.

My trust in churches, devotionals, sermons, worship songs, and popular Christian culture has never recovered.

We repeat things constantly that speak against Scripture and direct commands from Christ and act like its a sacred creed.

Big respected names like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Piper, etc. People quote them or worse offshoots of their ideas and will speak against bible instructions to defend those ideas.

We have to stop sinning and obey Jesus. But in order to do that, we have to come to God's Word with an open mind and heart. We can't assume we know it just because we heard "rest in the finished work of the cross" two hundred times in the past.

That's not in the Bible.

 

[GracePeace]

In topics concerning salvation, there are plenty of people who aren't willing to be wrong or be corrected.

You can post Scriptures that say something clearly, and they will simply dodge it or find a way to make it back up what they already believe.

I'm trying to get away from just assuming people just have purely evil motives for doing this. I didn't have a pure determination to believe Scripture at all costs either as a newer Christian.

But no matter what someone's motive is for hanging on to unbiblical doctrines lile OSAS, I think its good to engage on forums about it, even if its clear that they aren't willing to consider being wrong.

The opponent may never cave but some in the audience are fence sitters like I was.

I used to sit on the fence and watch forum debates like this. It got ugly at times, but I finally took to reading the New Testament letters in context again to find the truth.

I read it as if I never heard anything about the faith before.

My trust in churches, devotionals, sermons, worship songs, and popular Christian culture has never recovered.

We repeat things constantly that speak against Scripture and direct commands from Christ and act like its a sacred creed.

Big respected names like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Piper, etc. People quote them or worse offshoots of their ideas and will speak against bible instructions to defend those ideas.

We have to stop sinning and obey Jesus. But in order to do that, we have to come to God's Word with an open mind and heart. We can't assume we know it just because we heard "rest in the finished work of the cross" two hundred times in the past.

That's not in the Bible.

I kinda think it's both.
I've experienced deliverance from sin by grace through faith. That stopped the power of the evil one, extinguishing his fiery arrows.

So, my speculation is: acknowledging the good God has done is one part, and, from there, walk in love toward God and others, remaining within the boundaries of conviction we currently have.
Then we can "give thanks" (Ro 14:6) when living out convictions, which the Lord authors, as unto the Lord, not fearfully, even if it is also true that we will be ashamed and condemned if we break faith (ie, it's a matter of emphasis).

For your consideration--I'm still working things out.

 

[MatthewG]

Good word, Wynona. The hardest person to overcome is ourselves in allowing Jesus Christ to come through.

It’s normally in times of stress, or contention, or perhaps a person is just completely ignored on also searching to converse about their own personal seeings concerning the Bible; even so.

Jesus was ignored, looked down upon, and hated; those same attributes which Jesus was given, is also experienced by other believers.

While the cross, and picking it up and dying to oneself is tough, Yeshua makes it possible by overcoming those burdens, and desires for us to be free and move around freely not in bondage, and to continue to move forward and share what you have learned and know, when spirit lead.

Even if you are overlooked our acceptances should not be of the “want of man” but the desire and wishing to be pleasing to Yahweh by and through faith letting the spirit come through our lives while we decide to die to our fleshly ways which can be very difficult to overcome cause of our complexity, with Christ though, and with God these things are possible to overcome; while perhaps never being perfect in everyone way, one can be complete in the measure of faith towards Yahweh in being at peace with him; despite what others may allude to; or just declare you as just a person who psychotic, or deemed unworthy or unwarranted, or even hated by God because they say so, or think so, or believe so. Those thoughts shouldn’t overcome what you know in your heart and how God does love and care for you and all.

 

[Behold]

I long for the Bible to make sense, to cohere with itself.

It makes sense to me.
Why does it not make sense to you?

Let me ask you a simple question, and maybe we can find out what you need to know. @GracePeace

Q.) Why is it, that The Same Jesus who saved the Believer.. .always keeps them saved no matter how they behave, later ??

Why is that True?

 

[GracePeace]

It makes sense to me.
Why does it not make sense to you?

Let me ask you a simple question, and maybe we can find out what you need to know. @GracePeace

Q.) Why is it, that The Same Jesus who saved the Believer.. .always keeps them saved no matter how they behave, later ??

Why is that True?

You can make your own thread on that topic; the topic here is that not all remain, bc there no condemnation to those who are in Christ, yet remaining is by keeping His commands, and we read that those who break His commands are condemned (so, clearly, theyre not remaining).

If you're interested in the discussion, you're welcome to chime in.

 

[Wynona]

I kinda think it's both.
I've experienced deliverance from sin by grace through faith. That stopped the power of the evil one, extinguishing his fiery arrows.

So, my speculation is: acknowledging the good God has done is one part, and, from there, walk in love toward God and others, remaining within the boundaries of conviction we currently have.
Then we can "give thanks" (Ro 14:6) when living out convictions, which the Lord authors, as unto the Lord, not fearfully, even if it is also true that we will be ashamed and condemned if we break faith (ie, it's a matter of emphasis).

For your consideration.

I appreciate this. I'd say that God can deliver us from sinning in a supernatural and profound way where it becomes effortless to walk in the Spirit. Addictions can break in an instant through the Holy Spirit.

I also believe we can overcome sin by a slower, more consistant abiding in Christ. Remaining in the Word till it sets us free. Keeping our minds set on things above at all times.

We can still stumble with the second approach. Jesus shows us a pattern of longsuffering as long as were living by faith, getting back up, and continuing to practice righteousness. I don't think you just lose your salvation every time you sin.

We don't have to live in constant fear. The fruit we produce when we abide in Christ is very reassuring and God wants us to succeed. When we love one another and are like Jesus in this world, we don't have fear but confidence.

I just get tired of hearing the phrase "rest in the finished work of the cross" being used to support the idea that we don't have to follow the Lord's instructions.

 

[GracePeace]

I appreciate this. I'd say that God can deliver us from sinning in a supernatural and profound way where it becomes effortless to walk in the Spirit. Addictions can break in an instant through the Holy Spirit.

I also believe we can overcome sin by a slower, more consistant abiding in Christ. Remaining in the Word till it sets us free. Keeping our minds set on things above at all times.

We can still stumble with the second approach. Jesus shows us a pattern of longsuffering as long as were living by faith, getting back up, and continuing to practice righteousness. I don't think you just lose your salvation every time you sin.

We don't have to live in constant fear. The fruit we produce when we abide in Christ is very reassuring and God wants us to succeed. When we love one another and are like Jesus in this world, we don't have fear but confidence.

I just get tired of hearing the phrase "rest in the finished work of the cross" being used to support the idea that we don't have to follow the Lord's instructions.

Yep, 95% of men in Protestant Churches (tabulated by a men's ministry that visits churches) are addicted to porn--these are the guys saying "rest in the finished works of Christ". It's a shame and a blasphemy of Christ. It's powerless false doctrine. The devil has a field day with them. Then they say "The Lord loves me, still, though I am a sinner--by faith, I'm the righteousness of God in Christ" (though they're not abiding in Christ to begin with)--toothless (the devil knocked all their teeth out) mamby pamby nonsense. The angels will expel the lawless from the Kingdom at the end.

 

[MatthewG]

It really is a wonderful thing that in the end it’s Yahweh who will judge.

While we personally can sit in our seat and see it as a throne to place ourselves on, and place judgments on everyone else around us, if we never look at ourselves in the mirror; then we miss the one whom Yeshua had come to deliver. It’s ourselves from our own perspective in understanding we all still fall short of the glory of God.

Like the guy Rabbi Zacharias - for example he was held up in high standing until they found pornography on his phone… (well … ) now he is just a gross human being, and deemed to be going to hell by the council…

But people forget about Paul, and his thorn that was not let go, but the Lord grace was sufficient, oh to heck with Paul, “I’m better than him” they assume…

Thanks again @Wynona and praise be to Yahweh and to the Son, Yeshua. All the best to you, yours and all here on the board.

 

[Behold]

yet remaining is by keeping His commands,

So, you can change the topic, by stating that you keep yourself saved by commandment keeping...

I see.

Well, you just answered my Question, as you just tried to prove that you will go to heaven or not, by "commandment keeping" or not.

As your theology is... "i keep myself abiding in Jesus, by doing His Commandments"., and if i dont, then im no longer "abibing" = lost my salvation.

So, you are not trusting in Christ to keep you saved, and that means you are not trusting in Christ to get you into heaven.

You are trusting in YOURSELF... as "as long i i keep those commandments"....... i get to go to heaven.

Well, that is what is called "no faith in Christ" but total faith in Self to try to keep commandments.
What you have is a devout case of : LEGALISM

Now, What does that show you?
It shows you that the Cross of Christ is not what you yet understand, or you would not be teaching "commandment keeping", as YOUR Way to try to make it into heaven.. (Keep abiding in Christ).

So, that is why the New Testament does seem coherent to you, and its not going to, until your belief system becomes, "IN CHRIST" alone, and departs from "here is what i must do"... "Commandments" or i can't go to Heaven.

 

[GracePeace]

I appreciate this. I'd say that God can deliver us from sinning in a supernatural and profound way where it becomes effortless to walk in the Spirit. Addictions can break in an instant through the Holy Spirit.

I also believe we can overcome sin by a slower, more consistant abiding in Christ. Remaining in the Word till it sets us free. Keeping our minds set on things above at all times.

We can still stumble with the second approach. Jesus shows us a pattern of longsuffering as long as were living by faith, getting back up, and continuing to practice righteousness. I don't think you just lose your salvation every time you sin.

We don't have to live in constant fear. The fruit we produce when we abide in Christ is very reassuring and God wants us to succeed. When we love one another and are like Jesus in this world, we don't have fear but confidence.

I just get tired of hearing the phrase "rest in the finished work of the cross" being used to support the idea that we don't have to follow the Lord's instructions.

It is tempting to think "if I just have faith, I'll overcome sin".
Paul says "If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh you will live", and "How is boasting done away with? By a Law of works? No, by a Law of faith!"... but the example we have of him overcoming boasting "by the Spirit" is where he submits to Christ giving him a messenger of satan to attack his body to prevent him from boasting (2 Co 12). His boasting was not nullified because he was in a static "in Christ" position. Rather, he desired to be found in Christ so that by some means he might attain to the resurrection of the righteous. Holiness, for Paul, was a process and it was by remaining submitted to Christ and Christ's Word. It wasn't by faith in a word on a page, but by a relationship, actually knowing Christ. Christ is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6)--there's no way around that.

 

[GracePeace]

So, you can change the topic, by stating that you keep yourself saved by commandment keeping...

I see.

Well, you just answered my Question, as you just tried to prove that you will go to heaven or not, by "commandment keeping" or not.

As your theology is... "i keep myself abiding in Jesus, by doing His Commandments"., and if i dont, then im no longer "abibing" = lost my salvation.

So, you are not trusting in Christ to keep you saved, and that means you are not trusting in Christ to get you into heaven.

You are trusting in YOURSELF... as "as long i i keep those commandments"....... i get to go to heaven.

Well, that is what is called "no faith in Christ" but total faith in Self to try to keep commandments.
What you have is a devout case of : LEGALISM

Now, What does that show you?
It shows you that the Cross of Christ is not what you yet understand, or you would not be teaching "commandment keeping", as YOUR Way to try to make it into heaven..

So, that is why the Bible does seem coherent to you, and its not going to, until your belief system, "IN CHRIST" alone, and off of "here is what i must do"...

When you're prepared to address the topic, you may.

 

[CadyandZoe]

we see that believing in the Name of God's Son is believing God alone saves.

I don't see where John makes your point.

Now, when the Galatians believed another Gospel (Gal 1:6) which persuasion did not come from God (Gal 5:8), this means the persuasion came from somewhere else. Where else, in the spirit world, would it have come from? Demons.

The specific anathema in the epistle of Galatians is not idolatry or the worship of demons; rather, Paul is objecting to the Judaizers who teach that one must live Jewishly to attain God's approval.

The message they were believing was that they would justify themselves by deeds of the Law--they had another savior.

I agree that the Pharisees sought God's approval through the works of the Law. However, they did not reject the belief that "Yahweh Saves." In their view, they believed that if they could convince the entire nation of Israel to live according to the law for one day, the Messiah would come and deliver the nation from their enemies. They would agree with your view that "Yahweh Saves."

The debate among the Jewish people at the time concerned Jesus' claim to be the coming one, the Messiah. Thus, John has focused his first epistle on that question, and he defends Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. The Pharisees didn't reject the idea that Yahweh saves; they rejected the claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Contrary to your supposition, the commandment is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not that "Yahweh Saves."

1. No, "remember", actually, I reject your "take" on Ro 8:1--Paul states if any of these live after the flesh, sin, they will die.

I understand you reject my interpretation of Romans 8:1, but you haven't supplied good reasons why my interpretation is incorrect so far.

2. Ro 11 explicitly states that my view: those who have been grafted in by faith can be cut off by unbelief.

I have no dispute with your conclusion from Romans 11, except to say that Paul is not talking about believers who are also "in Christ" according to the way that Paul has defined the term. It will never be the case that someone "in Christ" will fall away and be cut off.

1. You're saying that Christians never do things they don't believe are correct. This is untenable, and an embarrassing attempt to hold your view together, make what is incoherent and indefensible seem coherent.
2. Why would unbelievers be held to the rule believers are held to? The Lord doesn't author their persuasions. Remember, Paul says "I know and am fully persuaded in the Lord"--the persuasions of believers come from the Lord. Why would Paul be holding the unbeliever, whose persuasions are not authored from the Lord, to the standard that they must do what they believe is correct when their persuasions aren't authored by the Lord? Also, why would the unbeliever be "condemned" only AFTER breaking the rule the believers are meant to live by? It makes no sense--the unbeliever is condemned already.
Thus, your view is completely lacking coherence.

If that is what you think I said, then I miscommunicated. It seems that you have drawn conclusions from what I said that I never meant. I apologize for that. I didn't mean to suggest that Christians never do things they don't believe, nor did I suggest that unbelievers were being held to the same rules as believers.

I was simply reacting to your standpoint that Paul is writing exclusively to "true believers," which is an interpretive assumption that I reject. We should never assume that a church is exclusively populated by true believers. An epistle written to a church is going to be heard by everyone in attendance, whether they be true believers, casual believers, or unbelievers. For this reason, Paul does not expect us to conclude that his statements are directed exclusively to true believers.

I wanted to comment on Paul's use of the second-person plural "you" in his argument. He positions the reader as an impartial observer, allowing him to be critical of those who use religion to cause division without directly condemning anyone in particular. It is not likely that Paul is using the second person plural "you" to indicate true believers since a true believer would be aware of Jesus' teaching against judging another person. Those who are using religion to condemn others or hold another person in contempt are not true believers, but others merely claiming to be followers of Jesus.

It is fair to claim that Paul, like the rest of us, is aware of the unfortunate reality that not all believers are genuine, sincere, dedicated followers of Jesus Christ. According to our language, some Christians exist in name only. Jesus postulates three kinds of people who believe the word of God, but only one kind of believer perseveres to the end. (Luke 8:15) Paul has coined the term "in Christ" to indicate Christians of the third sort. By definition, they remain in Christ, they don't fall away, they walk according to the Spirit, they are led by the Spirit and they will be raised to eternal life by the Spirit in them.

That's not my point. I never said "a single sin dooms a Christian to destruction forever", I'm merely describing that "moral failure" as "not remaining in Christ".

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Sorry. I was reacting to your argument, which closely associated the "condemnation" mentioned in Romans 8:1 with the condemnation mentioned in Romans 14:23. I assumed or was mistaken to think that you thought they were the same thing. The condemnation mentioned in Romans 8:1 is to be doomed to destruction forever.

The Scripture describes it as "destroying the work of God"--to what ever degree that destruction may be. It doesn't mean "You annihilated God's work, and your brother is going to hell, now. Great job." There are varying degrees of destruction. If I break even a single brick in a brick house, that is destruction of property.

Yes, let's talk about that for a minute. We haven't discussed what Paul means by "breaking down the work of God." Do you agree that the work in view is the body of Christ and perhaps a specific local church?

Your point is moot, because the "true brother" must be protected from sinning (Ro 14:23), which you had denied referred to a "true believer" at al
No, actually, the one who is happy because he does not condemn himself in what he approves is happy because he is not bringing God's condemnation on himself by practicing his freedom in front of his brother that causes his brother to stumble--the sentence immediately prior.

Romans 14
22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

My stance is substantiated by Scriptural precedent, which defined the "judger" as a true believer.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Let me give a brief commentary on this section for the sake of our discussion. :)

 

[Peterlag]

The bible is spiritual Light.
The bible is revelation knowledge.
We are to "study (the word) to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman (diligent student) ......."

Every Great "man or woman" of God, was a devout student of the Bible.
They LOVED the word of God.
But there is a : Caveat.....

Paul teaches that we are to study, so the the Spirit of God shows us how to "Rightly Divide".. the Word.

So, wrong study, leads to "wrongly dividing" and that produced "Calvinism" "Mormonism" "JW"... "Cult of the Virgin"... and many more.

See, there is "One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism", yet, even on this forum, there are many faiths, in many different things, that all claim to be TRUE.
And many are not.. and that is a result.... not of bible study, but it happens because false teaching became someone's truth.

Here is how to avoid that.

= We have to be BORN AGAIN, and not just water baptized and Religious.
= We have to do what Hebrews 13:9 says to do with our HEART, (KJV)...or a "doctrine of devils' is going to get you as this verse teaches.
= WE have to devote most of our bible Study to Paul's Epistles.

Romans 3:21-28 has to be understood, like "breathing".

2 Corinthians 5:19... and John 3:17.... and 1 John 3:9.... the same.

And Romans 4:8...

And many more but those can help get a person back on Track, who is trying to "stay saved" vs "Trusting ONLY in Christ to keep them saved".. ....for example.

I guess I have already done that. Graduated from studying the Bible. Why is Calvinism as bad as the Catholics?

 

[GracePeace]

I don't see where John makes your point.

It's your option to see it. I stand by my argument.

The specific anathema in the epistle of Galatians is not idolatry or the worship of demons; rather, Paul is objecting to the Judaizers who teach that one must live Jewishly to attain God's approval.

So are you denying the Judaizers are teaching a doctrine of demons, or are you denying the idols the nations worship are demons? If you deny neither, on what basis are you disagreeing?

I agree that the Pharisees sought God's approval through the works of the Law. However, they did not reject the belief that "Yahweh Saves." In their view, they believed that if they could convince the entire nation of Israel to live according to the law for one day, the Messiah would come and deliver the nation from their enemies. They would agree with your view that "Yahweh Saves."

I've already addressed this: God being Savior is not enough, it is what God means by that statement that they'd have to accept.

The debate among the Jewish people at the time concerned Jesus' claim to be the coming one, the Messiah. Thus, John has focused his first epistle on that question, and he defends Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. The Pharisees didn't reject the idea that Yahweh saves; they rejected the claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Contrary to your supposition, the commandment is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not that "Yahweh Saves."

For the reasons I've supplied, we're just going to disagree.

I understand you reject my interpretation of Romans 8:1, but you haven't supplied good reasons why my interpretation is incorrect so far.

You've not made a single point against the many reasons I've furnished.

I have no dispute with your conclusion from Romans 11, except to say that Paul is not talking about believers who are also "in Christ" according to the way that Paul has defined the term. It will never be the case that someone "in Christ" will fall away and be cut off.

1. How are they not "in Christ" when God grafted them in by faith? They have faith. Is it not "true faith"? Did they "trick" God into grafting them in, then? Also, the opposite of their "faith" is the Jews' "unbelief", whereby theyd been "cut off". Faith sees God graft the believer in to God's people, unbelief sees God cut the unbeliever off. There is no false faith whereby anyone tricks God into grafting in, and there is no false unbelief whereby God is tricked into cutting off--and the one God grafted in by faith can be cut off for unbelief, and the one He cut off for unbelief can be grfted back in if his heart changes and he has faith (again, the heart conditions aren't static).
2. This idea ("in Christ" is a static position) of yours has been debunked in this discussion--you've made no headway against the view laid out here.

If that is what you think I said, then I miscommunicated. It seems that you have drawn conclusions from what I said that I never meant. I apologize for that. I didn't mean to suggest that Christians never do things they don't believe, nor did I suggest that unbelievers were being held to the same rules as believers.

So, when a "true believer" does what they don't believe, are they "condemned", because "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin", because the rule is "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind", as the text explicitly says? If so, how is he condemned when there is no condemnation for those "in Christ"? Isn't it because they're not abiding "in Christ", which is by keeping Christ's commands?

I was simply reacting to your standpoint that Paul is writing exclusively to "true believers," which is an interpretive assumption that I reject.

But, again, why would he say "This rule, 'Each man is to be fully persuaded in his own mind', is for 'true believers'--I want 'true believers' to keep that rule. Don't break that rule, 'true believers'. Hear me? I don't want you condemned. Has someone broken that rule? I wasn't giving that rule to unbelievers, but if an unbeliever breaks that rule I gave to 'true believers', then they're condemned. They're weren't condemned before, although they were in unbelief, it is only after they broke a rule that doesn't even apply to or address them that they become condemned." That makes no sense.
Also, you already admitted "true believers" do things they don't believe.

We should never assume that a church is exclusively populated by true believers. An epistle written to a church is going to be heard by everyone in attendance, whether they be true believers, casual believers, or unbelievers. For this reason, Paul does not expect us to conclude that his statements are directed exclusively to true believers.

That's not the issue. I'm taking issue with the inexorable conclusion of your position, which is poppycock.

I wanted to comment on Paul's use of the second-person plural "you" in his argument. He positions the reader as an impartial observer, allowing him to be critical of those who use religion to cause division without directly condemning anyone in particular. It is not likely that Paul is using the second person plural "you" to indicate true believers since a true believer would be aware of Jesus' teaching against judging another person.

Those who are using religion to condemn others or hold another person in contempt are not true believers, but others merely claiming to be followers of Jesus.

1. Again, you're having to deny that Christians sin--ie, "Mere awareness of Jesus's teachings = obedience to Jesus's teachings. Christians don't sin."
2. Have you ever "judged another person"? If so, is that proof you are not a "true believer"?

It is fair to claim that Paul, like the rest of us, is aware of the unfortunate reality that not all believers are genuine, sincere, dedicated followers of Jesus Christ. According to our language, some Christians exist in name only. Jesus postulates three kinds of people who believe the word of God, but only one kind of believer perseveres to the end. (Luke 8:15) Paul has coined the term "in Christ" to indicate Christians of the third sort. By definition, they remain in Christ, they don't fall away, they walk according to the Spirit, they are led by the Spirit and they will be raised to eternal life by the Spirit in them.

1. Jesus does not postulate three kinds of people who believe, He describes four general states of the heart, but nowhere indicates any of these are static states--ie, that the heart cannot change from hard and impenetrable "wayside", to the "honest good heart", or from the latter to the former. Hebrews 3 says "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin".
2. No, rather, "in Christ" is not static, but people fall out of it, because the believer who sins is "condemned" whereas ther is no condemnation for those "in Christ".

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Sorry. I was reacting to your argument, which closely associated the "condemnation" mentioned in Romans 8:1 with the condemnation mentioned in Romans 14:23. I assumed or was mistaken to think that you thought they were the same thing. The condemnation mentioned in Romans 8:1 is to be doomed to destruction forever.

Those in Christ enjoy no condemnation, the one who sins is condemned. Conclusion: those who sin are not remaining in Christ, because, as Scripture teaches, remaining is by keeping His commands, and sin is, ipso facto, a failure to fulfill this requirement.

Yes, let's talk about that for a minute. We haven't discussed what Paul means by "breaking down the work of God." Do you agree that the work in view is the body of Christ and perhaps a specific local church?

The verse specifies a brother.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Let me give a brief commentary on this section for the sake of our discussion. :)

In other words, the whole time, there is the concern for "true believers" not going against their conscience--and, at the end, he, finally, describes what it means that the "true believer" goes against his conscience (he is sinning). There is no change of topic.

 

[GracePeace]

The specific anathema in the epistle of Galatians is not idolatry or the worship of demons; rather, Paul is objecting to the Judaizers who teach that one must live Jewishly to attain God's approval.

The specific example that is being condemned is being under Law, but the general rule they are breaking is that they are not living by faith (which he later delivers them to--Paul nowhere argues, "Christ alone", he delivers them from the "slavery" of performing the works of the Law TO the "freedom" of serving one another by faith which works through love)--ie, this is the same rule laid down in Romans 14 that they are breaking, "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind".

This is the difference between "works" whereby one may have a righteousness of their own and "God's righteousness revealed from faith to faith"--walking in faith is God's works and God's righteousness unto God's glory, whereas doing "righteous" things that do not proceed from faith is one's own works and righteousness which results in one's own boasting and glory.

There are different ways to break the Law of Faith--one is by busying oneself doing "correct" things which did not issue from the Lord, and another is by receiving persuasions coming from the Lord but failing to walk in in them.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Scripture describes it as "destroying the work of God"--to what ever degree that destruction may be. It doesn't mean "You annihilated God's work, and your brother is going to hell, now. Great job." There are varying degrees of destruction. If I break even a single brick in a brick house, that is destruction of property.

Your point is moot, because the "true brother" must be protected from sinning (Ro 14:23), which you had denied referred to a "true believer" at all.

No, actually, the one who is happy because he does not condemn himself in what he approves is happy because he is not bringing God's condemnation on himself by practicing his freedom in front of his brother that causes his brother to stumble--the sentence immediately prior.

Romans 14
22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

In the passage below, Paul is discussing his understanding of food. He believes that all foods are clean and can be eaten as long as one gives thanks to God. The central idea being expressed here is the unity around serving Christ in the mission to strengthen and build the body of Christ. Since religious beliefs can divide a church and cause descension and strife, Paul recommends that church members hold religious beliefs as private opinions. Care should be taken to avoid actions that might be misconstrued as moral laxity.

Romans 14:16-23
Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

. . . do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil
The "good thing" in this context is eating meat, as all foods are clean. However, some in the congregation may believe that meat offered to an idol is unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Such beliefs define what is acceptable behavior and are closely associated with morality and good character. Those who believe that eating meat is a violation of these beliefs will speak negatively about eating meat.

According to Paul, to believe that all foods are clean is a good thing, because it is true. Thus, steps must be taken so that evil will not be spoken about this truth.

For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
The "way" to serve Christ, in this context is to remember that "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Those who remember this principle will do well when they serve Christ.

So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
Breaking societal norms can lead to strong disapproval. That's why followers of Christ should strive for peace within their community. One way to maintain peace is by refraining from eating meat with people who believe that the meat is impure. Also, it's important to carefully choose who we share our beliefs with.

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food.
In this context, the work of God is the local Christian Fellowship. The role of the fellowship is to build up the body of Christ until all of the members attain Christian maturity. Those who cause division, strife, and disfellowship are breaking down the work that God is building. Thus, it behooves meat eaters to serve Christ with the proper attitude and pursue things that make for peace.

All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
Here the Apostle refers to foods. All foods are clean, is his point. But a man who eats the meat, correctly believing that all foods are clean, will do evil if he causes others to be offended.

Paul's word here implies that the meat eater is fellowshipping with a church that shares another perspective. The church believes that one should not eat meat offered to an idol and that some foods are unclean. This unwritten rule of social behavior is tantamount to moral violations of service to Christ. A believer in good standing with the Lord would not eat the meat, in their view.

Sometimes our actions have meanings that we don't intend to convey and can be misinterpreted. The man who eats the meat is correct to believe that all foods are clean and that there is nothing wrong with eating the meat. But in a community who believes that the meat is impure and that eating the meat is a disloyal action against the savior will be offended. They are incorrect, but because eating meat in that group can be misconstrued as disloyalty, it is better to not eat the meat.

It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
Here, the apostle describes a more egregious evil. Suppose a young man is invited to eat dinner with the pastor. When he sits down to eat, he notices that the Pastor is eating meat. What will the young man think? He might think, "The pastor is eating meat, I guess it's okay." He might think, "The Pastor is eating meat, which I know is wrong. Maybe the Pastor believes that a little sin occasionally is okay." Maybe the young man thinks, "The Pastor is eating meat, which I know is wrong. Maybe the Pastor thinks that sin is not wrong."

The main idea here is to understand how our actions can be misunderstood, especially by those who are less spiritually mature. If a young person believes that a small amount of wrongdoing is acceptable or that the pastor is not strict about morals, they might adopt the same attitude. This could lead the young person to stumble and go against their own conscience in favor of a more relaxed moral position.

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.
One way to avoid causing a brother to stumble is to keep your beliefs private and not practice them in front of those who may not understand. You shouldn't let your freedom to eat meat be seen as moral irresponsibility.

Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
How can someone condemn himself for something he believes is right? He believes it's okay to eat meat because he understands that all food is clean. However, he might face criticism from others. To live a happy life, he needs to navigate the social norms of his community and avoid giving the impression that he approves of even a small wrongdoing or that he is morally weak.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Here the Apostle mentions someone who is eating meat but "not from faith." Based on his discussion so far, we can conclude that the "belief" in view is that "the kingdom of God does not consist of eating or drinking."

Thus, the word translated "doubts" should be understood as "he who is contentious". The man who causes division for the sake of food does not remember the essential truth that the kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking. His eating the meat is not consistent with a faith that places righteousness and service to Christ over religious rules and mores.

 

[GracePeace]

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Here the Apostle mentions someone who is eating meat but "not from faith." Based on his discussion so far, we can conclude that the "belief" in view is that "the kingdom of God does not consist of eating or drinking."

Thus, the word translated "doubts" should be understood as "he who is contentious". The man who causes division for the sake of food does not remember the essential truth that the kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking. His eating the meat is not consistent with a faith that places righteousness and service to Christ over religious rules and mores.

This is the only verse I need to address to prove my point.

Are you denying the explanation Paul is giving--the one who eats with doubt is committing a sin, and is condemned, because what ever does not proceed from faith is sin (ie, if the man had walked in full persuasion, he would've been fine, but he did something without faith, with doubt, so he broke the rule, sinned, and is condemned), the breaking of the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind", such that the one in view would be the brother who believes he may only eat vegetables, contrary to his belief, eating meat, or the one who holds a day as special, contrary to his belief, not observing the day?

 

[Wynona]

The angels will expel the lawless from the Kingdom at the end.

True. Thats important.

We are seated in heavenly places with Christ the moment we believe. We just might not stay there.

 

[GracePeace]

In the passage below, Paul is discussing his understanding of food. He believes that all foods are clean and can be eaten as long as one gives thanks to God. The central idea being expressed here is the unity around serving Christ in the mission to strengthen and build the body of Christ. Since religious beliefs can divide a church and cause descension and strife, Paul recommends that church members hold religious beliefs as private opinions. Care should be taken to avoid actions that might be misconstrued as moral laxity.

Romans 14:16-23
Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

. . . do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil
The "good thing" in this context is eating meat, as all foods are clean. However, some in the congregation may believe that meat offered to an idol is unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Such beliefs define what is acceptable behavior and are closely associated with morality and good character. Those who believe that eating meat is a violation of these beliefs will speak negatively about eating meat.

1. I thought you said a "true believer" would never judge another believer.
2. For you, conveniently, there seems to be only one aspect of this entire text: make sure you don't do something another "true believer" will judge. That's not what it says. It says "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" when he eats or doesn't eat, or when he observes or doesn't observe a day. It is a personal command.
How is it that you can so easily let yourself gloss over this fact?

According to Paul, to believe that all foods are clean is a good thing, because it is true. Thus, steps must be taken so that evil will not be spoken about this truth.

No, Paul is not concerned with believing all foods are clean being a good thing, he's more concerned that each man be fully convinced in his own mind--and, regarding which foods are clean or unclean, he says as much of himself, "I know and am fully persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself...", therefore, he can eat what ever, but to the person who thinks the food is unclean, it actually is unclean, and will defile him if he eats it, because he will have doubts, and anything that is not from faith is sin.

For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
The "way" to serve Christ, in this context is to remember that "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Those who remember this principle will do well when they serve Christ.

Conveniently, you "don't see" the rule for living in Christ is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind".

So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
Breaking societal norms can lead to strong disapproval. That's why followers of Christ should strive for peace within their community. One way to maintain peace is by refraining from eating meat with people who believe that the meat is impure. Also, it's important to carefully choose who we share our beliefs with.

Yes, but Paul is dealing with more than just that.
There are overlapping issues dealing with faith: while it is true that "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and the one who exercises his liberty is not at fault, exercising his liberty in front of a brother who does not share that belief could confuse his brother, or cause strife, but, also, it could cause the brother to go ahead and do something that he does not himself have the faith to do (eg, Ro 14:23; 1 Co 8:10-13), injuring his conscience, bringing condemnation on himself, because "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin", because "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind".

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food.
In this context, the work of God is the local Christian Fellowship. The role of the fellowship is to build up the body of Christ until all of the members attain Christian maturity. Those who cause division, strife, and disfellowship are breaking down the work that God is building. Thus, it behooves meat eaters to serve Christ with the proper attitude and pursue things that make for peace.

Actually, "the work of God" is not either the individual or the locality, it is both, because the locality made up of individuals, and Paul is, the whole time, dealing with rules for individuals engaging with individuals in the locality. You do not harm a locality without harming individuals, and you don't harm an individual without harming the locality (1 Co 12:26).

The matter is transparent. It's so "odd" that you "don't see" it.

All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
Here the Apostle refers to foods. All foods are clean, is his point. But a man who eats the meat, correctly believing that all foods are clean, will do evil if he causes others to be offended.

Yep. That's one of the overlapping issues Paul is dealing with, but, again, it's not the whole issue.

Paul's word here implies that the meat eater is fellowshipping with a church that shares another perspective.

Paul wrote the letter to the Roman Church, and is dealing with the Roman Church--the Jewish Christians had been ousted by the govt, and they were returning to Rome only to find their Church full of Gentile Christians who had different ways of living, and there was strife.

The church believes that one should not eat meat offered to an idol and that some foods are unclean. This unwritten rule of social behavior is tantamount to moral violations of service to Christ. A believer in good standing with the Lord would not eat the meat, in their view.

Moreso, the Jews knew, from Torah, that, "There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” (Ex 12:49), and there was consternation, and Paul brings peace by settling the issue, bringing in the "one law" for all, in "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind." Individuals' persuasions come from the Lord ("fully persuaded in the Lord"), and are therefore binding on individuals.

Sometimes our actions have meanings that we don't intend to convey and can be misinterpreted. The man who eats the meat is correct to believe that all foods are clean and that there is nothing wrong with eating the meat. But in a community who believes that the meat is impure and that eating the meat is a disloyal action against the savior will be offended. They are incorrect, but because eating meat in that group can be misconstrued as disloyalty, it is better to not eat the meat.

Yep, that was one issue Paul was dealing with.