That is a whole lot of philosophy.... either we are sinners ( unbeliever) or saints ( believer ) now because of our new birth. We are born of God. we "were" sinners but now we are "different" because of Jesus!..He changes stuff.....![]()
This is language devoid of actions. A sinner is a sinner because of what they do.
Equally the righteous are righteous because of what they do.
As soon as a label defines your acceptability, you have just lost morality. It is a very important concept.
A righteous person has been changed so they can walk in righteousness. If the change does not include behaviour or the ability to walk in it, then there is no meaning, it is just words.
All cults and heresies have to make this break, to justify some strange justification of behaviour is ok even though it is clearly wrong. Now if peoples behaviour do not change you can excuse it by convincing people conviction of wrong behaviour is evil and so must be ignored.
Another teaching along these lines is we are gods. We are made in the image of God, are his children, so we must be creators with command authority to create things into existance. Now clearly from seeing people and their abilities this is self flattery and not true. But once words define reality alone, you can say anything is illusion and reality is something different than the obvious, you just have to claim it. This is the structure of the word of faith.
As some have said, by saying you are ill, makes you ill, because you have commanded it into existance.
This is language devoid of actions. A sinner is a sinner because of what they do.
Equally the righteous are righteous because of what they do.
As soon as a label defines your acceptability, you have just lost morality. It is a very important concept.
A righteous person has been changed so they can walk in righteousness. If the change does not include behaviour or the ability to walk in it, then there is no meaning, it is just words.
All cults and heresies have to make this break, to justify some strange justification of behaviour is ok even though it is clearly wrong. Now if peoples behaviour do not change you can excuse it by convincing people conviction of wrong behaviour is evil and so must be ignored.
Another teaching along these lines is we are gods. We are made in the image of God, are his children, so we must be creators with command authority to create things into existance. Now clearly from seeing people and their abilities this is self flattery and not true. But once words define reality alone, you can say anything is illusion and reality is something different than the obvious, you just have to claim it. This is the structure of the word of faith.
As some have said, by saying you are ill, makes you ill, because you have commanded it into existance.
There is a simple concept you are arguing about.
Take a point in time, clear all deeds good or evil before that time, going forward can you walk in righteousness.
Jesus is saying you can, if you walk in the Spirit. You are saying you cannot.
You then invent ways of saying you are forgiven even in failure which is inescapable. So you are still sinners, slaves to sin, and the cross means nothing.
Now if you accept the gospel is saying you can walk in righteousness and still stumble, the next question is how?
If the model says because you cannot see clearly, you still need sanctification, the whole theology is consistent.
If you say you are actually still evil, a sinner stumbling around because of the flesh which will only ever be free at the resurrection, then you have your excuse, and sin is not a choice but a state of being.
Now you can show this is actually partly true. Tumors on the brain can change behaviour so you go things that you would not otherwise do. But I would hold in the area of free choice, motivated by a relationship with Jesus we can walk free from sin in righteousness. Paul would say though he does not judge himself, but responds to when his conscience prompts him. But this model is not good enough for you.
No, thats not true. To walk in righteousness would be to walk according to Gods standard, which would mean we are sinless perfect. Even one sin would cause us to walk in unrighteousness.
In your eyes, there is no righteous act.
Your language is absolute without examples. It does not say this behaviour is acceptable, that is not. You close the door on righteousness and say we are so lost, even in Jesus we cannot walk correctly.
So if Jesus prompts me to give a gift to a friend, that is sinful because I am doing it.
I would suggest that action is righteous because it is not a sinful act.
Now the deeper question is about my motivations. They need to be sorted through over time, but Jesus in effect says this will happen by itself as He changes me, as long as I start to do righteous acts or good works.
Now I see the cross as not just a legal payment of a debt but as the declaration of commitment of God to love and people who listen to Him. It changes the emotional equation of trust, importance, loyalty, morality, once you let it work through who you are.
But most here are so religious, they will only hear religious equations of justification, putting us right, solving the problem of guilt and not I can run up to God and say thankyou, I know you love me, what can I do to serve you?
At this point being sent out and then being called sinners in condemnation and guilt sounds wrong. No it makes sense if through this we have real victory over sin and death, and walk in righteousness, going forward to share this victory empowered by the love at work in our hearts through the cross.
And no I am not perfect or do I fully understand walking in righteousness, but I do not agree with those who say this is impossible, because that denies the obvious teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
It is obvious though it is the theology that limits the aspirations, not reality.
In your eyes, there is no righteous act.
Righteousness and judgement
We are called to walk in righteousness, but we are judged under grace, because we cannot judge ourselves and rely of Gods forgiveness and mercy to cover over our sins and failures.
This creates a tension between the goal and our need to change and be sanctified. What I am aware of in this walk is at the start we have serious problems and it is clearer where the issues are and what we need to do. Later it is much less obvious, and we often fall into self condemnation rather than rejoicing in our walk.
The problem I have is when people walk in denial of this landscape and the realities of where the failure is and our response. I confess some days I awake with what I would say are sinful convictions or attitudes, but I can choose to have them lift and not define who I am. What is strange is how these feelings or attitudes can change, and are a choice, so it is not obvious how you define who and what you are clearly. But this is where I would differentiate between sinful actions and the precursors or attitudes that lead to sin.
There are righteous acts, thats not the issue,
The issue is when I stand in front of God, with my whole life put on the table.
Hyper-grace is not making the argument you are putting forward. It is claiming repentance is not related to sin and turning from it. It is saying a believer just needs to believe in Jesus and not deal with sin in their life.
Paul was talking about the flesh always warring with one's born again spirit. As a Pharisee, he had no experience with the new birth.
LOL! So glad the truth so moves you!
.
The fundamental failure in this description is was are born sinners. This is clearly wrong. You are only a sinner when you sin.
We are born with the inclination to sin.
Now the difference maybe subtle but it has to do with motivation, and choice. If we are born sinners no matter what we do, then it is not our fault. We are not guilty, we had no choice.
Now the concept of choice is fundamental to the gospel, because it links back to the idea of free will, or even the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge only can be useful if you can put it into action.
If we have a new heart, then we now have motivation in Jesus to walk righteously. It is not inevitable but it is possible.
If you hold you are righteous because you are born again, then again it is not a choice, it is not free will.
Now to stop confusion, think about crossing a road as a blind person or one who can see.
The blind will be killed, those who see can choose when it is safe to cross. So sight makes the choice obvious. It may appear they have no choice, ie they walk righteously by themselves, but it is a product of sight.
So in Jesus righteousness becomes obvious.
But if you build your models on theory and not real life you end up with weird unreal theology that does not work, which is where hyper grace goes wrong.
Now those who say why do christians continue to sin, the answer is, they have not yet learned to apply their sight. It comes through obedience, through seeing consequences, what gives birth to what.