What is Sin?

What kind of person does Paul say is justified by faith in Romans 4:5? A righteous person or the "ungodly." So, logically what kind of person is justified? ANSWER: the ungodly person.

Since justification occurs as a consequence of faith rather than the cause of faith does not that mean LOGICALLY a person has faith previous to having remission of sins or imputed righteousness as justification IS remission of sins and imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:6-8)??????? So if that is logically true then what difference does it make if regeneration also logically precedes faith??????????? So you have the same problem with faith don't you as justification is merely IMPUTED righteousness and negatively not imputing sin!

However, regeneration does not deal with IMPUTED righteousness but with IMPARTED righteousness by a creative act of God whereby a NEW heart is given which is created in true holiness and righteousness (Ezek. 26:26; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:10). Hence, logically regenerated righteousness is IMPARTED in the giving of a new heart and then "with the heart man believeth unto " IMPUTED righteousness.

Spiritual union with Christ obtains imparted righteousness LOGICALLY before faith in the gospel obtains legal uino with Christ and imputed righteousness.

Think about it! Do you know the difference between regeneration and justification???? Regeneration deals with your personal spiritual condition, but justification deals with your LEGAL position before God. Both provide union with Christ but not the same kind of union. Both provide eternal life but not the same eternal life.

 

You completely distort my position and completely misunderstand election. Only in the superlapsarian view is there double election. I do no not hold to the superlapsarian view of John Gill and others.

 

I still hold firm to my belief that sin is anything said, done, or thought of which is not inspired or led of God. Peter had good motives and intentions when he suggested the Lord should not go to the cross, but he was actually being inspired of the Devil to think and say what he did. Peter should have realized that without the Lord he cannot say, think, or do anything right, something it took him to be humbled for him to realize. He was saved, but he had not yet learned what Paul later confessed, that in our bodies we cannot cease fromn sin, but by keeping our eyes on Him by faith He will bring us the victory over sin in our lives.

Without faith it is impossible to walk with God and to please God, and faith only operates in those who diligently seek God, for he that cometh to God must absolutely understand that God only rewards those who diligently seek Him.

 

I don't disagree with you at all. One is either being led of the Spirit or of the flesh. Everything done in the flesh comes short of the glory of God because the flesh never has the right motive.

However, notice that Romans 14 defines the very same issue to be sin in one person but not in another person and yet the particular food or drink or day is the same in both persons! Hence, it is the law of conscience that is being violated. One person has liberty of conscience to do what another person's conscience will not give him liberty to do and that is why he is "weak". In this context "faith" merely refers to confidence provided by your conscience in a particular matter that is neither right or wrong in and of itself.

However, the weakness of your argument is that a person can be deceived and have full faith in what they are doing and it is still sin in spite of the fact they are doing it in full faith. I think most who preach "another gospel" do it sincerely and in full faith/confidence that it is right when it is wrong and sinful.

 

My definition of being 'led of the Spirit' does not include man's opinion of the matter, but God's only. A person is either led of the Spirit or he is not, and it doesn't matter what that person thinks about it, which eliminates all wrong ideas or misconceptions man may have. God's definition of sin, in my opinion, is whatever man thinks, says, or does that is not in reality led of God, regardless of whether the man thinks he is serving God or not.

 

That is all fine and good, BUT, personal opinion, subjective opinion does not determine whether a person is being led by the Spirit of God! What determines if a person is being led by the Spirit of God is determined by more objective evidences than personal opinion.

1. Does their attitude, word and actions conform to the Word of God? If not, no matter how loudly they may proclaim or how convinced they may be they are being led by the Spirit they are in reality being led by the spirit (demonic).

2. We are commanded to try/test the spirits to see whether they are of God (1 Jn. 4:1) not merely presume they are because they are personally convinced/believe they are! If they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them (Isa. 8:20). If they do not act and speak in accordance with the teachings of inspired men they are following a demonic spirit (1 Jn. 4:6).

Hence, sin is in fact violation of God's Word (1 Jn. 4:6) even by those who profess they are being led by the Spirit of God. So it is not a matter of person opinion but it can be verified by objective evidence.

 

By the time the ungody person believes he is declared righteous. But you say that before a person believes he is in a spiritual union with Christ! But we know that that is impossible:

"For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor.6:14).

A person is not made righteous until he believes:

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Ro.10:10).

Of course it does! that which causes something else is "logically" before that which is the result.

Faith logically precedes God imputing righteousness to anyone.

Let us look at this verse which you quote:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh" (Ez.36;26).

Paul tells us exactly how a person receives the Spirit and it is not received prior to faith, as you teach:

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal.3:2).

You have the receiving of the Spirit prior to believing but Paul makes it plain that no one receives it until they believe!

 

Of course you are right. But the Biblicist cannot see that because he does not think logically. Not only is he illogical in his thinking but we can see that he just makes things up in order to defend the indefensible. Now he says that people receive not just one 'life" that is described as "eternal" but two!

Here are his words:

According to him there is one "eternal life" that a person gets prior to believing and then another after believing.

Who can take this nonsense seriously?

 

Whether a person is being led of the Spirit of God is determined of God only, so we must seek God to lead us in spite of our own will and way, which may deceive us and we will not know it. Was Isaiah led of God to walk naked and barefoot? Apart from what God says about Isaiah in those passages in Isaiah, can anyone make a case for determining the mind of God about whether anyone ought to be doing something like that? After Peter went through his humbling experience, the Lord told him that he was in the habit of determining for himself what he should be doing, but when he was converted he would understand how to allow the Lord to lead him where he would not normally go.

Did the disciples follow this plan in picking Matthias? What about Paul's plan to spend time at Corinth (1 Cor. 16:7), was this obvious by examining the evidences in scripture and among the brethren and elders? Paul would have gone to Asia to preach the gospel there, but was forbidden of the Holy Ghost (Acts 16:6). Our actions may be conformed to the word of God, but we still must have the God of the word leading us in our steps. ("The steps of a righteous man are ordered of the Lord").

I was once involved in a charismatic church when I was much younger, and I am a little put off by some of those things passing as "testing the spirits." I stay away from any application of this verse apart from holding those speaking the word of God to the letter of the word of God. In other words, if they are venturing into error, we should expose that error by unfolding the word of God in the face of that error.

The issue may get a little complicated when we venture into the realm of differences between the written word (letter of the law) and the Spiritual leading of God (according to the Spirit of the word). Was Isaiah violating the word of God by walking around naked? Did David sin by eating the shewbread? Were the disciples in sin for harvesting corn on the sabbath? The list goes on. The fact is, as I see it, we cannot know the will of God without asking Him, and we cannot do the will of God without Him working His own will through us. Walking with God is like walking on water, we cannot do it and don't know how to do it, but if we can get properly focused on Jesus and keep our focus on Him (praying without ceasing, for one example) he will do it for us and in us.

 

Isaiah was a prophet but you are not. Peter was an apostle/prophet but you are not! God spoke directly to prophets but that is not how he speaks today (Heb. 1:1). There are valid tests to try prophets and ignorning those tests is not only disobedience to God's word but foolish. You are confusing apples with oranges.

Yes, they did! Peter referred to what the Scriptures said and then followed it by prayer - God's Word and prayer.

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Paul was a prophet and apostle you are not! God spoke directly to Paul as God spoke to his prophets. You quote a portion of Psalms but have you read Psalm 119 which is the longest chapter and the Bible???

You are doing exactly what the Charismatics do! They don't test the Spirits by the objective word of God but by their subjective feelings! Have you read the design for God giving His word in 2 Timoth 3:16-17???

Again, Isaiah was a prophet and God spoke directly to His prophets but you are not a prophet.

David did not sin because his actions were in harmony with the intent of that law. The bread was a symbol of Christ as the bread of LIFE and the life of his men were at risk.

The Sabbath law never condemned every kind of work but work of only one sort (Isa. 58:13). Jesus said "It is LAWFUL to DO GOOD on the Sabbath."

Every item on your list so far is simply misapplication of scripture because of misintepretation of scritpure.

The reason you cannot see is because you are blind! What do you think the Word of God is? It is his REVEALED WILL! To say that one cannot know the will of God is to proclaim their own utter ignorance of God's Word and why it is given.

Jesus said, Sanctify them by thy truth, THY WORD IS TRUTH! The Word is the Sword of the Spirit and the Spirit NEVER contradicts His own Word as He is the author. If there is a contradiction it is in the head of the reader who fails to intepret the scriptures by context.

 

Jerry, it is always important to attack the person making the argument when you cannot respond to his points. I see that you have that lesson down pat... :thumbsup:

Good job man! (NOT!) :wavey:

 

Let me break it down so you can understand what I am saying.

1. Do you make a distinction between regeneration and justification?

2. Do you know the difference between the two?

3. Do you accept that regeneration has to do with your own spiritual condition (Jn. 3:6)?

4. Do you accept that regeneration is by divine fiat, a creation of God (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10) wherein the divine image is restored, or wherein the inward man is created in true holiness and righteousness and spiritual union between the sinner and God is restored thus SPIRITUAL life is obtained WITHIN you?

5. Do you accept that prior to justification you were under the LEGAL condemnation of the Law of God - LEGALLY condemned not merely to physical death but ETERNAL DEATH body soul and spirit in the lake of Fire?

6. Do you accept that justification is the reversal of that legal position before God so that you are no more under the legal condemnation of God's Law, therefore, no more condemend to ETERNAL DEATH but now have a legal position before God of ETERNAL LIFE, thus brought back into LEGAL UNION with God.

7. Do you accept that justification has nothing to do with your own person or your own righteousness but with the person of Christ and his righteousness that comes by way of LEGAL IMPUTATION as your LEGAL POSITION in Christ before God in heaven thus a LEGAL UNION.


If regeneration is not justification, and if regeneration is spiritual and justification is legal, and if regeneration has to do with your own personal spiritual condition and justification has to do with you own personal legal position then there is absolutely no way you can deny that eternal life or union in Christ is obtained in your own person by righteousness imparted through regeneration as well as in the person of Christ by righteousness imputed through justification.

Thus spiritual union and imparted righteousness by regeneration = SPIRITUAL LIFE - child by birth
Thus legal union and imputed righteousness by justification = LEGAL LIFE - heir by legal adoption

 

This is an outright distortion! I have not failed to answer a single solitary objection and have done so by contextual based responses! The truth is that you and jerry are guilty of the very thing you are attempting to charge me with. You cannot respond so you reduce the argument to personal accusations.

 

I faintly recall that you even made such a post. I did respond by saying it was Paul who PROOF TEXTED those verses and applied them in a more extensive context of Romans 3:9-20. Since Paul did this under inspiration then I would accept his contextualization of these PROOF TEXTS from Psalms over your interpretation of David.

 

Your conclusion is so foolish it is almost worthless to respond to it!!!

No, Paul's interpetation of Psalm 14-23 trumps YOUR interpretation of Psalms 14 or Psalms 53!

1. Pauls' interpretation is vividly applied to all mankind both Jews and Gentiles - Rom. 3:9

2. Paul's interpretation is explicitly applied to "all the world" leaving out "no flesh" so that "every mouth" is stopped - Rom. 3:19-20

3. Paul's interpetation is that "ALL" have thus sinned in this manner and come short of the glory of God - Rom. 3:23

4. Therefore, Paul's use of Psalm 14:2-3 and 53:2-3 is applied to every single human being ever born except Christ - Rom. 3:9-20.

I will take Paul's intepretation and application of Psalms 14:2-3 over your interpretation which denies the repeated UNIVERSAL application by Paul in Romans 3:9-20.

 

You cannot understand the text because you don't understand the context.

There are only two classes of mankind on earth according to the Jew. You are either a Jew "we" or a Gentile "they" and Paul's conclusion is that BOTH or "ALL" are under sin!

So simple, so clear and yet beyond your ability to perceive.