What is sin?

[dseusy]

Benstenson,

The tone of my voice in my head as I write this is caring and concerned (I don't want you to pick these words up as harsh, or a knowledge battle, etc.).

I'm picking up a few contradictions from your statements...

If the commands are a light burden, why do we fail at them and have to ask for repentance?

If flesh isn't wicked, why does it lust against the Spirit?

If the new covenant has laws, what makes it new? The old covenant was one of law, but there was a need for a better one... one of humbly receiving a free gift of righteousness.

You stated, "God's commands will be fulfilled when they are being obeyed." This is a legalistic statement (a lawful statement).

Ezekiel 20:13,21; Ezekiel 33:19; Romans 10:5

"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." Galatians 3:10-12

Concerning Romans 7, I agree with you that because something is hard to understand doesn't mean it isn't true... my concern is the interpretation you presented- it broke commonly accepted rules of interpretation and fails to consider the "chapter's" context (we understand that chapters are not separating content) from the material surrounding it and the material within- which is upheld by the rest of the Bible. The legalist in Romans 7 was sold under sin, just as I am today (just flesh). The flesh of a Christian bears fruit from the Holy Spirit, but is sold under sin- not in that it ONLY sins, but in that it fails to be lawful/perfect and so continues in sin throughout its life- which is supported by your need for continual repentance. An instrument of righteousness is to be played by a righteous "musician"... the Spirit.

I do believe I can obey God- I receive Jesus' righteousness. I walk boldly before His throne because the curtain has been torn, and my holiness no longer depends on my performance under any law- it was given to me as a gift. However, I know that nothing good dwells in the flesh, it profits nothing, I am cursed if I make it my strength, it is weak, it will not be justified in His sight under law, it cannot inherit incorruption, I cannot be made perfect by it, it lusts against the Spirit (it is not neutral, it is wretched), I should not wrestle against it, I should put no confidence in it, and it is filthy.

Who said Paul himself was an unconverted sinner when he wrote the letter to Rome?

You stated: "Romans 7 is describing a selfish person, not a loving person. An unconverted sinner, not a holy person." I was stating that in the midst of what you call a description of an unconverted sinner was righteousness.

Can you give me an example of a metaphorical use of the word 'flesh' in the Bible?

We are conformed to the law of the Spirit of life/ the law of Christ by faith- we are justified by faith alone, and true faith produces works as fruit of the Spirit. Faith without works is dead, but it is the faith that works.

We can't walk in the law of the spirit of life and sin at the same time. We can only sin by turning away from the law of the spirit of life. No one can walk after the Spirit and sin at the same time.

As I consider your statement here, I have a question for you... who are you? Who are you, really? This is a deep question- think carefully about the biblical answer.

God's Word divides between what is of the flesh and what is of the spirit. Hebrews 4:12

The gift of mercy does not remove the present requirement of total obedience.

It isn't total obedience until you never fail. James 2:10

Benstenson, since you don't know me personally you may think I am a type of gnostic but I assure you- I am not. I hate sin and I uphold God's commands. I prefer to be practical, rather than intellectual. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. I exhort you to never fail to keep God's commands.

[benstenson]

If the commands are a light burden, why do we fail at them and have to ask for repentance?

That is what God wonders too.

“What more can I do for my vineyard beyond what I have already done?
When I waited for it to produce edible grapes, why did it produce sour ones instead?”
“My people, how have I wronged you? How have I wearied you? Answer me!”
“He waited for justice, but look what he got – disobedience!”

Accidental failure is not a transgression of the law of love. Deliberate failure, or failure that results from a selfish motive, is sin. Accidental failures are beyond our control. They often have logical explanations, such as physical or mental imperfection, or circumstances. But deliberate failure is not logical at all. It is just evil. We know that sin is selfishness, and we can explain exactly what selfishness is, but there is absolutely no logical reason to be selfish. Selfishness is moral insanity. Sin is unintelligent and unreasonable, not logical and explainable. Sin is definable, but not explainable. Serving God is logical and intelligent but sin is stupid and evil.

If flesh isn't wicked, why does it lust against the Spirit?

Our bodies have no understanding. They are just dirt and water. They were not designed to have understanding. That's what our mind is designed for. Our bodies were not designed to rule over us, but for us to rule over them. If we allow our bodies to rule over us then we are not being intelligent. It is good to have a body, but we must rule over our bodies to the extent we are able. We nourish and cherish our bodies, but we shouldn't do whatever they want. Sometimes they want things that are unlawful. It is because they don't understand. God deliberately designed our bodies to have no understanding so that we would have the opportunity to develop good moral character by overcoming bodily temptations. When our bodies desire something unlawful, they are still innocent. Jesus' body experienced desire for unlawful things. His body had desires that were contrary to the spirit. His body did not understand right and wrong, just like our bodies do not understand. There is nothing sinful about temptation. Temptation is not sin.

Alternately, one might take “the flesh” in that passage figuratively to mean the serving of the flesh, that is, selfishness or sinfulness. In that case, it is obvious that selfishness is contrary to being spiritual. Neither meaning would imply that dirt and water can have any good or bad moral quality.

If the new covenant has laws, what makes it new?

The old covenant provides no atonement but the new covenant does. We agree on this. But there is still law. A person will still go to hell for adultery or murder if they don't repent. This was true before Moses. Likewise it is true now after Moses. It would be true as the sky is blue if we never even heard of Moses.

The old covenant was one of law, but there was a need for a better one... one of humbly receiving a free gift of righteousness.

I agree, but not in the sense that we have no law at all now. The law was not the problem with the old covenant. Sin is the problem. The law is powerless to help a person who has sinned because it can only condemn and not pardon. It is not that a sinner is powerless to obey, they could obey. A sinner is powerless to atone for their own sin, and so is the law. The new covenant is greater than the law because it upholds the law while also providing pardon for the repentant. In the old covenant, God did grant pardon, but it was necessary that He publicly reveal His righteousness by upholding the spirit of the law through the atonement.

"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." Galatians 3:10-12

This is talking about people who have sinned. The law can not give us a fresh start to be righteous. Only faith in God's mercy through Jesus. So anyone who has sinned and tries to overcome their condemnation through the law instead of faith remains under the law's curse.

(Notice it does not say that sinners will live by faith – but righteous men. "he that doeth righteousness is righteous")

... the interpretation you presented- it broke commonly accepted rules of interpretation and fails to consider the "chapter's" context ... from the material surrounding it and the material within- which is upheld by the rest of the Bible.

I could say the same kinds of things.

The legalist in Romans 7 was sold under sin, just as I am today (just flesh). The flesh of a Christian bears fruit from the Holy Spirit, but is sold under sin- not in that it ONLY sins, but in that it fails to be lawful/perfect and so continues in sin throughout its life- which is supported by your need for continual repentance.

What sin can you not stop? It doesn't make sense to say that Gospel freedom includes continual sin simply because you have continually sinned until now. If we expect that we will sin then something is wrong – either a wrong idea of sin, a wrong heart, or, commonly, unbelief that God is ready, willing, and able to effectively lead us in righteousness.

I do believe I can obey God

Obedience implies commandments. We can obey His commandments.

[flesh] will not be justified in His sight under law,

This does not mean literal flesh/meat but simply human beings. In fact, the context is really groups of human beings, Jews vs Gentiles, who descended from different flesh biologically (though ultimately related). The Bible sometimes refers to mankind as “flesh” in order to contrast us all with God in a humbling way. For example: I will pour out my Spirit on all “flesh” - Jesus came in the likeness of sinful “flesh” - all “flesh” is like grass.

I should not wrestle against it

”but I beat my body and bring it into submission, lest by any means, after I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.”
”if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

and it is filthy.

Dirt cannot have any moral quality whatsoever. But we can pollute our bodies in various ways though unlawfully serving our flesh.

I was stating that in the midst of what you call a description of an unconverted sinner was righteousness.

Regarding Romans 7:16 - Agreeing that God's law is good and wanting to obey it is not an indication of righteousness. It is natural for a convicted man to agree with God's reasonable law and natural to desire the benefits of obedience to His law. It was not a result of righteousness. The mind naturally confirmed the truth of the law but the heart/intention was still submitted to self and inevitably producing outward sin.

Can you give me an example of a metaphorical use of the word 'flesh' in the Bible?

I was thinking of verses like Romans 7:5 “when we were in the flesh” and Romans 8:8 “they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

we are justified by faith alone

”justified by works and not by faith alone.” Righteousness is by faith and works, not just faith. Forgiveness is not by works.

true faith produces works … Faith without works is dead

What do you think is the difference (internally) between “faith” and “true faith”?

It isn't total obedience until you never fail. James 2:10

I think we are misunderstanding each other regarding my use of the phrase “total obedience”. All I meant was total present obedience. I did not mean total obedience in the past. If we are fulfilling the law in the present then we are presently obeying God. We have not completely obeyed God in the past, as we should have, but we can obey Him right now. Having disobeyed God in the past does not make total present obedience impossible. Nor does the mere ability to sin in the future take away the reality of present obedience.

you may think I am a type of gnostic but I assure you- I am not.

I don't think you are a gnostic. But the fact is that men successfully injected gnostic teachings into the church and many, like you and I, have believed it.

I prefer to be practical

What is less practical than believing a desired goal is impossible?

I exhort you to never fail to keep God's commands.

Do you exhort me to do the possible or the impossible?

[dseusy]

That is what God wonders too.

So the fact remains that we fail... and I can't see an omniscient God wondering- being astonished, or not being able to understand a mystery. I believe these verses show transgressed love, not God's bewilderment at our failure. Otherwise, why would "the saved" names be written in Christ's Book of Life? He certainly must have known we would be wicked and need saving, in order to plan this all in advance and foreknow us. This is not to give an excuse to sin, but to point out our condition in the context of His holiness.

We know that sin is selfishness, and we can explain exactly what selfishness is, but there is absolutely no logical reason to be selfish. Selfishness is moral insanity. Sin is unintelligent and unreasonable, not logical and explainable. Sin is definable, but not explainable. Serving God is logical and intelligent but sin is stupid and evil.

I agree that sin is evil and evil is foolish and I believe that is why we need a Savior.

The old covenant provides no atonement but the new covenant does. We agree on this. But there is still law. A person will still go to hell for adultery or murder if they don't repent. This was true before Moses. Likewise it is true now after Moses. It would be true as the sky is blue if we never even heard of Moses.

If there is still law, why does Paul and Jesus insist "it is finished"? If there is still law, there is still condemnation, otherwise the law is not truly righteous, just, or serious.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
Matthew 5:17

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts 13:38-39

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Romans 3:19

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:20

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets" Romans 3:21

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28

"Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more" Romans 5:20

"but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." Romans 9:31-33

"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." Galatians 2:16

"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
Galatians 2:21

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Galatians 3:2

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." Galatians 3:10


"But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
Galatians 3:11

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" Galatians 3:13a

"For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." Galatians 3:21b

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24

"Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" Philippians 3:8-9

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4



I believe repentance is a beginning and genuine heart condition, not a perpetual act of religious necessity.

"Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 2:38

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"
Acts 3:19

"Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."
2 Corinthians 7:10

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
2 Peter 3:9

"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God"
Hebrews 6:1

"if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
Hebrews 6:6

I agree, but not in the sense that we have no law at all now. The law was not the problem with the old covenant. Sin is the problem. The law is powerless to help a person who has sinned because it can only condemn and not pardon. It is not that a sinner is powerless to obey, they could obey. A sinner is powerless to atone for their own sin, and so is the law. The new covenant is greater than the law because it upholds the law while also providing pardon for the repentant. In the old covenant, God did grant pardon, but it was necessary that He publicly reveal His righteousness by upholding the spirit of the law through the atonement.

Benstenson,

I believe you are mixing the covenants. You state that we still have law. My reply to this would be that you have an obligation to it. If you were to try to define this law, you would likely find that you would have to include the Law of Moses, because Jesus did and so does much of the New Testament. As soon as you find this, you are obligated to the whole law. If the law is not the problem with the old covenant, why does Paul state:

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:6

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:6

"For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith"
Galatians 3:18-24

Law is to show us what sin is... righteousness is given to us in Christ, by believing in His blood spilled on our behalf.

"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" Philippians 3:8-9

Sin is certainly the problem, and Christ is certainly the solution. When we receive Him and remain in Him, we live in Him- where there is no sin (1 John).

The law can not give us a fresh start to be righteous.

Jesus doesn't just give us a fresh start to be righteous. He died for sin once for all... He removes a lifetime of sin upon belief... not a righteous start, but a righteous life- we are born again... not to try the whole thing over again (only to fail), but we are born of water (birth in this life) then we are born of His Spirit (spiritual new life) and are a new creation- not new until we fail again, but new forever!! Which one sounds like good news? (1) we are new till we screw up and have to manage our sin and do the repentance dance, or (2) we are new and the law is fulfilled, so there is no more condemnation telling us that we are guilty before a righteous God- we wear the wedding garments of Christ by faith.

For those who believe, the law is completely fulfilled and there is no more law to sin against- to the believer, sin is dead. (Romans 7:8)

What sin can you not stop? It doesn't make sense to say that Gospel freedom includes continual sin simply because you have continually sinned until now. If we expect that we will sin then something is wrong – either a wrong idea of sin, a wrong heart, or, commonly, unbelief that God is ready, willing, and able to effectively lead us in righteousness.

This is a good question... it isn't about specific sins, so much, as it is about total sin or all sin- because if we sin, even once, we are guilty of breaking the whole law. It is about stopping all sin, completely, for the rest of our lives. When Jesus stated, "whoever is without sin, let him be first to cast a stone", notice the oldest left first- they had the most experience trying to eradicate all sin from their lives and knew how their performance was going. The younger guys probably thought they were managing their sin or that soon they would stop completely.

God is ready, willing, and able to effectively lead us in righteousness- so much so that He gave His only begotten Son to die in our place, effectively handling our lifetime of sin.

We can obey His commandments.

Are you obeying them all? James 2:10

The mind naturally confirmed the truth of the law but the heart/intention was still submitted to self and inevitably producing outward sin.

If this was the case, why does it state:

"I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate."
"I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good."
"For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members."
"Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"
"Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."

This doesn't sound like the intention of being submitted to self. He hates sin. He wants to do good. He joyfully concurs with the law of God but finds wretchedness... "who will set me free from this body of this death?" "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Benstenson, be careful not to fall under the rebuke Jesus gave the Pharisees for placing a burden on the backs of the people that they themselves are not able to carry.

”justified by works and not by faith alone.” Righteousness is by faith and works, not just faith. Forgiveness is not by works.

Alone means alone. Works show a faith to be true (as the Spirit WILL bear fruit in the life of a true believer), but being justified by works alone is law. James isn't contradicting Paul, neither does Paul accidentally state, "only" or: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). James is stating works in the context of true faith and Paul is stating a spiritual truth apart from law.

"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." James 2:17 If faith is by itself, it isn't faith- there is no Spirit to bear fruit. When James states we are justified by works, He states this in the context of true faith producing works. The works are the seal of approval of a sincere faith and so we are justified by works in the sense that it is tied to our faith- showing His Spirit to live in us.

What do you think is the difference (internally) between “faith” and “true faith”?

I believe the difference is what someone says they have and what shines in their life to be true from His Spirit. Faith in this context would be fake, and true faith would be sincerely believing the saving grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit living in us and bearing fruit for all to see.

I think we are misunderstanding each other regarding my use of the phrase “total obedience”. All I meant was total present obedience. I did not mean total obedience in the past. If we are fulfilling the law in the present then we are presently obeying God. We have not completely obeyed God in the past, as we should have, but we can obey Him right now. Having disobeyed God in the past does not make total present obedience impossible. Nor does the mere ability to sin in the future take away the reality of present obedience.

I understand what you have communicated about your stance on past disobedience. My dilemma with your stance is 1 John 1:8, which is stated present tense and consider Ecclesiastes 7:20

"Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

Are you saying that you didn't continually do good in the past but you do now and will tomorrow and the next day and the next? Would God confirm that you are sinless?

I don't think you are a gnostic. But the fact is that men successfully injected gnostic teachings into the church and many, like you and I, have believed it.

What have I believed that is gnostic?

What is less practical than believing a desired goal is impossible?

I believe my desired goal is being given to me as a gift. It is not impossible because even though it is impossible for me (i am weak) it isn't impossible for God (His power is made perfect in weakness).

Do you exhort me to do the possible or the impossible?

It is up to you how it is carried out, but I hope you will receive James' exhortation to look intently into His law and be an effectual doer and receive the mentioned blessing.

God bless, as you pursue Him.

[benstenson]

dseusy, our posts are so lengthy (not that I mind) that I thought I would just post my response to the first section of your last post while I finish up the response to the rest of it. I would be glad to try to condense the topics if you want to. But it seemed like a good idea to respond to many of the Bible verses you quoted. I have underlined and changed the color of your text instead of the quote boxes to save a little space. If you think it makes sense to move the discussion of foreknowledge to another thread then that's fine with me. I will follow up with a reply to the rest.

So the fact remains that we fail...
By choosing to love God and my neighbor I am not failing morally, even though I fail to have perfect psychological strength and perfect knowledge. Love fulfills the law, not strength, not knowledge, not maturity. So what reason is there to fail? There is every reason not to fail.

and I can't see an omniscient God wondering- being astonished, or not being able to understand a mystery.
God does not fail to understand a sin as if there was actually some theoretically available answer. It is not a failure to understand, as if there was actually some explanation to be understood. Every effect (such as a good deed or a sin) has a cause (a good or bad person). But not every cause (such as a person's goodness or sinfulness) is an effect (such as some invisible spiritual gears and pulleys that make one good or bad). Power, or causation, is more fundamental than reason. There is nothing to be understood in the case of personal intention. It would be like asking why God exists. Just as God exists independently from causation and has the power to act independently from causation, so also does man have the power to act independently from causation. Therefore it is not a shortcoming on God's part when there is no answer to His question of why men reject Him. It is simply the nature of the case when men misuse their power of freedom.

I believe these verses show transgressed love, not God's bewilderment at our failure.
People must conclude such passages don't mean what they say when they think that our eternal “destinies”, good or bad, are already settled facts, which is not the case. If the facts were already settled then God would be aware of them and would not be expressing frustration and disappointment over something He has been aware of all along. Many people seem to believe that all moments of time are present to God just as all the days on a calendar are present to a man. If this was the case, God would not express disappointment with sinners as in those passages, nor would He have regretted creating people (as in Genesis 6), because the outcome would always have been right there in front of Him on the calendar. But in reality there are not different times that coexist like in “Back To The Future”. There is only right now aka reality. God is not “outside of time” as if it had some boundaries (like the lines on the calendar) that one can go in and out of. There is just right now. There are many things that are predictable, but regarding a person's moral character and destiny, there are no existing facts about the outcome until the outcome actually exists/happens.

Otherwise, why would "the saved" names be written in Christ's Book of Life?
In Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 there is a group of people whose names were not in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Revelation says everyone in this group will worship a monstrous animal. This passage is obviously symbolic. If the part about the names was completely literal then it would imply that God did not have the option of creating a perfect world, but could only create one He knew would be evil. But if the part about the names was intended as a warning, that not a single individual who qualifies to be in this symbolic group will refrain themselves from worshiping the beast, then the passage makes sense biblically and logically.

Hebrews 4 seems to use a similar concept when it says that God's works were finished from the foundation of the world, but that specific individuals may enter in or be excluded based upon their choices. This is along the lines of what people often call “corporate election”. Since our choices determine whether we are part of the group of people whose names are in the book, or of the group whose names are not in the book, the solemn ultimatum immediately following Rev 13:8 “If anyone has an ear to hear, let him hear” makes sense.

He certainly must have known we would be wicked and need saving, in order to plan this all in advance and foreknow us.
God knew disobedience was a possibility. But He expected obedience, not disobedience. He was disappointed and brokenhearted when He saw disobedience because He expected obedience. God actually changed His mind about having created people when He saw disobedience. Fortunately our father Noah made the human race again seem worthwhile to God by honoring Him with a sacrifice.

[benstenson]

Ok, this is part two which is mainly just replies to the list of Bible verses you quoted. This section is mainly about the fact that there is a difference between the Jewish law and the universal moral law. I hope you will see after reading this that I am not proclaiming anything contrary to what the Bible teaches.

I am trying to analyze and sort the topics as I reply so that if you want we can condense the discussion, or focus on a specific topic. The main thing is we already know by nature that we are able to obey God. Even our conscience tells us that we can. We would have to lie to ourselves to deny what our conscience tells us.

If there is still law, why does Paul and Jesus insist "it is finished"?
The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul didn't say the law of love is finished. They didn't say the law of freedom is finished. They didn't say the law of Christ is finished. They didn't say punishment for murderers and adulterers is finished.

If there is still law, there is still condemnation, otherwise the law is not truly righteous, just, or serious.
There is only condemnation where there is sin.

I agree with all the verses you've quoted here but I will reply to them since you have implicitly misinterpreted them by listing them all in this context. However, some don't seem to invite any comment from me unless you make an explicit comment or question regarding them. So let me know if you think I ignored something important.

There is a difference between the moral law of love and the symbolic Levitical law. The Levitical law was localized and temporary, the law of love is universal and permanent. The moral law is not contingent upon the will of God, but is required by the inherent value of God and His kingdom. If the apostles appear to teach about the law being temporary, it therefore means the temporary Levitical laws and not the law of love. I'm sure there are tons of commentators who explain this if you have interest. The way you talk about the law it kind of sounds like you never heard it explained that sometimes the apostles are referring to the moral law and sometimes to the specifically Jewish laws. A lot of these passage make a lot more sense when you keep this in mind. Consider also what an issue it was with the Jews that the Gentiles did not have to obey the Jewish law. It was a real big deal at the time the NT was being written, so it makes sense that it would constantly be addressed by the apostles.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17
Jesus Christ did not fulfill the moral obligation of others – which is an incoherent idea. Nor has He yet fulfilled the need to punish (without partiality) every soul who commits sin. However, He did fulfill the need to reiterate the moral law of love and to publicly proclaim the penalty for crime against it, because He did exactly that. He also upheld/fulfilled the spirit of the law in suffering for our pardon. In doing so He also fulfilled symbolic aspects of the Levitical law.

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17
Through whom does the law of Christ come? There was/is moral law before and after Moses. The law of Moses is also true and a grace, but not to the extent of the truth and grace through Jesus Christ.

"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts 13:38-39
Justification here has to do with forgiveness, not with pretending one is good when they are actually not. It is assumed that those who believe will also have a change of heart. Not that belief forces a change of heart, but it is assumed because of how unthinkable it is to believe and to sin.

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Romans 3:19
This is talking about people who have chosen to sin. People who obey God do not need their mouth stopped. The emphasis in this section is on Jews vs Gentiles. There is no reason a person can not live without sin as the Lord showed us. Jesus was born under the law and did not need His mouth stopped by the law. He said He always does those things that please His Father.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:20
It is because people of all different kinds of “flesh” (whether Jewish or Gentile) had sinned. Therefore no one is justified by being Jewish. Notice he did not say that sin is by the law, but the knowledge of sin. Sin is an intention of the will that the law reveals.

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets" Romans 3:21
Not that the lawless are righteous. But the righteousness of the heart apart from Levitical works is revealed. As well as forgiveness through the atonement.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28
Because the law can only condemn the guilty and because the Levitical works were localized and temporary.

"Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more" Romans 5:20
Because God resists the proud by revealing the full extent of their wickedness but gives grace to the humble when they admit their need for His mercy. Convicted sinners often become even more hardened and depraved in response to the sin exposing truth (Romans 7). God can use this as a means to get through to people who are deluded by pride.

"but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." Romans 9:31-33
Their hearts were not right. Jesus said whoever is of the truth will hear His voice. Israel was outwardly legalistic, not like David who obeyed God's law from the heart. Israel did not take the words of God seriously so their hearts were not changed by them, only hardened.

"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." Galatians 2:16
The context here is Jewish specific laws and legalism. No flesh, Jewish or Gentile, will be justified by Jewish legalism. Gentiles who don't know anything about the Jewish laws yet do the works of love which fulfill the moral law, will be justified.

"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." Galatians 2:21
If sinners could be declared righteous by abstaining from certain foods and celebrating certain holidays then certainly it was unnecessary for the Lord to suffer as He did.

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Galatians 3:2
Circumcision and ancient Jewish culture is not how men can be reconciled to God. We are saved by faith if we allow faith to teach us not to sin.

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." Galatians 3:10
Because present obedience does not undo past disobedience. Nor does legalistic zeal excuse a lack of real faith.

"But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Galatians 3:11
Law apart from faith is as dead as lawless faith.

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" Galatians 3:13a
“While it is called today.”

"For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." Galatians 3:21b
This is about sinners. If mere law could be as effective as the atonement in dealing with those who have sinned then that would be the better choice.

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24
It's really about the Jews. But if we obey God then we don't need the letter of the law to break our pride. Not everyone needs this tutor - for example: Abraham, Lot, Melchizedek, Noah, Enoch, Abel, and thousands times thousands of angels.

"Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" Philippians 3:8-9
Not being legalistically righteous through the law in spite of being an enemy of God, but being truly righteous having been convinced by the truth and being forgiven of past sins.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4
Because He is the fulfillment of the symbolism of the law and the light that reveals legalistic hypocrisy.

-----
These are more verses about the law that probably belong with this post.

I believe you are mixing the covenants.
I don't understand why you think this. But it may be because you believe in an imaginary lawless covenant. It is weird that you think I am mixing covenants when you don't seem to distinguish between universal and Jewish law in any of these verses.

You state that we still have law.
Of course. Law is precept and penalty. We have precept (love) and we have penalty (hell fire and brimstone).

My reply to this would be that you have an obligation to it. If you were to try to define this law, you would likely find that you would have to include the Law of Moses, because Jesus did and so does much of the New Testament. As soon as you find this, you are obligated to the whole law.
The law is love. Love fulfills the law, not being Jewish. I'm an American, not an Israelite. There is no reason for me to obey the law of Moses.

If the law is not the problem with the old covenant, why does Paul state:
"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:6
Paraphrasing: But now, having repented of the inward sinfulness that held us in legalistic bondage, we have been released from legalism and condemnation to obey God with a good heart and not legalistically with a sinful heart.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:6
The letter only kills (condemns) the unrighteous, those who condemn themselves by sinning.

"For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" Galatians 3:18-24
This is about the written law, not the unalterable moral law. Paraphrasing: Transgressions plus the written law do not equals life. If it could have, it would have. The law holds every sinner accountable, not just unchurched people (Gentiles). The law faithfully condemns transgression in order to show sinners they need mercy.

"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" Philippians 3:8-9
Not having a merely outward righteousness of my own creation, but having a truly righteous heart instructed by God and Christ.

[benstenson]

Ok. The first reply seemed mostly about foreknowledge which boils down to inevitability/inability but is somewhat of a distinct topic also. The second reply was a commentary on almost every verse in the NT that has the word law in it. And this third reply concludes the response, being mainly focused on the false doctrine of inability and the verses that people always use to defend it.

I believe repentance is a beginning and genuine heart condition, not a perpetual act of religious necessity.
Repentance only needs to happen zero times. A man must be good his whole life/eternity and repent zero times. If he sins he needs to repent once and not sin anymore. Same if he sins again. There is no need to continue sinning and repenting. The need for repentance is not coextensive with the existence of a man, but only coextensive with the existence of a man's sin. It is not religion that imposes the obligation to repent, it is choosing sin that results in the obligation. Repentance is only a perpetual necessity where there is perpetual sin.

Sin is certainly the problem, and Christ is certainly the solution. When we receive Him and remain in Him, we live in Him- where there is no sin (1 John).
I seems like you need imaginary righteousness (doctrinally not sinning) because you are unwilling to believe that real righteousness (actually not sinning) is possible. A person who sins has three options as I understand it:

1) Pretending, for necessary comfort, they will not go to hell,
2) Admitting they would go to hell and turning instead to legalism for comfort,
3) Admitting they would go to hell and just openly sinning,
4) Obeying the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ being set free from sin.

Jesus doesn't just give us a fresh start to be righteous. He died for sin once for all... He removes a lifetime of sin upon belief... not a righteous start, but a righteous life- we are born again... not to try the whole thing over again (only to fail),
The whole system of doctrine you are defending depends upon this false inability to live without sin.

but we are born of water (birth in this life) then we are born of His Spirit (spiritual new life) and are a new creation- not new until we fail again, but new forever!!
Again, there is no need for failure.

Which one sounds like good news? (1) we are new till we screw up and have to manage our sin and do the repentance dance, or (2) we are new and the law is fulfilled, so there is no more condemnation telling us that we are guilty before a righteous God- we wear the wedding garments of Christ by faith.
If you switch #'s one and two around, they match up with one and two on the list I made above. Neither option appeals to me.

For those who believe, the law is completely fulfilled and there is no more law to sin against- to the believer, sin is dead. (Romans 7:8)
I would rather die to sinning by not sinning anymore than pretend I am dead to sinning by pretending God won't punish sinners. Even if God was not going to punish sinners, which is unthinkable, then I would still rather die to sin by not sinning than only say that I am not sinning with imaginary doctrine.

When Jesus stated, "whoever is without sin, let him be first to cast a sin", notice the oldest left first- they had the most experience trying to eradicate all sin from their lives and new how their performance was going. The younger guys probably thought they were managing their sin or that soon they would stop completely.
I would not measure myself by those guys if I were you.

God is ready, willing, and able to effectively lead us in righteousness- so much so that He gave His only begotten Son to die in our place, effectively handling our lifetime of sin.
You must not think God wants to keep you from sinning. There is no weakness we have that stops us from obeying Him. Even if there was, He would heal us of it in time for us to overcome our next experience of temptation.

Are you obeying them all? James 2:10
To the best of my puny knowledge. I am open to correction. But why wouldn't I be fulfilling the law since I am choosing to love God and my neighbor? Please remember the whole law is summed up in love. We are only required to do the best we are able to do. That's what love does, its best. It is not a sin to be immature, to have a lot of growing to do. That is certainly the case for us in this life, maybe me more than others. I struggle against (I mean war against, not just give in to) thoughts that maybe nothing I ever do could be good enough for God – like I said. So I easily have compassion for you because you seem to have that idea in the back of your mind. But you are seriously entrenched in this whole Romans 7 misunderstanding/excuse. PLEASE when you have time read the following writing called Walking in the Spirit, PLEASE at least read the part about Romans 7 even if you do not read the whole thing. http://www.gospeltruth.net/walkinthespirit/witstoc.htm I would gladly obtain a copy to send to you if you didn't want to read a short chapter on the computer.

I have inserted some italicized comments here for clarification.
If this was the case, why does it state:
"I am not practicing what I [my convicted mind] would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I [my convicted mind] hate."
"I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants [in my convicted mind] to do good."
Of course a convicted legalist wants to do good! But he cannot because he is still selfish in his heart. He will never be free until he has repented from the heart.
"For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man [my logical mind inevitably agrees with the logical law], but I see a different law [legalistic failure] in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. [the selfish heart/will controls the actions in spite of the convicted guilty mind]"
"Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"
Paul himself was already set free from this past experience therefore he triumphantly thanks God in the midst of the climax of this nightmarish depiction.
"Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Then he concludes the depiction summarizing the internal conflict of a selfish legalist.
So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."
Paraphrasing: I know God's law is right, I agree it is good and reasonable, I wish I obeyed it, I know I would be happy obeying it, I know I can not be happy by sinning, nevertheless, I STILL do not repent but remain impenitent treasuring up wrath for judgment day, I still enslave myself to my own selfishness in spite of all this awful conviction and inner turmoil and painful failure. Truly “the way of the transgressor is hard”!

This doesn't sound like the intention of being submitted to self. He hates sin. He wants to do good. He joyfully concurs with the law of God but finds wretchedness... "who will set me free from this body of this death?" "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Paul divided the sinner into two parts in order to show that he was the cause of his own death, not the law. He personified sin as if sin was a “law” - it is not the law of God that causes the sinners death, but the “law” of being a selfish rebel against God's law. The only “law” that causes a sinners death is his own selfish choices. God's law is not the problem, it is only legalistically abused by selfish sinners. Nor is it the sinner's nature that is the problem, for the sinners nature/mind can't help but agree with God's law.

Daniel Whedon said, "Its [Romans 7] application to the regenerate man was first invented by Augustine, who was followed by many eminent doctors of the Middle Ages. After the Reformation the interpretation of Augustine was largely adopted, especially by the followers of Calvin. At the present day the Church generally, Greek, Roman, Protestant, including some of the latest commentators, have returned to the just interpretation as held by the primitive Church."

Daniel Steele said, “This subject would not be complete without an examination of that fancied magna charta for the necessary existence of sin in the Christian heart prompting to sinful acts, namely, the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Does St. Paul here portray the Christian at his best earthly estate? Does he hold up his own moral photograph? To both of these queries we answer, No. … It is a very significant fact that for the first three centuries the entire Christian Church, with one accord, applied the picture of the vanquished and despairing slave described in Rom. 7:13~25, solely to the unregenerate man. … An examination of the preceding and succeeding passages will amply justify our conclusion that a regenerate soul never sat for this dark, sad portrait. This was never designed to depict the ideal Christian life, but is rather the portrayal of the struggles of a convicted sinner seeking justification by the works of the law. The ideal Christian life is found in the sixth chapter: "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life;" also in the eighth chapter: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." As the skillful painter puts a dark background when he or she wishes to make the central figure in the front more radiant, so St. Paul sets off the believer delivered from sin by holding up beside him the dark contrast of a convicted legalist vainly seeking justification by his good works. How sad the blunder of mistaking the profile of the sinner for the saint, and hanging it up for imitation by the body of believers.”

Charles Finney also interprets Romans 7 the same way – a legalistic preconversion or backslidden experience.

My dilemma with your stance is 1 John 1:8, which is stated present tense
Most of the commentators I've read take it the same way I take it – to simply mean “have no guilt of past sin” or to “have no sin on our record”. When John says he is writing these things so that they would not sin, is he writing so that they would deceive themselves? Obviously it is an absurd interpretation to say it means that every Christian must be sinning at any given present moment and must never say for even a moment that they are not sinning. The whole thing is about saying we are free from sin vs actually being free from sin. People who actually have stopped sinning are not lying by saying they have stopped sinning. This passage has nothing to do with people who actually obey God. The whole problem is people who only say doctrinally that they are sinless (like you were saying) when in fact they live in sin. If you say you are without sin through mere doctrine, but in concrete reality you let sin have power over your physical body, then you are definitely fooling yourself. The bible says Christians always do those things that please the Father - sin does not please him. Stopping sinning does please Him. Therefore Christians don't sin. Whoever is sinning is not being a Christian. Whoever is being a Christian is not sinning.

and consider Ecclesiastes 7:20 "For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not."
Also 1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chronicles 6:36 “...there is no man which sinneth not...”

I'll quote some commentators.

Adam Clarke
“In 1 Kings 8:46 we read, If they sin against thee, for there is no man that sinneth not. On this verse we may observe that the second clause, as it is here translated, renders the supposition in the first clause entirely nugatory; for if there be no man that sinneth not, it is useless to say, If they sin; but this contradiction is taken away by reference to the original, כי יחטאו לך ki yechetu lach, which should be translated If they shall sin against thee, or should they sin against thee; כי אין אדם אשר לא יחטא ki ein Adam asher lo yecheta, for there is no man that May not sin; i.e., there is no man impeccable, none infallible, none that is not liable to transgress. This is the true meaning of the phrase in various parts of the Bible, and so our translators have understood the original: for even in the thirty-first verse of this chapter they have translated יחטא yecheta, If a man Trespass; which certainly implies he might or might not do it; and in this way they have translated the same word, If a soul Sin, in Leviticus 5:1; Leviticus 6:2; 1 Samuel 2:25; 2 Chronicles 6:22, and in several other places. The truth is, the Hebrew has no mood to express words in the permissive or optative way, but to express this sense it uses the future tense of the conjugation kal.

This text has been a wonderful strong hold for all who believe that there is no redemption from sin in this life, that no man can live without committing sin, and that we cannot be entirely freed from it till we die.

1. The text speaks no such doctrine: it only speaks of the possibility of every man sinning, and this must be true of a state of probation.
2. There is not another text in the Divine records that is more to the purpose than this.
3. The doctrine is flatly in opposition to the design of the Gospel; for Jesus came to save his people from their sins, and to destroy the works of the devil.
4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine; and should be blotted out of every Christian's creed. There are too many who are seeking to excuse their crimes by all means in their power; and we need not embody their excuses in a creed, to complete their deception, by stating that their sins are unavoidable.”

Robert Barclay
"....Another objection is from two passages of scripture, much of one signification. The one is 1 Kings viii. 46: 'For there is no man that sinneth not.' The other is Eccl. vii. 20: 'For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.'....I answer....this whole objection hangs upon a false interpretation; for the original Hebrew word may be read in the potential mood, thus,--There is no man who may not sin, as well as in the indicative; so both the old Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, and Vatablus have it, and the same word is so used, Ps. cxix. 11: 'Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee'--in the potential mood, and not in the indicative; which being more answerable to the universal scope of the scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the sense of almost all interpreters, doubtless ought to be so understood, and the other interpretation rejected as spurious."

Daniel Whedon
“Did not Solomon, in prayer at the dedication of the temple, (2 Chron. 6:36,) tell Jehovah that "there is no man which sinneth not?" And does he not repeat this declaration in Eccles. 7:20, "For there is not a just man on earth that doeth good and sinneth not?" We answer that Solomon, when correctly interpreted, as he is in the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and most of the ancient versions, gives no countenance to sin. These all read, "May not sin." The Hebrew language, having no potential mode, uses the indicative future instead. The context must determine the real meaning. The context is nonsense in King James' version, using an if where there is no room for a condition- "if any man sin, for every man sins." Let me illustrate the absurdity of this translation.

At the laying of a cornerstone of a State lunatic asylum the Governor, in his address, is made by the reporter to say, "If any person in the commonwealth is insane for every person is insane-let him come here and be cared for." We should all correct the blundering reporter, and say may become insane, instead of is insane, in order to make the Governor talk sense. Correct the reporter, or translator, rather, of Solomon, and let him talk sense also, and you will hear him say, If any man sin, for there is no one who is impeccable, who may not sin. This criticism applies to the quotation from the Ecclesiastes, also.”

What have I believed that is gnostic?
You were saying that physical flesh is inherently evil.

Are you saying that you didn't continually do good in the past but you do now and will tomorrow and the next day and the next? Would God confirm that you are sinless?
I owe my change of heart to the Lord because I was not seeking Him when He reached out to me through the gospel. But God must confirm that I am not sinning as long as I continue to love Him and to love my neighbor. I choose to love Him with all my heart and to love my neighbor as Jesus showed us. If I stopped doing this then He would justly condemn me unless I repented. As long as I love Him and my neighbor there is no law against me. When we repent we are not under law but under grace. [this does not mean there is no law, but that we do not have to live under legalistic bondage and condemnation] We can logically reckon ourselves dead to sin – not in doctrinal pretense, but actually expecting to never sin again. Sin will not have dominion over our physical bodies. I don't count myself to have attained to spiritual maturity or as if I have already passed the test of this life, but I forget the things that are behind (of which I've repented) and look forward to not going back there ever again thanks to God.

Benstenson, be careful not to fall under the rebuke Jesus gave the Pharisees for placing a burden on the backs of the people that they themselves are not able to carry.
Are you not making Jesus Christ Himself out to be the pharisee by saying that He requires the impossible of men, yet even though He could enable them to never sin again, He refuses to? Or why does the Holy Spirit teach men to stop sinning if teaching men to stop sinning makes someone a pharisee??

I believe my desired goal is being given to me as a gift.
I thought your desire was to stop sinning?? Don't you want to stop sinning? Does God think its better if you keep sinning? Does He prefer that we do evil so that good may come? Obviously not. Then it must only be our fault if we do not immediately receive this gift. It's not like we need to wait for God to stop sinning. He already commands it. He is the one waiting for us to obey Him. But we have to have faith that we can.

[Paidion]

Ben, in general I agree far more with you than with Dseusy. But there are a couple of matters you may wish to consider. I can't find it, but I remember your saying that God doesn't hold us responsible if we do wrong unintentionally. Please consider the following Greek word, and our Lord's words in Matthew 6:14,15 in which He indicates the necessity of forgiveness even for people's blunders:


παραπτωμα paraptōma — FALLING BESIDE, a false step, a blunder

Matt 6:14,15 For if you forgive people their blunders, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive people their blunders, neither will your Father forgive your blunders.

The second and more important matter with which I disagree is your belief in Christ's death as a substitution for us so that the Father took out His wrath on His Son instead of us. Is this justice? Would you be "satisfied" that justice was done, if your son A did something very wicked against the family's rules, and you let him off the hook because you punished your righteous son B instead?

[steve7150]

Dseusy,
What is your definition of an exhortation? Also if some believers give their best effort to follow Jesus "exhortations" and others who are sincere believers don't give their best effort to follow these "exhortations" ,does God judge them differently?
Lastly if Jesus commands are exhortations, why did Jesus call them commands?

[dseusy]

Benstenson,

I agree that our posts are getting pretty long, and I appreciate you choosing to respond to the verses first. You and I have different takes on these scriptures. I think a discussion on foreknowledge at this point may not bear much fruit, since we are starting from a different foundation.

Choosing to love God and your neighbor and following your conscience are things you should do. When you state that you are not failing morally, we may want to clarify this a bit... in the context of our conversation, morals are God's commands. I feel this is important to clarify because of love. God is love and His commands all spring from love, from Him. Love never fails, rejoices with the truth, and does not act improperly (it is strong, knowledgeable, and mature). If we reduce God's commands or His love to a human level, aren't we compromising? Love never fails. Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as HE loves them. This is the command. There are no mulligans, exceptions, or immunities under law.

"for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." Romans 2:13

If we fail to do, we are condemned under law. God's law is just. A failure to love is not fulfilling the law, regardless of the reason (weakness, or immaturity). To be carnally minded results in hostility toward God (Romans 8).

I don't think God expects obedience, I think He (as a just, righteous, and holy God) requires it.

I agree there is a difference between the Law of Moses and some of God's other laws. In the Old Testament it was required to eat no unclean animal. In the New Testament God showed Peter that this had changed. However, Jesus expanded the Law of Moses, or heightened it before He died to fulfill it.

The big picture of obedience to God is belief. You believe that God exists and you believe He gave us commands. Keep the commands as they are written without changing the requirement.

Concerning what law the apostles refer to: study the word law in the original language and its context. They speak of Jewish law when it states it so, not as though the appearance of temporal law universally labels all applicable law as the Law of Moses. Perhaps we should start a different discussion with this focus.

If Jesus didn't fulfill my obligation under law, why does Paul state:

"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" Philippians 3:8-9

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" Titus 3:5

I get the righteousness that comes from God because Jesus fulfilled my obligation under law. "Having" is present tense in Philippians. I still have it. I will till I die, through faith, by grace.

Which New Testament commands are not part of the "law of Christ" or "law of love" as you understand it?

[dseusy]

Steve7150,

My understanding of an exhortation is to incite, urge, or encourage. I don't believe that we are judged for exhortations... we are judged for commands, but an exhortation is not a penalty related thing. I'm not labeling Jesus' commands as exhortations. I'm sure He exhorted, but when He commanded it was certainly a command- a law from God.

Does this answer your question?