Trying to do, but you work from a false premise.
False.
False.
I'm not.
What I conceded was ..."Changing one's mind does not make one incapable of sinning."
Don't stray from the truth.
Again, repenting means to change one's mind. That's the entire point. Changing one's mind, repenting, does not make one incapable of sinning.
We differ in out opinions.
That wasn't an opinion.
Why would they be 25% capable but not 100% capable?
Not what I said.
Besides the first act after turning from sin is becoming a new person at our "being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life". (Rom 6:4)
Becoming a new creature doesn't mean we won't stumble.
The reborn are capable of serving one Lord.
Reborn is a term that has meaning for Israel, not for the Body of Christ. The church today has misappropriated it and "born again" to mean "saved." But that's not what it means.
The only reason YOU have to struggle with the flesh is because
Is because I have not received my promised glorified body yet, and as far as I'm aware, neither have you.
someone told you baptism is not necessary.
Yeah, his name is Paul. Maybe you've heard of him.
It is, for the very reason you cite.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
It is written..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom 6:3-6)
AMEN!
The old man can be killed and buried with Christ, so it has no power any more.
Yeah, and?
It is written..."And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal 5:24)
AMEN!
It is true.
Since His death and burial and resurrection we CAN live without sin, because now we are in Him and He is in us.
Doesn't mean we will, due to the flesh, which we still have to live with until either we die or Christ returns, whichever comes first.
We are no longer of Adam's seed, but of God's seed.
Yeah, and?
Col 3:5-10 does pretty good job of telling us to turn from sin.
Telling Christians to turn from sin... Hmmmm.
Or do you assert that the people in Colossi Paul wrote to were not Christians because they were still capable of sinning.
It is written..." Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"
AMEN!
The reason he doesn't tell men to turn from sin is because all his letters are to men who already turned from sin.
Nice job contradicting yourself, Hoping.
You literally just said:
Col 3:5-10 does a pretty good job of telling us to turn from sin.
Do Christians have to turn from sin? Or did Paul write to Christians who are incapable of sinning?
Why would it make any sense for Paul to tell believers to turn from something they are incapable of doing in the first place?
It makes no sense at all.
In some of the letters he chastises those who have failed to turn from sin.
Again, Christians. He's writing to the churches he founded. Churches full of believers who were new to being Christians.
If sin was inevitable, what is the point of being angry with those who departed from the faith?
Who says they departed from the faith? He's angry with them because they, being believers, are sinning, and blatantly so!
The adulterer in 1 Cor, Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander, and Demas and others could have just kept rubbing shoulders with the other men who continued to walk after the flesh in the guise of Christianity.
Paul wasn't talking to unbelievers! This is the problem with your position, not mine. Paul is rightfully angry that Christians who are committing such terrible sins are still being treated like nothing is wrong.
Your assertion that we cannot serve God alone is counter-productive, to say the least.
I never said we couldn't. What I'm saying is that we, despite being saved, are NOT PERFECT, NOR WILL WE BE until we are given our glorified bodies.
If one turns from sin, but sins again, the repentance was false.
Again:You are incapable of determining if a person's repentance was disingenuous or false. You simply don't have the ability.
Not much to figure out there.
Agreed, it's easy to figure out that you have no idea what you're talking about.
At least you recognize his reason as fact.
Don't misrepresent what I said, Hoping. It's dishonest.
He could have said 'baptism is no longer necessary because someone said so."
Sure. But He chose not to.
Because it's not needed.
"I'm glad I baptised none of you, save [these other people]" should be clear enough that baptism isn't necessary to get saved.
Because it is still necessary, for remission of sin,
We've been over this already.
"Remission" doesn't mean "elimination." It means "recession" or "diminishing of,"
When cancer goes into remission, it hasn't disappeared from one's body, it's still present, but it's in a controlled state, and it can still become a problem if left unchecked.
Also, Paul never states that we Christians will have remission of sins, because we are not Israel. "Remission of sins" is a term used by Christ directed at Israel alone, because the treatment for sin is the law, and Israel is known as the people of the law.
Happens when we are saved, not when we are baptized in water.
Supra.
to walk in newness of life/regeneration,
Supra.
and to fulfil the OT "picture" of circumcision.
Circumcision has to do with Israel, not the Body of Christ, because it is PURELY symbolic of what the law is.
I'd see receiving grace from God at any time "good news".
Good for you.
You have just turned it into a doctrine that cuts off all that Jesus taught...
Jesus taught the law. Paul taught grace.
The two don't mix. When you mix law and grace, you end up with law. The only way grace can remain grace is if you keep the law out of it. (Romans 11:6)
like Matt 28:19..."Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
First off, have you never noticed who Jesus was speaking to?
He was speaking directly to His eleven disciples (Judas had already committed suicide and Matthias hadn't been chosen yet to replace him).
Guess what?
His disciples, other than a few trips here and there, that are NOT recorded in the Bible (and for good reason), the apostles, for the most part, stayed in Jerusalem.
In fact, if you were to look at what the Bible says about the twelve after Christ's ascension, and do a survey of where the men were recorded in the Bible, their locations, I bet that you would find that the Bible never says anything about them being anywhere other than Jerusalem, except for maybe one or two instances. Yes, yes, I know, we know that they took trips elsewhere, but the point I'm making is that the Bible intentionally doesn't record those trips, because the focus had shifted away from Israel and their covenant of laws, and onto Paul and his ministry of grace.
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Keep reading:
"Teaching them
to observe all things that I have commanded you"!
Jesus taught the law! He didn't teach grace. He didn't teach "crucify the old man, and put on the new." He taught "keep my commandments" and to do things "for My sake" and "My
yoke is easy and My
burden is light" and "you are My friends if you do whatever I
command you."
That's not grace at all. That's law.
Your doctrine countermands Christ.
It countermands what Christ taught Israel. But that's ok, because the Body of Christ is not Israel. The Body of Christ is a new creation, under a different set of rules, given TO PAUL FROM CHRIST!
Why do you think that would in any way deter me from seeing the grace of God being given to men as far back as Noah?
Since when did "grace" not mean favor?
Take a step back.
Why do you think that I am denying that God was always gracious?
The entire reason the Mosaic Law worked in the first place was BECAUSE IT WAS UNDERGIRDED BY GRACE! God understood CLEARLY that men, much less the spiritual disaster of a nation that was Israel, COULD NOT keep the law perfectly, and so included in it ways to get right with Him.
You are telling me what some man has told you he thinks is in the bible.
Just because I learned something from men doesn't make it their opinions. If that were so, then you are guilty of the same, and that would make you a hypocrite.
I am telling you what the Bible says. I know what the Bible says because I had a good teacher.
At least you concede the point.
I didn't.
New topic that I won't partake in...thanks.
It's not.
It isn't false witness, as my pastor, brethren, and sisters, don't commit sin.
Liar.
And if they're the ones telling you they don't, then they're lying too, and you're a fool for believing them.
And it doesn't matter anyways, because violating ONE of God's laws makes you a sinner, and it is only by God's grace (not baptism, not keeping the law, not being righteous) that we can be saved!
And no, "saved" doesn't mean "incapable of sinning." It means our final destination has been guaranteed by none other than God Himself!
Jesus died to take away our sins.
Nope, that's wrong.
Romans 11:27, Paul is referring to Isaiah 27:9 and Jeremiah 31:34 (which is where God is speaking SPECIFICALLY about Israel and forming a New Covenant with ISRAEL. Read:
"For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
Whose sins?
Israel's.
And this is the ONLY time Paul uses the phrase "taking away sins." The other three passages it's used in are twice in Hebrews, and once in 1 John.
There is no reason to return to those sins.
Sure. Doesn't mean we won't succumb to the desires of the flesh or the temptations of demons.
If living in accordance to God is blasphemy to you,
Don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said.
what exactly does God ordain that YOU do?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT I AND OTHER HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE TO YOU, HOPING!
YOU CANNOT LIVE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE!
