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

[GracePeace]

@CadyandZoe You're in Phoenix? I'm just north of you, in Flagstaff! It's so hot up here, now, my Pear tree and Blackberry bushes get singed in the afternoon heat! I dump gallons of water on them, but, really, they need artificial shade. I think we have 80% more UV than sea level.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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

I'm uncertain what you mean by "static state" but Paul's point is that those who are "in Christ" will never fall away and they will receive eternal life.

--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).

If someone is a true believer, he is in Christ and he or she will always remain.

Those who are "in Christ" "always walk in the spirit"?

Yes.

Why does Paul say "If you walk after the flesh [sin] you will die"?

To understand this section, we need to know that Paul often uses the term "flesh" to indicate who we are by birth. Speaking of Jesus in the opening lines of his epistle to the Romans, Paul refers to Jesus as "katasarka:according to the flesh" the son of David.

Romans 1:1-3

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, ​

Here Paul is using the Greek word "katasarka:according to the flesh" to identify Jesus' pedigree, which is based on his natural birth. With respect to his human identity markers, he was a son of David. We typically associate the term "flesh" with the sin nature, but that is not Paul's point here. He isn't suggesting that Jesus has a sin nature. He is suggesting that his qualification for being the Messiah was is familial relationship to David.

Thus, someone is walking "katasarka:according to the flesh" if their hope rests on their pedigree. Jesus encountered people like that during his ministry.

Matthew 3:8-10

Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.​

Jesus calls his people to repentance, but some trust in their lineage, saying to themselves, "We have Abraham for our father." Such people mistakenly believe that being a descendant of Abraham is enough. Paul would say that such people are "walking according to the flesh."

Some Jewish people were "walking according to the flesh" because they relied on their circumcision as a sign of their identity. They placed their hope in their lineage and physical marks. Paul contrasts these individuals with those who place their hope in the indwelling spirit. In Romans 8, Paul is not comparing carnality and spirituality, but rather those who rely on their lineage (walking according to the flesh) and those who rely on the indwelling spirit (walking according to the Spirit).

I doubt that any Gentile Christian is walking according to the flesh unless they are a pastor's kid, who might rely on his lineage as the son of the pastor.

How does a "truly believing" Christian ever sin if he's guaranteed to never once walk after the flesh?

Contrary to what some might think, "walking after the flesh" doesn't refer to carnality, sensuality, wickedness, or iniquity. The talk concerns fulfilling the law and those who believe lineage makes a person holy. Those who "walk after the flesh" are those who hope in lineage. Another way to put it is this: Those who are walking after the flesh are those who hope in physical circumcision; those who walk after the spirit are placing hope in spiritual/heart circumcision.

Those "in Christ" are trusting not in their lineage but in the Spirit of God.

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?

According to the definition of "katasarka," "the deeds of the flesh" in this context refer to anything we do or say to indicate that "we are not like other men." By this definition, we can think of several ways that men distinguish themselves from one another: 1. celibate lifestyle, 2. asceticism, 3. physical circumcision, 4. special diet, 5. piety, 6. religiosity, 7. family money, and similar behaviors.

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"?

John's use of the term "little children" refers to the children of the original believers. Suppose a Christian man marries a Christian woman and they have children. And suppose some of these children grow up to become Christians also. These children might be considered second-generation believers, i.e., the children of those who first believed.

Paul is not saying that remaining is guaranteed for each and every Christian. He argues that remaining is guaranteed for those "in Christ." I doubt that John would say that every Christian who reads his letter is "in Christ."

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.

True and I agree. But let's not skip over John's assertion that "He remains in us by the Spirit whom he has given us." This is a very important qualification. Paul says something similar in Romans 8: 'However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.' Thus, by definition, the essential qualification is centered on the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Not only must we remain in his commandments, he must remain in us.

(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".

It's important to remember that the authors of the Bible wrote to a diverse audience - some who were believers, some who were non-believers, and some who were already followers of Christ. Therefore, we should be cautious about making assumptions about those who are "in Christ" based on warnings directed at non-believers.

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".

Not all believers are "in Christ."

Apart from Christ, they can do no good, aren't fruitful, so, these are pruned off and are burned.

I agree. To be "apart from Christ" is exactly the opposite of being "in Christ." Remember what Paul said about the Spirit of Christ? What is the spirit of Christ?" The spirit of Christ is the spirit that will always say, "abba Father.", (Romans 8:15) which is short-hand for "Abba Father, All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.” The overwhelming desire to do God's will is the "spirit of Christ." Our Lord and Savior put aside his own will in order to obey the will of the Father. And like he taught us, we must be willing to die in order to save our life. (See also Galatians 4:4-7)

The essential feature of those who are "in Christ" is that God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.

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?

I think you are correct. Not all believers will remain in Christ, as Jesus said. Concerning how Paul uses the phrase "in Christ," he writes, "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." This is why I say that those "in Christ" will never fall away because, unlike other believers, the spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in them.

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe You're in Phoenix? I'm just north of you, in Flagstaff! It's so hot up here, now, my Pear tree and Blackberry bushes get singed in the afternoon heat! I dump gallons of water on them, but, really, they need artificial shade. I think we have 80% more UV than sea level.

It's going to reach 104 today, but this is just the beginning. We will probably see temperatures in the 110's and 120's. :)

You are lucky. I like pears and blackberries. :)

I like Flagstaff. A few years back, I drew some remodel plans for a friend.

 

[GracePeace]

I'm uncertain what you mean by "static state" but Paul's point is that those who are "in Christ" will never fall away and they will receive eternal life.

1. "Static": not moving from.
2. No, Paul is not "clear" on that--eg (beside the glaring example of Ro 14:23), Ro 11 says the Gentiles who were grafted in by faith can also be cut off for unbelief.

If someone is a true believer, he is in Christ and he or she will always remain.

Begging the question--that's the topic of the discussion.

Yes.

Christians don't sin?

To understand this section, we need to know that Paul often uses the term "flesh" to indicate who we are by birth. Speaking of Jesus in the opening lines of his epistle to the Romans, Paul refers to Jesus as "katasarka:according to the flesh" the son of David.

Romans 1:1-3

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, ​

Here Paul is using the Greek word "katasarka:according to the flesh" to identify Jesus' pedigree, which is based on his natural birth. With respect to his human identity markers, he was a son of David. We typically associate the term "flesh" with the sin nature, but that is not Paul's point here. He isn't suggesting that Jesus has a sin nature. He is suggesting that his qualification for being the Messiah was is familial relationship to David.

Thus, someone is walking "katasarka:according to the flesh" if their hope rests on their pedigree. Jesus encountered people like that during his ministry.

Matthew 3:8-10

[...]​

Jesus calls his people to repentance, but some trust in their lineage, saying to themselves, "We have Abraham for our father." Such people mistakenly believe that being a descendant of Abraham is enough. Paul would say that such people are "walking according to the flesh."
[...]

Rather, Paul provides us with the exact meaning of "walking after the flesh" when he describes what ends in death:

Romans 6
19... just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your body’s parts as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relation to righteousness. 21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.

John's use of the term "little children" refers to the children of the original believers. Suppose a Christian man marries a Christian woman and they have children. And suppose some of these children grow up to become Christians also. These children might be considered second-generation believers, i.e., the children of those who first believed.

1. It's clear, rather, that when John says he is writing to "children", "young men", and "fathers", it refers to varying levels of spiritual maturity.
2. Also, he tells them to "remain" "in Christ", so he's assuming they're already "in Christ" (you can't "remain" in something you aren't already "in").

Paul is not saying that remaining is guaranteed for each and every Christian. He argues that remaining is guaranteed for those "in Christ." I doubt that John would say that every Christian who reads his letter is "in Christ."

It's been proven, here, that he--and Scripture as a whole--teaches the opposite (that there is not a guarantee of remaining "in Christ").

True and I agree. But let's not skip over John's assertion that "He remains in us by the Spirit whom he has given us." This is a very important qualification. Paul says something similar in Romans 8: 'However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.' Thus, by definition, the essential qualification is centered on the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Not only must we remain in his commandments, he must remain in us.

An understandable misconception.

Rather, the reason why the Spirit is given is because they are abiding in Christ.

Galatians 3
26For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
...
6And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

There is a position in between being dead in sins and receiving the Holy Spirit: being "in Christ".

1 Corinthians 15
45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

Christ is a spiritual body. When we believe, we are positioned within that spiritual body, and then God pours out His Spirit out on those who are so situated. The eternal life, the Holy Spirit, is only "in His Son" (1 Jn 5:11).
This is why 1 John 3:23,24 says those who are remaining in Christ, by obeying God's commands, (believe in the Name of God's Son, and walk in faith, or "love one another"), are supplied with the Holy Spirit.

Again, the fact that it's a detailed process results in such understandable misconceptions as you have expressed.

It's important to remember that the authors of the Bible wrote to a diverse audience - some who were believers, some who were non-believers, and some who were already followers of Christ. Therefore, we should be cautious about making assumptions about those who are "in Christ" based on warnings directed at non-believers.

Either that, or we just accept that some do not remain, because they don't keep Christ's commands, and that easily explains how the believer became "condemned"--he stopped believing in the sense that he broke faith. Note that 1 John 3 first mentions "commands" (v22), but, oddly, switches to "command" (v23) although it describes two distinct commands. This means that the commands are actually a singular command--ie, one flows from the other, so that to break the latter has a retroactive effect of and influence upon the former. "They claim to know God, but in their works they deny Him". When the believer does not walk in faith, which is to walk in love (both toward God and others), that functions as a form of a denial of Christ, from Whom the "persuasion" he ought to have obeyed flowed. To fail to walk in faith is "definitionally" unbelief.

Not all believers are "in Christ."

I agree, obviously, but, as I've explained, not for the same reasons.

I agree. To be "apart from Christ" is exactly the opposite of being "in Christ." Remember what Paul said about the Spirit of Christ? What is the spirit of Christ?" The spirit of Christ is the spirit that will always say, "abba Father.", (Romans 8:15) which is short-hand for "Abba Father, All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.” The overwhelming desire to do God's will is the "spirit of Christ." Our Lord and Savior put aside his own will in order to obey the will of the Father. And like he taught us, we must be willing to die in order to save our life. (See also Galatians 4:4-7)

The benefit of your position (Monergism, seemingly) is that you have in your mind "I will always obey God", which fulfills the requirement to remain in Christ (1 Jn 3:23,24), but the practical benefit you derive from accidentally fulfilling the requirement (in the sense that you do not acknowledge it is a requirement in the first place) is not a debunking of the fact that it is a requirement.

I think you are correct. Not all believers will remain in Christ, as Jesus said. Concerning how Paul uses the phrase "in Christ," he writes, "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." This is why I say that those "in Christ" will never fall away because, unlike other believers, the spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in them.

Simply put: Paul says "If the Spirit of Him... dwells in you", because not all remain--they may have started off "in Christ", thus received the Spirit, but not have remained "in Christ", thus became disqualified for the Spirit.

 

[GracePeace]

It's going to reach 104 today, but this is just the beginning. We will probably see temperatures in the 110's and 120's. :)

You are lucky. I like pears and blackberries. :)

I like Flagstaff. A few years back, I drew some remodel plans for a friend.

1. We have 80% more UV, so it's precarious.
2. I love Blackberries and Pears, but they DO NOT enjoy being up here! LOL At least their more tender parts do not. The Apples don't have the same issues.

 

[GracePeace]

It's important to remember that the authors of the Bible wrote to a diverse audience - some who were believers, some who were non-believers, and some who were already followers of Christ. Therefore, we should be cautious about making assumptions about those who are "in Christ" based on warnings directed at non-believers.

I'd answered this previously (not sure if you hadn't gotten a chance to respond to it, or what)--in case it is necessary, I'll share it again here

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.

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.

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.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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?

No. My clarification is based on verses such as the following.

John 20:31 . . . but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Perhaps you can see how John has closely associated the term "name" with "the Christ" and "the Son of God." To believe in his name is to become convinced that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. If someone believes that Jesus is Christ, the son of God, then that person may be given life in his name, i.e., at his command.

Thus, although "Yeshua" literally means "Yahweh saves," John's emphasis seems to focus on Jesus's titles. Why is this important? The idea that Yahweh saves was a common belief among the Jews living during Jesus's time. I doubt that the Pharisees would deny that Yahweh will deliver his people. The essential truth that sets Jesus' followers apart from their contemporaries is that Jesus is God's promised son, not someone else.

Notice how John words it in his first epistle.

1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

John's readers must understand that Jesus is the Son of God, not anyone else. The crucial belief of the Gospel message is that Yahweh has demonstrated that Jesus is the one the prophets foretold. And our salvation depends on confessing this to be the case.

Do you agree with this?

I'm not sure. Maybe Paul is suggesting that willfully acting against conscience is always a sin. Perhaps a vegetarian is invited to have dinner with a bunch of meat eaters, there are two options available to the vegetarian: 1) eat the salad and ignore the meat, or 2) eat the meat also. If the vegetarian is convinced in his own mind that eating meat is wrong then he should act according to his conviction and eat salad alone. But if the man should violate his own conscience, feeling some kind of pressure to eat meat, the vegetarian is wrong and he has sinned. Yes?

Do you see how that is incoherent?

Yes, I see the incoherence of the view you described. Remember, Romans 8:1 talks about a specific kind of believer, i.e., those who are "in Christ Jesus" who, by definition, have the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, and life will be given to their mortal bodies.

If anyone who is "In Christ" could fall away, then Paul could not define those "in Christ" according to their destiny.

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.

By now, I'm sure, you know that I would never suggest such a thing. :)

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.

I don't see where Paul classifies them as "true" believers.

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".)

I agree with your premise, but we must always bear in mind that the salvation process allows for moral failure. If the weaker brother acts against his own conscience, which is a sin, that moral failure does not necessarily cause him to fall to destruction. In other words, causing a brother to stumble, as serious as that is, will not necessarily destroy the work of God. It isn't a foregone conclusion. Paul's point is to ask, "Why would you do such a thing? What is lacking in your heart such that you would disregard the welfare of a fellow believer? Why would I set my own freedom above the salvation of my brother?" Paul is concerned about the hearts of his readers. Rather than judge or tempt my brother to sin, I need to check my own heart.

...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.

The second one, I think. You are persuading me that Paul is suggesting that willfully acting against conscience is always a sin. But I am not convinced that God is the one condemning him. Since Paul says, "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves," then he means to suggest that the one who violates his own conscience condemns himself. Yes?

He is a true believer.

I would be convinced if Paul made that point more clear. I couldn't argue that Paul is comparing two "true" believers. In any case, he isn't talking about those "in Christ."

 

[MatthewG]

There couldn’t be condemnation abiding in Christ from Yahweh. It’s our flesh that tends to condemn us within the soul; as though we aren’t good enough or capable to handle things except by abiding in Yeshua.

The ways of the world can condemn you; for suggesting even “loving your enemy,” but who are they to say your doing wrong. How is it you could be condemned by your choice to do what is right.

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'd answered this previously

Yes, I addressed this in a previous post.

I thought you made a good case for the idea that verse 4 speaks of "true believers" if I correctly understand what you mean by the term. But let me explain my point a little better, which doesn't detract from your good point.

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Isn't it true that Paul depicts three people here: 1) "you", 2) the servant of another, and 3) his own master? I acknowledge and agree with your argument that the "servant of another" must be a true believer because the Lord Jesus will make him stand. I'll grant you that. But isn't it also true that Paul is speaking to someone who dares to judge the servant of another? I wouldn't assume or conclude that the first person is a true believer.

The "you" in verse 4 is questionable because he or she has chosen to judge a believer, whom the Lord will support. Yes? You wouldn't conclude that such a person is a true believer would you?

 

[GracePeace]

No. My clarification is based on verses such as the following.

John 20:31 . . . but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Perhaps you can see how John has closely associated the term "name" with "the Christ" and "the Son of God." To believe in his name is to become convinced that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. If someone believes that Jesus is Christ, the son of God, then that person may be given life in his name, i.e., at his command.

I don't think it's limited to one or the other. I think there is an important message here.

Isaiah 43
11I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.
Isaiah 44
6Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Notice that 1 John 3:23,24 do not list the prohibition against idolatry, yet it lists the 2nd greatest command "love one another". How could the prohibition against idolatry be left out? It isn't. Believing in the Name of God' Son is monotheism. Beside the "Whoever doesn't have the Son doesn't have the Father" statement, we see that believing in the Name of God's Son is believing God alone saves.

Being that "there is no God beside YHWH", and being that "there is no Savior beside YHWH", when you trust in another thing to save you, you are committing idolatry.

Now, when the Galatians believed another Gospel (Gal 1:6) which persuasion did not come from God (Gal 5:8), this means the persuasion came from somewhere else. Where else, in the spirit world, would it have come from? Demons. Do demons do such things? Yes, we know there are "doctrines of demons" (1 Ti 4:1). They also tried to "interpret" the Bible for Christ (Mt 4:6). And Paul says that the idols of the nations are demons (1 Co 10:19,20). Therefore, by submitting to the messages of demons, they were committing idolatry. It makes sense of "you are deserting Him Who called you"--they are being drawn away from the true and living God to some false gods, to demons, away from the Light and into the darkness.
The message they were believing was that they would justify themselves by deeds of the Law--they had another savior.

Thus, although "Yeshua" literally means "Yahweh saves," John's emphasis seems to focus on Jesus's titles. Why is this important? The idea that Yahweh saves was a common belief among the Jews living during Jesus's time. I doubt that the Pharisees would deny that Yahweh will deliver his people. The essential truth that sets Jesus' followers apart from their contemporaries is that Jesus is God's promised son, not someone else.

Believing that "YHWH saves" is insufficient if the person denies the manner in which YHWH saves--as with the Bronze Serpent, it was only those who looked upon the serpent who were saved. The focus and attention had to be placed there, no matter what they held theologically. Obviously.

Notice how John words it in his first epistle.

1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

John's readers must understand that Jesus is the Son of God, not anyone else. The crucial belief of the Gospel message is that Yahweh has demonstrated that Jesus is the one the prophets foretold. And our salvation depends on confessing this to be the case.

Right, we must not only believe that God saves, but, also, we must believe that He saves in the particular manner He has chosen to save. I have said this: He gave His Son so that we might live through Him (1 Jn 4:9).

I'm not sure. Maybe Paul is suggesting that willfully acting against conscience is always a sin. [...]

1. Though the concept is more general (what ever does not proceed from faith is sin), in the specific example you gave, it would apply.
2. Remember that the subject is not "vegetarians", but it lays down rules for "slaves of God", and the rule they are to live by, and that breaking that rule is "sin". That's my entire point, which you had tried to deny.

Yes, I see the incoherence of the view you described. Remember, Romans 8:1 talks about a specific kind of believer, i.e., those who are "in Christ Jesus" who, by definition, have the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, and life will be given to their mortal bodies.

If anyone who is "In Christ" could fall away, then Paul could not define those "in Christ" according to their destiny.

1. No, "remember", actually, I reject your "take" on Ro 8:1--Paul states if any of these live after the flesh, sin, they will die.
2. Ro 11 explicitly states that my view: those who have been grafted in by faith can be cut off by unbelief.

By now, I'm sure, you know that I would never suggest such a thing. :)

I don't see where Paul classifies them as "true" believers.

What I meant was that it was the inexorable conclusion: you're saying Paul, in Ro 14:23, which describes what it means to break the rule he had earlier laid down, actually addresses unbelievers, whereas you would have to agree he had earlier taught the rule to true believers.
You're saying, in other words, that the rule he explicated ("each man must be fully persuaded in his own mind") applies to true believers, but is only broken by unbelievers.

1. You're saying that Christians never do things they don't believe are correct. This is untenable, and an embarrassing attempt to hold your view together, make what is incoherent and indefensible seem coherent.
2. Why would unbelievers be held to the rule believers are held to? The Lord doesn't author their persuasions. Remember, Paul says "I know and am fully persuaded in the Lord"--the persuasions of believers come from the Lord. Why would Paul be holding the unbeliever, whose persuasions are not authored from the Lord, to the standard that they must do what they believe is correct when their persuasions aren't authored by the Lord? Also, why would the unbeliever be "condemned" only AFTER breaking the rule the believers are meant to live by? It makes no sense--the unbeliever is condemned already.
Thus, your view is completely lacking coherence.

I agree with your premise, but we must always bear in mind that the salvation process allows for moral failure. If the weaker brother acts against his own conscience, which is a sin, that moral failure does not necessarily cause him to fall to destruction.

That's not my point. I never said "a single sin dooms a Christian to destruction forever", I'm merely describing that "moral failure" as "not remaining in Christ".

In other words, causing a brother to stumble, as serious as that is, will not necessarily destroy the work of God.

The Scripture describes it as "destroying the work of God"--to what ever degree that destruction may be. It doesn't mean "You annihilated God's work, and your brother is going to hell, now. Great job." There are varying degrees of destruction. If I break even a single brick in a brick house, that is destruction of property.

It isn't a foregone conclusion. Paul's point is to ask, "Why would you do such a thing? What is lacking in your heart such that you would disregard the welfare of a fellow believer? Why would I set my own freedom above the salvation of my brother?" Paul is concerned about the hearts of his readers. Rather than judge or tempt my brother to sin, I need to check my own heart.

Your point is moot, because the "true brother" must be protected from sinning (Ro 14:23), which you had denied referred to a "true believer" at all.

The second one, I think. You are persuading me that Paul is suggesting that willfully acting against conscience is always a sin. But I am not convinced that God is the one condemning him. Since Paul says, "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves," then he means to suggest that the one who violates his own conscience condemns himself. Yes?

No, actually, the one who is happy because he does not condemn himself in what he approves is happy because he is not bringing God's condemnation on himself by practicing his freedom in front of his brother that causes his brother to stumble--the sentence immediately prior.

Romans 14
22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

I would be convinced if Paul made that point more clear. I couldn't argue that Paul is comparing two "true" believers. In any case, he isn't talking about those "in Christ."

My stance is substantiated by Scriptural precedent, which defined the "judger" as a true believer.

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, I addressed this in a previous post.

I thought you made a good case for the idea that verse 4 speaks of "true believers" if I correctly understand what you mean by the term. But let me explain my point a little better, which doesn't detract from your good point.

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Isn't it true that Paul depicts three people here: 1) "you", 2) the servant of another, and 3) his own master? I acknowledge and agree with your argument that the "servant of another" must be a true believer because the Lord Jesus will make him stand. I'll grant you that. But isn't it also true that Paul is speaking to someone who dares to judge the servant of another? I wouldn't assume or conclude that the first person is a true believer.

The "you" in verse 4 is questionable because he or she has chosen to judge a believer, whom the Lord will support. Yes? You wouldn't conclude that such a person is a true believer would you?

The rule of life he is laying down is a rule governing true believers.

Again, you denied you'd ever say it, you have to deny the fact that he is writing to and instructing true believers on how they are to behave toward one another. Are you saying you, a "true believer", have NEVER judged another "true believer"'s freedom?

 

[GracePeace]

There couldn’t be condemnation abiding in Christ from Yahweh. It’s our flesh that tends to condemn us within the soul; as though we aren’t good enough or capable to handle things except by abiding in Yeshua.

The ways of the world can condemn you; for suggesting even “loving your enemy,” but who are they to say your doing wrong. How is it you could be condemned by your choice to do what is right.

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

I never said "there is condemnation abiding in Christ from Yahweh".

I said there is a superficial problem between the fact that "there is... no condemnation for those in Christ" (Ro 8:1) and the fact that the one who sins by breaking the rule "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is "condemned" (Ro 14:23): contrary to what many deny is even a possibility, the one who is "condemned" is not remaining "in Christ".

 

[Davy]

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".

....

I noticed you failed to quote from 1 John 1 where John reveals what a believer on Christ Jesus must do if they find they have committed sin.

1 John 1:5-10
5 This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
KJV


Apostle John showed those in Christ by that what to do if we find we have sinned. We are to repent and ask Jesus' forgiveness.

While we are in this flesh, we will always fall short of the glory of God. That means our flesh must abide by the 'law of sin' (Romans 7), which is why we still need to do repentance to Christ asking Him to forgive us.

Those misguided brethren that think once they believed and were baptized that they have no further need of repentance and asking forgiveness of future sins, instead are heeding men's false doctrines.

 

[GracePeace]

I noticed you failed to quote from 1 John 1 where John reveals what a believer on Christ Jesus must do if they find they have committed sin.

1 John 1:5-10
5 This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
KJV


Apostle John showed those in Christ by that what to do if we find we have sinned. We are to repent and ask Jesus' forgiveness.

While we are in this flesh, we will always fall short of the glory of God. That means our flesh must abide by the 'law of sin' (Romans 7), which is why we still need to do repentance to Christ asking Him to forgive us.

Those misguided brethren that think once they believed and were baptized that they have no further need of repentance and asking forgiveness of future sins, instead are heeding men's false doctrines.

1. I've "failed"! Oh, no! You've made me so sad that you don't approve of me! I'm going to go cry now!
LOL!
2. With all that you've said, what ever thoughts you wanted to share with everyone--all of that aside, because I think, in your zeal to correct someone, so as to appear correct about something (anything), you may be missing the forest for the trees--were you wanting to disagree with the conclusion put forth in the OP (ie, that instances of believers sinning are instances of believers not abiding in Christ)?

 

[GracePeace]

You are persuading me that Paul is suggesting that willfully acting against conscience is always a sin.

Good, because it's plainly stated in Scripture.
"Acting against conscience" is pretty much "definitionally" sin (except there're sins we can commit without knowing we're committing them, which would be "OUTSIDE" of knowledge, not "WITH" knowledge).

But I am not convinced that God is the one condemning him.

How?
Is "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" a man's rule or is it God's rule?
Obviously, it's God's rule.
God is the one who is responsible for the persuasion.
Then, breaking that rule, not walking in faith, would be a sin against God, right?
Then, the person is condemned by God who is the offended Party.
Therefore it is God Who must forgive the offense (and does forgive).

Remember: there is a simple solution to all of this.
You don't have to resort to all of the gymnastics you are resorting to.
You could just admit that sinning is an instance of not remaining in Christ, which remaining is, as Scripture states, by keeping His commands, both of which are to do with faith--believe in the Name of God's Son, and walk by faith (faith is powered by love Gal 5, so walking in faith Ro 14 is walking in love) (1 Jn 3:23,24)--wherefore, the "true believer" who sins exposes himself to "condemnation" which is not found "in Christ".

 

[Davy]

1. I've "failed"! Oh, no! You've made me so sad that you don't approve of me! I'm going to go cry now!
LOL!
2. With all that you've said, what ever thoughts you wanted to share with everyone--all of that aside, because I think, in your zeal to correct someone, so as to appear correct about something (anything), you may be missing the forest for the trees--were you wanting to disagree with the conclusion put forth in the OP (ie, that instances of believers sinning are instances of believers not abiding in Christ)?

Nah... I haven't missed anything.

Those on man's false "Once saved, always saved" doctrine do not like what Apostle John said in 1 John 1, for it teaches continued repentance to Christ Jesus, and they don't like that, but instead are told once they believe on Christ and are baptized, then they can never fall away, and that future sin they may commit is automatically forgiven.

So if you think I was mocking you, then you have lost your mind.

But I STILL... noticed how you smoothly, like a soothsayer, skipped that 1 John 1 chapter which is key for a Christian to remain in the walk with Jesus.

 

[GracePeace]

Nah... I haven't missed anything.

Those on man's false "Once saved, always saved" doctrine do not like what Apostle John said in 1 John 1, for it teaches continued repentance to Christ Jesus, and they don't like that, but instead are told once they believe on Christ and are baptized, then they can never fall away, and that future sin they may commit is automatically forgiven.

So if you think I was mocking you, then you have lost your mind.

But I STILL... noticed how you smoothly, like a soothsayer, skipped that 1 John 1 chapter which is key for a Christian to remain in the walk with Jesus.

I know you have a lot of ideas in your mind that you are burning to share with everyone (for which you should really go make your own thread, not commandeer others' threads)...

Proverbs 18
2A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Again, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the OP?

 

[MatthewG]

I never said "there is condemnation abiding in Christ from Yahweh".

I said there is a superficial problem between the fact that "there is... no condemnation for those in Christ" (Ro 8:1) and the fact that the one who sins by breaking the rule "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is "condemned" (Ro 14:23): contrary to what many deny is even a possibility, the one who is "condemned" is not remaining "in Christ".

Sorry, Grace, you’ll be disappointed in me.
I never read the original post. I just decided to leave a comment concerning my perspective.

 

[GracePeace]

Sorry, Grace, you’ll be disappointed in me.
I never read the original post. I just decided to leave a comment concerning my perspective.

LOL
Wow
Yeah, it makes sense now. You know the drill.

Proverbs 18
13He who answers a matter before he hears it—
this is folly and disgrace to him.

 

[GracePeace]

Nah... I haven't missed anything.

Those on man's false "Once saved, always saved" doctrine do not like what Apostle John said in 1 John 1, for it teaches continued repentance to Christ Jesus, and they don't like that, but instead are told once they believe on Christ and are baptized, then they can never fall away, and that future sin they may commit is automatically forgiven.

So if you think I was mocking you, then you have lost your mind.

But I STILL... noticed how you smoothly, like a soothsayer, skipped that 1 John 1 chapter which is key for a Christian to remain in the walk with Jesus.

Yeah, actually, I think you missed my entire point, because you didn't address it, and you really seem to be arguing against me as if I were OSAS, whereas I've made many threads against OSAS, and you ought to have understood from reading my OP that I am against OSAS,

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.

As I said, you are completely lost, oblivious, just burning to express your own opinions without having any understanding of what you are responding to at all.

Proverbs 18
2A fool does not delight in understanding,
But in revealing his own mind
...
13One who gives an answer before he hears,
It is foolishness and shame to him.