Evidence for God from Science

Can a believer with the HS lose his salvation by being tempted to briefly sin, and then succumbing to sin?

Wolfgang, I don't believe that a believer can lose his salvation. I don't think there's a believer alive who hasn't succumbed to sin at one point or another.

It looks like the Bible said Ananias and Sapphira at one time did have the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc., strongly implying that at least for a time they were "believers," but temptation overcame them to break the commandments to not lie, to not covet, etc.

Reading the text, I don't see where you get that from. Where does it say in Acts that A&S were believers indwelt with the HS?

Could you tell me what defines "belief"? Is it faith only? If belief is more than faith, what else, very briefly, is "belief"?

If you're talking about belief/faith in Christ, then I use the terms interchangeably sometimes.

Also, you forgot to answer my question about 1 Corinthians 9:27. If your idea that the indwelling HS guaranteed salvation unconditionally, according to your quote above, then why in the world did Paul in verse 27 admit that he himself could lose his salvation if he fails to adequately discipline himself? Is there not a major conflict there between what you said and what Paul said? It really does look like salvation is to a certain extent conditional according to 1 Corinthians 9:27. Again, I acknowledge that it is actually grace that saves us, not obedience to laws, if there are no other serious problems in a Christian's life, according to the Bible. If I am wrong, correct me so that I can properly understand these verses.

I don't think Paul is referring to salvation here. My guess, as I haven't looked at this in depth, is that Paul is referring to his fear of being rejected as a proclaimer of the gospel. Or, maybe Paul is concerned with losing rewards in heaven.

RickD, since you said that you have not read 1 Corinthians 9:27 in depth, what do you think of 2 Corinthians 13:5? It says: "..... Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you are disqualified." --- NKJV The Greek word for "disqualified" in both verses in 1 and 2 Corinthians is adokimos, Strong's 96, defined as unapproved, rejected, worthless, castaway, and reprobate. Does not the phrase "Jesus Christ is in you" in 2 Corinthians 13:5 imply in some way that Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:27 was admitting that he could lose his salvation by no longer having "Jesus Christ in him" if his sins were serious and prolonged enough to "disqualify" him? Don't you think that Christians definitely must have Jesus "in them" to be saved? At least in some small recess in the back of your mind, don't you think there is the realistic possibility, keeping what 2 Corinthians 13:5 says in mind, that 1 Corinthians 9:27 refers to Paul's possibly losing his salvation?

Getting back to 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, you said that Paul was not referring to sinful Christian adulterers, thieves, revilers, drunkards, etc. attending the church at the time that church received this letter from Paul verbally chastizing them. Are you really 100% sure about that? Most quality Bibles in their introductions to 1 Corinthians explain that the city of Corinth, which was on an isthmus, was a notoriously sinful, wealthy city with sailors frequently passing through the city. The city had a rich tradition of pagan worship, and some of the Corinth church members were still struggling to come out of that type of paganism. Don't you think that the phrase "Do not be deceived" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 means basically the same as "don't for a minute think that you can continue to get away with theft, adultery, etc. and still make it into God's Kingdom"? All, repeat, ALL Bible commentaries consider the adulterers, thieves, etc. Paul was talking about in verses 9 and 10, as believers in the church. Yes, Paul said that some of the church members were previously such sinners, but that remark was probably just a side, factual comment on the part of Paul, not the main point of verses 9 and 10. So don't you think there is at least some kind of realistic possibility, even a teeney weeney little possibility, based on Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 that temptation overcome believers, if they continue to be thieves, extortioners, etc., will be barred from entering God's Kingdom?

Also, you forgot to answer my question several days ago about how to properly interpret Matthew 7:23. What does that verse mean? It mentions lawlessness, so it has something to do with law. When you check the Greek, the word "anomia" comes up for lawlessness. When you look up the definition of anomia, it has something to do with an absence or abandonment of some kind of Mosaic laws. What in the world does that verse mean? The verse is quoting our Creator, Jesus, so it must be important. It must mean something. The verse also is some kind of warning or threat to Christians. What does Matthew 7:23 mean?

It looks like the Bible said Ananias and Sapphira at one time did have the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc., strongly implying that at least for a time they were "believers," but temptation overcame them to break the commandments to not lie, to not covet, etc.

Reading the text, I don't see where you get that from. Where does it say in Acts that A&S were believers indwelt with the HS?

Sorry to butt in, but I believe Rick is right. The text does not indicate it one way or the other. Though one can make a case about what makes a believer or not. And believe me we had plenty of threads of that one. Byblos and others had some good points on that one. Those who believe that a genuine believer can never fall away in my opinion move into a close proximity of the Calvin's institutions of efficacious grace and preservation of the saints, (though a separate case can be made for these as well) those who point to disobedience as falling away get to close to performance based standard.

I believe that it is the indwelling of the Holy spirit which makes or breaks the case, not our efforts. The rest is divine mystery, only God knows what is in someone's heart but I do believe, believer or not, man is responsible for his actions. Whether he is pardoned or not is another case.

Hi Wolfgang. Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, there are a few things that I believe are essential beliefs or doctrines in the Christian faith.

1) The deity of Jesus Christ
2) Salvation by God's Grace through faith
3) The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
4) Monotheism

Those things I'm sure of. Down a little on the list, are other things I'm sure of myself, but I don't believe are a necessary belief in order to be saved. And one of those things is my belief that once one places his faith in Jesus Christ(remember from #1 on my list, that the Jesus in whom we believe must be God)his salvation is assured. A believer's salvation is assured because of God's promises and who He is. Not because of who we are, or what we do. I guess I could explain it as once we are adopted as God's children, we are part of His family. He is now our Father. We can run away, or turn away from Him. But He will always be our Father.

With that being said, with any scripture that seems like it is saying a believer can lose salvation, I always see a different interpretation. I just feel there's too much scriptural evidence that backs "absolute assurance of salvation" of a believer.

So, in regards to 2 Corinthians 13:5, I see it as Paul asking the Corinthians to put themselves to the test to see if they are saved in the first place. There are always wolves among the sheep.

Wolfgang wrote:
At least in some small recess in the back of your mind, don't you think there is the realistic possibility, keeping what 2 Corinthians 13:5 says in mind, that 1 Corinthians 9:27 refers to Paul's possibly losing his salvation?

No. Not even the tiniest possibility in the most hidden recess of my mind.

Wolfgang wrote:
Getting back to 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, you said that Paul was not referring to sinful Christian adulterers, thieves, revilers, drunkards, etc. attending the church at the time that church received this letter from Paul verbally chastizing them. Are you really 100% sure about that?

Let's look at the verses in question here:1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Paul was talking to believers, but I believe he wasn't talking about believers because he said in verse 11, "Such were some of you..."
Now, I see another possible interpretation. Paul was talking to believers AND referring to believers. Once the believers were "washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God", then God no longer judges believers on their sins. The sinful nature doesn't inherit the kingdom of God. Believers are now free from their sins through faith in Jesus Christ. That's not to say believers are free to sin once they have been saved.

And, there's also another interpretation that others have said. That "the kingdom of God" isn't the same as salvation. I personally go with the first one I mentioned(although my belief on this is not set in stone), but I definitely don't see it as losing one's salvation.

Wolfgang wrote:
Also, you forgot to answer my question several days ago about how to properly interpret Matthew 7:23. What does that verse mean? It mentions lawlessness, so it has something to do with law. When you check the Greek, the word "anomia" comes up for lawlessness. When you look up the definition of anomia, it has something to do with an absence or abandonment of some kind of Mosaic laws. What in the world does that verse mean? The verse is quoting our Creator, Jesus, so it must be important. It must mean something. The verse also is some kind of warning or threat to Christians. What does Matthew 7:23 mean?

Matthew 7:15-23:
15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot * produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Wolfgang, I believe this is simply a warning against the wolves in sheep's clothing that I was referring to before. False prophets who aren't believers. Lawlessness or wickedness.

I think that, while we MAY be able to comment on what we THINK leads to salvation, things such as faith in Christ and Christ's sacrifice for us, we can NOT comment with 100% certainty as to WHO is saved and WHY, that is truly up to God.
That there are many different views on the matter speaks for itself.
I think that the crucial element may truly be the individual understanding of what it means to be saved.
I think that if an individual believes that certain works are need as "evidence" of being saved ( or even needed TO be saved) then that individual, whether right or wrong, should do those things.
If another individual believes that belief in Christ is all that is needed, then so be it.
I don't think that any believer has the right to dictate WHAT must be done to be saved for any other believer.

I don't think that one believer can judge another believers faith ( though we can judge their actions of course).
I think that for some people a "measuring rod" of sorts is needed so that THEY know they are "doing right".
For others, they don't need that.
It is important to always realize that, in the end, it is God that decides, period.

He will have mercy on who HE chooses to have.

RickD, so even Hebrews 10:26,27,29,31 doesn't scare you either? Verse 27 is most likely referring to the lake of fire. Generally, I don't think any one sin (there probably are exceptions) can result in a loss of salvation for a Christian, but rather a "falling away from" Christianity and consistently, deliberately sinning (involving the more serious sins probably) that can cost one his salvation. Many well respected Christians believe Hebrews 10:26,27,29,31 is "iron clad, rock solid, re-enforced steel concrete" proof that salvation can be lost under certain conditions and is quite conditional.

You forgot to answer my question about what defines sin. What is sin? Does your definition differ from that definition of sin given in the Bible (1 John 3:4)?

Works based salvation/sanctification = We do in order that we might become .....

Grace based salvation/sanctification = We recognize what we have become in Christ, and we do because of who we are.

Gal 3: 1You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?4Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?5So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

10For 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 THEM.”11Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Wolfgang wrote:RickD, yes, I agree with you that salvation, ultimately, comes through grace and not by law keeping or self righteousness. Don't you believe, though, that poor law keeping can adversely affect the fate of Christians? How do you explain 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 which tells us CHRISTIAN adulterers, CHRISTIAN gays, CHRISTIAN drunks, CHRISTIAN thieves, and covetous CHRISTIANS will be barred from the Lord's kingdom? The word CHRISTIAN is not in those verses, but you can tell by the subject content that the verses are directed at Christian listeners.

Fleshly living can adversely affect the fellowship of a believer. But that is a whole different topic. Trying to mix the two only produces legalism and a false Gospel.
Is the term "inheriting the Kingdom" equivalent to salvation? If you say yes, then I say prove it.

Explain that verse. It seems to want to say that grace has its limitations, correct?

I would say Grace has no limits, only conditions. Right belief in Christ being the condition.

That verse appears to say that sins committed before baptism and conversion to Christianity ("sins of earlier times") are erased and forgotten by the gift of grace. Where in the Bible does it specifically say sins committed after repentance and baptism are completely covered and erased by grace? Yes, there is a verse or two that says if you confess your sins, Jesus is our Mediator (will defend us or stand up for us), etc., basically saying that grace can erase those sins, too, but those verses assume one is serious about not committing those sins again. If I am wrong, please correct me so that I will not misunderstand.

It says we are baptized into one body when we believe and sealed with a promise, not our performance.

Revelation 14:12 reveals that the saints, the Christians, obey the laws in the commandments, most likely the 10 commandments, which would also most likely include the Saturday Sabbath law, a Mosaic law (which seems to imply other Mosaic laws are still in force, too [if I am wrong, please correct me]). Again, the Bible clearly tells us that it is grace that really saves us, but righteousness (or law keeping) seems to play some kind of very serious role in the fate and destiny of Christians. Does not that Revelation 14:12 verse imply something ominous about those who do not keep the commandments?

you are making a lot of assumptions. And taking a lot of liberty to impose your views onto the text. Is Revelation speaking of how things are now, or will be at a given time for a given people?

Explain 1 Corinthians 9:27. Paul admits he himself could lose his salvation if he falls short of one or more standards. If you believe "once saved, always saved," explain that verse. The verse seems to say that failure to be righteous enough can cost you your salvation. If it does not say that, explain to us what it says so that we can all accurately understand it.

OK, follow you same line of reasoning consistently and contextually. Are you saying that getting to heaven is a race, and you have to compete against other Christians for a spot? Paul never mentions salvation. Once again you are importing your presuppositions onto the text.

In Acts 5:1-11 Ananias and Sapphira, apparently well respected, BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS possessing the Holy Spirit, were EXECUTED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY for breaking one little, teeney weeney law, lying. How do you reconcile that poor couple's sad fate with the "once saved, always saved" and "saved by grace" idea?

Where does it say they aren't saved? It doesn't. Do you see believers or non-beleivers dropping dead for such things today? Could it be that perhaps what was happening around the little flock in Jerusalme is NOT what is happening today?

What about James 2:12? Are you going to "sweep that under the rug?" "Throw it out the window?" "Delete it?" "Claim it is a misprint?" That verse commands Christians to do as those who will be judged by the law (Mosaic law since nomos, Strong's 3551, is in that verse). In other words, does not that verse command Christians to "copycat" and "mimic" the behavior of those who will be judged by the law (law keepers)? If not, please explain it so that we can understand it.

First the book is specifically addressed to Jews. James 1:1
2nd. Don't just say 'what about it?' Show us, what is the law that gives freedom. And why would that be important to one of these Jews?

Explain Matthew 7:23 so that I can better understand it. That verse is about some kind of law keeping. Whatever kind of law keeping it is about, it seems that Christians deficient in that department will be affected.

Matt. 7 is the SOM, and is for contemporary Jews. Jesus said not to go the way of the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of Israel. Are you saying Jesus was confused about his earthly ministry?

Again, I fully understand that grace, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus for our sins (past, prebaptismal sins only according to Romans 3:25 [if I am wrong here, please correct me]) is what really, really saves us, not righteousness or any kind of obedience to laws. But from the above verses, it looks like breaking laws can really hurt us Christians, correct?

No, you don't. I'd say you don't understand grace at all. Walking in the flesh, and can really hurt us Christians. But there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

RickD, so even Hebrews 10:26,27,29,31 doesn't scare you either? Verse 27 is most likely referring to the lake of fire. Generally, I don't think any one sin (there probably are exceptions) can result in a loss of salvation for a Christian, but rather a "falling away from" Christianity and consistently, deliberately sinning (involving the more serious sins probably) that can cost one his salvation. Many well respected Christians believe Hebrews 10:26,27,29,31 is "iron clad, rock solid, re-enforced steel concrete" proof that salvation can be lost under certain conditions and is quite conditional.

There are many commentaries that deal with these verses. If you want to hold this interpretation, then you need to be consistent. Have you sinned since being a Christian? Then there is no sacrifice for that sin. You are doomed.
Just like with Hebrews 6:4-6. "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance."
If we follow Wolf's hermanuetic, then sinning after believing means you are condemned to Hell with no hope. So, Wolf, I guess you think that you are meeting the standard? Are you? Or, are you condemning yourself to hell with no hope.

It still amazes me that legalists aren't concerned with the greatest sin. Not taking God's grace and free gift of salvation at His word, but trying to add to it through religion. Sad.

RE: Ananias and His wife:
5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and (A)kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he (B)laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has (C)Satan filled your heart to lie (D)to the Holy Spirit and to (E)keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but (F)to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias (G)fell down and breathed his last; and (H)great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and (I)covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land (J)for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to (K)put (L)the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she (M)fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And (N)great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.

Now, i remember reading this the first time and thinking, Damn ! That must be the blasphemy of the HS that Jesus spoke of !
Under the context of the preceeding chapters, it is reasonable to think that they were part of those that were baptized by Peter ands the apostles, that had received the HS.
BUT I never viewed it as an "execution" by the HS or by Peter ( as some do) In God's name.
Why?
Well, not only does it seem out of character for the HS BUT it seems that, as per the verses, Ananais fell dead after HEARING what Peter said, as did his wife.
It seems to be that they died when confronted by Peter ( filled by the HS) and his accusations, guilters death as it were.

Nowhere does it state that Peter or God or the HS struck them down ( as it stated in other books in which God does strike people down).
To say that they were executed is, IMO, incorrect.

PaulSacramento wrote:Nowhere does it state that Peter or God or the HS struck them down ( as it stated in other books in which God does strike people down).To say that they were executed is, IMO, incorrect.

Then you deny the simple evidence of intelligent design. What are the odds that 2 death would occur at a specifiable point relative to a speakers content?
What are the odds tha life formed by itself? If we are confidant that we can know evilution is incorrect based on ID principles then we should be able to apply the same rationale even within the biblical framework.

I would also say you should take into account the truth from the story of Hezekiah;

2Ki 20:4 And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
2Ki 20:5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
2Ki 20:6 And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.
2Ki 20:7 And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.
2Ki 20:8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?
2Ki 20:9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?
2Ki 20:10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.
2Ki 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

God added time to Hezekiah's life beyond his natural point of death. Thus God has the power to add or subtract from that which he has given at any time. Whether you want to consider the action as having occured by the HS or God himself the facts in the case point to their lives being shortend before their normal time. Only God has such power ans authority and nothing can occur without Gods approval.

I don't understand, what is the problem with God striking them dead? Potter and clay and all ...

Byblos wrote:I don't understand, what is the problem with God striking them dead? Potter and clay and all ...

The only problem I could see with God striking them dead, is if they were believers. Not that God can't strike believers dead. Just that I don't think it's consistent with Christ's sacrifice for those that believe on him. But, I guess if one believes a believer can lose his salvation by sinning, then i could see why one may believe A&S lost their salvation, and then God killed them.

Byblos wrote:I don't understand, what is the problem with God striking them dead? Potter and clay and all ...

There is no problem with God striking them dead, it is just that nowhere does it say that God struck them dead.
At best one can say it is implied but it can also be said that it is implied that Peter did it.
The way I read it, Ananais and His wife were struck down by the weight of their guilt at being caught lying to the HS ( Representative of their oaths as Christians and by Peter as leader).

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:I don't understand, what is the problem with God striking them dead? Potter and clay and all ...

The only problem I could see with God striking them dead, is if they were believers. Not that God can't strike believers dead. Just that I don't think it's consistent with Christ's sacrifice for those that believe on him. But, I guess if one believes a believer can lose his salvation by sinning, then i could see why one may believe A&S lost their salvation, and then God killed them.

Well, I never thought of physical death as loss of salvation. Who's the Catholic here Rick?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:I don't understand, what is the problem with God striking them dead? Potter and clay and all ...

The only problem I could see with God striking them dead, is if they were believers. Not that God can't strike believers dead. Just that I don't think it's consistent with Christ's sacrifice for those that believe on him. But, I guess if one believes a believer can lose his salvation by sinning, then i could see why one may believe A&S lost their salvation, and then God killed them.

Well, I never thought of physical death as loss of salvation. Who's the Catholic here Rick?

Hardy Har Har, Mr. funny pants. I didn't mean it that way. You know the whole, "No condemnation for those in Christ" thing. Christ was condemned, and put to death for the sins of the world. And God won't condemn anyone who believes in Him. So, I don't see God striking down dead A&S if they were believers. Of course, God could have struck them down if they were unbelievers. Or, if they were believers, they could have died upon the Holy Spirit's conviction of their sin. Or, they could have been believers, and God did strike them down, and the whole "No condemnation for those in Christ" deal, refers to no condemnation in a spiritual sense, not physical.