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

[GracePeace]

Those who are in Christ do not walk after the flesh.

This is correct, but not in the way you mean it: 1 Jn 3:23 says the way you abide in Him is by keeping His commands to believe in the Name of God's Son, AND by loving others. Faith works by love, so if you are not walking by faith, you're not walking by love, so you're not abiding in Christ, but walking after the flesh, and you're condemned like the Christian in Romans 14:23, and you will die unless there is repentance Ro 8:12,13.

Does "condemned" indicate an eternal state or merely disapproval?

No, you obviously only need restoration--God forgives.

This is wrong. Condemnation is removed for those who are "in Christ", not because they remain sinless, but because they are forgiven and walk according to the Spirit.

Yeah, but the discussion is about the reality that not all remain (eg, Ro 14:23; Gal 1:6, 5:4; 1 Jn 2:28)--because remaining is by keeping God's commands to believe in the Name of God's Son and love one another, and not all do that.

The subject matter of chapter 14 is breaking fellowship with other believers.

No, it's not. The issue is Jews had returned (they had been cast out by the govt), and found their Church filled with Gentiles, and this was causing an issue, because the Jews had one way they thought was right, and the Gentiles knew nothing about it, and both claimed to be right, and, in the Law, it says there's only supposed to be one rule for the people: "the single rule for all the people", is "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and we see that the breaking of that rule is defined as "sin" whereby a Christian is "condemned".

Don't misunderstand what Paul means by "faith" in this context. He isn't speaking about believing the gospel here; rather, he is speaking about religious conviction. In the first two or three verses, he alerts his readers to his purpose.

Romans 14:1-2

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.​

From this, we understand that Paul is speaking about a controversy between those who eat meat and those who eat vegetables. Whether someone has decided to become a vegetarian isn't that controversial. The central issue is whether one is sinning and acting unholy after eating meat offered to an idol. In Paul's view, those who eat the meat offered to an idol have a stronger, more informed faith than those who eat only vegetables.

The question at hand is whether the meat should be considered "unholy" and tainted. One person believes the meat is unholy and should not be eaten by Christians, especially those striving to maintain purity. On the other hand, a more informed individual believes that there is nothing inherently wrong with the meat. They argue that idolatry does not change the meat itself and that devout Christians are free to consume it.

Paul exhorts the two parties to find a way to get along. The meat eaters, those who are stronger in faith, should accept the one who is weak in faith "but not to pass judgment on his opinions." In this context, it is tempting for meat eaters to pass judgment against those who will not eat the meat. (In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul adds that vegetarians will be tempted to hold the meat eaters in contempt.)

1. Romans 14 is, as I've explained, actually about a historical issue that led to an ecclesial issue that led to a doctrinal clarification.
2. The particular issues were answered by an abstraction that "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and breaking that rule is "sin", because God's righteousness is only "revealed from faith to faith", so I'm not wrong to latch on to that.
3. Paul says "according to my Gospel" there will be a day of judgment, so how do you know it's not part of the Gospel to teach that men are to walk before God in faith? Irrespectively, it clearly is necessary for them to abide in Christ where there is no condemnation, because they get condemned if not.

With regard to those who pass judgment on those who refuse to eat the meat Paul says, "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who [breaks fellowship] is condemned if he eats, because "condemning a brother" not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

Nope, I'm going to link Romans 14:23 to v5, and to Romans 1:17: God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, therefore each man must be fully convinced in his own mind, and if you break that rule you're sinning.

The text discusses the condemnation of one another, but it emphasizes that God will condemn those who break fellowship with another believer over this controversy. Some people who eat meat might think too highly of themselves because of their correct stance on the issue. They might not accept those who disagree with them and pass judgment on those who don't eat meat. In this case, God condemns the meat eater because their attitude toward a fellow believer is not consistent with our faith.

Bottom line: The meat eater's conviction is valid regarding the temple meat, but incorrect regarding how to treat another believer who disagrees.

You're misunderstanding the issue, but I've provided some answers, and await your interaction with them.

 

[GracePeace]

With regard to those who pass judgment on those who refuse to eat the meat Paul says, "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who [breaks fellowship] is condemned if he eats, because "condemning a brother" not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

The text discusses the condemnation of one another, but it emphasizes that God will condemn those who break fellowship with another believer over this controversy. Some people who eat meat might think too highly of themselves because of their correct stance on the issue. They might not accept those who disagree with them and pass judgment on those who don't eat meat. In this case, God condemns the meat eater because their attitude toward a fellow believer is not consistent with our faith.

Bottom line: The meat eater's conviction is valid regarding the temple meat, but incorrect regarding how to treat another believer who disagrees.

Even if what you were saying were true--ie, "this passage is God condemning those who break fellowship"--you're still conceding the point that God condemns Christians, which doesn't solve your problem, but brings you back to square one: how does a professing Christian experience condemnation when there is no condemnation for those in Christ? This would infer they're not abiding in Christ where there would be no condemnation. This inference would be affirmed by the doctrine that to remain in Christ requires keeping His commands I Jn 3:23.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You're so confused.
The OP is not an affirmation of the ignorance most conclude from Ro 8:1, but a challenge of that view, BASED ON VERSES LIKE ROMANS 14:23.

Your issue is you cannot humble yourself, and admit you've made an error. It's not more complicated than that.

Walking in faith is God's deeds not my own. That's been explained thoroughly.
In Christ there's no more condemnation, but not all remain, as I've proven, so they get condemned.

Nice deflect.

Answer the question.

Are those who have NEVER believed in christ saved? Have they ever been?

 

[GracePeace]

With regard to those who pass judgment on those who refuse to eat the meat Paul says, "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who [breaks fellowship] is condemned if he eats, because "condemning a brother" not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

"Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves": follow the passage, and you will understand this refers to the person who is not harming others by his freedom.

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. ... 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.

The explanation about how a more mature person with faith and freedom to do something in clear conscience as unto the Lord, for the Lord's glory, must curtail his freedom if it harms an immature brother ends with reference to what is happening to the immature brother: he is not eating in faith, because the more mature brother has become a cause for him to go against his faith before the Lord. "Well, he's doing it. Why can't I?"

Romans 14
23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Even if you want to argue "doubts" is fellowship, the rule, and my entire point, remains: "what ever is not from faith is sin".

 

[GracePeace]

Nice deflect.

The deflector in chief is falsely accusing me of deflecting while he himself is deflecting.
Do you know this is literally a tactic of satan worshippers? That they do it to cause confusion?
"Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing."

To prevent your effort at deflection: The issue at hand is that you didn't read the OP (you constantly answer matters before hearing them, as Proverbs 18:13 states), or you read it without understanding it, or read it and forgot it, because you didn't know Ro 14:23 was on topic, yet you refuse to humble yourself and admit error. This is proof you're not going to be honest about anything regarding actual theology, either--you don't even admit when you make an error about identifying the topic that is being discussed.

Moreover, until now, you're busy trying to find fault with me about raising Romans 14:23, instead of simply engaging with it--more deflection deception.

You've also attempted to get out of answering all the answers I already supplied you, because you're not thorough--you're not thorough in your study, and you're not thorough in your discussions. You're just not that type of person, yet you want to engage with people who are thorough, and require thorough answers, with the result that you get debunked, and you're completely incapable of defending your position, yet you are too full of pride to admit the truth, so you resort to deflection, and now you're falsely accusing me of deflecting.

Answer the question.

Are those who have NEVER believed in christ saved? Have they ever been?

I've answered this multiple times. As noted, you answer matters before hearing them (Proverbs 18:13)--you didn't read.
Either that, or you did read, but didn't understand, or did read, and did understand, but forgot.

As I've been saying, you are always dazed and confused.

 

[Bob Estey]

Isn't it true that the reason there is no condemnation for those in Christ is because they are not sinning?

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

In Romans 8:1, Paul had just described the plight of a Jew under the Law--ie, being mastered by sin, and condemned for it. When Paul says, "Therefore," what he is saying next is building upon what came before. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ".

Why not? "In Him there is no sin."

However, when the Christian sins (by doing what he doubts--walking in unbelief, not faith), he is condemned (Ro 14:23)--he compromises his justification. How can that be if "there is... no condemnation for those in Christ"?

Because this is an example of not remaining in 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.

Hebrews 10
38But My righteous one will live by faith; and If [My righteous one] shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

Philippians 3
9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Whereas the one who remains in Christ enjoys "no condemnation", the one who does not remain in Christ is "condemned".

How to remain in Christ?

1 John 3
23And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
24Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Therefore, when Romans 14:23 refers to the Christian who is condemned for breaking faith by doing what he does not believe, it is teaching that this person is not abiding in Christ. Obviously, to abide in Christ means to believe in His mercy that reconnects you to Him, and to then walk before Him in peace.

Romans 1:17 says "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", thus the Christian, who is to reveal God's righteousness (not his own), is, in all his actions, to be "fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)--and, because this is true, if the Christian does what he doubts is correct before the Lord, it is sin (not the revelation of God's righteousness) whereby the Christian is condemned (Romans 14:23).

How did the Christian, the justified, become condemned?
By not abiding in Christ.
How?
By not keeping God's commands (1 Jn 3:23,24).

There is no other accounting for this anomaly--"there is no condemnation for those in Christ", yet "the Christian who sins is condemned"--and, certainly, the OSAS crowd cannot account for it.

There are consequences to sin. If I rob a bank and tell the judge, "I am in Christ," he's still going to send me to prison. The lesson to be learned, I believe, is don't rob a bank.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The deflector in chief is falsely accusing me of deflecting while he himself is deflecting.
Do you know this is literally a tactic of satan worshippers? That they do it to cause confusion?
"Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing."

Your the one refusing to answer the question not me.

You have done this since I have first met you. You have not changed.. You think you have a point, the point you think you have is proven to be in error. and it gets to the point where 1 question is all that needs answered to prove your in erro. and you refuse to answer that question, and start to deflect.

To prevent your effort at deflection: The issue at hand is that you didn't read the OP (you constantly answer matters before hearing them, as Proverbs 18:13 states), or you read it without understanding it, or read it and forgot it, because you didn't know Ro 14:23 was on topic, yet you refuse to humble yourself and admit error. This is proof you're not going to be honest about anything regarding actual theology, either--you don't even admit when you make an error about identifying the topic that is being discussed.

Your point of Rom 14 has been thoroughly and literally refuted..

But just to prove your deflection. I am posting the original op. For the reader to see. rom 14 is but a side note in this whole post .

In fact. you post mentiones 1 John 3, Romans 8 (as mentioned in the op) 1 John 2, Heb 10, Phil 3, 1 John 3 and romans 1. And as we can see, Rom 14 is again, just a side note as highlighted. In fact amazingly, it is not even quoted..

Isn't it true that the reason there is no condemnation for those in Christ is because they are not sinning?

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

In Romans 8:1, Paul had just described the plight of a Jew under the Law--ie, being mastered by sin, and condemned for it. When Paul says, "Therefore," what he is saying next is building upon what came before. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ".

Why not? "In Him there is no sin."

However, when the Christian sins (by doing what he doubts--walking in unbelief, not faith), he is condemned (Ro 14:23)--he compromises his justification. How can that be if "there is... no condemnation for those in Christ"?

Because this is an example of not remaining in 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.

Hebrews 10
38But My righteous one will live by faith; and If [My righteous one] shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

Philippians 3
9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Whereas the one who remains in Christ enjoys "no condemnation", the one who does not remain in Christ is "condemned".

How to remain in Christ?

1 John 3
23And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
24Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Therefore, when Romans 14:23 refers to the Christian who is condemned for breaking faith by doing what he does not believe, it is teaching that this person is not abiding in Christ. Obviously, to abide in Christ means to believe in His mercy that reconnects you to Him, and to then walk before Him in peace.

Romans 1:17 says "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", thus the Christian, who is to reveal God's righteousness (not his own), is, in all his actions, to be "fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)--and, because this is true, if the Christian does what he doubts is correct before the Lord, it is sin (not the revelation of God's righteousness) whereby the Christian is condemned (Romans 14:23).

How did the Christian, the justified, become condemned?
By not abiding in Christ.
How?
By not keeping God's commands (1 Jn 3:23,24).

There is no other accounting for this anomaly--"there is no condemnation for those in Christ", yet "the Christian who sins is condemned"--and, certainly, the OSAS crowd cannot account for it.

Moreover, until now, you're busy trying to find fault with me about raising Romans 14:23, instead of simply engaging with it--more deflection deception.

Nope. I am just sticking to the op and another thread where you keep going to the jews. and saying they are a type. Because I am actually done playing your petty little game and want to get to the heart of the matter of what you believe.

You've also attempted to get out of answering all the answers I already supplied you, because you're not thorough--you're not thorough in your study, and you're not thorough in your discussions. You're just not that type of person, yet you want to engage with people who are thorough, and require thorough answers, with the result that you get debunked, and you're completely incapable of defending your position, yet you are too full of pride to admit the truth, so you resort to deflection, and now you're falsely accusing me of deflecting.

I've answered this multiple times. As noted, you answer matters before hearing them (Proverbs 18:13)--you didn't read.
Either that, or you did read, but didn't understand, or did read, and did understand, but forgot.

As I've been saying, you are always dazed and confused.

Once again

Are people who have never believed Christ saved, have they ever will be saved,

I will nto ask again. Failure to answer will just prove

1. You know I am right
2. You really do nto have a clue and are afraid if you answer, it may prove you are wrong, and again, I am right.

either way, Silence speaks very loudly right now.

Answer the question!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There are consequences to sin. If I rob a bank and tell the judge, "I am in Christ," he's still going to send me to prison. The lesson to be learned, I believe, is don't rob a bank.

And the nice thing is, whether you rob a bank or not. Your still your fathers son..

Purchased by Blood

 

[Bob Estey]

And the nice thing is, whether you rob a bank or not. Your still your fathers son..

Purchased by Blood

I spent a year participating in the Nevada Kairos Prison Ministry. It was very rewarding.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I spent a year participating in the Nevada Kairos Prison Ministry. It was very rewarding.

God loves everyone, no one is so far God God can not save them

 

[GracePeace]

Your the one refusing to answer the question not me.

You have done this since I have first met you. You have not changed.. You think you have a point, the point you think you have is proven to be in error. and it gets to the point where 1 question is all that needs answered to prove your in erro. and you refuse to answer that question, and start to deflect.

I've answered it countless times.

Your point of Rom 14 has been thoroughly and literally refuted..

LOL "literally" refuted.
Do you even know what the point is?

But just to prove your deflection. I am posting the original op. For the reader to see. rom 14 is but a side note in this whole post .

Nope, Ro 14:23 has always been pivotal, because it proves that failure to abide in Christ is a possibility, because Ro 8:1 says there is no condemnation for those IN CHRIST yet these Christians are condemned. How is it that there is no condemnation for those in Christ, and these Christians are condemned? They're not abiding in Christ, because it says they're sinning, and remaining in Christ is by keeping His commands (1 Jn 3:23,24).

In fact. you post mentiones 1 John 3, Romans 8 (as mentioned in the op) 1 John 2, Heb 10, Phil 3, 1 John 3 and romans 1. And as we can see, Rom 14 is again, just a side note as highlighted. In fact amazingly, it is not even quoted..

No, as I've explained, Romans 14:23 is pivotal. You, as always, are completely lost.
The idea that "it wasn't quoted, it was only cited, so it isn't important" shows your reading style--a wrong way of reading.

Nope. I am just sticking to the op and another thread where you keep going to the jews. and saying they are a type. Because I am actually done playing your petty little game and want to get to the heart of the matter of what you believe.

There are no games. You're free to interact with the material that you've been refusing to read and answer because you're not thorough.

Once again

Are people who have never believed Christ saved, have they ever will be saved,

I will nto ask again. Failure to answer will just prove

Already answered this. You're free to interact with the answer I've provided a trillion times.

1. You know I am right
2. You really do nto have a clue and are afraid if you answer, it may prove you are wrong, and again, I am right.

1. What I "know" is that you are lost in utter and abject ignorance regarding this topic.
2. I've answered, you've refused to interact with the answer.

either way, Silence speaks very loudly right now.

Answer the question!

Answer my answer I've given you an infinite number of times.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I've answered it countless times.

you have? lol..

You have not answered it once.

LOL "literally" refuted.
Do you even know what the point is?

Nope, Ro 14:23 has always been pivotal, because it proves that failure to abide in Christ is a possibility, because Ro 8:1 says there is no condemnation for those IN CHRIST yet these Christians are condemned. How is it that there is no condemnation for those in Christ, and these Christians are condemned? They're not abiding in Christ, because it says they're sinning, and remaining in Christ is by keeping His commands (1 Jn 3:23,24).

No, as I've explained, Romans 14:23 is pivotal. You, as always, are completely lost.
The idea that "it wasn't quoted, it was only cited, so it isn't important" shows your reading style--a wrong way of reading.

There are no games. You're free to interact with the material that you've been refusing to read and answer because you're not thorough.

Already answered this. You're free to interact with the answer I've provided a trillion times.

1. What I "know" is that you are lost in utter and abject ignorance regarding this topic.
2. I've answered, you've refused to interact with the answer.

Answer my answer I've given you an infinite number of times.

Answer your answer?

When did you answer yes or no to the question. Prove your point if you need to prove me wrong by quoted your answer to my question. And I will humbly admit I was in error.

Just in case you forgot what the question was.

Has anyone who has NEVER believes or trusted God been saved?

Its a yes or no question. You should be able to readily answer it.. even if you spend alot of time explaining your answer.. Yes or no..

 

[GracePeace]

you have? lol..

You have not answered it once.

Answer your answer?

When did you answer yes or no to the question. Prove your point if you need to prove me wrong by quoted your answer to my question. And I will humbly admit I was in error.

Just in case you forgot what the question was.

Has anyone who has NEVER believes or trusted God been saved?

Its a yes or no question. You should be able to readily answer it.. even if you spend alot of time explaining your answer.. Yes or no..

One of the many responses I had furnished about your "challenge" will suffice:

1. Again, you're not thorough. This is not at all an answer to every one of my answers.
2. Again, you answer matters before hearing them, as shameful fools do (Proverbs 18:13): I have said, endlessly, that 1 Corinthians 10 refers to a type, and a type is never its own anti-type (here, the anti-type would be men being saved by God's grace through faith in Christ's death and resurrection). I have also stated, in one of my answers to you, unbelievers are NOT saved in an anti-typical way. You are struggling to understand that parallel Paul teaches in 1 Co 10. You need to accept that before you can proceed.

 

[Davy]

I hoped to interact with dissenters, but is there anyone who agrees?

What you are showing about being in Christ Jesus is true for all believers. But Lord Jesus and His Apostles did not just stop there, for He also gave His faithful Church specific SIGNS of the END to be watching out for leading up to His future return, so as to not be deceived.

Thus deception at the END (our times), IS... possible for those who listen to men instead of God's Word as written. To be 'in Christ' for the times of the END, one must be 'sealed' with God's seal. And that means being aware of the SIGNS of the END which Jesus wants us to be watching per His Olivet discourse of Matt.24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. Those SIGNS are the Seals of Rev.6, Trumpets, and Vials.

Even in Matthew 13 when Christ's Apostles asked Him why He spoke to the multitudes in parables, Jesus said for His disciples it was given them to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the multitudes, it was NOT given.

So the real... question for today should be, "Are you Sealed with God's Seal? are you prepared for the coming false-Messiah who will claim to be God, showing great signs, wonders, and miracles to deceive with?"

 

[GracePeace]

What you are showing about being in Christ Jesus is true for all believers. But Lord Jesus and His Apostles did not just stop there, for He also gave His faithful Church specific SIGNS of the END to be watching out for leading up to His future return, so as to not be deceived.

Thus deception at the END (our times), IS... possible for those who listen to men instead of God's Word as written. To be 'in Christ' for the times of the END, one must be 'sealed' with God's seal. And that means being aware of the SIGNS of the END which Jesus wants us to be watching per His Olivet discourse of Matt.24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. Those SIGNS are the Seals of Rev.6, Trumpets, and Vials.

Even in Matthew 13 when Christ's Apostles asked Him why He spoke to the multitudes in parables, Jesus said for His disciples it was given them to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the multitudes, it was NOT given.

So the real... question for today should be, "Are you Sealed with God's Seal? are you prepared for the coming false-Messiah who will claim to be God, showing great signs, wonders, and miracles to deceive with?"

The "real" question of a thread on this website is what ever question the author of the thread raises.

 

[GracePeace]

And the nice thing is, whether you rob a bank or not. Your still your fathers son..

Purchased by Blood

For the readers (bc the user has no interest in reality):

No, the Scriptural precedent is that people can be His children, then be rejected as His children, and then be received again as His children: in Hosea 1, it says "You are not My people and I am not your god", but it goes on to say, "Where it was said, 'Not My People', it will be said, 'Sons of the living God'", so "God's people" are "God's children", and they had been "His children" (Deut 14:1), but He tells them, "You are not My people" (making them not His children--as Jn 8:44, for instance, shows), and also says, later, "In the future, though you were 'Not My People', it will be said of you 'Sons of the Living God'".

So, again, "Eternally Grateful" uses carnal reasoning ("A son is a son is a son--no matter what he does"), not Scripture--abject ignorance.

 

[Davy]

The "real" question of a thread on this website is what ever question the author of the thread raises.

If you believe that stupid idea, then maybe you ought to go off in a closet by yourself, and preach to yourself.

 

[GracePeace]

If you believe that stupid idea, then maybe you ought to go off in a closet by yourself, and preach to yourself.

Did I "trigger" you because I wouldn't let you change the topic?
Why not make your own thread, and stop trying to commandeer others' threads?
It's rude.

 

[Davy]

Did I "trigger" you because I wouldn't let you change the topic?
Why not make your own thread, and stop trying to commandeer others' threads?
It's rude.

Me being rude? It's not me, it's you... that is showing not only your immaturity in Christ, but also your Biblical illiteracy about the warnings Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave about the END in order to REMAIN IN CHRIST.

Thusly, you are purposefully NOT giving the FULL picture from Bible Scripture that Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave to be in Christ, which is the most important Scripture for those in Christ today.

 

[GracePeace]

Me being rude? It's not me, it's you... that is showing not only your immaturity in Christ, but also your Biblical illiteracy about the warnings Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave about the END in order to REMAIN IN CHRIST.

Thusly, you are purposefully NOT giving the FULL picture from Bible Scripture that Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave to be in Christ, which is the most important Scripture for those in Christ today.

The "real question" is the question that was raised. The topic will not be changed.