So what now? Is there still sin? I mean, say I decide to take God at His Word (as you describe it here), do I still sin? And if I do, what do I do about that?
Forgiven
- Thread starter newnature
- Start date
So what now? Is there still sin? I mean, say I decide to take God at His Word (as you describe it here), do I still sin? And if I do, what do I do about that?
When Paul says putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, he is talking about the whole body, the whole sin debt, all of our sins are sins cut off from us!
All our sins from the front of our life, to the back of our life, they have been completely cut away from us through the cutting off, the circumcision, actually the death of Jesus Christ, never to be joined to us again; another wards, God can no longer see them.
God no longer sees us in our identification with sin, since the initial point of our belief, he sees us in our identification with his son, all the sins Christ died for are sins which are forever dead in their ability to stand between the sinner and the Savior.
No matter how the world comes down on us or how the world views us, how our friends view us or cease viewing us, God views us in a way which is incomprehensible to the world.
We are not in the process of becoming something new and different, we are not even in an instantaneously cleaned up version of the former creation, we are not a sinless version of who we once were, we are at the very instance of our belief, a brand new creation, God sees us in a brand new way.
In the fact that it is called a new creation, it tells us this new creation, as God sees it, is not an extension of some former creation. In other wards, we are not an extension of believing Israel time past carried on over in some spiritual form to the age of grace, can not be.
We are not now, nor will we ever be spiritual Israel, God has designed believers to be a brand new unique organism operating as a living breathing manifestation of Christ’s Body right here on planet earth.
We are not called to be saints, we are called saints, sainthood is not earned at all. It is not something to be sought after as though it could be attained to or something that only comes for a select few. According to the apostle Paul, we have how much forgiveness, total forgiveness.
God knows what his son accomplished on our behalf where all of our sin debt is concerned and he is satisfied that all of that sin has already been judge on his son, leaving no judgment for us where our sin is concerned.
Justification is a legal act, wherein God deems the sinner righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. Justification is not a process, but is a one-time act, complete and definitive.
In Romans, we learn God could not declare us to be right on the bases of who and what we are from the practical standpoint of our lives; we are everything but perfectly right. God could only declare us to be right on the bases of who and what he is, not on the bases of who and what we would be apart from him.
The only way God could declare us right in his sight is to join us, to actually immerse us into the only one who ever was perfectly just through performance, and that was Jesus Christ himself.
God had to devise a way to see us that way, and the way he devised to do that was by joining us to, hiding us in our perfectly righteous savior, thus freely crediting to our account Christ righteousness.
Freedom from God’s condemnation is a reality for every single believer, not because of any new found performance capabilities, but because we are made the righteousness of God in our union with his perfectly righteous son.
On top of that, everything necessary to prove to us beyond any shadow of doubt, and to prove to Satan and his rebellious forces that we are totally secure in our union with God’s son, we need nothing more, God supplied every need already.
There were a lot of people in Paul’s day and in our day trying to earn their righteousness before God by way of their performance. They thought God would measure their do’s and don’ts and thought they were actually measuring up. God would considered them righteous worthy of his attendance, worthy of being in heaven.
In fact, they were bragging, boasting about their achievements as though God could do nothing other than to declare them righteous because they deserved just such a declaration. Paul warned to guard against those who would promote a righteousness through performance idea.
It is up to those of the world to either accept or reject their redeemer, but that does no less make him their redeemer. When we accept our redeemer and the price he paid, the ransom he paid, then we are joined to Christ and we have his righteousness attributed to our account.
Those who reject the gift are thumbing their noses at the one who died to paid that price for their redemption. The price was paid for all, and through that payment Christ redeemed the entire human race from the sin barrier that separated the world from God. It is now a son issue, not a sin issue.
Will those of the world accept or reject the payment Christ made for their redemption? Those who reject their redeemer will face the ultimate consequences of that rejection. God did for us what we could never do for ourselves, he took all of our performance off of us and put it onto Jesus Christ and judged him for our faulty performance.
The only thing God is asking us to believe to be placed into his son, is to take him at his word concerning what his son did where our sin debt is concerned. The instance we take our stand with God, we are not only saved, but sealed until the day of redemption of these earthly tents in which we dwell.
Flesh wants to say if I broke it, I can fix it. God is not asking us to turn from anything to be saved, he is asking us to believe Christ accomplished salvation for us and we are simply to believe it. Christ did it all, there is nothing left for us to do. God did all the giving, we do only all the receiving. Faith is taking God at his word concerning what his son did on our behalf.
Our fleshly production did not gain us our identity in Christ and it certainly can not gain us heaven, Christ accomplished that for us. If the works of our flesh did not contribute to getting us saved, how can the works of the flesh play a part in keeping us saved.
TheLibertonian
New Member
Nooo I'm taking it from a theological point of view. I've studied theology. it's part of studying history and I think it's an important part of the whole dealybin.
The baptist christian would seem very very different to say, a medieval serf christian. Not just due to the whole Catholicism thing.
Genesis 3:14-15 - What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive figures of speech? It is the same with the other figures used in versus 14, “On thy belly shalt thou go”. This figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan’s ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. Ps. 44:25 denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words?
PsyOps
Pixelated
I don't know what sort of 'theology' taught you that Satan was any different throughout the bible - from Genesis to Revelation. The same 'beast' (serpent) in Genesis 3 is the same 'beast' in Revelation. It is the evil that lives in this world.
Last edited:
TheLibertonian
New Member
Except, no. The idea that the serpent is satan is directly from paradise lost, and only gained popularity after the book hit it big. Prior to that the serpent was just another odd job demon. Honestly I'm not going to be able to explain it well enough so I suggest seeking out a rabbi, actually.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Last edited:
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Yeah but that's in Revelation, not Genesis. Canaanites had snake cults that emphasized wisdom and knowledge, and the Hebrews were surrounded by them. It's quite possible that the serpent in Genesis is in reference to these cults, and although I don't have a problem with that it would turn most people's most basic notion of Genesis and the Fall completely upside down. The time period between Genesis and Revelation is a lot. Although the serpent in both Genesis and Revelation takes on a similar role (kind of but not really), one probably shouldn't assume that the ideologies behind a symbol remain the same throughout time and cultural influences. After all, the serpent that Moses was associated with in both Exodus and Numbers wasn't Satan (I certainly hope not, if so we have big issues).
TheLibertonian
New Member
Again, you need to talk to a Rabbi. And again, in Christendom the idea of the serpent being Satan, while an old idea, was not universally accepted and that Satan was "THE devil" and not merely "a devil" is also very recent.
PsyOps
Pixelated
The ‘serpents’ in Exodus and Numbers are obviously snakes; not THE serpent (the deceiver or liar) in Genesis. Although the tie is ‘sin’ and God putting snakes on the ground to bite those that sinned against God. In that light, people have used snakes as a symbol to show their power over sin that even snakes won’t harm them.
We love to complicate things; perhaps another success of this ‘serpent’ (deceiver). But, referenced in Revelation is this ‘ancient serpent’ also known as a dragon, Satan, the devil, the beast. The same deceiver that deceived Adam and Eve, is the same that would deceive the entire world. No Christian can deny that this deceiver (regardless of what you call it) has existed from the very beginning of man’s existence. It represent the evil in this world; the evil that separates us from God.
PsyOps
Pixelated
No I don't; and it's pretty condescending for you to assume who I need to talk to.
I'm not suggesting 'the devil' is 'a devil'. I am suggesting that 'the devil' is 'the serpent' in Genesis, as well in Revelation; a representation of evil. Evil is the antithesis of God. God chose to use the term 'serpent' to convey this. I do not believe it was a literal snake/serpent. We're talking about diametrically opposed concepts: Good and Evil. In the bible 'God' is synonymous with 'good'. In the bible, the first indication of 'evil' was with this 'serpent' that caused the original sin: rebellion against God; separation from God. This evil comes to fruition in revelation with mention of this same 'serpent'; also called Satan, the Devil; also called a 'Beast'. All represent 'EVIL' that has existed from the very beginning.
TheLibertonian
New Member
Did you know that there was a dualist religion that rose almost the same time as Christianity? It lost out to Catholicism, but it was big. It stated that the world was black and white, divided into "good" forces and 'evil" forces.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I hope you didn't get bit jumping that shark.
TheLibertonian
New Member
What? I'm being serious. There was a massive contender for #1 religion in europe and the near east and it was based around a dualist philosophical view of the world.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Great! Start a thread on it.
TheLibertonian
New Member
My point is that absolutism you were just spouting is more akin to that religion then the one that beat it out.
Radiant1
Soul Probe
The only point trying to be made to you (and perhaps not well) is that there are cultural influences on the way people understand scripture. It's highly likely that our modern imagery of Satan stems from Paradise Lost as much as our imagery of hell stems from the plagued Middle Ages. Even the notion of Satan evolves throughout scripture itself. It's ok to acknowledge as much. It doesn't make you any less of a believer in the Word of God to do so.
There were various gnostic sects at the time of the early church, but the main one was Manicheism and many a current Church Father wrote against them. Interestingly, Augustine was a Manichean before he converted to Catholicism which is why you will find a great deal of influence as well as polemic against the sect in his writings. Gnosticism was a then throw-back to the ancient snake cults of the region with wisdom and dualism being the major flavor. We see it raising it's head again here and there in the common era through the writings of Blavatsky, Jung, and all kinds of neo-pagan and esoteric sundries. Maybe it's this pervasive cult that is "Satan", at least that's one way it can be interpreted...whether simple or not.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Do you agree evil and good exist? Are they not absolutes? In God's eyes, is there an in-between?
Last edited:
TheLibertonian
New Member
Now we're getting into tricky theological ground. Do I agree that there are things I find absolutely abhorrent and would never do? Yes. In that manner there are absolute lines I draw that I will not cross, no matter the situation.
Do I believe the universe gives a flying turd? No.
As for the Christian theology...thou shalt not kill. And yet the crusaders burned, pillaged, and raped their way right into the heart of the holy land. Not all of them, no, but enough of them, because many were peasants and serfs.
See, this is a major schism between most Protestantism and the Catholics. A catholic believes that a good person, who does good things, who is kind and not cruel, who lives selflessly, even if they don't believe in god, can still make it to heaven. They just go through purgatory first.
To many protestants, this is an impossibility; the only way to god is through grace, through the belief in Christ. Good works don't make a spot of difference either way. It does not matter if you're the kindest most charitable man on earth, if you help the sick and the poor and the hungry, all that matters is faith.
That's a pretty massive theological gap. And as a third party, I find myself much in favor of the catholic theology. The protestant one favors black and white. Their are the saved, and everyone else. That's why protestants evangelize so hard, and Catholics not so much.
Studying history has made me realize that humanity is far to complex to simply label it "good" or "evil".