In Romans 13, Paul tells us to obey the governing officials–because they are supposed to be God’s enforcers of true justice. But what do we do as Christians when those governing us approve of sin: the murder of unborn children, same sex marriage, and laws in direct opposition to the Word of God?
Are we supposed to blindly follow and obey leaders who oppose God and His Word? Should we be willing to disobey even if it means a loss of job or imprisonment? Robert Meyer, a writer for Renew America, joins us to discuss the issue from a legal, historical, and biblical perspective.
Podcast: Download
We are 100% Listener supported. Donate now! Want our news delivered? Get our WEEKLY WATCHMAN digest, published and sent to you every Friday!
Was Martin Luther King Jr. wrong in 1963 when he disobeyed the law and was put in prison in Alabama? When some religious leaders disagreed with his activism, King penned a letter from jail:
“…One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘”an unjust law is no law at all.”‘ “Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God…”
Are there any guidelines for when a Christian is allowed or even required to oppose an unjust law or ruler?
It should be emphasized that being faithful to the Bible and living by its standards might require us to endure civil punishment, as Kentucky clerk Kim Davis recently learned. Please know that we are absolutely not comparing her to Martin Luther King Jr. The reason however, for their refusal to obey what they each considered an unjust law was the law went against biblical morality.
Meyer writes:
Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to process marriage license applications for same-sex couples, offers a poignant segue into the issue of whether civil disobedience is an appropriate response for professing Christians.
Some folks would rather sojourn down the rabbit trails of peripheral issues, such as pointing out that Davis is hypocritical in her stance because she has had several divorces. While her past may not make her the perfect poster child for one “standing on principle,” it would matter to me whether the improprieties occurred before or after her Christian conversion – an important distinction that would make little difference to her critics.
Recently a secularist quoted a familiar biblical passage (Romans 13: 1-3) as “proof” that resistance against the civil authority is hypocritical.
…While Caesar is distinct from the church, Caesar is under the authority of God. The contemporary secularist sees not merely a functional and jurisdictional separation of the institutions of church and state, but an absolute sequestering of biblical precepts from public policy. The word “secular” has morphed from meaning “non-ecclesiastical” to connoting “anti-biblical.” Thus, the hostility increased as we decoupled government from its rightful position under God, while making it an wholly autonomous entity.
Judicial activism leads to despotism
Stand Up for the Truth posts tagged “Religious Freedom“
Yes I have, in my old church, the one I've spoken about that went emergent, I ran out of there with my family. It actually went beyond that, they were ok with the RCC, the pastors fawned over Rick Warren, and they kept insisting unity trumps all, since that day no more preaching on "divisive" subjects. Sad. A congregation with a rich history, left hollow.
Ah hah….I remember now you mentioning that. The fissures created by factions in the local church always start somewhere, somehow.
I know that when I was concerned about some practices at our former church and mentioned them to the elders, I was informed that I needed to stay quiet, else, I may upset the natives (my term, not there's). They lectured me on unity and I provided them a short biblical analysis of unity and never heard back….we were gone not long afterward.
I always am careful, from now on, to be watchful for church leaders advocating unity and peace at any cost….they seem to try and support their position with Scripture, but when you peel back the hermeneutical onion of their prooftexting, the smell gets rather fetid.
I for one am extremely happy everyone is in accord again, remember brothers people such as my self rely on brothers with more theological knowledge such as yourselves as I dive into the word. Heaven knows there are too many divisions in the body for the wrong reason, and given the numbers of wolves out in the world, we need to stick together. I'm really happy that you decide to stay Berlotac, discourse amongst brothers may lead to some disagreements, but at the end of the day we must realize what our Master wants from us……….peace, brotherly love, and truth.
Manny, just a quick question. Have you experienced those who advocate unity in the Church for unity's sake? I think I have run into this from time to time and was wondering if others have.
I understand your point, I for one didn't take it personally, as I always enjoy our conversations, I'm just pointing out how it might come accross, sometimes it's advantageous to see things from a different angle, even if it's just for clarity. I for one learn from you and Rascott and berlotac has been helpful, I'm at a loss why he got upset, but then again I don't know him personally. I was a little unnerved by his "rant." You're correct he should stay.
The last thing we need is more division……….and you three handle the word accurately. Heaven knows that's rare today, given all the false teachers out in the world, we need to stick together, specially as we see the growing storm clouds.
Hey Manny, sorry about unnerving you. I was upset because intenseflana had said that we can't out-sin God. Very true. But he left that hanging out there with no explanation. Paul teaches the full scope of Grace. He begins Romans by teaching why we need Grace — we are sinners by nature, by action, and because we were declared sinners in Adam. Through God's Grace, by faith, the believer has been placed in Christ, no longer in Adam. Praise God! That's Grace and if we leave it there, then we can think that the old nature is left to do as he pleases and it's okay because God's Grace is inexhaustible. I can keep on sinning and that's okay. Ah, but there's more to Grace than that. By Grace, we are also given a new nature and the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are taught to reckon the old man dead and to live by the Spirit acting on our new nature. And what is the work of the Spirit? To glorify Christ through us, to be the power in us that results in a renewal of our minds that we would have the mind of Christ. That part of Grace must also be taught. Yes, we can't out-sin God, but forbid the thought that we would want to test that! Instead, yield to the Spirit. How are we renewed? By meditating on God's Word and by prayer. In these things, the Spirit has His way. We are yielding to Him when we allow Him to apply His Word to us. This transforms us.
In Ephesians, for example, same thing. We learn of God's incredible Grace right away, but then Paul spends the rest of the epistle speaking of the work of the Spirit in our sanctification and shows us that because of God's Grace in our salvation and all blessing that go with that, we need to yield to the Spirit in all things.
I just wanted intenseflana to not assume that everyone reading this blog can fill in the blanks both before and after [You can't out-sin God]. He didn't do that and that's why I was initially upset. As our conversation continued, he and rascott kept saying essentially the same thing and were not willing to fill in the blanks. That led to me allowing my flesh to agree with them that you can't out-sin God. What if they're right? What if there doesn't need to be any change in my life and that I can live however I want and the only real consequence will be the loss of some intangible reward?
I hope that clears things up and I am sorry that I allowed myself to get to that fleshly place to where it spilled out onto this blog.
Well I'm glad you're staying, there's no reason why Christians can't work things out, like I said we need to stick together and bear each other's burdens, Heaven knows the church is being pulled apart from the inside by ravenous wolves and those too lazy to read scripture, we need men like yourselves that can explain when brothers and sisters need clarification, if there was ever a time when the remnant needs to stick together, it's now. God bless you all.
@berlorac
Concerning out-sinning God, I reread what I typed. May I kindly ask you reread what I typed and take the "you cannot out-sin God" in context? I have pasted in below the paragraph before the one containing the "out-sin" wording (emphasis added with —– by me on the key parts):
"Inheriting the Kingdom and entering the Kingdom are not the same. The list of sins Paul mentions in the Galatians passage is quite broad and —-I am sure that we all commit any number of them day to day, with the goal that we commit them less and less, as believers—-. The audience of the Book of Galatians is the church at Galatia which means it is to believers; therefore, —–the message in chapter 5, verses 19-21 are to believers as a warning not to commit these sins as it should not be part of their nature in Christ, else they will not receive the inheritance which is there's in Christ."—–
Taking this first paragraph into account and ensuring to not lose it when reading on, it will make it much easier to see that I was not advocating unbridled antinomianism, though you certainly could do that and God's temporal wrath of discipline via Heb 12 will be your reward this side of heaven.
If you ever need me to fill in blanks, just let me know your exact question and I am happy to elaborate.
I think this is important to see and this is why I do not type short answers since context is key.
Hope that helps.
Yes, helpful. Sorry I took your words out of context. Still I lament, in the Body as whole, that there is little teaching on the deeper things, the Spirit's work, etc. Without it, it seems like we are just to obey commands because we are saved, but little is said about HOW that is possible. Thus, those who are trying to flee immorality are doing so only with willpower, not the power of the Spirit. Not saying that describes you, but, in general.
I agree that teaching on more advanced topics (I will use "advanced" vs "deeper") is dearth in the pulpit…comes down to money, I'm afraid. If it doesn't keep butts in the seats it won't be preached.
Those that have sought to dive more into the role of the H.S. sometimes have gone the direction as charismatics which, I believe, have perverted the H.S.'s work, heretically.
I may be going over old material, so forgive me if I do. The H.S.'s work is collaborative with us, not in our stead, but complementary and that is why He is described as Helper (John 16) and assists in our prayers (Romans 8), etc…. Unfortunately, much of the book of Acts has been taken as prescriptive for the Church in light of the H.S.'s work vs background for its nascent period so we could understand much of the background of the prescriptions in the Epistles. Much is to be learned from all the Bible, but those that rightly divide the Word of Truth know what books are written for what purpose and how they apply now (a guide, a prescription, historical, etc…). It is dangerous to base one's ecclesiology on a transitional book such as Acts vs prescriptions from the Apostles after church's were established.
Overall, the H.S.'s key work for us is to help us understand the Word (1 Cor. 2), and convict us to do that which we learn. Speaking of will power, it is our will, but His power, so perhaps we could call it will-Spirit? Just made that up, but what else is it, right? Discipleship is key in a new believer's life, as well as he grows, so the H.S.'s purpose can be utilized, so we need to be careful with new converts that they know the life expected of them post-justification, else, the life they lead before will remain, thereby being fodder for Satan and examples of discipline for the Church.
Couldn't agree more about rightly dividing the Word. Well said.
Willpower, of course, as understood in popular usage; that is, our wills under our own power from the flesh. Not a good thing, it only leads to valleys of defeat and despair speckled with mountaintops of self-righteousness.
You mentioned in the post just above this, and elsewhere over the last few days, the Hebrews 12 chastisement, such that the believer who sins will be chastened by God. One thing that the Spirit does, if we are willing to yield to the Spirit, is mediate that process so that we do not have to come under chastisement. This is brought out in 1 Corinthians 11:31-32 where we see that if we would self-judge we would not need to be chastened. If we fail to self-judge, which can only be through the lense of the Spirit, then we must be chastened of the Father.
"I have encountered many former comments from those with much less poise and even less intellect within this blog"
I would reconsider these words, they sound ungracious and in my opinion they could be hurtful to some. Not everyone is on the same level in theology, I personally don't have a problem with comment, but they come accross a bit haughty. Just pointing it out, no hard feelings. 🙂
Thanks Manny, but my point is that as you have seen from time to time, there are those on here who are just seeking to have their voice heard and could care less who is on the other end…it is bound to happen within a public blog. They know who they are. If someone reads this and it doesn't apply to them…then it doesn't apply to them.
I just want to thank rascott and intenseflana for all their help in the long thread above. If you haven't read it, please do because it will set you free! I mean really FREE!
I learned from Mr. intense that I can't out-sin God. I'll have to give up some kind of position in the kingdom of God in exchange for my sinful ways but that's okay. I didn't want any kind of leadership role. Been there. Not as much fun as just hanging back in the pack.
All of that talk about living a life of sin has definitely awakened that old man and he's ready for some action. Music to his ears! I sin, I confess, I sin, I confess, no problem. All that progress God made with me doesn't matter. I want to go back to the old days when life was fun. The women dress different nowadays, but I"m still diggin' it. The booze is a lot more expensive than I remember but it's been so long since I've gotten drunk that it probably won't take but a couple of drinks to get me there. I wonder if my brother will sell my gun back to me. Those were the days running around scaring the crap out of people with an SKS. Ha.
Gentlemen it's been a pleasure. I don't think I'll be coming back here. it takes too much of my time and I have so many other things to do now. I know you meant well and you just wanted to help me see how bad my theology was but now the old man has awakened. You've opened up my mind and now there's a whole new life on the horizon. I know it looks like the old life but it really is new because I'm saved now. See ya on the flip side.
Why do you bear false witness against what I have said? If our conversation has become a stumbling block to you I pray forgiveness. I also pray that before you go boozing it up and chasing skirts that you consider the consequences of sin as has been discussed in the long thread above. Search the scriptures to see if these things be so!
rascott, I want to apologize to you. I hope you can forgive me. My rant was a byproduct of some real challenges last night. I did, in fact, think about my old life and what it would be like to re-engage. I was a bit angry at you and intenseflana, but not at you personally. It was more like I was angry at what you were teaching because it really aroused my flesh, in many ways. My rant this morning was more tongue-in-cheek, but when you responded with care for my well-being, it led to sorrow. I did not mean to impugn you, personally. Please forgive me.
Absolutely, you are forgiven. I hadn’t considered the possibility of being a stumbling block. I hope future conversations are still in order, they make me think through why I believe what I do. We looked at a lot of scripture together. I think it will result in mutual benefit. Until then— cheer up.
Jude 1:24-25.
I will tell you guys that I would rather once in a while we step on toes and then even things up than never touching these subjects. This is exactly how iron sharpens iron and we become transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2), else, what are we here for? If we don't know what to think, then we absolutely could go off and think we are serving the Lord, but only in vain because we don't know why, nor what the Word truly says about particular activities.
So glad you guys are here. Manny hasn't chimed in much on this post, but he is here and he's a great guy too and not scared of diving in.
@berlorac: for the record, I take no offense as to what you say; I leave that between you and the Lord to sort out
What you are saying here is what the RCC accused Calvin of (if faith in Christ alone is sufficient for justification, then what is to prevent antinomianism, unbridled) at the Council of Trent in the mid-1500's and why afterward Calvin wrote the Institutes (to effectively say, eventually through the Counter-Remonstrants, that if one were truly justified, he cannot become an antinomian, unbridled).
I am not as learned as I wish I were concerning church history; however, from what I have learned, it is quite an open door into how certain theological positions developed. There is nothing new under the sun (I have read that somewhere before I believe). I would encourage all believers to become more attune to church history either through reading and study, along side their Bible, as it is just as important to understand what framed many of the lauded theologians of times past, as to what they said.
I haven't read all of Calvin's Institutes, but I have read key portions having to do with predestination, the Church as an institution and its governance and, most importantly, salvation, I do not believe that I ever read Calvin addressing how the discipline passages of Hebrews 12 fit in with his post-justification stance.
I do believe that what you are saying is tongue-in-cheek and that you are responding to the belief that I advocate a position that believers should consider unbridled antinomianism; however, unfortunately, many believers entertain self-righteousness knowingly and with great pride believing they are quite the mature believer and with great sorry I say are very confused believers as they think they are quite spiritual and on the obedient pathway. Both of these types are wrong and in sin.
As I will say again, should and could should not get mixed up. The Bible is clear that both conditions exist by acknowledging the "could" but commanding the "should."
One last thought….I wouldn't get disquieted over the discussion here; I have encountered many former comments from those with much less poise and even less intellect within this blog. You should stick around.
intenseflana, please see my response to rascott, above. I need to ask for your forgiveness. I know you got the tongue-in-cheek flavor, but even that, I'm ashamed to say, was borne of the flesh. I had considered deleting the post, but when rascott responded, I felt that I needed to let it stand for the sake of the rest of the brethren. I thank you for your generous spirit and kind words.
I don't know much about Calvin. I only have read a few articles that have explained some of his theology. I think the area in which I differ most from Calvinistic teaching is the Law, or the law principle. There is no place for any law in the life of the believer except the law of Christ, which is the law of love. We don't need the Mosaic Law as a rule of life, but that's what many Calvinistic adherents seem to espouse. Sanctification is all of Grace. Our rule of life is to walk in the Spirit. It's not an automatic thing. It's me deciding to yield to the Spirit, for it is God who works in us both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Hey berlorac….glad you didn't give up we are good.
Though I in no way mean any of my posts to be critical personally of anyone, please forgive me if any seemed that way.
Yeah, the deal with Calvinists is that for some reason, they want to remove any part we play at all in our salvation (God gives us the faith and all that), then in our post-salvation lives. It just makes no sense given all the commands and exercise of the will that is expected by those who hear the Gospel and are being discipled.
I will say that per the Mosaic Law, there much to be learned there and it was holy, righteous and good, just not enough to save anyone. It was a tutor, and used to foreshadow all that our Savior would do at His first advent and even beyond that to His second coming per some of the O.T. prophets such as Daniel and Isaiah.
We are definitely under the Law of Christ now which is superior to the Mosaic Law because the first law of Christ is to believe in Him for salvation (Scripture doesn't say this, but what else could the first law be if it doesn't start with salvation?). We are given the H.S. to help us, but we must yield…God doesn't do it all for us, else it means nothing. That is my biggest hangup with Calvinists and their view of the sovereignty of God….they leave everything to God so we do nothing and it all just works out…how is that not fatalism? It just makes everything mean nothing if God does it all.
Does that make any sense? Kinda rambling there….
In the Bible it says give to Caesars what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods. What does this really mean? When you look at Deuteronomy 17, I believe this question is fully answered. We are to have officials that resemble us. The leaders are to keep a copy of the law and read it all the days of their lives so that it will be well with thee. If these leaders are uncertain what choice they should make, they should consult the priests. Also, it says the purpose of the government is to protect its people from foreign invasion and handles civil disputes. This does not include making us support gay marriage because it is contrary to God's law. This does not include abortion again, because it is contrary to God's law. The government officials are to serve the people not control them. Do the governments of today represent Deuteronomy 17? Then according to the word of God we have no obligation to obey them for we serve God only. If we were to obey them, would that not be compromising with God's principles. In reality, because the church will not stand up for godly principles, the nations will be cursed with take over by tyrannical govts, destruction by earthquakes, and economical collapse. IT IS TIME FOR THE CHURCH TO RISE AND BECOME THE WARRIORS GOD HAS CALLED US TO BE!
Keli, by your reasoning, what laws has the government passed today that you plan to disobey because they are not representing a government that serves the people?
I respectfully implore you to provide some N.T. Scripture from the Epistles to support your statements as applicable to the Church, not Israel as a nation via Deut 17, please.
Additionally, I kindly request you to review the book of Daniel and provide your thoughts on how he was able to live in such a pagan environment. How was he the "warrior" you are describing? How did he overturn Nebuchadnezzar?
I do agree on one point with you and that is we do receive the governments we deserve, since they are, Scripturally, installed by God.
Again, I am respectfully requesting this as I respectfully disagree with much, not necessarily all, of your statement.
Thank you……. Understood.
Mike, with all due respect, Gala 5:19-21, clearly state, "any one living that sort of life will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God." The lady asked if her friend who she said IS living the homosexual lifestyle yet says he is a Christian, will go to heaven. The above scripture clearly says he will NOT and secondly because of his lifestyle is NOT a Christian. I am saying this with a very heavy heart, full of love for this person. The answer should have been to this lady, "As scripture says, at this time NO. Then you could have continued with the answer you gave about changed(ing) his lifestyle. We can not in true Christian LOVE beat around the bush. God was clear to us what sin is and defined it clearly, we need to answer clearly, but also give them hope by telling them we are all sinners, but we strive to obey God's words and can change with the Holy Spirit's help. God can and will forgive us if we strive every single day to live by His word and not the Worlds ways and words. Lord bless all my brothers and sisters, in Jesus's Holy name.
Inheriting the Kingdom and entering the Kingdom are not the same. The list of sins Paul mentions in the Galatians passage is quite broad and I am sure that we all commit any number of them day to day, with the goal that we commit them less and less, as believers. The audience of the Book of Galatians is the church at Galatia which means it is to believers; therefore, the message in chapter 5, verses 19-21 are to believers as a warning not to commit these sins as it should not be part of their nature in Christ, else they will not receive the inheritance which is there's in Christ.
When you say that this passage of Scripture states a practicing sodomite (I do not use the term homosexual as it doesn't communicate as well) cannot be a Christian, then you are saying that the promises of God concerning the Gospel are null and void since any who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved (John 3:16 remember?). There is not one single sin man can commit which was not imputed to Christ on the Cross. You cannot out-sin God and there is no sin that you will commit that He didn't already know about.
If you want to go down the road that Gal 5:19-21 implies those who commit those sins habitually will not go to heaven because a "true" Christian would not do such things, then, my friend, look at the rest of the list and understand that you yourself may be in danger of hell-fire, if you are honest with yourself. You have fallen for the erroneous "fruit-inspection" teaching within Calvinism (Lordship Salvation) and you may want to reexamine your position carefully concerning your theology of salvation, Christ and the Christian walk.
Hey brother, I think you may have overstated your case. I'm all for Grace — liberty in Christ! However, Paul's warning to the Galatians is similar to his warning to the Corinthians that they examine their faith. Not all who profess to be in the Way, the faith, Christianity, are known of God. The word for "inherit" in such passages as Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, as well as 1 Corinthians 15 are all the same — kleronomeo — and it means to receive as an heir. The contexts will show that the thing received is life in the kingdom of God.
Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 to see the contrast between the unrighteous who will not inherit versus those who are washed, sanctified, justified who do inherit. Paul is making the distinction between the unrighteous (not justified) and those who are justified. The difference, according to Paul, is that the unrighteous will continue on in those sinful activities while the justified will not.
In the Galatians 5 passage you cite, we see that those who practice such sins will not inherit. Paul says that those who "prasso," — habitually commit — those sins will not inherit. The good news is that because the justified have the Holy Spirit, we can and should yield to the Spirit under Grace. If we are led by the Spirit we will walk worthy of our calling and will no longer (habitually) practice such sins.
Berlorac , I’ll bite on this one. Hope you and intenseflana don’t mind.
While I agree that false professors exist, maybe even abound, I disagree that this is the context Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians and Galatians (both addressing brethren). Paul is not speaking of a gift but of rewards. The beatitudes have a reward concept. The final beatitude explicitly states that there will be great rewards for those believers who persevere in the face of persecution. The kingdom parables are full of inheritance-reward imagery. Everlasting life is the gift of God—receiving/inheriting the kingdom of heaven is a rewards concept. Enter and inherit are not synonymous: Likewise gift and prize and justification and walking in the Spirit.
Paul told the believers in Galatia and Corinth that if their manner of life was characterized by walking in the flesh (legalism or licentiousness) they would not inherit the kingdom of God. And the Corinthians clearly hoped to rule with Christ in His coming kingdom (1 Cor 4:8; 6:3). Paul is not saying that the justified will not continue on in those sinful activities: He is warning the justified not to continue because it is possible and it is consequential (Romans 6-8).
Also consider that the Levites in the Old Covenant were promised no inheritance among their brothers in the kingdom yet by grace through faith are granted eternal life to enter the kingdom.
2Ti 2:11-13 It is a trustworthy statement:
A) For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
B) If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
B) If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
A) If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
I enjoy reading your comments. Every blessing to you and intenseflana.
<div id="idc-comment-msg-div-1000870419" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1000870419)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstandupforthetruth.com%2F2015%2F10%2Fchristianity-and-civil-disobedience%2F#IDComment1000870419&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Christianity%20and%20Civil%20Disobedience%20-%20Stand%20Up%20For%20The%20Truth" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1000870419)">Close MessageHey rascott, no problem. I'm sure intenseflana will be welcoming!
I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment of "inheritance" as only being a reward. Mark 10:7, Luke 10:25, Luke 18:18 and Hebrews 1:14 all speak of inheriting eternal life. Same word – kleronomeo – that Paul uses when he speaks of inheriting the kingdom of God (in contrast to the kingdom of heaven).
Now, if you're saying that only certain Christians will inherit the kingdom while others who are more carnal, exhibiting ungodly behaviors, will not inherit the kingdom (loss of reward), then we had better be sure that we know what the kingdom of God is. I'm not seeing anywhere in Scripture where the kingdom of God is a reward that is separate from eternal life. The only rewards of which Paul speaks, especially in 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Corinthians 9, are crowns (see also Philippians 4:1 and 2 Timothy 4:8 among others). Also, if the kingdom of God is just a reward separate from eternal life, then where will the carnal believers end up? If they don't heed warning and don't receive the reward of the kingdom, will they just be floating around in some purgatory somewhere?
But inheritance, in Paul's language, seems to always encompass all that we have in Christ as joint-heirs. Paul always is sure to tell us that we have those things already. Those are not rewards. The kingdom of God is not a reward, it is the realm of His glory and includes everything that is godly. Salvation places us into that kingdom.
As to Paul's letters being addressed to believers: Agreed. Absolutely. But he often contrasts the heathen with the saved, the children of darkness with the children of light. He says to the Ephesians that they are not to walk as the Gentiles (heathen, unbelievers) do, and he makes the same contrast in Galatians 5.
And, you're right, Paul is not saying that the justified will not continue to sin. Thanks for pointing that out. My bad. What I was trying to say is that the justified will reckon the old man dead and will walk worthy of their calling as they are conformed to the image of Christ. When Paul speaks of those in sin in Galatians 5 who will not inherit the kingdom, he uses "prasso," which means habitual sin, with the connotation of a settled life, a lifestyle, if you will.
Thanks for the dialogue. Grace and peace.
I do see a biblical distinction between “entering” and “inheriting”, particularly in the context of Paul’s Epistles. Words like salvation (sozo, soteria), inheritance (kleronomeo, kleronomia), and even eternal life (aionion zoe) are not technical terms which always refer to eternal salvation from hell.
I see entry into the kingdom to be based on positional sanctification (justification). Justification is not earned. All believers, being household heirs, will be in the kingdom (no floating around). All believers have been qualified to share in the inheritance (Col 1:12). The heir-ship Paul speaks of is kingdom heir-ship; it is earned just as Jesus earned the right to be King of Kings through righteous obedience. Paul does not tell us we have this already, he tells us to finish the race, earn the prize. Some passages concern present rewards others concern future rewards. The 1 Corinthians passage is in the context of future ruling and judging.
In each case you cite in the Gospels the question is framed as inheritance of eternal life. In each response the Lord uses the Law as the basis for His answer. Is He teaching works justification? Is He speaking of passing from death to life through works? I’m sure He is not. As intenseflana said, some passages of scripture are descriptive others are prescriptive. Jewish perception of inheritance and kingdom must be considered.
I’m not contesting the “life style” (prasso) argument, I’m contesting the premise that Paul is speaking of false professors. He is telling believers that the cost of such “life styles” is disqualification of kingdom heir-ship not disqualification from kingdom entry or eternal life. Deeds of the flesh are a possibility for children of the light who do not walk in the Spirit. Claiming that the lack of evident experiential sanctification as proof of no positional sanctification is the essence of Lordship Salvation. I fail to see the difference between what you say and LS. As I see it, Jesus gets irritated about some kind of judgment, and yet I can’t say He’s irritated with all kinds of judgment. —Romans 8:33 “Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies”. — I don’t care to pronounce a person unsaved based on deeds of the flesh. Scripture is telling me not to make that judgment.
God bless berlorac. We agree on much but disagree here.
I think one thing that is getting overlooked and is, perhaps, causing some confusion is the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. The K of G is the overarching realm of God, while the K of H is the earthly kingdom to come, and this K of H is a sphere within the K of G. Therefore, I agree with you that the Corinthians (and we) will reign in the K of H as a reward. And their (our) position in that reign may be based upon how we built upon Paul's foundation (1 Corinthians 3).
Your contention that Colossians 1:12 is a reward of rulership or reign in the kingdom is not borne out by the context. "Giving thanks unto the Father who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; Who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love; In whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this is talking about ruling over the earthly kingdom (although reigning with Him is certainly a part of the inheritance).
All saints will rule and reign in the K of H. I see no Scripture that keeps a believer from reigning, although his position may be determined by his building materials. These building materials, however, are not moral behaviors, but a right orientation of heart as to service.
But the inheritance of the K of God is not based on building materials; it's not a reward. If we compare the two parallel passages — Galatians 5:19-21 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 — we see that those who are excluded from the K of G are those who are "unrighteous," according to 1 Corinthians 6:9. The Christian is never unrighteous. We are declared righteous. The Christian can act unrighteous, but he is not unrighteous. Paul then contrasts the unrighteous of verses 9 and 10 with the righteous of verse 11 who are righteous because they have been washed, sanctified, justified in the Spirit.
I don't see how you can say that the unrighteous of verses 9 and 10 are the same as the righteous of verse 11, but that they only differ in that those of verse 11 have been washed, sanctified, justified. It sounds absurd, but that seems to be what you're saying. No offense, brother, but I just can't buy it.
I agree with much of what you have posted on this blog, as well. Very edifying.
Ah, I see where we are getting our lines crossed. You see a distinction in K of G vs. K of H that I don’t see and I think maybe (I could be wrong) you fail to see a distinction between being righteous and being declared righteous.
Only Matthew uses K of H —to a primarily Jewish audience who feared saying the Lord’s name in vain. Parallel passages in Mark and Luke will bear this out. The terms are synonymous. Simply put they both mean God’s rule (large topic) which is comprised of different facets and the earthly facet will have a 1000 yr period with Christ on David’s throne in Jerusalem. I’d be interested to see what scripture you use to support a distinction.
Righteousness is imputed not infused; the unjust declared just yet still unjust. Believers are to put on righteousness. Believers will be righteous when we are conformed to the image of Christ and put of the corruptible for incorruptible. Why else would Paul say “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” Isaiah says “all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment”. Not our unrighteous deeds but our righteous deeds.
Again thanks for the dialogue through which we gain understanding if not agreement. We’ll be seeing each other around.
I agree that we are unrighteous in ourselves, but we are declared righteous in Christ. This is the distinction I see being made in 1 Cor. 6:9-11, but you're seeing it not as standing, but as state.
If works are in view here, as you contend, then Paul's reference to our standing in Christ in v. 11 is out of place. As I see it, Paul is referring to our standing in Christ in this passage as evidenced by his use of forensic terms washed, sanctified, justified in v. 11. So, then he is making the contrast between those whose standing before God is unrighteous in vv. 9-10, and those whose standing in Christ in v. 11 is declared righteous as evidenced by their washing, sanctification, justification.
Well, we don't agree on this. Nor do we agree on the distinction between kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. I'm not sure we'll solve anything here, but maybe it's been edifying for someone. Haha.
Some clarification is in order. I too see righteousness as a position. “Lifestyle” is in view as you have admitted and lifestyle is a state, a condition, and believers are warned about being in a fleshly condition. They are not threatened with eternal damnation, loss of position, but of discipline and disqualification of an inheritance for lack of experiential sanctification.
1 Corinthians deals with congregational dynamics, separation from the world’s judgments and separation from congregants that live immorally. Ch. 5 they failed to execute judgment in their own congregation and it resulted in cases of prolonged carnality. Ch. 6 the disputes are taken to the court of unbelievers (positionally unrighteous). Paul’s question in v9a is rhetorical used to hammer home the problem with going to unbelievers for judgment in disputes. It’s a “duh” question. “Duh” because the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom let alone inherit the kingdom. They will not be a recourse in the kingdom so why go before them for ruling now? V9b-10 Paul warns them not to be deceived (not a “duh” moment) about immoral life styles. Many were abusing grace—the ones Paul instructed to separate from. They too will not inherit the kingdom. V11 Some…Some of the washed, sanctified, justified Corinthians used to be in those life styles. This does not mean that all in those life styles have turned. That’s why Paul instructs discipline and separation and to flee from immortality.
I understand that this forum is not ideal for in depth discussions of such important topics. But your argument seems to be that imputed righteousness (positional) must result in a Godly life style (state); faith plus walking in the Spirit…or justification has not taken place, which is the doctrine of perseverance (LS).
I'm not familiar with the wording of LS or the doctrine of perseverance in detail, but I do know that those who are saved cannot and will not be "unsaved." Our standing in Christ is eternal. The question is, who is in Christ? Anyone who has said, "I believe in Jesus"?
So far, we've been talking about "lifestyle," or state, as it relates to standing. And in doing so, we've been looking at all of the "negative" verses — those who do, and continue to do, and make a life around, these "bad behaviors" — are either carnal Christians who will lose rewards, or they were never saved in the first place.
But what about flipping it around and looking at the "positive" verses? 1 John 3: "In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil: whosoever does not righteousness is not of God, neither he who loves not his brother….We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren. He who loves not abides in death."
Here, we see love as evidence of salvation. Can you tell me how that is any different from the manifestation of evil as evidence of being a child of the devil? He's talking about a lifestyle of love for the brethren as evidence of salvation.
"Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in Him." And here's the flipside. Lack of love leads to all manner of sin, but here John is pinpointing the worst of it, and this is evidence of unbelief in which there is no eternal life. John seems to have no problem saying that there will be evidence of salvation in the life of the believer.
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and everyone who loves is begotten of God, and knows God. He who loves not knows not God….Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and do His commandments."
If we say we love God, if we say that we know God, but do not love the brethren, then we are not children of God and eternal life does not abide in us. Those who love God will do His commandments. So, there should be evidence in the life of a believer.
How is this any different than saying that unbelievers will live lives characterized by a lifestyle of sin?
Just to address your point about "anyone who has said I believe in Jesus" is saved?
If that is a concern then perhaps you should define the Gospel as it relates to justification for one to be with God eternally. One who applies John 3:16 believes in Christ but what has to be believed and is it a point in time?
First, we know it is a point in time else you never have assurance because if it is continued belief then you can never know to what level of reversion results in disbelief.
Second, belief in the right thing is of the utmost importance. Believing Jesus took your place so you could be given God's righteousness is key and pivotal; nothing else. Implied in that is some one giving you the justification Gospel with enough information to know why Jesus was qualified to take your place. Faith/belief in the right object for the right reason is key. If you add anything to it either through the front or back doors of justification then it is not justification at a point in time and results in a heretical works gospel of justification regardless of negative or positive Scriptures.
1 John is written to believers so it absolutely cannot be written to give assurance of salvation, same as James and all other Epistles. Rarely do Epistles discuss scenarios which address unbelievers and when they do it is not discussing them as though unbelievers are in their midst.
Again, be careful never to let more complicated Scriptures interpret less complicated Scriptures.
The Gospel is that Christ died for sins, was buried, was resurrected, and was seen in the flesh by hundreds of believers before going back to heaven. Implied in this is that we are sinners in need of a Savior and that Christ is qualified to be that Savior. He actually died, physically, and He was raised from the dead in bodily form.
You have many times said that whoever believes John 3:16 is saved, so I'm not sure why you're saying now that a person has to understand the doctrine of justification to be saved. Interesting.
Suffice it to say that all of this comes back to what I perceive you to be saying regarding sin, that the believer can live a life of sin and may never change one iota over a lifetime. When you say on a blog that you cannot out-sin God and leave it at that, you should expect someone to say something about it. If you had also said that grace is not license and His will for us is to be conformed to the image of Christ, then I probably wouldn't have said anything.
I believe the same power that saves is the same power that sanctifies. Therefore, the Holy Spirit will work in and through us. There will be change. Granted, it's different from person to person, but there will be change.
Okay, nuff said. I'll let you have last word…
1 John is the fortress for the doctrine of perseverance. The argument goes that John is giving a test for salvation. LS never say that a “true believer” will lose salvation but that “believers” failing John’s test never were believers. But 1 John is a test of fellowship of eternal life abiding as we abide and it speaks of moments, times when we fail to abide. He calls his reader brothers and children of God.
1 John 3:8-9 is typically used to bolster the test of life principle. The Greek verb tense caused some translations to add “keep on” or “practices” in 3:9. The same verb tense is used in 1 John 1:8 and 5:16 without the “keep on” … otherwise 5:16 would read “If any one sees his brother “keep on” committing a sin,”… but they already made 3:9 say that no believer can “keep on” sinning. See a problem? This also creates a conflict with Paul —Romans 7:19 “For I do not do the good I want, but the EVIL I DO NOT WANT IS WHAT I KEEP ON DOING.” (Emphasis added). Clearly neither John nor Paul is using “keep on doing” to refer to a test of salvation. Paul knew he was justified. 1 John 3:8-9 is not fundamentally teaching anything different than Romans chapters 5-7 — the shift from being in Adam to being in Christ. Paul can distinguish his own evil doing from the new nature in Christ. The regenerate nature by itself can’t subdue the old sin nature without relying on the Holy Spirit. This is how Christ lived in obedience. John says “abide in Him”, Paul says “in Christ”. John uses the pronoun “he who sins”, Paul says “It’s no longer I that sins.” Paul says the sin is of the flesh, John says the sinning is of the Devil. Not one thing to do with proof of justification. If you deny the two natures of the believer this is easy to miss. Christ had two natures did He not? Deity/man. Believers do too; old creature/new creature. Having two natures hardly gives license to sin. The wages of sin is death and yes Romans 6:23 is speaking to believers; it’s not the good news to unbelievers, the unbelievers are left back in Chapter 4. Romans 6:12-16 seems like a moot point if it were not a possible for the flesh to continue in sin. Believers who sow to sin and become its slave do so at their own peril; which is not hell! Also see Eph 2:1-6 (in Christ) then 4:17-32 (In Christ-avoid flesh).
So, when John says if we walk in the light we have fellowship with each other and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, that means if we walk in darkness we are no longer cleansed from sin? If he's talking to believers, then he's saying believers can either walk in light or darkness, and when the believer walks in darkness his sins are not cleansed. Hence, the confession of sins? This is not at all what Paul teaches. With Paul, it's either light (salvation) or darkness (the domain of Satan). The believer is translated into the light.
Two natures? Absolutely. But Paul does not commend to us the struggle of Romans 7. It was a state that he found himself in when he tried to apply the Law, but he realized that Christ had freed him from it, so he no longer had to struggle. He reckoned the old man dead; therefore, the struggle ended. As soon as we try to rely on the flesh, the struggle ensues and we lose. The worst thing we can do is focus on the sin because the sin is of the old man who we are to reckon dead.
The shift from being in Adam to being in Christ is a one-time event. It's permanent. Therefore, when John speaks of abiding and that we only abide as we keep His commandments, I don't see that as synonymous with being in Christ.
As for 1 John being a favorite of LS proponents, I have no clue because I've never ascribed to LS. But from what you're saying, I've been taught LS without knowing it. All I know is that the term itself sounds stupid.
<div id="idc-comment-msg-div-1001101487" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1001101487)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstandupforthetruth.com%2F2015%2F10%2Fchristianity-and-civil-disobedience%2F%23IDComment1001099267#IDComment1001101487&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Christianity%20and%20Civil%20Disobedience%20-%20Stand%20Up%20For%20The%20Truth" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1001101487)">Close MessagePaul (legalism) and John (license) are both talking about the struggle with the flesh. The shift from being in Adam to being in Christ IS a one-time event but it is what gives us two natures. Believers can either walk in light or darkness that’s why we are command to walk in light. The believer is translated into the kingdom light but is still tempted as we sojourn in the kingdom where Satan is ruler.
Believers are not cleansed of sin until confessed.
Jn 13:8-11— The “bathing” of the entire individual (at justification) must be followed with the occasional “washing” (in sanctification) in order to maintain “part” (close, communal fellowship) with Christ. (1Pet 1:22-23, 1Cor 6:9-11)
Jn 15:3— Positionally they had been forgiven of all their sins. Clearly they are already in union with Christ. The issue is not whether they are in union with Him. The issue is whether they are in communion with Him.
Jn 15:4—Jesus is telling those already in union with Him to remain in fellowship with Him. Union is positional but communion is experiential. The Bible is teaching that those who already have union with Christ must meet the condition of abiding in order to bear fruit.
We have probably exhausted all fruitful dialogue at this point. You are arguing LS.. You are not alone. Until we meet again, every blessing.
Absolutely, you're right. The Corinthians were committing those sins listed in vv 9-10. You say that 9a is referring to unbelievers (standing). Exactly. Then, in 9b-10, Paul lists some sins that characterize the unbelievers, the unrighteous, as he terms it. That's exactly what I said. The unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom of God (eternal life and all that goes with it).
If unbelievers, who will not inherit, live such lives (state), then how is it becoming of the believers to also indulge in such evil practices (state)? If unbelief (standing) is characterized by such behaviors (state), then we shouldn't walk as the Gentiles walk (state).
Because, v. 11, the believers were washed, sanctified, justified (standing), they should no longer be characterized by those lifestyles (state) of the unrighteous (standing). Does this mean the justified Corinthians are now sinless? Absolutely not. There are carnal Christians and there are spiritual Christians. How long it takes to go from glory to glory, it's not up to me to say.
What I see Eph 4:17-19 saying—Believers, do not walk as unbelievers or you believers will suffer these same things as unbelievers. You will be darkened in your understanding, excluded from the life of God because of your ignorance and hardness of heart. You believers will become callous, giving yourselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
It sounds like you're saying that the believer can go back to being dead in trespasses and sins. "Excluded from the life of God" cannot be speaking of the believer, no matter how carnal. Justification means we are in Christ and there is life only in Christ. There is no life outside of Christ. To be excluded from life would mean not in Christ. Again, it looks like Paul is contrasting the dismal existence of the unbeliever with the glory of the believer.
The language here is also similar to that of Romans 1 where God indicts the Gentile/heathen world.
Is sin darkness? Are you without sin? Are you walking in the light when you sin? Is your life of God while you are sinning? Are the wages (daily rations) of sin death? Do you not reap death when you sin?
Berlorac you consistently conflated justification and sanctification and you put every mention of life and death into the context of heaven or hell. This is not scriptural but very religious.
Look at what you said [there is life only in Christ. There is no life outside of Christ. To be excluded from life would mean not in Christ]. That’s what I am saying. But I mean condition and you are thinking position. Unbelievers are positionally and conditionally dead. Believers who are positionally alive ought not to walk as if they were positionally dead because they risk becoming conditionally dead (of the vine). Read my comments again, what I quoted from you sums up what I am saying. Thank you.
Not directing this at anyone in particular in this thread.
I believe that rationalism, which can invade theology just as much as other means of perception, tends to skew our interpretation of much of Scripture because "it just doesn't make sense when Scripture says this and this and this." As I have stated before (I say this kindly and not out of frustration), Scripture which is most clear should be used to frame up the interpretation of more complex Scripture. This is irrefutable, else you slide down the slippery slope of God contradicting Himself and forcing Scripture to fit a theology vs revealing theology.
Remember that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, in addition to many, many additional commands. If we were naturally inclined to do these things after being justified in Christ, then why would we be commanded vs simply told this is what we do? If we, in Christ, are going to mature automatically via some divine schema vs having to decide for ourselves that we will follow the Lord, then how do you account for any sin whatsoever, etc…. These are uncomfortable questions for the many Calvinists I have spoken with (I have attended Calvinist churches for the past 6 years so I understand a good bit of the theology and jargon).
We must be careful to use Biblical thought, which is not as we would normally think through our fleshly rationalism. It is hard for us to accept that Christ did it all and there is nothing through the front or back door we can do to prove or obtain justification before the Father. When you read Calvin's institutes, there is so much rhetoric and rationalization that Scripture is often veiled and obscured in the name of what he thinks makes sense per Augustine and others that influenced him. When you look into what pushed Calvin to write those institutes and what colored them through the years after challenges by the RCC, you get a feel for why they read the way they do. They are reactions, swinging the proverbial pendulum well too far the other way to satisfy those with heretical doctrine. A lot of the Scripture quoted by Calvin to support his Institutes is questionable in its applicability and appropriateness.
It is easy to think that because we are new creatures in Christ that we would necessarily behave differently, but if that were the case, then all the commands and help we receive from the H.S. and Christ as our Advocate would be in vain. I don't think everyone would be interested in me going on and on about the problems of reformed theology, but I am always happy to answer questions.
In conclusion, don't get bogged down in rationalism; let Scripture interpret Scripture and when a simpler Scripture appears to contradict the rational conclusion of a more complex Scripture, the simpler Scripture wins and is to be used to interpret the more complex. If John 3:16 results in huge debate over whether God loves everyone, Christ died (spiritually) through the imputation of all sin, etc…, then you must question whether more complex Scripture has tainted your understanding.
I agree with you intenseflana. If you have specific feedback for anything I have written I certainly would value your input. I am not infallible, I certainly could have misspoken. My comments are not attacks on individuals but it appears they have been perceived as such.
If anyone who reads this thread believes that what I have written in any way promotes an exchange of reward for sinful ways or encourages sin, confess sin, confess, no problem theology, then please reread carefully what I have written. Justification is a free gift not an exchange. We know we are justified by knowing what Christ has done for us.
Again, if anyone wants to twist what I have written into permission to “live it up” please have the decency to back up your claim scripturally and confront me in brotherly love. Scripture does not treat sin and death lightly; neither did I.
Hey rascott247, not at all….just good discussion amongst believers who care about rightly dividing the Word of Truth right?
I am just glad to see folks are willing to put forth arguments from Scripture and their intellect God gave them vs. platitudes and cliches.
Hope to hear more from you on other topics.
Just because the same word is used in multiple locations does not make the interpretation of the meaning of that word the same in each instance. This is a meaning transfer fallacy which is common amongst many who think knowing the Greek is the window to clarification of their hermeneutic. I am not saying this is your stance, but it is with many.
Remember, simpler Scripture must be used to interpret other Scripture which is more complex and may even seem contradictory (which cannot be of course).
I'm starting with the context and then I checked the Greek to be sure what the translators had done. I'm not relying on the Greek alone.
It is very important to understand how Paul uses words, which may be different than how some of the other writers used the same words. When Paul speaks of inheritance, it is used to speak of the gift of grace in all but one occurrence; in that once instance it is used to speak of reward. I'm not going to throw out the numerous times he uses it as a gift just because he uses it once for reward.
Inheritance is used by Paul as part of our justification in the broadest sense. All who are justified are children of God and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Colossians 1:12-13 tell us that the Father has given us an inheritance; He delivered us from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of His beloved Son. This is already accomplished; it is a gift, not a reward. The kingdom includes all that is godly, righteous, and joyful in the Holy Spirit.
Now, the contrast. In speaking to believers in Ephesus, Paul says that the inheritance is part and parcel with salvation in Christ (chapter 1), but in chapter 5, he says that the impure have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. Let no one deceive you: the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience. He's not talking about wayward Christians here. Christians will not come under wrath of God.
I'm not sure why you're saying that I'm taking the simple and making it complex. I, of course, see it the other way around. Paul is making it very simple concerning what inheritance is and what the kingdom is.
Ok let's stick with one instance…Gal 5:19-21 where I believe you are saying that Paul is using inheritance here for entrance into the Kingdom. Fair enough?
Ok, I agree that different writers of Scripture can use the same Greek word in different ways, but context always overrides all.
You still cannot avoid the fact that if you are saying one cannot live with God forever if he continues in adultery after salvation, or begins adultery after salvation, are you saying some sins are more sinful than others to disqualify one from being a believer? I believe you enter a very murky field of ambiguity when you go down this road.
If you say the above isn't the case, then you are making my case that inheritance does not mean entrance in this context. Then what are you left with?
Thanks for your graciousness, my friend!
The premise is that Galatians 5:21 is the apex of the contrast between those who practice sin (prasso — habitually commit) and those who have the Spirit. Those who habitually sin will not inherit the kingdom (because they are unbelievers and this is where you and I differ); those who have the Spirit have inherited the kingdom.
I think the problem you and I are running into is that I believe that the Holy Spirit will not fail to accomplish what He is here for: to teach us all things and to glorify Christ. At some point, the believer will yield to the Spirit, will walk by the Spirit, and thus not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (again, not in perfection, but from glory to glory). *How long* that will take is what is unknown. If the sin is habitual, if there is no change, then it is manifest that that person may not be a believer. "Those who are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts thereof."
The problem is, you and I don't know how long is too long to keep on sinning; we don't know what God knows about that person. Paul seemed to know, at least regarding some (false) professors, but he was Apostle and we're not. Haha.
I should add here that the prasso (habitually commit) is present continuous tense, with the meaning that they are in the habit of doing these things and are characterized by these things. While the believer can, and does, fall into these things sometimes, he is not in the habit of doing so. We see this in the next chapter where Paul speaks of the believer who 'falls into" sin, that he should be restored. In that verse, the sin is not pursued, but rather the believer is overtaken, or has stumbled; it is not habitual or continuous. He recognizes it and wants to get out of it. In contrast, those of 5:19-21 have made a lifestyle in sin; it's continuous.
If you believe the H.S. will not fail to teach us all things, then you are advocating perseverance of the saints, the 5th point of Calvinism's 5 points in TULIP.
With all due respect, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that there are no works to salvation, then insert works as a condition of proof of salvation because then there is no assurance of salvation and you negate God's promise of salvation in John 3:16.
Additionally, the point of discussion here is inheritance vs entrance into the Kingdom.
At the end of the day (and I have gotten 5 point, High-Calvinists to admit this) if someone says they are a believer, then you treat them as such and hold them to that standard. Salvation is between then and God, but their life as a believer is between them, God and the Church (in terms of holding brothers accountable).
I agree, except for your third paragraph. With respect to the rest, I think you're making a leap to say that lack of proof of salvation through works leads to no assurance of salvation. Assurance is evidenced between the believer and God as His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
My only caution in this discussion is that if you're going to teach Grace, don't stop with the statement that you can't out-sin God. I understand what you mean by it, but if you leave it there without also stating that Grace is our teacher in all things — doctrine and love and the fruit that is borne therefrom — you may stumble some who see your statement as license. That's all I was saying. Apparently, I was clumsy with my words and for that, I apologize. And we may still not agree, but that's okay with me.
I agree that "Lordship salvation" is a false teaching. I think the expression itself is redundant. All who are justified are pleased to call Him Lord, but we do not "make Him Lord." In fact, He is Lord of all.
But Grace is not license. Saying that [You cannot out-sin God…] is skating dangerously close to the edge, is it not? I agree that all my sins are forgiven, but we must be careful that we do not trample the blood of Christ, that we do not think that sin can abound just because Grace much more abounds. Forbid the thought!, Paul says.
Amen!
Should sin (may it never be) and could sin (but of course we can and we have an Advocate in Christ if we do per 1 John 2:1) must be carefully discerned here. Don't confuse the two.
Additionally, remember that one of the key principles of hermeneutics, second only to context, is that the most clearly interpretable Scripture should be used to help interpret more complext Scripture (and we know Scripture has levels of understanding because of Hebrews 6:1 and 2 Peter 3:16, the also follow the change in what Christ taught the Twelve as His ministry unfolded).
Regarding Lordship Salvation, I applaud your honesty here…many adherents (not saying you are of course) will never be honest about it.
However, you cannot have one and not the other. You cannot say you are not in favor of Lordship Salvation (essentially Calvinism) and say we are in danger of "something" if we sin at will after believing in Christ. What you do after salvation does not have a bearing on your eternal security. If it does, then your theology naturally implies a works salvation and is heresy. Be careful here.
You cannot take more complex Scripture and use it to interpret Scripture that is more clear. If you negate John 3:16 with 1 John 5:1, then you are perverting Scripture interpretive principles.
We must rightly divide the Word of God.
I am of course open to more discussion on this.
To clarify, I'm not saying that Christians are in danger of losing salvation, or however you want to term it. The same Spirit who regenerated us, who washed us, who sanctified us, who justified us, is the same Spirit who is continuing to sanctify us. It is all of Grace. This does not mean, though, that we must do nothing. Rather, we must yield to the Spirit if we are to experience in this life what God has for us. The inheritance is a done deal, but how we experience life on this planet depends on whether we yield to the Spirit.
Now, if the Holy Spirit dwells in us, then He is taking us from glory to glory and transforming us into the image of Christ. All I'm saying is that it is dangerous to say that it doesn't matter how much or for how many decades we sin against the Spirit. The purpose of the Spirit is to glorify Christ. What we should be doing is taking every opportunity to teach believers the deeper truths of His Grace, which lead to the transforming of the mind, which leads to the transforming of behavior, which further glorifies Christ. And I'm not talking perfection here. No, the flesh still exists, but if we are led by the Spirit, we will not satisfy the flesh.
When I hear you say that you can't out-sin the grace of God, I only hear Paul's words: Forbid the thought! Paul knew those who professed to know God but who were not known of God; they were not believers even though they professed belief. How did Paul know they were not believers? By their works (Titus 1:16). Again, I'm not saying that "fruit inspection" is to be our focus; however, Paul does not say that these professors are Christians simply because they made that profession (John 3:16, as you say). Paul sees that their works are in contradiction to their profession and so declares that they are unbelievers.
Can you clarify the man at the wedding supper who entered yet was asked, friend who let you in? And then he's thrown out where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth…………
Matthew 22:12
Rascott, intenseflana? Maybe I'll take it and someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.
The context is Judaism and Phariseeism and if you go back to 21:43-46, it helps to see that Yeshua had told them that because the Jews had not borne fruit in keeping with faith and because they rejected Him, the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to the Gentiles (cf. Romans 11). Yeshua then tells another parable.
The illustration is of the kingdom of heaven (the kingdom that will come on earth that was promised to Israel). Israel had been visited by prophets, but the people would not heed them. Then, God sends more servants and has made everything ready. This is speaking of the time of Yeshua's ministry. Had Israel repented at that point, even up to the point of Stephen's martyrdom, Yeshua would have set up the kingdom. However, the people didn't listen. Then, God sent the Roman armies to sack the city. Then, He says to the believers (this is our time) to gather as many as we can find. This is the Gospel going out to the Gentiles.
The time of the wedding arrives and in comes a Jew, or a legalist, who thinks that he can get in. This is a slap on the face of the Pharisees to whom Yeshua is giving this illustration. They had thought that because they kept the Law and because they were descendants of Abraham, this would give them the wedding garments they need. But Yeshua says no. He calls the man Friend, indicating that He is familiar with this man. This is because the man is a Jew.
The man is tossed out because he did not come in by faith. Many hear the Gospel but few are chosen. We can't infer from this illustration that there will be a day in heaven when a bunch of Jews or legalists come in and then they get booted out. This is only an illustration. But the implication is that many people think they are saved but they are not. The Jews, particularly, think they have the way in because they have the Law and the oracles of God, but Paul tells us that righteousness is not by the Law. Only those who by faith believe the Father concerning His Son will have the proper wedding garments.
Concerning Titus 1:16, there is nothing in that passage about whether folks are saved from hell or not…this is dealing with false teachers, etc…. I believe you are making a false conclusion here because it sounds like it fits preconceived theology. Again, don't let more complicated passages distort that which is clear (John 3:16).
Many are saved and teaching falsely because either they do not know better, or choose to for other reasons. Again, if they have believed the Gospel, they are saved….period. What they do afterward is worth of inspection because if they are conducting themselves as Paul addresses in the passage, they need to be handled accordingly, but it has no bearing on whether they are saved from hell.
Concerning out-sinning God, we cannot, but we of course should not test the Lord nor ignore His mandates. Those that do either will fall under Heb 12 for discipline as children to their Father. God has both covered.
When the Catholics challenged in the mid-1500s that how can salvation by grace alone without works be biblical and said how will you keep folks from sinning willy-nilly, the response should have been that God will handle them via discipline in Heb12 , but what happened is that man created a solution based on rationalism in that they that conduct themselves as such would not be truly saved. This is man's rational, not God's.
I agree that Paul is referring to false teachers in Titus 1:16, but the point was that he was showing them to be false professors as evidenced by their works. They profess to know God, but by their works (teaching false doctrines for gain) they deny Him. In verse 15, he calls them unbelieving.
That's pretty strong language Paul uses. Paul seems to say that they are unbelievers, but you say they are believers because they made a profession of faith in Christ. I made a profession when I was 9, but that didn't make me a believer. John 3:16 was the verse I used, in fact. But here's the thing, I didn't know a thing about who Jesus was, what a cross was, or what resurrection means. I didn't know what Easter (so-called) was about until I was saved when I was almost 30 years old. So, no a profession at 9 that I believed in Jesus did not save me.
I know personal anecdote means nothing in the context of expounding Scripture, but I thought I'd throw it out there as illustration. I just can't agree with you that anyone who says they believe in Jesus is saved. I think it's a little more than that. What Jesus? The Mormon Jesus, the JW Jesus? Or, are you saying those who believe in a Mormon or JW Jesus are saved, just a little confused?
berlorac, thank you so much for posting this concept, specifically on "Lordship salvation." I once attended a church where the associate pastor was teaching the teenagers that they must confess that Jesus is their Lord, or "boss", to be saved. I nearly fell over! The term "Lord" doesn't mean "boss", but instead attests to Jesus' full Deity as God the Son.
I always use The Lord and the apostles as an example, how did they behave.
Manny, this is a good guide, but not necessarily the way to go about applying Scripture. There are portions of Scripture which are descriptive (e.g. say 99.9% of Acts), then portions which are prescriptive (e.g. Romans through Revelation and some portions of the Gospels and some areas of Genesis chapters 1-11). We should be careful to discern between behavior and commands. Just some thoughts to noodle on.
Lastly, I would also see the book of Daniel as a great example of how to live as a believer in a pagan world. Believers who think they need to put their kids in a Christian bubble all their growing years could learn a lot from Daniel.
Agreed, my take is Christians don't promote violence, I will object to any law that tries to trample scripture, I would rather quit than be held to a point or command that I know is unbiblical. I will not raise a sword at Caesar, I will not create mayhem, as Paul did I can appeal to Caesar lawfully to defend my view. I can use my rights as a citizen as Paul did, I will not take the law upon my hands. Eventually all the apostles were murdered for their faith, John was sent to Patmos for a purpose, there he was able to write down the book of Revelation to show us what is to come. Here we are today, slowly being led into Revelation.
Understood and we should keep it simple. Whatever laws are available we should use; unfortunately, we usually do not use whatever rights and laws we already have to negate a lot of the thinking that leads to laws which directly contradict Scripture, then we end up having to make these decisions on the back end.
This has been covered already, pointedly within the topic of Mrs. Davis's jailing over her refusal to do her job. I suggest those interested in the discussion go back and read the comments made in those posts as it was covered quite extensively concerning when believers are to disobey authority.