PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality



djh22
May 3rd 2009, 12:45 PM
Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes ?

Dave Robb
May 3rd 2009, 12:53 PM
I believe it is.
Jud 1:7 What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God's people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.

1Co 6:9 Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Sojourner
May 3rd 2009, 01:00 PM
Thou shalt not lie (lay) with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22


26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind... Romans 1:26 - 28

daughter
May 3rd 2009, 01:21 PM
Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes ?
If by homosexuality you mean the act, then yes.

Athanasius
May 3rd 2009, 04:56 PM
Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes ?

The acts associated with homosexuality are sin. 'Simply' having the disposition or homosexual orientation are in themselves not sin.

-SEEKING-
May 3rd 2009, 08:58 PM
Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes ?

Yes. But it's not the only one. Nor the worst.

THOM
May 3rd 2009, 09:01 PM
If by homosexuality you mean the act, then yes.


Thou shalt not lie (lay) with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22


The acts associated with homosexuality are sin. 'Simply' having the disposition or homosexual orientation are in themselves not sin.

I agree with Daughter, Sojouner, Xel'Naga, totally.
Homosexuality and Bestiality are the only two sins in Scripture where ONLY the ACT is CONDEMNED as sin.

decrumpit
May 3rd 2009, 09:13 PM
Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes ?

The act is, yes.

djh22
May 3rd 2009, 09:13 PM
Unanimous so far , So I'll get to my main point which is I wonder why the church allows homosexual clergy ?


djh22.

Athanasius
May 3rd 2009, 09:22 PM
Unanimous so far , So I'll get to my main point which is I wonder why the church allows homosexual clergy ?

djh22.

The church shouldn't be allowing clergy who are practicing homosexuals.

However, if the person in question has a homosexual orientation but is living a chaste life in the name of Jesus Christ then I don't see any issue other than prejudice on the part of quite a few people.

NewInHim
May 3rd 2009, 09:31 PM
The church shouldn't be allowing clergy who are practicing homosexuals.

However, if the person in question has a homosexual orientation but is living a chaste life in the name of Jesus Christ then I don't see any issue other than prejudice on the part of quite a few people.

Well said. I tried to say the same thing, and kept erasing and rewriting what I said. My point is that homosexuality isn't the one sin that gives us permission to be hateful. We are called to love our neighbors (sinners like us), whether their sin is lying, pridefulness, homosexual acts, gossip, etc. A repentant sinner can be called to be a pastor. A person who disregards God's word on this issue, and continues in the sin, should not be a pastor.

Prufrock
May 3rd 2009, 10:39 PM
Unanimous so far , So I'll get to my main point which is I wonder why the church allows homosexual clergy?
It shouldn't. I agree with the posters who have drawn a distinction between homosexual orientation and the homosexual act, and I have great respect for homosexuals who struggle to live chaste lives - - - although, statistically, I think they're few and far between.

But the ministry of the Gospel, and especially the pastorate, is different. A saved homosexual, who is being gradually conformed to the image of Christ, can serve God in many ways. But a pastor has the responsibility for providing moral and spiritual leadership for entire families. Although I don't think it's necessary for a pastor to be married, or a father, I would oppose a homosexual as pastor for the same reason that I oppose clerical celibacy: he would be unable to identify with the families under his care, and they would be unable to identify with him. And, although any pastor is frequently confronted with sexual temptation, I believe that this would be a greater problem for a pastor with a homosexual orientation: because the homosexual "life-style" (a word I don't like very much) is inherently promiscuous, and homosexual liasons are often quick and anonymous. A homosexual pastor, no matter how pure his intentions, would be faced with temptations that would be very difficult indeed.

There is also the little matter of how a homosexual pastor could be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2), which seems a rather obvious obstacle....

Denominations that officially sanction homosexuality are, in my opinion, so hideously apostate that they hardly qualify as "churches" at all. If I belonged to a denomination that took such a position, I'd be out the door before the pastor had a chance to say goodbye.

Athanasius
May 3rd 2009, 10:56 PM
But the ministry of the Gospel, and especially the pastorate, is different. A saved homosexual, who is being gradually conformed to the image of Christ, can serve God in many ways. But a pastor has the responsibility for providing moral and spiritual leadership for entire families. Although I don't think it's necessary for a pastor to be married, or a father, I would oppose a homosexual as pastor for the same reason that I oppose clerical celibacy: he would be unable to identify with the families under his care, and they would be unable to identify with him.

What of young pastors who aren't married (I know very many who deal with marriage 'situations'), or pastors who simply, during the course of their ministry, never got married (I can think of many good reasons why) either for personal reasons or because they have 'the gift' (of celibacy). Certainly these people carry with them an intellectual understanding of moral, spiritual and family leadership while they themselves aren't a father (or mother, get out your stones) and, as you said above, would be 'unable to identify' with the families under their care.

With the above I fail to see any relevant distinction that would disqualify one group over the other. A young person entering ministry or an older person who has been in ministry for a while who never married seems to me to be in the same position as one who is living chastely for Christ (because of being disposed to a homosexual orientation). The obvious and immediate distinction I see is that the former group struggles with heterosexual sexual sin, the latter with homosexual sexual sin.

Perhaps, however, you're seeing something that I'm missing.



And, although any pastor is frequently confronted with sexual temptation, I believe that this would be a greater problem for a pastor with a homosexual orientation: because the homosexual "life-style" (a word I don't like very much) is inherently promiscuous, and homosexual liasons are often quick and anonymous. A homosexual pastor, no matter how pure his intentions, would be faced with temptations that would be very difficult indeed.

Heterosexual 'lifestyles' I would say are equally promiscuous. I don't believe it necessarily follows, however, that a person with a homosexual disposition would automatically adopt the promiscuity of more vocal homosexuals. Perhaps I would even grant for the sake of argument that what you say does follow, at which point I would agree though ultimately point out that they are living for Christ and living chastely at that - it's a non-issue. Promiscuity is promiscuity.



There is also the little matter of how a homosexual pastor could be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2), which seems a rather obvious obstacle....

I don't believe not marrying presents any difficulty with the above verse. After all, wasn't the person who wrote it single on account of the Lord?

Prufrock
May 3rd 2009, 11:17 PM
What of young pastors who aren't married (I know very many who deal with marriage 'situations'), or pastors who simply, during the course of their ministry, never got married (I can think of many good reasons why) either for personal reasons or because they have 'the gift' (of celibacy). Certainly these people carry with them an intellectual understanding of moral, spiritual and family leadership while they themselves aren't a father (or mother, get out your stones) and, as you said above, would be 'unable to identify' with the families under their care.
I know plenty of young pastors in that position, too. I specifically said that I don't think a pastor needs to be a husband or father.


Heterosexual 'lifestyles' I would say are equally promiscuous.
That is simply not true. Granted, our culture is universally sex-obsessed, and heterosexuals move from relationship to relationship with a frequency that would have been unthinkable in earlier generations. But (it's difficult to discuss this without getting too specific and sordid) heterosexuals do not have nightclubs and other venues in which they "interact" with multiple partners, often anonymously, during the course of a single evening. The truly unbridled promiscuity of most young (under 50) homosexuals is very well-documented, but I do not choose to post a list of links describing such wretched activities, nor do I think such links would be welcome here.


I don't believe it necessarily follows, however, that a person with a homosexual disposition would automatically adopt the promiscuity of more vocal homosexuals.
Oh, I don't either. That's not what I was saying. But I think a homosexual pastor would be the target of many "active" homosexuals who were promiscuous. That's the temptation to which I referred: not the pastor's promiscuity, but that of those who would seduce him. As I specifically said, heterosexual pastors have such temptations, too, but not as many.


I don't believe not marrying presents any difficulty with the above verse. After all, wasn't the person who wrote it single on account of the Lord?
LOL! I don't mind repeating myself. I specifically said that a pastor does not need to be married.


:D

Athanasius
May 3rd 2009, 11:33 PM
I know plenty of young pastors in that position, too. I specifically said that I don't think a pastor needs to be a husband or father.

That is simply not true. Granted, our culture is universally sex-obsessed, and heterosexuals move from relationship to relationship with a frequency that would have been unthinkable in earlier generations. But (it's difficult to discuss this without getting too specific and sordid) heterosexuals do not have nightclubs and other venues in which they "interact" with multiple partners, often anonymously, during the course of a single evening. The truly unbridled promiscuity of most young (under 50) homosexuals is very well-documented, but I do not choose to post a list of links describing such wretched activities, nor do I think such links would be welcome here.

Oh, I don't either. That's not what I was saying. But I think a homosexual pastor would be the target of many "active" homosexuals who were promiscuous. That's the temptation to which I referred: not the pastor's promiscuity, but that of those who would seduce him. As I specifically said, heterosexual pastors have such temptations, too, but not as many.

LOL! I don't mind repeating myself. I specifically said that a pastor does not need to be married.

:D


Ah well, that's what I get for quickly reading what you said ;)

Josie
May 4th 2009, 12:02 AM
Quote Prufrock
LOL! I don't mind repeating myself. I specifically said that a pastor does not need to be married.


All the single girls in the church would probably say Amen! :pp

Sojourner
May 4th 2009, 12:47 AM
The acts associated with homosexuality are sin. 'Simply' having the disposition or homosexual orientation are in themselves not sin.I humbly disagree with those who say that only the act of homosexuality is sin, because all sin begins in the heart.

"20And he said, That which cometh out of the man (his heart), that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:20


"Then when lust hath conceived (in the heart) , it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:15

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 01:02 AM
I humbly disagree with those who say that only the act of homosexuality is sin, because all sin begins in the heart.

"20And he said, That which cometh out of the man (his heart), that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:20

"Then when lust hath conceived (in the heart) , it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:15

I'm fairly certain that homosexual acts would fall under 'fornications'. However, I don't see a condemnation of the homosexual disposition in the above scripture as it hasn't been shown that the homosexual disposition is sin. It certainly isn't in the above scriptures.

Sojourner
May 4th 2009, 01:12 AM
I'm fairly certain that homosexual acts would fall under 'fornications'. However, I don't see a condemnation of the homosexual disposition in the above scripture."Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer." Psalms 19:14 "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24And see if there be any wicked way in me" Opinions! Everybody has them.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 01:35 AM
I humbly disagree with those who say that only the act of homosexuality is sin, because all sin begins in the heart.

"20And he said, That which cometh out of the man (his heart), that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:20

"Then when lust hath conceived (in the heart) , it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:15


"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer." Psalms 19:14 "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24And see if there be any wicked way in me" Opinions! Everybody has them.

You have to show that scripture condemns a homosexual orientation, otherwise Mark 7 and James 1 only reinforce the position I and others have taken through study of scripture.

There are a total of six instances in the Bible where the issue of homosexuality is addressed; three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament (in addition to those passages dealing with marriage and homosexuality - thanks Craig). "In all six of these passages homosexual acts are unequivocally condemned" (Hard Questions, Real Answers, pg. 135). I'll quote two of those scriptures below and if need be you can look up the third passage yourself as I won't quote it to save space (Genesis 19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019;&version=49;)). You'll see that in examining these six portions of scripture that there is a condemnation of the act but not the orientation related to homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Very straight forward - don't lie with a male as one lies with a female. There is no mention of homosexual orientation vs. heterosexual orientation, simply the sexual act. The act is condemned, the orientation is not.

Onto the New Testament references.

1 Corinthians6:9-10
9Or 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,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice that in the above there is a distinction made between fornicators and homosexuals (cf. Mark 7 as quoted above where there is no mention of homosexual behavior). Now a brief Greek lesson, the word homosexuals in the above passage is better rendered 'those who practice homosexuality' as the Greek word is arsenokoites, meaning, "one who lies with a male as with a female". Practicing homosexuals, not what I've been calling chaste homosexuals on account of Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:10
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching

Again, same Greek word here - arsenokoites

The last of the New Testament verses is Romans 1:24-28

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper

Now, you can quote Mark and James and that's fine, those verses agree with the above in condemning homosexual acts. However, in the above and with the verses you quoted there is no condemnation of a homosexual orientation.

As for accusing me of expressing an opinion at the cost of the Word of God, that is a serious accusation and one that should not be taken lightly - I would not throw it against other believers without having good reason. What I say is what scripture teaches. If you disagree then refute me using scripture properly.

bagofseed
May 4th 2009, 02:47 AM
If we have murder in our hearts are we judged as murders?

If we look at someone with lust in our hearts are we not also judged as guilty?

Pro (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Pro&chapter=20#9) 20:9 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Pro&chapter=20&verse=9)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Who can say, “I have kept my heart clean; I am pure from my sin”?

Psalms Fan
May 4th 2009, 02:49 AM
I speak as one who has been confused about my own orientation at times. I believe that even just an orientation for what God intended stems from our fallen nature and is, in that sense, "sinful". If we had never fallen into sin, there would be no homosexual orientations.

But we live in a world where everything - even our humanity - is tainted by sin. And even as redeemed christians, not everything that sin has corrupted is necessarily done away with this side of eternity. We will still die. We will still have sin in our members, even though we've been made alive in spirit. But having been made alive in Christ and sealed with the Holy Spirit, we can choose to make use of the power over sin that God has given us. And I'll be the first to attest to the fact that dying to sin is not easy. It wouldn't be a "temptation" if we didn't find pleasure in sin, whatever that sin might be.

So yes, any kind of homosexuality, whether it be by orientation or by act, is "sinful". But will a homosexual orientation be done away with this side of eternity? Maybe, maybe not. But Christ has given us the power to live holy lives, in spite of the sin that still dwells in our members.

I believe (and know) that there can be underlying attraction, whether it be for the opposite or same sex, without there being lust and fantasies. I'll agree that a pastor with a homosexual orientation could very likely be more specially targeted than one who does not have that orientation. But even pastors without that orientation have sin in their members. In fact, when pastors conventions convene, the hotels where they stay report incredible jumps in the amount of porn that is ordered on the TV's. So even without a homosexual orientation, there is plenty of sin in all of our lives.

So I guess my point is that all things that aren't the way God intended them to be are that way because of sin. A homosexual orientation is not a "good" thing. But it is a redeemable thing.

Moxie
May 4th 2009, 03:22 AM
Just food for thought on the passage in Romans.

Verse 24, 26 and 28 it states, "God gave them over..." This section in Romans is talking about sin and the wrath of God on unrighteousness. The term "Gave them over" refers to a prisoner being handed over to his sentence.

In verse 24 God gives them up to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts to dishonor their bodies. Rarely is a behavior (any behavior) not preceded by a thought.

In verse 26 God gives them up to vile passions where men and women are committing acts of homosexuality. In this verse it says they "burned in lust for one another" Again thought before a behavior.

In verse 28 God gives them over to a debased mind to do things that are not fitting and goes on to list several sins. Again, thinking before doing.

Sadly, we have learned to be "tunnel visioned" when looking at this section in Romans. As Christians, most of us tend to stop at verse 27 and say, "Whew, glad that ain't me" Well....read on.....it is about us because the list of sins is pretty extensive.

Understanding what sin is and how it affects our lives can help us understand and appreciate His awesome grace.

CoffeeCat
May 4th 2009, 03:44 AM
While we're on the subject.... how about Matthew 5:28?

"But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

I know that's speaking to men.... but could it also be speaking to women who are attracted to other women? Several here have said that while the act is what's sinful, the orientation isn't in itself a sin. I wish I could believe that. Every time I start to, the above verse leaps out at me, because it suggests orientation, really. This hypothetical man is attracted to a woman. He isn't committing an act; merely being attracted and picturing her is the same as committing adultery with her. It seems to suggest that it's sin. So it seems that a woman would be convicted of the same 'adultery of the heart'.

I don't meant to de-rail the OP's thread, but I'd love to hear an answer, especially from anyone who's stated so far that orientation itself isn't a sin.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 03:54 AM
While we're on the subject.... how about Matthew 5:28?

"But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

I know that's speaking to men.... but could it also be speaking to women who are attracted to other women? Several here have said that while the act is what's sinful, the orientation isn't in itself a sin. I wish I could believe that. Every time I start to, the above verse leaps out at me, because it suggests orientation, really. This hypothetical man is attracted to a woman. He isn't committing an act; merely being attracted and picturing her is the same as committing adultery with her. It seems to suggest that it's sin. So it seems that a woman would be convicted of the same 'adultery of the heart'.

I don't meant to de-rail the OP's thread, but I'd love to hear an answer, especially from anyone who's stated so far that orientation itself isn't a sin.

The hypothetical man is absolutely committing an act, he's staring at a woman, lusting as a result (people don't tend to lust without first thinking about it). The fact that he's attracted to the woman in the first place is because he's heterosexual, it doesn't follow though that his orientation is sinful because a corollary of that orientation is his act of lusting. Lusting, I would say, is much more than having an attraction; it's taking that initial attraction and then abusing it. Taking it a step further; appreciation following into depreciation.

The same would follow for lesbian homosexuality, a woman staring and lusting after another woman. Because of her orientation she's attracted to the woman, however, it's the act of staring and then lusting (which as I said above isn't involuntary) which is condemned, the act of 'adultery'. What's not condemned is her lesbian orientation.

From the above though there's no condemnation of orientation, as you noted as well there is no mention of if who is doing the staring - a woman or a man. Regardless of orientation any of the acts mentioned in this thread are acts which any person can do (sexual orientation is a fairly new concept). Otherwise from what you're saying above; it's sinful to be heterosexual and it's sinful to be homosexual. This doesn't follow though as God would have then created us in a sinful state.

CoffeeCat
May 4th 2009, 04:00 AM
Thank you. That explanation helped. :)

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 04:03 AM
Thank you. That explanation helped. :)

It's a fairly new view of mine, actually. Some one else on this board changed my mind in a discussion we were having and I've been looking into it ever since (and believe it makes more sense than what I formerly believed) - I forget who it was, he was a smart fellow though.

If you have anything else then bring it up, I prefer holding true beliefs to false ones ;)

CoffeeCat
May 4th 2009, 04:11 AM
Same here; I want my beliefs to be good, solid ones.

I guess my only reservation is that an orientation towards a certain gender lends itself to something MORE than 'just admiring' very easily. As a hypothetical, could someone say 'wow, she's pretty' and NOT be sinning, but then think of spending time with her, and suddenly be sinning? I guess I'm just trying to figure out where the line's drawn. Well, one thing's for sure..... we NEED to guard our hearts. And we need to be on the lookout, constantly, for things that might tempt us to think sinful thoughts. And when I say we, I include myself there too. Nobody's immune.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 04:17 AM
Same here; I want my beliefs to be good, solid ones.

I guess my only reservation is that an orientation towards a certain gender lends itself to something MORE than 'just admiring' very easily. As a hypothetical, could someone say 'wow, she's pretty' and NOT be sinning, but then think of spending time with her, and suddenly be sinning? I guess I'm just trying to figure out where the line's drawn. Well, one thing's for sure..... we NEED to guard our hearts. And we need to be on the lookout, constantly, for things that might tempt us to think sinful thoughts. And when I say we, I include myself there too. Nobody's immune.

Probably a topic for another thread. To say, however, I think the process of admiration to lust is different for everyone. I would have a very difficult time looking at a woman and think, 'Wow! She's pretty!' Without then taking it a step further - I have to very guarded when it comes to that. I'm sure there are others, however, who can and that isn't an issue.

I wouldn't necessarily say thinking about spending time with someone (unless you mean 'spending time' in a completely different manner than I'm thinking) has crossed the line. Thinking about certain actions you might engage in while spending time together, however, would definitely be crossing the line and sin. I don't think there's really a clear answer outside of what we definitely know is unacceptable so as you say, we need to be constantly on the lookout.

Moxie
May 4th 2009, 04:39 AM
According to the American Psychological Association sexual orientation is defined as: "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

With this definition in mind, I don't see how orientation is not a sin. If we want to be on solid ground we must not only look at things biblically but also, at times, secularly. The Bible is not likely to say anything against "sexual orientation' (as we see it today) when the 1st centuries Christians would not have understood the concept. Today however, we have a solid definition from a reputable secular source. A source that an unbeliever might go to if one were struggling with homosexuality.

So, I pose the question to you....would we tell an unbeliever who has read the above definition that sexual orientation is not a sin? why or why not.

Note: it is not my intent to pose this question and derail the OP's topic.

Prufrock
May 4th 2009, 05:39 AM
The same would follow for lesbian homosexuality, a woman staring and lusting after another woman. Because of her orientation she's attracted to the woman, however, it's the act of staring and then lusting (which as I said above isn't involuntary) which is condemned, the act of 'adultery'. What's not condemned is her lesbian orientation.
Au conraire, my wise friend. Homosexual lust, quite apart from homosexual activity, is condemned in Romans 1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. That verse specifically distinguishes between lust and actual activity.

I should clarify my earlier posts. I said that homosexuality, as an orientation, was not necessarily sinful (or words to that effect). But I also made reference to those saved homosexuals who struggled against their fleshly desires. I do not believe that a homosexual, saved at age 25 or 35, is doomed to struggle with these temptations for the rest of his or her life. As he or she moves closer to Christ, and becomes more like Christ, I believe that this problem (and it is a problem) will be diminished, even if not totally eradicated, just as a drug addict or alcoholic gains victory in the long term (except for the miraculous "instant" deliveries which are so glorious). And we must never forget the truly shattering implications of 2 Cor. 5:7: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

But our goal is not to help homosexuals turn into heterosexuals. Our goal is to help sinners find Christ. The repair work is His business, not ours.

Sojourner
May 4th 2009, 07:40 AM
The fact that he's attracted to the woman in the first place is because he's heterosexual, it doesn't follow though that his orientation is sinful because a corollary of that orientation is his act of lusting.....but, Homosexuallity is a gross perversion of the Will of God .......... Search me. O Lord and know my heart.......and see.......

djh22
May 4th 2009, 09:17 AM
While we're on the subject.... how about Matthew 5:28?

"But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This hypothetical man is attracted to a woman. He isn't committing an act; merely being attracted and picturing her is the same as committing adultery with her. It seems to suggest that it's sin. So it seems that a woman would be convicted of the same 'adultery of the heart'.

I don't meant to de-rail the OP's thread, but I'd love to hear an answer, especially from anyone who's stated so far that orientation itself isn't a sin.

Hi CoffeeCat,
I don't mind my OP being de-railed,I think you have raised a very valid point of which I'm sure we are all at least slightly guilty of and I'm sure there are many ramifications of this, websites and magazines etc.

God Bless,

djh22.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 11:04 AM
Au conraire, my wise friend. Homosexual lust, quite apart from homosexual activity, is condemned in Romans 1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. That verse specifically distinguishes between lust and actual activity.

Well, what I'm saying is that the act of lust is condemned (I would say it's related to homosexual activity; lust first, then action - related, though distinct?), so is acting on that lust. It doesn't necessarily follow though - even though a homosexual orientation is not what God intended - that the orientation is itself sinful. Perhaps I'm missing what you're saying?


....but, Homosexuallity is a gross perversion of the Will of God .......... Search me. O Lord and know my heart.......and see.......

It sure is! However, if you aren't practicing homosexuality - even with a homosexual orientation - then you aren't doing any perverting. The problem, I think, is with the whole notion of 'orientation'.

Rhyfelwr
May 4th 2009, 05:34 PM
I notice some people say its OK to be of a homosexual orientation... but then isn't sinning in your hearts just as much sin as any actions you actually take?

If they were truly not sinning by it, then they would not be perverse in the first place.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 05:53 PM
I notice some people say its OK to be of a homosexual orientation... but then isn't sinning in your hearts just as much sin as any actions you actually take?

If they were truly not sinning by it, then they would not be perverse in the first place.

Just because you have a homosexual orientation does not mean you're necessarily sinning in your heart. Just because you 'have' a certain orientation doesn't mean that orientation will manifest itself through your actions (as is said, actions are manifestations of internal ponderings). Especially for those who didn't choose their orientation and would rather not have the one they find themselves struggling with.

RabbiKnife
May 4th 2009, 06:19 PM
Just because you have a homosexual orientation does not mean you're necessarily sinning in your heart. Just because you 'have' a certain orientation doesn't mean that orientation will manifest itself through your actions (as is said, actions are manifestations of internal ponderings). Especially for those who didn't choose their orientation and would rather not have the one they find themselves struggling with.

I have a male heterosexual orientation. I want to have sex with anything in a skirt.

However, both God and my wife have different ideas about that, so I crucify my flesh and seek to fulfill the will of my Father, which pleases my wife and avoids a 9 mm craniotomy.

My flesh is sinful. My spirit holds it in check. I do not sin by having a sexual orientation. I sin if I permit myself to engage in sexual sin.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 06:30 PM
I have a male heterosexual orientation. I want to have sex with anything in a skirt.

However, both God and my wife have different ideas about that, so I crucify my flesh and seek to fulfill the will of my Father, which pleases my wife and avoids a 9 mm craniotomy.

My flesh is sinful. My spirit holds it in check. I do not sin by having a sexual orientation. I sin if I permit myself to engage in sexual sin.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 06:33 PM
I have a male heterosexual orientation. I want to have sex with anything in a skirt.

However, both God and my wife have different ideas about that, so I crucify my flesh and seek to fulfill the will of my Father, which pleases my wife and avoids a 9 mm craniotomy.

My flesh is sinful. My spirit holds it in check. I do not sin by having a sexual orientation. I sin if I permit myself to engage in sexual sin.

I assume that a monogamous homosexual marriage is OK as long as they are committed to one another?

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 06:35 PM
I assume that a monogamous homosexual marriage is OK as long as they are committed to one another?

No, that's a violation (or perhaps misunderstanding) of God's intention for marriage.

RabbiKnife
May 4th 2009, 06:36 PM
I assume that a monogamous homosexual marriage is OK as long as they are committed to one another?

Why would you assume that? God has a plan for sexual activity. It is called heterosexual marriage. Nothing else.

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 07:54 PM
Why would you assume that? God has a plan for sexual activity. It is called heterosexual marriage. Nothing else.

Doe's the Bible actually hetero only?

RabbiKnife
May 4th 2009, 07:57 PM
Doe's the Bible actually hetero only?

Yes, despite what all the detractors try to say the Bible says, it is impossible to read Scripture honestly and believe that homosexual intercourse is an acceptable behavior to God.

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 08:05 PM
Is there any scripture that specifically says homosexuality is bad?

RabbiKnife
May 4th 2009, 08:07 PM
Is there any scripture that specifically says homosexuality is bad?

Leviticus 18
Romans 1
The only permitted sexual intercourse anywhere in Scripture is between a man and his lawful wife.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 08:28 PM
Is there any scripture that specifically says homosexuality is bad?

This has already been discussed in the previous three pages - please review the thread. As for the function of marriage and sex; Genesis and Jesus (in agreement) both state that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 10:28 PM
Let me ask this.
Consider a Homosexual married couple. Lets say two women. If ether or both except Jesus as their Lord & Savior, Are they saved?

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 10:29 PM
Let me ask this.
Consider a Homosexual married couple. Lets say two women. If ether or both except Jesus as their Lord & Savior, Are they saved?

This has already also been address, the answer is no.

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 10:30 PM
This has already also been address, the answer is no.

Sorry i missed that Why not?

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 10:33 PM
Did Jesus not cleans us of all sin? God no longer judges us on our sins.

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 10:38 PM
Sorry i missed that Why not?

Well, excepting Jesus is no way to salvation ;)

I answered the way I did because in your question I see the implication that, having accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, the women in question continue to live in their sinful lifestyle, contrary to the teachings of their 'Savior'. If this is the case then no, these women are still consciously living in sin - they aren't saved.

If they are truly saved then upon accepting Christ they would have to separate, discontinue their lifestyle and either live chaste lives or seek healing through Christ (which they should do regardless). This requires an acknowledgment that their lifestyle is sin and they have abandoned it.

It all depends on how they act after choosing Christ.


Did Jesus not cleans us of all sin? God no longer judges us on our sins.

I'm sorry, where does that give us a license to freely sin? You're jumping all over the place, stick to one topic and address it.

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 10:48 PM
Well, excepting Jesus is no way to salvation ;)

I answered the way I did because in your question I see the implication that, having accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, the women in question continue to live in their sinful lifestyle, contrary to the teachings of their 'Savior'. If this is the case then no, these women are still consciously living in sin - they aren't saved.

If they are truly saved then upon accepting Christ they would have to separate, discontinue their lifestyle and either live chaste lives or seek healing through Christ (which they should do regardless). This requires an acknowledgment that their lifestyle is sin and they have abandoned it.

It all depends on how they act after choosing Christ.



I'm sorry, where does that give us a license to freely sin? You're jumping all over the place, stick to one topic and address it.
Let me ask you another question. Have you Xel ever gotten angry with anyone?

Scruffy Kid
May 4th 2009, 11:02 PM
Hi, embankmentlb,
Welcome to Bibleforums! :hug:
It's nice to have you here!!! :pp :pp :pp

Let me ask this.
Consider a Homosexual married couple. ... If [they accept] Jesus as their Lord & Savior, Are they saved?
The central matter in life, as far as I understand it, is that we receive what God has done for us, which is to say that we give our lives to God, just as Christ gave His life for us.

Then it is not so much a matter of what can we do and be saved, as of how do we please God. For Jesus teaches us to pray "Thy will be done."

There are various reasons why we should seek to please God, and do as He tells us to. One reason, of course, is that God is our maker, and our savior. Thus, we owe Him our lives, twice over, and (besides that it is our duty) if we have understood all that He has done for us, we love Him, and want to do as He wants us to.

But if we understand God, we also know that His commands are life. God does not arbitrarily tell us to do this or that, though it is His right to set the rules, of course. Rather, His ways are the ways of life, and what He commands is what is good for us. Thus, if God tells us that it's wrong to be unforgiving, proud, angry, selfish, or lustful, we should realize that that generally reflects the fact that those things, though for now they seem attractive and so right, are actually very bad for us (and for others).

When we first come to God, and also later, it is a struggle to do what He tells us to. But if we have really come to God, really are following Christ, then we must know that Jesus tells us that if anyone would come after Him they must deny themselves, that is, their own desires and ways, and take up their cross, and follow Him. (Mark 8) It's always difficult, but it is the path to life. Jesus also warns us that the path that leads to destruction is easy and pleasant, but the path that leads to life is strict and difficult.

God loves us, and loves you, and your friends and loved ones very much! It's because of this that He gives us firm, no-nonsense direction about what is good and bad. As we follow Him, He helps us to obey more, and to put away things that are harmful. It is important to heed what He tells us, though, for His counsel is wise and good, and also because it is only by following Him and learning to love Him above ourselves and our own will and desire that we really give ourselves to Him, and thus allow Him to work with power and grace in our lives.

Blessings on you!!

In friendship, :hug:
Scruffy Kid

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 11:06 PM
Hi, embankmentlb,
Welcome to Bibleforums! :hug:
It's nice to have you here!!! :pp :pp :pp

The central matter in life, as far as I understand it, is that we receive what God has done for us, which is to say that we give our lives to God, just as Christ gave His life for us.

Then it is not so much a matter of what can we do and be saved, as of how do we please God. As Jesus teaches us to pray "Thy will be done."

There are various reasons why. One reason, of course, is that God is our maker, and our savior. Thus, we owe Him our lives, twice over, and (besides that it is our duty) if we have understood all that He has done for us, we love Him, and want to do as He wants us to.

But if we understand God, we also know that His commands are life. God does not arbitrarily tell us to do this or that, though it is His right to set the rules, of course. Rather, His ways are the ways of life, and what He commands is what is good for us. Thus, if God tells us that it's wrong to be unforgiving, proud, angry, selfish, or lustful, we should realize that that generally reflects the fact that those things, though for now they seem attractive and so right, are actually very bad for us (and for others).

When we first come to God, and also later, it is a struggle to do what He tells us to. But if we have really come to God, really are following Christ, then we must know that Jesus tells us that if anyone would come after Him they must deny themselves, that is, their own desires and ways, and take up their cross, and follow Him. (Mark 8) It's always difficult, but it is the path to life. Jesus also warns us that the path that leads to destruction is easy and pleasant, but the path that leads to life is strict and difficult.

God loves us, and loves you, and your friends and loved ones very much! It's because of this that He gives us firm, no-nonsense direction about what is good and bad. As we follow Him, He helps us to obey more, and to put away things that are harmful. It is important to heed what He tells us, though, for His counsel is wise and good, and also because it is only by following Him and learning to love Him above ourselves and our own will and desire that we really give ourselves to Him, and thus allow Him to work with power and grace in our lives.

Blessings on you!!

In friendship, :hug:
Scruffy Kid

Ok, so is a homosexual who excepted Jesus saved?

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 11:08 PM
I assume that a monogamous homosexual marriage is OK as long as they are committed to one another?


Doe's the Bible actually hetero only?


Is there any scripture that specifically says homosexuality is bad?


Let me ask this.
Consider a Homosexual married couple. Lets say two women. If ether or both except Jesus as their Lord & Savior, Are they saved?


Let me ask you another question. Have you Xel ever gotten angry with anyone?

In order of quotes:

1. Is monogamous homosexual marriage okay as long as they are committed to each other
2. Does the Bible actually say heterosexual marriage only
3. Is there scripture that specifically says homosexuality is bad
4. If a lesbian couple came to Christ are they saved (assuming they continued in their lesbian relationship)?

And now
5. Have you ever gotten angry

You have brought up now five separate questions. The fourth and fifth questions are related to each other (as they should be), however, the first, second and third are completely disconnected from the line of thought we're heading in. In fact, you haven't pursued any of the 'issues' you've brought up past the initial reply excepting the most recent question. Some of those issues, by the way, having been already addressed (meaning that at the time of posting you did not read the previous pages of this thread available to you). Hopefully you're going to stick to this tangent (which wasn't all that unexpected).

Now, you're going to say, 'Xel, have you ever gotten angry? If you have you've consciously sinned while professing Christ as Savior. Using your line of logic we can deduce that you are no longer / are not Saved'. However, this line of reasoning is not properly analogous to any homosexual relationship. Firstly, not all instances of anger are sin (righteous anger, for instance), whereas there is no example of an acceptable homosexual relationship. Secondly, if I ever find myself becoming angry with someone and that anger is inappropriate I immediately repent of it and run from it. I do not purposely go out seeking to be angry with people. Again this fails as an analogy as to enter into a homosexual relationship you must have gone out seeking to do 'something'. To stay in that homosexual relationship you likewise have to do 'something' (always involving conscious choice). There is also no repentance if the homosexuals in question - who claim to have accepted Christ as savior - maintain their relationship. Fourthly there is a difference in attitude towards sin that works with the above. I do not seek to be angry with anyone and when I find myself angry I repent and turn from that sin. Homosexual relationships, however, are intentional things. To pursue one after accepting Christ is to show no regard for repentance (in fact I would argue such a person does not believe homosexual relationships to be sin and thus sees no need for salvation - a blatantly anti-scriptural position).

I'm not saying anything terribly difficult.

If we accept Christ as Savior then we deny ourselves, we follow Him and our attitude towards sin changes - we run from it and no longer desire it. We do not go out or continue to consciously sin. If a homosexual accepts Christ then absolutely, they are saved... Assuming they cease in their sin. That's what repentance is.

To claim Christ yet continue to consciously sin is contradictory. Either we're under Christ or we're under sin; which is it? That's all I'm saying.

So what of your above questions? Simply questions to bring us to this point or are they indications of what you really believe?

embankmentlb
May 4th 2009, 11:22 PM
In order of quotes:

1. Is monogamous homosexual marriage okay as long as they are committed to each other
2. Does the Bible actually say heterosexual marriage only
3. Is there scripture that specifically says homosexuality is bad
4. If a lesbian couple came to Christ are they saved (assuming they continued in their lesbian relationship)?

And now
5. Have you ever gotten angry

You have brought up now five separate questions. The fourth and fifth questions are related to each other (as they should be), however, the first, second and third are completely disconnected from the line of thought we're heading in. In fact, you haven't pursued any of the 'issues' you've brought up past the initial reply excepting the most recent question. Some of those issues, by the way, having been already addressed (meaning that at the time of posting you did not read the previous pages of this thread available to you). Hopefully you're going to stick to this tangent (which wasn't all that unexpected).

Now, you're going to say, 'Xel, have you ever gotten angry? If you have you've consciously sinned while professing Christ as Savior. Using your line of logic we can deduce that you are no longer / are not Saved'. However, this line of reasoning is not properly analogous to any homosexual relationship. Firstly, not all instances of anger are sin (righteous anger, for instance), whereas there is no example of an acceptable homosexual relationship. Secondly, if I ever find myself becoming angry with someone and that anger is inappropriate I immediately repent of it and run from it. I do not purposely go out seeking to be angry with people. Again this fails as an analogy as to enter into a homosexual relationship you must have gone out seeking to do 'something'. To stay in that homosexual relationship you likewise have to do 'something' (always involving conscious choice). There is also no repentance if the homosexuals in question - who claim to have accepted Christ as savior - maintain their relationship. Fourthly there is a difference in attitude towards sin that works with the above. I do not seek to be angry with anyone and when I find myself angry I repent and turn from that sin. Homosexual relationships, however, are intentional things. To pursue one after accepting Christ is to show no regard for repentance (in fact I would argue such a person does not believe homosexual relationships to be sin and thus sees no need for salvation - a blatantly anti-scriptural position).

I'm not saying anything terribly difficult.

If we accept Christ as Savior then we deny ourselves, we follow Him and our attitude towards sin changes - we run from it and no longer desire it. We do not go out or continue to consciously sin. If a homosexual accepts Christ then absolutely, they are saved... Assuming they cease in their sin. That's what repentance is.

To claim Christ yet continue to consciously sin is contradictory. Either we're under Christ or we're under sin; which is it? That's all I'm saying.

So what of your above questions? Simply questions to bring us to this point or are they indications of what you really believe?

This is the point i wish to make.
Yes you do get angry. You are angry with me for my line of questions.
All sins are willful. It was your choice to be angry with me at this very moment. Jesus says in Matthew 5: 22 that you are a sinner for being angry with me & are guilty of death. I can not find a passage anywhere in the Bible that says one sin out ways another sin. Sin is Sin.
Is Homosexuality a greater sin than you being angry at me this very moment? NO.
So using the same logic you Xel used to condemn the homosexual you condemn yourself. Are you saved Xel?

Athanasius
May 4th 2009, 11:36 PM
This is the point i wish to make.
Yes you do get angry. You are angry with me for my line of questions.
All sins are willful. It was your choice to be angry with me at this very moment. Jesus says in Matthew 5: 22 that you are a sinner for being angry with me & are guilty of death. I can not find a passage anywhere in the Bible that says one sin out ways another sin. Sin is Sin.
Is Homosexuality a greater sin than you being angry at me this very moment? NO.
So using the same logic you Xel used to condemn the homosexual you condemn yourself. Are you saved Xel?

I'm not at all angry with you for the line of questions, nor am I feeling any sort of [general] anger. Perhaps some what frustrated that you're asking questions that have already been addressed, however, there is no anger present (I wouldn't consider frustration a sin). I think where I am faulted in the majority of my discussions is I have a great deal of difficulty showing love towards others in the discussions I'm involved with. Everything is turned into an intellectual argument and considered (in my mind, most often without me realizing it) a debate; winners and losers. I'll blame parents (not really), environment and upbringing.

I don't believe all sins are willful nor do I believe scripture teaches such a view. There are examples in scripture of sacrifices for unintentional sins; I might enter into a state of sin without initially realizing.

Is homosexuality a greater sin than me being angry with you (though I don't grant you this premise, I'm not) - absolutely! Homosexuality is sexual sin, sin against one's own body.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion I've predicted in my last reply (my answer you'll find there). So apologize and would ask forgiveness if you feel I'm angry with you in any way. However with that said, I don't see how any of the preceding has made legitimate homosexual relationships.

Scruffy Kid
May 4th 2009, 11:44 PM
The central matter in life, as far as I understand it, is that we receive what God has done for us, which is to say that we give our lives to God, just as Christ gave His life for us.

... God is our maker, and our savior. Thus, we owe Him our lives, ... love Him, and want to do as He wants us to. But ... we also know that His commands are life. ...

When we first come to God, and also later, it is a struggle to do what He tells us to. But if we have really come to God, really are following Christ, then we must know that Jesus tells us that if anyone would come after Him they must deny themselves, that is, their own desires and ways, and take up their cross, and follow Him. ...

As we follow Him, He helps us to obey more, and to put away things that are harmful. It is important to heed what He tells us, though, for His counsel is wise and good, and also because it is only by following Him and learning to love Him above ourselves and our own will and desire that we really give ourselves to Him, and thus allow Him to work with power and grace in our lives. ...
Ok, so is a homosexual who accepted Jesus saved? Well, God judges each person, and I don't have some one-line answer to the question "who is saved?" To any sinner -- myself for instance -- God is very gracious, as we flee to Jesus for refuge. God is patient with us as we stumble. But in the end, God's grace does rely upon human cooperation: if our hearts are really trusting God, and we really want to obey God rather than go our own ways, God can bring to salvation even to some rather scruffy and messed-up individuals such as myself. But in so far as I really am insisting on some of the rather messed-up things I find attractive at times, over my desire and duty to be with God and follow Him, I am potentially in serious trouble, I think, even if I have once, or many times, sincerely come to God for help.

For this reason, Paul says "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work within us, both to will and to work according to His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12) Peter tells us that "the righteous can barely be saved!" Jesus tells us that it is those who do what He commands who really are His, and that those who say "Lord, Lord" but disobey are fooling themselves. So, in my own case, I seek very diligently to obey, and I seek God's forgiveness -- and accountability with trusted brothers and sisters -- in areas where I stumble.

Of course, a person with any sin -- murder, adultery, homosexual acts, or pride, or a life of indifference to the poor -- can be forgiven by God, who is always more eager to help us, than we are to be helped. But at the same time, to be helped, forgiven, by God, we must sincerely seek to live as He directs us, even if we do stumble at times.

That is how I understand it.

In friendship,
Scruff

Partaker of Christ
May 4th 2009, 11:48 PM
Sorry i missed that Why not?

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 12:26 AM
I'm not at all angry with you for the line of questions, nor am I feeling any sort of [general] anger. Perhaps some what frustrated that you're asking questions that have already been addressed, however, there is no anger present (I wouldn't consider frustration a sin). I think where I am faulted in the majority of my discussions is I have a great deal of difficulty showing love towards others in the discussions I'm involved with. Everything is turned into an intellectual argument and considered (in my mind, most often without me realizing it) a debate; winners and losers. I'll blame parents (not really), environment and upbringing.

I don't believe all sins are willful nor do I believe scripture teaches such a view. There are examples in scripture of sacrifices for unintentional sins; I might enter into a state of sin without initially realizing.

Is homosexuality a greater sin than me being angry with you (though I don't grant you this premise, I'm not) - absolutely! Homosexuality is sexual sin, sin against one's own body.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion I've predicted in my last reply (my answer you'll find there). So apologize and would ask forgiveness if you feel I'm angry with you in any way. However with that said, I don't see how any of the preceding has made legitimate homosexual relationships.

Please show me in scripture were one sin is greater than another sin. That is more your opinion that Biblical fact.

Jesus says in Matthew 5 : 21-23 that the sin of anger will send you to hell.
It's hard for a sin to top going to hell. If you don't believe what Jesus says then that is sin #2. Calling Jesus a liar may be the biggest sin of them all. Definitely toping being a homo. Whatever measure you use to measure others it will be used to measure you. So far you are not doing to well in the sin department.

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 12:38 AM
Please show me in scripture were one sin is greater than another sin. That is more your opinion that Biblical fact.

Sins are generally categorized; homosexual acts would fall under sexual sin which would be considered sins against one's own body (1 Cor. 6:18). With that, though, I do agree that all sin leads to Hell (ultimately). Now when I say homosexuality is a worse sin I say this because it belongs to the category of sexual sins. So whether the sexual sin is homosexual or heterosexual, it's a 'worse' sin. Sexual sins related to homosexuality are not worse than sexual sins related to heterosexuality.

Partaker of Christ
May 5th 2009, 12:41 AM
Please show me in scripture were one sin is greater than another sin. That is more your opinion that Biblical fact.

Jesus says in Matthew 5 : 21-23 that the sin of anger will send you to hell.
It's hard for a sin to top going to hell. If you don't believe what Jesus says then that is sin #2. Calling Jesus a liar may be the biggest sin of them all. Definitely toping being a homo. Whatever measure you use to measure others it will be used to measure you. So far you are not doing to well in the sin department.

It does not say 'anger' is sin?

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 12:52 AM
Sins are generally categorized; homosexual acts would fall under sexual sin which would be considered sins against one's own body (1 Cor. 6:18). With that, though, I do agree that all sin leads to Hell (ultimately). Now when I say homosexuality is a worse sin I say this because it belongs to the category of sexual sins. So whether the sexual sin is homosexual or heterosexual, it's a 'worse' sin. Sexual sins related to homosexuality are not worse than sexual sins related to heterosexuality.

(1 Cor. 6:18) says absolutely nothing about sexual sins being worse than other sins. Paul just says its a sin against your own body. Sure it is, but not worse. You better find a better scripture than that. The point is that you Xel are a sinner!
You just think you are a "better" sinner than a homo. You have absolutely nothing to stand on.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 12:55 AM
It does not say 'anger' is sin?

Matthew 5:22

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Ah, I think it does.

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 01:05 AM
(1 Cor. 6:18) says absolutely nothing about sexual sins being worse than other sins. Paul just says its a sin against your own body. Sure it is, but not worse. You better find a better scripture than that. The point is that you Xel are a sinner!
You just think you are a "better" sinner than a homo. You have absolutely nothing to stand on.

I've never denied I'm a sinner and I never said I was a 'better' sinner than anyone else. Sexual sins are worse than others for exactly the reason you listed - it's sin against our own bodies. Sexual sin also, in a very real way, takes away from the person participating with us in our [sexual] sin. While sexual sin and lying may both result, ultimately, in spiritual death, there is a great difference between the physical consequences of sexual sin and lying (you won't catch STD's from lying, for instance... Unless you've lied to someone to engage in sexual sin). The same if we compare murder with coveting, etc.

bagofseed
May 5th 2009, 01:12 AM
Matthew 5:22

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Ah, I think it does.
Eph 4:26 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=eph+4:26&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) "[B]Be angry, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath,

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 01:33 AM
I've never denied I'm a sinner and I never said I was a 'better' sinner than anyone else. Sexual sins are worse than others for exactly the reason you listed - it's sin against our own bodies. Sexual sin also, in a very real way, takes away from the person participating with us in our [sexual] sin. While sexual sin and lying may both result, ultimately, in spiritual death, there is a great difference between the physical consequences of sexual sin and lying (you won't catch STD's from lying, for instance... Unless you've lied to someone to engage in sexual sin). The same if we compare murder with coveting, etc.

What you just said is no way Biblical. That is only something you wish were true. Sinning against God is sinning against God & that is as bad as it gets. I have never seen a scale in the Bible rating sins. What if you were angry with someone & upset them to the point they took their own life? You anger took a life & was a worse sin than an STD. You want to believe Xel's sins are Ok & others sins are not.

Josie
May 5th 2009, 01:52 AM
I don't know how God rates each sin, however sexual sins are the hardest to let go of so we are sinning against our own body.
Our body is God's temple so we should keep the temple clean.
It is easier said than done, I know but it is important to grow spiritually closer to God to not participate in sexual sins of any kind.
All things are possible with God.

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 01:58 AM
What you just said is no way Biblical. That is only something you wish were true. Sinning against God is sinning against God & that is as bad as it gets. I have never seen a scale in the Bible rating sins. What if you were angry with someone & upset them to the point they took their own life? You anger took a life & was a worse sin than an STD. You want to believe Xel's sins are Ok & others sins are not.

To re-state; all sin has the same spiritual consequence - death. Those same sins, when considered physically, have different consequences - some worse than others. This is self-evidently true and probably one of the last things I would ever 'wish were true,' by the way. I shouldn't need to quote 'thou shalt know the physical consequences of sin differeth' for this to be true.

As for my being angry and upsetting someone to the point where they took their own life. Well, I'm not angry with anyone so I don't see why you (repeatedly) keep coming back to this. I'm sure someone in such a position may share (not necessarily) responsibility in how person 'X' acted in response to person 'Y'. However, ultimately it is person 'X' who is responsible for their actions and reactions.

As for me wanting to believe my sins are okay and others are not, well, you don't know me very well - you wouldn't be saying that (about me and my views) if you did. It's becoming apparent, however, that this is a sensitive issue for you. Now as I've already apologized and asked forgiveness of you previously if I've caused you to come to a place you don't want to be in it might perhaps be wise for you to take a few steps back and settle down a bit. Whatever state of your mind in is preventing you from understanding clearly what I've written.

dljc
May 5th 2009, 02:12 AM
Did Jesus not cleans us of all sin? God no longer judges us on our sins.Can you show scripture for this?

dljc
May 5th 2009, 02:49 AM
What you just said is no way Biblical. That is only something you wish were true. Sinning against God is sinning against God & that is as bad as it gets. David recognized that all that he had done was sinning against God. David was a murderer and a womanizer, yet he recognized it was God he had sinned against.

Psalms 51:
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Galatians 5:19-23

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.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


Perhaps the one you are thinking of is the unpardonable sin.

Luke 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 02:59 AM
What you just said is no way Biblical. That is only something you wish were true. Sinning against God is sinning against God & that is as bad as it gets. I have never seen a scale in the Bible rating sins.

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin (John 19:10, 11).

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 09:58 AM
To re-state; all sin has the same spiritual consequence - death. Those same sins, when considered physically, have different consequences - some worse than others. This is self-evidently true and probably one of the last things I would ever 'wish were true,' by the way. I shouldn't need to quote 'thou shalt know the physical consequences of sin differeth' for this to be true.

As for my being angry and upsetting someone to the point where they took their own life. Well, I'm not angry with anyone so I don't see why you (repeatedly) keep coming back to this. I'm sure someone in such a position may share (not necessarily) responsibility in how person 'X' acted in response to person 'Y'. However, ultimately it is person 'X' who is responsible for their actions and reactions.

As for me wanting to believe my sins are okay and others are not, well, you don't know me very well - you wouldn't be saying that (about me and my views) if you did. It's becoming apparent, however, that this is a sensitive issue for you. Now as I've already apologized and asked forgiveness of you previously if I've caused you to come to a place you don't want to be in it might perhaps be wise for you to take a few steps back and settle down a bit. Whatever state of your mind in is preventing you from understanding clearly what I've written.

Sorry for questioning you so sharply, but i am responding to you becoming so definitive in the first few treads.
God judges motives. Motives of the heart.
You have lots of opinions on how to judge others that are not based on anything Biblical. Maybe you should search your sole to find why homosexuality is your unforgivable sin? Hmmm...
Normally, I would say this is Ok. Believe whatever you like. You can believe in Santa Clause, The tooth fairy or whatever gets you through the day.
The problem is that this is Bible Chat. I believe you should back your biases with the Bible. So far you have not shown me a single scripture that says that homosexuality is a worse sin than any of the sins you commit.

Sojourner
May 5th 2009, 10:15 AM
Sorry for questioning you so sharply, but i am responding to you becoming so definitive in the first few treads.
God judges motives. Motives of the heart.
You have lots of opinions on how to judge others that are not based on anything Biblical. Maybe you should search your sole to find why homosexuality is your unforgivable sin? Hmmm...
Normally, I would say this is Ok. Believe whatever you like. You can believe in Santa Clause, The tooth fairy or whatever gets you through the day.
The problem is that this is Bible Chat. I believe you should back your biases with the Bible. So far you have not shown me a single scripture that says that homosexuality is a worse sin than any of the sins you commit.Brother, you should really think about your post here. I am guilty of posting quickly without much consideration as to what I am saying and I have been "cute", sharp, and curt in the pass myself.

I mean, your use of words, phrases, and implications like, Xel is judging others; and it is a bit self-righteous and self-serving of you to say that he should search his soul.

May I suggesst to all that we proof-read our post to see how it sounds before we hit that "Submit Reply" button. To those who are saved I say, Are we not bothers?

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 11:22 AM
Sorry for questioning you so sharply, but i am responding to you becoming so definitive in the first few treads.
God judges motives. Motives of the heart.
You have lots of opinions on how to judge others that are not based on anything Biblical. Maybe you should search your sole to find why homosexuality is your unforgivable sin? Hmmm...
Normally, I would say this is Ok. Believe whatever you like. You can believe in Santa Clause, The tooth fairy or whatever gets you through the day.
The problem is that this is Bible Chat. I believe you should back your biases with the Bible. So far you have not shown me a single scripture that says that homosexuality is a worse sin than any of the sins you commit.

Well let me ask you, do you agree with the majority of those in this thread who've stated that: 1) homosexual acts are condemned, not the 'orientation' 2) Marriage is to be between a man and a woman only 3) A monogamous, committed homosexual relationship is still sinful 4) homosexuals within a relationship who come to Christ must for the sake of Christ (and repentance) end their relationship and lastly 5) homosexuality (as I've defined above) is explicitly stated sinful in scripture?

As for homosexuality being my unforgivable thing, I think nothing of the sort. I tend to believe there is no sin that isn't forgivable short of dying in a state of rebellion to God. As for scriptural support of my biases, it's been posted ;)

kay-gee
May 5th 2009, 12:06 PM
We know for a fact it is forgivable...See 1Cor 6:9-11.

(pre-conversion) homosexuals in Corintian Church.

all the best...

Partaker of Christ
May 5th 2009, 12:25 PM
Matthew 5:22

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Ah, I think it does.

Well, I know that you would like it to be so, but it is not a sin to be angry.

Do you accuse God of committing sin when He is angry?

Deu 4:21 Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance:

Deu 9:20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time.

1Ki 11:9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

2Ki 17:18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.

Most translations have:

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 12:28 PM
Well let me ask you, do you agree with the majority of those in this thread who've stated that: 1) homosexual acts are condemned, not the 'orientation' 2) Marriage is to be between a man and a woman only 3) A monogamous, committed homosexual relationship is still sinful 4) homosexuals within a relationship who come to Christ must for the sake of Christ (and repentance) end their relationship and lastly 5) homosexuality (as I've defined above) is explicitly stated sinful in scripture?

As for homosexuality being my unforgivable thing, I think nothing of the sort. I tend to believe there is no sin that isn't forgivable short of dying in a state of rebellion to God. As for scriptural support of my biases, it's been posted ;)

Yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin & according to the Bible marriage is to be between a man & a woman.
I also believe that a person can be saved & struggle over homosexual acts.
It's the same way you, Xel, struggle with your multitude of sins on a daily basis.
You have not posted anything from the Bible saying that homosexuality is a worse sin than any other sin. Only that it is a sin.
Eternal death is the ultimate penalty for sin. Nothing else matters. It's an all or nothing equation. Jesus says in Matthew 5:48 that you, Xel, are to be perfect as the heavenly father is perfect & thats what takes to avoid hell. Are you as perfect as God himself? Why do you believe you can avoid hell?

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 12:49 PM
You have not posted anything from the Bible saying that homosexuality is a worse sin than any other sin. Only that it is a sin.

Eternal death is the ultimate penalty for sin. Nothing else matters. It's an all or nothing equation. Jesus says in Matthew 5:48 that you, Xel, are to be perfect as the heavenly father is perfect & thats what takes to avoid hell. Are you as perfect as God himself? Why do you believe you can avoid hell?

I wouldn't say nothing else matters; the physical consequences of our sin as it relates to our neighbors... That matters (which is what I've been saying, which is what you've been ignoring). As for the rest of what you've said, if you are unable to properly construe my position (or acknowledge what I've posted) then it's best if you continue with others.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 12:51 PM
Can you show scripture for this?

Hebrews 10:16-18

16"THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17"AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

dljc
May 5th 2009, 12:57 PM
Hebrews 10:16-18

16"THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17"AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."Thank you, but what about these verses from the same chapter?

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


You're original post that I quoted gave the impression that after we are saved we can continue living in our sin without the fear of judgment.

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 12:57 PM
Brother, you should really think about your post here. I am guilty of posting quickly without much consideration as to what I am saying and I have been "cute", sharp, and curt in the pass myself.

I mean, your use of words, phrases, and implications like, Xel is judging others; and it is a bit self-righteous and self-serving of you to say that he should search his soul.

May I suggesst to all that we proof-read our post to see how it sounds before we hit that "Submit Reply" button. To those who are saved I say, Are we not bothers?
I couldn't agree more. This is an uncomfortable subject, because it is so sordid by nature; but a personal tone seems to have crept in here that is unbecoming. I may be a newcomer to this forum, but in forty years of the Christian life, I've seen this sort of thing all too often: it's never pretty, and it never glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ.

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 01:15 PM
EVERY sin has consequences to others. That's why they are sins.
That is the point you are unable to properly construe.
The sexual ones are just easy for YOU to make a spectacle of without having to think to much.

Well, I'm not entirely sure I would agree immediately and without modification that 'sins are sins' because 'every sin has consequences to others'. However, agreed to 'for the sake of argument' I would say it follows that some of those consequences of sin are worse than others with respect to 'the other' (neighbor, brother, sister, etc.). I have expressed this quite clearly and I don't believe there's been any issue on my part in regards to being unable to 'properly construe' any such belief.

I'm not making a spectacle of anything.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 01:16 PM
Thank you, but what about these verses from the same chapter?

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,



Ok, lets take this in context. What is the Sin being discussed here? The sin is the rejection of Jesus & living under the Laws of Moses. The blood of bulls & goats will no longer cover sins. That time is over.
What is the knowledge of truth? Jesus has paid for the sins of the world. God no longer judges us by sin & death. He judges us on who we know.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 01:19 PM
Well, I'm not entirely sure I would agree immediately and without modification that 'sins are sins' because 'every sin has consequences to others'. However, agreed to 'for the sake of argument' I would say it follows that some of those consequences of sin are worse than others with respect to 'the other' (neighbor, brother, sister, etc.). I have expressed this quite clearly and I don't believe there's been any issue on my part in regards to being unable to 'properly construe' any such belief.

I'm not making a spectacle of anything.

I appreciate you OPINION on the matter. When you can back it up with any type of scripture maybe we can discuss it further.

dljc
May 5th 2009, 01:22 PM
Ok, lets take this in context. What is the Sin being discussed here? The sin is the rejection of Jesus & living under the Laws of Moses. The blood of bulls & goats will no longer cover sins. That time is over.
What is the knowledge of truth? Jesus has paid for the sins of the world. God no longer judges us by sin & death. He judges us on who we know.So does that mean if I was a serial killer before I came to the Lord, that after I'm saved I can continue killing? Because now I'm saved.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 01:24 PM
So does that mean if I was a serial killer before I came to the Lord, that after I'm saved I can continue killing? Because now I'm saved.

I du-no,

Do you think your average serial killer has a relationship with Jesus?

dljc
May 5th 2009, 01:38 PM
I du-no,

Do you think your average serial killer has a relationship with Jesus?See that's just it. You recognize that chances are a serial killer doesn't have a relationship with Jesus, because killing violates the law of God as well as mans law. How are these two sins different? Sin is sin, and all sin has death in it (Romans 6:23). Repentance and obedience is the key to our relationship with Jesus. That's the whole point.

But what you are suggesting in your comments is, that yes, a serial killer can continue killing if they have a relationship with Jesus. So what would define that relationship?

By the way, it's not about "who you know" it's about Who knows you.

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

mcgyver
May 5th 2009, 02:21 PM
There is actually quite a bit in the scripture concerning this very situation...in fact 1 John has a lot to say:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. (1 John 1:6)

My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:4-8)

To give the short version: For the Christian, sin should be the exception rather than the rule.

Although we all struggle with sin, yet the overall conduct of one's life should and indeed must reflect the Holiness of Christ.

In fact Jesus Himself said: Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:20)

Also there is repentance. In Greek, that word takes a whole new depth of meaning that is lost in English. We tend to think of repentance as being sorry for what we've done, and indeed that is part of it.

However, repentance literally conveys the idea of changing one's heart, one's mind, one's attitude, and one's actions; as concerns Sin, God, Righteousness, and living in the world.

Jesus says twice in Luke 13: 3,5: I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

With all these things in mind, how can we assert that one can continue in sinful behavior...whether Homosexuality or Theft or being a serial killer?

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 02:38 PM
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)

Ok, Lets start with the two verses above.
The first says, if anyone sins we have an advocate with the father, meaning Jesus is the Advocate.
The second says that if we know him (Jesus) we will keep his commandments(We will not sin).
I see a contradiction here. On one hand, If we know Jesus we will not sin. On the other hand Jesus covers the sins we commit.
You can't have it both ways. What's your view?

dljc
May 5th 2009, 02:51 PM
Ok, Lets start with the two verses above.
The first says, if anyone sins we have an advocate with the father, meaning Jesus is the Advocate.
The second says that if we know him (Jesus) we will keep his commandments(We will not sin).
I see a contradiction here. On one hand, If we know Jesus we will not sin. On the other hand Jesus covers the sins we commit.
You can't have it both ways. What's your view?What you've quoted from mcgyver's post is all scripture. If there is a contradiction in it, that you see, then it is by your error that the contradiction exists. Our "past" sins are covered when we come to the Lord. If we continue thinking we don't have to repent anymore. Then we are only fooling ourselves, as I said, it's not about "just" knowing Jesus, it's about Him know us.

I've seen the President on TV, I know him by sight. Does that mean I can go to the Whitehouse and ask to see him and expect to get in?

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 03:00 PM
Ok, Lets start with the two verses above.
The first says, if anyone sins we have an advocate with the father, meaning Jesus is the Advocate.
The second says that if we know him (Jesus) we will keep his commandments(We will not sin).
I see a contradiction here. On one hand, If we know Jesus we will not sin. On the other hand Jesus covers the sins we commit.
You can't have it both ways. What's your view?

No contradiction at all.

I'll try to explain it as best I can.

Sinners do not have a relationship with Christ, thus Christ came and shed his blood for the redemption of mankind.

Christ's blood cleanses mankind from all sin, thus setting them completely free from it. Those who know Christ and who are born again do not commit sin (I John 3), but the Christian still has the privilege of choice, just as Adam and Eve did. If an individual who is in Christ [saved] chooses to commit sin, at the very instance sin is committed, the individual dies spiritually, and thus their relationship with Christ is lost completely. Sin produces a spiritual death, and those who are spiritually dead are not in Christ.

But God is merciful, and if an individual does sin, if they truly repent, God will have mercy and extend forgiveness to that individual once more. Thus the individual can once again have a relationship with Christ. I can provide scripture if necessary.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 03:04 PM
Well, I know that you would like it to be so, but it is not a sin to be angry.

Do you accuse God of committing sin when He is angry?

Deu 4:21 Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance:

Deu 9:20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time.

1Ki 11:9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

2Ki 17:18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.

Most translations have:

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

You can argue that "without cause" voids the entire passage but you are truly grasping for straws. I will assert that 99.9 % of angry people have no cause to be. Jesus said
Matthew 5:39-40

39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

I would say if that if that happened to me i would be very angry & with good cause, Yet Jesus is saying to be willing to give more.

Yes being angry is a sin, but thats only according to Jesus.

mcgyver
May 5th 2009, 03:10 PM
Well, there really is no contradiction if we place ourselves into the Jewish "mindset" as it were...Even though the scriptures are in Greek, they definitely have a "Jewish flavor" about them that makes it on occasion difficult for us as 21st century "Gentile" believers to understand without some study.

In 1 John, we see the Apostle using a very common rabbinical method of argument...we also see it in the Pauline epistles...although Paul takes pains to explain it more fully as he was writing to Gentile churches who did not have the Jewish background.

Here, John is contrasting the Ideal with the Reality....

We must understand that the Jews divided time into two broad categories: "This present (evil) age", and "The age to come". In between and dividing the two is a period of time known as "The day of the Lord". For a description of "The day of the Lord" I'd refer you to 2 Peter 3:10 which sums it up precisely.

In Jewish thought, This present age is that period that we are in now, and is defined primarily by the fact that sin is in the world and the world is under the effects and sway of sin. Evil is rampant.

Conversely, "The age to come" refers to the golden age of God's rule...where there is no sin. Sin and evil have been eradicated, and only righteousness and holiness is to be found; the world is no longer under the sway of sin.

Having said all this, what John is conveying throughout the passages may I think be divided into 4 stages:

1. The ideal is that in the Age to Come, sin is gone forever; and that The Christian (having God's seed within him) will not have the capacity even to bring sin into the age to come.

2. The reality is that in this present age, Christians do have the capacity to sin, but must try (with the help of God) to avoid sin at all costs.

3. All men have lapses, and if we sin...then there is forgiveness and restoration through Jesus Christ.

4. In spite of that, no Christian can possibly live in a deliberately and consistently sinful manner; no Christian can live a life in which sin is dominant in all his actions.

There's quite a bit more...but I've tried to hit the "high spots" for brevity's sake. :P

dljc
May 5th 2009, 03:11 PM
You can argue that "without cause" voids the entire passage but you are truly grasping for straws. I will assert that 99.9 % of angry people have no cause to be. Jesus said
Matthew 5:39-40

39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

I would say if that if that happened to me i would be very angry & with good cause, Yet Jesus is saying to be willing to give more.

Yes being angry is a sin, but thats only according to Jesus.Was Jesus angry when He overturned the tables of the money changers? If so, then He was not without sin.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 03:17 PM
No contradiction at all.

I'll try to explain it as best I can.

Sinners do not have a relationship with Christ, thus Christ came and shed his blood for the redemption of mankind.

Christ's blood cleanses mankind from all sin, thus setting them completely free from it. Those who know Christ and who are born again do not commit sin (I John 3), but the Christian still has the privilege of choice, just as Adam and Eve did. If an individual who is in Christ [saved] chooses to commit sin, at the very instance sin is committed, the individual dies spiritually, and thus their relationship with Christ is lost completely. Sin produces a spiritual death, and those who are spiritually dead are not in Christ.

But God is merciful, and if an individual does sin, if they truly repent, God will have mercy and extend forgiveness to that individual once more. Thus the individual can once again have a relationship with Christ. I can provide scripture if necessary.
Oh Ok,I get what you are saying. So lets take the case of the case of the serial killer as an illustration of your principals.
Once he kills someone & he repents he has eternal life again. As long as he doe's not die between the act of murder & the time he confesses he can get back in good graces with God. He can just play that game over & over and all is OK. That is as long as he doe's not die between the murder & the confession. That would be bad for him if he did.

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 03:20 PM
Was Jesus angry when He overturned the tables of the money changers? If so, then He was not without sin.

That is a great question! I must admit i have no answer. Great question

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 03:33 PM
Oh Ok,I get what you are saying. So lets take the case of the case of the serial killer as an illustration of your principals.
Once he kills someone & he repents he has eternal life again. As long as he doe's not die between the act of murder & the time he confesses he can get back in good graces with God. He can just play that game over & over and all is OK. That is as long as he doe's not die between the murder & the confession. That would be bad for him if he did.

False. If I stabbed you in the stomach every Friday night, then asked for your forgiveness....after a while you'd learn that I'm not truly sorry for what I've done. Same thing applies to Almighty God.

Repentance requires godly sorrow....someone who is truly penitent will confess and forsake ALL sin forever.

Repentance implies real godly sorrow.
Luke 18:10-14 - Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

a) True godly sorrow is not the sorrow of the world.

II Corinthians 7:8-11 - For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though [it were] but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, [what] clearing of yourselves, yea, [what] indignation, yea, [what] fear, yea, [what] vehement desire, yea, [what] zeal, yea, [what] revenge! In all [things] ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Psalms 51:17 - The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

b) When the prodigal son returned home, he exemplified godly sorrow. (humility) Luke 15:21

The act of repentance is two-fold.
It means not only the turning away from sin (Ezekiel 33:11,14) but also the turning to God for forgiveness (Proverbs 28:13).

Isaiah 55:7 - Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

As a man turns from sin and seeks God a great feeling of humility and unworthiness overwhelms him.

II Corinthians 7:11 - For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, [what] clearing of yourselves, yea, [what] indignation, yea, [what] fear, yea, [what] vehement desire, yea, [what] zeal, yea, [what] revenge! In all [things] ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

dljc
May 5th 2009, 04:27 PM
That is a great question! I must admit i have no answer. Great questionThe point I'm getting at with it is this. If anger is a sin, and Jesus was angry at that moment, then He sinned. Anger itself is not the sin, it's the following action that can and often does become the sin.

For example, if someone is abusing a child, do I have the right to be angry over the injustice of abuse this child is having to endure? When the child is witnessed by me not to be at fault. I believe I can be angry in this situation. Now, if I take matters into my own hands and flog/beat up (excessively)/whip whatever you want to use, the abuser. Then I've taken things into my own hands and the punishment was not mine to give. Therefore I'm just as much at fault as the abuser. Now, if I have to use force to subdue the abuser until the authorities arrive, that's a different matter. I can trip up the abuser, and hold them down until the authorities arrive. Even if I was angry when all of this began, I have not allowed my emotions to take over and the sin to take place.

Jesus overturned the money changers tables and cleared all the animals out of the temple, but He never once laid a hand on anyone in doing it. He didn't sin in this action He took. Indignation or anger can be righteous anger. That's why that verse has "without a cause" in it.


Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Without a cause means malicious, unjustified, or no reason. I can't be angry with someone for no reason can I? I mean I can, but why would I? Am I only to be angry with a brother if I'm the one they have done wrong? I'm supposed to forgive them aren't I?

Does that help?

embankmentlb
May 5th 2009, 04:37 PM
The point I'm getting at with it is this. If anger is a sin, and Jesus was angry at that moment, then He sinned. Anger itself is not the sin, it's the following action that can and often does become the sin.

For example, if someone is abusing a child, do I have the right to be angry over the injustice of abuse this child is having to endure? When the child is witnessed by me not to be at fault. I believe I can be angry in this situation. Now, if I take matters into my own hands and flog/beat up (excessively)/whip whatever you want to use, the abuser. Then I've taken things into my own hands and the punishment was not mine to give. Therefore I'm just as much at fault as the abuser. Now, if I have to use force to subdue the abuser until the authorities arrive, that's a different matter. I can trip up the abuser, and hold them down until the authorities arrive. Even if I was angry when all of this began, I have not allowed my emotions to take over and the sin to take place.

Jesus overturned the money changers tables and cleared all the animals out of the temple, but He never once laid a hand on anyone in doing it. He didn't sin in this action He took. Indignation or anger can be righteous anger. That's why that verse has "without a cause" in it.



Without a cause means malicious, unjustified, or no reason. I can't be angry with someone for no reason can I? I mean I can, but why would I? Am I only to be angry with a brother if I'm the one they have done wrong? I'm supposed to forgive them aren't I?

Does that help?
Yes, I have to say that the " without cause " has to be there for this all to make any sense. I stand corrected! Jesus had cause to be angry & he is without sin. Thanks, dljc for the incite!

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 05:04 PM
False. If I stabbed you in the stomach every Friday night, then asked for your forgiveness....after a while you'd learn that I'm not truly sorry for what I've done. Same thing applies to Almighty God.
Does it? Does it really? A passage comes to mind:

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (Mtt. 18:21, 22).

Do you think God is less patient than He instructed His disciples to be?


Repentance requires godly sorrow....someone who is truly penitent will confess and forsake ALL sin forever. Have you done this?

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 05:46 PM
Does it? Does it really? A passage comes to mind:

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (Mtt. 18:21, 22).

That passage doesn't negate my point anyways. Yes the Bible teaches to forgive others, just as the passage you quoted does. But the actual individual you are forgiving MAY NOT BE TRULY SORRY.

So I'm not exactly sure why you quoted that passage against my point, seeing as it falls short. Of course the Bible teaches for us to forgive others, but that does not mean that the one asking for forgiveness is truly sorry.

Longsuffering is an attribute of Almighty God, yes. But does that mean that you have a right to abuse that right? God will have mercy on those who are truly sorry for what they've done, but worldly sorrow does not save an individual. It's a condition of the heart.

Bible teaches holy living.

HO'LINESS, n. [from holy.] The state of being holy; purity or integrity of moral character; freedom from sin; sanctity.



Do you think God is less patient than He instructed His disciples to be?

Have you done this?

Absolutely yes I have. All thanks, glory, and honor goes to God only.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 06:52 PM
Absolutely yes I have. All thanks, glory, and honor goes to God only.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am
Let me make sure I understand you. You said, " Repentance requires godly sorrow....someone who is truly penitent will confess and forsake ALL sin forever." In answer to my question, you now say that you have forsaken all sin forever.

So, you no longer sin?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I've just never heard a Christian make that claim before.

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 07:36 PM
Let me make sure I understand you. You said, " Repentance requires godly sorrow....someone who is truly penitent will confess and forsake ALL sin forever." In answer to my question, you now say that you have forsaken all sin forever.

So, you no longer sin?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I've just never heard a Christian make that claim before.

No, I do not commit sin.

[Some immediately think of certain scriptures that appear to say Christians sin, such as 1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23, Romans 7, etc. All can be explained in their proper context]

In order for me to remain a Christian, I must not commit sin.

Now before I continue, many take my statements and twist them. I want you to understand that I USED to be a sinner. Thus I needed a Savior, and I needed Christs blood to cleanse me and forgive me of my sins. So before I was saved, yes I certainly sinned more or less everyday. But since being saved and sanctified, Gods grace has been sufficient for me, and his power has helped me to live completely free from sin.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Notice "WERE". We are no longer sinners anymore once we get truly saved.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Notice again, who "WERE" dead in sins....once an individual is saved, they are made spiritually alive. Thus sin produces spiritual death. Those who are saved [spiritually alive] do not sin. If an individual does sin....they die spiritually and we know sin separates man from God.

I don't think anyone would argue that the Bible doesn't teach Holiness. The question then becomes, "what is holiness?"

Holiness is a Christian living completely free from sin [some call it living sinless]. There are many misconceptions as to what living free from sin is, but it is certainly Biblical and commanded by God.

For example Christ commanded to "sin no more"

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Christ would not command something that was impossible to obey.

We are commanded to follow in His [Christs] steps. Christ did not commit sin.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Paul wrote:

1 Thessalonians 2:10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:

Also I John declares:

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him [Christ] sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

I trust that answers your question....it's certainly an in depth topic that requires multiple pages of scriptures in order to answer a question like that.

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 08:29 PM
No, I do not commit sin.

[Some immediately think of certain scriptures that appear to say Christians sin, such as 1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23, Romans 7, etc. All can be explained in their proper context]

In order for me to remain a Christian, I must not commit sin.

Now before I continue, many take my statements and twist them. I want you to understand that I USED to be a sinner. Thus I needed a Savior, and I needed Christs blood to cleanse me and forgive me of my sins. So before I was saved, yes I certainly sinned more or less everyday. But since being saved and sanctified, Gods grace has been sufficient for me, and his power has helped me to live completely free from sin.
That is simply a breathtaking statement.


I trust that answers your question....it's certainly an in depth topic that requires multiple pages of scriptures in order to answer a question like that.In fact, a simple yes or no would have sufficed. I am not a novice, and I'm blessedly familiar with the scriptures you listed; I only omitted them from the quote for reasons of space. I am very well aware that the new man, the new creature that is born of God, does not sin; but the old man does. Apparently, you have achieved something that Paul was unable to accomplish (Romans 7).

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 08:38 PM
That is simply a breathtaking statement.

In fact, a simple yes or no would have sufficed. I am not a novice, and I'm blessedly familiar with the scriptures you listed; I only omitted them from the quote for reasons of space. I am very well aware that the new man, the new creature that is born of God, does not sin; but the old man does. Apparently, you have achieved something that Paul was unable to accomplish (Romans 7).

Paul did accomplish this. Read Romans 6 and 8.

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Rom. 6:1, 2.

“For sin shall not have dominion over you . . .” Rom. 6:14.

“But now being made free from sin …” Rom. 6:22.

“awake to righteousness and sin not” I Cor. 15:34

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 08:43 PM
Seems to be a failure to differentiate between sin as a nature and sin as an action. In any case, claiming to be sinless is a little silly :rolleyes:

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 08:47 PM
Paul did accomplish this. Read Romans 6 and 8.

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Rom. 6:1, 2.

“For sin shall not have dominion over you . . .” Rom. 6:14.

“But now being made free from sin …” Rom. 6:22.

“awake to righteousness and sin not” I Cor. 15:34
Preposterous! You are taking verses out of context with a carelessness that would shame a Jesuit. I mean you no personal disrespect: you may be (and likely are) a far better Christian than I. (That wouldn't be saying much!) But "sinless?"

"Charity believes all things," but that's a little hard to swallow.

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 08:52 PM
Seems to be a failure to differentiate between sin as a nature and sin as an action. In any case, claiming to be sinless is a little silly :rolleyes:

Sanctification removes the sin nature...thus the individual doesn't even have a desire to sin anymore.

Sounds crazy I know, but I'm a living witness to this experience. So are many others.

faithfulfriend
May 5th 2009, 08:53 PM
Preposterous! You are taking verses out of context with a carelessness that would shame a Jesuit. I mean you no personal disrespect: you may be (and likely are) a far better Christian than I. (That wouldn't be saying much!) But "sinless?"

"Charity believes all things," but that's a little hard to swallow.

What Christ preached was preposterous as well. No I'm not taking scriptures out of context...I'm showing you what the Bible teaches. The bible isn't preposterous.

Athanasius
May 5th 2009, 09:31 PM
Also I John declares:

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him [Christ] sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

I trust that answers your question....it's certainly an in depth topic that requires multiple pages of scriptures in order to answer a question like that.

You see, however, I read 1 John 1:5-10

5This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

And I'm left with a dilemma. Either I've got a bad translation, the Bible is contradictory (worse, John is contradictory) or my interpretation is wrong (or a combination of these things). It seems much more likely to me that 1 John 3 is being interpreted incorrectly, rather than 1 John 1, probably on account of a poor translation of the Greek. I don't believe John would say, 'anyone who says they're without sin is deceiving themselves!' and then go on to say the same thing two chapters later.

I would say if we examine 1 John 3:6-10 we would discover that phrases 'doth commit sin' would refer more to the intentional act of continuing to sin after claiming Christ as Savior, than what you're suggesting above (that Christians don't sin). In regards to what you quoted from Romans and Corinthians to that I would quickly say the verses speak the truth; we're no longer slaves to sin. That doesn't mean, however, that we don't sin.


Sanctification removes the sin nature...thus the individual doesn't even have a desire to sin anymore.

Sounds crazy I know, but I'm a living witness to this experience. So are many others.

As I was saying previously, one need not desire to sin to sin. I certainly don't go out sinning intentionally (I would hope). However, that isn't to say that I might - for one reason or another - commit a sin (the word I used previously was 'accidental sin; I'll stick by that).

Sanctification is a process that, I'll wager, won't be complete this side of eternity. I certainly don't desire to sin. I'm currently in the process of sanctification (in the midst of some very hard lessons) and well... I'm a Christian and unfortunately, there are sins that as a Christian I was /am guilty of. I'm repentant of them, guilty though nonetheless.

There might be a reason it sounds crazy:rolleyes:

Sojourner
May 5th 2009, 09:39 PM
I think that we need to put the topic and this thread to bed, do I hear an amen? I mean what good are we doing by beating a dead horse. :lol: OK, don't everyone jump on me at once. ...but seriously folks!

faithfulfriend
May 6th 2009, 03:10 AM
You see, however, I read 1 John 1:5-10

5This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

And I'm left with a dilemma. Either I've got a bad translation, the Bible is contradictory (worse, John is contradictory) or my interpretation is wrong (or a combination of these things). It seems much more likely to me that 1 John 3 is being interpreted incorrectly, rather than 1 John 1, probably on account of a poor translation of the Greek. I don't believe John would say, 'anyone who says they're without sin is deceiving themselves!' and then go on to say the same thing two chapters later.

Ahh yes it does seem to contradict. Which is why we must look at context, and rightly divide the word of truth.

I John 3 declares very plainly that Christians do not sin, thus there must be an explanation for 1 John 1:8.

Notice verse 3:

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Obviously John the writer was a Christian. Verse 3 declares that his relationship was with Christ. Obviously those who he was addressing were NOT Christians, for he declares that he's writing unto them so that they may have fellowship with Christ ALSO.

Notice verse 6:

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

Darkness is sin. If we say we have fellowship with Christ, but yet walk in sin, we are lying and are not obeying the truth. He is addressing Gnosticism, to which the Gnostics did not believe that they had sin in their lives, thus they did not believe they needed a savior to redeem and cleanse them from all sin.

Verse 7:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Remember earlier in verse 3 that the writer declared “…that ye also may have fellowship with us…” Keeping this in mind, we now can see that the writer is addressing those who have no relationship with Christ and saying: “If you will walk in the light, just as Christ is the light, you will have fellowship with us and with Christ.” The writer here is desiring to have fellowship with those who do not have a current true relationship with Christ, thus the writer is pleading to the audience to turn from their darkness [sin], and walk in the light [holiness] so that their joy may be full [verse 4], and that they may have fellowship with other Christians.

The last part of this verse is of utmost importance. Christ’s blood cleanses from all sin. Therefore if an individual is cleansed from all sin, the question we may ask is: “How much sin is left over if Christ’s blood has cleansed it all?” The answer is a simple: None. Not one single sin remains unforgiven, uncleansed, unbroken from any individual who is willing to confess, forsake, and repent of all sin. We want to emphasize again very strongly that when Christ’s blood cleanses all sin, there is no sin left over. Therefore all committed sin is gone, cleansed, and forgiven.

Now verse 8:

8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

We once again want to bring to remembrance that the writer has a relationship with Christ and those being addressed [the audience] do not have a relationship with Christ. Therefore they have not yet been justified, and therefore have not yet repented of their sins. This verse is addressed unto those who are self-righteous, and who are claiming to have no need of Christ’s blood so that they may be cleansed from all sin [verse 7]. Therefore since the writer is addressing those who have not yet been saved, it is apparent that the audience maintains a belief that they have no need of repentance, salvation, or Christ’s blood because they have no sin in their life. One cannot repent of sin if they do not believe that they have sin to be forgiven of, nor can one be saved if they are self-righteous in which they are living a life of sin but do not believe they have any sin in their life.

Again we want to emphasize and stress that those being addressed here are unbelievers, unsaved, self-righteous, and not in fellowship with the writer, nor with the Christians. Thus because of their pitiful condition, they remain uncleansed by the blood of Christ, and remain in sinful bondage and headed toward an eternal separation from Christ unless they repent.

Now verse 10:

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Sinned is past tense. Obviously all are born with a sinful nature, thus as we get older we commit sin and are guilty before God. Before obtaining Salvation, we must recognize that we are in a sinful condition, and we must repent of our sins. The Gnostics were liars because they did not believe in the element of sin, nor did they believe that Jesus Christ was the only way to Heaven. Since the Gnostics did not believe that Christ gave eternal life, that would explain verse 2:

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)



I would say if we examine 1 John 3:6-10 we would discover that phrases 'doth commit sin' would refer more to the intentional act of continuing to sin after claiming Christ as Savior, than what you're suggesting above (that Christians don't sin). In regards to what you quoted from Romans and Corinthians to that I would quickly say the verses speak the truth; we're no longer slaves to sin. That doesn't mean, however, that we don't sin.

If you say you are no longer a slave to sin, but yet commit it...how can that be?

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Christ himself said those who commit sin are the servants to sin. The word "servant" in this text is translated "slave" in the Greek.

You're telling me you commit sin, but yet your free from it?

Yet Christ says if you commit sin, your a slave to it. Those who are truly free from sin, are free from committing sin, thus they do not commit sin.

Also sin is a willful violation against a known law of God. Sin is a transgression of the law, and one must be tempted before they can sin (James 1).




As I was saying previously, one need not desire to sin to sin. I certainly don't go out sinning intentionally (I would hope). However, that isn't to say that I might - for one reason or another - commit a sin (the word I used previously was 'accidental sin; I'll stick by that).

Where does the Bible teach accidental sin?




Sanctification is a process that, I'll wager, won't be complete this side of eternity. I certainly don't desire to sin. I'm currently in the process of sanctification (in the midst of some very hard lessons) and well... I'm a Christian and unfortunately, there are sins that as a Christian I was /am guilty of. I'm repentant of them, guilty though nonetheless.

There might be a reason it sounds crazy:rolleyes:

Sanctification is not a process, but rather a second definite work of grace subsequent to justification/salvation. Sanctification removes the carnal nature/depraved nature, thus filling a soul with the Holy Ghost [an individual is NOT filled with the Holy Ghost after repentance].

With this sanctifying power from God, a soul is then enabled by God to live completely free from sin for the rest of their life. This does not remove the ABILITY of an individual to sin, but the grace of God gives the individual the power. The individual still has the choice of whether or not to commit sin, and if sin is committed, they die spiritually and become a sinner once again. Sin forfeits salvation.

There are numerous passages to prove that Sanctification is for THIS life, not the eternal life. For example:

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified

Jude 1:1 ¶ Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified

There's just a few examples of saints who were entirely sanctified...yes while they were ALIVE.

Athanasius
May 6th 2009, 04:16 AM
I John 3 declares very plainly that Christians do not sin, thus there must be an explanation for 1 John 1:8.

Notice verse 3:

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Obviously John the writer was a Christian. Verse 3 declares that his relationship was with Christ. Obviously those who he was addressing were NOT Christians, for he declares that he's writing unto them so that they may have fellowship with Christ ALSO.

Notice verse 6:

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

Darkness is sin. If we say we have fellowship with Christ, but yet walk in sin, we are lying and are not obeying the truth. He is addressing Gnosticism, to which the Gnostics did not believe that they had sin in their lives, thus they did not believe they needed a savior to redeem and cleanse them from all sin.

Verse 7:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Remember earlier in verse 3 that the writer declared “…that ye also may have fellowship with us…” Keeping this in mind, we now can see that the writer is addressing those who have no relationship with Christ and saying: “If you will walk in the light, just as Christ is the light, you will have fellowship with us and with Christ.” The writer here is desiring to have fellowship with those who do not have a current true relationship with Christ, thus the writer is pleading to the audience to turn from their darkness [sin], and walk in the light [holiness] so that their joy may be full [verse 4], and that they may have fellowship with other Christians.

The last part of this verse is of utmost importance. Christ’s blood cleanses from all sin. Therefore if an individual is cleansed from all sin, the question we may ask is: “How much sin is left over if Christ’s blood has cleansed it all?” The answer is a simple: None. Not one single sin remains unforgiven, uncleansed, unbroken from any individual who is willing to confess, forsake, and repent of all sin. We want to emphasize again very strongly that when Christ’s blood cleanses all sin, there is no sin left over. Therefore all committed sin is gone, cleansed, and forgiven.

Now verse 8:

8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

We once again want to bring to remembrance that the writer has a relationship with Christ and those being addressed [the audience] do not have a relationship with Christ. Therefore they have not yet been justified, and therefore have not yet repented of their sins. This verse is addressed unto those who are self-righteous, and who are claiming to have no need of Christ’s blood so that they may be cleansed from all sin [verse 7]. Therefore since the writer is addressing those who have not yet been saved, it is apparent that the audience maintains a belief that they have no need of repentance, salvation, or Christ’s blood because they have no sin in their life. One cannot repent of sin if they do not believe that they have sin to be forgiven of, nor can one be saved if they are self-righteous in which they are living a life of sin but do not believe they have any sin in their life.

Again we want to emphasize and stress that those being addressed here are unbelievers, unsaved, self-righteous, and not in fellowship with the writer, nor with the Christians. Thus because of their pitiful condition, they remain uncleansed by the blood of Christ, and remain in sinful bondage and headed toward an eternal separation from Christ unless they repent.

Now verse 10:

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Sinned is past tense. Obviously all are born with a sinful nature, thus as we get older we commit sin and are guilty before God. Before obtaining Salvation, we must recognize that we are in a sinful condition, and we must repent of our sins. The Gnostics were liars because they did not believe in the element of sin, nor did they believe that Jesus Christ was the only way to Heaven. Since the Gnostics did not believe that Christ gave eternal life, that would explain verse 2:

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)

I appreciate the time you spent putting this explanation together, I quite understand where you're coming from in your excogitation and explanation of these portions of scripture. However, I ultimately find internal contradictions within the explanation.

Regarding verse 3 you stated:
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Obviously John the writer was a Christian. Verse 3 declares that his relationship was with Christ. Obviously those who he was addressing were NOT Christians, for he declares that he's writing unto them so that they may have fellowship with Christ ALSO.
You then relate this to verse 8, stating:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

We once again want to bring to remembrance that the writer has a relationship with Christ and those being addressed [the audience] do not have a relationship with Christ. Therefore they have not yet been justified, and therefore have not yet repented of their sins. This verse is addressed unto those who are self-righteous, and who are claiming to have no need of Christ’s blood so that they may be cleansed from all sin [verse 7]. Therefore since the writer is addressing those who have not yet been saved, it is apparent that the audience maintains a belief that they have no need of repentance, salvation, or Christ’s blood because they have no sin in their life. One cannot repent of sin if they do not believe that they have sin to be forgiven of, nor can one be saved if they are self-righteous in which they are living a life of sin but do not believe they have any sin in their life.
In examining verse 3 you state that John is writing to those who aren't in Christ. However, this clearly contradicts with 1 John 2:1 which states, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous". If John were writing to those who weren't in Christ he would not be calling them 'my little children'. Also note he says, 'that you may not sin' not, 'so that you will be incapable of sinning'. Also acknowledging that if someone does sin, we have as our Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. The Epistle in question written for the purpose of strengthening those in Christ (especially against false teaching).

Thus the view that this epistle addresses and is directed towards those outside of Christ is ultimately flawed. However, this doesn't address everything (just most), of what you said. There is still the issue of darkness (sin). To this I would simply say the phrase 'to walk in darkness' refers to living in the sinful nature (under the dominion of sin; which is opposed to the Spirit at work in us) rather than living under the blood of Christ as a result of His substitutionary work. To add quickly with respect to verse 10. The use of the word 'sinned' in no way states that we will not in the future sin; this seems to me to be working back to what verse 8 has to say.

That seems more consistent to me. Both within the writings of John and the rest of scripture.



If you say you are no longer a slave to sin, but yet commit it...how can that be?

I don't have to be a slave to sin to sin. As I said, I don't go out seeking to sin and my attitude towards sin is one of flee. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't find myself in a position where I have sinned; intentionally or not.



Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Christ himself said those who commit sin are the servants to sin. The word "servant" in this text is translated "slave" in the Greek.

You're telling me you commit sin, but yet your free from it?

Yet Christ says if you commit sin, your a slave to it. Those who are truly free from sin, are free from committing sin, thus they do not commit sin.

Also sin is a willful violation against a known law of God. Sin is a transgression of the law, and one must be tempted before they can sin (James 1).

You've succeeded now in creating a contradiction between my explanation of 1 John and Jesus' words in John 8:34, excellent! However, I fear I may ultimately provide an adequate explanation that will reverse our positions.

With respect to John 8:34 I must take the position espoused by W. Hall Harris III, Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary:



8:34 pa'" oJ poiw'n thVn aJmartivan… “Everyone who practices (present participle) sin is a slave of sin.” Here repeated, continuous action is in view. The one whose lifestyle is characterized by repeated, continuous sin is a slave to sin. That one is not free; sin has enslaved him. To break free from this bondage requires outside (divine) intervention. Although the statement is true at the general level (the person who continually practices a lifestyle of sin is enslaved to sin) the particular sin of the Jewish authorities, repeatedly emphasized in the Fourth Gospel, is the sin of unbelief. The present tense in this instance looks at the continuing refusal on the part of the Jewish leaders to acknowledge who Jesus is, in spite of mounting evidence.

No contradiction after all :)



Where does the Bible teach accidental sin?

It is mostly a deduction from the example of Old Testament sacrifices for accidental sins. I would have to further investigate it to provide any sort of substantial backing of my position. However, I don't foresee an issue (unless I'm ultimately wrong, which I have no problem admitting). If I am wrong, well, that doesn't affect anything I've said in any substantial way.



Sanctification is not a process, but rather a second definite work of grace subsequent to justification/salvation. Sanctification removes the carnal nature/depraved nature, thus filling a soul with the Holy Ghost [an individual is NOT filled with the Holy Ghost after repentance].

That's not what Galatians 5:17 says, "For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please." (I already know what you'll say to this, however...)

The very word sanctification implies process (otherwise you would be using a different word). The 'transforming and renewing of our minds' - an ongoing process.



With this sanctifying power from God, a soul is then enabled by God to live completely free from sin for the rest of their life. This does not remove the ABILITY of an individual to sin, but the grace of God gives the individual the power. The individual still has the choice of whether or not to commit sin, and if sin is committed, they die spiritually and become a sinner once again. Sin forfeits salvation.

There are numerous passages to prove that Sanctification is for THIS life, not the eternal life. For example:

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified

Jude 1:1 ¶ Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified

There's just a few examples of saints who were entirely sanctified...yes while they were ALIVE.

Well, that's just poor exegesis. It's yet to be demonstrated that Christians are able to live completely free from sin (so far as has been demonstrated scripture says the opposite). Besides, I never said sanctification wasn't for this life. It's absolutely for this life... It just won't be completed this side of eternity.

This is turning into a topic for another thread...

Prufrock
May 6th 2009, 04:17 AM
I think that we need to put the topic and this thread to bed, do I hear an amen? I mean what good are we doing by beating a dead horse. :lol: OK, don't everyone jump on me at once. ...but seriously folks!
AMEN!
You preach it, brother! I'll turn the pages!


:giveup:

Sojourner
May 6th 2009, 08:37 AM
Let's not give ourself's to that that stirs up strive "...rather than godly edifying which is in faith" I Timothy 1:4b Paul, the aged, said that.

embankmentlb
May 6th 2009, 12:08 PM
Was Jesus angry when He overturned the tables of the money changers? If so, then He was not without sin.
After some prayer i found an answer that i believe to be true.
Anger is a sin for us mortal beings yet not a sin for Jesus and-or God.
Let me explain.
We use anger like a weapon to defend ourselves from perceived wrongs. The problem is that we as earthly beings have no true moral compass to determine right from wrong. We are immature beings.
Jesus, being God, is the author of what is right & what is wrong. His anger is justified.

To use a poor analogy.
Anger is like a loaded pistol.
A immature 4 year old kid with a loaded pistol can only do harm to himself & others. (us)
A person trained in the use of fire arms a pistol can be used for good. (Jesus)
Again, its a poor analogy but i think it somewhat illustrates the point.

Anger & the written code, The Law, have these things in common.
When we try to abide in them, we do only sinful things.
Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

VerticalReality
May 6th 2009, 01:14 PM
Where does the Bible teach accidental sin?

Hebrews 10:26-27
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

Here the writer of Hebrews states that if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for our sins. Why the need to include "willfully" in this passage if all sin is willful? To me this passage declares there is also unwillful sin. In my opinion this unwillful sin would be those committed in ignorance. The Word of God does declare that sin can be committed simply out of ignorance, and since even Christians do not yet have a full knowledge of the truth it is quite apparent that Christians can indeed sin. However, no Christian should in full knowledge walk in sin. If they do they are opening themselves up for judgment because there no longer remains a sacrifice for them as Hebrews 10:26 declares.

Willful sin is a VERY dangerous thing. Most Christians today do not understand just how dangerous and harmful it is.

dljc
May 6th 2009, 01:44 PM
After some prayer i found an answer that i believe to be true.
Anger is a sin for us mortal beings yet not a sin for Jesus and-or God.
Let me explain.
We use anger like a weapon to defend ourselves from perceived wrongs. The problem is that we as earthly beings have no true moral compass to determine right from wrong. We are immature beings.
Jesus, being God, is the author of what is right & what is wrong. His anger is justified.

To use a poor analogy.
Anger is like a loaded pistol.
A immature 4 year old kid with a loaded pistol can only do harm to himself & others. (us)
A person trained in the use of fire arms a pistol can be used for good. (Jesus)
Again, its a poor analogy but i think it somewhat illustrates the point.

Anger & the written code, The Law, have these things in common.
When we try to abide in them, we do only sinful things.
Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.Romans 3:10,11

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Matthew 5:
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

If you consider the verses from Romans 3 that clearly point out we have no righteousness, and then consider the verses from Matthew 5, you'll see that it's only His righteousness we can have. This requires a relationship with Him, and an understanding of what He's said is the "right" thing to do.

If we seek Him, we will be filled with His righteousness because we have none of our own. He's also saying in verse 10 that we can expect to be persecuted for His righteousness's sake.

What you are basically saying is this. If I walked into the church I had been going to for lets say 5 years, and all of a sudden they were doing something in that church that I know for a fact God wouldn't approve of, I would be sinning if I got angry about it. Even if I did nothing but turn around and walk out. Shaking the dust off my feet as I left, I was the one that sinned too. Would I not have the right to overturn the money tables and admonish these people?

Jesus never allowed the pharisees to put Him under bondage with the law. He knew what He meant when He gave the law to Moses. He knew that the pharisees had twisted those laws and added more to them to control the people.

If we seek Him, we seek His righteousness, not our own. We do what is pleasing to Him, not ourselves or others. If He's told us what His righteousness is, and He has in His Word. Then we are seeking His righteousness. Jesus did what was pleasing to His Father in heaven.

I understand what you are saying, and this is where we rely on Him and we grow in Him. If we don't grow in Him, then we stay where we are as immature children like you are saying. We aren't perfect, but we grow in maturity by seeking His righteousness in everything we do.

Doesn't that make sense?

dljc
May 6th 2009, 02:00 PM
Where does the Bible teach accidental sin?
Leviticus 4:
13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;

14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.

We rely on the Holy Spirit to bring these things to our attention or convict our heart on it. We can and should ask for forgiveness at the moment it is brought to our attention repent in other words and not do it anymore. So we can unwillingly sin without realizing we are.

faithfulfriend
May 6th 2009, 02:43 PM
Leviticus 4:
13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;

14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.

We rely on the Holy Spirit to bring these things to our attention or convict our heart on it. We can and should ask for forgiveness at the moment it is brought to our attention repent in other words and not do it anymore. So we can unwillingly sin without realizing we are.

Big difference between old and new covenant....

For example:

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Sin in the New Testament is imputed according to individual light, knowledge, and understanding.

A brief definition of sin is found in I John 3:4, “sin is a transgression of the law”. Since we are living under the New Covenant this would be the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). We will all be judged by Christ’s words, His teachings. (See John 12:48.) Then James 4:17 informs us, “to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” Therefore according to the Bible, sin is doing what we know is wrong (morally) or refusing to do what we know is right. A mistake is not sin, nor is temptation unless we yield to it.

Athanasius
May 6th 2009, 02:45 PM
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Indeed, it seems Paul is difficult to understand at times ;)

dljc
May 6th 2009, 02:55 PM
Big difference between old and new covenant....

For example:

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Sin in the New Testament is imputed according to individual light, knowledge, and understanding.

A brief definition of sin is found in I John 3:4, “sin is a transgression of the law”. Since we are living under the New Covenant this would be the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). We will all be judged by Christ’s words, His teachings. (See John 12:48.) Then James 4:17 informs us, “to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” Therefore according to the Bible, sin is doing what we know is wrong (morally) or refusing to do what we know is right. A mistake is not sin, nor is temptation unless we yield to it.What about this verse from Matthew 5?

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You are part of a congregation, and the overall congregation of the Church.

If you are a leader in your church and you are leading the congregation in the wrong direction, because you just didn't know it was a sin, are you not responsible for that? That would line up with the passage from Leviticus 4 wouldn't it? Aren't the Mosaic laws the definitions of sin?

We as Christians both on a group level and an individual level, lead people by example don't we? We are a body right?

embankmentlb
May 6th 2009, 04:24 PM
Romans 3:10,11

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Matthew 5:
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

If you consider the verses from Romans 3 that clearly point out we have no righteousness, and then consider the verses from Matthew 5, you'll see that it's only His righteousness we can have. This requires a relationship with Him, and an understanding of what He's said is the "right" thing to do.

If we seek Him, we will be filled with His righteousness because we have none of our own. He's also saying in verse 10 that we can expect to be persecuted for His righteousness's sake.

What you are basically saying is this. If I walked into the church I had been going to for lets say 5 years, and all of a sudden they were doing something in that church that I know for a fact God wouldn't approve of, I would be sinning if I got angry about it. Even if I did nothing but turn around and walk out. Shaking the dust off my feet as I left, I was the one that sinned too. Would I not have the right to overturn the money tables and admonish these people?

Jesus never allowed the pharisees to put Him under bondage with the law. He knew what He meant when He gave the law to Moses. He knew that the pharisees had twisted those laws and added more to them to control the people.

If we seek Him, we seek His righteousness, not our own. We do what is pleasing to Him, not ourselves or others. If He's told us what His righteousness is, and He has in His Word. Then we are seeking His righteousness. Jesus did what was pleasing to His Father in heaven.

I understand what you are saying, and this is where we rely on Him and we grow in Him. If we don't grow in Him, then we stay where we are as immature children like you are saying. We aren't perfect, but we grow in maturity by seeking His righteousness in everything we do.

Doesn't that make sense?

Yes, everything you have said makes very good sense.
But,
Justifying our anger is in the same vain as keeping the laws of Moses.

While the laws themselves are good & holy, but the fact is we cannot actually keep them because of our evil nature. They cause us to sin.
When we get angry, no matter if the cause was initially just, our human(evil) nature causes us to selfishly take advantage of the anger. Therefor we sin in anger as well.

faithfulfriend
May 6th 2009, 04:38 PM
What about this verse from Matthew 5?

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You are part of a congregation, and the overall congregation of the Church.

If you are a leader in your church and you are leading the congregation in the wrong direction, because you just didn't know it was a sin, are you not responsible for that? That would line up with the passage from Leviticus 4 wouldn't it? Aren't the Mosaic laws the definitions of sin?

We as Christians both on a group level and an individual level, lead people by example don't we? We are a body right?

BIBLE DEFINITION OF SIN

I John 5:17, informs us "all unrighteousness is sin". I John 3:4 says "...sin is lawlessness" (NWT). Lawlessness is the violation of law. Any violation of divine law is unrighteousness. "Unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9).

An act of sin is a transgression of God's law. It is missing the mark, or falling short of obedience to God's requirement. To define sin, a law must come from God. The Mosiac Law with its sacrifices, circumcision, various rites, etc, was "done away with" (II Cor. 3:7, 11). The law that now governs our conduct and actions is the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).

Hebrews 1:1-2 reads "God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in Many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the system of things."

It was prophesied of a new lawgiver in Deut. 18:15-19. Peter quotes this prophecy and applies it directly to Christ in Acts 3:22 "In fact, Moses said, Jehovah God will raise up for you from among your brothers like a prophet like me. You must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to you" (NWT). At the Mount of Transfiguration, (Matt. 17:1-5) Peter seemed to think that Moses (representing the law) and Elijah (representing the prophets) should be accorded equal honor in the worship of God. But, "...while he was yet speaking, look! A bright cloud over-shadowed them, and look! A voice out of the cloud was saying; "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; Listen to Him" (Verse 5, NWT).

The KJV says "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" This perfect law of Christ encompasses all the moral precepts taught in the Mosaic Law and prophets. It condemns and forbids everything evil, and it enjoins everything good. Evil desires are likewise sinful, hence hatred is murder (I John 3:15) and an unlawful look of lust is adultery (Matt. 5:28).

Remember though, the same one who condemns all sin, is the same one that "came to save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). He is "...not wishing that any one should perish, but that all should come to reformation" (II Peter 3:9 Diaglott).

The KJV says "...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

HOW SIN IS IMPUTED (CHARGED)

James 4:17 states, "He therefore who knows how to do right, and does not perform it, to him it is sin" (Diaglott). Sins of omission are likewise wicked, as are evil deeds. However, the knowledge one has of the law of God is taken into consideration.

A small child could tell a lie and not be charged with sin, because he would be too young to know better. Knowledge gives added opportunity for either obedience or sin. In John 15:22, Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." (NWT).

Romans 5:13, "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law" (NWT). So we see sin is imputed or charged according to knowledge. Willful ignorance is not excusable, of course, as God knows the motive of our heart. (Heb. 4:12). So our motive is also a factor.

Titus 1:15 "All things, indeed, are pure to those who are pure; but to those who are defiled and unfaithful, nothing is pure; but both their mind and conscience are defiled" (Diaglott). So a deed done with good intent and from a pure heart is not imputed sin. Evil intent makes a deed sinful.

Romans 14:14, "...Nothing is defiled in itself; only where a man considers something to be defiled, to him it is defiled," (NWT). So our conscience is also a factor in imputing sin. For most of us, probably during adolescence, we became aware we violated our conscience. This is when we were charged with sin. Salvation gives us a clearn heart and a good conscience. "Now the end of the commandment is love, from a pure heart, and a good conscience..." (I Tim.1:5 Diaglott).

Athanasius
May 6th 2009, 05:15 PM
Big difference between old and new covenant....

For example:

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Sin in the New Testament is imputed according to individual light, knowledge, and understanding.

A brief definition of sin is found in I John 3:4, “sin is a transgression of the law”. Since we are living under the New Covenant this would be the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). We will all be judged by Christ’s words, His teachings. (See John 12:48.) Then James 4:17 informs us, “to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” Therefore according to the Bible, sin is doing what we know is wrong (morally) or refusing to do what we know is right. A mistake is not sin, nor is temptation unless we yield to it.

I'm going to have to disagree with you again (not just because I enjoy being contrary). Greg Herrick (Ph.D; Dallas Theological Seminary), with respect to John 4:15, states:

In 4:15 Paul gives another reason why Abraham and his descendants will not become heirs by obedience to the law. It is because the law brings wrath (oJ gaVr novmo" ojrghVn katergavzetai, ho gar nomos orgen katergazetai). The only thing the law can do is to reveal sin. It cannot help a person overcome sin and thus avoid the wrath of God.

Paul makes it clear that the law of God incites the wrath of God. But he continues on in this verse to say that where there is no law, there is no transgression (paravbasi", parabasis). The best way to understand this comment is in light of 5:13. There he says: “for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.” What Paul means then, in 4:15, is that the explicit commands of the Mosaic law reveal sin to a much greater degree than is otherwise known and understood by men. When sin is exposed as such, the wrath of God is aroused. But, where the Mosaic law is not in force or is not known, there is no knowledge of specific sin among people, at least not to the same degree
This seems to be in direct conflict with your belief that when one sins, one does so fully aware that they have sinned. I would say they may become fully aware that they have sinned during or after the event. However, it's entirely likely that they were not aware they were sinning; they were in ignorance. It's also likely that they person in question knew they were doing something wrong, though they believed it was to a less severe extent than it actually was. That is not to say, however, that they are any less guilty of their sin because they were unaware - they aren't. It is simply to say that there are intentional and unintentional sins.



...A small child could tell a lie and not be charged with sin, because he would be too young to know better. Knowledge gives added opportunity for either obedience or sin. In John 15:22, Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." (NWT).

To quote W. Hall Harris again I must turn to his explanation of John 15:22 as he says what I believe in such a way that I cannot, at the present time, achieve:

15:22 nu'n deV provfasin oujk e[cousin periV th'" aJmartiva" aujtw'n' Jesus now describes the guilt of the world. He came to these people with both words (15:22) and sign-miracles (15:24), yet they have remained obstinate in their unbelief, and this sin of unbelief is without excuse. Jesus is not saying that if he had not come and spoken to these people they would be sinless; rather he is saying that if he had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of the sin of rejecting him and the Father he came to reveal. Rejecting Jesus is the one ultimate sin for which there can be no forgiveness, because the one who has committed this sin has at the same time rejected the only cure that exists. Jesus spoke similarly to the Pharisees in 9:41—”If you were blind, you would have no sin [same phrase as here], but now you say ‘We see’ your sin remains.”
The reality is that this correlates with Romans 4:15 above. In fact this would even seem to indicate that a small child is guilty of lying (have you ever seen a child lie? They know they are doing something wrong) if to lie is to sin (and I'm not saying it isn't. This also isn't the time to raise the question, 'do children go to Heaven or Hell?).

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77