Cults, Christian Faith and Practice

[BobRyan]

Just stay with KJV. It doesn't say the severance but becoming useless.
If they lost the salvation, why does Paul continue to tell them to Walk in the Spirit? Can the people who lost the Salvation walk in the Spirit? ( Gal 5;16)

Yes!

Romans 11 makes it clear that those who have been severed - those who are REMOVED by God and are severed CAN be joined in AGAIN "IF they do not CONTINUE in unbelief".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said Quote:
So I am going to have go with the Bible on that one.

It is hard to see the difference from here -- no text of scripture says "Salvation while severed from Christ" - John describes it in John 15 as being cut off from Christ, Paul as "severed from Christ" -- those who imagine that "severed from Christ" and "cut off from Christ" is "SAVED" have to come up with a Bible text.

in Christ,

Bob

Eliyahu
John 15 must be either " Unsaved from the beginning and therefore couldn't bear fruits" or " Saved but lost the fellowship with God and therefore was deserted, which doesn't mean the loss of salvation" It depends on how to understand " throw away to the fire"

1. If "throw away - withered - burned in the fire" is fully consistent with the "lost" who never were joined to Christ THEN there is NO WAY that condition CAN ALSO apply to the saved so that BOTH lost AND saved are in that condition with relation to Christ!

2. If you agree that it applies to the LOST -- then OSAS fails in John 15 since JOINED to Christ and IN the vine of Christ can not ALSO apply to the "lost state" just as "withered and BURNED" apply. The two states are OPPOSITE!

3. IF you argue that "severed" from the vine of Christ, withered, dead and BURNED in the fire is "the Gospel description of the SAVED state" then you have to find some Bible text to support such an extreme idea.


John 15
1 ""I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 ""Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "" You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "" Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 ""I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 ""If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have many Messianic Jewish Friends who confess Jesus as their Messiah, but keep the Sabbath and diet according to the teachings in Leviticus 11. They have the faith in Jesus but they are rather legalistic. I don't think they deserve to be called Cults. SDA has the similarity to the Messianic Jews.

That is a true statement - There are messianic groups that are composed of both Jews and Gentiles that accept all of the Ten commandments and that accept the food laws of Lev 11 as do SDAs.

The Seventh-day Baptists are also a group that accept the Arminian view of SDAs and all of the Ten Commadments.

If one is going to argue that to accept the continued authority of God's Ten commandments is to be "a cult" then they are painting with a very broad brush. At the very least they should be constrained by Romans 14 from making such rash statements.

If one is to argue that those who accept the continued validity of 1Cor 12 are a cult -- then not only do they have charismatic and messianic groups to condemn but also a number of Baptist groups.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: Clearly, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with losing one's salvation. Paul is clearly teaching that those who revert back to "keeping the law" in order to gain the favor of God (salvation), have "fallen from grace," that is, they have chosen to ignore the grace of God and try to make it to heaven on their own merit.

HP: BR sums up the counter argument in stellar style with this one simple question. :thumbs:

BR: Notice that in Gal 5 Paul argues that "you were running well" and then asks "who hindered you?".
Is it your argument that the lost "were running well"?

HP: I will await Pastor Bob’s response.

 

[Eliyahu]

Bob said Quote:
So I am going to have go with the Bible on that one.

It is hard to see the difference from here -- no text of scripture says "Salvation while severed from Christ" - John describes it in John 15 as being cut off from Christ, Paul as "severed from Christ" -- those who imagine that "severed from Christ" and "cut off from Christ" is "SAVED" have to come up with a Bible text.

in Christ,

Bob


1. If "throw away - withered - burned in the fire" is fully consistent with the "lost" who never were joined to Christ THEN there is NO WAY that condition CAN ALSO apply to the saved so that BOTH lost AND saved are in that condition with relation to Christ!

2. If you agree that it applies to the LOST -- then OSAS fails in John 15 since JOINED to Christ and IN the vine of Christ can not ALSO apply to the "lost state" just as "withered and BURNED" apply. The two states are OPPOSITE!

I would defend the second interpretation.
Fake Christians can pretend to be attached to the Tree, and therefore from the beginning they were not the Christians.

As for the first interpretation, it cannot be right if it is talking about the whole person. However, if it is talking about any behaviors, then you can find the case in 1 Cor 3:11-13 which tells us the burning of stubbles.

3. IF you argue that "severed" from the vine of Christ, withered, dead and BURNED in the fire is "the Gospel description of the SAVED state" then you have to find some Bible text to support such an extreme idea.


John 15
1 ""I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 ""Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "" You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "" Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 ""I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 ""If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

in Christ,

Bob

Paul was still writing to Galatians who were severed from Jesus ( Gal 5:4) Why doesn't he tell them to recover the salvation and be baptized again?

Do you lose salvation everyday or every year?
Then are you getting baptised everyday or every year?

 

[Eliyahu]

That is a true statement - There are messianic groups that are composed of both Jews and Gentiles that accept all of the Ten commandments and that accept the food laws of Lev 11 as do SDAs.

The Seventh-day Baptists are also a group that accept the Arminian view of SDAs and all of the Ten Commadments.

If one is going to argue that to accept the continued authority of God's Ten commandments is to be "a cult" then they are painting with a very broad brush. At the very least they should be constrained by Romans 14 from making such rash statements.

If one is to argue that those who accept the continued validity of 1Cor 12 are a cult -- then not only do they have charismatic and messianic groups to condemn but also a number of Baptist groups.

in Christ,

Bob

I agree that I could have avoided so many foolish follies after my salvation if I had followed and esteemed the Law.
But I believe the ceremonial Law has been replaced by Jesus and His sacrifice, while the Holy Spirit guides us to keep the Moral Law.
Among the Ceremonial Law, the Sacrificial Law was definitely replaced by the Cross of Jesus.
The remaining Ceremonial Law includes Sabbath, I believe. That's why we find nowhere in NT condemning the Sabbath breakers among gentiles.

NY tells us that Gentiles don't necessarily keep the Law, which implies Jews need to keep it.

You can keep Sabbath, and I would not condemn it but accept it as a good devotion.
I think Diet is also a part of Ceremonial Law which is not related to Moral.
But basically we were falsely educated that the Law was abolished.

Holy Spirit who was the author of the OT commandments doesn't work in contradiction to the Law which was written by Him.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that I could have avoided so many foolish follies after my salvation if I had followed and esteemed the Law.
But I believe the ceremonial Law has been replaced by Jesus and His sacrifice,

I agree. In Lev 23 we see that the Annual feast days have their basis in animal sacrifices. In Heb 10 we see that the animal sacrifices are ended by the Law of Christ which means all feastivals/services/ordinances that require animal sacrifice in order to be observed - are also ended.

while the Holy Spirit guides us to keep the Moral Law

Agreed again. The Moral law defines sin and according to Romans 3, Romans 7 and Gal 3 it continues to define sin.

The remaining Ceremonial Law includes Sabbath

I am not convinced that you can argue that honoring the Creator and His Holy Day given before the fall of mankind is simply a "ceremonial obligation" and not a moral one -- especially since in Is 66 we know that "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" in the New Earth.

But we may simply have to agree to differ on that point.

, I believe. That's why we find nowhere in NT condemning the Sabbath breakers among gentiles.

I find no reference in the NT to commands given to Gentiles telling them "do not take God's name in vain".

But that is not a valid biblical argument for abolishing that moral commandment.

I have to go with D.L.Moody's statement on all of the Ten commandments being valid.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

2. If you agree that it applies to the LOST -- then OSAS fails in John 15 since JOINED to Christ and IN the vine of Christ can not ALSO apply to the "lost state" just as "withered and BURNED" apply. The two states are OPPOSITE!

I would defend the second interpretation.
Fake Christians can pretend to be attached to the Tree, and therefore from the beginning they were not the Christians.

Then how is lost and joined to Christ follwed by lost and removed from Christ? How is it that the lost are starting out in John 15 joined to Christ??

Paul was still writing to Galatians who were severed from Jesus ( Gal 5:4) Why doesn't he tell them to recover the salvation and be baptized again?

Do you lose salvation everyday or every year?
Then are you getting baptised everyday or every year?

Paul does not say "everytime you sin you are lost" in Romans 11 -- rather he says "you stand only by your faith" and then argues "you should fear for if he did not spare them neither will he spare you" and he argues in the case of the fallen Jews "HE is able to graft them IN AGAIN if they do not CONTINUE in their unbelief".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Paul does not say "everytime you sin you are lost" in Romans 11 -- rather he says "you stand only by your faith" and then argues "you should fear for if he did not spare them neither will he spare you" and he argues in the case of the fallen Jews "HE is able to graft them IN AGAIN if they do not CONTINUE in their unbelief".

HP: Here is yet another fine example of the plain truth held by at least some if not all SDA’s that absolutely make it against reason to consider them as a cult. From everything I have ever read or heard from them, they certainly have their salvation straight and understand clearly the warnings in Scripture to continue in the fear OF God and obedience unto the end. I must, out of reason and fairness, consider them as my brothers, sisters, and fellow workers in the kingdom, in spite of many other disagreements.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Notice that in Gal 5 Paul argues that "you were running well" and then asks "who hindered you?".

Is it your argument that the lost "were running well"?

Not at all. This epistle is written to the saved. There was a tremendous pressure to return to obedience to the law instead of depending on the grace of God. Paul is addressing those who trusted the Lord by faith through grace, but now are being falsely taught that they must still keep the law.

Is it your position that the "lost were joined to Christ" but then later "were severed from Christ" ?

I believe this would be impossible because the very God who gave them "everlasting life" also said that He cannot lie. Those joined to Christ can never be severed.

Is it your position that Gal 5 should have said
"you are not saved - you have always been severed from Christ and you are continuing to deny grace as you always have"

No, This is not at all my position.

or are you saying that what it says (as we read it below) is the same thing as the above so that you would accept either one as an accurate translation of the text?

I believe the passage as it appears in the KJV is exactly what God said through Paul. I believe it is exactly what God intended for you and I to read as well.

Let me ask you another question, suppose you came to Gal 5 with NO predisposition for OSAS -- after reading Gal 5 would you have come away thinking "severed from Christ means saved" or would you come way thinking "you were running well ... but you have been severed from Christ" means "you were never saved to start with"?

OSAS is not even a consideration in this passage. The context clearly reveals that the subject is the Christian, saved by grace, has no reason to go back to keeping the law in order to maintain the favor of God. We did nothing to deserve it to begin with; we can do nothing to keep it once we're saved. Keeping the law has no value in this issue.

 

[Eliyahu]

Then how is lost and joined to Christ follwed by lost and removed from Christ? How is it that the lost are starting out in John 15 joined to Christ??

Many fake Christians attend the churches ( Gal 2:4, 1 John 2:19, 2 Cor 11:4, John 8:30, 44). It is no wonder that many misunderstand themselves are the Christians though they were never grafted into Christ.
They are removed and thrown away into the fire. The believer who took the bath already doesn't need to take it again, but to wash only feet ( Jn 13:10)

Paul does not say "everytime you sin you are lost" in Romans 11 -- rather he says "you stand only by your faith" and then argues "you should fear for if he did not spare them neither will he spare you" and he argues in the case of the fallen Jews "HE is able to graft them IN AGAIN if they do not CONTINUE in their unbelief".

in Christ,

Bob

Ro 11 doesn't mean that the Believer can lose the salvation and be grafted again into Christ.
Paul was not talking about the same individual. Historically, the Jews of 1 c may lost the salvation, but if the jews of 21 c repent, then they can be grafted into Christ again. He was talking about different eras.

You are so serious about the words of rebuking such as "fallen from Grace"
It doesn't mean the loss of Salvation. If you stick to legalism as Galatians did, you can be fallen from the Grace, but it doesn't mean that you lose the salvation if you were really saved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: (in relationship to the passage in Gal 5) I believe this would be impossible because the very God who gave them "everlasting life" also said that He cannot lie. Those joined to Christ can never be severed.

Pastor Bob: (in the same post) OSAS is not even a consideration in this passage.

HP: If one ever desired to read living proof that OSAS has to be injected into this passage of Scripture via ones own presupposition of OSAS, to get it to read as Pastor Bob says it reads, here is proof from his own lips. He clearly admits that OSAS is 'not even a consideration in this passage.' Why then read the passage as he does from a OSAS perspective??

Another interesting point of this chapter is verse 18. Notice that only those being led of the Spirit are 'not under the law.' An interesting passage indeed. If this chapter is about believers as Pastor Bob states, are we not to also believe that some believers are indeed under the law due to the fact that they are not walking in the Spirit? If the believer (who Pastor Bob says this chapter is addressed to) is under the law, is he not under the penalty of law? Law without penalty is good advice or council, but is no law at all.

Are you now going to say that we are not under the law as believers? Then you will have to conclude that all believers "walk in the Spirit" and as such do not the things contained in verses 19-21. If you insist that this chapter is stating that a believer cannot but walk in the Spirit, who is he speaking of in verse 16-18 that has the distinct possibility of walking in the flesh and as such being under the law? You cannot tell me the unsaved, for you have already told us that it is the believer that is being addressed, am I not correct?

Could your presentation so far have the ring of reasoning in a circle?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

He clearly admits that OSAS is 'not even a consideration in this passage.' Why then read the passage as he does from a OSAS perspective??

Friend, I do not read this passage from a "OSAS perspective" any more than I do a "God is against divorce" perspective. This passage has to do with neither.

If this chapter is about believers as Pastor Bob states, are we not to also believe that some believers are indeed under the law due to the fact that they are not walking in the Spirit?

No believer is under the law (Rom 6:14). It is not simply me that states this passage is addressed to believers, Paul wrote this epistle to the "churches of Galatia."

If the believer (who Pastor Bob says this chapter is addressed to) is under the law, is he not under the penalty of law? Law without penalty is good advice or council, but is no law at all.

Again, these believers were not under the law; they were willfully and ignorantly placing themselves under the law in that they thought they had to keep the law. They were wrong.

Are you now going to say that we are not under the law as believers?

Yes.

Then you will have to conclude that all believers "walk in the Spirit" and as such do not the things contained in verses 19-21. If you insist that this chapter is stating that a believer cannot but walk in the Spirit, who is he speaking of in verse 16-18 that has the distinct possibility of walking in the flesh and as such being under the law? You cannot tell me the unsaved, for you have already told us that it is the believer that is being addressed, am I not correct?

You have a false premise about what this passage is teaching. It is you who brings presuppositions to the debate.

Could your presentation so far have the ring of reasoning in a circle?

Not to those who have a proper understanding of biblical interpretation as it relates to this passage.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: Again, these believers were not under the law; they were willfully and ignorantly placing themselves under the law in that they thought they had to keep the law. They were wrong.

HP: Ga 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But IF ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Verses 16-18 say that they are not under the law IF they are walking in the Spirit, does it not? So I ask you again. Were they all walking in the Spirit? Are we to assume that they could not have failed to walk in the Spirit and as such found themselves under the law as verses 17-18 clearly indicates would be the case?

This was just not a case about ceremonial law, but was addressing sinful acts. To place oneself under the law is to commit sin. Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(By the way. Everyone on this list has most likely has committed one or more of these sins. Are we to call God a liar if any of us make it in? Just wondering)

When a believer commits these acts of sin, they place themselves back under the curse of the law and its penalty. That is the point of this text. To avoid this falling away and possibility of being severed from Christ, failing to enherit the kingdom, they are to walk in the Spirit, i.e., to act in obedience to the commands of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Then how is lost and joined to Christ follwed by lost and removed from Christ? How is it that the lost are starting out in John 15 joined to Christ??

Eliyahu
Many fake Christians attend the churches ( Gal 2:4, 1 John 2:19, 2 Cor 11:4, John 8:30, 44). It is no wonder that many misunderstand themselves are the Christians though they were never grafted into Christ.
They are removed and thrown away into the fire. The believer who took the bath already doesn't need to take it again, but to wash only feet ( Jn 13:10)

If you claim that John 15 "every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit" is not supposed to mean "IN Christ" but simply "attending a Christian Church" THEN you would have the warning about those branches "take away and burned in the fire" meaning "removed from Church attendance and burned".

Do you really claim that all lost people are removed from attending church??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Here is yet another fine example of the plain truth held by at least some if not all SDA’s that absolutely make it against reason to consider them as a cult. From everything I have ever read or heard from them, they certainly have their salvation straight and understand clearly the warnings in Scripture to continue in the fear OF God and obedience unto the end. I must, out of reason and fairness, consider them as my brothers, sisters, and fellow workers in the kingdom, in spite of many other disagreements.

Preach it!

We may not agree on everything - but it is seldom that Christians of different denominations "agree on everything".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Notice that in Gal 5 Paul argues that "you were running well" and then asks "who hindered you?".

Is it your argument that the lost "were running well"?

Pastor_Bob
Not at all. This epistle is written to the saved. There was a tremendous pressure to return to obedience to the law instead of depending on the grace of God. Paul is addressing those who trusted the Lord by faith through grace, but now are being falsely taught that they must still keep the law.

To be clear - Gal 5 says this.



Galatians 5
1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.


Gal 5
4 [b]You have been severed from Christ[/b], you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

If you are saying that the ones Paul is writing to are in fact saved "You were running well" fits in pretty good with that assessment on your part.

But then you have spoken of that same "you" the warning "You have been severed from Christ... you have fallen from Grace".

Are you saying that those saved persons are now "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" but are "saved anyway - apart from Christ and Grace"??

#1. Where do you find support for "saved apart from Christ"??

Or "remain saved after being severed from Christ" in scripture??

#2. If your actions (including the action of choosing to obey some part of God's OT Law) DO NOT result in a change of salvation status - then how could they possibly "sever you from Christ" in that "no change" model??


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Are you saying that those saved persons are now "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" but are "saved anyway - apart from Christ and Grace"??

#1. Where do you find support for "saved apart from Christ"??

Or "remain saved after being severed from Christ" in scripture??

#2. If your actions (including the action of choosing to obey some part of God's OT Law) DO NOT result in a change of salvation status - then how could they possibly "sever you from Christ" in that "no change" model??

Apparently you are not grasping my understanding of this passage, or else I am not explaining myself plainly enough. I do not support "saved apart from Christ" in any form or fashion. I do not support the "severed from Christ" translation.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (KJV)

Paul is simply teaching these Christians that it iis vain for them to attempt to unite the two systems. They must either depend on their keeping the law and not the grace of Christ for their justification, or they can continue to trust Christ and therefore have no need of the law.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So I ask you again. Were they all walking in the Spirit? Are we to assume that they could not have failed to walk in the Spirit and as such found themselves under the law as verses 17-18 clearly indicates would be the case?

You are not understanding what Paul means when he says "under the law." No believer is "under the law" in the sense that he must keep the law in oder to merit salvation. They place themselves "under the law" when they erroneously believe they must keep the law in order to gain God's favor.

When a believer commits these acts of sin, they place themselves back under the curse of the law and its penalty. That is the point of this text.

This is a gross misinterpretation of this passage. There is no scriptural support for this belief; not in this passage or anywhere else in the Word of God.

To avoid this falling away and possibility of being severed from Christ, failing to enherit the kingdom, they are to walk in the Spirit, i.e., to act in obedience to the commands of God.

What you are saying is that we are saved by our good works. We are then kept by our good works. Christ's substitutionary death was in vain if we have to do all the work.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is the gist of Galatians Chapter 5. Obviously there were those that were trying to command others to be circumcised, as if though the way to a right relationship with God was to be circumcised. We still have others much like this today telling us that we need to join this group or that, be dunked in this tank or that, say this man-made prayer or another, on and on goes the list. Paul was trying to tell these believers that no such ‘works of the law’ have any ability to save them or keep them. The grounds of salvation is not by any works man can or will do, but is a result of God’s mercy. This was not to say that there was no conditions to salvation, or to say that repentance faith and obedience to the end were not required of man, but rather that they were not the grounds of their salvation,

The law, as a means to forgiveness, was done away with for Christ was the fulfillment of the law in that sense. Just the same, the moral law, was as in as much full force then as it was in the OT. Paul was trying to get the Galatians to understand that NOTHING, including circumcision, could save them or keep them from avoiding the penalty of the moral law, apart from sincere repentance and faith in Christ and in the CONTINUED obedience that is evidenced by a life of ‘walking in the Spirit.’ Paul was teaching these Galatians that the only way they could avoid coming under the condemnation of the moral law, still in full force, was by a life of obedience, again, walking in the Spirit. Circumcision meant nothing if in fact they were a law breaker now. Paul even listed the sins that he felt would bring them back under the condemnation of the law, and even eventually, if they were to remain committing those sins with an unrepentant heart, that they would indeed be severed from Christ. It did not matter what ritual they had previously went through. NOTHING apart from continued obedience to God, via a life of walking in the spirit, would suffice to see them into the kingdom.

Paul was warning these Galatians that they could only be kept in a right relationship with God via walking in the Spirit as opposed to walking according to the flesh. IF they were walking in the Spirit, they would not fulfill the things of the flesh. IF they were fulfilling the things of the flesh they could not entertain a hope of eternal life, for’ those doing those things CANNOT inherit the kingdom’ regardless of the rituals they had went through before. NOTHING will suffice for continued obedience and the fulfilling of the conditions God had mandated to be kept by the power of the Holy Spirit, i.e. to continue to ‘walk in the Spirit’ as evidenced by obedience and abstinence from sin.

Paul was saying that the test whether or not they were walking in the Spirit or walking according to the flesh, and as such under the law and it’s penalties, was by self-examination of their actions. Again, he gave them a list of fleshy sins that were evidence of walking not by the Spirit but rather according to the flesh. He again was warning them that if their lives proved to be walking according to the flesh, as evidenced by the sin in their lives, they had no hope of inheriting the kingdom. Neither circumcision, baptism, or any other outward manifestation of ceremonial law would suffice to avoid the law and its penalty condemning them. The only way to avoid the condemnation of the law, once one had became born again ,was to walk in the Spirit, as evidenced by a life of the avoidance of sin and in clear opposition to walking in the flesh.