Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
If you think you have a specific passage where we (born-again, regenerated, called-out ones) are designated as sinners, let's fellowship about it!
|
And if you think you have a specific passage where Paul writes that we (believers) are no longer to be designated sinners, let's present that for fellowship as well. Otherwise, we're left with your inferences.
Unbelieving sinners and sinful believers both have the flesh of sin, and both suffer as a consequence. But no one here is saying there's no difference in their sufferings! We know that the weak flesh transforms the believer's soul. The point is, that to identify as a "believer" is to say that there is a difference in the life and it's subsequent suffering. Else why believe?
I get the concept you promote, which has attractive simplicity: terms affect identity which affects repetitive patterns of action. But the danger in assumed identity lies is in unfounded presumptions, and subsequently basing one's life on hopeful inferences as if they were truths. For example, Nee and Lee wrote treatises on the Song of Songs, teaching that it showed the fully transformed Christian believer at the end, awaiting rapture. But if you look at the actual lives of these two, I don't see them reflecting this. So their teaching actually became a mask for their continual sinful activities.
(And Nee getting sacked by the SCA elders for living with a woman not his wife is by definition "sinful". If you can't trust the judgment of local church elders, then who can you trust? They ruled on the matter.)
We already know Jesus' identity. My own identity or self-image is therefore of knowing who Jesus is, the Lord and Christ, and Saviour of the world, and then trying to reconcile behaviours to vision. Beyond that, I don't see benefit in terms, whether calling myself "occasional sinner who believes" or "believer who occasionally sins". The doing is what matters. And God will judge the doing.