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

[CadyandZoe]

Did you just state above that you might be lured into a false sense of security by following the rules of God?

Yes. The rules are intended as guardians, instructing us in God's wisdom. God does not wish that we keep the rules without thought. The rules are given that we might learn wisdom and God's perspective.

Suppose a father tells his children not to swing a baseball in the house. When the children are young, they aren't ready to understand the possible consequences of their actions. Therefore, it is sufficient for the father to provide rules to guide them until they are old enough to comprehend the principle behind the rule.

As the children grow, they start to form an understanding of their father's "worldview" through the rules he sets. They begin to grasp the potential consequences if, for example, a baseball bat accidentally hits another child or a valuable item. They are learning to respect their father's values and wisdom, and they can freely ask or contemplate the question: "What is the principle our father wants us to learn?" When the children are old enough, they will learn to live by the principles, even making rules of their own based on the principles that they learned from their father.

In a scenario where a fire breaks out in a house, blocking the usual exits, one of the children takes action to save the others. Despite breaking the rule about swinging a baseball bat in the house, the child smashes a window to ensure the others' safety. This decision to prioritize saving lives over following a rule was influenced by the child's father who instilled the principle that life is valuable and worth saving. In this situation, the child's disobedience to the rule ultimately led to saving others.

God wishes for us to meditate on the rules, ascertain why they were given and what Godly principles lay behind the rules, living by his wisdom.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't understand your explanation and I'm not sure what I said that would lead you to say this.

Before, you argued that the "children" referred to in 1 Jn 2:28 weren't really believers.
Now, you accept, seemingly, that they are believers, but you deny the command "remain" means anything with respect to whether there is a contingency (there clearly is).

I thought I said that not all believers are "in Christ" the way Paul means it in Romans 8. How might I have said it differently to be more understandable?

John didn't say "get into Christ", he said "remain in Christ"--just as the picture of the branches that don't remain will be thrown in the fire.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 John 3:23,24 says the Command of God is to believe in the Name of God's Son.
When a command is given, what corresponds to it is obedience or disobedience.

Yes, obedience often corresponds with belief. But that's my point. We don't get the idea of "obedience" from the word "belief; we get the idea from instances in the text when the author associates both ideas with each other.

Nothing you say is consistent with Scripture.

I AM trying. :)

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, obedience often corresponds with belief. But that's my point. We don't get the idea of "obedience" from the word "belief; we get the idea from instances in the text when the author associates both ideas with each other.

BELIEF ITSELF IS OBEDIENCE

 

[GracePeace]

You lost me with your comment about Apollos, which isn't related to the discussion at all.

You were the one who raised the topic of "Apollos".

I pointed you to Acts chapter 19 so that you might see how people spoke about being "in" a teacher or "into his teaching." I can see now that it is helpful to be more specific.

Acts 19:1-7 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. There were in all about twelve men.​

 

[GodsGrace]

Indeed, two individuals, both reading the same text, might understand it differently because each person brings baggage to the text. We all carry around a set of presuppositions that inform our understanding of a text. With discipline and hard work, we can learn to overcome that limitation and learn how to allow the text to teach us instead.

C, what you're explaining above is called eisegesis.
A person BRINGS to scripture their own experiences, ideas, etc.
This is wrong.

What we want to do is eisegete verses.
This means that we allow the verse to speak using hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics are used by theologians to KNOW what a verse means.

Sometimes the denomination that a theologian belongs to will influence how he thinks of a certain doctrine.
This is wrong, but is inevitable in some cases.

So we have a problem here because there would seem to be no way of really knowing whether or not a doctrine is correct.
BUT
We DO have a way. I've said this before and will repeat it:
When I have a doubt about anything....I go back and refer to the Early Church Fathers.
They were taught by the Apostles or those the Apostles taught and will know what Jesus taught and what the early Christians believed.

No. The New Testament is true in everything that it says. But when two people disagree about what it says, this indicates that one or both of them have not yet understood it the way it was intended.

Right!
But how will we know who is right???

 

[Grailhunter]

Since there is "no condemnation" for those in Christ (Ro 8:1), why is the sinning Christian "condemned" (Ro 14:23)?

My way of reconciling these is simply recognizing that not all remain in Christ: remaining requires obeying God's commands (i. believe, and ii. walk in love (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24)), but the believer in Ro 14:23 is sinning, so he's not remaining "in Christ", where there is "no condemnation".

Past failed attempts at reconciling the two have included:
1. Romans 14:23 doesn't refer to a sinning believer
2. Believers don't sin at all
3. Thinking Ro 8:1 needs reconciliation with Ro 14:23 proves you're not born of God.

What is your way of reconciling Ro 8:1 with Ro 14:23?

There are a few scriptures that if you focus on them and raise them higher than the whole they can lead you to klondike beliefs. This is how most false beliefs are started, some even popular.

Do not abandon the main theme of the scriptures to embrace scriptures that do not agree with well defined scriptures or the primary theme of the Bible.

 

[GodsGrace]

BELIEF ITSELF IS OBEDIENCE

The obedience of faith.
Romans 1:5
Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,


It states that we use our GRACE to bring about the obedience of faith.

Why is this so difficult for some to understand???
What could be more plain???

 

[GracePeace]

There are a few scriptures that if you focus on them and raise them higher than the whole they can lead you to klondike beliefs. This is how most false beliefs are started, some even popular.

Do not abandon the main theme of the scriptures to embrace scriptures that do not agree with well defined scriptures or the primary theme of the Bible.

Please clarify what your objection is.

 

[GracePeace]

The obedience of faith.
Romans 1:5
Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,


It states that we use our GRACE to bring about the obedience of faith.

Why is this so difficult for some to understand???
What could be more plain???

The issue is that if he acknowledges that belief is a commandment (1 Jn 3:23,24), then he'll have to admit that remaining in Christ is by obeying commands--and that that handily explains why there is no condemnation for those in Christ but the believer who sins in Romans 14:23 is condemned because he's not remaining in Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nope, the command to "remain" is repeated to the spiritually immature disciples, branches, the "children".

Commands aren't given for automatic occurrences. They're given where there're CONTINGENCIES.

You seem to be missing the logic of Jesus' statements in John 15. He begins chapter 15 with an assertion about the Father.

John 15:1-2 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

Here, Jesus informs us that the Father is the vinedresser and that the Father takes away every branch that does not bear fruit. Logically, then, when a person decides to no longer abide, the Father is the one who cuts him off from Jesus.

John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Here the Eleven are branches that the Father has already pruned, "because of the word (promise) which I have spoken to you." Logically then, the Eleven will never fall away or be cut off the vine because they have assurances from Jesus that they will remain.

Abiding or not abiding aren't the conditions of being cut off; the conditions for being cut off are not bearing fruit. Every branch in Christ that does not bear fruit is taken away.

Bearing fruit is conditioned on abiding in Christ. And according to Paul, abiding in Christ is conditioned on having the Spirit of God and the spirit of Christ. A --> B --> C. Having the Spirit of God leads to abiding and abiding leads to bearing fruit.

Yeah, "if you keep God's commands".

Keeping God's commands is a feature or element of bearing fruit.

Nope, that verse says God is glorified when you bear much fruit by your remaining in the Vine as God prunes you.

The point is, if Jesus assigns glory to God for the outcome, then God is responsible for the outcome. If the outcome depends on the believer, then the believer should get the glory.

No, rather, the life is in the Son, and those who remain in the Son by keeping God's Command remain eligible to receive the Spirit that is in the Son (the substance in the Vine), like Paul says, "Whoever disregards this [prohibition against immorality] disregards not man but God Who gives you His Spirit", just as David, after committing sexual immorality with Bathsheba, cried, "Don't take Your Spirit away from me!" It's so clear.

That isn't what Paul said.

 

[Grailhunter]

Please clarify what your objection is.

Well I thought I made it clear.
Do not make stand alone scriptures that do not agree with several other scriptures a religious belief. You can ponder why they do not agree, but do not want to ignore dozens of scriptures to embrace the undefined scripture.

 

[GracePeace]

You seem to be missing the logic of Jesus' statements in John 15. He begins chapter 15 with an assertion about the Father.

John 15:1-2 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

Here, Jesus informs us that the Father is the vinedresser and that the Father takes away every branch that does not bear fruit. Logically, then, when a person decides to no longer abide, the Father is the one who cuts him off from Jesus.

Yeah, and? The children are warned to abide in Him or else they will not have confidence (confidence is from obeying God's commands) and will shrink back in shame at His appearance. What happens then? They are thrown in the fire--as Heb 10:38,39 says "My Righteous one will live by faith but if My righteous one shrinks back My soul has no pleasure in him [without faith it is impossible to please God]... unto destruction."

John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Here the Eleven are branches that the Father has already pruned, "because of the word (promise) which I have spoken to you." Logically then, the Eleven will never fall away or be cut off the vine because they have assurances from Jesus that they will remain.

Nothing of the sort was said, rather the contingency was given "IF".

Abiding or not abiding aren't the conditions of being cut off; the conditions for being cut off are not bearing fruit. Every branch in Christ that does not bear fruit is taken away.

Bearing fruit is conditioned on abiding in Christ. And according to Paul, abiding in Christ is conditioned on having the Spirit of God and the spirit of Christ. A --> B --> C. Having the Spirit of God leads to abiding and abiding leads to bearing fruit.

Nope, being in Christ is why you are given the Spirit--"because you are sons in Christ, He has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, abba, father"--it's so plain that the branch that abides in Him receives the sap that is in the Vine so that it can bear fruit.

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic truth, I can't help that.

Keeping God's commands is a feature or element of bearing fruit.

"If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to My Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, proving yourselves to be My disciples."
1 John says If we keep His commands we have confidence and we know we receive what ever we ask of God.
As John says "We know that God does not hear sinners but if a man is a worshipper of God God hears him."

The point is, if Jesus assigns glory to God for the outcome, then God is responsible for the outcome. If the outcome depends on the believer, then the believer should get the glory.

God is glorified by His masterful dealing with the Vine and its branches so that it yields tons of fruit.
He knows how to identify branches that stop abiding, and cut them off.
That has nothing to do with the fact that there is a CONTINGENCY presented--"IF you abide".

That isn't what Paul said.

1 Thessalonians 4
3For it is God’s will that you should be holy: You must abstain from sexual immorality; 4each of you must know how to control his own bodya in holiness and honor, 5not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6and no one should ever violate or exploit his brother in this regard,b because the Lord will avenge all such acts, as we have already told you and solemnly warned you. 7For God has not called us to impurity, but to holiness. 8Anyone, then, who rejects this command does not reject man but God, the very One who gives you His Holy Spirit.

It may not "jive" with your personal opinion about what Romans 8:1 says, but it does comport with the entirety of Scripture.

 

[GracePeace]

Well I thought I made it clear.
Do not make stand alone scriptures that do not agree with several other scriptures a religious belief. You can ponder why they do not agree, but do not want to ignore dozens of scriptures to embrace the undefined scripture.

Are you saying you agree or disagree--or, specifically, why you agree or disagree.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1. Ro 7 shows a man was "without strength" getting pummeled by sin, bc it overpowered him qnd made him act sins contrary to the law of his mind
That he called "slavery"--there is no choice.

Now that we are rescued from slavery, there is a choice--we know this based on 1 Co 10. The Jews were saved and still they fell under God's wrath and didn't inherit the promise. Paul says this corresponds to how Christianity works.

I need to see how 1 Corinthians 10 is relevant. In the meantime, Paul doesn't suggest that he has been set free from his body of death as you suppose. According to Romans 8, the body is still dead (in the way he means it.) His body of death (7:24) is still dead. (8:10) In other words, he is still sold into bondage of sin. (7:

No, he says he serves God's Law with his inner man, but Sin's law with his flesh, thus those who walk according to the spirit will not fulfill Sin's law--but if you walk according to the flesh you will die because sin leads to death.

That isn't what Paul means by "the law of sin and death." The phrase is based on the promise found in the Law that those who keep the commandments will live long in the land. In short, "do this and live." Since no one can obey the 10th commandment, then no one can "do this and live", making it a "law of sin and death." There is no possible way to be free of sin until glorification when the body is transformed and no longer corrupt etc.

Sin is not a relevant issue for those "in Christ" because they have been set free from the law of sin and death. That is, for those in Christ, death is not a consequence of sin anymore.

They were obligated as long as they lived to serve by Torah, but, since they died with Christ, they are freed from their obligation. This is an ancient Jewish teaching also found in the Talmud

I don't know what this means.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Before, you argued that the "children" referred to in 1 Jn 2:28 weren't really believers.

No, I don't think I did. If that is what you thought I said then I miscommunicated.

Now, you accept, seemingly, that they are believers, but you deny the command "remain" means anything with respect to whether there is a contingency (there clearly is).

John didn't say "get into Christ", he said "remain in Christ"--just as the picture of the branches that don't remain will be thrown in the fire.

I think confusion has arisen because we are jumping too quickly between passages without alerting each other when we have jumped.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You were the one who raised the topic of "Apollos".

What? Do you think Apollos is the subject of Acts 19? Did I say anything about Apollos or base an argument on him at all? Didn't you understand that I was attempting to give you the Biblical justification for the meaning of "in" or "into" a teacher? And why is it difficult to understand that the Apostle Paul has coined his own term, "in Christ" to speak about a particular type of believer who not only believes, but has been given the Spirit of God?

 

[GracePeace]

I need to see how 1 Corinthians 10 is relevant.

Romans 7 shows Paul was a "slave" to sin--had no choice.
Romans 8 speaks of Paul's saved state--still the contingency "IF you walk according to the flesh you will die" is given.

1 Corinthians 10 shows that the Jews' salvation from slavery was about Christianity--just as they sinned after they were freed, we are warned not to sin, or we will fall under wrath and not inherit the promise, just as they sinned and fell under wrath and forfeited the promise.

In the meantime, Paul doesn't suggest that he has been set free from his body of death as you suppose. According to Romans 8, the body is still dead (in the way he means it.) His body of death (7:24) is still dead. (8:10) In other words, he is still sold into bondage of sin. (7:

"This body of death" refers to "brought forth fruit to death" (Ro 7:5).
The question, "Who will deliver me from this body of death" was already answered, "Thank God through Christ".
The body of sin and death has been brought to nothing (Ro 6:6).

That isn't what Paul means by "the law of sin and death." The phrase is based on the promise found in the Law that those who keep the commandments will live long in the land. In short, "do this and live." Since no one can obey the 10th commandment, then no one can "do this and live", making it a "law of sin and death."

No, God's Law is God's Law, Sin's Law is "another law in my members waging war against the Law of my mind".

There is no possible way to be free of sin until glorification when the body is transformed and no longer corrupt etc.

We were set free from bondage by the blood of "Christ our Passover Lamb" just as the Jews were set free from the house of bondage via the Passover.

Sin is not a relevant issue for those "in Christ" because they have been set free from the law of sin and death. That is, for those in Christ, death is not a consequence of sin anymore.

IF you walk according to the flesh, you will die. The contingency stands.

I don't know what this means.

Ro 7:1+ says the Jewish believers were obligated to serve by Torah as long as they lived.
That is the Jewish understanding.
Because they died with Christ, they were set free from that obligation.

 

[GracePeace]

No, I don't think I did. If that is what you thought I said then I miscommunicated.

You explicitly denied they were believers.

I think confusion has arisen because we are jumping too quickly between passages without alerting each other when we have jumped.

I don't know why you are confused.

 

[CadyandZoe]

C, what you're explaining above is called eisegesis.
A person BRINGS to scripture their own experiences, ideas, etc.
This is wrong.

Yes.

What we want to do is eisegete verses.

I think you meant, "exegete" :)

This means that we allow the verse to speak using hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics are used by theologians to KNOW what a verse means.

This is true only to the degree that a theologian has adopted the correct hermeneutic -- the passage means what the author intended it to mean based on the context.

Sometimes the denomination that a theologian belongs to will influence how he thinks of a certain doctrine.
This is wrong, but is inevitable in some cases.

Agree.

So we have a problem here because there would seem to be no way of really knowing whether or not a doctrine is correct.
BUT
We DO have a way. I've said this before and will repeat it:
When I have a doubt about anything....I go back and refer to the Early Church Fathers.

The ECF's are not to be trusted with doctrine. I wouldn't believe anything they said.

They were taught by the Apostles or those the Apostles taught and will know what Jesus taught and what the early Christians believed.

They mixed the gospel with their philosophical presuppositions and became the false teachers of their era.

Right!
But how will we know who is right???

I am always right until I am not. :) Just kidding.
Again, we don't need a decoder ring to understand the Bible. We simply need to be aware of when we are inserting something into the text that isn't there.