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

[Ritajanice]

a characteristic of those in christ is they walk not after the flesh but the spirit

Would you say your characteristics are walking after the Spirit?

Can you be in the flesh and the Spirit at the same time?

How would you know that the flesh is at war with the Spirit of God?

What happens to our flesh as soon as we are Born Again?

Galatians 5:17​

​

New American Standard Bible​

​

​

17 For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I did, actually. LOL
Everyone (all commentaries, all teachers) agrees with me.

You remain unconvinced.
That's a force of nature I can't predict.

You haven't made the case you set out to make, i.e., that those "in Christ," as Paul uses the term, can be lost.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You haven't made the case you set out to make, i.e., that those "in Christ," as Paul uses the term, can be lost.

its amazing how many deny the power of God

I am confident of this thing, that he who BEGAN a good work in me WILL COMPLETE it until the day of Christ

Why do people deny the power of God to finish what God started?

 

[GracePeace]

You haven't made the case you set out to make, i.e., that those "in Christ," as Paul uses the term, can be lost

1. Don't misrepresent things. The case I set out to make was the reason there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Ro 8:1), yet the believer who sins is condemned (Ro 14:23), is because not all remain in Christ (1 Jn 1:28) by obeying His commands to I. Believe,and ii. Walk in love (1 Jn 3:23,24).

2. Now, what you have done is you have failed to defend against my argument--not because "you" can't, but because your position is plain logically indefensible--and the only thing that spurred you to even want to defend against my position is that it cracks the door and you can see where it is inevitably leading, and what you are trying (and failing) to do is to prevent THAT OTHER argument from being established : this isn't going to work for you, because a) it's obvious what you're doing, so you're not going to deceive (you can only deceive if the other doesn't know what you're actually doing, what your ulterior motive is), and b) you are actually trying to defend an indefensible position, and comically failing, like a Benny Hill reel.
You can't say "I disagree with the OTHER argument that follows from this point you're making, therefore I disagree with THIS argument."
Prove the actual argument being made has an error.
What happens when you do what you're doing is the silliness of denying the obvious and basically unanimous interpretation of an obvious text.
It's not my problem that you don't like the implications of the plainly stated text. That's for you to deal with. I'm just dedicated, by God's grace, to fidelity to the text.

 

[GracePeace]

its amazing how many deny the power of God

I am confident of this thing, that he who BEGAN a good work in me WILL COMPLETE it until the day of Christ

Abuse of Scripture : the next verse says he thinks it is right for him to say so because of the good works they had displayed. It doesn't apply to everyone, only those who are cooperating with grace, as he says, "obey... for it is God at work". So, yes, for every person who is ultimately saved, it will have been God starting and completing the work, but it does not follow that for every person in whom God starts that God also finishes--you're abusing Paul's words. Paul sees THEIR BEHAVIOR, and judges it is right to address them that way. He wouldn't speak to others that way.

Why do people deny the power of God to finish what God started?

His power He puts into doing His Word. Where there is disagreement on His Word, there is disagreement on what He will do with His power, not disagreement on WHETHER He has power.

 

[GracePeace]

You haven't made the case you set out to make, i.e., that those "in Christ," as Paul uses the term, can be lost.

Do you interpret Romans 7 as pre-Christ or post-Christ?

 

[CadyandZoe]

its amazing how many deny the power of God

I am confident of this thing, that he who BEGAN a good work in me WILL COMPLETE it until the day of Christ

Why do people deny the power of God to finish what God started?

I don't know. I think many of us are raised to be responsible adults and as such, we take responsibility for our actions. Perhaps we can't believe that salvation doesn't depend on us, since everything else does?

 

[CadyandZoe]

1. Don't misrepresent things. The case I set out to make was the reason there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Ro 8:1), yet the believer who sins is condemned (Ro 14:23), is because not all remain in Christ (1 Jn 1:28) by obeying His commands to I. Believe,and ii. Walk in love (1 Jn 3:23,24).

I understand your argument. It isn't valid because you ignore all of Romans 8 except verse 1. We both know that not all remain in Christ. Nonetheless, Paul's focus in chapter 8 is centered on those in Christ who also have the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Forgiveness, mercy, and eternal life are guaranteed for them, and no one in this group will fail to remain in Christ.

2. Now, what you have done is you have failed to defend against my argument . . .

Beware of arguing from your own narrative.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you interpret Romans 7 as pre-Christ or post-Christ?

Paul is describing his own conversion experience.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't know. I think many of us are raised to be responsible adults and as such, we take responsibility for our actions. Perhaps we can't believe that salvation doesn't depend on us, since everything else does?

I think you hit the nail on the head.. We can;t fathom that we do nto have to do anything.. Its our sin, its our guilt. so we should have to pay some price.

But thats is just it.. We can't pay anything as there is nothing we could do would pay for our sin.

 

[GracePeace]

I understand your argument. It isn't valid because you ignore all of Romans 8 except verse 1. We both know that not all remain in Christ. Nonetheless, Paul's focus in chapter 8 is centered on those in Christ who also have the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Forgiveness, mercy, and eternal life are guaranteed for them, and no one in this group will fail to remain in Christ.


Beware of arguing from your own narrative.

When I observe that not all remain in Christ, the operative idea is "remain"--they are part of Christ but do not remain. I dont thin we agree there.

 

[GracePeace]

Paul is describing his own conversion experience.

So, you believe Romans 7 describes the life he lived BEFORE Christ, it doesn't describe his Christian life, right?

 

[GracePeace]

I understand your argument.

I meant that proving not all Christians always remain is not necessarily the same as proving some Christians ultimately fall away, because it's been conceded by some on your side that, sure, Christians don't always remain, that sometimes they walk after the flesh, but, they will argue, ultimately, Christ will uphold them and they will, ultimately, remain in Christ and walk after the spirit not after the flesh (as the argument goes: OSAS entails you will keep good works to the end). They don't concede instances of not remaining as necessarily proving possibility of ultimate not remaining.

 

[CadyandZoe]

When I observe that not all remain in Christ, the operative idea is "remain"--they are part of Christ but do not remain. I dont thin we agree there.

I understand, but your concept comes from John's gospel where Jesus talks about those who abide in him. In that context, abiding in him is likely but not certain to happen.

In Romans 8, however, there is NO contingency. In fact, Paul has removed all contingency because the conditions are met by God, who can never fail.

Let's analyze Jesus' remarks in John 15.

John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

Here, the Lord presents the scenario in which not only do his followers abide in Christ, but Christ also abides in his followers.

Conditions:
1) he abides in me
and
2) I abide in him.

Only if both are true does he bear much fruit.

Romans 8
Conditions:
1) he who is "in Christ
and
2) he who has the spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

Only if both are true is someone without condemnation and destined for life in the coming age.

In Romans 14:23, Paul gives no indication of the man's spiritual condition. That is where your argument breaks down, I think.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, you believe Romans 7 describes the life he lived BEFORE Christ, it doesn't describe his Christian life, right?

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

 

[GracePeace]

I understand, but your concept comes from John's gospel where Jesus talks about those who abide in him. In that context, abiding in him is likely but not certain to happen.

1. No, my concept of remaining comes from all of Scripture.
2. Likelihood is not addressed in that portion, only the possibility of remaining or not remaining is addressed.

In Romans 8, however, there is NO contingency. In fact, Paul has removed all contingency because the conditions are met by God, who can never fail.

No, contingency is not even addressed in v1. He merely addresses the blessedness of the ones in Christ. He nowhere addresses contingency in v1.
Later, however, he does address contingency (vv12,13,17).

Let's analyze Jesus' remarks in John 15.

John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

Here, the Lord presents the scenario in which not only do his followers abide in Christ, but Christ also abides in his followers.

Conditions:
1) he abides in me
and
2) I abide in him.

Only if both are true does he bear much fruit.

Romans 8
Conditions:
1) he who is "in Christ
and
2) he who has the spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

Only if both are true is someone without condemnation and destined for life in the coming age.

Yes, and Paul says we are to test ourselves to see if we are in the faith, because Christ is in us (because we are in the faith) unless we fail the test--and we have the example of the Galatians who had been led away from faith in the Gospel, who were in unbelief, despite thinking they were in faith, and Paul was "again" in pains of labor until Christ would be formed in them (ie, until he had brought them back to the faith) (Gal 4:19), and such were described as "deserting God" (Gal 1:6), and as having been "severed from Christ" (Gal 5:4).
It's as clear as day : they were not remaining in Him, nor He in they, because they were not in the faith, and remaining in Christ is by keeping the twin commands of i. believe in the Name of God's Son, and ii. love one another (1 Jn 3:23,24).

In Romans 14:23, Paul gives no indication of the man's spiritual condition. That is where your argument breaks down, I think.

We've gone over this, and, yes, every indication is he is a believer, because : a. if he were an unbeliever, he would already have been condemned (Paul wouldn't have said, "now that he has broken the rule 'each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind', he is condemned"), b. he is breaking the rule that is binding on believers (v5 "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind... what ever does not proceed from faith is sin"--because "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith"), so he is condemned (another example is in 1 Co 8, where the believer who goes against what he believes is correct, partaking in idolatry, leads to his condemnation)--and all teachers agree with me, because it is obviously the case.

 

[GracePeace]

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

So, you don't believe that 1 John actually teaches "true believers", those born of God, never sin.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I meant that proving not all Christians always remain is not necessarily the same as proving some Christians ultimately fall away, because it's been conceded by some on your side that, sure, Christians don't always remain, that sometimes they walk after the flesh, but, they will argue, ultimately, Christ will uphold them and they will, ultimately, remain in Christ and walk after the spirit not after the flesh (as the argument goes: OSAS entails you will keep good works to the end). They don't concede instances of not remaining as necessarily proving possibility of ultimate not remaining.

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

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

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." 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I meant that proving not all Christians always remain is not necessarily the same as proving some Christians ultimately fall away, because it's been conceded by some on your side that, sure, Christians don't always remain, that sometimes they walk after the flesh, but, they will argue, ultimately, Christ will uphold them and they will, ultimately, remain in Christ and walk after the spirit not after the flesh (as the argument goes: OSAS entails you will keep good works to the end). They don't concede instances of not remaining as necessarily proving possibility of ultimate not remaining.

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

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

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." 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."

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.

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.

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.

1. No, my concept of remaining comes from all of Scripture.

You were quoting the gospel of John was my point.

2. Likelihood is not addressed in that portion, only the possibility of remaining or not remaining is addressed.

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

No, contingency is not even addressed in v1.

My point exactly. Your argument stops at verse one.

Yes, and Paul says we are to test ourselves to see if we are in the faith,

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.

It's as clear as day : they were not remaining in Him

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

We've gone over this, and, yes, every indication is he is a believer, because : a. if he were an unbeliever, he would already have been condemned (Paul wouldn't have said, "now that he has broken the rule 'each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind', he is condemned"), b. he is breaking the rule that is binding on believers (v5 "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind... what ever does not proceed from faith is sin"--because "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith"), so he is condemned (another example is in 1 Co 8, where the believer who goes against what he believes is correct, partaking in idolatry, leads to his condemnation)--and all teachers agree with me, because it is obviously the case.

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

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, you don't believe that 1 John actually teaches "true believers", those born of God, never sin.

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.