No Condemnation For Those In Christ, But... Sinning Believers Are Condemned Ro 14:23?

[GracePeace]

I would never argue that. (Did I mention that I don't have a "side." )

OK

I don't believe that one can be "in" one minute, "out" the next minute, and back "in" the next minute.

Obviously you don't--we're having a discussion in which you deny anyone can at all be in at one moment and out at any other point.

The doctrine you describe misconstrues Romans 8, thinking that when Paul mentions "walking after the flesh" he speaks about people who are living a "carnal" lifestyle. But Paul is not focused on sinful behavior in that context. Rather, he is focused on those who are overly obsessed with physical traits, such as being Jewish by birth or being circumcised.

The contrast is between our outward appearance and our inner selves. Outwardly, a Jew can be a male, a freeman, circumcised, a son of Jacob, a son of Abraham, someone who tithes, is devout, and keeps all the rules, among other things. If that person believes that outward appearance is the basis for God's favor, they are "walking according to the flesh."

"Walking after the flesh" is contrasted against "walking after the spirit".
The desires of the flesh are contrary to the desires of the spirit, so "walking after the flesh" describes someone who is walking according to the desires of the flesh--and that person will die, and not live, because that describes sin. You may say that boasting and trusting in one's pedigree falls under the category of sinning/walking after the flesh, but that particular instance of sin/walking after the flesh is not all-encompassing or definitive of the term.
You've already admitted it refers to sinning, but you're trying to narrow it to a particular sin, and, obviously, it doesn't work.

But if that person seeks God's favor through their faith, contrition, confession, their inward spiritual condition, and attitudes, they are "walking according to the spirit."

So, you admit that Christians sin when you admit that Christians should have "contrition" and that they "confess", right?

In Romans 2, Paul summarizes this principle, speaking about "true Jew." Notice how he compares and contrasts the inward man with the outward man.

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Yeah, he's reprimanding the Jewish Christians, trying to correct their incorrect faith in their pedigree, etc, and their looking down on their Gentile believer brothers (this is related to Ro 14--they have different ways of thinking about how they should walk before God), and he tells them they are storing up wrath for themselves--contrary to your belief, right?

To understand how Paul uses the phrase "according to the flesh," we can return to chapter one of his epistle.

Romans 1:3-4 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Here, we see how Paul employs the phrase "according to the flesh," which answers the question, "Who is Jesus?" The answer is, "He was born of a descendant of David." He has the right to rule as the King of Israel because he is a direct descendant of King David.

This is not related.

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul first acknowledges that we have known Christ according to the flesh, i.e as the son of David, then he says that we have dropped that distinction altogether and no longer know anyone that way.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

Based on usage, we can rightfully conclude that Paul uses the term "according to the flesh" to indicate someone's identity. What is your name, job, family line, address, nation of origin, religion, and other such things? The answer to these questions identifies a person "according to the flesh." Jesus was a son of David according to the flesh; Abraham was Paul's forefather according to the flesh.

To identify someone "according to the flesh" (eg, "Abraham our father according to the flesh" Ro 4:1), and to say that someone is "walking after the flesh, and will die" (Ro 8:12,13) connote two different things--they are not the same. You are mixing things up.
And even if we did see it that way, he's still warning the Jewish Christians they will die if they persist in that sin of boasting--because they're "condemned" if they "sin" (Ro 14:23), not "justified" (Ro 2:6-16).

Romans 8 allows for moral failure because the issue is whether or not a person is counting on his pedigree or his religion (walking according to the flesh) or whether a person is counting on his having been sanctified by the Spirit of God. As Paul says, we are no longer under a spirit of fear.

Romans 8:1 says there's "no condemnation" for those "in Christ", but the one who sins "is condemned" because he's not remaining in Christ because remaining is by faith and by walking in love (1 Jn 5:23,24).

 

[GracePeace]

John does NOT teach that true believers never sin. He tells us right up front that if we confess our sins, we have an advocate who is faithful to forgive our sins.

OK

 

[CadyandZoe]

"Walking after the flesh" is contrasted against "walking after the spirit".
The desires of the flesh are contrary to the desires of the spirit, so "walking after the flesh" describes someone who is walking according to the desires of the flesh--and that person will die, and not live, because that describes sin.

Where does Paul mention desires of the flesh? He doesn't.

You may say that boasting and trusting in one's pedigree falls under the category of sinning/walking after the flesh, but that particular instance of sin/walking after the flesh is not all-encompassing or definitive of the term.

Paul isn't talking about sinning. You are reading that into the text.

You've already admitted it refers to sinning, but you're trying to narrow it to a particular sin, and, obviously, it doesn't work.

It does not refer to sinning.

So, you admit that Christians sin when you admit that Christians should have "contrition" and that they "confess", right?

Yes.

Yeah, he's reprimanding the Jewish Christians, trying to correct their incorrect faith in their pedigree, etc, and their looking down on their Gentile believer brothers (this is related to Ro 14--they have different ways of thinking about how they should walk before God), and he tells them they are storing up wrath for themselves--contrary to your belief, right?

No. Pay attention to the context. He specifies Jewish teachers as the subject of his comments.

Romans 2:17-21 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, and are confident that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?

But don't miss the point again. The contrast between the inner man and the outward man is a major theme of the New Testament. Paul employs the phrase "according to the flesh" in regard to the outer man. In Romans 2, he contrasts those who are circumcised in the flesh with those who are circumcised inwardly by the Spirit.

This is not related.

Yes it is. I am showing you how Paul uses his language. Romans 8 is greatly misunderstood because interpreters miss this. One of the most essential aspects of Bible interpretation is "coming to terms with the author." Paul often coins terms or uses phrases that can't be understood from the dictionary alone. One needs to follow along with his chain of thought and learn what he means by certain phrases.

To identify someone "according to the flesh" (eg, "Abraham our father according to the flesh" Ro 4:1), and to say that someone is "walking after the flesh, and will die" (Ro 8:12,13) connote two different things--they are not the same.

Of course, they are not the same. Did I say they were the same?

Romans 8:1 says there's "no condemnation" for those "in Christ", but the one who sins "is condemned" because he's not remaining in Christ because remaining is by faith and by walking in love (1 Jn 5:23,24).

You assume that God condemns him, but that isn't what Paul meant. He meant that the meat eater condemns himself.

 

[GracePeace]

You were quoting the gospel of John was my point.

Also the epistle of 1 John--and without which concept Paul's writings make no sense, as I've been proving.

The point is whether God saves or we save ourselves. If God saves us then all contingency is removed.

No, God being savior doesn't completely remove man from the equation--that sounds logical, but it doesn't regard Scriptural precedent (Judges 7:2).

My point exactly. Your argument stops at verse one.

Nope, it is borne out throughout (vv12,13,17), as explained.

You might be thinking of Peter. Paul doesn't ask us to test whether we are in the faith. In Fact, Paul argues that God tests us to see if we will remain in the faith or not.

2 Co 13:5.

What isn't clear is whether they were given the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

No, it's not unclear (Gal 3:1+).

Where did you get the idea that Paul created a "binding rule?"

Rather, where could anyone get the idea that it wasn't? It's an imperative, and the one who infracts it is sinning, and is condemned.
Anyway, just so we don't get distracted from the point: the unbeliever is condemned for unbelief, so Paul wouldn't argue that he is suddenly condemned for sinning by breaking a rule ("each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind") meant for Christians.

 

[GracePeace]

Where does Paul mention desires of the flesh? He doesn't.

What is objectionable about the flesh is the flesh's desires that war against the soul and kill it.

Paul isn't talking about sinning. You are reading that into the text.

No, actually, you agree with me, though obliquely, that what is objectionable is their boasting.

It does not refer to sinning.

It does. Sin led to condemnation and death. Sin leads to condemnation and death. And he's addressing the believers--IF they walk after the flesh they will be condemned (14:23) and die (8:12,13).

No. Pay attention to the context. He specifies Jewish teachers as the subject of his comments.

Romans 2:17-21 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, and are confident that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?

It's an understandable error on your part : the calling of the Jew was to be a light to the nations, thus they were pompous and arrogant, trying to be "authorities", share the Law with others in the Church, seeking to gain a position, and became hypocrites by sinning because not trusting in grace as their Gentile Christian brothers had been doing.

But don't miss the point again. The contrast between the inner man and the outward man is a major theme of the New Testament. Paul employs the phrase "according to the flesh" in regard to the outer man. In Romans 2, he contrasts those who are circumcised in the flesh with those who are circumcised inwardly by the Spirit.

1. Those who walk after the flesh follow its desires--one of those desires is trusting and boasting in self rather than trusting and boasting in God.

2. No, Paul's main point isn't contrasting inner and outer man, it's about humbling the Jewish Christians who were looking down on their Gentile Christian brothers--that's why he says everything he says about God not showing partiality, but condemning evildoers, the Jew first, and the Greek, and how God doesn't care if you're Gentile, if you do the Law (and he says they're "doers of the Law" because the New Covenant is that God will write His Law on the heart, so those who walk after the Spirit fulfill the Law 8:4) you will be justified.

Yes it is. I am showing you how Paul uses his language. Romans 8 is greatly misunderstood because interpreters miss this. One of the most essential aspects of Bible interpretation is "coming to terms with the author." Paul often coins terms or uses phrases that can't be understood from the dictionary alone. One needs to follow along with his chain of thought and learn what he means by certain phrases.

I understand what Paul is saying.

Of course, they are not the same. Did I say they were the same?

So, then, don't raise that as if it countered my claim about "those who walk after the flesh will die" (Ro 8:12,13) referring to sin.

You assume that God condemns him, but that isn't what Paul meant. He meant that the meat eater condemns himself.

Nope, he broke God's rule, and God condemns him, proving hes not remaining in Christ, because remaining is by obeying (1 Jn 5:23,24), but he's sinning.

 

[GracePeace]

Where does Paul mention desires of the flesh? He doesn't.

Actually, he does : "if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh". What deeds of the flesh? Sins. Where do sins come from? Desires. The things the flesh desires. They are contrary to the spirit.

 

[GracePeace]

You assume that God condemns him, but that isn't what Paul meant. He meant that the meat eater condemns himself.

1. No, and, likewise (because it's the same issue) the one who goes against what he believes in 1 Co 8 is condemned for sin. He did the same act as those other Christians did, but he could not do it with faith, so he sinned and was condemned because anything that does not come from faith is sin.

2. Separately, you had denied that a Christian would do something they didn't believe in...

The question I asked was, "What exactly is being doubted?" Specifically, we are seeking Paul's response to the question. If Paul doesn't provide an answer, then the word "doubt" is questionable. Unless you can point out in the text where Paul mentioned the specific belief that is being doubted, your interpretation needs improvement.

When someone lacks conviction, they may question their beliefs or hesitate in their opinions. Nevertheless, eating food is primal, and eating the wrong thing can be deadly. For this reason, I can't imagine anyone eating something they "doubt."

...but we see that this (doing what one doubts) actually describes someone walking after the flesh.

2 Corinthians 1
17Therefore, I was not vacillating when I intended to do this, was I? Or what I decide, do I decide according to the flesh, so that with me there will be [l]yes, yes and no, no at the same time?

Romans 4:20 and 14:23 use the word "waver", and he is using that to describe someone walking after the flesh, having a yes and a no (because he disagrees with what he is doing--he isn't fully convinced of its rightness--as Paul describes the one who does what he does not want to do in Romans 7).
For whatever reason, ESV has rendered "fickle" "vacillating" (probably because what is "fickle" rapidly changes, and the picture is a mind which is unsteady, the thoughts fluctuating between the "yes" and the "no")--even without that "help" (because it mirrors the "waver" of Ro 4:20 and 14:23), the point stands.

Let your yes be yes, and your no be no--anything beyond this is of the evil one.

In general, if a Christian sins (you've admitted they do), they do what they do not have full confidence is correct. How can they have full confidence when they know (even if/when what they "know" isn't fully informed (Ro 14)) it is wrong? Thus they have a yes and a no--the flesh saying 'yes', and the mind-spirit saying 'no'--and they vacillate and waver between those two. James calls this being "double-minded".
Again, you even say Romans 7 accurately describes a Christian's life, so of course you agree people do things with a yes and a no, or without being fully convinced it is correct.

 

[GracePeace]

@CadyandZoe You claimed Romans 8:1 is "definitional", and that, as such, it "defines" those "in Christ" as those who do not walk after the flesh but after the Spirit, yet you also claim Romans 7 is an accurate depiction of a Christian's life.

On the contrary, Romans 7 describes Paul's life as a believer -- as a follower of Jesus.

You realize Romans 7 describes sin "killing" Paul, right?

"Walking after the flesh" is a way of describing the type of life lived by someone who is sinning--"If you live after the flesh, you will die, but if, by the spirit, you mortify the deeds of the flesh [sin], you will live."

Why will they die? Because sin kills--as Romans 5 (v12 "...death through sin...") and 7 (v11"...sin... killed me") say.

 

[GracePeace]

You asked "Am I being condemned because my brother ate meat against his conscience? How does that work?"

Easy:

1 Corinthians 8
7But not everyone has this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone with a weak conscience sees you who are well informed eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged to eat food sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

 

[quietthinker]

No Condemnation For Those In Christ, But... Sinning Believers Are Condemned Ro 14:23?​

Condemned by who?

 

[GracePeace]

You denied that eating with doubt was "a thing" at all, and denied that eating meat could be done without faith, with doubt : actually, that's exactly what sin is--having a yes and a no, walking after the flesh, is to be double minded, which is to not be fully persuaded, or to waver.

You already admitted that Christians sin, even claiming that Romans 7, which shows someone who is getting whooped by sin, accurately depicted a Christian's lifestyle, so how are you saying there is no such thing as a sin with regard to food?
No one commits gluttony, for instance?
And what is going on in the mind of someone who is committing gluttony? "I shouldn't be doing this." Yet they are doing it. That is not acting with faith, but walking after the flesh, with a "yes" and a "no".
Yet, even the Bible gives you an explicit example of someone eating without faith--the example given in 1 Corinthians 8.

 

[GracePeace]

In Romans 2, Paul summarizes this principle, speaking about "true Jew." Notice how he compares and contrasts the inward man with the outward man.

In case you're going to say that when Christians sin (as you insist Romans 7 depicts) it's just their outward man sinning, but, inwardly, they're still undefiled:

2 Corinthians 7
1Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

So, no, that's not the case--when a Christian sins, it defiles his spirit.

That is because, actually, there is no such thing as a "sin" that does not involve the spirit, because "sin" is, "definitionally", the slavery of the spirit.

John 8
34Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

Romans 6
16Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness?

(Tangentially, this is why Christ is called "our Passover Lamb" : He rescues us from the house of bondage, from slavery to sin.)

So, no, there is no such thing as a sin that happens apart from the spirit.
Tell me : How many sins a body can do once the spirit has left it?
Sin is when the body forces the spirit, contrary to the spirit's wishes, to carry out its desires.

 

[GracePeace]

Where does Paul mention desires of the flesh? He doesn't.

Paul isn't talking about sinning. You are reading that into the text.

It does not refer to sinning.

Paul warns, in Romans 8:12,13 that the Christian who lives after the flesh will die, but that if, by the spirit, instead, they mortify the deeds of the flesh, they will live--and Romans 6 says if you offer your members to sin it leads to death.

To your mind, this is mere coincidence?

 

[GracePeace]

On the contrary, Romans 7 describes Paul's life as a believer -- as a follower of Jesus.

So, in your mind, all of that sinning described in Romans 7 is happening in Christ?

1 John 3
5You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

I see it, rather, that the spiritually immature are--as with the Galatians, who had "deserted God" and had been "cut off from Christ" after having received the Spirit (Gal 3:1+)--prone to follow idols and depart from Christ...

1 John 2
28And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

1 John 5
21Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

...because remaining in Christ is by obeying God's command(s) :

1 John 3
23This is His commandment, that we [h]believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24The one who keeps His commandments remains in Him, and He in him.

So they are "condemned" for their sin, because they're not abiding in Christ (walking after the flesh instead of after the spirit, not doing things they are fully convinced are correct, having a yes and a no), where there is no condemnation.

 

[GracePeace]

Romans 4:20 and 14:23 use the word "waver", and he is using that to describe someone walking after the flesh, having a yes and a no (because he disagrees with what he is doing--he isn't fully convinced of its rightness--as Paul describes the one who does what he does not want to do in Romans 7).

@CadyandZoe
When Paul describes the one doing what he does not want to do in Romans 7, that is nothing other than "slavery".
Paul says "all things are lawful but I will not be mastered by anything".
Being forced to do what you do not want to do.
But it's not that you don't want to do it at all, it's that you do want to do it in the flesh, but your mind and spirit do not want to do it, so, when you do it--and you admit that you sin--you hate that you did it. You had a yes and a no. You walked after the flesh, and not after the spirit.

That is sin--slavery, being "forced" to work against your own will.
So, this is nothing other than what Paul is warning against in Romans 6, and in 8:12,13.
Such things end in death.

Therefore, it is nonsense for you to deny anything I've stated on the matter--that Ro 8:12,13 refer to sin that ends in death, that people can eat with doubt, with uncertainty, with wavering, with a yes and a no (you already admitted you do such things), that Romans 14:23 refers to a Christian breaking the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind", or that that is what "anything that does not proceed from faith" refers to, or the Christian who does so is condemned for sinning, or that these things do not serve as proof that remaining in Christ is by obeying (1 Jn 3:23,24), since there's no condemnation in Christ, and yet the Christian who sins is condemned.

 

[mailmandan]

I said there is a superficial contradiction between Ro 8:1 and 14:23 (the title of the thread)--resolved by observing that not all remain "in Christ", because that is by obeying His commands to i) believe, and ii) walk in love/faith (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24).

The superficial contradiction is resolved in Romans 14:22. Self condemned/pass judgment on himself does not mean condemned in hell. Also, only genuine believers are in Christ and will remain in Christ, unlike make believers who are merely self-attached to Christ.

 

[GracePeace]

The superficial contradiction is resolved in Romans 14:22. Self condemned/pass judgment on himself does not mean condemned in hell. Also, only genuine believers are in Christ and will remain in Christ, unlike make believers who are merely self-attached to Christ.

Nope, he's sinning against Christ when he harms his brothers with his faith he should keep between himself and God (1 Co 8:12). Moreover, context shows that v22 refers to one condemnation (bringing condemnation on oneself by exercising one's faith in a way that harms one's brothers), and v23 refers to another condemnation (the condemnation of someone who acts in contravention of the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind" by doing something he doesn't fully believe is correct).

Romans 14
13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20Do 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. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Again, the rule "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is a rule from God, so the one who is going to be judging whether the rule has been kept is going to be God, and God will be adjudicating your status based on It. James calls it the law of liberty. He also like Paul says justification and condemnation are end results of either keeping or breaking the rule.
And, again, it's God's rule, so it's God Who condemns the breaker of he rule--and is ready and willing to forgive.

No, the Scriptural solution is simple : we remain by obeying (1 Jn 3:23,24), but the guy is sinning, so he's not remaining in the place where there's no condemnation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No Condemnation For Those In Christ, But... Sinning Believers Are Condemned Ro 14:23?​

Condemned by who?

those who want to earn their salvation. because they think they are special and so good;.

 

[GracePeace]

Where does Paul mention desires of the flesh? He doesn't.

Paul isn't talking about sinning. You are reading that into the text.

It does not refer to sinning.

Yes, you already conceded the point when you said that, in your estimation, it referred to people who trusted in their Jewish pedigree. What does it mean to trust in your Jewish pedigree, and not notice that you're not meeting God's expectations of righteousness, so that you might resort to Christ? It means you're boasting in your flesh--a sin resulting from an evil desire, leading to death.

Not that I accept your view of the matter, but, even if I granted it, it is not a problem for me, because it fits in with my definition.

 

[GracePeace]

those who want to earn their salvation. because they think they are special and so good;.

No, we're saved as a gift, and walking after the spirit, which justifies at the Day of Judgment (Ro 2:6-16, 8:4), is a gift, which is, categorically not our own "works", because that term corresponds to "our own righteousness", but "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith" (Ro 1:17)--which is why the rule is "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), and why breaking that rule is "sin" (Ro 14:23)--so, when we walk after the spirit, that doesn't count as our own works earning us salvation, that counts as God's righteousness justifying us as a gift ("I was abundant in labors above us all, yet not I but the grace with me", "Christ came and preached to you", "I have been crucified and it is no longer I who live but Christ"), just as God alone was Savior, and no flesh would boast, when Gideon and his army obeyed God by whittling his army down to 300, etc (Judges 7:2+) (man was NOT removed entirely from the equation in order for God to alone be praised as the Savior).