sinless? or sinning less.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tasha88
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The problem with most who accept Paul is speaking of his life as a Pharisee in Rom ch 7 is they then use ch8 to in effect put you straight back under the law. Perform almost perfect or be condemned. Ch 7 is quickly forgotten.

Most who believe Paul is speaking of his life as a Christian in ch7 have affinity with him because they fail to understand-or accept his message of grace, therefore have much affinity with his position in ch7
 
KJV1611 said:
Do you believe that as a Paharisee, Paul hated Jesus and all his followers? Do you believe this same person delighted in the law of God?
Click to expand...

Did the Pharisees of Jesus day hate him? Did they at the same time with their mind try and obey the law?
 
michael56 said:
Did the Pharisees of Jesus day hate him? Did they at the same time with their mind try and obey the law?
Click to expand...
I don't think they loved the law of God nor tried to keep it. If God were their father, they would have loved Jesus. They were no different than the people who pretend to be Christians today.
 
KJV1611 said:
I don't think they loved the law of God nor tried to keep it. If God were their father, they would have loved Jesus. They were no different than the people who pretend to be Christians today.
Click to expand...

Oh they did try to keep it, they even tithed down to their last mint dill and cumin. But they could not obey the law relating to the inner man. They were full of hypocrisy, wickedness and everything unclean on the inside
 
michael56 said:
Oh they did try to keep it, they even tithed down to their last mint dill and cumin. But they could not obey the law relating to the inner man. They were full of hypocrisy, wickedness and everything unclean on the inside
Click to expand...


They did not obey or try to keep the law, they perverted it and twisted it using it for personal gain and recognition.....
 
kennethcadwell said:
They did not obey or try to keep the law, they perverted it and twisted it using it for personal gain and recognition.....
Click to expand...

Paul was an ardent Pharisee before his conversion to Christianity. He said he faultlessly obeyed the legalistic law, but could not obey the law relating to Thou shalt not covet
 
KJV1611 said:
Ok, so you refuse to expound on those verses... How Paul does not sin but the sin that dwells in him does. Fine, let's move on to Chapter 8.

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.

How does one walk in the Spirit?
Click to expand...


Paul was speaking in those verses you gave how his flesh goes against what he knows is wrong to do and he continues to do it anyway. Because he can not alone change his sinful ways he needed help to change his ways, which is why he said who can save me from this wretched way. Then he goes into Jesus Christ being his Savior and walking in the Spirit leads him away from that condemnation that the flesh leads to.
Walking in flesh leads to condemnation, and walking in the Spirit leads to eternal life....................
 
michael56 said:
Paul was an ardent Pharisee before his conversion to Christianity. He said he faultlessly obeyed the legalistic law, but could not obey the law relating to Thou shalt not covet
Click to expand...


Apostle Paul when he was the Pharisee Saul was a murder and persecutor of Christians, so he did not keep the law perfectly. This is what he is even saying in Romans 7 that he still did things he should not..............
 
kennethcadwell said:
Apostle Paul when he was the Pharisee Saul was a murder and persecutor of Christians, so he did not keep the law perfectly. This is what he is even saying in Romans 7 that he still did things he should not..............
Click to expand...

Of course he did not perfectly keep the law, but he did keep the legalistic laws-as he stated
 
michael56 said:
Of course he did not perfectly keep the law, but he did keep the legalistic laws-as he stated
Click to expand...


How can he keep the law yet not keep the law ????

Even the rich man who came to Jesus thought he kept the law completely until Jesus pointed out to him to sell off his possessions and give to the poor. Showing that man that his true faith was in his possessions and not in God, therefore he did not keep the first commandment............
 
kennethcadwell said:
How can he keep the law yet not keep the law ????

Even the rich man who came to Jesus thought he kept the law completely until Jesus pointed out to him to sell off his possessions and give to the poor. Showing that man that his true faith was in his possessions and not in God, therefore he did not keep the first commandment............
Click to expand...

As for zeal persecuting the church, as for legalistic righteousness faultless Phil 3:6

Lol, as I keep stating, Paul the Pharisee faultlessly obeyed the legalistic law, but not the law relating to the inner man. If you disagree with that, please just say so, though you would be wrong to according to scripture
 
kennethcadwell said:
Paul was speaking in those verses you gave how his flesh goes against what he knows is wrong to do and he continues to do it anyway. Because he can not alone change his sinful ways he needed help to change his ways, which is why he said who can save me from this wretched way. Then he goes into Jesus Christ being his Savior and walking in the Spirit leads him away from that condemnation that the flesh leads to.
Walking in flesh leads to condemnation, and walking in the Spirit leads to eternal life....................
Click to expand...
I have visitors right now, I'll be back to continue in a bit.
 
michael56 said:
As for zeal persecuting the church, as for legalistic righteousness faultless Phil 3:6
Click to expand...


Read further down in that passage because Paul says this was self-righteousness, which is still not perfectly by faith........
 
kennethcadwell said:
Read further down in that passage because Paul says this was self-righteousness, which is still not perfectly by faith........
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with the fact Paul faultlessly obeyed the legalistic law(that which could be seen by men) but he could not obey the law relating to the inner man
 
michael56 said:
Paul was an ardent Pharisee before his conversion to Christianity ........
Click to expand...
Not sure Paul was converted to Christianity, Michael. Many would say he created it !

Yeshua (Jesus) was a devout Jew who had never heard of "Christianity".
He would have been appalled (or a-Pauled ?) at the suggestion that he was god or any part of God. Sheer blasphemy.

But Paul dreamed up this idea, wrote a whole bunch of stuff from which the 'gospels' later sprang - written by people who had certainly never met JC.
Then, good ole Emperor Constantine saw great political value in hitching his waggon to the star and hey presto ..... Christianity !

All very simple really.
 
michael56 said:
What has that got to do with the fact Paul faultlessly obeyed the legalistic law(that which could be seen by men) but he could not obey the law relating to the inner man
Click to expand...


Because Paul is not saying he kept the law faultlessly, he says the righteousness that came from the law he was found blameless. This is different then keeping the law, as David was found righteous to even though he did not keep the whole law either. They were blameless by the righteousness of the law, and not by the keeping of it.
Even with that being said Paul said this was still self righteousness, and not the righteousness of the Lord that we walk by in the new covenant, which he says he counts that righteousness found by the law as loss and rubbish............
 
kennethcadwell said:
Because Paul is not saying he kept the law faultlessly, he says the righteousness that came from the law he was found blameless. This is different then keeping the law, as David was found righteous to even though he did not keep the whole law either. They were blameless by the righteousness of the law, and not by the keeping of it.
Even with that being said Paul said this was still self righteousness, and not the righteousness of the Lord that we walk by in the new covenant, which he says he counts that righteousness found by the law as loss and rubbish............
Click to expand...

It seems you cannot distinguish the difference between the law termed legalistic law and the rest of the law. So I will leave it there
 
Pumicestone said:
Not sure Paul was converted to Christianity, Michael. Many would say he created it !

Yeshua (Jesus) was a devout Jew who had never heard of "Christianity".
He would have been appalled (or a-Pauled ?) at the suggestion that he was god or any part of God. Sheer blasphemy.

But Paul dreamed up this idea, wrote a whole bunch of stuff from which the 'gospels' later sprang - written by people who had certainly never met JC.
Then, good ole Emperor Constantine saw great political value in hitching his waggon to the star and hey presto ..... Christianity !

All very simple really.
Click to expand...



Acts 11:26

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


Apostle Paul did not start Christianity, and Constantine did not start the Catholic church...............Constantine came in the 4th century and the Catholic term being used for the early church started in the 2nd century......
 
michael56 said:
It seems you cannot distinguish the difference between the law termed legalistic law and the rest of the law. So I will leave it there
Click to expand...

Well then you have an issue with what Paul said because all I have said in that previous post was what he said.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back