Ok I have one scripture for the sinless

[Skinski7]

Yes it's important to note the past, present, and future when referring to sin. Sin is like monetary debt. Let's say before your sins were forgiven in Christ you had tons of debt, like lets say $100,000 dollars. And you on your own could in no way pay off that debt. But Christ came and paid off that debt for you completely wiping out the entire balance of debt, making it 0.

That is wrong. That belief is a result of the Penal Substitution doctrine and has only been taught for approximately 400 years.

God freely forgives our debts, they are not paid off by anyone.

Jesus purchased you. Jesus did not pay off your sin debt. The Bible does not teach anywhere at all that Jesus paid any sin debt off. Jesus was a sin offering given on our behalf which has given us the opportunity to enter into the New Covenant via putting the New Covenant into force and via giving us an example to follow.

The payment of a debt is not forgiveness of a debt. If I pay your speeding fine on your behalf the fine is not forgiven, it is paid for.

Look at the parable of the unforgiving servant. The debt is forgiven not paid for. When the servant is unfaithful the debt is reinstated.

The "debt paid for" teaching is one of the bedrocks of the lie that "one can sin and not surely die." With the all sin "paid for" past, present and future the debt cannot be made due again. Thus one can sin and God will be displeased but there is nothing owed and therefore no condemnation is wrought. Many people have fallen for this lie due to it being ear tickling.

 

[Hepzibah]

Skinski

The wretch of Romans 7 is a description of an individual who is carnal

Yes indeed:

1 Corinthians 3 - Carnal Christians and Godly Ministers


A. Carnality in the Corinthian church.

1. (1) Paul confronts their condition.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.

a. These people are part of the family of God (he calls them brethren), and that is the problem. Though they have the Holy Spirit (unlike the natural man of 1 Corinthians 2:14), they are not behaving like spiritual people, but like carnal - that is, fleshly -people, like immature Christians (babes in Christ).

i. There is a significant debate as to if there can be such a thing as a carnal Christian. Some say it is a contradiction in terms; that Paul really says that these carnal ones are not Christians at all. Yet he clearly calls them brethren, and says they are babes in Christ. How could these terms be used of someone who is not a Christian?

ii. These Christians, to some extent, are thinking and acting according to the flesh, not the Spirit. Of course, the flesh does not dominate every aspect of their life, or they would then have no evidence of being born again. But Paul is addressing issues where they clearly are thinking and acting in a carnal - that is, in a fleshly - manner.

iii. "The carnal Christian is a child of God, born again and on his way to heaven, but he is traveling third class." (Redpath) Romans 7 is a portrait of the carnal Christian; indwelt by the Spirit, but mastered by the flesh.

(quoted from 1 Corinthians 3 - Carnal Christians and Godly Ministers)

Paul would not say "Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" if he was speaking of the unsaved state. Man does not delight in his spirit of the law of God but the carnal believer does, yet does not know how to obey it in his heart that is. He needs a delieverance that comes when he learns how to walk after the spirit not the flesh.

This is the third interpretation of Romans 7 that a lot of believers are not familiar with. It is the one that Pelegius brought to the table when he disputed with Augustine who rejected it in favour of the common belief that man can sin and still be spiritual.

 

[Skinski7]

Redemption is of the purchased vessel which is us. Jesus purchased us in order to redeem us from the slavery and condemnation we sold ourselves into. How did He purchase us? He purchased us with His blood and God has accepted this purchase. We can partake in the inheritance we forfeited through sinning via abiding in Jesus Christ who did not forfeit it. Read the book of Ruth for a type and shadow of kinsman redeemer law in action. It is all very interesting.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

That is wrong. That belief is a result of the Penal Substitution doctrine and has only been taught for approximately 400 years.

God freely forgives our debts, they are not paid off by anyone.

Jesus purchased you. Jesus did not pay off your sin debt. The Bible does not teach anywhere at all that Jesus paid any sin debt off. Jesus was a sin offering given on our behalf which has given us the opportunity to enter into the New Covenant via putting the New Covenant into force and via giving us an example to follow.

The payment of a debt is not forgiveness of a debt. If I pay your speeding fine on your behalf the fine is not forgiven, it is paid for.

Look at the parable of the unforgiving servant. The debt is forgiven not paid for. When the servant is unfaithful the debt is reinstated.

The "debt paid for" teaching is one of the bedrocks of the lie that "one can sin and not surely die." With the all sin "paid for" past, present and future the debt cannot be made due again. Thus one can sin and God will be displeased but there is nothing owed and therefore no condemnation is wrought. Many people have fallen for this lie due to it being ear tickling.

I was using money as an example, which is why I used the word "paid", I know he "forgave" so don't get your britches in a bunch.

 

[Skinski7]

1 Corinthians 3 - Carnal Christians and Godly Ministers

A. Carnality in the Corinthian church.
1. (1) Paul confronts their condition.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
a. These people are part of the family of God (he calls them brethren), and that is the problem. Though they have the Holy Spirit (unlike the natural man of 1 Corinthians 2:14), they are not behaving like spiritual people, but like carnal - that is, fleshly -people, like immature Christians (babes in Christ).
i. There is a significant debate as to if there can be such a thing as a carnal Christian. Some say it is a contradiction in terms; that Paul really says that these carnal ones are not Christians at all. Yet he clearly calls them brethren, and says they are babes in Christ. How could these terms be used of someone who is not a Christian?
ii. These Christians, to some extent, are thinking and acting according to the flesh, not the Spirit. Of course, the flesh does not dominate every aspect of their life, or they would then have no evidence of being born again. But Paul is addressing issues where they clearly are thinking and acting in a carnal - that is, in a fleshly - manner.
iii. "The carnal Christian is a child of God, born again and on his way to heaven, but he is traveling third class." (Redpath)

What is the context of the carnality of 1Cor 3?

It is the elevation of one leader above another whereby people were identifying their theology with a particular person.

1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Paul is speaking of "church building" and how individual people have different tasks and roles. The carnality he is speaking of is of those who are not recognising that fact and are elevating various people in their minds which naturally results in division and disputations.

Paul emphatically warns them that to defile the temple will result in utter destruction (1Cor 3:17) which is why they ought to be circumspect in regards to traveling down a road where their focus is on men as opposed to God (1Cor 3:21-23).

The carnality of 1Cor 3 is most certainly not the wretchedness of Rom 7.

Romans 7 is a portrait of the carnal Christian; indwelt by the Spirit, but mastered by the flesh.

Not it isn't. The wretch is a portrait of a man who is carnal and sold under sin. It is a man who knows the law (Rom 7:1) and delights in the law intellectually (after the inward man) but manifestly is is still captive to sin (Rom 7:23).

The concept that a Christian can be indwelt by the Spirit and yet mastered by the flesh is nonsense. Such a thing would utterly negate "dying with Christ" as a condition of being "raised up with Christ."

Paul would not say "

Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" if he was speaking of the unsaved state.

Why wouldn't he? I certainly delighted in moral uprightness in my mind when I was still serving sin. I thought the 10 Commandments were wonderful. If everyone obeyed them then things would be hunky dory.

He is delighting in the law of God concerning the inner man. He is not delighting in the SPIRIT of God of which the law is but a shadow of is he?

Paul is making a point that the law cannot bring redemption for it cannot effect transformation of the heart. The wretch is still captive and sold under sin despite having a certain love of the law. Does salvation leave one captive and sold under sin? No way. It is deception to think so because then one can deduce that salvation is merely an abstraction apart from any true release from captivity hence the saved IN sin lie.

Carefully think/reflect on these things.

Man does not delight in his spirit of the law of God but the carnal believer does, yet does not know how to obey it in his heart that is.

There is no such thing as the "carnal believer" in the context of being captive to sin. The carnality of 1Cor 3 is in the context of elevating one teacher above another, the context is not in regards to serving sin. The wolves rip 1Cor 3 out of its context and marry it to other passages to teach a lie.

Go and read 1Cor 5 and 6 where Paul changes tone and speaks of real carnality in the context of sin unto death. The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

He needs a deliverance that comes when he learns how to walk after the spirit not the flesh.

Right there is the teaching of GRADUAL SANCTIFICATION in the context of sinning less. The Arminians teach that lie as the Second Work of Grace. Thus one is justified still in a manifestly filthy state but will sin less over time which is an utter denial of Rom 8:1-4.

There is no condemnation upon those who WALK after the Spirit, not those whom are "learning to walk." "Learning to walk" means "not walking yet." A two year old "learning to walk" is not walking yet. They are attempting it.

If you go down that road then one can have the church full of serial murderers and rapists whom are "learning" to not murder and rape. They haven't quite got it down yet.

This is the third interpretation of Romans 7 that a lot of believers are not familiar with. It is the one that Pelegius brought to the table when he disputed with Augustine who rejected it in favour of the common belief that man can sin and still be spiritual.

I am unaware of Pelagius teaching anything like this. Here is what Pelagius taught on the Romans 7 wretch and it is not what you quoted...

14Now we know that the law is spiritual. Which enjoins spiritual things. [Now the argument proceeds in the person of one who is of legal age. For one who says that the law is spiritual condemns himself when he sins of his own will. This is why he added: 'But I am carnal, sold as a slave under sin.' He indicates that while he was free he sold himself as a slave to sin. For what, again, does he say?] But I am carnal. I, someone who accepts the law and is in the habit of living carnally. Sold to sin.

15For I do not understand what I do: for I do not do what I want to do, but what I hate to do I do. [Sold as if] I were resolved upon sin, so that, should I accept its advice, I make myself its slave, I of my own accord subjecting myself to it (cf. John 8:34); and now, as if drunk with the habit of sins, I do not know what I do: 'For I do not understand what I do.' Or: It should be read this way: I do not understand, therefore, that what I accept [in a way] against my will is evil.

16Ifthen I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. If I do not want to do the particular evil I commit, at least I agree with the law, which does not desire evil and prohibits it. But it can also be understood thus: If I sin, I myself subject myself to the severity of the law.

17however, now I no longer do it. Before it became a habit, therefore, I myself did it willingly. But sin that lives in me. It lives as a guest and as one thing in another, not as one single thing; in other words, as an accidental quality, not a natural one.

18For I know that what is good does not live in me, that is, in my flesh. He did not say: 'My flesh is not good.' For it is near to me to wish. The will is there, but not the deed, because carnal habit opposes the will. But I do not find it in myself to carry out what is good. I do not see myself doing it.

19For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want I do. Just as if, for instance, someone who has been swearing regularly now for a long time swears even when he does not wish to.

20But if I do what I do not want to do, it is not I that does it, but sin that lives in me. Not I, because I do it [as it were] against my will, but the habit of sin, though I myself have provided myself with this compulsion.

21So then I find a law for me when I wish to do good, that evil is there with me. If I want, I find that I have a law to do good against the evil that lies near [me].

22For I delight in the law of God with the inner self. [The inner self is the rational and intelligible soul, which is in harmony with God's law, for its law is to live rationally and not to be led by the passions of the irrational animals. The outer self, on the other hand, is our body. Now its law is the wisdom of the flesh, which instructs one to eat and to drink and to enjoy other sensual pleasures. These fight against reason, and if they gain the upper hand subject it to the law of sin. For if it is the case, as some suppose, that we do what we do not want to do, he would not have said the next verse:

23But I see another law in my members, fighting against. Habitual desires, or the persuading of the enemy. The law of my mind. Namely, of natural conscience, or of the divine law, which resides in the mind. I agree to the law with the mind. And taking me prisoner for the law of sin that is in my members. In the habit of transgressions.

24What a wretched person I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? I who am held prisoner in this way--who will set me free from this fatal, corporeal habit?

25The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Grace sets free] the one whom the law could not have set free. Was Paul then not yet set free by the grace of God? This shows that [the apostle] is speaking in the person of someone else, [not in his own person]. Therefore I serve the law of God with my mind. He reviews the main points in order to bring the discussion to an end. But the law of sin with my flesh. The carnal person is, in a sense, made up of two persons and is divided within himself

 

[DesiredHaven]

I was using money as an example, which is why I used the word "paid", I know he "forgave" so don't get your britches in a bunch.

But when it come to mercy the exchange of money is showed in words such as the wicked borroweth and payeth not again which is contrasted with the righteous sheweth mercy and giveth, somewhat like what is shown in the wicked servant who had a debt that was owed but forgiven (or shown mercy) wherwith he should also be showing the same. That servant being reproved on that point (wasnt paying again) that mercy (in otherwords). Just as the robbery of the wicked is also spoken of and his Lords reproof in paying all that servant owed (which to me was always a matter of showing the mercy extended to him) as the merciful are also shown as obtaining mercy. But I dont understand any of the words in mens doctrines or where they are extracted from and I find them very boring to sift through and you really ought just stick to His words (and accused by those) then to go off on words not there because then you are really inviting it.

 

[Skinski7]

I was using money as an example, which is why I used the word "paid", I know he "forgave" so don't get your britches in a bunch.

The condemnation wrought by sin may be like a monetary debt but it is wrong to imply that sins are forgiven through a means like Jesus "paying off that debt." Such an assertion is premised on the lie of Penal Substitution which is simply a development of the Satisfaction concept taught by Anselm. These teachings ought to be repudiated because they not only misrepresent what the Bible teaches but they also utterly pervert by redefining it.

You stated,

And you on your own could in no way pay off that debt. But Christ came and paid off that debt for you completely wiping out the entire balance of debt, making it 0.

Why would you use an example that is actually teaching the opposite of what the Bible teaches? That example is refuting the Bible.

Jesus paid for us, not our sin debt. It would be better to say that we sold ourselves into slavery through sinning whereby we forfeited life. Jesus redeems us from death and slavery through both His sacrifice and life IN Him.

When people view the death of Christ as effecting a "satisfaction of a debt" whether the debt be in the context of a penal fine (Penal Substitution) or balance of justice (Satisfaction and Moral Government theories) it perverts an understanding of being "made the righteousness of God in Him" which is an allusion to abiding in the Spirit of the life of Jesus. Thus "salvation" is then easily viewed as an abstraction disconnected from something manifest because the underlying premise is of an external effect (ie. a substitution which served to satisify).

Do you understand what I am saying?

If Satan can convince people to view the death of Christ as something separate from ourselves that we do not partake in then the notion of "trusting in Jesus and His sacrifice" can be disconnected from its true purpose of purging sin from our conscience.

These deceptive substitutional views which are commonly taught today add bricks and mortar to the pervasive false gospel message being preached all around the world. We have to be diligent and expose it not uphold it, not even parts of it. Remember that Satan is a master deceiver and that it only takes a little leaven to leaven a whole lump.

 

[just-me]

Yes I know we have enough of these threads already but I really want to get to the core of this whole being sinless debate going around the forums.

I have one scripture to present to you and I want your honest opinion as to what it means, if you wish to present scripture to counter I ask that you first answer my scripture and then I will do my best to answer yours.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

I'm sure you understand by now that argument and debate is more entertaining than agreement and edification even though the word of God says that we should edify each other and be in agreement.

 

[Hepzibah]

The problem with your theology, is that Paul expresses in the following verses, what his views were regarding himself as a Jew:


Philippians 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.

He says that he was blameless regarding the law, but you have him saying that he was a wretched man. This is not what Pharisees thought of themselves. They believed that they kept the law exactly. They were self righteous not miserable wretches in their own eyes. It is not consistent with what you are saying.

Whatever sins the Corinthians committed, they were walking in carnality.

I do not believe in gradual sanctification. I believe that it happens in an instant, when the Spirit brings man to the point where he has tried to be obedient to the law as a believer, but has been convicted by the Holy Spirit of his failure. This point is often called second blessing and I see no reason to doubt it from scripture or from what Pelegius said. It is at that point of conviction that a man sees how he is still sold under sin. This is not the experience of an unsaved man in general who has the Holy Spirit at war with his flesh which makes it seem as though he has two natures which is not in accordance with either an unsaved man or a spiritual believer. An unsaved man is at peace with his flesh.

I wonder how then, you explain the different doctines which were involved int he dispute bewtreen Augustine and Pelegius. There can only be three explanations of Romans 7.

1. An unsaved man Jew or not.

2. A believer who is explaining the normal Christian life.

3. A believer who has come to a crisis of faith just before he learns the secret of walking in the Spirit.

Please explain where Augustine stood before and after and where Pelegius stood ie "The carnal person is, in a sense, made up of two persons and is divided within himself" or what other interpretation there can be to the text. Thanks. Looking for ward to your reply.

 

[Hepzibah]

The two interpretations of Romans 7 which have dominated church history are the Primitive one and the Post-Primitive. Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years but, and this is fascinating, HE CHANGED HIS POSITION LATER. The reason that he changed his position was through his heated discussions with Pelagius. The thing is that there are two interpretations widely held since Augustine but the third has been rejected (because it says that sinlessness is possible) This was the opposite of the view held by Augustine and widely held by the church until he changed to the new third way. There can only be three interpretations of Romans7 and which one we accept shows our whole attitude and position about this important doctrine of entire sanctification.

The Primitive view which I think is wrong, and which is widely held today, is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is understood that man is here described who was never under grace


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homilies.


This is the view which the writer says that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally depraved.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something good even in such a man? Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needlaess resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church


C J Schmidz (Romans 7)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The whole point of what I am trying to say is that Augustine DID NOT MOVE TO PELAGIUS' VIEW. Why? Because:-

Pelagius taught that man could stop sinning and this was the point of the debate. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that Romans 7 was not the so called Primitive view but the Apostolic view.. Augustine realised his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man CAN stop sinning.

Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the Christian in Romans 7 BUT NOT WHAT SHOULD BE HIS NORMAL CONDITION. Those who do not accept the view that it is a Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. The opposite is true actually. BUT THE PERSON DESCRIBING THE EVENT IS NOT AWARE OF IT. It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because GOD HAS CONVICTED HIM OF HIS SINFULNESS. Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought righteousness through the works of the law. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustines’ position and excuse their sin.

The reason why the Primitive view is wrong IMO is due to misunderstanding of the early writers teachings in saying that Romans 7 is the unregenerate person. They meant by an unregenerate person A BELIEVER WHO HAD NOT COME TO THE SANCTIFICATION EXPERIENCE which was what Wesley meant by the 'Almost Christian' In the Bible, salvation sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it. This means that one is not really saved until they are entirely sanctified. Jesus came to save us FROM our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to BECOME the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence.


To say that Romans 7 cannot be the experience of a true Christian only means that the person HAS NOT EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES. Many saints have and this is why they say along with Pelagius and Wesley and George Fox and myself, that this is the experience of the Christian, under the hand of God, being shown the utter utter inability of man to be righteous by obeying His law whilst still in the flesh. The crisis experience described by Paul, has to be gone through in order to come out in Romans 8, walking in the Spirit and pleasing God at last.

This Apostolic view has been rejected by most of the church through the ages and the reason why Pelagius has had such treatment. By his dispute with Augustine and his understanding of Romans 7, it is my contention that he did NOT teach that the Christian could stop sinning on his own accord. Far from it. It needed the divine interaction of God to bring about the change (entire sanctification) needed to get Paul from Romans7 to Romans 8 and Pelagius must have seen this. What he did teach and I agree with him that man is not born with Adam's sin."

 

[Hepzibah]

[QUOTE]The carnality of 1Cor 3 is most certainly not the wretchedness of Rom 7.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The carnal believer is quite happy with his walk until the Lord brings him down and he sees what a wretch he is. That is if he does not quench the Spirit while He is working in them.

 

[Hepzibah]

Just to try to be clearer in case my previous post is hard to read, there are three views of Romans 7.

1. Primitive.
2. Post primitive.
3. Apostolic.

There were two views from the start. Augustine himself held the primitive view but some of the church fathers held the Apostolic view and were known as holiness preachers. This view has continued through church history and is the theology of the conservative holiness movement. It disagrees with the view that all believers after they come to Christ are holy as it is obvious that they are not. There must be a second blessing.

Augustine would not accept the holiness stance so he brought in a brand new interpretation that Romans 7 is the normal Christian.

 

[Jeff_56]

ask the father for his view. that's the only one that matters, and it is found only by his gracious revelation and permission granting it from heaven (as jesus said).

 

[kennethcadwell]

Just to try to be clearer in case my previous post is hard to read, there are three views of Romans 7.

1. Primitive.
2. Post primitive.
3. Apostolic.

There were two views from the start. Augustine himself held the primitive view but some of the church fathers held the Apostolic view and were known as holiness preachers. This view has continued through church history and is the theology of the conservative holiness movement. It disagrees with the view that all believers after they come to Christ are holy as it is obvious that they are not. There must be a second blessing.

Augustine would not accept the holiness stance so he brought in a brand new interpretation that Romans 7 is the normal Christian.

I do not know why fellow brothers and sisters in Christ try to make Romans 7 so complicated !!!

Apostle Paul clearly shows in the following chapter Romans 8 that he could not continue to walk as he stated he walked in Romans 7 as that carnal way leads to death and not eternal life. We know this has to do with eternal life because Paul shows in the opening of Romans 8 that those who walk in the flesh (carnally) is still condemned by the law, but to walk by the Spirit there is no condemnation.

 

[michael56]

Why should Augustine be looked to as an authority on the bible? Why look to ''church fathers''?

For sin shall not be your master, for you are not under law but under grace Rom 6:14
Sin was definatley the master in Rom ch7

 

[Skinski7]

The problem with your theology, is that Paul expresses in the following verses, what his views were regarding himself as a Jew:


Philippians 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.

He says that he was blameless regarding the law, but you have him saying that he was a wretched man.

The wretched man is written using the grammatical device of Historical Present. The use of Historical Present is prolific in Greek literature. Look it up. Paul employs it to give a vividness to his description of a man who knows the law and yet cannot escape bondage.

Php 3:4-8 is simply Paul speaking of his past life and how he had to forsake it and count it as worthless that he find the truth in Christ. It doesn't refute the Historical Present context of the Romans Wretch passage.

This is not what Pharisees thought of themselves. They believed that they kept the law exactly. They were self righteous not miserable wretches in their own eyes. It is not consistent with what you are saying.

That was the Pharisees. The Romans wretch was a description of a man under conviction desiring a release from bondage. The Pharisees could not perceive they were in bondage (Joh 8:33).

Whatever sins the Corinthians committed, they were walking in carnality.

The carnality of 1Cor 3 is that of upholding one man above another. Paul described it as carnal in the sense that it was worldly, not spiritual. That is a very different thing to the carnality of hate, lust, fornication etc. Paul addresses those things in chapters 5 and 6. The spirit of God will not indwell a filthy vessel, an ignorant vessel yes, but not a filthy vessel.

I do not believe in gradual sanctification. I believe that it happens in an instant, when the Spirit brings man to the point where he has tried to be obedient tot he law as a believer, but has been convicted by the Holy Spirit of his failure.

That is not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is simply the Holy Spirit working conviction on a sinner. One cannot claim that person is a Christian. A disobedient Christian? Think about that. You are alluding to the notion of "disobedient Christians" who are "carnal and sold under sin" who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Yet the Bible teaches...

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

What do you do with that order?

Repent --------> Conversion ------------> Refreshing

Do you really believe that the refreshing comes before obedience?

Is repentance just a change of opinion without any change in direction?

This point is often called second blessing and I see no reason to doubt it from scripture or from what Pelegius said.

The Second Blessing is Methodist false teaching. The new birth is tied to heart purity in the Bible.

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Heart purity is a RESULT of obedience to the truth through the Spirit. God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him (act 5:32) and that is why Jesus preached repentance first. Repentance unto life. Repentance unto salvation. The Prodigal Son repented and forsook the pig pen, he did not have to be regenerated first.

Methodism teaches Original Sin. Original Sin necessitates the Second Blessing teaching of Methodism because Original Sin denotes inability which is what you are implying.

It is at that popint of conviction that a man sees how he is still sold under sin. This is not the experience of an unsaved man in general who has the Holy Spirit at war with his flesh which makes it seem as though he has two natures which is not in accordance with either an unsaved man or a spiritual believer. An unsaved man is at peace with his flesh.

WRONG.

The Prodigal Son came to a point of conviction in the pig pen and decided to leave it. He was not saved in the pig pen.

To claim that one is "saved" and "disobedient" at the same time is nonsense. Saved from what? Saved from sin while still serving it? Think about what you are saying here.

We are brought to the point of conviction via godly sorrow that works repentance UNTO salvation.

Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Godly Sorrow -------------> Repentance -------------> Salvation

You are proclaiming the opposite. You are proclaiming...

Salvation -----------> Conviction of being sold under sin.

It is as plain as day that you have it reversed.

I wonder how then, you explain the different doctines which were involved int he dispute bewtreen Augustine and Pelegius. There can only be three explanations of Romans 7.

No. There can only be one explanation and it has to fit into the context of Romans as a whole.

The wretch is carnal and sold under sin. Christians are not carnal and sold under sin. The wretch is in bondage to sin. Christians are not in bondage to sin. This is not hard to understand.

Romans 6 tells us what we have to do (die to the service of sin through the baptism of repentance/death of the old man whereby we are raised up to newness of life in the Spirit).
Romans 7 explains the reason why we have to do it (old man has to die for the new man to be born, we die to old man service of law and are raised up in new man service in Spirit).
Romans 8 explains the means by which we have victory.

Please explain where Augustine stood before and after and where Pelegius stood ie "The carnal person is, in a sense, made up of two persons and is divided within himself" or what other interpretation there can be to the text. Thanks. Looking for ward to your reply.

Where Augustine stood before and after what?

I quoted above the very words of Pelagius concerning Romans 7. The article you quoted misrepresents Pelagius by charging him with teaching the notion of a "carnal Christian."

The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius was over man's ability to obey God. Augustine taught man lacked the ability to obey God due to the corruption inherited via concupiscence. Thus "grace" according to Augustine was the mode by which God "enabled" the "disabled will" to serve God. Pelagius opposed this view by teaching that man's freedom of the will was never disabled at all. Pelagius taught that grace was the influence of God upon man but that it had nothing to do with any offset to an inherent inability. According to Pelagius grace was essential for direction but any allusion to it as an offset of inherited inability was wrong. I agree with Pelagius in that aspect.

The Romans wretch is carnal and sold under sin. That is not salvation from sin.

Like I said, if you want to go down that road then you eliminate the spotless bride. You now have a church with both spiritual and carnal Christians. Babes in Christ still serve sin and have yet to overcome the corruption that is in the world through lust. This is all false doctrine and is very dangerous stuff to teach.

John Wesley was wrong. He was deceived by the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[gb9]

sin can mean err, fall, offend, stray, transgress, wander, trespass. all these are definitions of sin. so when people start trying to break down sin as onto death, not unto death, this becomes man-made theology, and goes away from clear Biblical teaching of sin as " missed the mark". if the prideful so self-called perfect people would think and reason, not just spout off so called " knowledge" how nice that would be!!

 

[Skinski7]

We need to read the Bible for ourselves and stop depending on commentaries for our opinions.

God reveals truth to the diligent truth seekers whom have honest hearts.

How can we ascertain the hearts of those whom wrote all the commentaries through history? By depending on men we set ourselves up to be subtly deceived, especially because it is very easy to not check references when reading these works. This is why I use my own words when I write and only quote the writings of another when pointing to where a certain doctrine or teaching usually originated.

Commentaries are generally extremely dangerous and ought to be avoided by people until they have studied the scripture in depth for themselves and are well grounded. That way the errors in the commentaries become very apparent.

Jesus didn't choose scholars for his disciples. He chose simple men with honest hearts.

 

[Skinski7]

sin can mean err, fall, offend, stray, transgress, wander, trespass. all these are definitions of sin. so when people start trying to break down sin as onto death, not unto death, this becomes man-made theology, and goes away from clear Biblical teaching of sin as " missed the mark". if the prideful so self-called perfect people would think and reason, not just spout off so called " knowledge" how nice that would be!!

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Man made theology that goes way from the Bible?

 

[Skinski7]

[h=3]Two Types of Sin[/h]
Sin can be both willful and non-willful.

It is willful sin which brings death, non-willful brings correction.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

1. Sin unto death
2. Obedience unto righteousness

Sin unto death = disobedience unto unrighteousness.

Therefore...

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Thus...

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Two kinds of sin. One is rebellion, the other is falling short in ignorance. It is only rebellion which cuts one off from God (spiritual death).

Hence the context of the warning...

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Num 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Num 15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
Num 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
Num 15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
Num 15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
Num 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
Num 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Now here is one of the most beautiful passages in the entire Bible.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It is the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ which sets us free from the law of sin and death. Why is that? It is because when we walk according to the Spirit by a faith that works by love we are no longer engaged in that which brings our ruin. What a wonderful salvation.

The Pearl of Great Price: Two Types of Sin