nomenclature wrote: I am not come to call the righteous, but "sinners" to repentance.
Of course. Only sinners need salvation. And, everyone is a sinner, until he is brought to Christ in saving faith.
That person is then a new creation in Christ Jesus. He is regenerated. It is not just a legal transfer of the sins to the Saviour, but it is a receiving of the Spirit of God within the heart.
Think on the verse about not putting new wine into old wine skins. They would burst. You put new wine into new wineskins - IOW, a new spirit into a new heart.
Christians are no longer called sinners, but, "a royal priesthood", "stewards of the mysteries of God", "ambassadors for Christ", "servants of Christ", "the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelling within", "full of goodness", "filled with all knowledge", "having this treasure in earthen vessels", "sons of God", "children of God", "heirs with Christ".
So, there is a distinction between the one who has been washed from his sins by the blood of the Lamb, and the sinner who is still in his sins.
One can rightly be labeled a Christian, and the other a sinner.
scarecrow wrote: But tattie, the invisible church is composed of visible sinners.
But, Scarecrow, Christians are never addressed as sinners by the writers of the N.T. They are called "saints", "beloved brethren", "fellow heirs", "overcomers", the "redeemed", "blessed of the Lord", "blood bought", "the bride of Christ".
Continuing to call Christians "Sinners" would indicate that the predominant characteristic of their lives is sin, uninterrupted. Not so. Christians are characterized by holy living, interrupted by sin.
There is nothing virtuous in declaring how perceptive one is as to the sin condition, and then staying there as a sign of humility.
There is something virtuous in praising the One who not only redeems us from our sins, but, transforms our lives and, "will present us blameless to God in the day of Christ Jesus."
A Democratic Conservative wrote: Have ALL U.S. Presidential Candidates, since George Washington, been required to physically produce Valid, Documented & Official/Authentic ORIGINAL Manuscript-Specie and/or Copies of Their Original "Signed-Sealed-&-Delivered" U.S. Birth Certificates in Order to Be Sworn in As President of The United States of America ? And if NOT in the Past; Why then NOW ? Hmmmm.
Did George W. Bush Produce a Genuine Authenticated "Signed-Sealed-&-Delivered" Copy of His U.S. Birth Certificate before he was Sworn in As The Chief Executive of These United States of America on January 20, 2001 ?
And how many U.S. Presidents Since George W. (WASHINGTON, that is) and before George W. Bush have we ALREADY Elected U.S. President before they PHYSICALLY PRODUCED any Valid, Documented & Official/Authentic ORIGINAL Manuscript-Specie and/or Copies of Their Original "Signed-Sealed-&-Delivered" U.S. Birth Certificates ? According to U.S. Federal Election Law; EVERY Certified NAME on EVERY Certified Federal General Election Ballot PRESUPPOSES that the Named Person on the Ballot is a GENUINE U.S. CITIZEN !
Did the previous candidates during their career provide their birth certs? I say yes. Your defense of Obama is hysterical.
My husdand said many years ago that persecution is going to come from the homosexuals. It is all about money and votes. We do not seem to care about the family and we wonder why our society is like it is. We need to pray and ask God for mercy.