Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
You did not answer yes ore no
You are still deflecting.
I do not care what you think 1 cor 10 says. i asked a question.
No Condemnation For Those In Christ (Romans 8:1)
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
You are still deflecting.
I do not care what you think 1 cor 10 says. i asked a question.
@Episkopos In other words, being "in Christ" is our Promised Land, because the Promised "eternal life" is only "in the Son" (1 Jn 2:28, 3:23,24, 5:11).
He says "I am the true Vine", and Israel was "a Vine" (Is 5).
Last edited:
I did answer yes or no, but, again, you don't want to recognize answers. The topic was 1 Co 10, so the answer is given in context.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Anyone who can read and comprehend basic facts will see your guile--and DO NOT pray to whatever you pray to, that makes you full of guile, for me.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
My point is that if someone does not keep his commandments, walk by faith, and abide in his teaching, that person isn't "in Christ."
Paul explains what he means by "walking according to the Spirit" in Romans 8. But verse 9 is the key verse in that context, where he writes, " You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." Thus, the essential question is whether or not a Christian has the Spirit of Christ.
I was asking an exegetical question.
No. That is not the discussion Paul is having. He begins chapter 14 with his opening remark, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith . . ." Since he has established the subject matter, we understand his words according to that subject.
I agree; not everyone who claims the name of Jesus is truly a follower of Jesus.
Paul focuses on the relationship between two brothers (or two factions) who disagree over doctrine. The first brother judges the second brother. The second brother holds the first brother in contempt. The issue at hand is whether or not a Christian is allowed to eat meat offered to idols.
Romans 14:10
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you, again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
An identical problem emerged in Corinth, but the division was not based on ethnicity. Just as in Rome, the issue is freedom of conscience and how to live among those who hold a different opinion concerning eating meat offered to idols.
The fact that the Jews were expelled from Rome is true, and perhaps the returning Jews had an issue with the Gentiles who ate the meat offered to an idol. Nonetheless, Paul's exhortation applies to both Jewish believers and Gentile believers. The vegetarians shouldn't hold the meat eaters in contempt, and the meat eaters shouldn't condemn the vegetarians.
I agree.
You might be thinking of this section of the passage.
Romans 14:5-8
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
The key point here is the motive. Let's say two Christians have different views on Sabbath keeping. One person observes the Sabbath for the Lord, while the other believes that every day is the same. In both cases, the individuals are trying to serve the Lord. Similarly, one person believes that eating meat offered to idols is wrong, while another person eats the meat. Regardless, both are trying to serve the Lord. Their unity is based on their dedication to serving the Lord.The message in Romans 14:10-13 is about having the right attitude and why it's important for our attitude to align with our beliefs. Those who tend to judge others should remember that it's ultimately God who will judge us. Therefore, we should live according to our own conscience and allow others to do the same. I must follow my conscience, and when it comes to judging others, I should leave that to God.
Linking random verses leads to misunderstanding.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I don't accept your premise, which postulates a case that doesn't exist. All those who are in Christ will always remain and they will always keep his commandments. There is no case where someone in Christ will fall away and stop keeping his commandments.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
While I agree with your explanation, I maintain that Paul is not concerned with doubt in Romans 14.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
The title of your thread explicitly mentions Romans 8:1. It is a fair conclusion to assume that Romans 8:1 is the topic of discussion. Yes?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You are the one who is mistaken. Romans 14:23 has no bearing on Romans 8:1.
I know your point--this discussion debunks it.
Again, abiding is by keeping commands (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23, 24), which explains how those "in Him" aren't condemned, but a Christian who doesn't walk by faith (who is therefore sinning) is "condemned" (they're not abiding in Him).
1. Let me just say it is refreshing to speak with someone who disagrees with me, but who is normal--able to interact with my position, address points, etc, with clarity. You actually understand what I'm saying (even though you disagree). It's so refreshing after having dealt with other users here.
You really have surprised me. Lol A pleasant surprise.
2. When we're keeping His commands, one of them is to believe in the Name of God's Son, God is Salvation, so if we sin (if it's not a sin unto death), He saves us, there is forgiveness.
Clarification: that's the discussion I started on this thread.
Again, the Christian in Ro 14:23 is "condemned", but not because he's a "false professor of faith in the Gospel", but because he broke God's commands (by doing what he doesn't believe is correct), thus isn't abiding in Christ where there is no condemnation.
No, meat offered to idols is in view in the letter to the Corinthians--and, again, here, the issue is addressed with the general rule "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and breaking that rule is sin, and sinning is not keeping God's commands, thus the person is compromising their justification (being that they're condemned).
Irrespectively, "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", "walk by faith", is God's rule, and breaking it is (obviously) "sin", and the person is condemned. How do you explain the guy's condemnation when there's no condemnation in Christ?
Lol nah, not "random", it's called believing the whole Bible, not just my favorite little prooftexts.
Last edited:
How is the sinning Christian "condemned" if there's no condemnation "in Christ"?
One of his concerns is faith ("each man must be fully convinced in his own mind"), thus it is not a stretch to assert that one of his concerns would be doubt (the opposite of faith).
Clearly, "doubt" is in view in Romans 14:23, because he explains "but he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith [the rule he laid out before], because what ever does not proceed from faith is sin".
I am just believing what is plainly stated.
For your view to be coherent, we would translate "faith" in a way to end up with "eating together with his brothers" (because he's contrasting)--of course, that's not possible.
Also, it's not entirely important, bc, either way you want to look at it, the guy is "condemned", which is my point. How is he condemned when there's no condemnation in Christ?
Last edited:
Right, I know your view--this discussion is all about laying out evidence proving your view is incoherent.
Why does Paul warn Christians that if they walk after the flesh they will die (Ro 8:12,13)? Why does he call the Corinthians "carnal" and reprimand them for so many sins, and warn them "the unrighteous will not inherit God's Kingdom" right after reprimanding them for their unrighteousness? Is that "random", or isn't he saying "You need to fix things or else"?
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Your argument is this: People misunderstand Romans 8:1. While the passage appears to say that there is no condemnation for Christian believers. Romans 14:23 specifically says that Christians can be condemned.
My response to this is as follows: You have not noticed Paul's use of the term "in Christ", which he has used to refer to individuals who will not fall away, always walk in the spirit, and will inherit eternal life. This is always true by definition: Not all believers are "in Christ," and not all those who claim to be Christians are "in Christ."
Thus, Romans 8:1 is definitional. This verse adds more definition to his term "In Christ." What can we truly say about those who are "in Christ.?"
Romans 8:1
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
The above sentence is true by definition. Here Paul asserts that there is now no condemnation for those who are "in Christ." It's as if Paul is saying to his readers, "I am defining the phrase 'in Christ'. I want you to know that when I talk about those who are "in Christ", such people are no longer under condemnation."
In fact Romans 8:1-9 is entirely definitional, where Paul is defining what he means by the phrase "in Christ." Not all who claim to be "Christian" are "in Christ". Not all who claim to believe in Christ, believe in Christ.
By definition then, those who are in Christ:
- are no longer under condemnation of death.
- Walk in the Spirit
- Walk according to the Spirit
- Have their minds set on the things of the spirit
- Have the spirit of God dwelling in them
- Have the spirit of Christ dwelling in them.
- Are guaranteed to be raised from the dead.
I agree with your point of view with respect to those who call themselves Christians. Some Christians will remain, others will fall away. But those Christians who are "in Christ." will never fall way -- by definition. That is what being "in Christ" means.
I interpret the commandment "to believe in his name" differently. In our language, "Jesus Christ" is his name, and as you mentioned, "God is salvation" is the translation of his name.
However, in the context of the New Testament, the term "name" signifies authority. Therefore, believing in the name of Jesus Christ means believing that he possesses the authority he claims to have.
The Christian in Romans 14:23 is condemned due to a common error found among religious people: Those who keep the rules are better than those who don't. This was the common belief among the Pharisees. They thought they were "not like other men." Paul wants those who eat the meat to eat the meat with a clear conscience and those who abstain from the meat to also abstain with a clear conscience. Just keep your opinion to yourself and don't allow religious issues to cause division among you.
The person who judges another for being a vegetarian is wrong, and God will condemn them. Similarly, the vegetarian who holds the meat eater in contempt is also wrong, and God will condemn them as well. I believe that neither of these individuals is "In Christ" as Paul defines the term.
More specifically, it declares there is no condemnation for those "in Christ", but this verse makes no statement about "in Christ" being a static state--and the quandary of the condemnation of the one who sins Ro 14:23 can only be resolved by recognizing that Scripture speaks of true believers who do not remain "in Christ" (otherwise, you fall in to incoherence of denying that Christians sin).
Those who are "in Christ" "always walk in the spirit"?
Why does Paul say "If you walk after the flesh [sin] you will die"? How does a "truly believing" Christian ever sin if he's guaranteed to never once walk after the flesh? If they're guaranteed to walk after the spirit, whereby "you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh" because "by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh", how could a Christian ever sin? The sin can't come from walking after the spirit. Are you denying that? How could God author sin? God "cannot lie". God cannot sin. If someone is walking after the spirit, sin is not produced. It doesn't come from the spirit. Are you sinless? How were the Corinthians lambasted for being "carnal" if they weren't walking after the flesh, but always walking after the spirit?
1. Why arbitrarily (potentially conveniently) stop at v9? Why aren't vv12,13, which warn the very same people that if they walk after the flesh they will die and not live, also "definitional"?
2. So, people have a choice: they can believe your approach to resolving the apparent contradiction between Ro 8:1 vs 14:23, or they can believe (what I think is the coherent solution), simply, that not all remain in Christ.
Now, does such a concept of "true believers" who do not "remain" exist in Scripture, or am I inventing it--and if it is in Scripture, ought it to be treated with seriousness, or ought it to be treated lightly?
1 John 2
28Now, little children, remain in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not draw back from Him in shame at His coming.
If "remaining" is "guaranteed", why are God's children told "remain"?
For instance, "Don't let your arm fall off" would make no sense.
Arms don't fall off.
What could they do that could bring them "shame"?
What brought Adam shame that made him draw back, though he had once been sinless?
Isn't it not keeping God's commands--ie, sinning?
"Children" are not "ashamed" bc of not being "real believers", but bc of sin.
("Coincidentally", that's what's described in Romans 14:23.)
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. We know by this that He remains in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
Remaining in Him is by keeping His commands.
(The one in Ro 14:23 broke God's rule.)
This is why there is a category of those who do not "remain" "in Him"--eg, the "children", spiritually immature (1 Jn 2:28), prone to idolatry (1 Jn 5:21), are warned to "remain", to "keep His commands".
To me, this is straightforward: there is "no condemnation" for those "in Christ" (Ro 8:1), yet the believer who sins "is condemned" for sinning (Ro 14:23), because "remaining" is by "keeping His commands", and sin is not keeping His commands, and those who sin are "condemned" because they're not "remaining" "in Christ".
John 15
1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. 2He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me.
5I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8This is to My Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, proving yourselves to be My disciples.
9As the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you. Remain in My love. 10If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love.
The disciples are told "remain" "in Christ".
How?
Keep His Word and commands.
What is the alternative?
Not obeying and not "remaining".
Apart from Christ, they can do no good, aren't fruitful, so, these are pruned off and are burned.
So, those branches which the Vine issues must, to remain in the Vine from which they issued, keep His Words and commands--if not, then they do not "remain".
(Again, this is Ro 14:23--they're not "remaining", so they're "condemned", bc of not keeping the command.)
So, am I inventing the idea that there is a category of believers who do not "remain" "in Christ", or am I not merely respecting what Scripture tells me about the reality of Christianity?
In my view, you have lots of "extra parts" laying around after building your system, though--lots of Scripture that can't be accounted for.
"Authority" is a generic thing. We are discussing His Word to check what it is that He has said He uses His "authority" to do. In other words, we both agree that God has infinite power, but we do not agree on what God applies His power to--ie, we do not agree on His Word, which is what He has decided to do.
By the way, I'm saying we believe "God is Savior"--and His saving us is, in no small part, by forgiving us.
Is that something you disagree with?
Of someone whose Master can make him stand (v4)--he's a true believer, not a false believer (actually, there is no unbeliever mentioned, no unbeliever in view, in Ro 14)--it is said that whether he does or doesn't observe a particular day, or does or doesn't eat (what ever he does), that that slave of Jesus must be "fully persuaded in his mind" for it to be righteous and not sinful.
Do you agree with this?
Paul explains the reason the man in Ro 14:23 is condemned is "what ever [act that] does not proceed from faith is sin".
Do you agree with this?
Wouldn't you agree there is a connection between the two--ie, that the rule for the slaves of the Lord Jesus is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind", and that, therefore, the breaking of that rule would constitute sin, because "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin"? And how could Paul, if believers never sin, never walk after the flesh, describe what it would be for a believer to sin?
Is it an unbeliever, who is nowhere in view in Romans 14, who is "condemned" because he doesn't eat with his non-brothers (since he's not a child of God)? Wouldn't such an unbeliever be condemned already (for his unbelief in the Gospel)? Why would Paul, without ever having mentioned unbelievers, juggle an unbeliever in to the matter about true believers, and the rule of life true believers are to live by, and warn that if an unbeliever breaks a rule which the Lord's slaves are to keep, then he is condemned? Do you see how that is incoherent? And show me where an "unbeliever" is explicitly mentioned in Romans 14. Paul only speaks explicitly of the Lord's slaves.
Well, at least you acknowledge the guy is condemned by God (some deny it). That's a start.
Think of it: you would have us believe there're no "real believers" Paul is instructing, here--ie, he's writing to a "secret remnant" of unbelievers who happen to be in the Church--to hold your view together.
My view, however, allows us to accept that he begins by speaking with those "in Christ", giving them rules, and continues speaking with them, all the way through, explaining to the same people "in Christ" the consequences of breaking those rules he lays down for those "in Christ" ("each man must be fully convinced in his own mind... but the one who has doubts is condemned if he eats [or observes a day, or any other thing he does], because what ever does not proceed from faith is sin").
(Note: this is actually why the Galatians were "severed from Christ", were "deserting Him Who calls you in the Grace of Christ"--did not remain "in Christ"--they had believed another Gospel, which was not from God (Gal 1:6, 5:8), breaking the command to believe in the Name of God's Son (1 Jn 3:23), whereby they would have remained "in Christ", and were not serving others by faith which works by love, but were doing deeds without faith, just because the Law, external to them, told them to do it. They were not doing the deeds which God's love was convicting them to do from the heart for God's glory.)
In my view, there is no break, no change of subject, no change of audience.
Is he instructing unbelievers that whatever they do they must do with full persuasion?
No? He's instructing believers?
Then he's not describing the consequences of breaking that rule to unbelievers, but to the same group of "true believers" he had just been talking to.
Is the one who is to be accepted despite being weak (v1) a "true believer"? It says his "Master" is able to make him stand, so his "Master" is Jesus right? He's a believer? Yet, this "weak" brother is the very one who is to be protected from doing things against his conscience. Why? Because if you are culpable for making him stumble that way, you "destroy the work of God". (Clearly, then, he's a "true believer".) All because he is caused to do what he does not believe, leading to his condemnation. Isn't that Paul's entire teaching here? Isn't that the conclusion--"what ever does not proceed from faith is sin"? Isn't that because it is not in keeping with "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and the "weak" brother has been caused to violate that standard?
When Paul writes...
Romans 14
5One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord;b he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7For none of us lives to himself alone, and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this reason Christ died and returned to life, that He might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10Why, then, do you judge your brother? Or why do you belittle your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
“As surely as I live,
says the Lord,
every knee will bow before Me;
every tongue will confess to God.”c
12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
...is the issue "some of us are are true believers, and some of us are not true believers", or isn't it that "true believers have a rule--they must be fully convinced in their own minds... and if they do what they are not fully convinced is correct, they are sinning"? Clearly, the issue is how believers are to live their lives.
Regarding the guy who is judging his brother, though, what had the Scripture already said of the one who judges his brother?
"None of us lives to himself alone, and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. ... Why then do you judge your brother?" Nowhere is it even hinted at that the problem with the guy who is judging his brother does not believe in the Gospel; contrariwise, he is living to and dying to the Lord, and is said to be among all of the saints who will give an account of their lives to the Lord. He is not singled out as different. He is a true believer.
So, Scripture recognizes the man who judges his brother is a saint--therefore, even if it were the case that Ro 14:23 referred to someone being condemned for judging his brother (it doesn't, it refers to someone who sinned by breaking the rule that he ought to do only what he believes--this is explicit), we already have the precedent that he is a saint.
None of what you are asserting, therefore, is coherent.
The only coherent solution to the fact that those "in Christ" enjoy "no condemnation", yet the one who does not walk by faith "is condemned", is that not all "remain" "in Christ"--clearly, because "remaining" is by "obeying His commands", and Ro 14:23 is a case where someone did not obey Christ's rule.
It's all fairly straightforward.
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 8
7However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8Now food will not bring us [c]close to God; we are neither [d]the worse if we do not eat, nor [e]the better if we do eat. 9But take care that this [f]freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.
- Status