Jesus gave us newness of life. And the expectation of living in it. Think about Paul’s conversion. He no longer went around killing Christians (or having them killed) because he realized he was actually doing it to Jesus. But as much as he said he was still doing those things he considered sin was probably not considered sin in other circles. I believe his fight was with his flesh, which had not been redeemed yet, and his spirit which was redeemed.

It was a matter of which he was going to follow. But he could not do it unless he received that new nature. But all he was, he pointed to the marvelous work and grace that he could now see what needed to change in him, and the change actually happening. For him it did happen. And we never talk about the others in the Bible like Peter who was not an enemy of the church as Paul had been as Saul.

Once we come to the recognition that we have sinned, we repent of it and don’t do it again. But daily we strive to become perfect as Jesus commanded we should become. That does not make us sinners, because according to the definition of sinner, that is one who is unrepentant. What makes us sin? Ignorance, apathy, laziness and disobedience. That is the great work, Jesus died to pay the penalty, but rose again in newness of life so we might have hope in that newness. Yes, the old nature is done away with and replaced with a new nature.

And as such, we might not be perfect but as a child we learn more and more as the Spirit leads and teaches. And that is to become the perfect one. But it takes willingness on our part to follow and do those things commanded of us. And the commandments are not too hard. How can Jesus present a bride without spot or blemish when she has not been made clean? She has been made clean by His blood, and by the sprinkling of the word.

I think some of the confusion might come here in the way you are expressing things. You do very often come across as saying that our sin nature was completely done away with when we were born again. I don’t think that is correct either. I believe it is still there but the new nature, the nature of the Spirit, is to be the dominant nature and the one that we yield too. I believe that fits with Scripture as we are constantly told to walk in the Spirit–yield to Him–and not walk according to our own fleshly nature by yielding to it.

When pressed, that often seems to be what you are saying too. We might very well all be saying the same thing here, but in different ways or emphasizing different concepts. Does that make any sense?

It’s interesting that Paul would even make mention of being taught by Gameliel, the greatest Jewish teacher of the time and many Jews today still refer to him. Paul stressed the obvious conversion, and what is conversion? Is it merely changing from one religion to another? If that were the case then people would be converting every time they had a fight with someone in their church.

Conversion is deeper, to understand conversion is to understand complete change and it does not come from merely just following Jesus. Peter was told this very thing…after three years of being a disciple, it was not enough for him to just sit and listen and be taught by Jesus. There was a deeper depth he had to go to. That was conversion. Jesus said…when thou art converted, strengthen the brethren. After three years of sitting with Jesus, being taught by him, doing all those things Jesus did, and still not converted. Try to understand that one.

Theology is not enough to convert anyone. It is the Spirit that changes people whether or not that person ever set foot inside a church. Peter and Paul chastised each other constantly over methods of preaching and doctrine but both believed in being born again. They both stressed to come out sin as Jesus commanded.

Ephesians 2
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Were, and used. Those two words indicate prior, before, last week, month, year. Whenever that time was it has passed.

You will naturally follow up with the works verse, but please do not overlook these. You don’t have to remain a sinner, that was the wonderful work Jesus did and is still doing.

You will notice at behest of the other blog postings I quoted from the New International Version because for some, the KJV was just too outdated.

I agree with “God is Love” is endemic in Scripture and His story. Even when He is affronted with grievances, how rich is His love, mercy and grace. Even with the those rebellious people He redeemed to Himself in the OT, how gracious was He. That is our hope and our relief.

I would not say I am focused on sin, but asking that we see it for what it is. You ask “don’t I understand that the sin nature was replaced?”. I would say no it was not according to Romans 6-7 indicate that it does not and is something that believers have to contend with. Obviously, you disagree.

I cite Romans because of its treatment on this subject. If we were speaking of spiritual gifts, I might be focused on I Corinthians. But it doesn’t mean I’m relying on one book.

And the conclusions drawn on this particular topic in no ways undermines the transaction on the cross, that made alive us alive to God to experience a relationship with Him.

Why are you so hung up on sin? Why are you convinced you have to remain a sinner when the Bible so evidently says you are delivered from? What is the whole point of being born again? Why is the commandment given over and over and over to come out of sin?

Either Jesus did not have enough power to save you at the cross, or ir was just an empty show. You are very quick to point out sin, sin, sin…like you are a Puritan bent on burning everyone who does not fall under the loving gaze of John Calvin.

When you rely solely on one book, or two and negate the other 64, there is a problem. The Bible is a book that is about the condition of man and the work of salvation and how that salvation changes man’s condition.

And you are right, nothing you say from the perspective of John Calvin will mean anything to me because I don’t accept it nor do I receive it. John Calvin is not the Gospel. My Bible teaches me all through it that even though I was born in sin, conceived in iniquity, that a Savior shed His own blood for me to redeem me, and sent the Holy Spirit of God to dwell in me so that I am no longer the old person of sin, but a new person in Him.

Can’t you accept perhaps the wondrous work was not that He defeated sin and death Himself…but also for all who believe in Him? Don’t you understand the sin nature was replaced at the moment of receiving the Spirit of God? Why do you hold on to what you were supposed to get rid of?

We all sin; that’s a result of our fallen nature. No one (or not I, anyway), denies that. We have sin, and we are guilty, of our own sin. How am I guilty for defects I inherited? If my grandfather was a thief and murderer, sentenced to life in prison, do I have to fill out his sentence if he dies?

So yes, we all have sin, and yes, we all have guilt. And yes, there is God’s wrath. From the example of Jesus, I suspect that God is furious at how sin holds us in bondage. And for those who willingly participate and encourage that bondage – read Galatians, for example – I don’t doubt they will feel the effects of God’s wrath.

This still does not infer that we have inherited Adam’s guilt, living in fear of Jonathan Edward’s “angry God.” “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” – free from the law of sin and death. Do we still sin? Of course! Do we fear wrath? no – for there “is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

By the way, we are told “God is love.” I don’t see a whole lot written about “God is wrath.” I’m not denying his wrath, just that it’s not his predominant characteristic.

Honestly, I think you are pretty convinced about your version of sin and guilt, so probably nothing I say will have any value.